recommended birding camera set up

[Joan Chasan]

If I am switching from a camera that is not a canon or nikon to one of those with the following constraints. what would people recommend.

Would like it to shoot quality jpegs right out of the camera if possible. weight of lens and camera not much more than 5 lbs.

will never buy a 500 prime lens for $5000 or more or whatever they cost that weighs ? But would like to get to 500mm with some combination of lenses and still have autofocus

FF not an issue, in fact probably better without. something needs to be image stabilized if possible.

don't care about video or face recognition.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

thanks

[Arlon Motsch]

What's your budget?
Where and how do you intend to use it (hiking, biking, wet environments etc.)?
What do you want out of it (internet quality pics or 16x20 paper prints)?
What's your interest subject wise (kids parties or only birds at 50 yards)?
Portability a concern (needs to fit in a purse, back pack, small car, bike, etc.)?

Have you considered the ulta zooms? I think they have finally made it into the realm of real functional cameras.

I just got my wife an olympus sp-590UZ (26x zoom, that's like 26-676mm). I have not had a chance to really test it on birds yet but will this weekend. So far I'm pretty impressed with what this little "ultra-zoom" camera can do. SHe sure likes it more than than the D50/ 80-400mm VR she was lugging around.

[Joan Chasan]

Wnat to use it for taking photos of birds and other wildlife. thought by posting it here it was clear. sorry. no cameras much over $1500 unless exceptionally good reason., no lenses over $2000. total weight without tripod 5 lbs at most. (spouse will carry tripod and extra lenses as weight is an issue). will have car near by usually.

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Joan One consideration between Nikon and Canon is price of lenses with Nikon being more expensive for the most part. Quality wise both systems are great.

In the Price range you are mentioning would go with Canon 50D, can get those at a great price now and the 100-400 Zoom All within the price range.

Can also look at second party lenses but at the end might be expensive due to resale value. Might be a good idea to rent before buying and do take your time !!!

[Arlon Motsch]

Wnat to use it for taking photos of birds and other wildlife. thought by posting it here it was clear.

It's clear you want to take pictures of birds and wildlife (posting here). What's not clear is if that's all you really intend to do with it...

I'm a Nikon guy but if I was starting fresh today it would be with a new Canon 7D and their legendary 100-400mm zoom. Add a 1.4 TC and you're done. Of course if you want to use it for snapshots at the kids birthday party you're toast but it would be the bomb at the kids football games.. (-:}

[David Billingsley]

A 7D + 100-400 + 1.4TC = no auto focus.

7D AF to f/5.6 - recommended config = f/8

[Jamie Strickland]

Arlon remember though that the 100-400 +TC and 7D will not AF unless you use a 3rd party TC and a tape trick which can result in inconsistent results

I have a 100-400 and if you think your going to be at 400 most of the time I would get the 400L 5.6 which is lighter / sharper & better built, I am still kicking myself for selling mine after I got the 500L

Dooh David beat me to it lol

[Steve Philipson]

How about the Sigma 150-500mm lens. Can be had for the Canon for under $1000

[Arlon Motsch]

A 7D + 100-400 + 1.4TC = no auto focus.

7D AF to f/5.6 - recommended config = f/8

Darn it, I figured there had to be a catch. I've just seen a few shots from a friends 7d/ 100-400mm that where pretty impressive. Much better than my D90/80-400mm has ever produced. I just assumed someone would have a compatable TC for the 100-400mm. I don't believe there are any TC's to work with the 80-400 Nikon either..

I'd still get the Canon today just to be able to use that lens if I didn't already have a box of Nikon lenses. I don't think Nikon has anything to compete with 100-400. I could also live with MF 95% of the time.

[Michael Eckstein]

I had the 100/400L for almost 10 years, tried the 400 ƒ5.6 and switched. The 400L has much faster auto focus and is slightly sharper. The 400L combined with a 7D is a killer combination. I also have a 50D, but the 7D auto focus is in a different league than the 50D. For non moving subjects the 7D, 400l with 1.4TC is very easy to manually focus. I could never get good manual focus results with the 50D. If 7D is in your price range it is a much better choice.

[Andrew McCullough]

Think about a 50D or 7D with the 400 mm f5.6 lens. No image stabilization, but not too heavy and fast autofocus. It won't focus with a 1.4 X TC, but you can manual focus with the aid of the camera's in focus beep for those times that you want to use the 1.4X. You can buy a TC that the camera won't recognize (I have a Tamron) but my experience is that the autofocus is too slow this way.

[Roger Clark]

OK, let's step back and look at some history.

A couple of years ago a cutting edge combination was a 500 mm on a 1D Mark II with 8 frames per second. The key in this is the 8.2 micron pixels. The means one pixel sees 206265*.0082/500 = 3.4 arc seconds.
The rig weighs about 11 pounds. (smaller arc-seconds means more pixels on subject)

Then came the 1D Mark III (7.2 micron pixels) + 500 mm which = 2.97 arc-seconds and weighs about the same as the combinaton above. (1DIII = 2.54 lbs + 500mm f/4 = 8.53 lbs = 11.07 lbs)

Now look a 7D (4.3 micron pixels) with a 300 mm f/4 L IS lens: 1 pixel is 2.95 arc-seconds.
7D = 1.8 pounds + 300 mm f/4= 2.6 pounds = 4.4 pounds.

The 300 f/4 +1.4x TC = 420 mm f/5.6 and autofocuses on the 7D and the 300+1.4 is very sharp.
And you have 8 frames per second. less than $3,000 for camera + lens + 1.4x TC.

Much lower cost, much lower weight. What do you lose over the 500 mm + 1D Mark III? Weight and a little bit of high ISO performance, and 2 extra frames per second; but you save thousands of $ and you get more pixels on the subject than either of the above 1D + 500 mm combinations.

Roger

[Alan Lillich]

Joan,

I've always shot Nikon, but one thing I've heard from both sides is that the feel and operation of the bodies is quite different. Some people are fine with either, some have a strong preference for one or the other. Try before you buy.

Given some of your non-goals, you might want to also consider Sony and Pentax. They can be good value. Take a look at lots of DSLR reviews on DPReview, goto the Camera Database.

I have about 2/3 Nikon and 1/3 Sigma lenses. The best of each are superb, the middle of each are darned good, I would be inclined to stay away from the cheapest Sigmas - but from FUD as much as anything.

The Nikon 80-400 has good optics, VR, and low weight. Its main drawback is that it is not AFS, so it is slower to focus on bodies with a screw drive motor (higher end), and manual focus only on lower end bodies. There are strong rumors of a replacement next year, so there might be lots of used ones coming on the market at good prices.

hope this helps,
Alan

[Alan Lillich]

One other bit of advice that I think I heard first from Scott Bourne: Buy the brand that your friends and family have (assuming they are happy). Then you can share advice, lenses, etc. To paraphrase Michael Reichmann: 90% of all modern cameras are better than 100% of all photographers.

[arash_hazeghi]

Canon 7D/50D/40D + 400 f/5.6L
Nikon D300/D300s + 300 f/4 AF-S + 1.4X TC

And forget about birding (at least at the level of work presented by BPN members here) if you want to shoot JPEG out of the camera.

Good luck.

[Roger Clark]

And forget about birding (at least at the level of work presented by BPN members here) if you want to shoot JPEG out of the camera.

I strongly disagree with that statement. You can get very good jpegs out of any of the cameras discussed in this thread.

Roger

[arash_hazeghi]

I strongly disagree with that statement. You can get very good jpegs out of any of the cameras discussed in this thread.

Roger

Opinions differ Roger, I do not believe you can get JPEGs that are acceptable to me and can withstand processing and cropping out of these cameras. Point me to one professional here who shoots in JPEG please.


Correct image processing constitutes 50% of digital photography, ask Arite or Al if you don't believe it :D


Best,

[Roger Clark]

Opinions differ Roger, I do not believe you can get JPEGs that are acceptable to me and can withstand processing and cropping out of these cameras. Point me to one professional here who shoots in JPEG please.

Check the opening image at:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=48899
Then look up Natures Best, fall, 2004, page 21. The image is printed full page. It is a 3 megapixel crop from a 6-megapixel image, shot only as a jpeg. It has sold as 16x18 inch prints in fine art galleries.

Check out my bird gallery:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird
Some were raw captures, some jpeg. Can you tell which is which? I have sold numerous 16x20 inch bird prints captured as jpegs.

There are pro photographers who shoot jpegs. A google search will find some.

Correct image processing constitutes 50% of digital photography, ask Arite or Al if you don't believe it :D

If you get it right in camera, you don't need much or any image processing!

Roger

[arash_hazeghi]

Check the opening image at:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=48899
Then look up Natures Best, fall, 2004, page 21. The image is printed full page. It is a 3 megapixel crop from a 6-megapixel image, shot only as a jpeg. It has sold as 16x18 inch prints in fine art galleries.

Check out my bird gallery:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird
Some were raw captures, some jpeg. Can you tell which is which? I have sold numerous 16x20 inch bird prints captured as jpegs.

There are pro photographers who shoot jpegs. A google search will find some.




If you get it right in camera, you don't need much or any image processing!

Roger

Roger Egret shot is very nice in terms aesthetics and congrats on the publication, but it is not very sharp on my screen and the whites have a subtle green cast, maybe because it was only 6 mpixels at the time or maybe because in camera sharpening wasn't enough. 2004 is also very early in digital photography, many were still shooting film then, let alone digital and processing raw files.

I always shoot in RAW to have more headroom if needed. You can always go back to change white balance etc. with RAW, if you prefer shooting in JPEG, go ahead it does save memory, I am not going to argue :)


I would like to learn if any of the big shots here in this forum specializing in flight shots shoot in JPEG, of course there are "pro" photographers on the internet who still shoot film as well and scan their negatives. Birds in flight is a specialized subject.




Best

[Andrew McCullough]

Canon 7D/50D/40D + 400 f/5.6L
Nikon D300/D300s + 300 f/4 AF-S + 1.4X TC

And forget about birding (at least at the level of work presented by BPN members here) if you want to shoot JPEG out of the camera.

Good luck.

The cameras suggested are capable of RAW files so she could always experiment with RAW if she wants to. It really comes down to what Joan wants to accomplish. Her goals might differ from yours.

[Dave Blinder]

The 50D should be a fine choice for wildlife photography.

With decent technique, I've seen outstanding photos with both the Sigma 150-500 OS, and also the older 50-500mm EX (Bigma). I've never owned either but would look at sample archives online if on a budget. IQ not as good as 400mm f/5.6, but the tradeoff is the reach.

RE: Superzoom compacts. I also got an Olympus SP-590UZ after reading specs and having high hopes. Sharpness is very poor at long end, and pixels at ISO 200 and above are completely grainy. Best bird photos I've ever seen from a superzoom have been the older Canon S5 Powershot, with or without teleconverter. Seems like a good camera. Haven't seen much from the newer Canon and Nikon superzooms yet.

[Roger Clark]

Roger Egret shot is very nice in terms aesthetics and congrats on the publication, but it is not very sharp on my screen and the whites have a subtle green cast, maybe because it was only 6 mpixels at the time or maybe because in camera sharpening wasn't enough. 2004 is also very early in digital photography, many were still shooting film then, let alone digital and processing raw files.

It is clear you missed the point. You are focused on maximum sharpness. Sharpness is not the end all be all of the penultimate in BIF or any other photography. It is subject, composition and lighting, and not necessarily in that order.

So I felt your statement "And forget about birding (at least at the level of work presented by BPN members here) if you want to shoot JPEG out of the camera" was arrogant and unnecessarily discouraging a photographer. There is far greater variation in image sharpness from the various cameras in use and that people post here than there is in raw versus jpeg output from any one camera. And jpeg conversion in camera has improved markedly in the last couple of years with faster processors in cameras.

Side note: check your monitor calibration. The predominant RGB distribution shows that blue is a fraction of a percent higher than green or red. If anything the white bird should be slightly bluish, not green. That combination tends to look very white ti the eye on prints. The underside of the bird moves the color toward green, but that is due to the reflection of the green vegetation and green water under the bird. The color balance is perfect in my opinion.

I always shoot in RAW to have more headroom if needed. You can always go back to change white balance etc. with RAW, if you prefer shooting in JPEG, go ahead it does save memory, I am not going to argue :)

How much headroom in raw versus jpeg depends on the camera implementation and the ISO one is imaging at. In the latest cameras there is not a lot of difference. Again, it is get it right in camera and you save time in post processing. I'm not disputing that one can get a slightly better image from a raw file than an in camera jpeg, but it is a small difference and does not make a lousy photo great. One can change white balance and extend headroom in a jpeg too. A great photo will be great as both raw and as out of camera jpeg, and bot raw and jpeg can be post processes to make them better.

I would like to learn if any of the big shots here in this forum specializing in flight shots shoot in JPEG, of course there are "pro" photographers on the internet who still shoot film as well and scan their negatives. Birds in flight is a specialized subject.

That is irrelevant to the question of whether or not one can get quality jpeg images out of camera. You can.

For the record, I shoot raw+jpeg most of the time. I review and use the jpegs and process only a few raws. In heavy action, I will do raw only. Published images: for my scientific images where I've done digital photos, the majority are out of camera jpegs (most of my images are in scientific literature).

Roger

[Arlon Motsch]

RE: Superzoom compacts. I also got an Olympus SP-590UZ after reading specs and having high hopes. Sharpness is very poor at long end, and pixels at ISO 200 and above are completely grainy. Best bird photos I've ever seen from a superzoom have been the older Canon S5 Powershot, with or without teleconverter. Seems like a good camera. Haven't seen much from the newer Canon and Nikon superzooms yet.

I actually sat down and played with me wife's SP-590 last night (only had it for a few days). I totally retract my earlier praise for the camera. If you only want to shoot auto it's pretty nifty. One tragic flaw is you can only shoot 3MP pictures in any but auto mode. Unbelievable.. It has a bracket mode but it won't bracket in auto. If you want brackets, you're limited to 3MP pictures in Aperture, manual or shutter modes.

I got some very good shots in auto at full tele in bright light and off a tripod. The potential is there but it just floors me that it ill only shoot 3MP pictures in about anything but auto. I did find there are a few scene modes like portrait and fireworks that shoot full 12MP but most of the scene modes are limited to 3MP. I didn't read anything about those limitations in the factory propaganda or ANY of the reviews I read. )-:}

[arash_hazeghi]

It is clear you missed the point. You are focused on maximum sharpness. Sharpness is not the end all be all of the penultimate in BIF or any other photography. It is subject, composition and lighting, and not necessarily in that order.

So I felt your statement "And forget about birding (at least at the level of work presented by BPN members here) if you want to shoot JPEG out of the camera" was arrogant and unnecessarily discouraging a photographer. There is far greater variation in image sharpness from the various cameras in use and that people post here than there is in raw versus jpeg output from any one camera. And jpeg conversion in camera has improved markedly in the last couple of years with faster processors in cameras.




Side note: check your monitor calibration. The predominant RGB distribution shows that blue is a fraction of a percent higher than green or red. If anything the white bird should be slightly bluish, not green. That combination tends to look very white ti the eye on prints. The underside of the bird moves the color toward green, but that is due to the reflection of the green vegetation and green water under the bird. The color balance is perfect in my opinion.





How much headroom in raw versus jpeg depends on the camera implementation and the ISO one is imaging at. In the latest cameras there is not a lot of difference. Again, it is get it right in camera and you save time in post processing. I'm not disputing that one can get a slightly better image from a raw file than an in camera jpeg, but it is a small difference and does not make a lousy photo great. One can change white balance and extend headroom in a jpeg too. A great photo will be great as both raw and as out of camera jpeg, and bot raw and jpeg can be post processes to make them better.



That is irrelevant to the question of whether or not one can get quality jpeg images out of camera. You can.

For the record, I shoot raw+jpeg most of the time. I review and use the jpegs and process only a few raws. In heavy action, I will do raw only. Published images: for my scientific images where I've done digital photos, the majority are out of camera jpegs (most of my images are in scientific literature).

Roger

Thanks Roger my screen is calibrated well and I still think there is a cast, sharpness is a critical aspect of flight photography just like comp IMO, we don't have to agree, to each his opinion and shooting style but I never call yours or any other person's opinion "arrogant" Everyone is entitled to their opinion here and they should be allowed to express it. I am leaving this discussion I guess the OP has plenty of POVs and answers now.


Thanks

[Gus Hallgren]

Hi Guys

Picture is worth a 1000 words, Have a look at Rose Fletcher's photos at http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/mem...3699&protype=1

More than 100 and all taken with a Panasonic DMC Digi Cam, about a $400 camera

For starters, nothing wrong with JPG's direct from a decent camera. Olympus has some very good
inexpensive DSLR's latest, E-620 which you can buy a very good Zuiko 70-300 MM equiv. 600 mm which you can buy for about $300.

As far as digicams go, I think Panasonic have the best ones now with an eye piece viewfinder. Olympus digi cams have difficulty with auto focus and sleep mode can drive you nuts. We have tried them all as my wife has arthritus in her hand and needs a light camera - she took many great photos with the old Olympus C700 series of cameras. Her Africa album on Webshots has had 1000's of hits and even 3 years later averages 50 hits a week.

FWIW

Uncle Gus
BTW: How did this thread start with a starter camera and end up with Canon 7, $1500 range, body only, raw captures and pro photogrtaphers??????

[Dave Brown]

Hi All,

This was shot in jpeg and not only that it's a decent crop. Good quality jpegs are definitely possible. RAW gives you so much more flexibility with recovering highlights etc that it is by far the better choice,but you can get nice jpegs no doubt about it.
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=22292

Dave Brown

Also this was taken with the Canon 300mm L/4, handheld. If you decide on the the 300,+ a 1.4 be prepared to suffer reduced AF ability.It's tough to get ctitically sharp BIF images from my experience with the above set up- it's possible,but tough

[Flavio Rose]

Since I take bird photos with a minimal investment, maybe my views are of some value. I use an XTi + 400 f/5.6. The setup is worth maybe $1,200 now.

Since you want IS you need a 100-400 rather then the 400. Since you want to get to 500, you need a 1.4x teleconverter, and for that I think live view manual focus is very useful, so you'd need at least an XSi. I don't think the 300 f/4 IS is a good option for you since then you'd need a 2x teleconverter to get to 500, and I think 2x teleconverters are more difficult to deal with than 1.4x (I've never had a 2x teleconverter though).

I did a bit of a Web search on the Sigma 150-500 (the only long Sigma with IS) before buying my 400 f/5.6. Reports on the Sigma were quite mixed. You can of course do your own search.

One consideration you might want to take into account in choosing equipment is what other people are shooting. The good recent Canon bird photos I see on the Web were mostly made with a 40D or higher. A 40D does not cost much more than an XSi. Canon lenses like the 100-400 predominate over Sigmas in this corpus of photos.

As for raw, the XTi gives good jpegs out of the camera unless I overexpose. I imagine that the XSi, T1i, 40D, 50D, etc. would do likewise. Since there is often little time to do exposure compensation (e.g., when a bird flies by or is flitting from one perch to another) and I do commit exposure errors with some frequency, I shoot raw. I spend much more time just staring at each shot on my laptop screen than the minimal time it takes my laptop to convert the shot from raw to jpeg.

[Roger Clark]

Hi Guys
BTW: How did this thread start with a starter camera and end up with Canon 7, $1500 range, body only, raw captures and pro photogrtaphers??????

The original poster said nothing about a starter camera, only they wanted to reach 500 mm with IS and autofocus.
How that got to pro photographers and raw capture is a different problem.

Roger

[Roger Clark]

Since you want IS you need a 100-400 rather then the 400. Since you want to get to 500, you need a 1.4x teleconverter, and for that I think live view manual focus is very useful, so you'd need at least an XSi. I don't think the 300 f/4 IS is a good option for you since then you'd need a 2x teleconverter to get to 500, and I think 2x teleconverters are more difficult to deal with than 1.4x (I've never had a 2x teleconverter though).

The original poster stipulated having autofocus, so adding 1.4x and 2x TCs to a 100-400 is not an option.

I showed that 500 mm is not actually needed to get the pixels on subject with a shorter lens and a camera with smaller pixels. So one can get into the resolution range of a 500 mm on former 1D bodies with the 100-400 or 300 f/4 +1.4x TC and still have autofocus. Times are changing.

Roger

[Chris Brennan]

It's quite possible that the OP is not aware of the crop factor inherent with most non-FF cameras. Assuming that's true, getting a 100-400 would be ideal for her given that the crop factor would give her a lens of 160-640... . I've had exceptional results with my 100-400 on both a 40D and a 7D. I've compared it to a friend's 4 year old 100-400, and mine is clearly much sharper at the long end.

[Flavio Rose]

The original poster stipulated having autofocus, so adding 1.4x and 2x TCs to a 100-400 is not an option.

I've tried a non-reporting Tamron 1.4x tc on my 400 f/5.6 and it does autofocus with an XTi, quite slowly. I assumed the 100-400 would be similar being also f/5.6 at 400. In addition, I've read that the XSi and newer cameras will autofocus in live view with an f/5.6 lens plus tc, albeit very slowly.

[Roger Clark]

It's quite possible that the OP is not aware of the crop factor inherent with most non-FF cameras. Assuming that's true, getting a 100-400 would be ideal for her given that the crop factor would give her a lens of 160-640... . I've had exceptional results with my 100-400 on both a 40D and a 7D. I've compared it to a friend's 4 year old 100-400, and mine is clearly much sharper at the long end.

My standard spiel: crop factor has nothing to do with telephoto reach and pixels on a subject.
See:
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/cropfactor

Roger

[Bill McCrystyn]

They are both making good points (Roger & Arash) but I must say Roger is the one who made me change to RAW. I was a little surprised to see him defend JPEG. If you are shooting for web only fine, but if you intened to print beyond 8x10 your better to start with RAW and the extra . If I recall, Robert O'Toole shoots lots of JPEG for publication to get more contrast in his images. I'm sure Robert will correct me if I'm wrong.


Having owned both (a 70-200VR & 100-400IS) I would say (as many) to stay away from the 100-400. A 70-200IS or VR with a 1.4 or 1.7 will give great results and lots of versitility. The advantage with the D300 would be able to shoot TIFF out of the box since you don't want to deal with RAW and is far better than JPEG even though they are both 8mb.

[David Stephens]

Back to the OP's original question. I'm very happy with the following rig for birds and wildlife:

7D
EF 400 f5.6L

The view in the viewfinder, compared to my 5D MkII with the same lens is equivalent to 640mm (the 7D's crop factor is 1.6x400=640). Key to this setup is a good tripod and gimbal head. You CAN hand hold it, but the lack of IS makes it tough unless you can brace against a tree or your car or something solid.

I may ultimately buy a 500mm f4L IS, but that is indeed a steep price.

Dave