2strokemerc Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 10 minutes ago, ckf said: Bird photography can be a very addicting & expensive hobby, LOL. l think the Sigma 150-600 is a great lens for the money. The sweet spot seems to be around 500mm-550mm. At 600mm the images are a little soft. I'm sure you already know you can't beat a prime lens when it comes to lenses, but the long ones are so expensive. The Sigma is a good compromise in my opinion. It's nice to be able to change focal length when it comes to birds and wildlife. When I shot Canon I had the 300 f/4 IS. That lens was as sharp as a tack. Rob even bought one after seeing my bird pics, but he must have gotten a bad one because he wasn't happy with it and ended up selling it. Yes, you can use the Sigma on a full frame sensor. The great thing about lenses is that they really hold their value. I've bought refurbished lenses on sale and sold them later on Ebay for more than I paid for them. Fucking A, did @Zambroski steal my password and type these long posts Good info, I might get one of those next week. My 18-200mm IS lense isn't long enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 I saw my signal go up and got right over here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckf Posted May 19, 2017 Author Share Posted May 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, SmeeAgain said: Primes are amazing, but you sure pay for them! I was thinking about getting a long prime last year until I looked them up. 400mm Prime Nikkor $11,000+ and the 600mm is over $12,000! Yea, that's a no! LOL I'll have to check on the Sigma. LOL on the long posts! The prices of the long primes jumped in recent years, that's for sure. I bought the Sigma dock too. It makes a big difference once you dial it in Just now, Zambroski said: I saw my signal go up and got right over here. 2 minutes ago, 2strokemerc said: Good info, I might get one of those next week. My 18-200mm IS lense isn't long enough. The 300 f/4 IS is a great lens. I also had a 1.4 teleconverter that turns it in to a 420mm f/5,8 lens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redheaded Stepchild Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 On 2017-05-19 at 0:13 PM, ckf said: Sounds like a nice camera kit. How much did the new 70-200 f2.8 set you back? Good lenses have gone way up in recent years. I paid for the 70-200 f2.8 with taxes in Canadian funds $2825.00 It's discontinued now but I'll be damned if I'll pay $3700.00 for the third generation with fl coated glass before taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redheaded Stepchild Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 On 2017-05-19 at 0:13 PM, ckf said: Sounds like a nice camera kit. How much did the new 70-200 f2.8 set you back? Good lenses have gone way up in recent years. I paid for the 70-200 f2.8 with taxes in Canadian funds $2825.00 It's discontinued now but I'll be damned if I'll pay $3700.00 for the third generation with fl coated glass before taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckf Posted May 22, 2017 Author Share Posted May 22, 2017 Just now, Redheaded Stepchild said: I paid for the 70-200 f2.8 with taxes in Canadian funds $2825.00 It's discontinued now but I'll be damned if I'll pay $3700.00 for the third generation with fl coated glass before taxes. It's crazy how much they have gone up in the past 10 years. The only good thing is that they hold their value pretty well. Camera bodies on the other hand, not so much. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redheaded Stepchild Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 It's not the camera that takes good or great pictures it's the person using it. My favourite reply when someone says to me "that's a nice camera it must take good pictures" is that's a nice stove, it must cook good meals. Also the most important part of any camera is the 8 inches behind it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckf Posted May 22, 2017 Author Share Posted May 22, 2017 4 minutes ago, Redheaded Stepchild said: It's not the camera that takes good or great pictures it's the person using it. My favourite reply when someone says to me "that's a nice camera it must take good pictures" is that's a nice stove, it must cook good meals. Also the most important part of any camera is the 8 inches behind it. Agreed. I've taken some photos with my Canon S95 or S100 that when someone sees it they say "you must have one of those expensive cameras" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmeeAgain Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 On 5/19/2017 at 1:04 PM, Redheaded Stepchild said: DSLR's that I have are Nikon D4S and Nikon D700. I have for lenses a Nikon 50 f1.8, Nikon 24-70 f2.8, and just sold my 70-200 f2.8 for the Nikon VRII 70-200 f2.8. I started off with the D700 - great camera! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redheaded Stepchild Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 Just now, SmeeAgain said: I started off with the D700 - great camera! I still keep mine for back up. Do you have the battery grip that will boost your continuous high from 5 to 8 pictures per second? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmeeAgain Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 Just now, Redheaded Stepchild said: I still keep mine for back up. Do you have the battery grip that will boost your continuous high from 5 to 8 pictures per second? No, I didn't have the grip. I sold my 700 to my neighbor as he wanted a second camera to take on his paid excursions. He liked the idea of having two full setups on him when he was on a location. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redheaded Stepchild Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 Just now, SmeeAgain said: No, I didn't have the grip. I sold my 700 to my neighbor as he wanted a second camera to take on his paid excursions. He liked the idea of having two full setups on him when he was on a location. It's always nice to have a long lens on one body and a shorter lens on the other. If you're getting paid it's frustrating to miss a shot. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckf Posted May 22, 2017 Author Share Posted May 22, 2017 Just now, SmeeAgain said: No, I didn't have the grip. I sold my 700 to my neighbor as he wanted a second camera to take on his paid excursions. He liked the idea of having two full setups on him when he was on a location. I used to always carry two cameras. At the time it was a Canon 5D with 24-105 F/4L lens and a Canon 50D with 300 F/4 IS L. Plus I had a 70-200 F/4 IS L along with a few primes in my bag. I got tired of carrying all of the bulky weight around and switched to micro 4/3 for a while. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmeeAgain Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 Just now, Redheaded Stepchild said: It's always nice to have a long lens on one body and a shorter lens on the other. If you're getting paid it's frustrating to miss a shot. Yes, that was why Ron wanted it. I don't take pics where I'm worried about losing the shot like him. I used the cash to get me on my way to the 800. Ron always said you get your stock of lenses and stay with them while you own several bodies of the time of the lenses. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmeeAgain Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 Just now, ckf said: I used to always carry two cameras. At the time it was a Canon 5D with 24-105 F/4L lens and a Canon 50D with 300 F/4 IS L. Plus I had a 70-200 F/4 IS L along with a few primes in my bag. I got tired of carrying all of the bulky weight around and switched to micro 4/3 for a while. That would weigh you down a bit!! LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redheaded Stepchild Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 1 minute ago, ckf said: I used to always carry two cameras. At the time it was a Canon 5D with 24-105 F/4L lens and a Canon 50D with 300 F/4 IS L. Plus I had a 70-200 F/4 IS L along with a few primes in my bag. I got tired of carrying all of the bulky weight around and switched to micro 4/3 for a while. They are heavy. Lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckf Posted May 22, 2017 Author Share Posted May 22, 2017 Just now, SmeeAgain said: That would weigh you down a bit!! LOL Yes it did. It wasn't just the weight, it was also the size of the bag needed to carry all of that shit. The smaller cameras have come a long way as far as image quality goes. Even the small sensor on my drone can print a good looking 12x18 print. I really like the size of the Sony ACS-P cameras. If it wasn't for the overheating problem when shooting video I would upgrade my A5000 for an A6300 or A6500. That's why I'm looking at going back to a Panasonic Micro 4/3 camera. I seem to be shooting more video lately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmeeAgain Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 Just now, ckf said: Yes it did. It wasn't just the weight, it was also the size of the bag needed to carry all of that shit. The smaller cameras have come a long way as far as image quality goes. Even the small sensor on my drone can print a good looking 12x18 print. I really like the size of the Sony ACS-P cameras. If it wasn't for the overheating problem when shooting video I would upgrade my A5000 for an A6300 or A6500. That's why I'm looking at going back to a Panasonic Micro 4/3 camera. I seem to be shooting more video lately. Yes, the technology is getting to the point that you can get a much smaller package and not lose much at all. Once you get a smaller body, the lens can be proportionally smaller too. With the advancement of sensor tech, and if they keep the megapixel count reasonable, there is no reason why we can't get outstanding results from a smaller package. All the better for the users. Several years ago I was at Disney and saw a guy carrying around a Nikon D4 with the 14-24mm 2.8 lens to take pics of his family. That had to weigh 5 pounds! LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckf Posted May 22, 2017 Author Share Posted May 22, 2017 33 minutes ago, SmeeAgain said: Yes, the technology is getting to the point that you can get a much smaller package and not lose much at all. Once you get a smaller body, the lens can be proportionally smaller too. With the advancement of sensor tech, and if they keep the megapixel count reasonable, there is no reason why we can't get outstanding results from a smaller package. All the better for the users. Several years ago I was at Disney and saw a guy carrying around a Nikon D4 with the 14-24mm 2.8 lens to take pics of his family. That had to weigh 5 pounds! LOL IMO a P&S does a great job shooting snapshots for things like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckf Posted May 23, 2017 Author Share Posted May 23, 2017 All of this camera talk made me pull out the D7200 & Sigma 150-600mm lens. Hopefully I can get a few bird pics since we have a sunny day here. All I've gotten so far is a pic of Izzy enjoying the sunshine 150mm f/7.1 1/640 sec ISO 360 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckf Posted May 23, 2017 Author Share Posted May 23, 2017 I wasn't able to get a good bird pic today with the sigma lens. I finally gave up after it clouded up and took a pic of a purple finch on the feeder post instead of on a tree branch like I had hoped to do. Pic was kind of noisy at 3200 ISO. This is a heavy crop. The lens is capable of much sharper images, but it does need better light to do so. Click on the image to see it with better resolution. For some reason the image in the post isn't nearly as good. Handheld at 600mm f/6.3 1/500 sec ISO 3200 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckf Posted May 25, 2017 Author Share Posted May 25, 2017 I think I'm going to bite the bullet and order a Panasonic G85 with the 12-60mm kit lens. Trouble is they are on back order at Adorama right now. Wasn't there someone else here that shoots micro 4/3's? Was it @spin_dry or @ActionfigureJoe ? Olympus or Panasonic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snatchslayer Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Nothing fancy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckf Posted May 25, 2017 Author Share Posted May 25, 2017 14 minutes ago, xcr700 said: Nothing fancy Is that a Flintstones camera? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snatchslayer Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 19 minutes ago, ckf said: Is that a Flintstones camera? Yessir 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.