Equipment

[dougied]

Apologies if this is not the place to post this, but I have been looking at all the photos that have been posted here and would love to take some myself. My little Panasonic is not up to the task. I would like to know what kind of equipment I would need to take good photographs of wild life. I have a Canon EOS 500 SLR, but would prefer to go digital. I would also prefer to stick with Canon so that I can use my existing lenses. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

[Shamal]

Digital slr cameras are much of a muchness, it's the lens that you really need to be thinking about for wildlife.
For a Canon dslr, the new 400d is well thought of. It is the budget model and a very small camera in the hand, which isn't always a good thing in terms of balance when attached to a meaty lens.
A more serious Canon camera would be the 30d, but this is due for replacemetn fairly shortly.

For a lens, you will need 400mm minimum for smaller birds, 500mm would be better. With larger wildlife 300mm will be o.k. and a mixture of the two would make a zoom lens very handy.

Personally, I would suggest something like the Sigma 50-500mm lens or maybe the Tamron 200-500mm. but these sort of lenses are best used on tripods or some firm support.

The popular walkaround wildlife lenses tend to be the image stabilised variety, notably for Canon users, the 100-400mm. Be warned, this is £1000.

As I said, think more about the lens than the camera and don't get too carried away by pixels, although more does help if you need to crop the result to enlarge the subject.

It may help to know the sort of budget you have available.

regards,
Shamal

[dougied]

Shamal, thanks for your reply. I have heard that the Canon 400D would be a good camera to get started with and I believe they go for a round £500. As for the lenses the 100-400mm sounds about right and fits into my budget of approx £2000 for the whole caboodle.

[Shamal]

That was surprisingly easy ;) I would source some funds towards the battery grip for this camera, it adds more power but also adds weight and size which helps balance and enables a better grip.

I would also suggest an optech neoprene camera strap, this will make the outfit seem far lighter around the neck/shoulder.

Don't forget the memory cards, buy more than one rather than have all your eggs in one basket with a solitary big card.

[dougied]

Shamal, thanks again for all the info. It gives me something to work with. Hope to be posting some of my own pics soon. Watch this space. :D

[Maisie]

I have a Canon EOS 10D, the precursor to the 20D, then the 30D. When I bought it, it was a toss-up between that and the 300. The 10D won mainly on the frames per second and buffer because I do a lot of motorsport photography. I don't know what the differences are between the 2 equivalent modern specifications, but I would imagine the 400D should be perfectly adequate. I started off with a Canon 75-300 lens, which was OK, but not brilliant, and have moved to a Sigma 50-500 lens. It's great if the light's good, but if it's overcast you may need to do some camera trickery to overcome the lens shortcomings. I find going to manual mode and setting ISO, white balance, F-stop and shutter speed works most of the time.

I don't use a battery grip, have 1gb and 2gb cards, and have several spare batteries from http://www.7dayshop.com which last at least as long, if not longer, than the Canon batteries. I also rarely if ever use a tripod, unless taking night photos. My photos are generally handheld, although with the 50-500 I sometimes wish I had a bionic arm!

I have some pics taken mostly in the back garden (and frequently through the kitchen or landing windows) which you can see in the following locations

http://maisie.accelerator.org/Gardenbirds/index.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/maisiehexagon/sets/72157594171108695/

Hope that helps!

[dougied]

Maisie, thanks for your input :D Would you guys say that Sigma or Tamron are better lenses than Canon?

[Shamal]

Maisie, thanks for your input :D Would you guys say that Sigma or Tamron are better lenses than Canon?

Depends what models. Canon (and Nikon) both make some shockers in their budget ranges that Sigma and Tamron can better at a similar price, but at the top end, Canon are generally better.
Out of the lenses discussed here, the Canon 100-400 is the lens most capable but there's not a huge difference, and being 100mm less than the others with image stabilisation, it often shows better results as less magnification is more forgiving in use.

The Tamron is lighter and more easy to handhold than the Sigma, but it also has quite slow AF, which would be restrictive for action shots.

All these lenses have their strong points and weaknesses, there's no outright winner in all areas.

regards,
Shamal

[Maisie]

I've only ever had one Tamron lens which was definitely a budget model. I've got no experience of the 200-500. Sigmas are generally very well thought of and are in my experience regarded as approaching the quality of the camera manufacturer's own lenses, but cheaper. The 50-500 is obviously not on a par with some of the really scary, huge and expensive Canon L series glass but if you're on a reasonable budget, it's a perfectly good alternative. The Canon lenses fall into 2 categories. "Shorter" range lenses, up to 300mm, which are pretty cheap but might be a little too short unless you can get very close up, and then 400+mm at the long end, which are great lenses, but by which time you're looking at serious cash! I see there's a Sigma 170-500 lens which is a little cheaper than the 50-500 and might be worth looking at. If you're mainly photographing subjects that are further away you're unlikely to need the extra versatility at the short end.

[dougied]

I think the camera is more or less decided on, Canon EOS400D. Just a case of mulling over the lense now. I like the Canon 100-400mm, but it is expensive and I'm not sure I can justify shelling out £1000+ for it. The Sigma 170-500mm also looks like a nice lense and is, as Maisie said, slightly cheaper at around £650. The thing to do now is go to my local photographic shop have a look and compare the two side by side. Thanks again Maisie and Shamal for your help, it's most appreciated.

[Shamal]

I think the camera is more or less decided on, Canon EOS400D. Just a case of mulling over the lense now. I like the Canon 100-400mm, but it is expensive and I'm not sure I can justify shelling out £1000+ for it. The Sigma 170-500mm also looks like a nice lense and is, as Maisie said, slightly cheaper at around £650. The thing to do now is go to my local photographic shop have a look and compare the two side by side. Thanks again Maisie and Shamal for your help, it's most appreciated.

I wouldn't chose the Sigma 170-500mm over the 50-500mm, they are considerably different lenses and the modern 50-500mm is in a totally different league as far as AF speed and also optical quality.

Unless you can find a dirt cheap 170-500mm (maybe £250), then I would pass on that lens, as it is from a different generation.

The 50-500mm can be purchased new for about £749 in the U.K. or about £560 (inc p&p, vat/duty refunded) via an ebay shop in Hong Kong. Please don't just walk in to somewhere like Jessops and pay what they ask, huge savings can be found if you look around, and I don't just mean overseas.

Also, don't forget about the large used camera equipment market in the U.K. Lenses are fairly reliable and usually a safe buy secondhand. I wouldn't buy a used digital camera though ;)

You could also take a look at the dealers used lists, and their items do come with a 3-6 month guarantee.
http://www.mifsuds.com/
http://www.camtechuk.com
https://secure.ffordes.com/index.htm

[Maisie]

I'm looking forward to seeing what you go for in the end, dougied, and the results! I went from a Canon EOS film SLR to the 10D. I'd spent years happily sticking the film camera onto sports mode, going to car races and happily pointing and clicking. It was a BIG shock to get to the 10D and find that suddenly it wasn't giving me the results I expected. It took me at least a year to get my head around easily-variable shutter speeds, white balances, F-stops etc etc! I'm now comfortable with using the completely manual mode to set everything as I want it and get the results I want. Maybe one day I'll upgrade to one of the newer digital SLRs and a lower F-stop lens, but.... I have a mortgage to pay, and I'm not planning to make a career out of threatening Andy Rouse, so not yet :D

[dougied]

Still humming and harring about which lens to go for, Would you guys think that the 100mm-400mm Canon lens is a better choice over the Sigma 50mm-500mm even though it's more expensive and not as long? Do think I would miss the extra 100mm? I used to be indecisive, now I'm not so sure! :D

[Allan S]

Hi dougied. What lens. as a pro and a Nikon man I strangely purchased a third party Lens namely the Tamron 200 - 500. Its true in good light you can hand hold this lens. to maximize the chances of getting a very sharp image (Its not always possible to set a tripod, a lot of wildlife photography is fast reaction)
Switch your camera to multishot mode and shoot 3 photos, the first photo will probably be subject to shake caused by you depressing the shutter, as will the last caused by you releasing the shutter. which means the 2nd shot has maxium chances of a sharp image. Not solving your lens choice but which ever lens yo go for it might help your future, as far as the lens goes the speed of the lens is a major consideration go for the fastest lens you can afford. If your target is wildlife this becomes even more relevant.

[dougied]

Ok, an update. :o I have bought myself a Canon EOS 400D and a Sigma 50-500mm lens to go with it. Can I ask another dumb question please? When you frame your shot do you view it through the view finder or the screen? I'm sure I will work this out for myself, but I am interested in what you do. Hopefully I will soon be able to post some pictures.

[Maisie]

Always through the viewfinder. You can't use the 10D screen like point n shoot camera LCDs - it only works to use the menus and to review pictures. I use the grid of focus points in the viewfinder - it's useful to be able to choose which focus point you want the camera to focus on so you can make sure the focal point (usually a bird's eye in my photos) is in the right place in the frame. Hope that makes sense!

[dougied]

Maisie, that makes perfect sense thank you. I could have answered my own question actually as I've just read the instruction manual, which I should have done before asking such a dumb question!! The confusion was because on my point and shoot camera you can, of course, view the shot through both. Thanks again.

[Shamal]

Ok, an update. :o I have bought myself a Canon EOS 400D and a Sigma 50-500mm lens to go with it. Can I ask another dumb question please? When you frame your shot do you view it through the view finder or the screen? I'm sure I will work this out for myself, but I am interested in what you do. Hopefully I will soon be able to post some pictures.


That is great news Dougie :) Look forward to seeing some photos.

If birds are your thing, that extra 100mm does make a big difference.

Funny enough, the new Canon dslr cameras will have a live view facility on the camera monitor. Some see the benefits, though I am not too sure of its worth.

Regards,
Shamal

[Allan S]

Hi Good luck with your new lens But I am not going to answer your question directly. Get the camera out and take loads and loads of pictures change settings on your camera etc and play with it, then you will learn what suits you best. Photography and how you view it is a personal thing and the best way forward is trial and error. Wildlife photography is full of disapointments but when you get that special shot the high is worth all the trouble, if you have a camera club near you thats a good place to start if you still need help. Photo mags can be a good source of advice on picture framing. Composition etc. Failing that get a course with a pro not the cheapest but it will prove money well spent in the long run. But above all that Dougied just have fun

[dougied]

My last dumb question, I promise!! Which filter to use, mostly just to protect the lens?

[Allan S]

Hi Dougied Thats an easy question you've got two basic filters which will protect your Lens namely a UV filter or a Skylight 1B both cost about the same. I use the UV's

[Shamal]

My last dumb question, I promise!! Which filter to use, mostly just to protect the lens?

It's understandable to want to protect a new lens to the extreme but if you leave the lens hood on all the time, there's no real need for a protective filter. Unless there's debris being thrown around, such as in motorsport when you're trackside, then you'll be fine with a hood on a lens of this size.

Most big wildlife lenses are just too large for filter use in front of the first element, they have drop-in filters towards the camera end for any actual photographic use. The first 'element' of a lens is basically there to protect the real optical elements anyway.

You wont see filters in front of the lenses of most large wildlife photography lenses.

It's up to you, no one will blame you for wanting to take care of your new lens, just that protection filters are a bit redundant with a decent hood.

regards
Shamal

[dougied]

Just wanted to say thank you to everyone who has replied. Your advice is invaluable. Waiting now for my lens to be delivered and I will be snapping away. I will, of course, post any pictures here that I feel are worthy