Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Gadgets, Computers & Software (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/)

-   -   The DSLR Thread (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/11582-dslr-thread-631.html)

I have a 300mm zoom. When it comes to wild life; barring zoos; this is neither here nor there. For shots in the jungle you need a long telephoto.

For a 600mm this is one good alternative to $10,000/ modern lense. Unless you are shooting birds, a manual focus on a sturdy tripod is as good as the modern autofocus image stabilised lense for most of wild life shots. Please keep in mind that this lense if F/4 so you can shoot wide open at a much faster speed in low light compared to the F/5.6 or F/8 lenses. That it self is an added advantage in wild life, as the light is always at a premium, unless the animal condescends to pose for you as you frame and adjust the camera.:D

Another plus point is the lenses manufactured 30+ years ago had extremely sturdy construction and will last a long time. As they have no electronics, repairs are cheap and easy.

Long telephotos at 400mm and upwards, especially at 600mm+ are highly susceptible to vibration/shake. For animals that are active an image stabilised lens will compensate for the lack of speed @ F5.6. For e.g. I have a new generation 300mm F/2.8 prime that can be used with the latest 2x teleconverter/extender to give a budget 600mm @ F/5.6 at around 2/3rds of the price of the modern 600mm. The reason I am confident of using this lens with an extender is the VR/IS capability.

I still prefer a later technology lens designed for a digital sensor than film. There are differences in sensitivity to light, aberations and dynamic range, when compared with film, especially in medium to high end DSLRs.


IMHO animal, including bird, behavior is dynamic and the more technology you have to cope with that the better it is.

I agree with a part of your statement. Those old lenses are built like battle tanks, made of metal, and will last generations if preserved. While they may be easily serviced, replacing any worn out or damaged part can be a problem. I can't imagine Nikon will keep spares for 3+ decades.

Regards,

At last got the Canon 55-250 IS II lens from amazon for $191. It's good and the focus is fast though it is not USM. Worth the money.

Hey Guys,

Can you please suggest me a good tripod for around 2.5K to 3K.
Also any particular brand that makes good budget tripods.

Also what things I should be considering while buying one.

Thanks for the help.

Try the Vanguard Espod range - they are reasonably priced. What you need to look for:

a) Capacity - weight, other than the camera's weight, take into consideration the weight of every single accessory that you may add including the heaviest lens you have and flash. And remember, don't load a tripod beyond 1/2 its max capacity. So if your camera weighs 1 kg and accessories weigh another 200g the capacity should be at least 2.5 Kgs.

b) Construction - for your budget you will get aluminium tripods. They will do for the time being.

c) Choose a pan head or ball head. Pan heads are mostly used for video and ball heads for stills.

Do NOT compromise on the quality of the tripod - flimsy ones can topple over giving your camera and lens a hard knock on the ground or floor. You don't want that. Also, a common mistake people make is skimp on the tripod, realise that the tripod is no good and then hit the market for a new and more expensive unit. Just get it right the 1st time and you may save money in the long run.

Couldn't agree more. I know of a case that happened couple of months back where a guy's entire setup (body + UWA + filter) fell into sea at a Mumbai beach. Please do not compromise on the quality of the tripod if you want to protect your camera.

Exactly. People don't mind spending 50K for a good lens, but refuse to spend even 10k on the tripod.

Thanks to a good advice of a BHPian I bought Manfrotto 190DB tripod with 486RC2 head back in 2005, spending about 8K. It has spent most of its life on the back of my SUV or Jeep and rarely stored at home. Even now it is working perfectly and wonderfully. Some of my best shots couldn't have been possible but for the tripod. A good tripod is a must for a serious photographer.

I have a tripod which I got for 2.5K. Its very heavy, and quite sturdy. Because its not an international brand price is low. However, its much better than the 1200-1500 vivitar tripods when it comes to stability and quality.
Infact, it has spikes at the bottom which can dig in soft surfaces. You can adjust the bottom to retract spikes and have flat rubber supports for hard surfaces.

THanks R2D2 for the help and advice. I will definatly look th this series of tripods. I will try to the best that I could but my wife will be accompanying me. I am sure she is not going to let me spend a lot. But still will try to do my best. Will keep this thread posted.

Thanks for the suggestions mate.


Thanks for the advice mate. Will try to do my best. Actually I have also read similar things everywhere.

You are most welcome. All this is from my personal experience and the learning curve as an amateur. Luckily I wisened up before any mishap occured.

Just remember, that tripods, like lenses and filters, are relatively long term investments. Camera bodies come and go but these accessories, given the right care, can last a long time.

So, explain to your better half why spending slightly more now will save you money and the accumulation of 'junk' in the long term. :D

Agree with you guys. After spending, rather wasting, money on average quality tripods I finally wisened up. The thought of my camera and lens toppling over and hitting the ground made my skin crawl (still does! :Shockked:).

I explained to my wife that these are literally long term i.e. 8-10 years+ purchases and I won't need to upgrade those legs for a long long time to come. She agreed and hey presto once the 'Home Boss' gave the green signal, I purchased what is arguably the best support equipment there is i.e. Gitzo & Manfrotto.

Cheers!

I have been using a simplex tripod for over a year and it's ok for my use. I use it with a camcorder though.

Not to worry mate. Tripod requirements vary from user to user depending on a variety of factors..some of which I mentioned below. We all do what is right for us.

Cheers!

Hi everyone and thanks in advance. I am unable to decide which dslr and lens to buy. Should I go for canon 60d with 18-200 lens or Nikon d7000 with 18-105 lens. This is my first dslr. All the earlier ones have been point and shoot. The objective is to get my 15 year kids interested in photography. They are already interested - this is to help them go deeper in it and make it a hobby. Believe costwise canon is better but in pic quality it is Nikon. I would like to take a long term decision on this and will therefore appreciate whatever guidance you can give.

I think if you would want to play around with photography then you should get a cheaper body, say, a nikon 5100 or a canon 550. the money you save by doing so you can get more lenses that lets u experiment with pictures.

for example, the following lens:
Flipkart.com: Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm F/1.4G Lens: Lens

This is a great lens for taking portraits, it has a very large aperature, 1.4 which lets you blur out the surroundings and helps keep the main subject in focus.

this lens:

Flipkart.com: Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm F/3.5-5.6G Lens: Lens

This wide angle lens (16mm) is great when you are clicking pictures of landscapes as it lets more of the scenery into one shot. Its also great when clicking pictures of buildings or historical monuments.

There are many many more lenses that you can have a look at. Try browsing through the net then decide on the camera you would like. The beauty of having a DSLR is the fact that you can change lenses, so it would be advisable to make full use of it.

I'll say determine what kind of focal range you and your kids are most interested in or will be using most of the time ( assuming you have bridge cameras with a wide zoom range, this is easier to determine ). Lenses have the biggest effect on what kind of shooting you do.

Photography is an expensive hobby to pick up , be warned :D , your kids will soon demand expensive lenses , far more expensive than smartphones and laptops ! The 18-200 is a good all round one lens solution as long as you don't want to shoot in low light ( dusk , night , indoors ) and not shoot wildlife. The 18-200 range is definitely more useful than 18-105, but if you really want make optimum use of DSLRs and interchangeable lenses, you need to pick lenses more focused on image quality which typically have a smaller zoom range , such as the 17-55 f/2.8 Nikkor , 70-200 f/2.8 or the many prime lenses such as 35mm f/1.8G , 50mm f/1.8G and 85mm f/1.8G ( almost all have Canon equivalents , usually a little less costly )

Canons are generally cheaper, yes, and the current range of Nikons have better sensors than Canons, but that could change in future models as has in the past. If you do a lot of low light shooting, Nikons fare better , also when shooting with flash , Nikons tend to do better. But this isn't something to get hung up on, the differences are not huge, and you need to be nit-picking ( pixel peeping in photography parlance ) to say x is better than y.