• 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.

Dslr bird video thread (2 Viewers)

DSLR videos

Thanks for sharing excellent videos. It would be great to see more content from like-minded folk and share experience among the Canon DSLR wildlife video community.

Here are a couple of my first attempts with a Canon 550D, Nikkor 300mm f2.8, Nikon-to-Canon adaptor and a pair of stacked doublers, bringing the equivalent focal length up to 1920mm (when you include the 1.6 conversion factor). I'd never use this combination for stills but, even at HD, video seems a more foregiving medium.

Blackcap
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6vd8qhHpQk

chaffinch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=729Z0hKLV3A
 
Some waders on the local beach yesterday.

Handheld with a 100-400/7D.............we get lots of earthquakes here in Hokkaido but the shaking earth effect is just from my tired hands this time.
 
Have to say, do not want to upset people but whilst the 7D or what ever you are using are capable of full HD (1080) there remains the problem of reach with many of the lens used. If you would not take a still of an LBJ because it is too far away why video same similarly a gannet flying way out, a full HD camcorder with 25x opitical zoom seems to me to be a better proposition if one wants video!
 
I'm not sure how a tiny little lens on a normal camcorder is going to get a better image than my 300 f2.8 -either still or video.
 
Hi Frank

Will never better a still image of course. But video wise, a greater optical zoom makes up for a small lens as you put it. Plenty of examples, look in the video thread and Vimeo, Yuoutube for more.

Even a 300mm F2.8 only produces a X of 6 ignoring any crop factor.

With regard to some of those videos taken with a smallish lens say 400mm if they are enlarged in the processing then this will show some lack of detail.

BTW Frank, on my 50D there is a video outlet, in the menu the camera is set up for PAL video howevr on the mode dial there is no videeo setting. Could it be that the electronics inside are the same as the 550, 5D, 7D just that the software is not programmed?

Robert
 
Last edited:
Will never better a still image of course. But video wise, a greater optical zoom makes up for a small lens as you put it. Plenty of examples, look in the video thread and Vimeo, Yuoutube for more.

Even a 300mm F2.8 only produces a X of 6 ignoring any crop factor.

Yes, but having a small lens with a X of >6 is going to make for some pretty dark images, is it not? I must admit, I'd never done any videography until the 7D. But all the other stuff I've done with optics - astronomy, birding, photography - the bigger the light hole at the front, the better the results.


BTW Frank, on my 50D there is a video outlet, in the menu the camera is set up for PAL video howevr on the mode dial there is no videeo setting. Could it be that the electronics inside are the same as the 550, 5D, 7D just that the software is not programmed?

'Fraid not. That hole is for connecting the camera to a TV to show slideshows.
 
Over the years, I have tried to film wildlife in three ways: digiscoping; with a camcorder; and now with a video-enabled DSLR. For me, the third option is the best. Digiscoping has never produced a sufficiently stable image and using a camcorder the focal length of the lens is never long enough. The lenses on most camcorders seem to start with an equivalent of about 43mm, so a x25 zoom lens will provide the equivalent of a little over a 1,000mm. My favoured option currently is to use a fast aperture 300mm with two doublers, which provides me with an equivalent focal length of 1920mm at f11. Because my camera is high-definition (shooting with a resolution of 1920pixels wide) I can crop the final image to one third of the width and acheive a focal length of over 5,000mm. Providing a good compromise between quality and just obtaining a record of something.
The Canon 550D also shoots in crop mode, where only the central part of the chip records the images. This makes my 300mm into a 6,720mm lens when I use one doubler. However, I don't like having to switch between modes, so at the moment I'm sticking to full HD and cropping in post production if I need to. When I can afford (and when I'm fit enough!) it I'd like to get the sigmonster 300-800mm. Not really for the extra length but for the flexibility of easily achieving different framings. G
 
Over the years, I have tried to film wildlife in three ways: digiscoping; with a camcorder; and now with a video-enabled DSLR. For me, the third option is the best. Digiscoping has never produced a sufficiently stable image and using a camcorder the focal length of the lens is never long enough. The lenses on most camcorders seem to start with an equivalent of about 43mm, so a x25 zoom lens will provide the equivalent of a little over a 1,000mm. My favoured option currently is to use a fast aperture 300mm with two doublers, which provides me with an equivalent focal length of 1920mm at f11. Because my camera is high-definition (shooting with a resolution of 1920pixels wide) I can crop the final image to one third of the width and acheive a focal length of over 5,000mm. Providing a good compromise between quality and just obtaining a record of something.
The Canon 550D also shoots in crop mode, where only the central part of the chip records the images. This makes my 300mm into a 6,720mm lens when I use one doubler. However, I don't like having to switch between modes, so at the moment I'm sticking to full HD and cropping in post production if I need to. When I can afford (and when I'm fit enough!) it I'd like to get the sigmonster 300-800mm. Not really for the extra length but for the flexibility of easily achieving different framings. G

A professional wildlife documentary film maker recently told me that they routinely mix clips of DSLR HD video footage into their TV documentaries, as the quality is so good (using a 7D). I don't think they would be able to use camcorder footage in this manner.

Mícheál
 
Possibly not, but how about showing us some examples of your videos?

BTW not everyone can afford to lay out a couple of thousand or so for a 300mm F2.8. but have to stick to say a 400mm F5.6 or 100-400mm F5.6. Now these 2 lenses have problems with any T/Cs because of the F value.

So a simple question when it comes to doing video with them, has anyone tried using 1.4 or 2.0 T/c with them? Does it focus okay?
 
So a simple question when it comes to doing video with them, has anyone tried using 1.4 or 2.0 T/c with them? Does it focus okay?

I use a 1.4 T/C with the 100-400 for video only (not worth it for stills IMO).

In live view it manages to AF. There's no continuous AF once it starts recording.

I wouldn't use a 2X on a 100-400 for anything.

Here is an example of video with t/c. And here and here too.
 
Last edited:
Here are a couple of videos of a red-backed shrike and a common lizard shot with my 300mm f2.8 and two doublers. I appreciate that I'm lucky to have access to a lens this fast, but I will point out the lens and two converters are secondhand. The Nikkor lens cost me £400 from a professional supplier and the Nikkor converter cost me £150 from another supplier. The second converter (£30) lets the optical quality down a bit, but I don't believe this is noticeable in video mode. It certainly provides me with the quality that makes me happy.
The lens and converters together shoot at f11, and the whole rig is manual focus; exactly what you need with video AF would keep trying to hunt for a focussing point. Slow lenses aren't a problem with video, because you're only shooting at 1/60 or 1/100 of a second at a frame rate of 25 frames per second. Using a faster shutter speed just makes the action look too choppy. Slower speeds provide nicer movement.
The new Canon lenses are great, but I can't afford them yet. A couple of colleagues use the Canon 500mm f4 lens and converters. These produce fantastic results for stills - I can't compete. But on video the differences (to my eye at least) are barely noticeable. My whole rig, including an extremely heavy-duty tripod have set me back a couple of grand over the years. A lot of money, but only one third the cost of a fast Canon lens. There are two problems with using an extremely long, fixed focal-length lens: firstly, it can be hard to find your subject (crests are going to be challenging); and I can't zoom between different framings. With the two videos it would have been nice to include a wider shot in the footage to show the birds in context.
 
Both you and Stu have done great videos. Stu's interests me because of the lend used, which I have. Focusing though seems to have to be manual from what Stu says.

Will have to bear this in mind, thank you Stu, Frank and Albatross also the member who Pm'd me.
 
Bedford they are some belting videos. The sharpness with 2 tcs on is extremely impressive!
Are you using a viewfinder with your rig?
 
Thanks Peter. I have a slight issue with the fact that one of the TC's is pin, where the other one suffers from a tiny bit of chromatic abberation. But even with HD video, the res is so low it doesn't really show. I'm using a home-made viewfinder, which basically is a rectangular box with an old objective lens mounted at one end. The box is mounted off the camera's tripod mount. Neatly, the objective lens is exactly the same diameter as one of my old lens hoods which even gives the rig the comfort of a rubber eye cup.
Using the five times mag of live view I can get critical focus. A mate of mine is making me a rig to balance the whole lens and camera assembly on the tripod. Once I have that then I can more confidently follow movement and focus at the same time without too much camera shake.
 
Both you and Stu have done great videos. Stu's interests me because of the lens used, which I have.

Here's one I took yesterday, a Bar Tailed Godwit handheld. Ignore the crappy sound quality. It gives you an idea of what the 100-400 can do, this was without a T/C.

Of course with an expensive prime, steady tripod and external mic you'd get better results but the 100-400 is good for grabbing short videos on the go.
 
Thats another belter Stu. I wouldnt put the 100-400 down as a lens to get short videos on the go. As its a zoom I think it would be quite valuable for video, being able to do a wide angle then cut in shot with one lens. As we can see on your videos they are pin sharp so theres no issues with the lens at all.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 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