[amitk26]

Originally Posted by Alfa Romeo

thanks amit. i wil check out the sigma 150 - 600 as everyone is suggesting the same and also the price of canon 600 mm. Just one question here, i dont get the reasoning behind "I do not see why you would upgrade to FF ever for using with long telephoto" .

Well Canon 600 is priced outlandishly be assured

Coming back to why I don't see that you will use a FF for Wildlife.

For birds and wildlife you need fast focus , Fast burst rate , maximum reach and minimum weight + rugged robust weather sealed body.

With Canon Crop bodies you have advantage of 1.5X in terms of reach and suppose if you have extra money to spend and move up from 70D then
Canon 7D series is more logical upgrade for wildlife.

(2) A full-frame body is more bulkier and heavier so if you have to track for long it is a deterrent.

However if you need wider canvas coverage , more DR and shallower DOF then a full-frame is for you. Suppose you are doing indoor shoots mostly one way to cover is using WA lens on Crop body but WA/UWA lens introduces perspective distortions , imagine people seeing their photos as shorter / fatter , broad nose etc.

So a fullframe with normal lens gives you better picture also due to larger sensor you cover more Dynamic range and better low light results.

So in nutshell FF if you are in to portraits , Fashion Photography , Architecture etc , Professional grade , weather sealed crop body if you are into serious wildlife .

BTW 70D is beast of a camera and more then capable of doing what you want.

Coming to UWA lens in my kit this is the most used lens mostly at 10mm except Tamron 10-24 pick anyone you can't go wrong on this.

[Alfa Romeo]

Originally Posted by amitk26

Well Canon 600 is priced outlandishly be assured

Coming back to why I don't see that you will use a FF for Wildlife.

For birds and wildlife you need fast focus , Fast burst rate , maximum reach and minimum weight + rugged robust weather sealed body.

With Canon Crop bodies you have advantage of 1.5X in terms of reach and suppose if you have extra money to spend and move up from 70D then
Canon 7D series is more logical upgrade for wildlife.

(2) A full-frame body is more bulkier and heavier so if you have to track for long it is a deterrent.

However if you need wider canvas coverage , more DR and shallower DOF then a full-frame is for you. Suppose you are doing indoor shoots mostly one way to cover is using WA lens on Crop body but WA/UWA lens introduces perspective distortions , imagine people seeing their photos as shorter / fatter , broad nose etc.

So a fullframe with normal lens gives you better picture also due to larger sensor you cover more Dynamic range and better low light results.

So in nutshell FF if you are in to portraits , Fashion Photography , Architecture etc , Professional grade , weather sealed crop body if you are into serious wildlife .

BTW 70D is beast of a camera and more then capable of doing what you want.

Coming to UWA lens in my kit this is the most used lens mostly at 10mm except Tamron 10-24 pick anyone you can't go wrong on this.

Hi amit, yes, indeed it is priced real high i get the point now and thanks for that. As you said, i am really happy with the 70D as on date and its giving me very good results. Soon i would complete my photography course as well and put this beast to better use. I will surely keep in mind on the UWA bit whenever i am buying it.

[M35]

Originally Posted by amitk26

Coming back to why I don't see that you will use a FF for Wildlife.

For birds and wildlife you need fast focus , Fast burst rate , maximum reach and minimum weight + rugged robust weather sealed body.

Provided your DX is competent enough at high ISO and have good/ fast glasses.

[architect]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Where did you see the discussion getting too technical?

I agree with you that gear is just a means to the end. But gear does matter, in certain situations - all other aspects - including skills and luck (e.g.for wildlife, action) - being equal.

Not sure I agree that it is ok if the photos are not razor sharp. Especially animal photos lol.

The reason why I put that part in brackets and italics was to put in a more personal viewpoint since I had already said what universal wisdom I thought I could add for landscape lenses. No doubt, sharpness is important and good gear is important for wildlife photography, but there's always a better lens, a better camera or a better something else out there that can do the job. Many a items gear-related discussions can go wayward and make people either confused or give them a long-drawn plan of gear acquisition. This was more of gentle reminder to Alfa Romeo to continue shooting regardless of whatever gear he has or what is in the pipeline! Sharpness will improve with gear (and money you can put into your gear) but other skills can only get better with lots of practice.

[joshguy]

Hi All,

I was planning for a tripod for a long time and finalised on Benso AF650BH2, i bought it too but after buying feel its too heavy.

what is your feedback on it?

[ampere]

Originally Posted by joshguy

Hi All,

I was planning for a tripod for a long time and finalised on Benso AF650BH2, i bought it too but after buying feel its too heavy.

what is your feedback on it?

No idea on the part. But, for a lighter weight and a sturdy part you should look carbon fibre based tripods. But then you will also end up paying more.


(If you are already aware, please ignore this post).

[M35]

Originally Posted by ampere

I think you already have a macro lens? If not would suggest one.

Amp, Which macro lens you got ?
I was thinking of getting Tokina 100 mm f 2.8 for purely Macro.
Any BHPian using/used it ?
Any other option in the price range?

[ampere]

Originally Posted by M35

Amp, Which macro lens you got ?
I was thinking of getting Tokina 100 mm f 2.8 for purely Macro.
Any BHPian using/used it ?
Any other option in the price range?

I am a Canon guy @M35. I have the 100mm F 2.8 IS L. Canon has an L and a non-L versions of the macro. Non-L was about 37K and L was about 55K when I was looking out. I was initially inclined to get the non-L and then buy a tripod. The usual thought process was, any way a macro would require a tripod. So what do I gain with IS. Later realised the L with IS can also give me amazing hand-helds and portraits. So ditched the idea of buying a non-L and got the L. I any way got a good carbon frame tripod (Manfrotto) and a ballhead (Acratech) later .

I feel money was well spent on higher end L. No regrets at all. Its almost become all time lens for me evening beating 70-200 F4. Because, besides giving me a similar focal range, with IS it also gives me 2.8 and instant switch to macro mode! Needless to say am fully satisfied.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by joshguy

Hi All,

I was planning for a tripod for a long time and finalised on Benso AF650BH2, i bought it too but after buying feel its too heavy.

what is your feedback on it?

If it heavy, it will be more stable, especially if it is Aluminum. Light Aluminum tripods will sway and vibrate, negating the very idea of using a tripod.

In case you need a light tripod you will have to spend big money and get the carbon fiber ones. Please read up on the net abou the advantages/disadvantages of various tripods using different materials - Aluminum, Carbon Fiber and Wood.

[4k_jz]

Originally Posted by 4k_jz

After checking out various cameras, I have finally got down to SLRs. Why? Well, a few reasons are :

1. Only 36/38 clicks in a go. Every shot would be planned first.
2. No auto mode! Everything is manual and has a dedicated button
3. Developing patience to see the result. No instant result.

The only camera I could find available and working properly was a Nikon FM2 with a Nikon 50 mil f1.8 AI (on OLX). .

I wrote these lines a few days back. I am here again to contradict my own thoughts.

1. Well planned 36 shots. After developing only 3 were having correct exposure. Almost the whole film got wasted.
2. Nothing to contradict here . But sometimes the camera is in one of the family member's hands and then the AUTO mode becomes essential!
3. It becomes rather frustrating that the shots came out to be bad. That moment is not going to come again.

Even after the VALUABLE opinions of fellow tbhpians(Aroy, Netfreak, Bharat) to go for a DSLR, I could not make up my mind and went for a SLR, a Nikon FM 2.

The camera was mechanically fit, although I later came to know that the needle metering system was not calibrated( till now I had already wasted 2 film rolls). These problems are normal when you buy a used camera that too manufactured in the 80's.

After the third roll, I was able to get a slight idea of variables and I have already spent around Rs.1000/-. It might take a few more rolls to learn the basics and no wonder I would had spent a few thousands more!

Until and unless you are not developing your own negatives in the lab and setting the focus and other parameters on your own, its not worth shooting on film .Starting with a SLR was a mistake.

So, finally coming back to the digital era, I am searching for a DSLR.
The 3 options I have shortlisted are:

1. Canon 600D + 18-55 kit lens + 10-18mm UWA = Rs. 50k
2. d7000 body + 35mm 1.8 g dx = Rs.55k
3. canon 60D + 18-55 kit lens =Rs46k & 10-18mm UWA few months later

Which one should I go for?Any other suggestion is welcome.

Thanks

[sdp1975]

Guys , recommendations on a 58 mm clear lens filter and hood ? This is for the 18-55 and 55-250 lenses on the Canon EOS 1200D. Did some googling but not sure what to buy.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by 4k_jz

I wrote these lines a few days back. I am here again to contradict my own thoughts.

1. Well planned 36 shots. After developing only 3 were having correct exposure. Almost the whole film got wasted.
2. Nothing to contradict here . But sometimes the camera is in one of the family member's hands and then the AUTO mode becomes essential!
3. It becomes rather frustrating that the shots came out to be bad. That moment is not going to come again.

Even after the VALUABLE opinions of fellow tbhpians(Aroy, Netfreak, Bharat) to go for a DSLR, I could not make up my mind and went for a SLR, a Nikon FM 2.

The camera was mechanically fit, although I later came to know that the needle metering system was not calibrated( till now I had already wasted 2 film rolls). These problems are normal when you buy a used camera that too manufactured in the 80's.

After the third roll, I was able to get a slight idea of variables and I have already spent around Rs.1000/-. It might take a few more rolls to learn the basics and no wonder I would had spent a few thousands more!

Until and unless you are not developing your own negatives in the lab and setting the focus and other parameters on your own, its not worth shooting on film .Starting with a SLR was a mistake.

So, finally coming back to the digital era, I am searching for a DSLR.
The 3 options I have shortlisted are:

1. Canon 600D + 18-55 kit lens + 10-18mm UWA = Rs. 50k
2. d7000 body + 35mm 1.8 g dx = Rs.55k
3. canon 60D + 18-55 kit lens =Rs46k & 10-18mm UWA few months later

Which one should I go for?Any other suggestion is welcome.

Thanks

1. If you use the sunny 16 rule, then most of your exposure problems will be solved. When I was shooting film, my meter in camera was useless, so I learnt to use the sunny 16 rule and it was quite successful. In fact I remember that for a non auto flash you had to estimate the distance and set the aperture accordingly, no TTL, no variable power. I still maintain that in the current scenario, one should start with a DSLR (in manual mode if you want) and then once you have the exposure and focus pat, shift to film for those occasions which demand film.

2. I would say none of them. Get what I did
. Nikon D3300 + 18-55 kit lense
. Add a 35mm F1.8DX after a couple of months
. Add either 135mm or 300mm prime when you feel you need the reach.

The reason is
. The D3300+kit lense are one of the lightest DSLR combinations you can get. Add 24MP sensor without AA filter and you are set to shoot extremely sharp pictures.
. Do not be fooled by the latest 18-55 kit lens. It is quite sharp and beats lenses costing two to three times more in IQ.

The 18-55 range encompasses all that you may be shooting normally. For wider scenes, learn how to stitch panoramas (I use Microsoft ICE, a free utility). You may feel the need for longer lenses, but short of $1,000, the 200/300mm zooms are pretty average in IQ and some of the cheaper ones quite bad. The lest cost quality option is the Nikon 300mm F4 prime lense.

[architect]

Originally Posted by 4k_jz

Even after the VALUABLE opinions of fellow tbhpians(Aroy, Netfreak, Bharat) to go for a DSLR, I could not make up my mind and went for a SLR, a Nikon FM 2.

The camera was mechanically fit, although I later came to know that the needle metering system was not calibrated

After the third roll, I was able to get a slight idea of variables and I have already spent around Rs.1000/-. It might take a few more rolls to learn the basics and no wonder I would had spent a few thousands more!

Until and unless you are not developing your own negatives in the lab and setting the focus and other parameters on your own, its not worth shooting on film .Starting with a SLR was a mistake.

So, finally coming back to the digital era, I am searching for a DSLR.
The 3 options I have shortlisted are:

1. Canon 600D + 18-55 kit lens + 10-18mm UWA = Rs. 50k
2. d7000 body + 35mm 1.8 g dx = Rs.55k
3. canon 60D + 18-55 kit lens =Rs46k & 10-18mm UWA few months later

Which one should I go for?Any other suggestion is welcome.

Thanks

I don't know if you intend to stick with the film SLR or not, but my advise would be that you use the film SLR as well as the DSLR when you buy one.

This is what I am doing. I use my EOS500D and wife's Nikon D5100 as DSLRs for everyday shooting (we carry one of the two kits with us) and, occassionally, when I travel or am at home or go to a special location, the Nikon F501 comes out.

A film SLR doesn't cost much to buy second-hand (I am fortunate to have a boss, boss's wife and a father-in-law who are only too happy to let me play around with their old film bodies and lenses, but you can still get a working film SLR for Rs 5,000/-), but having it along with a DSLR is fun!

Of course, I only use BW film on the SLR and take very few shots, but planned ones. So far, I manage atleast 10-15 'keepers' from every roll I shoot. I am happy. And if I may venture to add, my photography has improved in the one year and 5 rolls of film because I 'think out' every shot. I scan negatives on my negative scanner in office and print contact sheets. Then, perhaps a few get shots get printed. It's still expensive but not so much if you are selective in shooting and printing.

And yes, like Aroy said, my FIL's Nikon FM light meter is kaput. I use Sunny 16 to great advantage. On my (also borrowed) Nikon F501, the meter works like a charm, as does the auto-focus and the burst shooting. That's one hell of a camera for its time.

[mercedised]

Finally I bought d3100 with 18-105mm kit for 35000 rs via a local retailer with 100 percent finance via bajaj i had to pay 0 rs :d. Was looking for a better camera body but found out that lens are more important and thus went for poor mans dslr.

Any tips or websites to get started? How do you guys started with dslr?

[M35]

Originally Posted by mercedised

Finally I bought d3100 with 18-105mm kit for 35000 rs via a local retailer with 100 percent finance via bajaj i had to pay 0 rs :d. Was looking for a better camera body but found out that lens are more important and thus went for poor mans dslr.

Any tips or websites to get started? How do you guys started with dslr?

D3100 is a wonderful entry level DSLR. I owned it for a couple of years and I do have many usable and excellent images taken with it.

• Go through the manual to get to learn what your camera is equipped with, in terms of features and their functions.
• Learning to shoot at the right “Camera Exposure”: Aperture, ISO & Shutter Speed is the key
• Begin with Aperture priority mode and try and shoot at different aperture values to know the difference in DOF etc

A useful website : http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/