Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 9, 2006, 1:18 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,720
Default

thought i'd post a few of the pics i've been getting with my new 30D and Sigma EX 80-400... i've only had the camera a bit over a week, and i've gotta say, i love it! i've managed these shots in mostly overcast, dull weather...i can hardly wait to see what it'll do with decent light!












squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 9, 2006, 1:31 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Trique Daddi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 282
Default

Beautiful shots! You must be having a blast with your new equipment! The Sigma lens seems to be very sharp. What is the cost on it?

Thanks for sharing your photos!

Trique Daddi
Trique Daddi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2006, 1:54 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,720
Default

Trique Daddi wrote:
Quote:
Beautiful shots! You must be having a blast with your new equipment! The Sigma lens seems to be very sharp. What is the cost on it?

Thanks for sharing your photos!

Trique Daddi
thanks, Trique... i am indeed!

the Sigma EX 80-400 runs about $1000 - if you can find one. apparently Sigma had some production delays at the factory, and the number of lenses available dried up pretty fast. most online dealers were showing these on backorder when i bought mine a month ago, and i'm not sure if they've gotten any new ones in yet...
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2006, 5:47 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
hercules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sparta, Greece
Posts: 2,649
Default

Very nice shots, i was thinking of also buying the canon rebel XT and also keeping my Fuji S9500, but the canon only comes with the i think 55 to 80 lens what would be another lens to get with that that has good zoom.
hercules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2006, 8:42 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
k1par's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 608
Default

Great shots! And I know what you mean. I just upgraded from the Digital Rebel to the XT and love the added features and yes I am a great fan of Sigma lenses. I have the 70-300mm and the 170-500mm.
k1par is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2006, 9:38 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
hercules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sparta, Greece
Posts: 2,649
Default

k1par wrote:
Quote:
Great shots! And I know what you mean. I just upgraded from the Digital Rebel to the XT and love the added features and yes I am a great fan of Sigma lenses. I have the 70-300mm and the 170-500mm.
Are the pictures really that much different than a regular digital say like my S9500 as far as quality of the photo..
hercules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2006, 12:32 PM   #7
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

hercules wrote:
Quote:
Are the pictures really that much different than a regular digital say like my S9500 as far as quality of the photo..
Hercules - the answer to this question is: it depends.

In ideal lighting without a difficult subject, the s9500 will take shots that look just as nice as something taken from a DSLR. But, certain types of photographs will, indeed, look better out of a DSLR:

DSLRs offer the ability to have a shallower depth of field which provides subject isolation. Even if both the DSLR and digicam have a lens of the same effective focal length and same aperture - the larger sensor on the DSLR will provide more background blur - the larger the sensor, the largeer the blur.

DSLRs also have the ability to capture more shots under more difficult conditions. Some have capability of ISO 3200. The amount of noise on a Canon 20d at ISO 3200 is similar to the noise on many digicams at ISO 400 - 3 stops less! DSLRs also are capable of taking more pictures per second and for a longer burst than digicams (as a rule). So, when you're photographing moving objects - like birds in flight or sports - that makes a big difference. Along those same lines, shutter lag is usually less (meaning how long between you pressing the button and the picture actually being taken). So again, with moving objects this is key. Finally, a DSLR allows you to use a lens that is specific to a task (rather than a digicam that usually has only 1 lens that tries to do everything). In those specialized areas: macro, ultra wide angle, extreme telephoto for sports or wildlife the quality will certainly be better. As an example to this last point: there are many digicams that have a lens with an effective focal length of 400mm. Take a look at the quality of pictures you see in Sports Illustrated - see the rich colors and the buttery smooth backgrounds? That is often the result of the Canon 400mm 2.8 lens. No digicam is going to give you that quality (of course the lens is $6500). Another area is flash: some digicams have a hotshoe and can accept an external flash - others can't. Built in flashes on any camera are pretty weak, so the ability to take an external flash is huge if you do a lot of indoor shooting.

So, when I say it depends, it depends on what you want to shoot: if it's something that can benefit from a specialized lens or the feature set of a DSLR then yes it will make a difference. But only if the photographer knows how to do it and which accessories are right for the job.

Hope that made some sense
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2006, 5:00 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
nwcubsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2
Default

Here are some shots from my latest trip to the San Diego Zoo. This was with my new 30D and all the shots except for the lion were with the Canon 135mm F2 L. None of these have been post-processed (obviously), just re-sized.










nwcubsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2006, 2:05 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 171
Default

Squirrel, one delayed question for you.

My next wish (do not want to say investment - it is only hobby for me) is getting some good tele in end range from 300-500. Choice for me is first Sigma then Canon.

I've readsome comments on Sigma 80-400. Some say it is good mainly for static objects. If you want to take pictures of birds flying, forget about it and get Canon USM.

I see that you've taken some 'flying crane' (?) pictures. It is more like bomber in birds world meaning not so fast comparing to say, swallow, which would be like 'UFO' in terms of maneuverability. Yeah, if you want to test your AF, just try to catch one of this little cutties flying.

What is your conclusion on AF speed of this lens?
GM2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2006, 12:29 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,720
Default

much as i'd love to claim success, so far, i haven't even been able to keep a swallow in the viewfinder, much less in the AF crosshairs! so i haven't really tested the Sigma lens on a target that fast moving. swinging that big hunk of glass around fast enough to catch a swallow in flight, and keep such an erratically moving target locked, is more a task for a radar guidance system than my aging reflexes! i've had some limited success with mallards, which as you probably know are very fast indeed, but again, at distances close enough to produce a decent image, i still haven't gotten quite fast enough to keep them in the crosshairs.

i don't really have a frame of referenceto comparethe Sigma's AF, since i haven't used the Canon 100-400L. people say the "L" lens is faster, but no one seems able to quantify how much (i suspectthe difference isin the range of 1/3 second or less), and whether it's enough to make a significant difference. from talking to a few people who've used both, the consensus seems to be that the Canon is slightly faster to focus, but there's virtually no difference in optical performance. i have also heard that while the "L" lens focuses a bit faster, it's also more prone to losing focus than the Sigma... again, that's just what i've read on various review sites and forums. i do know that if the Sigma doesn't have to move the lenses around much (as when it's already focused at a point relatively close to where you want to aim it), it focuses very quickly, but i've never timed it.

for what i want it to do, the Sigma serves me well. if you're mainly interested in exercises in frustration like trying to track micro-UFO's like swallows, perhaps the Canon would give you a little bit better chance of success, though if you can't physicallymove the lensfast enough to keep them in the frame, i don't thinkthe difference in AF speeds will matter much.
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:12 AM.