Do DSLRs and birding mix? (1 Viewer)

Vectis Birder · Mar 6, 2008

tjsimonsen said:
For one thing, it may resurrect an interest for the more common stuff, because they can be great subjects for photography.

Absolutely. I have been taking pics of common birds recently and am very pleased with the results. Instead of thinking 'oh, it's just a Great Tit (or whatever)' I try to take pics of them.

I would definitely take a DSLR over a compact every time. I have a superzoom compact and, while the results are ok, they are never anywhere near as good as the pictures I get from my DSLR, even with an inexpensive lens on it.

Here are a couple of my recent pics, a Great Tit and a Chaffinch:

kittykat23uk · Mar 7, 2008

Thanks everyone for you comments. How does the Canon 30D compare to the 350D and 400D? I noticed someone was selling one (body only) in the classifieds section for £350 I think. Would that be a better buy? Are there any Nikons we should look at as well?

Thanks!

vkalia · Mar 7, 2008

I am chiming in a bit late as well, but to me, bird photography and birding are fundamentally different activities and cannot be done together - not without one activity being relegated to secondary status.

It isnt simply a matter of figuring out how to carry your equipment. The mindset is different.

If you are doing serious bird photography, you cannot just walk around and shoot whatever looks nice. You need to spend time sitting with your subject and waiting for the right moment, light, angle and action. This is directly opposed to serious birding, where one tries to see as many species as possible.

And if you are serious about bird photography, you need a 500 or 600 prime (I got along fine with a 100-400 before, but now that I have seen what I can get with a 500+2x TC, I am surprised I ever managed with a 400).

It may theoretically be possible to carry a scope, binos, tripod and long lens, but I can assure you - most people would be so physically tired with all that gear that they'd never get in the right frame of mind for photography. And good luck managing all that equipment when confronted with a rapidly-developing photo op.

For all these reasons, I feel that you can be a serious birder who takes occasional photos, or you can be a serious photographer who birds on the side (me!) but you cannot be both a serious birder AND a serious photographer.

Vandit

PS: 30D --> better body to use. Improved AF, better handling, more customization options. Gets you 90% of the performance of the single-digit Canon bodies for a very reasonable price. Good buy.

vkalia · Mar 7, 2008

I am chiming in a bit late as well, but to me, bird photography and birding are fundamentally different activities and cannot be done together - not without one activity being relegated to secondary status.

It isnt simply a matter of figuring out how to carry your equipment. The mindset is different.

If you are doing serious bird photography, you cannot just walk around and shoot whatever looks nice. You need to spend time sitting with your subject and waiting for the right moment, light, angle and action. This is directly opposed to serious birding, where one tries to see as many species as possible.

And if you are serious about bird photography, you need a 500 or 600 prime (I got along fine with a 100-400 before, but now that I have seen what I can get with a 500+2x TC, I am surprised I ever managed with a 400).

It may theoretically be possible to carry a scope, binos, tripod and long lens, but I can assure you - most people would be so physically tired with all that gear that they'd never get in the right frame of mind for photography. And good luck managing all that equipment when confronted with a rapidly-developing photo op.

For all these reasons, I feel that you can be a serious birder who takes occasional photos, or you can be a serious photographer who birds on the side (me!) but you cannot be both a serious birder AND a serious photographer.

Vandit

JohnZ · Mar 9, 2008

I have to beg to differ vkalia. All you have to do is look on Keith Reeders gallery and you will see some excellent shots. I suspect he may be more interested in the photography side of things but not to the exclusion of everything else ?
Also he manages all of his shots with the very humble 100-400 ! He obviously does not need either 500 or 600 prime lenses.

YellowBudgie · Mar 9, 2008

NoSpringChicken said:
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.

Hi Ron,

I assume you would be using the DSLR for more than bird photography?

If this is the case you could purchase a DSLR with a decent all around lens. If you had the DSLR you could rent a telephoto lens or rent a few different telephotos to get an idea of what to expect before you make the big purchase.

Speaking of heavy equipment…

A friend of mine who has done great with bird photography doesn’t like sitting around to shoot. He treks through the wild to photo birds with a heavy lens and camera, a large body DSLR and I think a EF 500mm f/4L IS. He recently purchased a BushHawk Shoulder Mount, similar to a gun stock but for your camera. You can purchase a remote shutter release cable that works with the trigger button.

I tried it out it was a cool camera mount. The only issue I noticed with this setup was the shoulder stock. When you have the stock on your shoulder it’s awkward to look through the viewfinder. You can brace the stock on your chest to get around this.

I don’t know the weight he carries but he said the bushhawk has been great, he can be ready for a shoot very quickly. You can also attach a monopod to the bushhawk to help as well.

Here’s a link to the shoulder mounts:
http://bushhawk.shopol.com/Group/5YDIQ7IWWOKX6ZMJ.htm

Good luck on your camera decision. There’s a bunch of great advice if you search the forums here and great people as well.

Dana

vkalia · Mar 11, 2008

JohnZ said:
I have to beg to differ vkalia. All you have to do is look on Keith Reeders gallery and you will see some excellent shots. I suspect he may be more interested in the photography side of things but not to the exclusion of everything else ?

I didnt mean to imply it was one to the exclusion of the other. However, I stand by my statement that you can choose to do one or the other.

If you go out for a photography session, you will see a lot fewer birds compared to someone who goes out for just birding. And if you go out trying to see the most number of species, you are generally going to be less productive photographically.

Also he manages all of his shots with the very humble 100-400 ! He obviously does not need either 500 or 600 prime lenses.

I am not sure I agree with that line of thought. Just because he has gotten some excellent shots with the 100-400 does not say anything about what he'd do with a 500 or 600.

Still, we can agree to disagree.

Cheers,
Vandit

pduxon · Mar 11, 2008

As someone new to the photography side I would say that though the two are not mutually exclusive it does change your goals.

More often than not I leave the scope at home. I think in the last 5 months the Leica has been out once! If I take a scope its the ED50.

When I am going out with the camera I'm more interested in photo opportunities than in number of species seen. I'd sort of say if I go myself "if I go to x I'll get a good chance of some close up water rail shots rather than y where there'll be more birds and every thing will be distant".

I'm too much of a birder though to ever encumber myself with a massive prime lens (plus too much of a tight wad). I like being unencumbered. each to his/her own I guess.

NoSpringChicken · Mar 11, 2008

I have been watching this thread with interest. There have been some excellent replies.

I have decided not to go for a DSLR at the moment. I have a feeling that to do it properly involves a not inconsiderable outlay if the results are not to be disappointing. I think there is also no substitute for big lenses and, apart from the expense, I don't think I really want the extra burden of all that photographic equipment. I have also just bought a new pair of Trinovid binoculars which has taken a large chunk of my camera budget for the next few months.

There are also some new cameras coming shortly and, although I know there will never be the perfect time to jump in, I would like to see what happens in the next few months. I am especially interested to see if there are any major developments in superzoom compact cameras.

In the meantime I will carry on taking my digiscoping equipment with me and, if a suitable photographic opportunity arises, well and good. If not "C'est la vie" as they say in Norfolk.

Keep the responses coming. They make interesting reading.

Ron

vkalia · Mar 11, 2008

vkalia said:
I didnt mean to imply it was one to the exclusion of the other. However, I stand by my statement that you can choose to do one or the other.

Correction - the above should read:

I didnt mean to imply it was one to the exclusion of the other. However, I stand by my statement that you can emphasize only one or the other, not both.

Vandit

Jay23 · Mar 12, 2008

My suggestion is to just go out and do what you enjoy. All this talk of 'serious photography' and 'serious birding' sounds awful to me. If you just love being out and watching birds great! If you like to take photos of 'em ( and I know I do) then equally, great. If you want to travel light ( 8x20's, ED 50, compact superzoom) Wonderful! If you want to do what I do which is lugging big scope, 2x SLRs, sundry lenses and birdsong recording equipment around then yes, you need a car of some sort but if you have and you don't mind using it then load up the gear and go and have fun. Maybe I'm a bit too 'frivolous' and don't take things 'seriously', but I do know that I really enjoy my birding, errr, bird photography, errr, birdsong recording.

IanF · Mar 12, 2008

ChrisSearle said:
My suggestion is to just go out and do what you enjoy. All this talk of 'serious photography' and 'serious birding' sounds awful to me. If you just love being out and watching birds great! If you like to take photos of 'em ( and I know I do) then equally, great. If you want to travel light ( 8x20's, ED 50, compact superzoom) Wonderful! If you want to do what I do which is lugging big scope, 2x SLRs, sundry lenses and birdsong recording equipment around then yes, you need a car of some sort but if you have and you don't mind using it then load up the gear and go and have fun. Maybe I'm a bit too 'frivolous' and don't take things 'seriously', but I do know that I really enjoy my birding, errr, bird photography, errr, birdsong recording.

Well said Chris, a man after my own heart :t:

Each to their own!

Keith Reeder · Mar 12, 2008

Exactly, Chris: I'm a birding photographer - in that any time I'm out I'm doing both - and nobody will persuade me that this is not a prefect description of what I do.

I also know that since adding photography to my birding, I'm enjoying and appreciating birds - including the common ones - in a way I never did when I was "just" a birder.

Mickymouse · Mar 12, 2008

I would have thought they are complementary pursuits, you need to do the birding bit to be in a position to do any quality photography.

Mick

vkalia · Mar 14, 2008

ChrisSearle said:
My suggestion is to just go out and do what you enjoy. All this talk of 'serious photography' and 'serious birding' sounds awful to me.

Funny. I quite enjoy my "serious" photography. - I do it for income and I do it for fun. Serious in this context does not mean "frowning and not having fun" - it means dedication and a willingness to put in the effort required to get the best results possible.

I would have thought that this would have been very apparent from the context & really have no idea where things degenerated into splitting hairs about semantics - but I think this is where I exit this discussion.

If someone can go out and take great photos AND check off a bazillion birds at the same time, more power to them - they are better at it than I.

Simple test: you have the camera ready and pointed at a log and some <insert common/junk birds of your region are hanging out> come in and rest there. A little further away, there is a mixed flock foraging and moving rapidly. Do you:
(a) Stick to photography and try to get great shots of the junk birds
(b) Forget the great photo and try to identify all the birds in the mixed flock?
(c) Run after the mixed flock with your camera and shoot record shots while missing ID on a few species in that flock?
(d) Get the great shots and ID all the birds in the mixed flock as well

Anyone care to place bets on what the people who earn a living from their wildlife or bird photography do?

Ultimately, this discussion is pointless and seems to be degenerating into a battle of definitions and labels. As long as you enjoy what you do, who cares about how your activity is defined?

Vandit

jfmgb777 · Mar 14, 2008

Old Thursday 6th March 2008, 15:58 #55
kittykat23uk
Registered User

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Norwich
Posts: 677

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

From my experience, £500 may get you a decent DSLR, but it won't even take you halfway to getting a decent lens - and that's without a camera on the end of it.

It all depends on whether you want to photograph stationary birds or ones in flight.

Having tried a Fuji S9500 unsuccessfully for bird photography, two years ago I lashed out on a Canon 350D + Sigma 70-300 mm zoom (the cheapo one). When the 300 mm did not give me the reach I wanted, and rapidly running out of inheritance to miss-spend, I went for the Tamron 200-500 mm, as I could no longer justify spending £1000 on a lens alone.

What an expensive mistake for someone wanting to catch birds in flight! Every time I try to catch a buzzard soaring, the autofocus hunts from infinity to minimum and back again, and I miss the shot. Manual focussing is hopeless as there is no split screen to get it accurate.

From what I have now read, the <b>minimum</b> lens for this kind of photography is the Canon 400 mm f5.6 or the Canon 100-400 mm f5.6 IS, both of which are now completely out of my reach at nearly £1000!

My advice would be to steer clear of DSLRs unless you can afford to spend as much on a lens as many ordinary people spend on a car.

Vectis Birder · Mar 17, 2008

ChrisSearle said:
My suggestion is to just go out and do what you enjoy. All this talk of 'serious photography' and 'serious birding' sounds awful to me.

I like to think I am serious birder and I do take my photography seriously and it is far from 'awful'. I am 'serious' insomuch as I like to get the best picture I can with my D80 and 'cheap' Sigma 170-500mm lens, and I want to see as many birds as possible and see them well.

However, I did meet a photographer last year who was writing or contributing to a book on Ecuadorian (or South American in general, I can't remember which) birds and he was so focussed (pun unintentional!) he was beyond intense and was barely polite. I was told he'd practically burned himself out in the pursuit of images for this book. Ok, so this is a little extreme and I guess most of us aren't like that.

My advice would be to steer clear of DSLRs unless you can afford to spend as much on a lens as many ordinary people spend on a car.

I completely disagree. If you were going to lash out £3000-£6000 on a top-of-the-range Nikon D3 or Canon EOS 1 MkIII then yes, using cheap lenses would be the equivalent of using a cheap stylus on a top-of-the-range HiFi system (if you could still find one that plays vinyl). But most of us use comparatively cheap ~beginners to 'serious amateur'~ DSLRs such as Nikon D40, D60, D80 or Canon 400D, 40D, etc, and have no need in the normal course of events to buy such incredibly expensive lenses and yet are happy in our photography.

I use a DSLR because, even with cheap lenses, the quality is better than a compact and I like the flexibility of interchangeable lenses.

greypoint · Mar 18, 2008

An interesting read. As a very amateur birdwatcher and photographer I think it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking everyone has the same needs/wants/aspirations that you do. I started to photograph birds because they were there. I'd had the same casual interest as many others - fed garden birds etc. - but starting to try to get a few photos obviously leads to a deeper interest - books and web sites. I'm not a 'birder'. It's always good to get a sight and hopefully picture of a new bird, but the everyday ones often produce the most interesting pictures. Some of my favourites are behaviour shots of the humble Starling. I suppose I'm sort of midway in this debate - I like to try and get reasonable photos but can't hope to get the sort of stuff the experts on here get [no names you know who they are!] - I like to see new birds but don't have lists or the urge to travel miles to catch a glimpse of a rare visitor. To each his or her own.

As to the choice of camera and lenses, I seem to read so often that a 300mm zoom will be much too short and how it's not worth bothering with a DSLR unless you have a load of money to spend. Of course a long prime or zoom, ideally good quality/fast, is what everyone might aspire to, but it's quite possible to get satisfactory photos with a shorter lens if you're not too ambitious - perhaps you'll need to crop and perhaps they won't enlarge to A3, but you can still get better than good record shots most of the time and sometimes a lot better. I'm currently using a 40D and a 200mm f2.8L [£350 off ebay!]- much too short as a birding lens. OK my main subject tends to be Swans and, as i can stand in the middle of them an 18mm would suffice! But the joy of this lens is the instant focussing - I'm not going to fill the frame with small birds [but then a 400mm does'nt fill the frame either], but I've nailed flying birds that I would'nt stand a chance with using another camera/lens combination. I've used budget long lenses and they don't compare with the detail this combo gives me. I've got a 2x for it to give me 400mm but I've hardly used it. So for some people a 300mm will give lots of fun and plenty of good results with a bit of care, patience, fieldcraft and cropping. Not to say i would'nt like, and might get when I can afford it, a 400mm of some sort. So I'd say to anyone, don;t be put off if you can't spend a load of money on gear - get a good budget DSLR and look out for a bargain second hand lens - I've used compact superzooms and it's so much easier with a DSLR. Remember size is'nt everything!

ruchai · Apr 14, 2008

"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."

You will be betteroff carry a D300, 80-400VR, carbon tripod, and a ball head and enjoy walking all day. The 400mm with 1.5 cropping plus 3" very bright screen of the D300 you will see mall birds as seen through a 12X binoculars but much clearler. Just press the shuter you can keep the picture! I currently always carry a D200, 80-400VR, Made in China carbon tripod and head.

Birding and dslr do mix, the new D300 and small 400m tele lenses make doing so much more enjoyable. Light, reasonably priced, and fun to use. Who need binoculars and scope?

vkalia · Apr 17, 2008

ruchai said:
You will be betteroff carry a D300, 80-400VR, carbon tripod, and a ball head and enjoy walking all day. The 400mm with 1.5 cropping plus 3" very bright screen of the D300 you will see mall birds as seen through a 12X binoculars but much clearler.

I am afraid I have to disagree with that. The view from a good mid-priced pair of binoculars is *significantly* brighter & reveals a lot more detail than the view from a 400mm lens on a crop body.

Vandit

Do DSLRs and birding mix? (1 Viewer)

Itchy feet

Attachments

Well-known member

Robin stroker

Robin stroker

Well-known member

Well-known member

Robin stroker

Quacked up Member

Well-known member

Robin stroker

Well-known member

Moderator

Watch the birdie...

Ubuntu Linux user

Robin stroker

Well-known member

Itchy feet

Well-known member

Well-known member

Robin stroker

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread