Camera suggestions - Unique need

[mnfishingal]

I'm considering a new DSLR and mostly enjoy taking wildlife/bird photos and currently have a Minolta 5D that I purchased a few years ago specifically because it has the in-body image stabilation and I mostly use the 70-300mm lens when I'm out and about. I have a unique need in that I have Parkinson's and so something with good image stabilization is a must. I am hoping to move up to a larger lens as well.

I am wondering if there is really much of a difference in how much image stabilaztion one gets with the sony models in-body system verses going to a nikon or canon with VR lens. In my reading of reviews, it sounds like the sonys (A350 and A700 have some Image quality problems at higher ISO's) compared with nikon or canon. The guys I've talked to at the local photo shop favor the nikon and canon cameras (which is what I've been researching) but think I might benefit more from the sony because of the IS.

Any thoughts or suggestions that might help in the decision making process would be greatly appreciated. I do use a tripod much of the time, with a few exceptions for things like if I am canoeing or in the boat.

Thanks for any feedback you might have.

Denise

[Paul Izyk - toi]

I'm considering a new DSLR and mostly enjoy taking wildlife/bird photos and currently have a Minolta 5D that I purchased a few years ago specifically because it has the in-body image stabilation and I mostly use the 70-300mm lens when I'm out and about. I have a unique need in that I have Parkinson's and so something with good image stabilization is a must. I am hoping to move up to a larger lens as well.

I am wondering if there is really much of a difference in how much image stabilaztion one gets with the sony models in-body system verses going to a nikon or canon with VR lens. In my reading of reviews, it sounds like the sonys (A350 and A700 have some Image quality problems at higher ISO's) compared with nikon or canon. The guys I've talked to at the local photo shop favor the nikon and canon cameras (which is what I've been researching) but think I might benefit more from the sony because of the IS.

Any thoughts or suggestions that might help in the decision making process would be greatly appreciated. I do use a tripod much of the time, with a few exceptions for things like if I am canoeing or in the boat.

Thanks for any feedback you might have.

Denise

Well im not sure you wanna take a camera in a canoe or not but i think Steve or Dan can answer these questions..

[Jim Almquist]

The biggest improvement that I have seen in my shots is the tripod and just about everybody that I shot next to has used a tripod. It is almost a must when shooting longer glass but there are some who can get away with it. I almost always will use my monopod or tripod with my 100-400.

[mnfishingal]

Thanks guys!

What I'm mostly interested in is if you have any thoughts about the in-camera IS of the Sonys verses the lens VR system of the Nikon and Canons, in terms of whether one provides a little more latitude than the other to compensate for camera shake.

I've been amazed at how well the IS has worked with the minolta on hand-held shots, and yes, even in a canoe (which is the best place for some of those loon shots.)

Here are a couple of handheld shots taken while out on the water:

Thanks for any thoughts you might have.

[Steve Foss]

Denise, the in-camera stabilization works well at wide angle and mid ranges, but is not as effective with long lenses, say, 200mm and longer, as the Canon and Nikon in-lens stabilization.

There are technical reasons for that, but that's how it has shaken out.

If budget is a consideration, you can go with Canon and get their very nice 70-300 image stabilized lens, or if you have a bit more to spend, the 100-400L IS give you more reach.

I don't know the rundown with Nikon gear as well as I do Canon. I will add that a sturdy tripod will take you a long way with the challenges of Parkinson's.

[MARINERMAGNUM]

That's the question that has to be answered 1st-how much money are you willing to spend?

[Steve Foss]

Denise, I forgot to mention the 100-400, at three pounds, is the heavier of the two lenses. For me, a lens that weight is easier to hold steady handheld than a lighter lens, but there is a point in lens weight where heaviness yields diminishing returns with the ability to hold it steady, and I expect that for you the point of diminishing returns might be reached faster than in others.

MM mentioned price, a good indicator. The 70-300 is $600 plus, the 100-400 about $1,400. Both deliver very good image quality. Both will give you stronger stabilization at longer focal lengths than your current in-camera system.

Should you make the switch? I think it's a matter of what you want vs how much money you have to spend.

I've had only one client with Parkinson's. She did well handholding the Canon 400 f4 IS, which is a bit heavier than the 100-400, but it's hard to tell how you might do depending on how advanced your condition is.

[mnfishingal]

Thanks for the responses. Your comment, Steve, about the in-camera stabilization losing its effectiveness with long lens is just what I was wondering. You are also right on about being able to handle a little heavier lens better than a lighter one, at least that has been the case for me. I haven't tried using a monopd yet but I'm sure it would have its advantages, especially in terms of being less bulky to carry and quicker to set up.

The cameras I've been considering are the Canon 40D or XSi or the Nikon D90. Any thoughts on what might be the better buy or other ones I should consider. I would definitely need to go to a IS lens and would love to just jump into the 100-400 lens but will have to decide between going on many MN adventures with a 70-300 lens or staying closer to home with a 100 - 400 lens (at least for awhile.)

I appreciate all of your suggestions.

Thanks!

[Steve Foss]

I guess, Denise, that in the Canon realm you can save about $350 by going with an XSi over a 40D. Image quality is pretty much a wash between the two bodies, and you can make stunning images with either. The 40D will offer a lot more features that you will like and will operate faster, but for image quality alone there's little difference.

IMO, if saving $350 allows you to swing into the 100-400 right off the bat, then it's a tradeoff worth making. All today's entry level and mid-level digital bodies are excellent, and it's the glass that is the more important investment over time unless you have some actual need for the extra speed and sophistication of the 40D over the XSi.

Worth noting is you can buy lightly used 40D bodies for only a bit more than the XSi costs new on several camera for-sale boards.

You could get into a 40D and 100-400 for about $1,700-$1,800 total used, and if you were to buy the 70-300 and XSi new, you'd be looking at about $1,200.

Just something to consider. Shoot me an e-mail if you like and I'll give you a link to a very, very reliable buy/sell board dedicated specifically to Canon, which is very active all the time. I've bought and sold a lot there with great results.

As already pointed out, I'm not as conversant in Nikon stuff, but the D90 is an excellent body. Nikon offers two zooms to 400mm, the 80-400 and 200-400. Both offer VR (Vibration Reduction). Both offer excellent image quality. The 80-400 is very slow focusing, however (significantly slower than the 100-400), and the 200-400 is over $5,000.

Whichever system you buy, you could look at Sigma's very good 150-500 OS (Optical Stabilization), which is under $1,000, but though you get the extra reach, which is a big deal for wildlife/avian, it's a pound heavier than the 100-400. From a tripod/monopod, that wouldn't be much of a handicap. Siggie also makes a 120-400 with OS that's lighter, and costs under $900. Both offer very good image quality.

[Birdsong]

Whichever system you buy, you could look at Sigma's very good 150-500 OS (Optical Stabilization), which is under $1,000, but though you get the extra reach, which is a big deal for wildlife/avian, it's a pound heavier than the 100-400. From a tripod/monopod, that wouldn't be much of a handicap.

Don't ya have to love these guys? "From a tripod/monopod that wouldn't be much of a handicap." That's because they turn the camera backwards, sling the lens over their shoulder and go. Pretty cool. I tried it. With an XTi and 70-300 (much lighter) I can last for about 1/2 mile before the shoulder gives out. I bought my equipment with weight in mind, knowing that the getting around was as much a part of this hobby for me as the shooting. However, I am learning to love my monopod, because with the quick release, I can throw the camera around my neck or in a back pack and use the monopod as a hiking stick. HS--human stabilization system! (This isn't the monopod designed specifically for this purpose--wouldn't take the weight of a DSLR with zoom. It does have foam around the top section, however, which really helps in the cold.) However, I had a chance to use a 40D quite a bit last week at winter camp. It's owner, knowing I had the little brother would throw it at me to grab some group pictures. The weight felt really good in my hands. I think I understand you to be saying the same thing. The extra weight is almost steadying. However, he didn't have a zoom lens on, and I never took it into the woods. I'm beginning to think, though, that I could handle it by my method, and you could too. I love that you asked this question, and I love it when someone with Parkinsons can take that diagnosis in stride and never look back.

[Dbl]

Frankly I think the in-camera stabilization works fairly well as Steve said under 300mm. Nikon and Canon have invested all their money in stabilization built into the lens and until market share begins to suffer because they don't offer in body stabilization I don't think you will see it in their bodies. Not likely to happen anytime soon I would think.

You did say you currently have a Minolta? Those lenses work with the Sony correct? You already have a 70-300 so all you are looking at is an upgrade in a body for now. I am not sure what the recommendation is regarding use of stabilization with the Sony when on a tripod. The nice thing about in camera stabilization is it will work with ANY lens you put on the camera, that could be beneficial. Something to look at. Just throwing out some thoughts and ideas and giving you more to think about with your choices.