Do DSLRs and birding mix? (1 Viewer)

NoSpringChicken · Feb 28, 2008

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 · Feb 28, 2008

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 · Feb 28, 2008

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 · Feb 28, 2008

RAH said:
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

Jim M. · Feb 28, 2008

NoSpringChicken said:
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 · Feb 28, 2008

NoSpringChicken said:
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 · Feb 28, 2008

stuprice68 said:
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 · Feb 28, 2008

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 · Feb 28, 2008

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 · Feb 28, 2008

Clive Watson said:
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 · Feb 28, 2008

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 · Feb 28, 2008

Clive Watson said:
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.

Jim M. · Feb 28, 2008

JohnZ said:
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 · Feb 28, 2008

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 · Feb 28, 2008

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 · Feb 28, 2008

J. Moore said:
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

Corax67 · Feb 28, 2008

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 · Feb 28, 2008

Clive Watson said:
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 · Feb 28, 2008

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 · Feb 28, 2008

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

Ron

Do DSLRs and birding mix? (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

occasional moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member since 2007

occasional moderator

Well-known member

North Wales birder

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit ampheta

Well-known member

Well-known member

Super Moderator

Member since 2007

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Watch the birdie...

Registered Member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread