which is the best?

[steveo]

canon 30d eos, nikon d200, canon rebel 350d, for general bird photography, these are all comparable any info appreaciated. If you have any other sugestions that would be great.

[Roy C]

Dont know about the Nikon but I have both the Canon's. They are both very good cameras that would give you great bird shots with the right lens. Of the two I prefer the 30D for bird photography mainly because it has Spot Metering, 5 FPS, bigger buffer and better AF system - I also find the controls easier but as I say both are great cameras.

[IanF]

30D for me as well :t:

[macshark]

30D is better than the 350D unless you are looking for a very light setup. The choice is not so clear between the 30D and the 400D as 400D has basically the same AF system as the 30d. If you are using a very high quality lens, the extra pixels on the 400D may come in handy on a day with good light. The ergonomics and the low light performance of the 30D is better.

I am currently using a 350D (for more than a year and a half) since I did not find the 30D or 400D good enough to upgrade and the only area I am somewhat unhappy about is AF in servo mode.

[pe'rigin]

I would go with the Nikon, because of the lenses.

If you don't own any, go with the 30D.

[Cashie]

For birds the Canon 30D for me, I have had 2 Nikons & changed over to Canon, since the change I am getting sharper brighter pictures, but maybe I am just more suited to the Canon gear.

Paul :-O

[Keith Reeder]

Canon 30D, without doubt - and I've owned two D200s.

Aside from body issues (which I'm happy to discuss at length by PM), Canon is all over Nikon for lens choice.

Both make lenses with great optical quality, but Canon long lenses have stabilisation, which fact has in itself been enough for many Nikon users to jump ship - our very own Andy Bright, for example.

Then there's the fact that Nikon really has nothing to compare with either the Canon 400mm f/5.6 prime or the 100-400mm IS, probably the best all-round 400m birding lenses.

The Nikon 80-400mm VR is optically very nice, but the lack of an ultrasonic motor makes it very slow-focussing compared with the Canon 100-400 - I know, because before I gave up on Nikon I used a Sigma 80-400mm OS on my Nikon bodies: it was faster focussing than the Nikon 80-400 because it had a built-in AF motor (the Nikon relies on the AF motor in the camera), but it is way slower than the Canon 100-400 I use now.

To be fair, Nikon's 200-400 is a different beast altogether, and Canon has no equivalent to it. It has image stabilisation ("VR") and an ultrasonic motor and is optically stunning: but it's honking big thing, and it weighs a ton - a tripod lens for most of us. Nothing wrong with that, but it is in a place of its own, really.

Then there's the high ISO noise advantage provided by the 30D - real low noise, rather than noise reduction from in-camera software, a difference which can be very important if you want fine detail (which you do for bird photography).

None of this is brand bashing, it's just fact you can confirm easily enough.

[steveo]

Thank you all for the replies. How important is the 8.1 megapixels versus 10.1, also what would be a good all around birding zoom lense?

[postcardcv]

Thank you all for the replies. How important is the 8.1 megapixels versus 10.1, also what would be a good all around birding zoom lense?

I have an 8mp and a 10mp camera and the megapixel count makes basically no difference. Sure a 10mp camera will allow a bit more cropping, but in the real world it's not much extra.

As for a good birding zoom.... it greatly depends on your budget and which make of camera you go for. If you go for Canon and can afford it then the 100-400 IS (£999) will be very hard to beat, it is one of the most popular birding lenses. If you don't want to spend that much on a lens then the Sigma 135-400 or the Sigma 170-500 are well worth a look. They are a good deal cheaper than the Canon, but still perform very well.

[gmax]

Canon 30D, without doubt - and I've owned two D200s.

Aside from body issues (which I'm happy to discuss at length by PM), Canon is all over Nikon for lens choice.

Both make lenses with great optical quality, but Canon long lenses have stabilisation, which fact has in itself been enough for many Nikon users to jump ship - our very own Andy Bright, for example.

Then there's the fact that Nikon really has nothing to compare with either the Canon 400mm f/5.6 prime or the 100-400mm IS, probably the best all-round 400m birding lenses.

The Nikon 80-400mm VR is optically very nice, but the lack of an ultrasonic motor makes it very slow-focussing compared with the Canon 100-400 - I know, because before I gave up on Nikon I used a Sigma 80-400mm OS on my Nikon bodies: it was faster focussing than the Nikon 80-400 because it had a built-in AF motor (the Nikon relies on the AF motor in the camera), but it is way slower than the Canon 100-400 I use now.

To be fair, Nikon's 200-400 is a different beast altogether, and Canon has no equivalent to it. It has image stabilisation ("VR") and an ultrasonic motor and is optically stunning: but it's honking big thing, and it weighs a ton - a tripod lens for most of us. Nothing wrong with that, but it is in a place of its own, really.

Then there's the high ISO noise advantage provided by the 30D - real low noise, rather than noise reduction from in-camera software, a difference which can be very important if you want fine detail (which you do for bird photography).

None of this is brand bashing, it's just fact you can confirm easily enough.

Good synthesis, seconded!