Seeking prosumer camera purchase recommendations

I've never been into photography and currently have a Canon Powershot 5SiS for the obligatory shots of family occasionally needed. We recently moved into a home that is elevated 200 feet above and 4,200 feet from the Pismo Beach, CA coast.

This past week, lots of feeding and breaching whales have been visible. It would be fun to get some good, close shots but the Canon, if I'm not mistaken, is only a 12x physical zoom and whales come out as tiny dots at full zoom. The whales range from about 300 feet to a mile offshore. So I'm trying to shoot objects between 1 and 2 miles distant.

I'd like to get something of a better quality with much higher zoom capabilities. I'm familiar with terms like full frame CMOS and dual processors and somewhat understand their technology and benefits. I've played around with manual mode and understand the relationship of F-stop and exposure time to arrive at the correct amount of light. So feel free to be very technical in your recommendations.

I have not set an upper level budget and have very quickly looked at Canon's like the 5D's and 7D's that list for around 1500 to 2500 for bodies only, some with telephoto 50 to 250 mm lenses. I think maybe I'd like to stay around 2500 for body and lens but that's not firm.

One thing I'd like to know is how to equate the mm rating on a telephoto lens - something like a lens with a 50 to 250 mm rating with the 12x's rating system. I would imagine that the 50 mm might equal X times zoom while the 250 would be much higher in the "X" rating system.

I would like to buy something only once, even if I have to wait and save a bit before I buy. Too many times in my past, I buy at entry level and take a beating upgrading a short time later to the top of the line or near it. I don't have any brand preferences. I'm a very technical person so even though I don't know too much about photography now, I can learn very quickly and lack of knowledge on my part now should not be a reason to withhold a recommendation.

I'd appreciate some recommendations and your reasons why.

I think that lens specs that say "12x zoom" refer to the total range, such as 10mm to 120mm. For my Nikon DSLR, I've got a 18-135mm zoom lens that is a good all purpose lens. The "normal" focal length is about 35mm, I think, and will basically provide no magnification and no wide-angle effect.

For airshows where I'm trying to take pictures of aircraft some distance away, I find that a 70-300mm lens does a pretty good job. The cost was in the ballpark of $550, I think. Between the two lenses, the overall range is 18mm to 300mm, or 17x. Longer lenses are available, but the price starts increasing fast.

A DSLR with a good lens should deliver better results than a similar point & shoot camera, if only because fewer compromises are made in the lens, and the sensor element is larger. You can crop the picture without losing too much in sharpness or resolution.

The planes I photograph are typically 40 feet long and up to 1 mile away. A blue whale might be 100 feet long, so 2 miles seems like a reasonable distance.. maybe...
Time for some quick math... an object that is 100 feet long, located 5280 feet away, occupies an angle of view that is 1.08 degrees. That's a small sliver of viewing angle.
A check of the Nikon lens spec says that it's angular view will narrow down to 8 degrees at the 300mm setting. Well, the whale will only fill up 1/8 of the viewfinder (left to right). If you decide to buy a longer lens, you might want to consider budgeting for a tripod too! The long lenses get hard to hold steady.

regards,
Steve K.

Hi from a co-owner of the Canon S5Is

and congrats that you are moving on.

I've yet to master all the options in it.

I would love a tele-converter but needs must.

S

I have an S5IS and it's a great camera. Within it's limitations. Max zoom on it is the 35mm equivalent of about 430mm lens. The Canon 5D2, fabulous camera, is a "full frame" camera, so whatever the lens says is essentially what you get. And you need to tripod mount the camera with at least a 400mm lens, preferably 500.

The 7D is a "crop sensor" camera which has an APS C sensor, which is smaller than full frame and whatever lens you put on you multiply the lens length by 1.6 to get the "equivalent". So that 400 mm lens would be the equivalent of 640mm. The 7D is an advanced camera and is really a pro level body. Combined with a 400mm lens and a tripod should get you some great shots. And the resolution should be high enough to crop the photos if necessary and still get tack sharp pictures.

I am a fan of Canon equipment, but Nikon is also excellent and you won't go wrong with either.

Post some of your whale photos.

I'm thinking in this case, the lens would cost more than the camera -- you're going to be wanting some high zoom lenses - perhaps you could also get a doubler "Canon EF 2X II" (OEM is 300$, I believe there are clones for cheaper) and a medium-far range telephoto instead?

though that would be assuming you're not getting any "standard" lenses for normal shooting .

Steve K said:

I think that lens specs that say "12x zoom" refer to the total range, such as 10mm to 120mm. snip*

Click to expand...

That's spot on.
If your a moving up to prosumer level DSLRs, you might as well forget that kind of terminology. It's just a marketing gimmick IMO.

I have had people comming up to me pointing at the big 70-200/2.8 lens attached to my camera asking "How many times zoom is that?" 200/70=less than x3. They are usually dissapointed.
Another bigger lens I use is a 200-400/4, which is only 'x2'. Another single focal 400/2.8 is even bigger, but since it has a fixed focal length, only 'x1'.

The camera you are using now has a focal length of 36-432mm. The aperture changes according to the focal length too, starting at f2.7 on the wide end, getting slower (darker) to f3.5 on the tele end (actually not that bad).

I just checked a popular store B&H and saw that a Canon 400/5.6 lens alone costs $1,180.
So does that mean that you would be better off with your current camera with the 432mm tele, than getting a prosumer DSLR and also a separate lens?

What's so great about a DSLR?
Why lug around a heavy bulky camera when the super zoom P&S has a longer and faster lens??
Why would the image be better on a DSLR?

Besides better build, faster operation, numerous settings to accomodate your needs etc etc..
The answer is: The size and quality of the image sensor, the heart of any digital camera body.
With prosumer level DSLRs, the sensor size gets much bigger, which can achieve higher sensitivity (less noise at higher ISO) and image detail.
You will get a better idea of the difference in size used in various cameras by looking at the chart in this link from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

I am not qualified to explain the technical details, but do you think cramming 10million pixels in to a 1/2.5 inch sensor and the same pixels in to a full frame sensor will give you the same results? Pixel count is important, but the size of each pixels is as well.
Again, I can't go into the relation between sensor size and focal length, but will just say that the bigger the sensor, the bigger the lens you need to get the same focal length. That explains why the DSLR lenses are so big and heavy, and why the compact size (though big for a P&S) of the S5IS is achieved.

BVH said:

I would like to buy something only once, *snip*

Click to expand...

I would invest in the lens first as the technology does not advance as quickly as the body. You may be able to pick up a D30 or D40 at a low price second hand to get your feet wet, and after some experience, dive in headlong with the current offerings.

Like Glasstream posted above, because of the smaller (but much bigger than the S5IS) sensor, some of the cameras (including the D30, 40, 50) will give you a x1.6 longer focal length. The 400/5.6 I mentioned before would become a 640mm. Add a x1.4 extender, which will slow the aperture by 1 stop (f5.6 will become f8) and you have a 900mm. Add a x2 extender which will double the focal length, but slow the aperture down by 2 stops (f5.6 will become f11) and you have a 1,280mm. F11 will not be a problem if it is a suuny clear day and you have a good tripod.

Also, now that you are blessed with the opportunity to watch and wait for these magnificent creatures from a vantage point, if you are patient, I am sure you will have lucky days when they get closer and don't need such a long lens.

Oh, and if you have not seen McGizmo's whale shots, take a look at this. (Can't find the amazing other one right now). Instead of using a long lens, there are other ways

Note: All focal length in this post is based on the 35mm format.

The Canon SX30 is the latest iteration, a few generations up, from your S5 (I own a S3). The SX30 has 35X zoom from ultra wide 24mm up to an astounding 840mm. I think you can get it for around the low $400's. It's either something like that or a DSLR with a very heavy, expensive lens that you'll need a tripod to shoot with. I compromise with a relatively low end Canon DSLR and the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS for my zoom lens. It's an affordable value lens with very good reviews for the price With the crop factor, it goes out almost as far as the S3/S5, provides much better quality, and is manageable to carry around.

Thank you all for the great info. I certainly have not mastered my 5SiS. I was just thinking that it could not zoom far enough for my needs.

I had an idea the sensor size, everything else being equal, was the backbone of image quality. I can relate this to telescopes in that all else being equal, an increase in the size of the mirror/lens makes a huge difference in light gathering ability and hense, the capability to magnify the image with less loss of resolution.

That Wiki chart really drives home the difference in total sensor area. A huge difference between full frame and what I have now. If I'm understanding correctly, a larger lens is needed to provide adequate amounts of light and a large enough light footprint to fill a larger sensor? What the larger sensor yields is a much higher resolution image of which a portion can be cropped/enlarged (the whales would be larger and much easier to see, but I would lose field of view) without losing much detail/resolution as compared to the loss when enlarging images from my cam?

One thing I forgot to mention that was mentioned above (and I've wondered about this), is that with my current cam, I have to wait "forever" between shots which makes trying to catch the best shot of the whale out of the water very difficult. If I had a rapid-shoot capability, I could just fire off about 2 seconds - maybe 10 shots to catch the best one. Is it the quality of the processor in the higher end cams that allows this?

By the way, I have a very good Manfroto tripod and liquid movement pan/tilt head so no need to spend any more in that area.

Do the prosumer cams have a better quality viewfinder/lcd? What I'm having to do now (with the cam on the tripod) is to aim the cam in the approximate direction of where the whales last surfaced, hold one finger on the shoot button an hold and look thru the binoculars in the other hand so I can really see the whale clearly. It makes me laugh just thinking about it! When looking thru the grainy viewfinder lcd of my cam, it's almost impossible to see the best time to shoot.

I'm confused on the partial quote from Nekomane's post "starting at f2.7 on the wide end, getting slower (darker) to f3.5 on the tele end" when used in relation to F-Stop. Doesn't the F-Stop have to do with the aperture size?

I haven't even touched on "ISO" yet. I sort of know that this dealt with the graininess of film material in the old days but I really don't know how it relates in digital photography.

Okay, get your glasses on...







Yeah, can't crop very much without losing resolution.

BVH said:

... hold one finger on the shoot button an hold and look thru the binoculars in the other hand so I can really see the whale clearly. It makes me laugh just thinking about it!

Click to expand...

This suggestion is a total shot in the dark, but is worth trying...
On vacation in Fla. once with my sons, we were trying to get a shot of some large birds that were about 200 yds away. The little P&S I had couldn't come close to getting a 'close up', even on max zoom. We did have my good binoculars with us, and my son suggested I hold the binocs in front of the camera. It worked! It is hard to keep them perfectly aligned, but it can be done. Using a tripod and an ACE bandage or something would make it a lot easier. Give it a try.

Thrifty

The Nikon D7000 looks really promising. It eclipses the D300 in many aspects for a price not much more than the D90. I've shot with Nikon and Canon DSLRs before, and I liked over interface and feel of the Nikons way more than the Canons. To each his own though.

If I had a good viewfinder lcd, that might work. But it's so grainy at that distance.

That's a long shot for a closeup. Lots of $$$!


Check out:

http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK


CHDK (Canon Hack Development Kit) is a program (available for your current camera) that doesn't alter your software (it rides on the sd card) and opens up tons of features on your camera you may could use. Things like motion detection to fire camera (fast enough to capture lightning), raw files, unlimited focus bracketing, high-speed continuous burst, exposure bracketing and others...

maybe add a 2x teleconverter


The canon G12 or 7D sounds like new good ones. A friend has the 7D and loves it.


This page is a great review site and gives you zoom of all stock canon models:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/canon/

Lens Reviews:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/


cheers

If that's the field of view at 432mm (full frame equivalent), then you're going to need at least 1000mm+ equivalent to frame the picture well. Unfortunately cheap consumer zooms don't work well with teleconverters which means you're going to need to go way out of your budget to get a good picture with a DSLR.

You could always consider renting a supertelephoto lens and tripod.

If you're not opposed to considering buying used equipment, where you can get some substantial savings over buying brand new then take a look at this site. They're pretty highly rated.

http://www.keh.com/

Lots of good insights are brought up. Stuff I've even forgotten over the years. I won't sacrifice my dslr as my school has all the lenses I could possibly need. Hope you make a great choice