How Technology is changing Bird Photography (1 Viewer)

Reading these posts with great interest.when I first began birding,my binoculars were my most important piece of equipment,then came the scope,suddenly a camera was added,attached to the scope.then came an affordable DSLR,the Canon 300D,anyone remember this little gem?.Cost a fortune as opposed to today's DSLR's.Suddenly when out and about birding,one had to return with a card full of shots,not content to just view the bird through ones binoculars/scope,but one must have a shot.
Sometimes I do just go out and about without a camera,so as to enjoy seeing the birds,but somehow this digital photography really is very addictive,and I wonder is it taking us away from really enjoying seeing the birds as such,and not just seeing them as a subject for the "photo of the day",as it were.

christineredgate said:

Sometimes I do just go out and about without a camera,so as to enjoy seeing the birds,but somehow this digital photography really is very addictive,and I wonder is it taking us away from really enjoying seeing the birds as such,and not just seeing them as a subject for the "photo of the day",as it were.

Click to expand...

Well I came to birdwatching via photography, which was my main hobby and liking nature was just a background 'I like nature documentaries' type interest. It was photography that sparked the interest in birdwatching, helped by my brother, so I don't feel any regret about that aspect at all. Indeed it's the years I spent taking photographs that taught me to really look, which has been so beneficial to my birdwatching. I never really feel that the photography gets in the way of watching birds and if anything it's allowed me even greater enjoyment of them - taking a photograph of a bird allows me a leisurely look when I get home after I've enjoyed seeing the bird 'in the feather', sometimes enabling me to look at details I just wouldn't be able to spot in the field, or to identify birds that my iffy ID skills aren't up to.

Also, digital photography has enabled me to advance my techniques and abilities far beyond that which I reached with film. The instant nature of the medium allows you to check how different techniques and settings affect the photograph and learn so much quicker. Not to everyone's taste perhaps, I know people who say they like the 'anticipation' of waiting for the film to be developed, but that's something I always hated and really limited my progression as I was too disorganised to write careful notes on techniques and settings.

I love my digital cameras - they reinvigorated my interest in photography, led me towards watching wildlife and helped me make big improvements in my general and wildlife photography.

Yes - we've come a long way since you had to shoot a bird then stuff it and pose it in front of a plate camera, the height of modern photography 110+ years ago.

Then came roll film, then 35mm and now digital - each one an improvement.

At each stage no one really saw the next big change coming - makes you wonder what's next?

What is missing now, what needs improving, what will the next generation of technology give us? Scary...

" ..Also, digital photography has enabled me to advance my techniques and abilities far beyond that which I reached with film. The instant nature of the medium allows you to check how different techniques and settings affect the photograph and learn so much quicker. Not to everyone's taste perhaps, I know people who say they like the 'anticipation' of waiting for the film to be developed, but that's something I always hated and really limited my progression as I was too disorganised to write careful notes on techniques and settings.

I love my digital cameras - they reinvigorated my interest in photography, led me towards watching wildlife and helped me make big improvements in my general and wildlife photography"

I agree with this . I started shooting parrots and lorikeets in Sydney about 10 years ago using film and soon realised this wasn't the way to go (it took 1 week ), both for the results ( birds too small in the frame ) and cost of shooting lot's of frames. Digiscoping got me bigger images and Digital helped me through the learning curve at low cost (except of course the cost of keeping up with the change of camera technology and computers ). I've taken over 1,000,000 images over this period ( most ended up in the bin in the early days ) and each year my average quality gets better.
If anyone is any doubt about the improvements in bird photography skills have a look back to the Galley images from the early days. I was checking my Peru hummer photos with the Database and images from 2004 were quite poor compared to those of today.
For those who wax lyrical about the lost days of using film for bird photography I would like to see some results from Reala or Velvia . Maybe someone could take some photos using film and post the results here. I might even do this myself for fun.
I just clamboured over the islands of the Galapagos with the Nikon 500/4 on a monopod over my shoulder and didn't fall down once. The rest of the group were amazed.
There are many birds though that are a bit shy of a 500/600 f4 lens swinging around towards them when you are close enough to get a decent sized image. Some also are put of by the noise of the motor drive firing at up to 11 fps.
I would like to be digiscoping most of the time so that I can observe and stand back so as not to intrude. We are at the point now when it is possible to get speed and quality from digiscoping ( perhaps not at Naturescapes standard but close ). Birds are more "photographable" ie. not so anxious , the further we are away.
Just for interest my 500/4 plus monopod is lighter than my digiscoping kit and tripod.
Good discussion and points well presented without any bad language and violence.
Good stuff, Neil.
Neil

Not much of a comparison but here are a couple of Starlings, one taken on film in 1994 was, I think, my earliest attempt at photographing a bird and a second that was taken recently on digital kit in my back garden. The first was taken back in August 1994 on Fuji Neopan 1600 film (probably on a Canon A-1, not sure what lens I had back then), the second was taken earlier this year on a Nikon D300 with Sigma 150-500mm lens.

I went through a period of being fascinated with high ISO films and grainy photos, which is why this was taken on ISO1600 mono film. Somewhere I have some photos of Canada Geese taken on ISO1600 colour film (I think it was a Fuji type) and I used Kodak ISO 3200 T-Max film quite a bit too.

I'm afraid i disagree with most of your "How Technology is changing Bird Photography" entry manelson.

"Shooting bird photographs from a 500mm prime lens sitting on a tripod will get you the highest quality photographs that technology will allow you today. But how many will you miss? Setup time is long. Can you really carry all this around for a few hours while birding? Of course not!! You will shorten your walks with the equipment and miss many birding photographic opportunities."

This may apply to some people but not anyone i know. As soon as i got my 500 F4 it actually spurred me on to walk further and longer with my gear. I only find setup time to be a few seconds longer than walking around with a zoom.
I often spend whole days walking around with my gear and i'm fine physically with that.
I may miss a few shots occasionally while hunting for a small bird in the view finder, but then i get a lot more worthwhile shots where the bird would be too small in the frame with a smaller lens.

As i have the option to use a big prime i don't personally see why you'd sacrifice image quality at all by digiscoping or going with a super-zoom, unless of course you are physically unable to cope with the work required for a big lens.

My whole wildlife photography obsession has lead me eventually to use a big prime as that's just simply the best there is for the job.
If you don't want the best quality, don't have the strength or stamina or a condition that prohibits the use of a big lens then the other alternatives are a good option though.

Pastynator said:

I'm afraid i disagree with most of your "How Technology is changing Bird Photography" entry manelson.

"Shooting bird photographs from a 500mm prime lens sitting on a tripod will get you the highest quality photographs that technology will allow you today. But how many will you miss? Setup time is long. Can you really carry all this around for a few hours while birding? Of course not!! You will shorten your walks with the equipment and miss many birding photographic opportunities."

This may apply to some people but not anyone i know. As soon as i got my 500 F4 it actually spurred me on to walk further and longer with my gear. I only find setup time to be a few seconds longer than walking around with a zoom.
I often spend whole days walking around with my gear and i'm fine physically with that.
I may miss a few shots occasionally while hunting for a small bird in the view finder, but then i get a lot more worthwhile shots where the bird would be too small in the frame with a smaller lens.

As i have the option to use a big prime i don't personally see why you'd sacrifice image quality at all by digiscoping or going with a super-zoom, unless of course you are physically unable to cope with the work required for a big lens.

My whole wildlife photography obsession has lead me eventually to use a big prime as that's just simply the best there is for the job.
If you don't want the best quality, don't have the strength or stamina or a condition that prohibits the use of a big lens then the other alternatives are a good option though.

Click to expand...

Exactly,you are wandering around with a large lens,just looking for available bird shots.But,are you really seeing the birds as such,are you noting their habitat,or do you just want t a quick close up shot ?.
One has to differentiate between birding ,and the" must have shot".
Not easy.

Hello Christine,
Yes i agree. When i'm in photography-mode i'll go out with a view to take photos of a certain type of bird or birds in that habitat. I always try to spend time just to watch them as well
However the article was on bird photography and using technology other than a big prime lens. I think i'll still be clutching mine on my death bed! hehehe

Have dslr's with a big megapixel count made teleconverters obsolete?

Not a very scientific test but the quality I get using my x2 teleconverter seems very similar to the equivalent crop version without the tc.

inags said:

Have dslr's with a big megapixel count made teleconverters obsolete?

Click to expand...

Nope. You can always crop the image with the TC if the image is good enough (see below).

inags said:

Not a very scientific test but the quality I get using my x2 teleconverter seems very similar to the equivalent crop version without the tc.

Click to expand...

Depends on which lens you're using. With the 300 f/2.8 the image with a 2x is definitely better than the equivalent crop.

hollis_f said:

Depends on which lens you're using. With the 300 f/2.8 the image with a 2x is definitely better than the equivalent crop.

Click to expand...

I was playing with a 100-300mm F4.5-5.6 on a Canon 50D so perhaps I was proving the camera is too good for the lens. I forgot that there are people in this forum with pretty high spec equipment.