cliffcalhoun

You can do a lot with any camera/lens if: a) that is all you have, or b) that is all you can afford. So, I don't doubt that you can take many great photographs with a consumer digital camera.

 

However, after using a 35mm SLR system, I'm not sure that you would be comfortable using a consumer digital camera for nature work. Overall, they are slower, have less support for flash/lighting, smaller sensors, etc.

 

Perhaps, the best solution for you would be to purchase a used consumer digital camera (last years model), and incorporate it into your shooting. You can always keep it as a point-and-shoot camera for the family, or sell it if it does not meet your needs for nature work. Stick to the top brands: Olympus, Sony, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, etc.

 

Another alternative, already mentioned, would be to purchase a used D30 and a prime lens and use it for a while.

 

Maybe by going "partially digital", or at least by slowly moving into it, you can decide exactly what you need/want/can afford (DSLR or consumer digital), or perhaps buy some time until Minolta introduces a DSLR.

I second the comment to get John Shaw's "The Nature Photographer's Complete Guide To Professional Field Techniques". Most, if not all, of the answers to your friends questions will be there.

I will second Bob's comment on the FD 800/5.6L. However, be aware that there are 2 versions of this lens; a "L" lens, which is the best, and a "straight" 800/5.6 which lacks the flourite element.

 

Stay with the "L" rated lens for the best optical quality.

 

As others have stated, with birds, you will find yourself wanting all of the "reach" that you can get. You will probably want/need a 1.4x with the 500/4.5L most of the time. However, this can be good since you will, effectively, have two lenses: the 500/4.5L and a 700/6.3 with the 1.4x.

The answer depends on how much you want to spend for the IS feature, or if you can get a good deal on a used 600/4 non-IS.

 

Arthur Morris is considered one of the best bird photographers around and many of the photos in his 3 or 4 published books were taken with the 600/4 non-IS lens. Of course, now he uses the IS version, because as a working pro he wants the best and he pays for it.

 

The IS feature is valuable, but only you can determine if it is worth the extra money. It is a valuable tool, but not a necessity.

The Canon 300/f4 (non IS) + 1.4x + 500D would be a great combination, for the money. Top quality glass, versatile, and good working distance (macro) using the 500D.

 

Finally, I echo the concerns about buying 3rd party lenses. The glass may be good quality, but it will be very frustrating if you upgrade your Canon body and the lens does not function. Plus, any Canon gear will hold its value over time, especially if you buy used.

 

Good luck.

>>So perhaps by shooting mainly handheld, I have not realized the true potential of this lens by turning IS off and using a tripod.>>

>>

 

You will definately see better results from using a tripod vs. handholding. As many have stated over-and-over on this site, using a tripod is ESSENTIAL for CONSISTENTLY achieving high-quality results with any lens, but especially with telephotos.

 

To test the difference in resolution between handholding vs. using a tripod, try shooting a newspaper (or anything) at 10 to 20 yds. Set your lens wide open at 400mm, then shoot handheld with IS on, then from a tripod. Study the results with an 8x loupe, or reversed 50mm lens. You will see a big difference.

 

Make sure that you have a good quality tripod and head that is appropriate for your lens. A cheap tripod from Wal-mart won't do much to steady your Canon 100-400 IS lens.

 

Finally, do a search on your lens, tripods, etc. and see what others have said on this subject.

 

Good luck.

Here is the thread. There are other interesting threads on this subject, so again, try a search.

<P>

www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000NtO

Try searching the archives on this site. I remember Bob Atkins did some testing and/or had some interesting insights regarding Canon pellicle mirror cameras and nature photography.

Read Philips review of the Elan 7: http://www.photo.net/canon/elan-7.

<P>

Many improvements have been made since the release of the Canon A2/EOS 5 series. It is still a great camera with great features, but for the money, and your stated needs, the Elan 7 may be a better choice.

<P>

The Elan 7 has most, if not all, of the features of the A2 except for frame rate. Otherwise, everything on the Elan 7 is updated, or faster than the A2, and you don't have the command dial issue.

<P>

Plus, the A2 does NOT have a true mirror lock-up. It has a custom function for a 2 or 10 second delay after you press the shutter button. Whereas, the Elan 7 is a true mirror lock-up...set the custom setting, press the shutter button, the mirror locks-up.

<P>

The delay on the A2 can be inconvenient while working with certain subjects, or timing the wind, etc.

First, for a few ideas, check out this site: www.ethanmeleg.com/tips.htm

<P>

Next, it depends on what type of effect that you want. Also, how committed you are to photography will dictate how much you will want to spend on equipment. Do a search of this site and you will find many good reasons for staying with Nikon or Canon gear, again depending on how involved you want to become in photography. There is nothing wrong with the other brand names, but generally, you will have more options with Nikon and Canon.

<P>

For Canon, look for a used Elan II and buy the best wide angle lens that you can afford, or maybe a zoom. In the Canon world, E-TTL flash is about the best that you can get and will be helpful for what you want to accomplish. Used, an Elan II will cost about $250 and a fixed 24mm f2.8 lens is under $300, and finally a 420EZ flash is less than $200 new.

<P>

Don't skimp on the lens or the flash. You will want the best lens and the most powerfull flash that you can afford.

<P>

Finally, if these options are too expensive, get a used Canon Rebel, a 50 1.8 lens, and the biggest flash that you can find, or maybe a Pentax K-1000 until you decide you want to sink more money into this hobby.

<P>

Good luck and have fun.

Another vote for Valley of Fire with Red Rock Canyon as a close second.

 

Good luck and have fun.

I would pick anything by John Shaw, if I had to choose only one. However, one should read as much as possible from many different sources. You never know where that next tip or new technique, that will work for YOU, will come from. And, there are so many GREAT photographers that it is difficult to pick just one.

<P>

As to Shaw, his work stands out to me, because it is so impeccably done.

In the introduction (or preface) Shaw states that "this book is meant to stand on its own" (paraphrasing), and it does. Some of the material is the same, or similar, as the original book, but most of it has new techniques and/or insights.

<P>

I enjoyed it very much.

Thanks to everyone. I finally have this matter resolved in my mind.

 

1/250 flash sync is nice to have if you can get it.

 

Now I have to get shooting!!!

I've done a search of this forum, without success.

 

If looking for a camera primarily for macro work, is it desirable to

have a flash sync speed of 1/250, 1/125, or does it matter? In other

words, what advantage is 1/250 flash sync over 1/125, or 1/60, or

does it matter?

 

My guess is that 1/250 is great for freezing movement for flowers,

insects, etc., but under certain conditions one might have problems

with dark backgrounds at 1/250.

 

So, is it handy to have the option of 1/250 flash sync?

 

Thanks.

<P>

1. Search the archives on this site. There is a lot of information on, at least, 3 or more of the lenses that you mentioned.

<P>

2. It would help to know your primary purpose for this lens.

<P>

The Canon 300mm f4L is an excellent quality lens. Outstanding image quality at a great price, and a great "all around" lens. You can use it for wildlife, but it will be too "short" for most birds. You can use it for scenics to isolate certain parts, and it works very well for close-ups using the 500D closeup lens.

<P>

The image quality on the Canon 100-300 f5.6L will not be as good as the 300 f4L, and you lose a little bit of speed, but you gain some versatility with the zoom. And, many professionals have used this lens to publish great quality images, so its image quality is NOT shabby by any means.

<P>

Again, do a search in the archives for more information. And, good luck.

This is a very good lens. I owned one for about 1 year and used it quite a bit with a T90 body.

 

Pros

 

- inexpensive (for a super-telephoto)

- lightweight (for a super-telephoto)

- great image quality

 

Cons

 

- manual focus

- focusing knob takes getting used to

- 45 ft. minimum focusing distance

- this lens is long and difficult to use in a car

- lens may not hold its value as well as other lenses, i.e. auto focus or Nikon MF

 

Be aware that there are two Canon 800 f5.6 lenses; the "L" and the non "L". Definately, get the "L" lens for the UD glass and better image quality.

 

You are right that you will need extension tubes for small animals and especially birds. Probably a minimum of a 12mm and 25mm, and maybe add a 50mm tube at some point. Again, especially for birds.

 

Finally, look at "The Art of Bird Photography" by Arthur Morris to get an idea of the image quality of this lens. Arthur used one (among other lenses) to get many of the shots for that book, and he gives many tips on technique for the 800/5.6L.

 

Good luck.

Rachel,

 

The lenses and bodies from Minolta and Pentax are very capable of high quality images. Some people prefer Canon or Nikon for the availablity of new/used lenses, among other things.

 

I looked at the Minolta AF system when I switched from my Minolta X-700, but I liked the feel of the Canon bodies better and the reputation of their lenses. Also, the AF was faster on the A2/EOS 5 vs. Minolta 500/600si.

 

As others have suggested, look for the lenses that you want, and go with the system that will work best for YOU.

 

I would suggest buying the lenses from Minolta, Canon, Pentax, etc. for the best quality glass and assured reliability for your chosen camera body.

 

As for lens choice, consider a 28-105 and 70-210 zooms. Also, Minolta has a 100-400 f4.5-6.7 Apo for $700USA that might work for your long lens (not sure if it works with the 1.4x). The 28-105 and 100-400 also might be a good combination for your needs and still be "close" to your budget.

 

Good luck.

Switch to slide film. It will force you to learn proper exposure, unlike print film. Also, it is less expensive to shoot, overall.

 

If you want to submit your work for publication, most editors will demand slide film.

 

As for the difficulty in displaying your work, save up and buy a projector and/or eventually get a slide scanner and/or photo quality printer and display your work on your own web page. Today, there are so many options, and they are getting cheaping every year.

 

Good luck.

Since money is not an issue, I would suggest getting the Canon pro zooms; 17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8. Unless weight is an issue, very versatile system with pro quality glass.

 

Also, go with the 180mm macro for increased working distance. And, since you did not state that birds are a primary concern, go with the 500/4 IS to save weight and make for easier transporting on airlines. Also, without the 600/4, you could buy the Arca-Swiss B-1 (or equivalent) head saving more weight and bulk.

 

You may want to substitute a 300/2.8 with converters for the 500/4 IS. Perhaps the 100-400 IS will work as your long lens. Only you can decide which will fit your needs best, with these more specialized lenses.

 

Good luck.

Your 28-135 is fine for the wide end, until you decide if you want a more dramatic "wide-angle" look. Sounds like the 100-300/5.6L would make a nice addition to your setup for about $450 (KEH.com), used. It will be too short for most bird shooting, but is very good glass for the money, and a handy zoom range. Very good range for people and large mammals encountered in National Parks. You can always trade-up later.

 

Filters: 81a or 81b, and polarizer to start. Buy the best brand that you can afford.

 

This would make a nice starting system. You can upgrade later as your interest and/or $$$ increases.

 

Good luck

I owned a Canon MF 800/5.6L. Good quality glass; however, it was long and cumbersome and required a lot of extension for proper MFD in the field. And, it was MF. But, it was relatively inexpensive.

 

I recently found a good deal on a used Canon AF 600/4L, and I find it much more versatile. If I need extension, I don't need nearly as much. It is easier to move around in my car, except for the increased weight. AF is fast. Finally, I have a 600/4 and 840/5.6 with the 1.4x TC.

 

The biggest issue with the 600/4 is weight (and $$$ of course).

 

Good luck.

John,

 

I look at the eBay, photo.net, and KEH.com.

 

On eBay: do a search of completed auctions to get a "feel" for what your equipment is worth.

 

On KEH.com: you can roughly figure that your equip. is worth 50% to 75% less than the figures at KEH. This varies depending on condition and price.

 

One of the best things about KEH, is that, you can usually find items listed that match yours immediately. On eBay or photo.net, sometimes you have to wait for one to get listed.

 

After looking around on photo.net, and comparing all of these figures, you can get a pretty good idea of what you gear is worth.

 

Good luck.

Mark,

 

Here are 3 options for you to consider.

 

1) Stay with your current Pentax system and buy the best MF lenses that you can afford.

 

2) Buy Pentax AF lenses and upgrade your bodies at a later time.

 

3) Switch to Canon or Nikon and gradually build you arsenal of lenses for nature/wildlife, and save for that super-telephoto.

 

Your choice depends on how motivated you are to shoot wildlife, and how much you want to invest in your equipment.

 

You will probably want to switch to Nikon or Canon if you ever want to buy a "pro quality" super-telephoto lens > 400mm. You simply have more options with Nikon or Canon.

 

Finally, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with Pentax. If switching systems seems crazy to you, then stick with your present system, or move into Pentax AF, and buy the best lenses that you can afford.

 

Good luck.

Search the archives for more information on 3rd party lenses and equipment as compare to Nikon, Canon, etc.

 

One of the best reasons for buying into the Nikon system is for their outstanding glass. Why go with Nikon if you don't buy their lenses?

 

If you want to save money on "pro" quality equipment, buy Minolta or Pentax. They are not BAD, just less expensive. Otherwise, buy the best glass that you can afford and save money until you can afford another lens.

 

Another reason to buy Nikon lenses is assured compatability with future Nikon bodies. Sometimes this is "iffy" with 3rd party lenses.

 

Another alternative is to buy used, manual focus equipment. You can save money and still have "pro" quality glass.

 

Finally, two of the essentials in nature photography is image quality and the durablity of your equipment. You can get it with 3rd party lenses. But many "pros" use Nikon, Canon, and other top-quality gear because it works under field conditions and their glass produces outstanding image quality.

 

Save your money and get the best. You won't regret it.

 

Good luck.