Oh me oh my... my XTi is jealous...
DPReview has a sneak peek at the latest Canon Digital Rebel 450D XSi.
I am drooling, particularly for the high-ISO noise reduction, spot metering, and live view.
Showing posts with label equipment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label equipment. Show all posts
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Tripod Conundrums
Oh, how I should have listened to the wise photographers who told me to invest in a good tripod and ballhead from the get-go!
I have a few pressing issues that affect my tripod/head purchase decisions right now:
1. Limited budget. I really can't spend a whole lot of money on a good, professional tripod and head at the moment. I'd like to stay under $100, if possible.
2. I currently have two tripods: one is a cheap retail store tripod and pan-head. It appears that I could remove the existing head and mount another if I wanted to. The other is a 20 year old Slik Universal U212 (at least, that's what the leg says) whose head appears useless to me. However, the tripod itself may be useful. (It was my dad's old tripod that I think he used with a video camera, many moons ago).
I'm thinking of just getting a decent entry level ballhead and using one of the two existing tripods. The cheap tripod is light enough to carry with me hiking in search of birds, but is a bit flimsy. The old tripod looks sturdy as all heck, but weighs a ton and wouldn't work well from a portability standpoint - at least not for hiking.
I'd love to go for a Bogen Manfrotto tripod and head setup, but those run closer to $200 even at the entry level. At the same time, I don't want to spend $100 on something I'll end up throwing in the closet and not using.
I need something that will support at least 6 lbs. My spotting scope weighs close to 4 lbs. My camera weighs a little over a pound, plus the adapter and T-mount. 6 lbs gives me plenty of wiggle room. My cheap Sunpak does support up to 6.6 lbs, so I may be able to use those legs with a new head.
I think a good compromise may be to get an entry level Bogen ballhead and use one of my existing tripods. Then, if the existing tripods don't work out, I can cough up the rest of the cash and get a Manfrotto tripod to go with the ballhead.
Does anybody have any tripod advice for a struggling birder/photographer who wants to do some digiscoping on a budget? :)
I have a few pressing issues that affect my tripod/head purchase decisions right now:
1. Limited budget. I really can't spend a whole lot of money on a good, professional tripod and head at the moment. I'd like to stay under $100, if possible.
2. I currently have two tripods: one is a cheap retail store tripod and pan-head. It appears that I could remove the existing head and mount another if I wanted to. The other is a 20 year old Slik Universal U212 (at least, that's what the leg says) whose head appears useless to me. However, the tripod itself may be useful. (It was my dad's old tripod that I think he used with a video camera, many moons ago).
I'm thinking of just getting a decent entry level ballhead and using one of the two existing tripods. The cheap tripod is light enough to carry with me hiking in search of birds, but is a bit flimsy. The old tripod looks sturdy as all heck, but weighs a ton and wouldn't work well from a portability standpoint - at least not for hiking.
I'd love to go for a Bogen Manfrotto tripod and head setup, but those run closer to $200 even at the entry level. At the same time, I don't want to spend $100 on something I'll end up throwing in the closet and not using.
I need something that will support at least 6 lbs. My spotting scope weighs close to 4 lbs. My camera weighs a little over a pound, plus the adapter and T-mount. 6 lbs gives me plenty of wiggle room. My cheap Sunpak does support up to 6.6 lbs, so I may be able to use those legs with a new head.
I think a good compromise may be to get an entry level Bogen ballhead and use one of my existing tripods. Then, if the existing tripods don't work out, I can cough up the rest of the cash and get a Manfrotto tripod to go with the ballhead.
Does anybody have any tripod advice for a struggling birder/photographer who wants to do some digiscoping on a budget? :)
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
The Digiscope Setup
Santa brought me a spotting scope and camera adapter for Christmas :) w00t!
There haven't been many birds out today to test it out, but I did get a few shots this morning. Here's a female house finch:
These small birds fill about half the frame with the magnification of the spotting scope, versus maybe 1/10th of the frame with my 300mm Canon lens. I think the shots are likely more crisp out of the 300mm lens, but with the extreme cropping required for close-ups, distortion occurs. It's nice to be able to preserve most of the detail of the shot even after cropping by using the digiscope setup.
I need to do some research on the best camera settings when using a scope. I'm currently using aperture priority mode, so that the camera chooses the correct shutter speed. The aperture shows as 00 on the camera, and of course it is manual focus as no lens is attached to the camera. Focusing is done via the scope.
The camera attaches to the scope via a camera adapter and a T-ring in place of the camera lens.
It's a little awkward trying to look downward into the camera viewfinder. I can see why people have said that it's easier to digiscope with a point-n-shoot camera, particularly one with the flip-out rotating LCD screen for those odd angles. I bought that adapter for the scope, too, and will try it with my Canon Powershot A70.
For working indoors (shooting through the window), I think the dSLR setup is OK. It's probably a bit clumsy in the field, but I'll have to try it. The point-n-shoot setup will likely be easier for field shooting.
The pictures I've taken so far have tended toward over-exposed. I'm shooting in RAW, so fixing that is simple in Adobe Lightroom, but I'd like to figure out how to get it right in-camera. Unfortunately, there are no test subjects in my tree right now, as landscapers are outside doing who-knows-what, scaring the birds away.
I'm very encouraged by the shots I've been able to get so far! It will take some practice to learn to maneuver the scope on the tripod (I also see now why all of the photography books I read encouraged spending money on a good ball-head tripod... my $35 3-way pan head is hideously clumsy and difficult to maneuver. It's fine for taking family portraits, but very difficult to use when trying to follow a bird moving around in a tree). A good tripod will likely be my next semi-major purchase.
There haven't been many birds out today to test it out, but I did get a few shots this morning. Here's a female house finch:
These small birds fill about half the frame with the magnification of the spotting scope, versus maybe 1/10th of the frame with my 300mm Canon lens. I think the shots are likely more crisp out of the 300mm lens, but with the extreme cropping required for close-ups, distortion occurs. It's nice to be able to preserve most of the detail of the shot even after cropping by using the digiscope setup.
I need to do some research on the best camera settings when using a scope. I'm currently using aperture priority mode, so that the camera chooses the correct shutter speed. The aperture shows as 00 on the camera, and of course it is manual focus as no lens is attached to the camera. Focusing is done via the scope.
The camera attaches to the scope via a camera adapter and a T-ring in place of the camera lens.
It's a little awkward trying to look downward into the camera viewfinder. I can see why people have said that it's easier to digiscope with a point-n-shoot camera, particularly one with the flip-out rotating LCD screen for those odd angles. I bought that adapter for the scope, too, and will try it with my Canon Powershot A70.
For working indoors (shooting through the window), I think the dSLR setup is OK. It's probably a bit clumsy in the field, but I'll have to try it. The point-n-shoot setup will likely be easier for field shooting.
The pictures I've taken so far have tended toward over-exposed. I'm shooting in RAW, so fixing that is simple in Adobe Lightroom, but I'd like to figure out how to get it right in-camera. Unfortunately, there are no test subjects in my tree right now, as landscapers are outside doing who-knows-what, scaring the birds away.
I'm very encouraged by the shots I've been able to get so far! It will take some practice to learn to maneuver the scope on the tripod (I also see now why all of the photography books I read encouraged spending money on a good ball-head tripod... my $35 3-way pan head is hideously clumsy and difficult to maneuver. It's fine for taking family portraits, but very difficult to use when trying to follow a bird moving around in a tree). A good tripod will likely be my next semi-major purchase.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Digiscoping
Oh, how I love reading the posts and looking at the pictures on birdchick.com! Sharon does this thing called "digiscoping." It's like the next step for photographers who specialize in bird photography. Yeah, my 300mm telephoto is a nice lens, but I've been most happy with shooting "larger" wildlife with it, such as my trips to the zoo. It's tough to get close enough to a bird to get a sharp, frame-filling photo of just BIRD. I'd look at the pictures on birdchick.com and think, how on earth does she do it? What kind of camera does she use?
Well, it's not the camera, really. She attaches her camera to a spotting scope, a special kind of telescope. Digiscoping is the process of taking digital photos through a spotting scope.
To give an idea of the magnification, my camera lens zooms to 300mm. A spotting scope can achieve zooms up to 6,900mm. No wonder she can get so close up!
Sharon's digiscoping setup currently costs about $3,000. Oy. I'm sure it can be done more cheaply (as she says her equipment was top of the line when she bought it), though like cameras and lenses, it seems the advice on the street is buy the best one you can afford.
Someday! :)
It looks like a basic digiscoping setup can be had for under $500. I probably wouldn't know the difference! After googling around a bit...
A non-high-def digiscoping setup that would work with my camera, turning the digiscope into a telephoto lens: $370 + tax. This consists of:
Well, it's not the camera, really. She attaches her camera to a spotting scope, a special kind of telescope. Digiscoping is the process of taking digital photos through a spotting scope.
To give an idea of the magnification, my camera lens zooms to 300mm. A spotting scope can achieve zooms up to 6,900mm. No wonder she can get so close up!
Sharon's digiscoping setup currently costs about $3,000. Oy. I'm sure it can be done more cheaply (as she says her equipment was top of the line when she bought it), though like cameras and lenses, it seems the advice on the street is buy the best one you can afford.
Someday! :)
It looks like a basic digiscoping setup can be had for under $500. I probably wouldn't know the difference! After googling around a bit...
A non-high-def digiscoping setup that would work with my camera, turning the digiscope into a telephoto lens: $370 + tax. This consists of:
- Zhumell 20-60x 80mm Spotting Scope (fogproof and waterproof) - $299
- Camera adapter for the 80mm Spotting Scope (to enable to scope to be used as a telephoto lens) - $49
- T-ring mount for Canon EOS cameras (to attach the camera adapter) - $17
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Canon EOS Beginners' FAQ
Wow - there is a TON of useful information for us photo n00bs with Canon EOS cameras in this FAQ!
Canon EOS Beginners' FAQ by Photonotes.org
I was particularly interested to read the information on lens, as it provided a nice categorization of just about every Canon lens known to man. (Lens lists - scroll down a bit).
And finally, I know which Canon lenses are the "full frame" compatible lenses (the EF lenses, with the red dots). The "subframe" lenses are EF-S, with the white alignment dots. My uncle, who has been a professional photographer for probably just about as long as I've been alive (he'll kill me if he reads this for alluding to his age!), recommended that I invest in EF lenses rather than EF-S lenses, since the EF lenses will likely be compatible with full frame cameras of the future (which will become more ubiquitous as the full frame sensors become more affordable), whereas the EF-S lenses will not be compatible.
I'm glad to see that the 70-300 lens I bought is an EF lens! Whew! Lucky one there :)
Canon EOS Beginners' FAQ by Photonotes.org
I was particularly interested to read the information on lens, as it provided a nice categorization of just about every Canon lens known to man. (Lens lists - scroll down a bit).
And finally, I know which Canon lenses are the "full frame" compatible lenses (the EF lenses, with the red dots). The "subframe" lenses are EF-S, with the white alignment dots. My uncle, who has been a professional photographer for probably just about as long as I've been alive (he'll kill me if he reads this for alluding to his age!), recommended that I invest in EF lenses rather than EF-S lenses, since the EF lenses will likely be compatible with full frame cameras of the future (which will become more ubiquitous as the full frame sensors become more affordable), whereas the EF-S lenses will not be compatible.
I'm glad to see that the 70-300 lens I bought is an EF lens! Whew! Lucky one there :)
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Ordered some new toys
Inspired by the great deals available on Amazon, I ended up ordering some new toys today:
Originally, I had planned on getting the Canon polarizer filter, but as I searched around, it was getting crappy reviews. So I set out in search of reviews of some of these other brands of filters. I ran across this filter review on CameraHobby.com:
Some googling of my own brought me to Wikipedia, which confirmed Schneider's production of today's B+W filters, as well as the fact that the filters are made using Schott glass, which is apparently well regarded in the photographic community. (I'm still learning this stuff!)
So, I went with the B+W. The CameraHobby.com article mentioned the multi coated (read: more expensive) filters being harder to clean and keep clean, so I decided to save a few bucks and go with the standard non-multi-coated version.
Why did I want a polarizer filter? Alot of my backyard bird and sunset shots are over water, as I have a pond in my back yard - thus the polarizer filter.
The UV filter is mainly just to protect my kit lens from scratches (I think I got it for $1.14 or something crazy!), and the remote switch is for the obvious.
I still need to get a tripod. The one on my B&H Wish List is near $200 (yikes!) but maybe I'll get that one from Santa this year. I am also hoping Santa will pick me up the Canon 500D close-up lens on my B&H Wish List too.
I'm thinking of putting my camera out in front of the bird feeders at near-ground level, with the remote switch, so I can sit a ways back from the camera. I'd like to get some snapshots of the ducks that come up from the pond to forage for seeds underneath the feeders. :)
- B+W 58mm Circular Polarizer Coated Glass Filter
- Canon UV-1 58mm Haze Filter
- Canon Remote Switch RS60 E3
Originally, I had planned on getting the Canon polarizer filter, but as I searched around, it was getting crappy reviews. So I set out in search of reviews of some of these other brands of filters. I ran across this filter review on CameraHobby.com:
Belated research into B+W revealed that it is actually Schneider of Germany, one of the finest lens makers in the world, that produce B+W filters.
Some googling of my own brought me to Wikipedia, which confirmed Schneider's production of today's B+W filters, as well as the fact that the filters are made using Schott glass, which is apparently well regarded in the photographic community. (I'm still learning this stuff!)
So, I went with the B+W. The CameraHobby.com article mentioned the multi coated (read: more expensive) filters being harder to clean and keep clean, so I decided to save a few bucks and go with the standard non-multi-coated version.
Why did I want a polarizer filter? Alot of my backyard bird and sunset shots are over water, as I have a pond in my back yard - thus the polarizer filter.
The UV filter is mainly just to protect my kit lens from scratches (I think I got it for $1.14 or something crazy!), and the remote switch is for the obvious.
I still need to get a tripod. The one on my B&H Wish List is near $200 (yikes!) but maybe I'll get that one from Santa this year. I am also hoping Santa will pick me up the Canon 500D close-up lens on my B&H Wish List too.
I'm thinking of putting my camera out in front of the bird feeders at near-ground level, with the remote switch, so I can sit a ways back from the camera. I'd like to get some snapshots of the ducks that come up from the pond to forage for seeds underneath the feeders. :)
Sunday, July 15, 2007
I'm a Photo n00b
My name is Shelly, and I'm a photo n00b (spelled with two zeros).
CNet describes me as a "Dabbler" -
That's pretty much dead-on accurate. I've been a point-n-shoot picture snapping enthusiast for years. My father, who passed away 7 years ago, was a photography enthusiast as well. Photography is one of those things I've been meaning to get around to getting more serious about for years.
The time has come.
A few weeks ago, I purchased the Canon Digital Rebel XTi and its EF-S 18-55mm kit lens, along with a telephoto lens, the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.
Ever since, I've been devouring photography books on camera settings, techniques, composition, and just about anything else photography-related that I can get my hands on.
My main interest is nature photography, though I expect to also shoot family gatherings and parties and the like. Since I blog a lot anyway, I thought it might be fun to be able to look back at my journey through all this stuff once I figure out what I'm doing :)
So, welcome to my journey from photo n00b to photographer... if I'm lucky!
CNet describes me as a "Dabbler" -
I'm exploring photography as a fun hobby but getting serious enough for an SLR and a few lenses. I devote some of my time specifically to photography when I travel. I sometimes have my nephews and nieces pose for me at family gatherings, and I have several hundred pictures of the family cat. I'm thinking about taking a weekend photo seminar. I might make a 16x20-inch print of a great shot and frame it.
That's pretty much dead-on accurate. I've been a point-n-shoot picture snapping enthusiast for years. My father, who passed away 7 years ago, was a photography enthusiast as well. Photography is one of those things I've been meaning to get around to getting more serious about for years.
The time has come.
A few weeks ago, I purchased the Canon Digital Rebel XTi and its EF-S 18-55mm kit lens, along with a telephoto lens, the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.
Ever since, I've been devouring photography books on camera settings, techniques, composition, and just about anything else photography-related that I can get my hands on.
My main interest is nature photography, though I expect to also shoot family gatherings and parties and the like. Since I blog a lot anyway, I thought it might be fun to be able to look back at my journey through all this stuff once I figure out what I'm doing :)
So, welcome to my journey from photo n00b to photographer... if I'm lucky!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Digg/phlyersphan
Flickr/phlyersphan
Myspace/phlyersphan
YouTube/phlyersphan
Last.fm/phlyersphan
Del.icio.us/phlyersphan
GMail/phlyersphan
Technorati/phlyersphan
Geek Blog/geekgoesmeow
Yahoo/hellaholdem
Photography Blog/photoN00b
