Anyone into photography?
- Thread starter Roonster
- Start date
UnframedDave
Well-Known Member
I've been taking snaps for over forty years.
There are basically no bad current digital cameras. I chose the sony system over my previous nikon, because it felt comfortable in my hand and at the time they had the best lens availability. I believe they still do for my requirements.
For woodland photography, are you talking landscape or wildlife? 100-400 will be OK for the latter, but not much use for the former. Light in woodland tends to be dappled to dark, so faster lenses will help to keep the iso down. Some may argue that doesn't matter with post processing software these days, but I'm traditional and prefer to start with a sound image. By a faster lens, I mean the lower the f stop number, so a f2.8 will be faster than an f5.6 and let in more light.
If you are going to be doing birds, eventually you will want a 600mm lens. Maybe consider a 200-600 now? 800mm lenses are available, but they tend to be quite slow and are limited to use in only the very best light.
A good phone can take superb photos, but the lenses don't really have the reach for small wildlife. Excellent for landscape and macro though.
Photography is all about compromise, there is no right or wrong answer.
There are basically no bad current digital cameras. I chose the sony system over my previous nikon, because it felt comfortable in my hand and at the time they had the best lens availability. I believe they still do for my requirements.
For woodland photography, are you talking landscape or wildlife? 100-400 will be OK for the latter, but not much use for the former. Light in woodland tends to be dappled to dark, so faster lenses will help to keep the iso down. Some may argue that doesn't matter with post processing software these days, but I'm traditional and prefer to start with a sound image. By a faster lens, I mean the lower the f stop number, so a f2.8 will be faster than an f5.6 and let in more light.
If you are going to be doing birds, eventually you will want a 600mm lens. Maybe consider a 200-600 now? 800mm lenses are available, but they tend to be quite slow and are limited to use in only the very best light.
A good phone can take superb photos, but the lenses don't really have the reach for small wildlife. Excellent for landscape and macro though.
Photography is all about compromise, there is no right or wrong answer.
Pine Marten
Well-Known Member
I find myself compelled to answer "Holiday snaps? On the beach? Eh? Eh? Say no more! Know what I mean? Nudge nudge!"
Crowstalker
Well-Known Member
100-400mm lense will be good for a lot of your shots, I have a nikon lense 55-300mm its good for learning and understanding composition but I noticed that when you use the high end of the zoom everything gets washed out looking but in the grand terms of things its a cheap telephoto lense. I had taken a break from photography for a few years really as life got in the way. Im now considering upgrading my gear to much better stuff not to be a gear snob but I was hitting the limits of my current setup.
I am not familiar with the canon eco system so I cant really comment on canon gear.
Photography - The British Deer Society
PhotographyOur website includes a stunning selection of deer images – many taken by BDS members and supporters who have kindly given us permission to use their images. Photo by: Wild MediaFIND OUT MORE BDS SUPPORTING DEER PHOTOGRAPHY In this section, through our extensive library of deer...
bds.org.uk
Regards
JCS
Ronin
Distinguished Member
Bottomless pit
Like rifle shooting
I’ve been “into photography” for years (since late teens)
Have a bucket load of 35mm gear and digital which I rarely use now as the device in my pocket (phone) takes images which are “as good”
My gear is Nikon (Fseries 35mm ) and D2x based digital
Not cheap to buy or make additions to - but I don’t see image gains personally into investing further now
I’d like to move to large format digital one day - but at the moment that’s on hold as life too busy
Like rifle shooting
I’ve been “into photography” for years (since late teens)
Have a bucket load of 35mm gear and digital which I rarely use now as the device in my pocket (phone) takes images which are “as good”
My gear is Nikon (Fseries 35mm ) and D2x based digital
Not cheap to buy or make additions to - but I don’t see image gains personally into investing further now
I’d like to move to large format digital one day - but at the moment that’s on hold as life too busy
No kit bag is complete without a nifty fifty, does your nature/woodland include wildlife,
it can all be a bit like shooting gear, you buy on the cheap end then upgrade your gear a few times,
and like scopes its all about the glass, no mater how good your camera is, stick a cheap lens on it and it will show,
iv had all the pro DSLR's and all the lenses, as a hobby photographer i still always wanted outstanding quality,
for me your first 2 lenses should be a 50mm prime F/1.8, and a 24-70mm f/2.8, and maybe a 70-200mm f/2.8.
iv always used Nikon cameras, had a few canon too, ideally you want a FX, full frame camera,
for a smaller lighter camera the sony A7 iii mirrorless is spot on, you can spend some serious money though,
but its a great hobby, my mate has just bought a fixed 800mm lens for £13,000, yes thats thirteen thousand pounds
its F king colossal
it can all be a bit like shooting gear, you buy on the cheap end then upgrade your gear a few times,
and like scopes its all about the glass, no mater how good your camera is, stick a cheap lens on it and it will show,
iv had all the pro DSLR's and all the lenses, as a hobby photographer i still always wanted outstanding quality,
for me your first 2 lenses should be a 50mm prime F/1.8, and a 24-70mm f/2.8, and maybe a 70-200mm f/2.8.
iv always used Nikon cameras, had a few canon too, ideally you want a FX, full frame camera,
for a smaller lighter camera the sony A7 iii mirrorless is spot on, you can spend some serious money though,
but its a great hobby, my mate has just bought a fixed 800mm lens for £13,000, yes thats thirteen thousand pounds
its F king colossal
I've have been a wildlife photographer for many years (retired now). I used Canon DSLRs 1D's and 5D's. I started off with a 100-400 Canon lens but its limitations -too short and too slow -made me go to a Sigma (see link below). It was the best all round lens from birds to deer. The best toughest and sharpest lens was a Canon 400mm f2.8 coupled to a Canon 1.4 converter. It needed a tripod, the most used piece of kit I bought was a carbon fibre tripod. I can't remember the make but I remember it cost over £500 in the early 2000's. I've still got it and use it with my rifles.
60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG DN OS
Attachments
Last edited:
FFS dont mention carbon tripods just yet
the amount of manfrotto tripods i had was unreal,it really is an endless list of goodies you will eventually need/want, tripods, rucksacks, remote triggers, filters, flashes, straps,
i dont bother with it all anymore since the wife passed away, most of my photography was done on days out and holidays, having over 10k of equipment i ended up selling it all,
my last interests were macro and long exposure, put me Infront of a water fall or running water and i was happy for hours, Grace, not so much
cracking photo that mate
i cant be doing with all this false mechanical bokeh, (DoF) on mobile phones, dreadfulSimilar threads
