[sgiitk]

Originally Posted by Durango Dude

I'd suggest go for a crop sensor (APS-C) and invest in a Tokina 11-16mm: a very good third party wide angle that lends itself beautifully in taking shot of buildings and interiors. Most of the bodies would come bundled with a kit lens (18-55mm) and a 55-200mm as freebies. Nikon and Canon, take your pick, I have used only Nikon till now.

I have been in photography since (I think) 1962 or so. Have worked my way through Zeiss Contina III, Nikkormat, Olympus OM1 and 2, Canon Compact (model I do not remember), Canon Powershot (model no I do not remember), Canon SX120, and now Nikon D5500. In all my SLRs after the Nikkormat I have bee unorthodox with the lens selection. OM's had 35/f2 as base, with 75-150/f4 and 24/f2.8 as additional optics. On my latest Nikon I have zeroed in on the 18-140 zoom as the basic, with a 35/f2 as the 'other' lens. In fact recently on a holiday in Bhutan I found a lot of tourists using something like my main lens as standard. Many had no other optics with them.

I hvae done things in my day incl doing my own BW processing and excellent blow ups using an El-Nikkor in my Durst F30.

[Durango Dude]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

I have been in photography since (I think) 1962 or so. Have worked my way through Zeiss Contina III, Nikkormat, Olympus OM1 and 2, Canon Compact (model I do not remember), Canon Powershot (model no I do not remember), Canon SX120, and now Nikon D5500. In all my SLRs after the Nikkormat I have bee unorthodox with the lens selection. OM's had 35/f2 as base, with 75-150/f4 and 24/f2.8 as additional optics. On my latest Nikon I have zeroed in on the 18-140 zoom as the basic, with a 35/f2 as the 'other' lens. In fact recently on a holiday in Bhutan I found a lot of tourists using something like my main lens as standard. Many had no other optics with them.

I hvae done things in my day incl doing my own BW processing and excellent blow ups using an El-Nikkor in my Durst F30.

Cheers dear Sanjay! I fully agree! Prime lens is the way to go and 35mm translates to an almost 50mm length on the APS-C sensor for the 5500 perfect: Same field as the human eye.

[manishalive]

Originally Posted by pkulkarni.2106

After a few months, when I connected it to my home laptop (which didn't have anti-virus ), the issue again resurfaced. Again I had to change the motherboard.

I don't know what was the case with your camera, but I'd suggest you to not to connect to any laptop/device without antivirus.

Note: From the day I got it repaired, I can see vertical strips in the photos if I zoom to pics to 100%, not sure if you're also observing the same

I do not have any issues so far with my camera. Tough I am 100% sure the repairer used a non genuine part. He also repaired my power circuit board (changed an IC). Which actually caused over current resulting in mother board to burn. Surprisingly Canon service center did not told me of this.

I am facing one issue tough - focusing and when it does not focus the LCD goes blank.

Originally Posted by sgiitk

@manishalive; and pkulkarni; repairing a PCB is never a good idea. Often one or more of the tracks is/are damaged and then the faults tend to become intermittent, the most difficult to track down. Remember it is quite likely to be a multilayer PCB so the inside tracks are not even visible.

Yes I understand. The whole point of repair was to have most economical repair. The depreciated value of Camera (1100D) does not need a costly repair. I am upgrading to new one soon.

The failure as per the repairing guy could be leaving a fully charged battery installed for a longer period of time.

As per me I had once used the camera in what would be called start of drizzling. After that I had used the camera 3 more times. This is the only instance of slight mishandling that I have done.

Any way let's see what happens in due course.

[sgiitk]

Originally Posted by manishalive

Yes I understand. The whole point of repair was to have most economical repair. The depreciated value of Camera (1100D) does not need a costly repair. I am upgrading to new one soon.

1. The failure as per the repairing guy could be leaving a fully charged battery installed for a longer period of time.

2. As per me I had once used the camera in what would be called start of drizzling. After that I had used the camera 3 more times. This is the only instance of slight mishandling that I have done.

1. I will have to use a mid profanity - BS.
2. Camera's are for use. As long as these are decent conditions (not pouring) you just go and use it. It is not for being pussyfooted around.

It is there to serve you, not the other way round. Yes, when a camera fails, it can be a tragedy. We had gone to Guwahati to conduct a course on behalf of IITG (very early days).I went to the banks of the Brahmputra and then my Canon Rangefinder (film type) packed up. I could do no better than gnash my teeth. It just reminded me that no technology is perfect!!

[navin_bhp]

Originally Posted by DevilsCry

I think he is talking only about the amazing f/1.4 aperture. On compact sensor, equivalent aperture would be f/2.2. Aperture is pretty much the primary reason to rent/buy any f/1.4 lens.

I'm curious to see if 105mm f/1.4 lens is usable on sunny days. On full frame at 1/2000 sec exposure and ISO 100, I keep getting overexposed pics at merely f/1.8 aperture.

What mode are you shooting in? Is 1/2000 your fastest shutter speed? Most cameras do at least 1/4000 and the pro bodies can go 1/8000 so increasing the shutter speed would help. You don't need to increase the ISO. If that is not enough then you need ND filters to cut light. Look for variable ND filters. They come in very handy.

Originally Posted by i20ian

My budget is upto 1 lakh. I've seen a Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 lens going at almost 80k online. Is it worth a buy considering my birding requirements.

I also doubt whether it'll suit my camera since it is not a full frame model. The lens specs shows that it is compatible.

Is there any other lens which you recommend?

Regards
Vivek

The Sigma 150-600 C is a good lens overall. You get the max bang for the buck with this one. Buy it in the US if you can. It's a lot cheaper here. If you have not used long zooms a lot 600mm is actually overkill. I feel AF performance is adequate when used with a 7D2 but with the 1300D it will be a lot different. For birds on a tree it should be good enough. I started with a 400mm f5.6 L, one of the best birding lens and the AF and sharpness is at its best. The drawback is the lack of IS. That's where 300mm f4 L IS comes in. This one has comparable sharpness and a little less AF speed but the IS works great. Also consider the 70-300L if you can go a little high on the budget. It is as sharp as the 300L and has next gen IS+zoom. A small lens with awesome portability and quality. These go for about 800$ used in the US. The 100-400 v1 is also a good lens. It hunts a bit but the image quality makes up for it. I love the push-pull action of this lens. The ver2 of this lens is todays best wildlife zoom lens below 2000$ IMO. Also checkout the latest 70-300 F4-5.6 IS II lens. I have not used this lens but its supposed to have a really good IS(4 stops) and AF and its the cheapest among the above mentioned lenses.

[DevilsCry]

Originally Posted by navin_bhp

What mode are you shooting in? Is 1/2000 your fastest shutter speed?

I was clicking with a Nikon D750, an entry-level full frame, and in manual mode. Belongs to a friend. It goes only to 1/2000 sec as max shutter speed. Shocking, I know. Already had ND filter on. I did not want to go below ISO100 nor use electronic shutter to lower exposure. I always had option to stop down though.

Was just saying that even f/1.8 is quite sufficient during sunny days and hence I was curious to see how f/1.4 would fare during sunny days. The point of an f/1.4 lens is to stick to f/1.4 aperture after all.

In another condition, no doubt, f/1.4 would be amazing since even f/1.8 on entry-level full frame falters badly during evening.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by DevilsCry

I was clicking with a Nikon D750, an entry-level full frame, and in manual mode. Belongs to a friend. It goes only to 1/2000 sec as max shutter speed. Shocking, I know. Already had ND filter on. I did not want to go below ISO100 nor use electronic shutter to lower exposure. I always had option to stop down though.

Was just saying that even f/1.8 is quite sufficient during sunny days and hence I was curious to see how f/1.4 would fare during sunny days. The point of an f/1.4 lens is to stick to f/1.4 aperture after all.

In another condition, no doubt, f/1.4 would be amazing since even f/1.8 on entry-level full frame falters badly during evening.

1. D750 is not entry level. If you want to use it properly. E.g. take.advantage of its AF or DR. It can give the 5D Mk3 or 4 ( or a D810) a run for its money, in the right hands. Of course, a great car can be driven by an average driver.

2. D750 goes till 1/4000s

3. Sigh. I have no idea why one would want to shoot in harsh light.

Originally Posted by navin_bhp

What mode are you shooting in? Is 1/2000 your fastest shutter speed? Most cameras do at least 1/4000 and the pro bodies can go 1/8000 so increasing the shutter speed would help. You don't need to increase the ISO. If that is not enough then you need ND filters to cut light. Look for variable ND filters. They come in very handy.



The Sigma 150-600 C is a good lens overall. You get the max bang for the buck with this one. Buy it in the US if you can. It's a lot cheaper here. If you have not used long zooms a lot 600mm is actually overkill. I feel AF performance is adequate when used with a 7D2 but with the 1300D it will be a lot different. For birds on a tree it should be good enough. I started with a 400mm f5.6 L, one of the best birding lens and the AF and sharpness is at its best. The drawback is the lack of IS. That's where 300mm f4 L IS comes in. This one has comparable sharpness and a little less AF speed but the IS works great. Also consider the 70-300L if you can go a little high on the budget. It is as sharp as the 300L and has next gen IS+zoom. A small lens with awesome portability and quality. These go for about 800$ used in the US. The 100-400 v1 is also a good lens. It hunts a bit but the image quality makes up for it. I love the push-pull action of this lens. The ver2 of this lens is todays best wildlife zoom lens below 2000$ IMO. Also checkout the latest 70-300 F4-5.6 IS II lens. I have not used this lens but its supposed to have a really good IS(4 stops) and AF and its the cheapest among the above mentioned lenses.

One needs to think about optimizing the system. Buy a great lens with a consumer body having basic AF? Really?

[DevilsCry]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

D750 is not entry level. If you want to use it properly. E.g. take.advantage of its AF or DR.

Yes, certainly. I've got stunning results from D750 as well. Btw, I've recently tried Canon 80D and was floored by its AF performance. It is probably world's fastest AF even under indoor conditions. Not sure about darker conditions. I'm not sure if D750's AF (while super quick) is as fast as Canon 80D. What's your opinion on it? I think 80D and the newly launched 800D and 77D might have same AF performance as the legendary 5D Mark IV.

2. D750 goes till 1/4000s

Yes, you're right. I checked my pics again. Sorry for writing wrong info here.

-----

Is anyone here planning to buy Canon M6? Looks like a nice fun camera to have. Basically an 80D without mirror+viewfinder and with inferior AF. M6 + EF-M 22mm f/2.0 STM can be used as a fun fixed-lens camera.

[Durango Dude]

Originally Posted by DevilsCry

Is anyone here planning to buy Canon M6? Looks like a nice fun camera to have. Basically an 80D without mirror+viewfinder and with inferior AF. M6 + EF-M 22mm f/2.0 STM can be used as a fun fixed-lens camera.

If you're buying mirrorless go for Sony/Fuji; Nikon and Canon have a lot of catching up to do.

[DevilsCry]

Originally Posted by Durango Dude

If you're buying mirrorless go for Sony/Fuji; Nikon and Canon have a lot of catching up to do.

Not sure why A6300/A6500 claims fastest AF in world. M5 AF beats it comfortably. May be Canon AF is just easier/more intuitive to use. Also, I just can't get nice skin tones from Sony cameras. Green color is also kinda weird. Canon has actually woken up from its 10 years long slumber and their M5 is pretty epic camera to use. Pretty SLR-like AF performance (though not in league of newer Canons like 80D). Sony has 4K video but M5 video is simply majestic. Cinematic picture quality and cinematic stabilization.

Fuji jpg has Leica feeling, yeah. But I can't find X-Pro2 or similar Fuji in India. Also, concerned about spending a lot of money on a camera with scant service backup.

[sgiitk]

Originally Posted by Durango Dude

If you're buying mirrorless go for Sony/Fuji; Nikon and Canon have a lot of catching up to do.

When I bought by D5500 about eight months ago, I looked at mirrorless but then gave up. One advantage of a mirrorless should be compact optics. I found that most of the optics was same as the mirror designs, but with and adapter.

I will consider Fuji but not Sony. Why, the mindset of a photography firm is different from that of a general electronics maker.

I must say I am a bit biased against Sony Photo-products. I bought my Camcorder in the UK in 1999, and then after my return to India had a breakdown in 2001. I went to the ASS and they kept if for over six months. Only after I took it up with Sony in the NCR was it attended to and that too lasted for all of four months. The chap was trying to impress on me that I have not charged you for the service! Time is of no consideration.

Then I had imported a Sony TV from the UK, and it packed up after all of five years. these jokers were just not interested. Kept it for about six months, and then returned it. Most probably it was a display failure and it would have not been economical to change the tube. This probably was 'one of those things' but again put me off Sony a bit.

Now those running service centres this should be a warning to you. One bad experience may put a customer off for a long time.

[navin_bhp]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

One needs to think about optimizing the system. Buy a great lens with a consumer body having basic AF? Really?

Not sure what your theory of optimizing is. In general investing on a good lens is better than investing on a better body. A sharp lens is a sharp lens and doesn't matter on which camera it is used on. A lens with superior AF performs better on an entry level body than using a entry level lens on the same body. If you can afford to buy a better lens then why not. The Canon 400 f5.6 L was introduced in 1993 and still is one of the best lenses in the world.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by navin_bhp

Not sure what your theory of optimizing is. In general investing on a good lens is better than investing on a better body. A sharp lens is a sharp lens and doesn't matter on which camera it is used on. A lens with superior AF performs better on an entry level body than using a entry level lens on the same body. If you can afford to buy a better lens then why not. The Canon 400 f5.6 L was introduced in 1993 and still is one of the best lenses in the world.

1. If one has a defined budget, and is into a specific genre such as birding, one has to think carefully about what will get him the results he needs. Old maxims such as always invest in good glass, rather than body, are very generic. Things are a lot more nuanced depending on circumstances and needs. One can always sell and buy later when one upgrades.

2. AF on the higher end bodies makes a big difference. I have shot extensively with a D500, I would take that plus a long modern telezoom anyday rather than a far inferior body plus 300mm or 400mm prime. The prime and zoom differences have narrowed today, unless you are talking about the long prime exotics.

3. For birding one needs the maximum reach for the buck. The recent 150-600mm zooms are very good, 90% there compared to some of the renowned lenses from Canikon. Why 300mm or 400mm for birding, when there are 600mm alternatives?

4. A sharp lens can't help if the initial acquisition is not good enough. For static birds, any DSLR is ok, but for BIF, modern AF makes a difference, given same user skill.

Originally Posted by DevilsCry

Btw, I've recently tried Canon 80D and was floored by its AF performance. It is probably world's fastest AF even under indoor conditions. Not sure about darker conditions. I'm not sure if D750's AF (while super quick) is as fast as Canon 80D. What's your opinion on it? I think 80D and the newly launched 800D and 77D might have same AF performance as the legendary 5D Mark IV.

The AF champs today are D5, 1DX Mk2, D500. Then comes 7D Mk2. 80D, a very nice camera, can't compete with these guys in terms of action shooting, IMO. I am not comparing to mirrorless cameras, that are not as good as the flagship full frame and crop sensor DSLRs for action shooting. Yet.

I would be very surprised if 80D has better AF than D750, which has excellent AF. What lenses did you use with both, and what were you shooting?

The main difference in 80D is the better sensor, that closed the gap between Canon and Sony/Nikon sensors in terms of DR and shadow lifting.

[DevilsCry]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

I would be very surprised if 80D has better AF than D750, which has excellent AF. What lenses did you use with both, and what were you shooting?

I tried 80D only in store with the 18-55mm kit lens. I've used D750 for few days with 50mm f/1.8 and with 70-200mm f/2.8.

I don't know what I am doing wrong but 80D with kit lens felt faster than D750 with f/1.8 lens. Difference is more stark in low light. D750 AF is slightly vague in low light even with f/1.8 while 80D with kit lens had sharp AF.

I clicked these two pics with D750 using a crop 70-300mm lens (hard to afford proper 300mm lens for full frame)

f/5.6 1/100 sec 300mm ISO8000
This is the most focused pic I could click at low light. Camera shake is visible, I know. But, most of other pics were out of focus.


f/5.6 1/125 300mm ISO5000
Just showing this pic to assure you that I do click pics decently. I did not take bad pics at low light intentionally. I just found it hard to use D750 at low light. I know I used f/5.6 but I've used even 50mm at f/1.8 and pics at low light were not as sharp as I would like them. When I tried 80D, I was simply floored by its AF performance.

[navin_bhp]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

1. If one has a defined budget, and is into a specific genre such as birding, one has to think carefully about what will get him the results he needs. Old maxims such as always invest in good glass, rather than body, are very generic. Things are a lot more nuanced depending on circumstances and needs. One can always sell and buy later when one upgrades.

I'm not interested in dragging this conversation out of purpose. I was just replying to i20ian who had a specific lens budget and was asking about the Tamron 150-600 lens. He also wanted to know about other options within his budget. I currently own the similar Sigma 150-600 C lens so I gave my opinion about it. I've also owned all the other lenses (except the latest 70-300 IS II) so I gave my opinion on them. For birding the lens AF performance is as important as the cameras so I still stand by getting good glass. Then comes the camera/tripod/head or gimbal/better beamer/lens coat etc... And when reselling, the lens holds it's value but the camera body does not. You will only lose a lot of money.

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

2. AF on the higher end bodies makes a big difference. I have shot extensively with a D500, I would take that plus a long modern telezoom anyday rather than a far inferior body plus 300mm or 400mm prime. The prime and zoom differences have narrowed today, unless you are talking about the long prime exotics.

I'm well aware of this but he is not looking to buy a camera body here. I would pick a faster prime any day to a zoom. Have you tried the canon 400 f5.6 before?

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

3. For birding one needs the maximum reach for the buck. The recent 150-600mm zooms are very good, 90% there compared to some of the renowned lenses from Canikon. Why 300mm or 400mm for birding, when there are 600mm alternatives?

Not always. I'm not against getting a super zoom as long as you know what to expect. 400mm is sufficient on a crop body for most situations. And its not easy to track a bird at 600mm unless you have practice. A fast prime like 300 f4/400 f5.6 is better than a zoom at 600 f6.3 where you lose speed and AF performance. For large bright birds in sunlight it may work but not all birds are big. The Sigma and Tamron are not quite there yet. Maybe the new Tamron 150-600 v2 is I don't know. I have owned the canon 300,400 f2.8 and 500 f4 L lenses and I don't feel the zooms are there yet. I've also tried many other combos like the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 with the 2X III, 70-200 v2 with 2XIII on 1D4 and 5D3 but was not happy with AF. The only combo that I liked was the 300 f2.8 with 2X III(a hand holdable combo)

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

4. A sharp lens can't help if the initial acquisition is not good enough. For static birds, any DSLR is ok, but for BIF, modern AF makes a difference, given same user skill.

Basic AF is good enough to acquire focus. Modern AF just makes it easier. I've tracked birds on a 350D with a crappy 75-300 lens.