Do DSLRs and birding mix?

[NoSpringChicken]

I have been considering the possibility of buying a DSLR camera and telephoto lens for birding but I can't decide whether it is going to be too much of an encumbrance.

From my experience with SLR cameras a few years ago I know they have a habit of taking over your life and you can end up with a heavy bag full of lenses and other bits and pieces. I also suspect that you can end up being so obsessed with taking photographs that birdwatching can go out of the window.

I currently carry binoculars, a Nikon ED50 scope, a Fuji F30 camera on a digiscoping adapter and a tripod or hide clamp plus the usual other bits and pieces. I can cope with carrying that lot about without too much hassle and walk about quite happily all day. I wonder if carrying the DSLR and sundries as well would be a step too far. I could get rid of the F30 and adapter but I would still like to have my scope with me. I have also noted some derogatory comments about DSLR toting photographers recently from other birders and I wouldn't want to be put into that category would I?;)

The ideal compromise would seem to be the superzoom compacts but they appear they have some way to go before they can really compete on image quality.

So my question is: do other people manage to combine DSLRs with normal birding or do they tend to detract from it.

Any thoughts?

Ron

[HokkaidoStu]

Since I started birding with my DSLR last year I tend to go out with the camera round my neck (or in a camera pouch a over my shoulder)and only a pair of compact bins in my pocket. The Scope (which I never used that much anyway) is only for scanning the sea these days. Once you get a DSLR I predict you'll give up digiscoping.........

Birders who make snide comments about DSLR users? Never heard that before. Nothing worse than a nerd calling other nerds nerds!

[RAH]

Some of the Olympus DSLRs are very small and light, and their lenses are also pretty small relative to other DSLRs. This is because of the smaller 4:3 sensor they use, and also the reason for the 2x factor on the lenses (i.e. a 100mm lens is equivalent to a 200mm). So that might be a good compromise.

[NoSpringChicken]

Some of the Olympus DSLRs are very small and light, and their lenses are also pretty small relative to other DSLRs. This is because of the smaller 4:3 sensor they use, and also the reason for the 2x factor on the lenses (i.e. a 100mm lens is equivalent to a 200mm). So that might be a good compromise.

To be honest the Olympus E-510 with the new ED 70-300 lens is what I have been looking at. It's within my budget and fairly light and compact. It's just a question of whether I want to take that extra step.

I am reasonably happy with my digiscoping results but there are times when it would be nice to take photos from the opportunities which suddenly appear as I am walking about. A few bird in flight shots would be nice as well.

Ron

[J. Moore]

The ideal compromise would seem to be the superzoom compacts but they appear they have some way to go before they can really compete on image quality.

I will not say it is as good as a DSLR, but I have been quite pleasantly surprised at the image quality I have gotten from my Panasonic FZ18, even though I have just started using the camera. And at a weight of 12 ounces, no DSLR with a telephoto lens can come close to competing with it for convenience. It is best in good light, and flight shots might be more of a challenge, but here are some samples:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=1130683#post1130683

Another poster, TrevorC, got some exceptional photos with a Panasonic FZ50 (which has a 420 mm zoom equivalent versus 504 for the FZ18). Check out his post and the link to his gallery here:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=1137636#post1137636

Hope this helps,
Jim

[HokkaidoStu]

but there are times when it would be nice to take photos from the opportunities which suddenly appear as I am walking about.



That's exactly why I bought a DSLR.

Go on...............buy one. You know you want to.

[NoSpringChicken]

That's exactly why I bought a DSLR.

Go on...............buy one. You know you want to.

I can resist anything but temptation ...;)

My partner has already said I won't be happy until I get one. I though there might be a bit more resistance there! There is also a very convenient birthday coming up in a couple of weeks and she doesn't know what to buy me. All those lovely accessories ...:smoke:

Ron

[Ant]

You know you want to.

but you won't give up digiscoping I assure you. Infact, I took up digiscoping after I got my SLR.

As for carrying lots of lenses around, well, You can get away with 3 lenses to cover the majority of situations. Say, the new sigma 150-500mm OS, their 18-200mm OS and the 10-20mm that way you only carry 3 lenses and cover a huge range of focal lenghs.

[Clive Watson]

If you're serious about photography then no, they don't mix. I've got a 600mm and I don't carry a scope any more, just bins, otherwise it'd be too much to lug around. I also find that often, I only go to places where there might be a chance of some photos these days and don't often twitch anything unless it looks like it's showing well enough for photos. But by carrying a smaller lens, say a 100-400, then you can compromise and still do general birding whilst remaining fairly mobile. The down side is of course than many birds will simply be too far away to get reasonable shots of, although a converter can help considerably.

[NoSpringChicken]

If you're serious about photography then no, they don't mix. I've got a 600mm and I don't carry a scope any more, just bins, otherwise it'd be too much to lug around. I also find that often, I only go to places where there might be a chance of some photos these days and don't often twitch anything unless it looks like it's showing well enough for photos. But by carrying a smaller lens, say a 100-400, then you can compromise and still do general birding whilst remaining fairly mobile. The down side is of course than many birds will simply be too far away to get reasonable shots of, although a converter can help considerably.
That's a nice honest reply. What I want to avoid is sitting in a hide all day waiting for photographic opportunities. I only have one day a week free and I need all the exercise I can get. My other half wouldn't approve either and I don't blame her. We enjoy our Sunday walks together.

The ED50 scope is extremely light and compact so it shouldn't be impossible to carry that as well but the digiscope adapter is a bit bulky.

If I were to go ahead can anyone suggest what I should be looking at for a neat, light case to carry a DSLR with a 127mm length lens attached and room for a spare standard lens and a few essentials? It would need easy access to get at the camera quickly.

Ron

[JohnZ]

As I am a photographer, very amateur, rather than a birder then I can see no reason why you cannot do both. I do not sit in hides all day because I am too impatient and would prefer to be out and about looking for the little devils !
However you may have to be prepared to spend a bit of dosh. DSLR cameras do not come cheap unless you don`t mind buying secondhand. I bought my first DSLR and my first three lenses, all secondhand, from the U.S. and have had no problems whatsoever.
The only problem that I can foresee is that you may buy what may be regarded as a point and shoot camera and be disappointed. If you are primarily after record shots then you will be happy enough.
WARNING The world of DSLR photography escalates dramatically when you start lusting after a longer lens !!!!!!!!

[postcardcv]

If you're serious about photography then no, they don't mix. I've got a 600mm and I don't carry a scope any more, just bins, otherwise it'd be too much to lug around. I also find that often, I only go to places where there might be a chance of some photos these days and don't often twitch anything unless it looks like it's showing well enough for photos. But by carrying a smaller lens, say a 100-400, then you can compromise and still do general birding whilst remaining fairly mobile. The down side is of course than many birds will simply be too far away to get reasonable shots of, although a converter can help considerably.

I think that sums it up very well... a DSLR with a telephoto zoom could certainly be used in addition to the normal birding gear. However once you've started it seems likely that you'll start lust after a big lens, and they really do slow you down when birding.

[J. Moore]

The only problem that I can foresee is that you may buy what may be regarded as a point and shoot camera and be disappointed. If you are primarily after record shots then you will be happy enough.


John,

I compared the shots in your gallery with the shots I linked to in my post above. Frankly, I do not see any significant difference in image quality between the point-and-shoot shots and your shots. (Though I do not claim to have a particularly well-trained eye for this sort of thing). This may be due to the limitations of what can be posted on the Internet, but I would disagree with your characterization that point-and-shoot cameras would only be limited to "record shots".
[EDIT: To clarify, the above is a comment about the image quality displayed by the cameras, not a comment about the quality of the photos or the talent of the photographer].

Ron,

You did not ask, but I am baffled as to why you would want a 127 mm length lens for bird photography. Even using the 504 mm on my camera, I often find myself longing for more "reach".

Best,
Jim

[IanF]

I've never been one for sitting in hides. My style of birding and photography is to wander around seeing what I can find and taking a few photos as I go along. I carry my bins and a DSLR+400mm lens. Even with a 400mm lens I find there is quite a bit of overlap with digiscoping as regards distance to subject but generally much better image quality. The difference is I think the size/quality of the camera sensor. With the larger sensor of a DSLR you can crop much more than you can with a compact used for digiscoping.

I still use the scope and digiscope but only when the car is near at hand.

[NoSpringChicken]

At the moment, I usually have the scope with me so it's quite easy to take the camera and adapter as well. Then if we are in a hide and there is something worth photographing I can soon pop the camera onto the scope. It's just those occasions when we have been out walking and have come across a Red Deer calf standing in a shaft of sunlight or a Stonechat posing on some brambles, when I have wished for a DSLR as it's not practical to get the scoping gear out.

Ron

[NoSpringChicken]

Ron,

You did not ask, but I am baffled as to why you would want a 127 mm length lens for bird photography. Even using the 504 mm on my camera, I often find myself longing for more "reach".

Best,
Jim
I realized that could be misinterpreted just after I posted it. I am actually referring to a lens with a physical overall length of 127mm (the Olympus 70-300 zoom), not the focal length. Sorry that I confused matters.

Ron

[Corvus Corax]

Having mastered the art of being a pack mule I tend to go birding loaded up with bins, scope (Leica APO 77) plus DSLR (Canon 20D with battery grip) a couple of lenses (70-200 2.8, 18-55 2.80) 2x teleconverter, flash and tripod.

The loadout is balanced using a Blackhawk R.A.P.T.O.R. pack for the camera kit & munchies and the scope can be clipped onto the D rings on the front of the shoulder straps which sites it at sternum level.

I do find that when I am focussed on birding I take relatively few pictures but when I set out for a particular photo I am a lot more aware of what is going on around me birdwise.

[Keith Reeder]

The If you're serious about photography then no, they don't mix. I've got a 600mm and I don't carry a scope any more, just bins, otherwise it'd be too much to lug around. I also find that often, I only go to places where there might be a chance of some photos these days and don't often twitch anything unless it looks like it's showing well enough for photos. But by carrying a smaller lens, say a 100-400, then you can compromise and still do general birding whilst remaining fairly mobile. The down side is of course than many birds will simply be too far away to get reasonable shots of, although a converter can help considerably.

Hmmm...

I think I manage some reasonable pictures, even though I "only" use a 400mm lens, and I still consider myself as much a birder as a photographer..!

;)

The size of the lens doesn't automatically correlate with how seriously we take our photography, Clive - that says as much about our disposable income as it does our commitment to the "art"...

[Jaff]

I tend to just think sod it and carry everything around with me in a big bag if I'm going somewhere special as opposed to just wandering around the woods in which case I'll leave the scope and tripod at home but that's because you generally don't need a scope at Mere Sands Woods. For Martin Mere I'll take the whole lot.
I wouldn't not get a DSLR on the basis that you'd be worried about carrying lots of stuff with you. The new world it opens up is one worth the effort and without a big lens it'll fit comfortably round your neck and your bins can be over your shoulder, I've found that works well.

[NoSpringChicken]

Some useful replies here. Please keep them coming. My resolve is weakening.

Ron

[Robin Edwards]

Ron,

I faced a similar dilemma last year and took the plunge and bought a Canon 30D plus 100-400mm zoom. No regrets, honest !

Yes, it's an additional load to carry but in a TopLoader bag, can be carried with all of my other birding kit. Some may want to disagree with me but I would suggest not giving up on digiscoping because as others have already said, DSLR will bring quality and pixels (recommend you use RAW) but not the reach.

Another point worth adding is that sometimes when I go out I set my priority as getting some photographs whilst other times concentrate on scanning with the scope. As long as you can live with the odd "miss" either way, it's not so bad.

I'll let those out there that use a 300mm lens comment on whether this is enough. In my case, 400mm seems insufficient so I often use a 1.4x as well. If I had a 500mm prime, I'd still want more !

Robin

[NoSpringChicken]

Ron,

I faced a similar dilemma last year and took the plunge and bought a Canon 30D plus 100-400mm zoom. No regrets, honest !

Yes, it's an additional load to carry but in a TopLoader bag, can be carried with all of my other birding kit. Some may want to disagree with me but I would suggest not giving up on digiscoping because as others have already said, DSLR will bring quality and pixels (recommend you use RAW) but not the reach.

Another point worth adding is that sometimes when I go out I set my priority as getting some photographs whilst other times concentrate on scanning with the scope. As long as you can live with the odd "miss" either way, it's not so bad.

I'll let those out there that use a 300mm lens comment on whether this is enough. In my case, 400mm seems insufficient so I often use a 1.4x as well. If I had a 500mm prime, I'd still want more !

Robin
Thanks Robin, that's encouraging.

With regards to the 300mm lens, the Olympus is a four thirds format camera and, for some magical reason, the 300mm lens on it works like a 600mm lens on a 35mm camera or about a 400mm on the Canons and Nikons. (I think!) No doubt someone will tell me if I've got that wrong. A 1.4x teleconverter would bump that up to about 600mm, although things might be getting a bit dim then.

I have been looking at Tamrac bags and the Veolcity top loading series look quite interesting for my requirements.

Ron

[666taz]

Why not do both and stick the dslr on the scope with an adapter then you get best of both worlds just a thought

[matt green]

I have to confess I've been giving bird photography a go lately, probably spend more time faffing around with the camera than actually enjoying the view through my bins

So yes....I'd sorely love to take up DSLR photography even if it did step on the toes of my birding, it just seems to add that extra dimension to just watching them......then I might get something that didn't look like it had just been digiscoped through a cucumber!!

Matt

[Corvus Corax]

With regards to the 300mm lens, the Olympus is a four thirds format camera and, for some magical reason, the 300mm lens on it works like a 600mm lens on a 35mm camera or about a 400mm on the Canons and Nikons

This is because of the sensor size and it is a great bonus - on the 20D it works out at around a 1.5x magnifying factor so the 70-200 becomes a 105-300 f2.8 and a 2x converter takes this out to 200-600 f5.6 - a whole lot of lens.

Go on - you know it makes sense - give in to the DSLR urge . . . . .

[postcardcv]

John,

I compared the shots in your gallery with the shots I linked to in my post above. Frankly, I do not see any significant difference in image quality between the point-and-shoot shots and your shots. (Though I do not claim to have a particularly well-trained eye for this sort of thing). This may be due to the limitations of what can be posted on the Internet, but I would disagree with your characterization that point-and-shoot cameras would only be limited to "record shots".

Comparing shots as websize images can be very misleading. For web use my digiscoping set up will almost cut it against my DSLR, though it takes more processing to get there. However when you compare full size images you really can see the difference.

Attached is a DSLR shot, first is straight from the camera the second is a 100% crop from the same shot. No processing, just RAW to jpeg conversion and then resized/cropped for the web.

[Vectis Birder]

I often go birding with my DSLR and big lens. Yes, it can be a hassle sometimes but it is worth it when I get a good photo.

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

I would say the biggest impacts on my birding have been positive;

- improvement in field craft has had to increase ten fold
- improvement in understanding weather and light, and I loved looking at weather charts before!
- improvement in bird calls and behaviour
- improvement in stealth and noticing behaviour
- improvment tracking birds in their own environment coupled with activity cycles
- regained an appreciation for common birds and their nuances
- met a load of like minded birders!

[Mickymouse]

Why not do both and stick the dslr on the scope with an adapter then you get best of both worlds just a thought

That's what I do 'cept I haven't got an adapter, just hand held.

Mick

[JohnZ]

J.Moore, Perhaps you ought to read my post again. I say that you may buy what is regarded as a point and shoot camera and be disappointed. I did not say that nobody can take decent shots with a point and shoot camera. As the person who originated this thread is/will be new to the world of DSLR then I would not expect miracles to start with. He may be brilliant from the offset. He may not.
With your, obviously, good eye I will take your word for the quality of your shots as I don`t seem to be able to access them due to a problem with my pop up blocker.

I did also mention that I was very amateur.

You will also notice that in the post after mine postcard pete reiterates exactly that which I said regarding longer lenses.

[J. Moore]

J.Moore, Perhaps you ought to read my post again. I say that you may buy what is regarded as a point and shoot camera and be disappointed. I did not say that nobody can take decent shots with a point and shoot camera. As the person who originated this thread is/will be new to the world of DSLR then I would not expect miracles to start with. He may be brilliant from the offset. He may not.
With your, obviously, good eye I will take your word for the quality of your shots as I don`t seem to be able to access them due to a problem with my pop up blocker.

I did also mention that I was very amateur.
Thanks for clarifying, no problem. Also, I should clarify that I did not mean to be casting aspersions on your photos, I actually liked them a lot. I was making a statement about image quality of DSLRs (which I take to be a characteristic of the camera and not the photographer) in general and just using your photos as an example.
cordially,
Jim

P.S.: Thanks also to postcardcv for providing the blowup example in post #26.

[fugl]

In my opinion, bird photography with a DSLR--point-&-shoots don't cut it in my experience though they may in the future as the technology improves--and bird watching can be combined though the combination is an uneasy one. The trick is to keep focal length and maximum aperature.down. I use a 300mm f4 prime on a Nikon D70 which at ISO400 and wide-open I can successfully hand-hold in all but the worst lighting conditions. I carry the rig in a shoulder bag and can get it out quite quickly if something turns up I want to photograph. The downside is that the camera/camera bag is awkward to carry/bulky and weighs a fair amount, the upshot being that when I go out with the camera I generally leave the scope and tripod in the car. And naturally, even with the D70's 1.5 crop factor, I could use more reach.

Here are examples of photos I've taken over the years with the rig described: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7117259@N05/

[Clive Watson]

Hmmm...

I think I manage some reasonable pictures, even though I "only" use a 400mm lens, and I still consider myself as much a birder as a photographer..!

;)

The size of the lens doesn't automatically correlate with how seriously we take our photography, Clive - that says as much about our disposable income as it does our commitment to the "art"...

Sorry Keith, it wasn't meant to be an aspersion, I was just trying to make the point that Peter made, that for general birding whilst carrying a lens, rather than going out specifically for photography, he probably won't want to be carrying around a 500mm or 600mm. It just depends how far he wants to take it. I've found that as I've got more into the photography, there has inevitably been a compromise, both in what I carry around but also in how I approach birding and where I go. There are some places I used to go which I never go to any more, because I know they're unlikely to produce any photo-opportunities, a prime example being Staines Reservoir, which is only a few miles away.

Of course, combining the two can be done, even with a 600mm. I've been to Fair Isle the past couple of years and Scilly before that, and whilst there, I'm effectively doing that. I carry the camera and lens on one shoulder (by the lens strap, not the camera one!) and hold the tripod in one hand. It's not ideal, but it's the best way I've found. The same also applies to foreign trips (not that there's many of them these days). But the rest of the time, I find I'm much more geared to photography rather than birding nowadays. I've got feeding stations up at work and I normally only go to places where I know (or at least I think I know) there's a chance of some photos.

I maintain though that with a 400mm most birds will be out of range. I know this because with a 600mm most birds are out of range. Over the past two years, I've tried the 'stalking' approach several times at Chobham and Thursley Commons, looking for Dartford Warbler, Woodlark, Tree Pipit, Linnet, Stonechat etc, and inevitably I return with bugger all.

[Clive Watson]

The size of the lens doesn't automatically correlate with how seriously we take our photography, Clive - that says as much about our disposable income as it does our commitment to the "art"...

If this is a thinly-veiled dig at how much money you think I've got, I'm afraid it's wide of the mark. When I went digital I certainly never intended to get a 600mm, I just had the fortune to find one at a second-hand price and decided it was too good an opportunity to turn down, but it was a lot more than I intended to spend at the time and I had to dip into my savings a fair bit to get it. Even then, I was only able to do it because I like to keep my life as simple as possible. No wife, no mortgage, and certainly no kids. All the money I earn comes back to me. It's the only way to have enough money to get by. I'd recommend it to anyone.

[ghostrider]

Lets not forget that digital photography is essentially "free" once you've got your camera, lenses memory cards etc. There is no processing costs so we can spend more on equiptment. I tried my hand at SLR photography about 20yrs ago, in the days of film.
Got the camera but could only afford a 200mm zoom lens, not much good for birds. With the cost of film and developing i quickly gave it up. These days you can fill a memory card with hundreds of shots and if they're no good, delete them. With a camera set on burst mode you can rattle of loads of shots and hope to get a decent one. Imagine what this would have cost in film.
The point i'm making is, if you spend say a £1000 on gear, your pictures cost you nothing from then on. Where as a few years ago it would have cost a fortune.
I've not gone to DSLR yet but i suspect i will in the future. I'm currently using super zoom with converter and also still digiscoping with a compact.
To be honest i think my birding is sometimes taking a back seat to the photography.
What can you do though? If you don't take the scope a distant rarity pops up, if you don't take the camera a Yellowhammer comes and sits right in front of you.
A big bag and lots of time is needed, me thinks.

[deborah4]

Hi Ron

Like you, I was a bit dubious about getting a DSLR ... my main interest is watching/finding birds ... I felt I would be sidetracked and it would also tempt me to snap shots rather than take time to observe birds properly in the field. Until of course, I realised I couldn't even get half decent record shots with my digicompact (never bothered with digiscoping as I couldn't carry scope and tripod around).

So I bought a Canon 305d with 300mm 5.6 IS USM lens (no tripod!) which fits snugly into a Lowepro bum bag (opens away from you) and the camera is easy to whip out at a moment's notice - room to pack spare batteries/cfcards. Now, I can still travel light, get some record shots, have binos round my neck and portable handheld scope in rucksack if needed. Hands free birding! (and therefore much easier to get close to birds furtively than one would weighed down with stacks of gear so lens focal length is sufficient for me!)

Only problem is, I don't paint/sketch anymore and fieldnotes are down to a minimum!

Depends whether you want to branch out into photography proper, focus on birding, or be a painter LOL - I decided my priority was on the birding

This is the first picture of a wader that I've ever caught by camera that was recognisable (taken a few days ago with the second time of using my new DSLR) but perfectly adequate for a record shot

[Clive Watson]

I do regret not doing as much birding as I used to do. At the moment, I'm trying to record and photograph the birds that are present on the fairly extensive land that exists at the back of where I work; the idea being, apart from increasing my photo collection, to highlight what is there and hopefully prevent them building on it or selling it to developers (I work for a DEFRA agency and they've become a bit more conservation-aware about what is on their site these days). Trouble is, I'm spending so much time trying to get photos I'm not getting round to just generally birding the area. I'm finding my photography a bit like listing, which is not really surprising since I was a birder long before I was a photographer. Hopefully when I've photographed all the 'common' birds (and there's still many I haven't) I can get become a bit more focused about how I approach the whole thing.

[deborah4]

I've just been browsing the Gallery and found work by Emil Enchev:

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/search.php?searchid=55357

These photos are stunning but it says they were all taken with a Canon 300mm! Am I missing something obvious about the equipment, would some ''extra'' have been used to get more length? Or would these have been taken just with the single 300mm lens (SLR even)? Everyone I've spoken to says 300mm is not ''very good'' for bird photography but I'm gobsmacked looking at these! Check out the Wall Creeper.

[Roy C]

I've just been browsing the Gallery and found work by Emil Enchev:

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/search.php?searchid=55357

These photos are stunning but it says they were all taken with a Canon 300mm! Am I missing something obvious about the equipment, would some ''extra'' have been used to get more length? Or would these have been taken just with the single 300mm lens (SLR even)? Everyone I've spoken to says 300mm is not ''very good'' for bird photography but I'm gobsmacked looking at these! Check out the Wall Creeper.
Hi Deborah, It all depends on how near you can get to the birds. For walking around and grabbing shots then 300mm would be a little short but if you have a hide or blind and a feeding station then you can easily get away with 300mm.

[IanF]

Yep! It's all about how close away the birds are. Putting many hours in sitting quietly in hide to get the birds closer or birding in an area where the birds aren't so wary of people - any shorter lens will do. As Roy says though for many people the birds just aren't that close so a longer lens is needed.

[Roy C]

BTW Deborah, some photo's you see on the web are almost full frame and others are taken from afar and heavily cropped - this is one reason why you cannot entirely judge a lens by web images, a photographer who gets fairly close and does little cropping will invariable produce better pictures than someone who shoots from afar and crops heavily.
I have found that it is no coincidence that most of my best shoots were when I was nearest to the bird.

[fugl]

As I said in an earlier post on this thread, 300mm works just fine as a walking-around lens. Practically all my bird pictures were taken with a 300mm x f4 Nikon prime (D70, 400iso). The great majority are cropped, some quite heavily but, as long they look good on the computer screen, so what?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7117259@N05/

[Roy C]

As I said in an earlier post on this thread, 300mm works just fine as a walking-around lens. Practically all my bird pictures were taken with a 300mm x f4 Nikon prime (D70, 400iso). The great majority are cropped, some quite heavily but, as long they look good on the computer screen, so what?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7117259@N05/
I am not knocking heavy crops as most of mine are as well. I was just pointing out that is no way you can get the same detail if shooting from, say, 30 yards as opposed to 5 yards.
While heavy crops may be ok for the screen they are not so clever for big prints - try printing a 800 pixels image at say 12 inches and see the quality you get.

[postcardcv]

I've just been browsing the Gallery and found work by Emil Enchev:

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/search.php?searchid=55357

These photos are stunning but it says they were all taken with a Canon 300mm! Am I missing something obvious about the equipment, would some ''extra'' have been used to get more length? Or would these have been taken just with the single 300mm lens (SLR even)? Everyone I've spoken to says 300mm is not ''very good'' for bird photography but I'm gobsmacked looking at these! Check out the Wall Creeper.

Indeed thet are impresive shots, though some of them (including the wallcreeper) were taken with a 500mm lens.

A shorter lens will leave you needing to do more cropping, this will often be fine for web work but not so good if you want to produce reasonably big prints. The simple fact is that a longer lens will put more birds within your range.

[hollis_f]

Of course, combining the two can be done, even with a 600mm. I've been to Fair Isle the past couple of years and Scilly before that, and whilst there, I'm effectively doing that. I carry the camera and lens on one shoulder (by the lens strap, not the camera one!) and hold the tripod in one hand.
My big problem is carrying camera and scope yet still being able to whip the bins up in a hurry when something interesting appears.

If I've got one of scope or camera ready for use then it's no problem. But with both I need to put one down first - and that normally means I've lost whatever it was I wanted to look at.

[fugl]

I am not knocking heavy crops as most of mine are as well. I was just pointing out that is no way you can get the same detail if shooting from, say, 30 yards as opposed to 5 yards.
While heavy crops may be ok for the screen they are not so clever for big prints - try printing a 800 pixels image at say 12 inches and see the quality you get.

I agree, uncropped is always better in terms of image quality than cropped. But my point is that for display on modern computer screens cropped is often more than good enough. For example, here's a couple of heavily cropped shots that I took with a 300mm lens.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/1394984186/sizes/l/in/set-72157602214643626/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/2220164606/sizes/l/

In my opinion, these look fine on the screen, though I doubt if I could get decent 8" x 10" prints out them. But then who needs prints? I've got over 200 "keepers" on my Flickr site (and even more on my hard drive) which I and other people looks at and enjoy all the time without ever feeling the need to print any of them.

The professional photographer whose photos will be printed in glossy magazines or blown up for gallery exhibition will continue to need (for the moment at least) heavy tripods and big glass, but for the amateur displaying his work on computer screens a 300mm lens will often be just fine.

Anyway, that's my take on the subject

[Roy C]

I agree, uncropped is always better in terms of image quality than cropped. But my point is that for display on modern computer screens cropped is often more than good enough. For example, here's a couple of heavily cropped shots that I took with a 300mm lens.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/1394984186/sizes/l/in/set-72157602214643626/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/2220164606/sizes/l/

In my opinion, these look fine on the screen, though I doubt if I could get decent 8" x 10" prints out them. But then who needs prints? I've got over 200 "keepers" on my Flickr site (and even more on my hard drive) which I and other people looks at and enjoy all the time without ever feeling the need to print any of them.

The professional photographer whose photos will be printed in glossy magazines or blown up for gallery exhibition will continue to need (for the moment at least) heavy tripods and big glass, but for the amateur displaying his work on computer screens a 300mm lens will often be just fine.

Anyway, that's my take on the subject
Originally Posted by Roy C
I am not knocking heavy crops as most of mine are as well.

You obviously did not read my previous post. BTW if you want to look at some heavy crops you only have to go to my BF gallery or web site it is full of them.

[deborah4]

Hi Deborah, It all depends on how near you can get to the birds.

Yes, it's glaringly obvious now you point it out!;)

Putting many hours in sitting quietly in hide to get the birds closer or birding in an area where the birds aren't so wary of people - any shorter lens will do.

Which might not be conducive to my usual birding activities - It would be very time consuming out of the few days I have free for birding ... I like to walk too! (and generally avoid Wetland Trust places etc where birds are ''tame'')

A shorter lens will leave you needing to do more cropping, this will often be fine for web work but not so good if you want to produce reasonably big prints.

Yes, this makes perfect sense too ... I can see why 'proper' birding photographers use long lens reach for birds that are even close enough for only a small percentage crop from a 300mm, the detail that's retained after cropping is obvious on pics taken with 500, 600 etc

Thanks for the responses.

To revisit the thread question: For me, to get ''good result'' DSLR photography (ie. as practiced by Roy, Ian, Postcardcv etc), would detract from my birding (not withstanding the more cumbersome gear I'd have to lug around!) but just for record shots and situations where i'm fortunate enough to get very close, 300mm is adequate, provided i don't want to produce 8 x 10'' prints. (which is suits me perfectly as my main activity in the field is birding rather than photography - It doesn't seem feasible to do both with any degree of expertise at the same time.)

[kittykat23uk]

Assuming Ron doesn’t plan to buy a big 500 or 600 mm lens that’s heavier than his scope, can someone please explain their reasoning as to whether a DSLR with a 300mm lens would necessarily be a better buy as a general birding camera than a superzoom like the Panasonic FZ18?

I’m not being judgemental here, just honestly curious to understand the relative merits of an entry level DSLR in the context of “birding” over a superzoom compact. Particularly since my OH is getting the photography bug after having a play around with my FZ18 and I was wondering if it would be worth him getting a DSLR (and if so, then what to go for).

Thanks

Jo.

[deborah4]

can someone please explain their reasoning as to whether a DSLR with a 300mm lens would necessarily be a better buy as a general birding camera than a superzoom like the Panasonic FZ18?

Thanks

Jo.

I certainly wasn't suggesting that Jo ... I already have a DSLR 300mm so any alternative would have been a mute point (perhaps the Pan FZ18 may be better!?). The advantage for me is the IS which generally negates the need for a tripod and is a very light compact lens. The body is fairly robust and I believe i could use an extender if necessary. Body and Lens seating is interchangeable with a wide selection of Canon lenses, so upgrade is possible without having to get a new body.

As an ''entry level'' DSLR, it seemed a wise investment to start with a smaller lens but retain the flexibility of buying more lenses and thus increasing focal length if the 300mm became 'too short' (or too long!). I used to use a Pentax SLR before getting the digi compact, so it is a great relief to return to photography where i have a little potential control again which DSLR provides! (without the cost of wasted reels of film and high street processing of course)

[kittykat23uk]

Hi Deborah,

I wasn't having a dig at you o:D. I did go through the whole "shall I get a DSLR or a superzoom" phase and did a lot of reading before I settled on the convenience of my Panny. I was just thinking that for what Ron wants, something to complement his digiscoping set up, not too bulky, that he can take along with his scope etc etc. you really can't go far wrong with the FZ18.

Perhaps as we started from the point of view that Ron wasn't convinced with the quality of the superzoom shots he has seen, this thread has been slightly biased towards the DSLRs. I do believe that the DSLR will have the advantage in poorer light, but what other benefits will there be?

Of course the best camera for taking photos is the one you have with you at the time, and I think for portability the FZ18 is so light you don't even notice you're carrying it. This allows me to take my scope and fuji as well for when I need the better low light performance. :t:

But since I already have a FZ18 and a Fuji F31 the natural progression for us could be a DSLR if OH wants to get into photos.

We were at Wacton Common looking at the short eared owl and stood next to this other guy with a huge camera and lens on a sturdy tripod and us with our little panny and TC hand held and we were both shooting away at the owl from the same distance. We both zoomed in to look at our results the owl being quite distant and TBH, yes our shots had more noise but I still think they stood up quite well to the results this guy was getting (relative to the costs/portability of our equipment of course!). I'll try and post one tonight.

Jo

[NoSpringChicken]

Hi Jo.

You make some excellent points in your post above, with regard to the portability of the FZ18 and the other superzooms. I have been reading the replies to this thread and getting more and more undecided. The superzooms seem to do 90% of what I require but I don't want to buy one and then wish I had paid the extra for a DSLR.

I paid a quick visit to Jessops on Saturday to have a look at the Olympus E-510, which is still my most likely choice of DSLR at the moment, in conjunction with the ED 70-300 lens. The camera looked fine (in its glass case) but the lens is out of stock at most places at the moment so I was unable to see the combination 'in the flesh'. While I was there I noticed the FZ18 and it certainly is a neat and affordable solution to my requirements.

There is a new Olympus superzoom coming anytime now, the SP570, so I will probably wait to see what sort of a reception it gets. I have a feeling it will not be that good. Hopefully the next batch of Olympus 70-300 lenses should be arriving soon too, so I might be in a position to actually view all the alternatives and finally make a decision.

I look forward to seeing how you progress with your dilemma. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread so far. Very interesting.:t:

Ron

[J. Moore]

Perhaps as we started from the point of view that Ron wasn't convinced with the quality of the superzoom shots he has seen, this thread has been slightly biased towards the DSLRs. I do believe that the DSLR will have the advantage in poorer light, but what other benefits will there be?

hi Jo,

Another benefit for DSLRs would be faster and more accurate focusing, more responsive shutter, no need to wait for an Electronic Viewfinder to update, and the better image quality when looking through the viewfinder. This all means better for flight shots especially--something that Ron mentioned interest in.

But I agree with you that the FZ18 is a very good bird photography camera. Not sure if you read the whole thread, but I did try to make that case earlier. And I think it is a better option for people to carry along when they are birding. A DSLR, IMO, is primarily for people who want to take time from birding to do photography. (Though I think the FZ 18 is good enough for that purpose also). I have also been thinking about doing as you do, and getting a second point and shoot for digiscoping purposes. (Too bad they cannot come up with an ultra-zoom that you can also digiscope with).

Best,
Jim

[deborah4]

hi Jo,

Another benefit for DSLRs would be faster and more accurate focusing, more responsive shutter, no need to wait for an Electronic Viewfinder to update, and the better image quality when looking through the viewfinder. This all means better for flight shots especially--something that Ron mentioned interest in.



Good benefits over a superzoom IMO.

As for alternatives to DSLR, the original thread topic was whether DSLR photography was incompatible with birding. (hence the bias towards DSLR!) On the level that Ron is considering, my answer would be a definitive 'no' based on my own experience as an entry level user who's primary interest is watching birds rather than photographing them. Given the benefits Jim mentioned, IMO, it's more compatible than a superzoom (ie. faster shutter, focussing etc) regardless of lens size and the past few weeks, this has been the main beneficial discovery for me in actually being able to capture a bird in the first place! For general purpose birding (rather than quality photography) there's probably not a lot in it when looking for portability and mobility between a DSLR combined with a hand-held lens like a 300 IS and that of a superzoom camera. (and as I said, in answer to the original inquiry regarding how to carry it, my Lowepro bum bag makes a convenient and readily accessible carrier in the field). But in terms of versatility (interchangeable lenses, TC's etc), (and IQ?), IMO a DSLR would have more potential both in terms of later upgrades and shot control should Ron become more enamoured with birding photography and wants to do more than point and shoot.

Sounds like the superzoom is the compromise Ron wants though.

ps. Jo, I didn't take your post as a dig :h?:

PPS. Just a thought that suddenly occurred to me, please don't take any of my photos of an example!! They are far below what can be achieved even with a smaller lens, I've literally only just started with a DSLR

[kittykat23uk]

So,

following on from this. Could someone please recommend a good DSLR birding starter kit (camera and lens) for someone on a not very big budget (£500 is maybe?). Second hand a possible route for a better spec even.

Thanks,

Jo

[HokkaidoStu]

You may be able to get an entry level DSLR like the Canon 400D plus Sigma 70-300 APO for that budget. You could in Japan, dunno about elsewhere.
300mm isn't ideal but it's ok to start with. I did and probably lots of others did too.

If you want to go s/h of course there are loads more options. When Canon update their entry level DSLR soon there'll probably be quite a few 350D/400Ds on e-bay. And you could get one of those with a second hand longer 400 or 500mm Sigma cheapie for your budget perhaps. Nikon D70/70S may be a s/h option too.........



So,

following on from this. Could someone please recommend a good DSLR birding starter kit (camera and lens) for someone on a not very big budget (£500 is maybe?). Second hand a possible route for a better spec even.

Thanks,

Jo

[deborah4]

Hi Jo

I bought my Canon 305d for £250 nearly new with all software etc it included start up lens, new Canon strap etc. I added the Canon F5.6 IS USM 300mm - for £365 brand new. (You could pick up a Sigma new and much cheaper or a second hand Canon 300/400. As a start up set up, it works for me!

[postcardcv]

So,

following on from this. Could someone please recommend a good DSLR birding starter kit (camera and lens) for someone on a not very big budget (£500 is maybe?). Second hand a possible route for a better spec even.

Thanks,

Jo

As others have mentioned a secondhand Canon EOS 350D/400D would be a good starting point. You can pick up a good 400D for under £250 and a 350D for under £200. As for lenses have a look for a secondhand Sigma zoom, the 135-400 or the 170-500 are both good lenses to start with.

[Brian Bullough]

Not having read all the above posts I may be just repeating what someone else has posted but here are my thoughts.
I have digiscoped for sometime but 2 yrs ago bought a 350D + 100-400 lens which I carry in a Hamma case or around my neck when I am "walking up" (also fits the front of the bike)on my back is a Kowa823 on a 055mf3 tripod with 701rc head its weighty despite the carbon fibre legs but on a backpack its the easiest way to carry, also has flask etc.giving hands free for bins or camera, and a bumbag with my nikon 4500 + batteries etc and scope adapter which is the simple cup type. How many times have you been in a hide and heard someone say "wish I had brought the scope instead of leaving it in the car" but for now that's as far as I am going other than a camera upgrade, I still like digiscoping & using the scope I am a birder that takes photos.
I do not know the cameras listed above but I chose Canon because I could go further if required,where as some of the zoom types have there limits.
Brian

[tjsimonsen]

Having just stumbled over this thread, I have a couple of comments.

Taking up dSLR photography will most certainly change your habits as a birder. But is that bad (especially if you are happy with the changes - which you probably will be, otherwise, why should you make them?)?. For one thing, it may resurrect an interest for the more common stuff, because they can be great subjects for photography. My own nature interests have cartainly changed over the years. I started out with insects (incl. collecting) at the age of six and took up birding a year or two later. For some years fishing was my main interest and insecting/birding got pushed to the background. When I seriously took up birding and insect collecting again some 13-15 years ago, I soon bought my first SLR as well. IMO birding and SLR bird photography can easily be combined, and the photography certainly adds to the birding experience. Insect collecting and macro photography can be considerable harder to combined. But even that marrige generally works out fairly well too (being mainly interested in nocturnal collecting definitly helps :-O).

Regarding dSLR vs. super-zoom: my main birding setup is a Canon 350D and a EF 100-400L, but I also have a Canon Powershot S5 IS. I mainly got the S5 to have a camera I can carry all the time (as someone noted above: the best setup is the one that allows you to get the picture), and it gives me fairly good pictures I would otherwise miss. But the super-zoom simply cannot compete with the the 350D+100-400L, neither in terms of handling nor IQ. The approximately 10 times higher price I paied for the dSLR and the lens compared to the S5 (I got a refurbed) is entirely justifiable IMO. There are several reasons why a dSLR and a decent tele lens will yield better resutls than a super-zoom: the SLR lens is generally better as a super-zoom lens involves a lot of compromises, and has to be chearper at the same time, but most significantly: the sensor of a dSLR is better! A sensor in any compact camera has to be very small, and at the same time deliver a high resulution. This means much smaller pixel size (= higher noise even at lowest ISO) and much smaller micro lenses infront of the sensor (which often results in a considerable amount of red frindges). I'm not saying that supr-zooms are bad, just that dSLRs are considerably better.

Thomas

[Vectis Birder]

For one thing, it may resurrect an interest for the more common stuff, because they can be great subjects for photography.

Absolutely. I have been taking pics of common birds recently and am very pleased with the results. Instead of thinking 'oh, it's just a Great Tit (or whatever)' I try to take pics of them.

I would definitely take a DSLR over a compact every time. I have a superzoom compact and, while the results are ok, they are never anywhere near as good as the pictures I get from my DSLR, even with an inexpensive lens on it.

Here are a couple of my recent pics, a Great Tit and a Chaffinch:

[kittykat23uk]

Thanks everyone for you comments. How does the Canon 30D compare to the 350D and 400D? I noticed someone was selling one (body only) in the classifieds section for £350 I think. Would that be a better buy? Are there any Nikons we should look at as well?

Thanks!

[vkalia]

I am chiming in a bit late as well, but to me, bird photography and birding are fundamentally different activities and cannot be done together - not without one activity being relegated to secondary status.

It isnt simply a matter of figuring out how to carry your equipment. The mindset is different.

If you are doing serious bird photography, you cannot just walk around and shoot whatever looks nice. You need to spend time sitting with your subject and waiting for the right moment, light, angle and action. This is directly opposed to serious birding, where one tries to see as many species as possible.

And if you are serious about bird photography, you need a 500 or 600 prime (I got along fine with a 100-400 before, but now that I have seen what I can get with a 500+2x TC, I am surprised I ever managed with a 400).

It may theoretically be possible to carry a scope, binos, tripod and long lens, but I can assure you - most people would be so physically tired with all that gear that they'd never get in the right frame of mind for photography. And good luck managing all that equipment when confronted with a rapidly-developing photo op.

For all these reasons, I feel that you can be a serious birder who takes occasional photos, or you can be a serious photographer who birds on the side (me!) but you cannot be both a serious birder AND a serious photographer.

Vandit

PS: 30D --> better body to use. Improved AF, better handling, more customization options. Gets you 90% of the performance of the single-digit Canon bodies for a very reasonable price. Good buy.

[vkalia]

I am chiming in a bit late as well, but to me, bird photography and birding are fundamentally different activities and cannot be done together - not without one activity being relegated to secondary status.

It isnt simply a matter of figuring out how to carry your equipment. The mindset is different.

If you are doing serious bird photography, you cannot just walk around and shoot whatever looks nice. You need to spend time sitting with your subject and waiting for the right moment, light, angle and action. This is directly opposed to serious birding, where one tries to see as many species as possible.

And if you are serious about bird photography, you need a 500 or 600 prime (I got along fine with a 100-400 before, but now that I have seen what I can get with a 500+2x TC, I am surprised I ever managed with a 400).

It may theoretically be possible to carry a scope, binos, tripod and long lens, but I can assure you - most people would be so physically tired with all that gear that they'd never get in the right frame of mind for photography. And good luck managing all that equipment when confronted with a rapidly-developing photo op.

For all these reasons, I feel that you can be a serious birder who takes occasional photos, or you can be a serious photographer who birds on the side (me!) but you cannot be both a serious birder AND a serious photographer.

Vandit

[JohnZ]

I have to beg to differ vkalia. All you have to do is look on Keith Reeders gallery and you will see some excellent shots. I suspect he may be more interested in the photography side of things but not to the exclusion of everything else ?
Also he manages all of his shots with the very humble 100-400 ! He obviously does not need either 500 or 600 prime lenses.

[YellowBudgie]

[QUOTE=NoSpringChicken;1138921]I have been considering the possibility of buying a DSLR camera and telephoto lens for birding but I can't decide whether it is going to be too much of an encumbrance.

Hi Ron,

I assume you would be using the DSLR for more than bird photography?

If this is the case you could purchase a DSLR with a decent all around lens. If you had the DSLR you could rent a telephoto lens or rent a few different telephotos to get an idea of what to expect before you make the big purchase.

Speaking of heavy equipment…

A friend of mine who has done great with bird photography doesn’t like sitting around to shoot. He treks through the wild to photo birds with a heavy lens and camera, a large body DSLR and I think a EF 500mm f/4L IS. He recently purchased a BushHawk Shoulder Mount, similar to a gun stock but for your camera. You can purchase a remote shutter release cable that works with the trigger button.

I tried it out it was a cool camera mount. The only issue I noticed with this setup was the shoulder stock. When you have the stock on your shoulder it’s awkward to look through the viewfinder. You can brace the stock on your chest to get around this.

I don’t know the weight he carries but he said the bushhawk has been great, he can be ready for a shoot very quickly. You can also attach a monopod to the bushhawk to help as well.

Here’s a link to the shoulder mounts:
http://bushhawk.shopol.com/Group/5YDIQ7IWWOKX6ZMJ.htm

Good luck on your camera decision. There’s a bunch of great advice if you search the forums here and great people as well.

Dana

[vkalia]

I have to beg to differ vkalia. All you have to do is look on Keith Reeders gallery and you will see some excellent shots. I suspect he may be more interested in the photography side of things but not to the exclusion of everything else ?

I didnt mean to imply it was one to the exclusion of the other. However, I stand by my statement that you can choose to do one or the other.

If you go out for a photography session, you will see a lot fewer birds compared to someone who goes out for just birding. And if you go out trying to see the most number of species, you are generally going to be less productive photographically.

Also he manages all of his shots with the very humble 100-400 ! He obviously does not need either 500 or 600 prime lenses.

I am not sure I agree with that line of thought. Just because he has gotten some excellent shots with the 100-400 does not say anything about what he'd do with a 500 or 600.

Still, we can agree to disagree.

Cheers,
Vandit

[pduxon]

As someone new to the photography side I would say that though the two are not mutually exclusive it does change your goals.

More often than not I leave the scope at home. I think in the last 5 months the Leica has been out once! If I take a scope its the ED50.

When I am going out with the camera I'm more interested in photo opportunities than in number of species seen. I'd sort of say if I go myself "if I go to x I'll get a good chance of some close up water rail shots rather than y where there'll be more birds and every thing will be distant".

I'm too much of a birder though to ever encumber myself with a massive prime lens (plus too much of a tight wad). I like being unencumbered. each to his/her own I guess.

[NoSpringChicken]

I have been watching this thread with interest. There have been some excellent replies.

I have decided not to go for a DSLR at the moment. I have a feeling that to do it properly involves a not inconsiderable outlay if the results are not to be disappointing. I think there is also no substitute for big lenses and, apart from the expense, I don't think I really want the extra burden of all that photographic equipment. I have also just bought a new pair of Trinovid binoculars which has taken a large chunk of my camera budget for the next few months.

There are also some new cameras coming shortly and, although I know there will never be the perfect time to jump in, I would like to see what happens in the next few months. I am especially interested to see if there are any major developments in superzoom compact cameras.

In the meantime I will carry on taking my digiscoping equipment with me and, if a suitable photographic opportunity arises, well and good. If not "C'est la vie" as they say in Norfolk.

Keep the responses coming. They make interesting reading.

Ron

[vkalia]

I didnt mean to imply it was one to the exclusion of the other. However, I stand by my statement that you can choose to do one or the other.

Correction - the above should read:

I didnt mean to imply it was one to the exclusion of the other. However, I stand by my statement that you can emphasize only one or the other, not both.

Vandit

[ChrisSearle]

My suggestion is to just go out and do what you enjoy. All this talk of 'serious photography' and 'serious birding' sounds awful to me. If you just love being out and watching birds great! If you like to take photos of 'em ( and I know I do) then equally, great. If you want to travel light ( 8x20's, ED 50, compact superzoom) Wonderful! If you want to do what I do which is lugging big scope, 2x SLRs, sundry lenses and birdsong recording equipment around then yes, you need a car of some sort but if you have and you don't mind using it then load up the gear and go and have fun. Maybe I'm a bit too 'frivolous' and don't take things 'seriously', but I do know that I really enjoy my birding, errr, bird photography, errr, birdsong recording.

[IanF]

My suggestion is to just go out and do what you enjoy. All this talk of 'serious photography' and 'serious birding' sounds awful to me. If you just love being out and watching birds great! If you like to take photos of 'em ( and I know I do) then equally, great. If you want to travel light ( 8x20's, ED 50, compact superzoom) Wonderful! If you want to do what I do which is lugging big scope, 2x SLRs, sundry lenses and birdsong recording equipment around then yes, you need a car of some sort but if you have and you don't mind using it then load up the gear and go and have fun. Maybe I'm a bit too 'frivolous' and don't take things 'seriously', but I do know that I really enjoy my birding, errr, bird photography, errr, birdsong recording.

Well said Chris, a man after my own heart :t:

Each to their own!

[Keith Reeder]

Exactly, Chris: I'm a birding photographer - in that any time I'm out I'm doing both - and nobody will persuade me that this is not a prefect description of what I do.

I also know that since adding photography to my birding, I'm enjoying and appreciating birds - including the common ones - in a way I never did when I was "just" a birder.

[Mickymouse]

I would have thought they are complementary pursuits, you need to do the birding bit to be in a position to do any quality photography.

Mick

[vkalia]

My suggestion is to just go out and do what you enjoy. All this talk of 'serious photography' and 'serious birding' sounds awful to me.

Funny. I quite enjoy my "serious" photography. - I do it for income and I do it for fun. Serious in this context does not mean "frowning and not having fun" - it means dedication and a willingness to put in the effort required to get the best results possible.

I would have thought that this would have been very apparent from the context & really have no idea where things degenerated into splitting hairs about semantics - but I think this is where I exit this discussion.

If someone can go out and take great photos AND check off a bazillion birds at the same time, more power to them - they are better at it than I.

Simple test: you have the camera ready and pointed at a log and some <insert common/junk birds of your region are hanging out> come in and rest there. A little further away, there is a mixed flock foraging and moving rapidly. Do you:
(a) Stick to photography and try to get great shots of the junk birds
(b) Forget the great photo and try to identify all the birds in the mixed flock?
(c) Run after the mixed flock with your camera and shoot record shots while missing ID on a few species in that flock?
(d) Get the great shots and ID all the birds in the mixed flock as well

Anyone care to place bets on what the people who earn a living from their wildlife or bird photography do?

Ultimately, this discussion is pointless and seems to be degenerating into a battle of definitions and labels. As long as you enjoy what you do, who cares about how your activity is defined?

Vandit

[jfmgb777]

Old Thursday 6th March 2008, 15:58 #55
kittykat23uk
Registered User


Join Date: May 2007
Location: Norwich
Posts: 677

So,

following on from this. Could someone please recommend a good DSLR birding starter kit (camera and lens) for someone on a not very big budget (£500 is maybe?). Second hand a possible route for a better spec even.

Thanks,

Jo

From my experience, £500 may get you a decent DSLR, but it won't even take you halfway to getting a decent lens - and that's without a camera on the end of it.

It all depends on whether you want to photograph stationary birds or ones in flight.

Having tried a Fuji S9500 unsuccessfully for bird photography, two years ago I lashed out on a Canon 350D + Sigma 70-300 mm zoom (the cheapo one). When the 300 mm did not give me the reach I wanted, and rapidly running out of inheritance to miss-spend, I went for the Tamron 200-500 mm, as I could no longer justify spending £1000 on a lens alone.

What an expensive mistake for someone wanting to catch birds in flight! Every time I try to catch a buzzard soaring, the autofocus hunts from infinity to minimum and back again, and I miss the shot. Manual focussing is hopeless as there is no split screen to get it accurate.

From what I have now read, the <b>minimum</b> lens for this kind of photography is the Canon 400 mm f5.6 or the Canon 100-400 mm f5.6 IS, both of which are now completely out of my reach at nearly £1000!

My advice would be to steer clear of DSLRs unless you can afford to spend as much on a lens as many ordinary people spend on a car.

[Vectis Birder]

My suggestion is to just go out and do what you enjoy. All this talk of 'serious photography' and 'serious birding' sounds awful to me.

I like to think I am serious birder and I do take my photography seriously and it is far from 'awful'. I am 'serious' insomuch as I like to get the best picture I can with my D80 and 'cheap' Sigma 170-500mm lens, and I want to see as many birds as possible and see them well.

However, I did meet a photographer last year who was writing or contributing to a book on Ecuadorian (or South American in general, I can't remember which) birds and he was so focussed (pun unintentional!) he was beyond intense and was barely polite. I was told he'd practically burned himself out in the pursuit of images for this book. Ok, so this is a little extreme and I guess most of us aren't like that.

My advice would be to steer clear of DSLRs unless you can afford to spend as much on a lens as many ordinary people spend on a car.

I completely disagree. If you were going to lash out £3000-£6000 on a top-of-the-range Nikon D3 or Canon EOS 1 MkIII then yes, using cheap lenses would be the equivalent of using a cheap stylus on a top-of-the-range HiFi system (if you could still find one that plays vinyl). But most of us use comparatively cheap ~beginners to 'serious amateur'~ DSLRs such as Nikon D40, D60, D80 or Canon 400D, 40D, etc, and have no need in the normal course of events to buy such incredibly expensive lenses and yet are happy in our photography.

I use a DSLR because, even with cheap lenses, the quality is better than a compact and I like the flexibility of interchangeable lenses.

[greypoint]

An interesting read. As a very amateur birdwatcher and photographer I think it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking everyone has the same needs/wants/aspirations that you do. I started to photograph birds because they were there. I'd had the same casual interest as many others - fed garden birds etc. - but starting to try to get a few photos obviously leads to a deeper interest - books and web sites. I'm not a 'birder'. It's always good to get a sight and hopefully picture of a new bird, but the everyday ones often produce the most interesting pictures. Some of my favourites are behaviour shots of the humble Starling. I suppose I'm sort of midway in this debate - I like to try and get reasonable photos but can't hope to get the sort of stuff the experts on here get [no names you know who they are!] - I like to see new birds but don't have lists or the urge to travel miles to catch a glimpse of a rare visitor. To each his or her own.

As to the choice of camera and lenses, I seem to read so often that a 300mm zoom will be much too short and how it's not worth bothering with a DSLR unless you have a load of money to spend. Of course a long prime or zoom, ideally good quality/fast, is what everyone might aspire to, but it's quite possible to get satisfactory photos with a shorter lens if you're not too ambitious - perhaps you'll need to crop and perhaps they won't enlarge to A3, but you can still get better than good record shots most of the time and sometimes a lot better. I'm currently using a 40D and a 200mm f2.8L [£350 off ebay!]- much too short as a birding lens. OK my main subject tends to be Swans and, as i can stand in the middle of them an 18mm would suffice! But the joy of this lens is the instant focussing - I'm not going to fill the frame with small birds [but then a 400mm does'nt fill the frame either], but I've nailed flying birds that I would'nt stand a chance with using another camera/lens combination. I've used budget long lenses and they don't compare with the detail this combo gives me. I've got a 2x for it to give me 400mm but I've hardly used it. So for some people a 300mm will give lots of fun and plenty of good results with a bit of care, patience, fieldcraft and cropping. Not to say i would'nt like, and might get when I can afford it, a 400mm of some sort. So I'd say to anyone, don;t be put off if you can't spend a load of money on gear - get a good budget DSLR and look out for a bargain second hand lens - I've used compact superzooms and it's so much easier with a DSLR. Remember size is'nt everything!

[ruchai]

"I currently carry binoculars, a Nikon ED50 scope, a Fuji F30 camera on a digiscoping adapter and a tripod or hide clamp plus the usual other bits and pieces. I can cope with carrying that lot about without too much hassle and walk about quite happily all day."

You will be betteroff carry a D300, 80-400VR, carbon tripod, and a ball head and enjoy walking all day. The 400mm with 1.5 cropping plus 3" very bright screen of the D300 you will see mall birds as seen through a 12X binoculars but much clearler. Just press the shuter you can keep the picture! I currently always carry a D200, 80-400VR, Made in China carbon tripod and head.

Birding and dslr do mix, the new D300 and small 400m tele lenses make doing so much more enjoyable. Light, reasonably priced, and fun to use. Who need binoculars and scope?

[vkalia]

You will be betteroff carry a D300, 80-400VR, carbon tripod, and a ball head and enjoy walking all day. The 400mm with 1.5 cropping plus 3" very bright screen of the D300 you will see mall birds as seen through a 12X binoculars but much clearler.

I am afraid I have to disagree with that. The view from a good mid-priced pair of binoculars is *significantly* brighter & reveals a lot more detail than the view from a 400mm lens on a crop body.

Vandit

[horukuru]

who need binoculars and scope?

birders need binocular and scope even bird photographers uses binocular to see the object 1st then shoot.

if the bird too far for decent shot, at least binocular helps to identify the bird and next time try to get close as possible to get good shot of it :eat:

[tjsimonsen]

[I] Who need binoculars and scope?

At the end of the day, I'd rather be without my camera than my binoculars!
But it's a choice I hope I'll never have to make 8-P

Thomas