cameras and lenses are actually pretty poor for profit. There isn't a huge amount of mark-up on them for retailers nor for the manufacturers. As a result things like batteries and many other accessories get a much larger mark-up and thus provide a big area for profit (this is why so many retailers want you to buy a UV filter for protection - they get a much much bigger mark up on price so the profit is much greater). Thus 3rd party batteries can easily undercut without undercutting on performance - of course there are bad 3rd party options so researh a bit and make sure you get a reputable 3rd party brand.
You have purchased a good setup and will be very happy with results. Third party batteries often save money by leaving out a safety cutoff that can prevent the battery from overheating and catching fire. Not worth the risk. BTW some are also making counterfeit Canon batteries that look like a genuine Canon but are not. This is why you should only buy batteries from an authorized dealer and never from Ebay for example. Third party will also be much less reliable, as noted in this person's experience: Why I'm Giving Up On Third-Party Batteries (and Why I'll Always Pack Extra Power) Others may disagree, but IMO there is no reason to skimp on the battery. A good Canon battery should last years and years, so it's not a bad investment.
I think for now, I'll get that set of two third party batteries that I linked in my previous post because it seems like those particular batteries have the appropriate safety controls, and also I'm completely skint having just spent so much money on the camera. Once I have saved up some more money though, I possibly will buy a spare battery or two from Canon themselves as I have no doubt they are more reliable and will last longer.
As I've said before, you may find you don't need a spare battery, except if you're in the wilds for a week and there's no electricity. When I was in Tanzania, in the Serengeti for four days without electricity, I never needed to use a spare. And after a week camping on Kilimanjaro the batteries in both cameras were still was fully charged (admittedly, I only used them occasionally as there was not much wildlife to see, but they do hold their charge well). I'd try it out at your local zoo first and see how it stands up to taking lots of photos first before worrying about spares. You might be surprised at the performance. Hix
Having now used your camera in Plock and Lodz, how have you found it? The weather (light) probably has probably been inimical to photography, but hopefully you have enjoyed getting to grips with your SLR.
I have found it to be excellent and definitely do not regret going with a DSLR in the end. For general enclosure pictures or record pictures of signs and enclosures, I'm continuing to carry my old compact camera around and I'm finding that arrangement works fine since it's too much of a pain to change lenses very often (though I did change to the smaller lens for use in the aquarium and terrarium at Plock and an occasional lens change is fine). As far as the battery goes, I have found that one battery was fine for each of the zoos that I've done so far but after Plock Zoo and some birding that evening, the battery was nearly dead so for a big 8+ hour zoo day or for a few days of birding without being able to charge I will need a second battery. Before buying the camera, my biggest concern is that I wouldn't have enough reach at 300mm when birding, but in practice with a few local birding trips, I've found it to be fine. And I can considerably crop the images, so in practice I can get closer images than with the compact superzoom camera because those images couldn't really be cropped at all at an equivalent focal length of 720mm. One annoyance that I have found is that in terrarium buildings, I've found that the 18-55mm lens is too wide, but the 70-300 mm will only focus at 1.5m/4.9ft which is annoying. So in the future (probably a year or so in the future) I might be looking at getting an in between lens, something like an 18-135mm. The weight and the size is also an inconvenience, but I knew that would be the case before I bought it, so not complaining and it's no worse than I expected.
One inexpensive alternative for the terrariums is to get a 12mm extension tube for your 70-300. Canon makes one and so do aftermarket brands (aftermarket either alone or in sets of three, with the others being thicker like 25mm). This is a tube with electronic contacts but no glass that mounts on the camera body and then your lens mounts to that. It turns your existing lens into a macro lens that will focus close. Please note that it will ONLY focus close, it will no longer focus at regular distances (so you can't just leave it on all the time). Just a thought.
If you get extension tubes most get the Kenko kind with the AF contacts; they are well made and affordable. Canon makes them too, but they are a high profit item for them and thus come with a very high price tag (for the cost of 1 canon one you can get a full kenko 3 set).
Hmm, that's an interesting idea and something that I hadn't heard of before but definitely something to consider. Thanks very much for the suggestion.
Coming very late to this Laughing Dove, but I use third party batteries and have done for many years over several Canon DSLRs and battery formats. I've never had any issues. Far from it, they perform better than the standard issue Canon items, seeming to last longer both on a charge and in terms of charging cycles before performance starts to fade. At around 14 quid a pair from 7dayshop I can carry enough to not need to worry about running out of juice. As for focusing close, yes extension tubes will work, but that's more of a studio solution really. A macro lens is the real solution; far more flexible. I treated myself to one last year after fancying one for a while. Opens up a whole new world. I'm still learning with mine really, especially managing depth of field as there's never enough light in zoo exhibits.. but I love that lens already!
Rather than opening a new thread I thought I'd just piggy-back on this one. I'm also going to be buying my first DSLR soon, having previously just owned a point and shoot compact. Has anything changed in the last few months such that the advice @Yassa gave, which was universally accepted I think, needs updating?
@FunkyGibbon - That is a good setup provided you don't mind changing lenses. Even for a professional level shooter like me, changing is a pain. Lately I have taken to carrying two bodies, one with a standard zoom and one with a telephoto zoom. I did this on my recent Austria trip and not having to change was so freeing (even though I had to carry a camera backpack with two heavy pro cameras). Canon is the top selling camera brand in the world (for the last decade plus) so I assume they are easy to purchase and repair in your part of the world. However if you find more dealers in your area stock Nikon (or photographers you know shoot Nikon) then you could go that way.
Just to let you know @FunkyGibbon that instead of the 50-250 telephoto lens, I got the 70-300. I find that most pictures that I take are right at the top end of 300.
As I understand it (which I may not fully understand) the purpose of the newer STM autofocus (like the 55-250) is because it works better with video. However, for still photography I think the traditional USM autofocus (like the 70-300) actually works better?
I'm going to really show my ignorance now, does this just mean you are zoomed in as far as you possibly can?
One thing I've noticed from my travels is that although I go out with the intention of finding some interesting bird, it's much more likely that I'll end up spending more time on close-ups of flowers and insects. As I understand it the ideal lens for this stuff is a macro, but I should be fine with the 18-55 while I'm learning? Either way I suppose lens changing is just something I'll have to get used to. The only friend who does a reasonable amount of photography does have a Nikon, but Canons will also be freely available over here and that seems to be a slightly more future proof direction to go in. When I have time I'll head down to a store to check out prices but as far as I'm aware it's significantly cheaper over here.
I've said it a few times already but I'll say it again: buy the best lens you can afford, and then buy a body to go with it. If you buy a crap lens, then no matter how good the camera is, you'll only ever take crap photos. Hix
Let's talk macro. True macro lenses are fixed focal lengths, meaning they do not zoom. Usually they come in three lengths: 50mm, 100 or 105mm, 180mm. They are versatile in the sense you can focus really close (macro) and also focus at infinity for normal shots. If you put a macro attachment on a standard lens (either a screw on filter or an extension tube), then the lens only focuses close and the attachment must be removed to focus at normal distances. However if you only do macro occasionally, this is a small and inexpensive solution. My standard zoom is one Canon came out with a couple years ago that has a macro switch on it. It is the 24-70 f4L (L meaning pro series, so perhaps out of your budget). In normal mode it works like any standard zoom but if you set it to 70mm and flip the macro switch and push just past 70mm then ...voila' you have a macro lens. This is an ideal setup for me as I only do macro occasionally. Finally beware of misleading marketing labels. Many zoom lenses have macro in the description but these in fact are NOT macro lenses. They just focus a little closer than previous versions of the same zoom range, so they call it macro. Of course many standard zooms do focus relatively close (around 8 or 10 inches) so this may be a deciding factor when you are looking at lenses. Another feature to look for is IS (Image Stabilization) assuming you will not be using a tripod.
I read that before and I thought it was quite illuminating, but I think that the prices quoted on here for the suggested 'starter' kit are pretty much where my budget is at.
Yes, 300mm is zoomed in as far as possible and 70mm is as un-zoomed in as possible. Your current camera should have the millimetres written on the lens and I think it should have two numbers written on it, an actual number and an 'equivalent' which is what you actually get. A lens for a DSLR won't have an equivalent focal length written on since it depends on the body, but for the ones you'll be looking at it is x1.4. The 70-300mm lens that I have won't focus any closer than 1.5 metres so for aquariums and pictures of plants, I have used the 18-55mm lens. Though you should have a vague idea of what you're going to photograph before hand since changing lenses is a pain.
