Compact cameras best for birds?

[C_o_s]

I'm looking to buy my next *compact* camera - by which I mean, a camera small and light enough that I will always have it with me in my bag, regardless of whether I had any thought of taking pictures. So when I see something at work, at a friend's house, on my walk to the store... I'll have this camera.

My previous compact is a waterproof camera that doubles as a camera for snorkeling, an Olympus TG4. I've ended up using it for birds quite a lot, because it's the camera I always have with me when I happen to see a cool bird. It's a great camera for a compact and gets excellent pictures, but as an underwater camera it has the disadvantage of very limited zoom. There's a pretty small lightweight 2x zoom attachment for it, but I don't always have that with me.

For my next compact, I'd like one more optimized for birds. Obviously it won't quite match the better larger cameras, and unfortunately whenever I post this question I get responses from people trying to convince me to get something larger. I might get something larger, but that wouldn't be the camera that is *always* with me. So whether I get a better camera or not, I'm going to have a compact, and the point of my question here isn't what the best overall birding camera for me might be, it's what the best *compact* cameras for photographing birds might be.

Within the range of compromise that compact cameras provide, I'd like something with better zoom than the TG4 (easy!), that has an accurate fast autofocus that works quickly in medium to slightly low light (just after dawn and early evening), takes a very short time to power on and get the first photo (the TG4 is very good at this), and gets high quality images for the small sensor.

I also like to take photos of insects and details of flowers, so a good macro mode is important (the TG4 is awesome at this!), and I'd like an easy to use video button that doesn't require changing modes. A lovely bonus would be the ability to take still shots during video recording.

Any recommendations, either general or specific?

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

I'm looking to buy my next *compact* camera - by which I mean, a camera small and light enough that I will always have it with me in my bag, regardless of whether I had any thought of taking pictures. So when I see something at work, at a friend's house, on my walk to the store... I'll have this camera.

My previous compact is a waterproof camera that doubles as a camera for snorkeling, an Olympus TG4. I've ended up using it for birds quite a lot, because it's the camera I always have with me when I happen to see a cool bird. It's a great camera for a compact and gets excellent pictures, but as an underwater camera it has the disadvantage of very limited zoom. There's a pretty small lightweight 2x zoom attachment for it, but I don't always have that with me.

For my next compact, I'd like one more optimized for birds. Obviously it won't quite match the better larger cameras, and unfortunately whenever I post this question I get responses from people trying to convince me to get something larger. I might get something larger, but that wouldn't be the camera that is *always* with me. So whether I get a better camera or not, I'm going to have a compact, and the point of my question here isn't what the best overall birding camera for me might be, it's what the best *compact* cameras for photographing birds might be.

Within the range of compromise that compact cameras provide, I'd like something with better zoom than the TG4 (easy!), that has an accurate fast autofocus that works quickly in medium to slightly low light (just after dawn and early evening), takes a very short time to power on and get the first photo (the TG4 is very good at this), and gets high quality images for the small sensor.

I also like to take photos of insects and details of flowers, so a good macro mode is important (the TG4 is awesome at this!), and I'd like an easy to use video button that doesn't require changing modes. A lovely bonus would be the ability to take still shots during video recording.

Any recommendations, either general or specific?

Not trying to convince you to get something larger, understand what you need ;-)

Just adding, excellent binoculars for a compact and lightweight setup, only 200 gram: Swarovski pocket 8x20 or maybe the new 8x25. I've been with my racing bike around the world with the pocket, always with me. Used it more than my bigger better binoculars.

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

Read this and this.

 

[C_o_s]

> TheBlackGrouse wrote:

> Just adding, excellent binoculars for a compact and lightweight setup, only 200 gram: > Swarovski pocket 8x20 or maybe the new 8x25. I've been with my racing bike around the world with the pocket, always with me. Used it more than my bigger better binoculars.

Thanks! I actually researched this last fall, including this discussion on reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/birding/comments/55g8al/best_lightweight_bird_binoculars

... plus a bunch of online reading. Eventually got a pair of Pentax AD 8x25 WP, and they turned out to be amazingly good for their size, and so very small and light they actually fit in my jacket pocket. A few weeks later I bought a second pair for my girlfriend. Ever since then, we usually have these binoculars with us - I keep a pair in my bag when I walk to work, or when I fly somewhere with carry-on only. It's been great, being able to grab some high quality binoculars on a whim wherever I happen to be, because they're so small and light that I didn't leave them at home.

I've got a pair of Monarch 5's and a pair of Alpen Wings 8x42, and these little pentax's aren't quite as bright and definitely don't have as wide a field of view, but aside from those two things they feel like comparable quality. And both their field of view and brightness are better than other lightweight binoculars that weigh a little more and take up more space. I highly recommend them!

Now, on to my compact camera search...

 

[C_o_s]

Thanks for those links. Both of those discussions are generally about the merits of using smaller cameras, but it was hard to get useful advice from those threads about which specific compacts to look at and how to choose between them. I'm not trying to figure out whether or not I should get a compact or what the relative tradeoffs are vs. larger cameras Knowing that I definitely want to get a compact camera, and given that as the baseline, I want one that's better for birds rather than worse, I'm trying to figure out which one(s) are the best options...

 

[doonie]

Thanks for those links. Both of those discussions are generally about the merits of using smaller cameras, but it was hard to get useful advice from those threads about which specific compacts to look at and how to choose between them. I'm not trying to figure out whether or not I should get a compact or what the relative tradeoffs are vs. larger cameras Knowing that I definitely want to get a compact camera, and given that as the baseline, I want one that's better for birds rather than worse, I'm trying to figure out which one(s) are the best options...

Your title is a little misleading. It sounds like you are asking " are compact cameras best for birds ? " Most people won't bother to respond because the obvious answer is no and the title of your thread SOUNDS like troll bait and I'm sure most people are sick of going down that road. To be clear, I'm not saying you are trolling, it just sounds like you are. A better title, maybe, would have been, "which compact camera best for birds ?" And then ask in the "compact camera" forum, if there is one. Unless of course you are trolling in which case I'd say good luck with that.

 

[C_o_s]

I didn't think of the title being read like that, thanks.

Unfortunately I can't find a way to edit the title, so I guess I'll have to try a new post with a better title.

I have no idea why you'd even entertain the notion that I'm trolling - the post itself is perfectly clear, it's just the title that's misleading. If you actually clicked through and read the post then you know what I meant, and are just pointing out that my title wouldn't get that across to some people. That's valid, but if so, why include that line at the end about maybe I'm actually trolling? That just seems a bit mean.

 

[TheBlackGrouse]

I didn't think of the title being read like that, thanks.

Unfortunately I can't find a way to edit the title, so I guess I'll have to try a new post with a better title.

I have no idea why you'd even entertain the notion that I'm trolling - the post itself is perfectly clear, it's just the title that's misleading. If you actually clicked through and read the post then you know what I meant, and are just pointing out that my title wouldn't get that across to some people. That's valid, but if so, why include that line at the end about maybe I'm actually trolling? That just seems a bit mean.

You are right, that last line is unnecessary. Your first reaction (to my post) was perfectly normal, no sign of trolling at all. And I had the same problem with the title of a thread. As a new member I made a mistake and couldn't correct it. Now I know and will be more careful before starting a new thread.

 

[doonie]

I didn't think of the title being read like that, thanks.

Unfortunately I can't find a way to edit the title, so I guess I'll have to try a new post with a better title.

I have no idea why you'd even entertain the notion that I'm trolling - the post itself is perfectly clear, it's just the title that's misleading. If you actually clicked through and read the post then you know what I meant, and are just pointing out that my title wouldn't get that across to some people. That's valid, but if so, why include that line at the end about maybe I'm actually trolling? That just seems a bit mean.

Sorry about that. Wasn't trying to be mean. I did read the whole post before I commented. My point was I'm guessing a lot of people wouldn't bother even clicking on the thread because of the title. As for the trolling, it's pretty clear you're not but it is a very common activity, especially by new users. Again, my apologies.

 

[Doug Greenberg]

No, I did not think the OP was trolling. So to answer the question, the main thing is that life is full of compromises and tradeoffs. If you want a small camera that can capture birds and also fit in your pocket, consider any of the several point and shoot cameras that feature a 30x zoom. Sony, Panasonic, and Canon make good ones, and Nikon makes one, as well. With cameras like this the images will tend to show smeary artifacts that are noticeable if you enlarge significantly. If the camera features RAW that will improve things a bit, but RAW on small sensor cameras is not all that great, in my experience. Also, small sensor cameras don't do low light all that well, but I would guess you know that already.

If you are willing to carry around something a bit larger, the Sony RX10iii is the best bridge camera around currently, with a one inch sensor and an excellent Zeiss zoom that goes to 600mm equivalent, and even to 1200mm with an "extended" mode (quality does diminish).

Finally, the Nikon Coolpix P900 is not exactly tiny and it lacks RAW mode, but it extends to 2000mm equivalent and the pictures are surprisingly good even with the zoom fully extended (example attached, Black-bellied plover in Oakland, CA).

Black-bellied Plover, Bay Farm Island, Oakland, CA

 

[Stefan BW]

If you are willing to carry around something a bit larger, the Sony RX10iii is the best bridge camera around currently, with a one inch sensor and an excellent Zeiss zoom that goes to 600mm equivalent, and even to 1200mm with an "extended" mode (quality does diminish).

Finally, the Nikon Coolpix P900 is not exactly tiny and it lacks RAW mode, but it extends to 2000mm equivalent and the pictures are surprisingly good even with the zoom fully extended (example attached, Black-bellied plover in Oakland, CA).

Both cameras weigh 900-1000g, perhaps too much for the OP to carry around. The latter is only a bridge camera, not too useful for birds in flight. I've used a Canon SX50 for years, very similar to the Nikon P900, but only 560g and less expensive. If the OP finds 980g still acceptable, he should consider a used Nikon V2 + CX 70-300 (ca. Euro 800), offering a 1'' sensor, 15/30/60fps and fast autofocus. Works well for birds in flight.

 

[Doug Greenberg]

Interesting suggestion. I actually own the V2 plus 70-300 rig. Good quality, but not all that compact, really, and I wonder whether the OP would be ok with the more limited range of focal lengths. . I will also add that not every bird photographer is primarily concerned with birds in flight. But you are right that bridge cameras, with their shutter lag, are a bit clunky for bird photography. Stephen Ingraham, for one, does a great job of making adjustments to the limitations of bridge cameras. It can be done.

 

[perry rhodan]

I'm looking to buy my next *compact* camera - by which I mean, a camera small and light enough that I will always have it with me in my bag, regardless of whether I had any thought of taking pictures. So when I see something at work, at a friend's house, on my walk to the store... I'll have this camera.

My previous compact is a waterproof camera that doubles as a camera for snorkeling, an Olympus TG4. I've ended up using it for birds quite a lot, because it's the camera I always have with me when I happen to see a cool bird. It's a great camera for a compact and gets excellent pictures, but as an underwater camera it has the disadvantage of very limited zoom. There's a pretty small lightweight 2x zoom attachment for it, but I don't always have that with me.

For my next compact, I'd like one more optimized for birds. Obviously it won't quite match the better larger cameras, and unfortunately whenever I post this question I get responses from people trying to convince me to get something larger. I might get something larger, but that wouldn't be the camera that is *always* with me. So whether I get a better camera or not, I'm going to have a compact, and the point of my question here isn't what the best overall birding camera for me might be, it's what the best *compact* cameras for photographing birds might be.

Within the range of compromise that compact cameras provide, I'd like something with better zoom than the TG4 (easy!), that has an accurate fast autofocus that works quickly in medium to slightly low light (just after dawn and early evening), takes a very short time to power on and get the first photo (the TG4 is very good at this), and gets high quality images for the small sensor.

I also like to take photos of insects and details of flowers, so a good macro mode is important (the TG4 is awesome at this!), and I'd like an easy to use video button that doesn't require changing modes. A lovely bonus would be the ability to take still shots during video recording.

Any recommendations, either general or specific?

Definitely panasonic TZ90 (have to wait a few weeks because it is really new ;-) )

Or the TZ80 that is almost as nice.

Very portable, very very fast AF. Also RAW if needed/wanted. 4K video. there are some differences here:

or about some of the finest ergonomics/UI reviews on the net: http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.nl/2016/07/panasonic-lumix-tz80-zs60-pointer-to.html

and: http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.nl/p/fixed-zoom.html

have fun!

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

Thanks for those links. Both of those discussions are generally about the merits of using smaller cameras, but it was hard to get useful advice from those threads about which specific compacts to look at and how to choose between them.

Do you know that if you mouse over a picture, you can see what camera and what settings were used?

 

[Stefan BW]

Interesting suggestion. I actually own the V2 plus 70-300 rig. Good quality, but not all that compact, really, and I wonder whether the OP would be ok with the more limited range of focal lengths. . I will also add that not every bird photographer is primarily concerned with birds in flight. But you are right that bridge cameras, with their shutter lag, are a bit clunky for bird photography. Stephen Ingraham, for one, does a great job of making adjustments to the limitations of bridge cameras. It can be done.

True, it is not nearly as compact as a bridge camera. I used the SX50 for four years and had it always with me when I left the house. Small enough for the coat pocket. I've got my share of BIF with it, e.g. a shot with a swallow in flight. So yes, it can be done. What I found frustrating: often "bird action" is too fast for a bridge camera. I was watching the court feeding of a nuthatch - all two seconds of it - and got only 2 shots with the SX50. That's not the kind of bird watching that I wanted from an interesting situation.

So I convinced myself to use the Nikon V2, and I have used it in the last 13 months at every occasion. Yes, it is heavy - but I feel the results are worth it.

 

[Augustin Man]

For birds, please look here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59397938

For insects:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59324513

All the best,

Augustin

P.S. Probably you know, but I'd like to emphasize: 357mm means 2000mm eq., optical zoom, without any teleconverter or such...

 

[Augustin Man]

I've used a Canon SX50 for years, very similar to the Nikon P900, but only 560g and less expensive.

I'm sorry, but I don't think so, because the reach is 1200mm vs. 2000mm. A much better choice instead of SX50 or P610 (both discontinued) would be B700, with the same size/weight as P610 (less than SX50) , but with RAW (not very important for 1/2.3" sensor), 20MP (again, not necessarily an advantage) and 4K video up to 8min. I agree with you SX50 was an excellent camera, but now rather obsolete.

All the best,

Augustin

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

I don't know much about these cameras, but I think it's Panasonic that advertises excellent 4K video, which means that for moving subjects you can take something like 30 frames per second, with each frame being useable as a still picture. Plus, I think it was a Panasonic that someone used for a picture of the moon that beat out all those highfalutin FF SLRs. Looks to me like you might have a lot of very good choices. If I were optimizing for birds, I think I would consider one of these in preference to a larger camera.

 

[Augustin Man]

I don't know much about these cameras, but I think it's Panasonic that advertises excellent 4K video, which means that for moving subjects you can take something like 30 frames per second, with each frame being useable as a still picture. Plus, I think it was a Panasonic that someone used for a picture of the moon that beat out all those highfalutin FF SLRs. Looks to me like you might have a lot of very good choices. If I were optimizing for birds, I think I would consider one of these in preference to a larger camera.

The undisputed master for video, of all cameras, dedicated, compact, professional etc. is Sony, not Panasonic.

The king of reach of ALL cameras is Nikon P900, not Panasonic. Please see here an image of the ISS and compare it with the images taken with professional gear, many thousand dollars value:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57584409

All the best,

Augustin

 

[C_o_s]

Those sound like large cameras! The sort you take when you know you want a camera, not the sort you just always always have because it's so small and light there's no point leaving it. I just looked up the Olympus TG4's weight, that's 247g. Also looked up the Panasonic Lumix LX100's weight, that's around 400g, and I've been trying one of those out and decided it's too bulky for this purpose. So I guess I have a better idea of how to filter out what really is and isn't "compact" for my purposes. Anything significantly over 300g doesn't qualify.