Beginner's camera advice

I realize that member's of this forum are experienced bird photographers so please indulge a beginner's effort to get some clarity on a new camera system choice for myself. I have also asked this question on an English bird photography forum which I found first.
I am new to bird photography and to this forum. I am writing from very snowy Philadelphia. I am asking for advice about which camera system to invest in for the long term for bird and general photography. I have a used Pentax K10D which I bought about a year ago to get back into photography after a long hiatus. I have no complaints about it as I learn. I am in my sixties, and over the last 15 years I have become a birder, by no mean expert but competent, and I enjoy it when I can get out.

My new and disturbing desire is to take photographs of birds, in their natural habitat at rest and in flight. As I read about bird photography I am discovering how hard and expensive a business it can be. Some advise finding an easier way to enjoy oneself! I have given myself limits as I set out on this quest: First, I want to do my best with cameras and lenses that are good enough for the job, not frustrating and inadequate but also not the very best for the job. I can neither carry for long periods nor afford the best, heaviest FF camera plus the longest, fastest lenses, etc, and I can make my peace with that. Secondly I see myself doing lots of round and about photography, people on my street, places in my town, etc, as well so my camera/lens system must fit in with that too.

As I read through many bird photography sites I am aware that most bird photographers use Canon or Nikon equipment. On the other hand there are photographers, in smaller numbers, who pop up with beautiful images from their Pentax (often with ancient, hard to find, but great lenses), or Oly or Sony or whatever equipment. The work is often presented with passion and conviction that their's is the only way! I don't mind the enthusiasm as long as I can find some useful information between the noise. So far at least I am not committed to any brand. My investment in Pentax is small enough that I can sell a few lenses and that's ok. This leads me to think of (at least) four choices, and I'd appreciate the thoughts of those who have tread this path before:

1. Upgrade to a Pentax K-7, and get a new DA*300/4 or other used 300mm lens (it is hard to find longer Pentax lenses I am discovering), together with at least a Pentax 1.7x AFA TC. This should give a reach of 510 mm, 765 mm 35mm equivalent. Is sticking with Pentax a good idea or a path to frustration? For example, I know some commenters on the net have concerns about too slow AF with Pentax.
2 a and b. The Nikon D300 or Canon 40D are no longer "this year's model" and are available reasonably priced used, or I am able to splurge for Canon 7D if it is seen as a great and long-term investment. I assume its higher megapixel sensor allows for images to withstand more cropping and hence a little less lens reach will be ok (is this correct reasoning?) These three are all somewhat bigger and heavier than the K-7 but obviously are excellent cameras (esp. D300 and 7D). One factor here that may be important is that if I buy a modest lens (as long lenses go!) to begin with, Nikon and Canon pro lenses can be rented locally (and I assume globally) for a special shoot. If this general idea is good, how to make the choice between Canon and Nikon? Which option fits in best when combined with a reasonable walk-around general use camera? What lens or lenses to start with for bird photography work?
3. My crazy but fun idea is to get a micro 4/3 Panasonic GF1 or Oly EP-2 which would be great for walk-about photography. For birding there are several 4/3 telephoto lenses in the 300 - 500mm range which can be used with an adapter on micro 4/3, and the 35mm equivalent FL is doubled by the 2x crop factor; they have a 1.4x TC as well. Questions here I think are whether the viewfinder options and AF are "good enough" so that bird photography doesn't become frustrating. Or is this use asking too much of micro 4/3?
In that vein, is it asking too much for a good enough bird photography camera also to be a good camera to take about all day for general use?
So many questions! What am I missing and can you give me some perspective to help me sort it out? Thanks.
Geof

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geof margo

My new and disturbing desire is to take photographs of birds, in their natural habitat at rest and in flight. As I read about bird photography I am discovering how hard and expensive a business it can be. Some advise finding an easier way to enjoy oneself! I have given myself limits as I set out on this quest: First, I want to do my best with cameras and lenses that are good enough for the job, not frustrating and inadequate but also not the very best for the job. I can neither carry for long periods nor afford the best, heaviest FF camera plus the longest, fastest lenses, etc, and I can make my peace with that. Secondly I see myself doing lots of round and about photography, people on my street, places in my town, etc, as well so my camera/lens system must fit in with that too.

---

Geoff,
Welcome to one of the most expensive fields of photography! ;);)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geof margo

As I read through many bird photography sites I am aware that most bird photographers use Canon or Nikon equipment. On the other hand there are photographers, in smaller numbers, who pop up with beautiful images from their Pentax (often with ancient, hard to find, but great lenses), or Oly or Sony or whatever equipment. The work is often presented with passion and conviction that their's is the only way! I don't mind the enthusiasm as long as I can find some useful information between the noise. So far at least I am not committed to any brand. My investment in Pentax is small enough that I can sell a few lenses and that's ok. This leads me to think of (at least) four choices, and I'd appreciate the thoughts of those who have tread this path before:

---

One thing to look at does the manufacturer have the lens line you need now, and that you might grow into?
Because you are interested in flight photography, is there the AF performance in that manufacturer's line of cameras and lenses? (I do not know the difference between manufacturers, so I'm not trying to imply anything here.) For the record, I use canon, but the only reason that over 20 years ago when I bought into autofocus (film) cameras I chose Canon solely for the reason that I didn't think I could afford Nikon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geof margo

1. Upgrade to a Pentax K-7, and get a new DA*300/4 or other used 300mm lens (it is hard to find longer Pentax lenses I am discovering), together with at least a Pentax 1.7x AFA TC. This should give a reach of 510 mm, 765 mm 35mm equivalent. Is sticking with Pentax a good idea or a path to frustration? For example, I know some commenters on the net have concerns about too slow AF with Pentax.

---

First, forget the idea of crop factor giving more telephoto reach. It is a bogus concept even though it is widely believed. Crop factor applies only to equivalent field of view. For focal length limited situations like birds with telephoto lenses, pixel spacing is the key metric. More here:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/cropfactor/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geof margo

2 a and b. The Nikon D300 or Canon 40D are no longer "this year's model" and are available reasonably priced used, or I am able to splurge for Canon 7D if it is seen as a great and long-term investment. I assume its higher megapixel sensor allows for images to withstand more cropping and hence a little less lens reach will be ok (is this correct reasoning?)

---

Yes, to a degree. The smaller pixels of the 7D (4.3 micron spacing) will give you more pixel on a bird that a camera with arger pixels and the same focal length lens (regardless of crop factor). For example, the 7D, 50D, and 40D have 4.3 micron, 4.7 micron, and 5.7 micron pixel spacing, respectively. Thus the 50D will deliver 5.7/4.7 = 1.2 times more pixels on a subject (linear measurement) than a 40D with the same lens. The 7D would deliver 5.7/4.3 = 1.3 times more pixels. But smaller pixels are a challenge for lenses to deliver higher quality images. So likely, the actual resolution difference would be slightly less.[/quote]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geof margo

These three are all somewhat bigger and heavier than the K-7 but obviously are excellent cameras (esp. D300 and 7D). One factor here that may be important is that if I buy a modest lens (as long lenses go!) to begin with, Nikon and Canon pro lenses can be rented locally (and I assume globally) for a special shoot. If this general idea is good, how to make the choice between Canon and Nikon? Which option fits in best when combined with a reasonable walk-around general use camera? What lens or lenses to start with for bird photography work?

---

You probably can't tell the difference if you keep compare cameras with similar pixel size and sensor size. You will need to evaluate the cameras available at the time you decide to buy (e.g. if 50D, what does Nikon, Pentax, Sony have with similar sized pixels in your price range?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geof margo

3. My crazy but fun idea is to get a micro 4/3 Panasonic GF1 or Oly EP-2 which would be great for walk-about photography. For birding there are several 4/3 telephoto lenses in the 300 - 500mm range which can be used with an adapter on micro 4/3, and the 35mm equivalent FL is doubled by the 2x crop factor; they have a 1.4x TC as well. Questions here I think are whether the viewfinder options and AF are "good enough" so that bird photography doesn't become frustrating. Or is this use asking too much of micro 4/3?

---

Again, crop factor is the wrong metric. Also, the light gathering ability of a camera is related to the sensor size and the performance of the pixels to the pixel size. So for work in lower light cameras with larger pixels and larger sensors perform better. For example, the EP-2 has 4.5 micron pixels, so with the same focal length lens, the 7D would give slightly more pixel on the subject. Can oyu get a tru 300 mm focal length lens for the EP-2? How about a 400 mm lens?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geof margo

In that vein, is it asking too much for a good enough bird photography camera also to be a good camera to take about all day for general use?
So many questions! What am I missing and can you give me some perspective to help me sort it out? Thanks.
Geof

---

A great starter wildlife system is as follows (in my opinion):

DSLR with 1.5 or1.6x crop sensor. with 10+ megapixels (even used 6 or 8 megapixels would be good).

Lenses:
300 mm f/4 (IS/VR) with 1.4x TC, or
400 mm f/5.6, or
100-400 image stabilized (must test specific lens as some copies are soft;also weighs more than the above 2 lenses.

Roger

My friend was in the same position as you a few months ago and I recommended that he buy a refurbished Canon 40D, which he found at B & H, and a Canon 300 F4 L, which he found for sale near his home in KC. He just emailed me to say how wonderful the system was and how sharp his bird photos were for the first time ever. His total expense was about $1500. You can get the same system new, although it would have to be a 50D, for a little over $2000. Throw in a 1.4 TC and you will be ready for action and won't have any regrets. If you win the lottery or get an unexpected inheritance, you can throw in a 500/4 L which will put you in heaven, photographically speaking. By the way, you can put together a similar Nikon system but it will cost you a bit more. Good luck!

Two quick combos based on your needs and your budget.

Both will produce stunning bird images:

Canon 40D and Canon 400mm F/5.6

Nikon D300 and Nikon 300mm F/4, perhaps adding a 1.4 TC

Hi i was in the same boat a few months ago.This is a very expensive hobby:(...I used to shoot nikon F5 film cameras.But swithed to canon for digital. I bought a canon 50D and 400.5.6 lens new for 2500$ image qaulity is amazing.. p.s cameras get updated every year lenses last forever

Wow - we are all giving similar advice for a change. Geof, you are a lucky man!:)

i Know nothing about Nikon ( didnt know people still used them ) Joke -ok the 40d is a very nice camera and at a good price these days but it does not come close to the 7d for making bird photos, Birds are not easy to get and what the 7d does is make it easier because it can be custamized to shoot the way you want much more than the 40d and or 50d .
The extra Mps on the birds almost doubles what you get with the 40d so ineffect getting more reach from your lens
The 7d is as close as you can get to a mk3 and is in manyways better imo :)
as for a top birding lens the 400f5.6 is as close to a 500f4 isL ( WITHOUT IS ) as you could wish for fast AF and super sharp.
A good lens combo is the 300f4isL + 1.4 tc it give you IS but is not as sharp as the 400f5.6 .
I know im a bit over your buget but the 300f4isL and 400f5.6 do come up used quite often .
Rob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert Hardy

i Know nothing about Nikon ( didnt know people still used them ) Joke -ok the 40d is a very nice camera and at a good price these days but it does not come close to the 7d for making bird photos, Birds are not easy to get and what the 7d does is make it easier because it can be custamized to shoot the way you want much more than the 40d and or 50d .
The extra Mps on the birds almost doubles what you get with the 40d so ineffect getting more reach from your lens
The 7d is as close as you can get to a mk3 and is in manyways better imo :)
as for a top birding lens the 400f5.6 is as close to a 500f4 isL ( WITHOUT IS ) as you could wish for fast AF and super sharp.
A good lens combo is the 300f4isL + 1.4 tc it give you IS but is not as sharp as the 400f5.6 .
I know im a bit over your buget but the 300f4isL and 400f5.6 do come up used quite often .
Rob.

---

I would love to put Geof into a 7D but I was trying to keep within his budget. Also, I've seen some of the most amazing bird shots in the world posted right here on BPN from 40D's and 50D's, including many of those from the guruji himself.

Hey everyone, from what I understand here, I have a specific camera comparison question:
7D vs 40D
with
300mm f4L IS and 400mm f5.6L + 1.4x TC (will NOT be buying the 500mm f4L IS)

will adding the 7D be a significant advantage in terms of AF, IQ, and PP range for bird photography?

Thanks-this is a great discussion!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julie Brown

Hey everyone, from what I understand here, I have a specific camera comparison question:
7D vs 40D
with
300mm f4L IS and 400mm f5.6L + 1.4x TC (will NOT be buying the 500mm f4L IS)

will adding the 7D be a significant advantage in terms of AF, IQ, and PP range for bird photography?

Thanks-this is a great discussion!

---

yes the AF is far more helpfull as it can be talored to your needs far better than the 40d
IQ this too is better as the extra MPs 1 grab more detail and or 2 give you more room to crop again leading to more detail over the 40d if both cameras and the same lens was used from the same position.
sorry pp range dont understand what you meen here .
if you meen post processing then that is dependant on ones own skill
Rob.

Thanks for the info Robert. I do mean post-processing. You provided the answer when you said that extra MPs grab more detail and give you more room to crop. A perfect example of this issue for me is my latest image post in the eager to learn forum. Often I can't fill the frame with my 300mm so I have to resort to huge crops.

Geof or anyone else looking

I just saw a listing on th Buy, Sell, Trade Forum for a used 50D for $750.

Bill

Hi Geoff
Welcome to the forum.
Probably like you I settled on the K10D due to extensive Pentax K & KA mount lenses from film days.
If I could get a good trade in I'd go for the latest Canon Rebel with 15 megs. fast Af, and ability to catch images in poor light (according to reports).Previously the 40D had a good AF advantage over the Canon Rebels but I understand it has closed with the latest model.
Maybe someone else on the forum could comment on their experience with this camera.
Cheers: Ian Mc

Thanks to everyone for a lot of good information and as Danny said the advice is quite consistent. I am taking time to digest it!
Ian raised the idea of a Canon Rebel T1i. I would also like to hear more about that. I am assuming a big con is that it is less rugged but is there more?
Again, thanks for the willingness to share your experience.
Geof

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brian simpson

Hi i was in the same boat a few months ago.This is a very expensive hobby:(...I used to shoot nikon F5 film cameras.But swithed to canon for digital. I bought a canon 50D and 400.5.6 lens new for 2500$ image qaulity is amazing.. p.s cameras get updated every year lenses last forever

---

I hope my mark IV doesn't get outdated that fast!