Do DSLRs and birding mix? (1 Viewer)

BTW Deborah, some photo's you see on the web are almost full frame and others are taken from afar and heavily cropped - this is one reason why you cannot entirely judge a lens by web images, a photographer who gets fairly close and does little cropping will invariable produce better pictures than someone who shoots from afar and crops heavily.
I have found that it is no coincidence that most of my best shoots were when I was nearest to the bird.

As I said in an earlier post on this thread, 300mm works just fine as a walking-around lens. Practically all my bird pictures were taken with a 300mm x f4 Nikon prime (D70, 400iso). The great majority are cropped, some quite heavily but, as long they look good on the computer screen, so what?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7117259@N05/

fugl said:

As I said in an earlier post on this thread, 300mm works just fine as a walking-around lens. Practically all my bird pictures were taken with a 300mm x f4 Nikon prime (D70, 400iso). The great majority are cropped, some quite heavily but, as long they look good on the computer screen, so what?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7117259@N05/

Click to expand...

I am not knocking heavy crops as most of mine are as well. I was just pointing out that is no way you can get the same detail if shooting from, say, 30 yards as opposed to 5 yards.
While heavy crops may be ok for the screen they are not so clever for big prints - try printing a 800 pixels image at say 12 inches and see the quality you get.

deborah4 said:

I've just been browsing the Gallery and found work by Emil Enchev:

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/search.php?searchid=55357

These photos are stunning but it says they were all taken with a Canon 300mm! Am I missing something obvious about the equipment, would some ''extra'' have been used to get more length? Or would these have been taken just with the single 300mm lens (SLR even)? Everyone I've spoken to says 300mm is not ''very good'' for bird photography but I'm gobsmacked looking at these! Check out the Wall Creeper.

Click to expand...

Indeed thet are impresive shots, though some of them (including the wallcreeper) were taken with a 500mm lens.

A shorter lens will leave you needing to do more cropping, this will often be fine for web work but not so good if you want to produce reasonably big prints. The simple fact is that a longer lens will put more birds within your range.

Clive Watson said:

Of course, combining the two can be done, even with a 600mm. I've been to Fair Isle the past couple of years and Scilly before that, and whilst there, I'm effectively doing that. I carry the camera and lens on one shoulder (by the lens strap, not the camera one!) and hold the tripod in one hand.

Click to expand...

My big problem is carrying camera and scope yet still being able to whip the bins up in a hurry when something interesting appears.

If I've got one of scope or camera ready for use then it's no problem. But with both I need to put one down first - and that normally means I've lost whatever it was I wanted to look at.

Roy C said:

I am not knocking heavy crops as most of mine are as well. I was just pointing out that is no way you can get the same detail if shooting from, say, 30 yards as opposed to 5 yards.
While heavy crops may be ok for the screen they are not so clever for big prints - try printing a 800 pixels image at say 12 inches and see the quality you get.

Click to expand...

I agree, uncropped is always better in terms of image quality than cropped. But my point is that for display on modern computer screens cropped is often more than good enough. For example, here's a couple of heavily cropped shots that I took with a 300mm lens.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/1394984186/sizes/l/in/set-72157602214643626/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/2220164606/sizes/l/

In my opinion, these look fine on the screen, though I doubt if I could get decent 8" x 10" prints out them. But then who needs prints? I've got over 200 "keepers" on my Flickr site (and even more on my hard drive) which I and other people looks at and enjoy all the time without ever feeling the need to print any of them.

The professional photographer whose photos will be printed in glossy magazines or blown up for gallery exhibition will continue to need (for the moment at least) heavy tripods and big glass, but for the amateur displaying his work on computer screens a 300mm lens will often be just fine.

Anyway, that's my take on the subject

fugl said:

I agree, uncropped is always better in terms of image quality than cropped. But my point is that for display on modern computer screens cropped is often more than good enough. For example, here's a couple of heavily cropped shots that I took with a 300mm lens.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/1394984186/sizes/l/in/set-72157602214643626/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/2220164606/sizes/l/

In my opinion, these look fine on the screen, though I doubt if I could get decent 8" x 10" prints out them. But then who needs prints? I've got over 200 "keepers" on my Flickr site (and even more on my hard drive) which I and other people looks at and enjoy all the time without ever feeling the need to print any of them.

The professional photographer whose photos will be printed in glossy magazines or blown up for gallery exhibition will continue to need (for the moment at least) heavy tripods and big glass, but for the amateur displaying his work on computer screens a 300mm lens will often be just fine.

Anyway, that's my take on the subject

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Roy C
I am not knocking heavy crops as most of mine are as well.

You obviously did not read my previous post. BTW if you want to look at some heavy crops you only have to go to my BF gallery or web site it is full of them.

Roy C said:

Hi Deborah, It all depends on how near you can get to the birds.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's glaringly obvious now you point it out!

IanF said:

Putting many hours in sitting quietly in hide to get the birds closer or birding in an area where the birds aren't so wary of people - any shorter lens will do.

Click to expand...

Which might not be conducive to my usual birding activities - It would be very time consuming out of the few days I have free for birding ... I like to walk too! (and generally avoid Wetland Trust places etc where birds are ''tame'')

Postcardcv said:

A shorter lens will leave you needing to do more cropping, this will often be fine for web work but not so good if you want to produce reasonably big prints.

Click to expand...

Yes, this makes perfect sense too ... I can see why 'proper' birding photographers use long lens reach for birds that are even close enough for only a small percentage crop from a 300mm, the detail that's retained after cropping is obvious on pics taken with 500, 600 etc

Thanks for the responses.

To revisit the thread question: For me, to get ''good result'' DSLR photography (ie. as practiced by Roy, Ian, Postcardcv etc), would detract from my birding (not withstanding the more cumbersome gear I'd have to lug around!) but just for record shots and situations where i'm fortunate enough to get very close, 300mm is adequate, provided i don't want to produce 8 x 10'' prints. (which is suits me perfectly as my main activity in the field is birding rather than photography - It doesn't seem feasible to do both with any degree of expertise at the same time.)

Assuming Ron doesn’t plan to buy a big 500 or 600 mm lens that’s heavier than his scope, can someone please explain their reasoning as to whether a DSLR with a 300mm lens would necessarily be a better buy as a general birding camera than a superzoom like the Panasonic FZ18?

I’m not being judgemental here, just honestly curious to understand the relative merits of an entry level DSLR in the context of “birding” over a superzoom compact. Particularly since my OH is getting the photography bug after having a play around with my FZ18 and I was wondering if it would be worth him getting a DSLR (and if so, then what to go for).

Thanks

Jo.

kittykat23uk said:

can someone please explain their reasoning as to whether a DSLR with a 300mm lens would necessarily be a better buy as a general birding camera than a superzoom like the Panasonic FZ18?

Thanks

Jo.

Click to expand...

I certainly wasn't suggesting that Jo ... I already have a DSLR 300mm so any alternative would have been a mute point (perhaps the Pan FZ18 may be better!?). The advantage for me is the IS which generally negates the need for a tripod and is a very light compact lens. The body is fairly robust and I believe i could use an extender if necessary. Body and Lens seating is interchangeable with a wide selection of Canon lenses, so upgrade is possible without having to get a new body.

As an ''entry level'' DSLR, it seemed a wise investment to start with a smaller lens but retain the flexibility of buying more lenses and thus increasing focal length if the 300mm became 'too short' (or too long!). I used to use a Pentax SLR before getting the digi compact, so it is a great relief to return to photography where i have a little potential control again which DSLR provides! (without the cost of wasted reels of film and high street processing of course)

Hi Deborah,

I wasn't having a dig at you o. I did go through the whole "shall I get a DSLR or a superzoom" phase and did a lot of reading before I settled on the convenience of my Panny. I was just thinking that for what Ron wants, something to complement his digiscoping set up, not too bulky, that he can take along with his scope etc etc. you really can't go far wrong with the FZ18.

Perhaps as we started from the point of view that Ron wasn't convinced with the quality of the superzoom shots he has seen, this thread has been slightly biased towards the DSLRs. I do believe that the DSLR will have the advantage in poorer light, but what other benefits will there be?

Of course the best camera for taking photos is the one you have with you at the time, and I think for portability the FZ18 is so light you don't even notice you're carrying it. This allows me to take my scope and fuji as well for when I need the better low light performance. :t:

But since I already have a FZ18 and a Fuji F31 the natural progression for us could be a DSLR if OH wants to get into photos.

We were at Wacton Common looking at the short eared owl and stood next to this other guy with a huge camera and lens on a sturdy tripod and us with our little panny and TC hand held and we were both shooting away at the owl from the same distance. We both zoomed in to look at our results the owl being quite distant and TBH, yes our shots had more noise but I still think they stood up quite well to the results this guy was getting (relative to the costs/portability of our equipment of course!). I'll try and post one tonight.

Jo

Hi Jo.

You make some excellent points in your post above, with regard to the portability of the FZ18 and the other superzooms. I have been reading the replies to this thread and getting more and more undecided. The superzooms seem to do 90% of what I require but I don't want to buy one and then wish I had paid the extra for a DSLR.

I paid a quick visit to Jessops on Saturday to have a look at the Olympus E-510, which is still my most likely choice of DSLR at the moment, in conjunction with the ED 70-300 lens. The camera looked fine (in its glass case) but the lens is out of stock at most places at the moment so I was unable to see the combination 'in the flesh'. While I was there I noticed the FZ18 and it certainly is a neat and affordable solution to my requirements.

There is a new Olympus superzoom coming anytime now, the SP570, so I will probably wait to see what sort of a reception it gets. I have a feeling it will not be that good. Hopefully the next batch of Olympus 70-300 lenses should be arriving soon too, so I might be in a position to actually view all the alternatives and finally make a decision.

I look forward to seeing how you progress with your dilemma. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread so far. Very interesting.:t:

Ron

kittykat23uk said:

Perhaps as we started from the point of view that Ron wasn't convinced with the quality of the superzoom shots he has seen, this thread has been slightly biased towards the DSLRs. I do believe that the DSLR will have the advantage in poorer light, but what other benefits will there be?

Click to expand...

hi Jo,

Another benefit for DSLRs would be faster and more accurate focusing, more responsive shutter, no need to wait for an Electronic Viewfinder to update, and the better image quality when looking through the viewfinder. This all means better for flight shots especially--something that Ron mentioned interest in.

But I agree with you that the FZ18 is a very good bird photography camera. Not sure if you read the whole thread, but I did try to make that case earlier. And I think it is a better option for people to carry along when they are birding. A DSLR, IMO, is primarily for people who want to take time from birding to do photography. (Though I think the FZ 18 is good enough for that purpose also). I have also been thinking about doing as you do, and getting a second point and shoot for digiscoping purposes. (Too bad they cannot come up with an ultra-zoom that you can also digiscope with).

Best,
Jim

J. Moore said:

hi Jo,

Another benefit for DSLRs would be faster and more accurate focusing, more responsive shutter, no need to wait for an Electronic Viewfinder to update, and the better image quality when looking through the viewfinder. This all means better for flight shots especially--something that Ron mentioned interest in.

Click to expand...

Good benefits over a superzoom IMO.

As for alternatives to DSLR, the original thread topic was whether DSLR photography was incompatible with birding. (hence the bias towards DSLR!) On the level that Ron is considering, my answer would be a definitive 'no' based on my own experience as an entry level user who's primary interest is watching birds rather than photographing them. Given the benefits Jim mentioned, IMO, it's more compatible than a superzoom (ie. faster shutter, focussing etc) regardless of lens size and the past few weeks, this has been the main beneficial discovery for me in actually being able to capture a bird in the first place! For general purpose birding (rather than quality photography) there's probably not a lot in it when looking for portability and mobility between a DSLR combined with a hand-held lens like a 300 IS and that of a superzoom camera. (and as I said, in answer to the original inquiry regarding how to carry it, my Lowepro bum bag makes a convenient and readily accessible carrier in the field). But in terms of versatility (interchangeable lenses, TC's etc), (and IQ?), IMO a DSLR would have more potential both in terms of later upgrades and shot control should Ron become more enamoured with birding photography and wants to do more than point and shoot.

Sounds like the superzoom is the compromise Ron wants though.

ps. Jo, I didn't take your post as a dig :h?:

PPS. Just a thought that suddenly occurred to me, please don't take any of my photos of an example!! They are far below what can be achieved even with a smaller lens, I've literally only just started with a DSLR

So,

following on from this. Could someone please recommend a good DSLR birding starter kit (camera and lens) for someone on a not very big budget (£500 is maybe?). Second hand a possible route for a better spec even.

Thanks,

Jo

You may be able to get an entry level DSLR like the Canon 400D plus Sigma 70-300 APO for that budget. You could in Japan, dunno about elsewhere.
300mm isn't ideal but it's ok to start with. I did and probably lots of others did too.

If you want to go s/h of course there are loads more options. When Canon update their entry level DSLR soon there'll probably be quite a few 350D/400Ds on e-bay. And you could get one of those with a second hand longer 400 or 500mm Sigma cheapie for your budget perhaps. Nikon D70/70S may be a s/h option too.........

kittykat23uk said:

So,

following on from this. Could someone please recommend a good DSLR birding starter kit (camera and lens) for someone on a not very big budget (£500 is maybe?). Second hand a possible route for a better spec even.

Thanks,

Jo

Click to expand...

Hi Jo

I bought my Canon 305d for £250 nearly new with all software etc it included start up lens, new Canon strap etc. I added the Canon F5.6 IS USM 300mm - for £365 brand new. (You could pick up a Sigma new and much cheaper or a second hand Canon 300/400. As a start up set up, it works for me!

kittykat23uk said:

So,

following on from this. Could someone please recommend a good DSLR birding starter kit (camera and lens) for someone on a not very big budget (£500 is maybe?). Second hand a possible route for a better spec even.

Thanks,

Jo

Click to expand...

As others have mentioned a secondhand Canon EOS 350D/400D would be a good starting point. You can pick up a good 400D for under £250 and a 350D for under £200. As for lenses have a look for a secondhand Sigma zoom, the 135-400 or the 170-500 are both good lenses to start with.

Not having read all the above posts I may be just repeating what someone else has posted but here are my thoughts.
I have digiscoped for sometime but 2 yrs ago bought a 350D + 100-400 lens which I carry in a Hamma case or around my neck when I am "walking up" (also fits the front of the bike)on my back is a Kowa823 on a 055mf3 tripod with 701rc head its weighty despite the carbon fibre legs but on a backpack its the easiest way to carry, also has flask etc.giving hands free for bins or camera, and a bumbag with my nikon 4500 + batteries etc and scope adapter which is the simple cup type. How many times have you been in a hide and heard someone say "wish I had brought the scope instead of leaving it in the car" but for now that's as far as I am going other than a camera upgrade, I still like digiscoping & using the scope I am a birder that takes photos.
I do not know the cameras listed above but I chose Canon because I could go further if required,where as some of the zoom types have there limits.
Brian

Having just stumbled over this thread, I have a couple of comments.

Taking up dSLR photography will most certainly change your habits as a birder. But is that bad (especially if you are happy with the changes - which you probably will be, otherwise, why should you make them?)?. For one thing, it may resurrect an interest for the more common stuff, because they can be great subjects for photography. My own nature interests have cartainly changed over the years. I started out with insects (incl. collecting) at the age of six and took up birding a year or two later. For some years fishing was my main interest and insecting/birding got pushed to the background. When I seriously took up birding and insect collecting again some 13-15 years ago, I soon bought my first SLR as well. IMO birding and SLR bird photography can easily be combined, and the photography certainly adds to the birding experience. Insect collecting and macro photography can be considerable harder to combined. But even that marrige generally works out fairly well too (being mainly interested in nocturnal collecting definitly helps :-O).

Regarding dSLR vs. super-zoom: my main birding setup is a Canon 350D and a EF 100-400L, but I also have a Canon Powershot S5 IS. I mainly got the S5 to have a camera I can carry all the time (as someone noted above: the best setup is the one that allows you to get the picture), and it gives me fairly good pictures I would otherwise miss. But the super-zoom simply cannot compete with the the 350D+100-400L, neither in terms of handling nor IQ. The approximately 10 times higher price I paied for the dSLR and the lens compared to the S5 (I got a refurbed) is entirely justifiable IMO. There are several reasons why a dSLR and a decent tele lens will yield better resutls than a super-zoom: the SLR lens is generally better as a super-zoom lens involves a lot of compromises, and has to be chearper at the same time, but most significantly: the sensor of a dSLR is better! A sensor in any compact camera has to be very small, and at the same time deliver a high resulution. This means much smaller pixel size (= higher noise even at lowest ISO) and much smaller micro lenses infront of the sensor (which often results in a considerable amount of red frindges). I'm not saying that supr-zooms are bad, just that dSLRs are considerably better.

Thomas