• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Lightweight DSLR camera/lens combo for bird photos? (1 Viewer)

Jim M.

Member since 2007
Supporter
United States
Looking for a lightweight (by DSLR standards) setup for bird photography. (Looking to upgrade from my superzoom). Want at least 750mm (35mm equivalent) magnification with good high ISO images in JPEG. I'm thinking a compact DSLR body (e.g. Nikon D3100 or 5100 or Canon Rebel) together with a 100-300mm zoom telephoto with a 2x teleconverter might be the way to go?

This is for my personal enjoyment and ID shots. Don't want to go over $2500 (less is better). The image quality of the Nikon looks good, but I'm concerned by the lack of an external ISO button. Sony has some lightweight quasi-DSLR's that look promising (e.g. the new SLT-a35) except they are supposed to have very aggressive noise reduction which isn't good for feather detail obviously.

Any setup recommendations? Would a teleconverter be the way to go vs. a 400mm max zoom lens?

Jim
 
Last edited:
Looking for a lightweight (by DSLR standards) setup for bird photography. (Looking to upgrade from my superzoom). Want at least 750mm (35mm equivalent) magnification with good high ISO images in JPEG. I'm thinking a compact DSLR body (e.g. Nikon D3100 or 5100 or Canon Rebel) together with a 100-300mm zoom telephoto with a 2x teleconverter might be the way to go?

This is for my personal enjoyment and ID shots. Don't want to go over $2500 (less is better). The image quality of the Nikon looks good, but I'm concerned by the lack of an external ISO button. Sony has some lightweight quasi-DSLR's that look promising (e.g. the new SLT-a35) except they are supposed to have very aggressive noise reduction which isn't good for feather detail obviously.

Any setup recommendations? Would a teleconverter be the way to go vs. a 400mm max zoom lens?

Jim
Hi Jim,

I tried with a 2x converter to start with. These only really work well with the most expensive lenses. 1.4x converters are much more forgiving. You would almost certainly lose autofocus with a 2x converter, some lenses would let you get away with it with the 1.4x.

Similarly zooms are less forgiving than prime lenses. The zoom range you suggest does tend to be cheap, but the cheaper they are, the less forgiving. Will the focal length range of the zoom be a big advantage - most birds need to be shot at the longest focal length anyway. Zooms also tend to have smaller apertures, so are less likely to autofocus with a TC.

Until recently my kit, to keep light for carrying around, used a 300mm f4 with a 1.4TC. This is a relatively cheap set up and could be got quite easily second hand. Mine happened to be Canon, though I am sure Nikon and probably other makes would do just as well. If you have steady hands a Canon 400 f5.6 without the TC would probably yield better results, perhaps slightly cheaper. The 300 I use has image stabilization, the 400 does not.

This stuff is good kit, well built. I would strongly urge you to buy this better kit second hand rather than cheaper stuff new - a far better use of your $. Bodies are perhaps less of an issue than the lens, but going second hand might allow you to get a better body too.

Mike.
 
Hi Jim,

I tried with a 2x converter to start with. These only really work well with the most expensive lenses. 1.4x converters are much more forgiving. You would almost certainly lose autofocus with a 2x converter, some lenses would let you get away with it with the 1.4x.

Similarly zooms are less forgiving than prime lenses. The zoom range you suggest does tend to be cheap, but the cheaper they are, the less forgiving. Will the focal length range of the zoom be a big advantage - most birds need to be shot at the longest focal length anyway. Zooms also tend to have smaller apertures, so are less likely to autofocus with a TC.

Until recently my kit, to keep light for carrying around, used a 300mm f4 with a 1.4TC. This is a relatively cheap set up and could be got quite easily second hand. Mine happened to be Canon, though I am sure Nikon and probably other makes would do just as well. If you have steady hands a Canon 400 f5.6 without the TC would probably yield better results, perhaps slightly cheaper. The 300 I use has image stabilization, the 400 does not.

This stuff is good kit, well built. I would strongly urge you to buy this better kit second hand rather than cheaper stuff new - a far better use of your $. Bodies are perhaps less of an issue than the lens, but going second hand might allow you to get a better body too.

Mike.

Thanks for replying and giving me a dose of reality Mike. I think I could live with a 1.7TC and 300mm lens, but anything less would feel like too much of a step down from my superzoom. If I go this route I've also decided I'd probably go with Nikon D3100, which seems to offer the best combo of low weight and good low light performance. (I know you can always get better bang for the buck used on lenses or body, but that also usually requires more time and patience, and I have neither in abundance.;))

By the way, the alternative I'm trying to beat here is micro 4/3rds Panasonic G3 with a 100-300mm lens (600mm equivalent for 35mm). If 600mm equivalent is the best I can get with a DSLR at reasonable weight and price, I'd probably just as soon go the G3 route, because of its weight advantage. Should also say that I plan to use this without a tripod.

Additional viewpoints welcome.

Jim
 
Last edited:
From my point of view, the lightest setup would indeed be the Panasonic one you mention, and which we have discussed elsewhere. One disadvantage I think need to be mentioned is that should you later decide you want a better lens, then you do not (at least at the moment) have any alternative available to you in Panasonic, while in Canon or Nikon, there would be better, more expensive lenses available. As you know, I made Pana my choice even knowing that. Even the Nikon 3100 w the zoom is heavier than the pana option.

Niels
 
I would not choose the the D3100 for bird/nature pics. Too many compromises including the fact that its AF engine is just not up to the task. The D5100 just barely cuts it too. Really your best choice will be the D7000 with either Sigma 50-500 or 150-500 lenses.
 
My 2 cents.
The lens is more important than the camera. For the DSLR you will want at least 400mm. You can get the focal length with a TC but the image quality and focusing speed suffer, (many TC's cause loss of auto focus). Personally I would recommend the Canon 400mm f5.6L lens and a Rebel body probably a 550D/ T2i. You can add a 1.4x converter kenko pro 300 DGX and still get autofocus in good light. I dont think you can get a lighter DSLR setup. This would give equivalent focal lengths of 640mm without the converter and 896mm with the converter. Estimated cost would be $ 2147 and the estimated weight would be 1912 g.



I've been playing with the G3 and 100-300mm lens for about two months. You get equivalent 600mm focal length at an estimated cost of $1200 and a weight of only 855 g. Its a very portable package, and i've got some decent pictures out of it. The only downside is that it makes getting birds in flight more of a challenge.
 
Thanks for the comments everyone. I decided to go with the G3 after all and ordered it last night. Similar to Jim, best I could come up with for a low weight DSLR setup (Nikon D3100, 1.4 TC, Nikon 70-300 lens) was 53 oz. vs. 30 oz. for the G3. That's about 1.5 lbs more to lug around, more coin, and less magnification. Hopefully, manufacturers will come out with more micro 4/3rds lenses and some teleconverters in the future, so G3 owners have more choices.

Best,
Another Jim
 
Last edited:
I've been playing with the G3 and 100-300mm lens for about two months. You get equivalent 600mm focal length at an estimated cost of $1200 and a weight of only 855 g. Its a very portable package, and i've got some decent pictures out of it. The only downside is that it makes getting birds in flight more of a challenge.
Hi Jim
very good points re weight etc. does your thinking include the GH2" + 100-300mm lens
Im not interested in video and frankly get a pain listening to all the vidtalk. It actually makes me wonder if panasonic are serious about this (GH2) as a stills camera.
Since the launch of the G3 the GH2 seems to have been overlooked entirely. Any thoughts would be welcome.
 
Since the launch of the G3 the GH2 seems to have been overlooked entirely. Any thoughts would be welcome.

Just saw a thread today on DPreview about these two: the guy had tried first the G3 and then the GH2 and loved the second one due to the ergonomics (size and placement of bottoms, wheel to make changes, etc.)

The other differences and similarities, I think I have already written what I can about in other threads.

Niels
 
Thanks for the comments everyone. I decided to go with the G3 after all and ordered it last night. Similar to Jim, best I could come up with for a low weight DSLR setup (Nikon D3100, 1.4 TC, Nikon 70-300 lens) was 53 oz. vs. 30 oz. for the G3. That's about 1.5 lbs more to lug around, more coin, and less magnification. Hopefully, manufacturers will come out with more micro 4/3rds lenses and some teleconverters in the future, so G3 owners have more choices.

Best,
Another Jim

Good luck with your combo!

For more info on this lens, this thread http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=184804 mat be helpful.

You can even pimp this lens to a whopping telephoto with a Raynox 2.2x TC. My post is here http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2239310&postcount=98

All the best :t:
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top