Off topic, what SLR for birders?

[tylerken]

I agree with everything that Emil said. A well reasoned reply that mirrors my own observations and experience.

--
Ken
Canon 350D + 400D, EF-S 17-85 IS, 100-400L IS, 400 5.6L
Panasonic FZ20 & FZ50
http://ken.smugmug.com/

 

[gfmason]

http://www.digibird.com/

 

[PhilD73]

Yep... Smaller sensors, in some ways, are better than larger lenses for landscape for example - more of depth of field compared with a larger sensor..

Actually, this is a pretty interesting concept!

Most of the time, I see many here on the forums complaining about
this exact same thing!

In otherwords, many don't like the smaller sensors because they
have a tendency to increase depth of field, because there are those
who don't want any depth of field.

However, there are those of us who like that extra stop or two of
depth of field, because now we don't have to stop the lens down as
far (thus resulting in slower shutter speeds) to get the same range
of focus we once had to close the lens down to f:11 or f:16.

--
J. M. Daniels
Denver, Colorado
Panasonic FZ10, FZ50 & Fuji S602Z owner & operator
Remember . . . always keep the box and everything that came in it!

--
http://www.phildrinkwater.co.uk

 

[Joesiv]

I agree with everything that Emil said. A well reasoned reply that
mirrors my own observations and experience.

Me too...

While I konw many pros that use Nikon, it's usually for commercial things, or wedding photography. If you need the stabilized telephoto, Canon seems to be the way to go. Pros want the best, so if you also want the best you can often see what they're using, if you look at sportin events, soccer, football, you'll see a whole wack of those white lens', those are Canon

--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Panasonic Lumix FZ50, Pentax *ist D
http://joesiv.smugmug.com

 

[IKB]

They will all do a good job, though the fanboys will steer you towards their chosen make. Look outside the inevitable suggestions of Canon and Nikon, though check them out too. Things to look for are:

How does the body feel to hold and are the controls accessable?

What is the viewfinder like?

Are lenses in the focal length that you need made to fit your chosen body by the body manufacturer or third party manufacturers?

What is the second hand lens market like (think ebay etc) for the choses make?

Can you afford lenses with optical stabilisation or would stabilisation built into the body be a better way to go?

If you shoot at iso400 and below then the greater resolution of a 10MP DSLR will be the way to go but above that the 6MP DSLRs perform better due to much lower noise and preservation of details.

Consider a second hand body (ebay etc).

--
Malcy
----------------



http://www.flickr.com/photos/malcy/sets
http://picasaweb.google.com/lumachrome

 

[gil]

factor : ). Actually even cheap and lower resolution DSLRs could do birding if one could invest time to learn the limitations of their gears and the " basics of photography" and not depending too much in post processing : ). I have seen both great and cr@ppy shots from high end gears. Of course great shots doesn't always comes free. I could do comparable shots with my cheapo gears if given the same shooting opportunities and I use luck too : ).
cheers,
gil

--
**************
No baits, calls, tricks but will use luck.
Still kicking 100% hand held and jpg.
new galleries coming...hopefully

 

[Telecorder]

Trevor Carpenter wrote:
So the question is, you are a birder who wants an SLR and a couple
of lenses what would you buy? Although you may use the camera for
other things you won't consider these when making the decision,
birds are everything. Price probably is an issue but not to the
point of sticking second rate lenses on.

Trevor---

So as not to lose sight of you original inquiry, I'd address it with a question(s) back--

Is the intent to go pro and sell images or is the intent, as in mine -- more as an amateur and for personal gratification/prints? Keep in mind, as well, is if one is starting out in digital, the high end doesn't get one there on its own immediately. What's their level of experience?

If to go pro, many have expressed sound insights, gear and reasons.

Iif not as a pro, I'd suggest consideration of starting out with probably a Pentax and Bigma or the like. In-Body stabilization and a great 75-750 EQ range would cover most field circumstances for birding.

Others may disagree and/or have their own biases but, for me, my D50 + Bigma has covered the bases for my desires/style -- less, of course, the VR/OIS aspect that I've found can be worked around for most circumstances both while handheld and when using a good tripod/gimbal head.

Tha's my 2-cent opinion and I'm stickin' to it...
;-}

Telecorder (Dave)
FZee5/FZee30+RD-S+OlyTC1.7X
Dee50+Nikon 35mm F2.0D-AF+Nikkor18-70DX+Tam70-300L+BIGMA 50-500 EX HSM
My Image Galleries --

http://www.nikonians-images.com/galleries/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=121399&password=

http://Telecorder.smugmug.com/

 

[superduc]

Leica V Lux haha

 

[kankushok]

Just wondering. Are any pentax owners concerned about the pentax K100d or K110d's relatively small buffer and slow continuous shooting?

 

[Manne]

Newbie question,

How do get a decent shot of a bird flying overhead with your equipment mounted on a tripod? I can’t see it, what’s the secret. I have been using my FZ50 with an RDS and not every shot is a keeper. The action is usually over in a couple of seconds. I would love to have a little better image quality.

Cheers

Manne
from Wasaga Beach, Ontario
FZ50 / A95



http://www.pbase.com/km_mm/manfreds_gallery

 

[pMann]

I recently bought my first dslr and a couple of lenses to further get into nature/wildlife/bird photography. I bought a refurbished 20D and two sigma lenses all for under AU$2,100. I think it's possible to start small

 

[Trevor Carpenter]

Newbie question,
How do get a decent shot of a bird flying overhead with your
equipment mounted on a tripod? I can’t see it, what’s
the secret. I have been using my FZ50 with an RDS and not every
shot is a keeper. The action is usually over in a couple of
seconds. I would love to have a little better image quality.

Manne

This question will get lost in this thread, it's a bit off topic, why don't you post it as a new thread, I'm sure you will get lots of responses

--



FZ50, Oly TCON17, Raynox DCR150 (need a lot of practice with the latter)
My Galleries are at
http://picasaweb.google.com/trevorfcarpenter
My website is
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/birdsofhants/index.html

 

[digifan]

I'm pretty sure depth of field is affected by sensor size. So,
while you will get f2 in terms of light, you might get something
more like f4 in terms of depth of field.

And than I'd say it's an advantage having more depth of field on such a long lens at a larger aperture. Too shallow DoF is a dealbreaker too. IS could be helpfull but not the end all be all.

A good mono or tripod is far more valuable for birders than IS. The lenses used are so heavy you can't handhold your setup long anyway, and since you need patience to get a good shot nobody would want to handhold the cam. So IMO what it comes down too is:
Good sturdy, best weatherproofed, body, (E-1, E-3?, D200, D2..., K10D, 1D...)
Long lenses with big aperture (300mm and over)
Good monopod.

Combination I would choose if I had the money (E-1 and 300mm F2) just need the 300mm and I'm set.

35mmFF doesn't add value for birders if the IQ you get is approx. the same with another cam and noise is highly overrated on the Canon's. If you look at the new Nikon D40x and E-410 samples canon will no longer be the only one in the high ISO ballpark.

Just in case this is useful info

--
http://www.phildrinkwater.co.uk

--
Digifan

 

[Joel Orlinsky]

For birding, the choice of lens is probably much more critical than the choice of camera. It always seems that your long lens is never quite long enough. When shooting birds with really long lenses, IS can be an enormous help. That pretty much means use either Canon or Sony with the IS in the camera.
--
Joel Orlinsky

 

[Trevor Carpenter]

For birding, the choice of lens is probably much more critical than
the choice of camera. It always seems that your long lens is never
quite long enough. When shooting birds with really long lenses, IS
can be an enormous help. That pretty much means use either Canon or
Sony with the IS in the camera.
--
Joel Orlinsky

Thanks for all the responses that have been posted in this thread, I have lots to tell the people who were asking me questions. Given Joels' last point am I right in saying that only two manufacturers have IS in the camera and one of them is Canon who the vast majority of people on this thread would recomend for bird photography.

--



FZ50, Oly TCON17, Raynox DCR150 (need a lot of practice with the latter)
My Galleries are at
http://picasaweb.google.com/trevorfcarpenter
My website is
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/birdsofhants/index.html

 

[IKB]

Manufacturers with in camera IS (i.e. every lens is stabilised) are Sony (A100), Pentax (K10D, K100D), Samsung (GX10 a rebadged Pentax K10D), Olympus E510 (on sale soon).

Manufacturers who rely on in lens stabilisation are Canon, Nikon, Panasonic/Leica.

--
Malcy
----------------



http://www.flickr.com/photos/malcy/sets
http://picasaweb.google.com/lumachrome

 

[illy]

are you in the UK? if so Tesco has the Canon 400D at a amazing price, £399.97, plus you get £50 caashback from Canon if you are quick enough. All you need then is a decent birding lens, and i've seen some great shots with the Bigma on the Canon.

http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.200-1666.aspx

 

[ejmartin]

And as I mentioned before, at the entry level there is not so much
to choose in terms of image quality, most are 8-10MP camera bodies,
and for instance the Sigma 50-500 is available in most mounts.
The in-body stabilization of the Sony or Pentax for instance will
convert this into a stabilized lens. It then comes down to a variety of
other factors for which people need to decide for themselves what
is important, eg

How good is the viewfinder? People seem to like the Pentax on this
score; the Canons could be better, esp the Rebel series (350D/400D)
which have a dark viewfinder with low magnification (around .84 IIRC)

How fast is the focus? Canon USM and Nikon AFS lenses are very fast
to focus. Sigma HSM are also good; I don't recall if the Sigma 50-500
is an HSM lens.

How accurate is the focus? How is the low light capability?

How well does servo tracking keep up with a moving target?
Canon's is OK, but I find it frustrating at times (probably flaws
in my technique as much as the camera).

What is the frame rate? The Canon 30D is 5fps, 400D is 3fps;
most others are 3fps or less. That can be frustrating if the action
is fast or you want the right wing position on a flyer, and the
burst rate is too slow.

How big is the buffer? Even more frustrating than the last one
is waiting for the last burst to clear the buffer while something
good is happening and you can't capture it.

So those are some of the issues. I've mentioned my preference
in an earlier post, but the recent entries from other manufacturers
have made the entry level market much more competitive than
it was a couple of years ago. I still think Canon has the edge,
but not by a lot, and it is definitely worth giving the others
a look. If however one is potentially interested in
upgrading to high end gear, Canon is definitely the way to go.

--
emil
--



http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/

 

[Ching-Kuang Shene]

The 4/3-system has
a crop factor of 2, and its small sensor permits very large
aperture telephoto lenses with a comparable size with the
traditional SLR lenses.

Do you think that the Oly's have a "fast enough" focus speed for
birds in flight? From what I've read, generally Canon and Nikon
are usually considered the two best options if focus speed is one
of your top criteria.

For entry level DSLR bodies, focus speed are not not different. This "fast enough" argument only happens in higher end DSLR bodies that not many people would bother to consider at the very beginning. And, don't mention that Canon's lower end DSLR bodies have a higher level of AF missing rate than the others. Given this fact, all DSLR entry level bodies not not very different, and, as a result, the focal length advantage goes to 4/3 system. A Sigma 50-500 becomes 100-1000 with a reasonable level price. If you have a budget constraint and wish to shooting birds, would you think a 1D MkIII with Canon 800mm IS USM, a Nikon D2X with a Nikon 600mm AFS, or a Olympus entry level body with a Sigma 50-500? I believe this is an obvious choice even though people do dream for a 600mm or 800mm.

This reasoning comes from my own experience. I currently have a reasonably complete Nikon system from low end to high end; but, I would not hesitate to tell people who have a budget constraints that go for a realistic decision rather than dreaming about big name with big guns.

CK

 

[Joesiv]

Not sure how on topic it is, but I went out yesterday with my FZ50 and my Pentax (on a monopod), and the difference in shooting style is very apparent.

I found the Pentax a joy to shoot birds and such (mated with a 70-300 lens), focus speed if it didn't miss was very fast. the optical viewfinder was quite amazing However, the sadness came when I looked over my pictures later and realized that I was nearly 1-2 stops off on my exposure on nearly all of them... still gotsa get used to reviewing my pictures AFTER I shoot

This is where the EVF is really nice, however, tracking quick birds was a lot harder. I found the lag annoying, even though if I didn't have the DSLR there, I would probably be fine with the lag (which really isn't that bad!). Seeing what the picture would be like before I shot it was also nice.

Oh, and I liked how my birds in the sky had nice deep depth of field, everything seemed to be in focus, though the DSLR missed focus a few times, and it was VERY apparent for BIFs. If birds are flying steadily (like snow geese ) the EVF is fine for BIF's, I may need to share some images later.

Though, snapping RAW images as fast as I want to was a joy, I love being trigger happy

In the end, shooting at 400ISO all day at shutterspeeds up to 1/4000th of a second, with a 300mm lens (equiv 450), was quite nice, and this wasn't even ISed.

I'm pretty sure any DSLR would work fine for most amateur birders, my kit cost me around 500 USD, and I can say it's clearly better than my FZ for birding. I just need to get used to it a bit more. If I had better glass, the difference would be even greater
--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Panasonic Lumix FZ50, Pentax *ist D
http://joesiv.smugmug.com