advice on an beginner’s SLR for Bird photography. (1 Viewer)

I`ve been thinking for a while now about getting an SLR camera. My first! After reading loads of reviews, I`ve narrowed down my choices to two models:

The Sony dSLR A200 and the Olympus E-510.

Given an unlimited budget, I`d go for a Nikon with VR lens, but I`m on a limited (student) budget and its these two cameras which offer me maximum value for my money.(inbuilt IS for one enabling me to buy cheap long lenses).
I can get the Sony cheapest: Body only for £218 or with the twin lens kit 18-70mm & 75-300mm for £377. I`ve heard only good things about the camera itself, a super-fast autofocus, inbuilt image stabilisation and Sony's D-Range (Dynamic Range) Optimiser. I also love its smart looks. However, I`ve been told the kit lens is disappointing, but that’s what I get for the money. With a 1.5x crop factor I get an effective focal length of 450mm on the 300mm lens. I`m hoping I can add a used 400mm sigma lens too later for another £200 to get an EFL of 600mm. That should do for a beginner’s budget bird photography set up should`nt it?
For the same price however, I can get the The Olympus E-510. Another highly rated camera! but with this, in addition to the inbuilt IS I also get live view (I`m thinking this will help on those rare occasions when I need to precision focus manually) and also a depth of focus preview button which the Sony lacks. Now, I can get the E-510 for for £340 with the 14-42 and 40-150mm twin lens. However, these lens are the superb Zuiko lens. Also, with the 4/3rds system that Olympus follows, it has a crop factor of 2x. That means I will get an EFL of 300mm on the 150mm lens. If I buy the Olympus, I`m hoping also to add a new Zuiko lens of 70-300mm for another £200 which will give me an EFL of 600mm! My concerns with the Olympus however are these: Olympus Lenses upward of 300mm are super pricey.What of the 4/3rds system? with hardly any other company following it, will it eventually die out leaving me with a relic!The E-510 has also been reported to struggle in low light with its auto focus(?).

I`m also considering buying the Sony body only and adding used lenses as a cheaper alternative.

Now, I`m really scratching my head. I will be using the camera primarily for bird photography, so I thought I`d pose the question to the experienced birders out there (who, hopefully will read this post). I`m sure there are many bird photographers out there who use either of the two systems. which one should I buy?

Also Should I also be considering other factors? Something I`ve missed out/ have the facts wrong on? I’d really appreciate any advice/comments anyone can give. Thanks.

Clearly you've done your homework and sorry I can't really comment on the cameras you've mentioned but have you considered a second hand Canon or Nikon instead? For example, I recently acquired a 400D body with 2 batteries from a seller here with less than 1100 clicks for sub £275. This way you maximise your options and won't have to compromise on longer lenses.

I'm sure most of the more serious photographers would recommend spending on quality glass rather than the camera.

The 4/3rds is gaining some momentum and might be able to hold its own - only time will tell.
As for the super long lens prices its the reason there are more canon wildlifers than nikon - canon are a little cheaper.
I will also echo the advice of Martin - a good lens is worth more than a good body since its the lens that will determin not only what you can shoot, but also the quality of shot you can get (since it directly affects the light that reaches the camera sensor)

Not sure about the bodies you are considering. Like others, I would encourage you to go second hand. New bodies come out all the time, replacing highly capable models which are really good second hand buys. Note that these savings only really come into their own when buying privately, from eBay, or other sellers away from the high street. High street retailers have a lot of overheads to cover.

Lenses are a different matter. Lens model turnover, especially for minority specialisms like bird-photography, is very slow. Good lenses hold their value, are not a particularly good buy second hand. Indeed, it is normal to see s/h bird lenses advertised at prices above what you can pay new from the best sources such as kerso. You can only assume these sellers bought from high street outlets. Oh, and high street retailers prices on second-hand quality lenses make me take a sharp breath.

Mike.

Martin Thomas said:

Clearly you've done your homework and sorry I can't really comment on the cameras you've mentioned but have you considered a second hand Canon or Nikon instead? For example, I recently acquired a 400D body with 2 batteries from a seller here with less than 1100 clicks for sub £275. This way you maximise your options and won't have to compromise on longer lenses.

I'm sure most of the more serious photographers would recommend spending on quality glass rather than the camera.

Click to expand...

Thanks martin, Yes I did consider 2nd hand cameras initially, but the price of the sony has gone down so much that I can get a brand new Sony A200 (or Olympus E510) with kit lens (lesser focal length ones) inclusive for the same price or less.

Overread said:

The 4/3rds is gaining some momentum and might be able to hold its own - only time will tell.
As for the super long lens prices its the reason there are more canon wildlifers than nikon - canon are a little cheaper.
I will also echo the advice of Martin - a good lens is worth more than a good body since its the lens that will determin not only what you can shoot, but also the quality of shot you can get (since it directly affects the light that reaches the camera sensor)

Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice on spending more on lens. I will surely bear that in mind. At the moment, however, I dont have much of a budget and cant go more than the kit lens. Later however, I could save up for a better lens. I`ve looked at some of the longer Canon lens with IS and it seems incredibly expensive, which is why I considered the above two cameras with inbuilt IS.

A lens is for life a bodies for Christmas!
Buy the best quality lens you can afford, it will, or should last for life.
Every 6months theres a new body brought out and there are a lot of people who must have the lastest, so there are loads of second hand bargains to be had. Shop around, look on other forums, and you might pick up the bargain that suits you!

I have no SLR experience, but the Sony should take old minolta lenses (only those with AF), so you may be able to get an old but superb lens for that camera on Ebay as well.

Niels

I bought an Olympus E510 in May and have been very happy with it, especially since I bought the 50-200SWD zoom lens for it a few weeks ago. The price you quote is a fantastic bargain compared with the £500 I paid for the same kit.

I'll be honest in that I was a little disappointed with the camera until I splashed out on the better quality lens; perhaps my expetations of DSLRs were too high as a first time user, as you need to spend time learning how to get the best out of an DSLR for a while to start with. I think this is true of any make and not a reflection on the Olympus camera.

My particular needs for the camera and lens were general wildlife, including butterflies and dragonflies, for which it is superb, but be warned that a 200mm lens, even with a crop factor of 2x is going to leave you seriously short of reach unless you intend to spend hours sat in a hide waiting for birds to come to you. I intend soon to get a 1.4x converter, which will get me to around 560mm equivalent in 'old' 35mm terms, but this is still too short really for most bird photography.

I've been able to get good photos so far of big birds like the recent Black Stork that toured the NE, and of large to medium sized flying birds such as gulls, so long as they are fairly close to begin with. Smaller birds like sparrows need to be around 10 feet away to get a decent sized image in the frame, and even then you need to crop the image.

When I was at your stage, some people said that the range of long lenses available for 4/3 cameras was limited, which is true, but if you're on a budget you'd probably still end up using a 3rd party lens such as the Sigma 50-500 zoom no matter which camera system you adopt. Incidentally, I opted not to buy this lens which is about the same price but twice the weight of the 50-200SWD (about 1kg), as I already have a heavy scope and tripod to carry around which I use for digiscoping. This I find satisfies most of my longer range needs, but of course it's no good for birds in flight.

Many users rate the Olympus 70-300 zoom, and you should consider this if your budget is small, but even with a converter you'll still often find it too 'short'.

Hope some of this helps,

Steve

SteveClifton said:

I bought an Olympus E510 in May and have been very happy with it, especially since I bought the 50-200SWD zoom lens for it a few weeks ago. The price you quote is a fantastic bargain compared with the £500 I paid for the same kit.....................................................
Steve

Click to expand...

Wow Steve, that was an excellent reply. very much the kind of reply I wanted. Thank you. Its great to hear from someone who already uses one of the cameras. The 50-500 "bigma" lens was very much on my radar but at the moment its a bit too pricey for me. I`ll definitely be going for a 70-300 zuiko if I choose the Olympus though. I`ve noticed that there isnt a huge difference in price in the basic zoom lenses between the different systems upto 300mm. However, it is the longer lenses and primes where the difference really shows. However I guess the price for third party lenses such as the bigma are the same across the different lines.
you said you were initially disappointed with the camera, did the AF have any role to play in it?

I am very new to DSLR photography so I am not sure of what value my advice will be. However I opted for the Canon 400D as it was within my limited budget and I new that there would be a good supply of lenses available. I also bought the Sigma f4/5.6 70-300mm DG Macro priced at £99. This lens gives me an EFL of 112-480mm. I find the lens quite good for all around use, the the focal length is a limiting factor. The lens performs well for my needs for taking flight shots of gulls etc (see www.dslrwildlife.com).
I have also purchased a second hand Sigma f4/5.6 135-400mm APO (EFL 216-640mm) which I had to get re-chipped to allow me to use it with my camera. I have not had much time to play with this lens since I got it back with sigma, but so far so good. I will let you know how I get on with it!

OK so none of these lenses will really compete with the bigger brands but considering my very small budget I am very pleased with the results I am getting

Binocularface said:

I am very new to DSLR photography so I am not sure of what value my advice will be. However I opted for the Canon 400D as it was within my limited budget and I new that there would be a good supply of lenses available. I also bought the Sigma f4/5.6 70-300mm DG Macro priced at £99. This lens gives me an EFL of 112-480mm. I find the lens quite good for all around use, the the focal length is a limiting factor. The lens performs well for my needs for taking flight shots of gulls etc (see www.dslrwildlife.com).
I have also purchased a second hand Sigma f4/5.6 135-400mm APO (EFL 216-640mm) which I had to get re-chipped to allow me to use it with my camera. I have not had much time to play with this lens since I got it back with sigma, but so far so good. I will let you know how I get on with it!

OK so none of these lenses will really compete with the bigger brands but considering my very small budget I am very pleased with the results I am getting

Click to expand...

Hi Binocularface, I just checked your site. You`ve taking some really good bird pics there. Are they cropped pics? Also, do you think a camera with image stabilisation would have been better with your 400mm lens? Do you use it with a tripod or handheld?

thom_vee said:

Hi Binocularface, I just checked your site. You`ve taking some really good bird pics there. Are they cropped pics? Also, do you think a camera with image stabilisation would have been better with your 400mm lens? Do you use it with a tripod or handheld?

Click to expand...

Hi thom_vee, I am glad you like the pics on my site. Some of the pics are cropped slightly, but many are not. Just to clarify all the images currently on my www.dslrwildlife.com website (my other website contains mostly digiscoped images) are taken with my 400D and Sigma f4/f5.6 70-300mm lens. All of these shots were taken hand-held. I do use a tripod or monopod with my bigger Sigma f4/f5.6 lens except for photographing birds in flight. Like I said in my previous post I have not had the larger sigma very long to give it a proper test. I may get a chance to test it out this weekend, if so I will post something here.
I would say that with out a doubt the 400mm would be better with a camera that has image stabilisation. However when you have a small budget (like I did/do) everything is a compromise of sorts. I wanted a camera body that would give me a broad choice of lenses at reasonable prices which is why I went for the canon.

Hi,

I have no experience with the two cameras you a looking at. So while I cannot comment om them, I would like to echo those who say that you should choose a system that gives you the best possibilities for the future, not just a camera for today.

I certainly understand why in-camera IS is tempting. However, it is also worth thinking about why Nikon and Canon do not offer that in their cameras. One argument is that IS in the lens allows it to be tuned specifically to the lens. While it probably isn't the only reason, it certainly has merit (Nikon and Canon would also have problems selling their IS lenses if they started putting IS in the cameras). Another thing is that as far as I know in-camera IS does not stabilize the viewfinder. That would in my experience be a serious problem. It may be imagination, but my feeling is that the stable, non-shaking view enables me to hold the lens even more still (I probably don't try as hard as I would do with an obviously shaking viewfinder). My feeling is that it gives me another 0.5 stop to play with.

Finally, you shouldn't "fear" to start with a non-stabilized lens. It is far from impossible to use it and get good results. And it will give you a better basic technique - something that will help if you get a stabilized lens later.

Just my 0.2 cents

Thomas

tjsimonsen said:

Another thing is that as far as I know in-camera IS does not stabilize the viewfinder. That would in my experience be a serious problem. It may be imagination, but my feeling is that the stable, non-shaking view enables me to hold the lens even more still

Click to expand...

One thing that really worries me about in-camera IS is the autofocus mechanism. With an IS lens the image that falls onto the AF sensors should be quite stable. With in-body IS it's going to be jittery.

Now I'm not at all sure this would make any difference at all to the operation of the AF - but I'm damn sure it wouldn't help.

tjsimonsen said:

Hi,

Another thing is that as far as I know in-camera IS does not stabilize the viewfinder. That would in my experience be a serious problem. It may be imagination, but my feeling is that the stable, non-shaking view enables me to hold the lens even more still (I probably don't try as hard as I would do with an obviously shaking viewfinder). My feeling is that it gives me another 0.5 stop to play with.

Finally, you shouldn't "fear" to start with a non-stabilized lens. It is far from impossible to use it and get good results. And it will give you a better basic technique - something that will help if you get a stabilized lens later.

Just my 0.2 cents

Thomas

Click to expand...

hollis_f said:

One thing that really worries me about in-camera IS is the autofocus mechanism. With an IS lens the image that falls onto the AF sensors should be quite stable. With in-body IS it's going to be jittery.

Now I'm not at all sure this would make any difference at all to the operation of the AF - but I'm damn sure it wouldn't help.

Click to expand...

Thanks tjsimonsen and hollis_f for your replies. Although I know its not the same, I`ve been using a Sony DSC H9 point and shoot mostly in manual mode for the past year. It has a 15x zoom which equates to a 465mm lens on a 35mm.It also has IS inbuilt and I`ve been very impressed by what it can do (hence my interest in IS for an SLR).

About the point on jittery images with in camera stabilisation, would it not be the same with a Nikon or Canon with a non-IS lens(which is most likely what I can afford at this time if I go for these makes)? tjsimonsen, you have a point in using non image stabilised lenses to develop basic technique, but since the Sony wont be stabilising the view finder, I could develop my technique as well as be getting results with the stabilisation. Two birds with one stone Hows that?

thom_vee said:

tjsimonsen, you have a point in using non image stabilised lenses to develop basic technique, but since the Sony wont be stabilising the view finder, I could develop my technique as well as be getting results with the stabilisation. Two birds with one stone Hows that?

Click to expand...

Not a bad point, haven't thought about that :-O
Anyways, if you never used SLRs before (digital and film alike) you are heading for a fun, challenging and frustrating hobby whatever you choose. Good luck.

Thomas

HI thom

I would most certainly advocate the E-510 (or even the E-520) as there are some superb deals around at the moment. I use Oly kit, and I find the value for money is superb.

I have several additional lenses, and (as you have already mentioned it) I would certainly consider the superb Oly 70-300mm lens, but do also consider the EC14 which will provide additional reach (and reach is what you need in bird photography)

For examples of what can be achieved with the Oly 70-300mm lens, have a look at my Puffin shots here;

http://www.reflectingme.com/p28339871/

... and also the Bird Gallery link in my signature. The built in IS on the E-510 is awesome and will gain you several stops of light.

Shout if you need more help - oh, and perhaps pop across to http://e-group.uk.net/ which is a dedicated Oly forum where you'll find lots of good advice.

Good luck.

Wow Steve, that was an excellent reply. very much the kind of reply I wanted. Thank you. Its great to hear from someone who already uses one of the cameras. The 50-500 "bigma" lens was very much on my radar but at the moment its a bit too pricey for me. I`ll definitely be going for a 70-300 zuiko if I choose the Olympus though. I`ve noticed that there isnt a huge difference in price in the basic zoom lenses between the different systems upto 300mm. However, it is the longer lenses and primes where the difference really shows. However I guess the price for third party lenses such as the bigma are the same across the different lines.
you said you were initially disappointed with the camera, did the AF have any role to play in it?

Click to expand...

I completely agree with your point here about the prices of third party lenses whichever system you use, though the more I read and learn about DSLR photography, the more I feel that different systems are known for certain strengths over the others, and these advantages should influence your choice in relation to your needs for your camera system.

For example, doubt has been cast over the size of the 4/3 sensor, and whether in the future it can be upgraded and improved enough in terms of its resolution and low light (high ISO) performance (very important for bird photography) to compete with the other brands. Canon and Nikon already appear to have an advantage in these areas, though I'm not sure exactly how much better they really are in practice and how much of it is bad press from some reviewers who are biased against Olympus in favour of Canikon (afterall, popularity really does seem to breed popularity in this field).

Incidentally, you notice this bias towards specific brands very acutely in the photography world, and often users of each brand fiercely defend their chosen system whilst dissing most others.

I personally have no experience of any other brands, other than what I've read, but simply felt that I wanted to get a camera as soon as possible and start learning.

There's no doubt that we are going through a photography revolution or 'golden age' at the moment, and each manufacturer is trying to outdo each other in the race for more pixels and more feature-packed cameras. No-one really knows for sure how Olympus (or any other brand for that matter) will fit into the big picture in 5 years time. It's all just speculation, and that shouldn't necessarily sway you away from buying what looks good for your needs now. There seems to be so much emphasis on latching onto a system that will grow with your needs for the future (not least because of the investment in lenses that makes it prohibitively expensive to switch for most of us), but one thing's for sure; predicting the guaranteed future-proof option for your needs is getting harder and harder each year.

A bit long winded but hopefully some of this was helpful. By the way, my initial disappointment was probably as much to do with my unrealistically high expectations of what I could achieve with a DSLR, as it was to do with poor technique and learning to use the gear. Certainly nothing to do with the AF system which is actually quite good.

Steve

theMusicMan said:

HI thom

I would most certainly advocate the E-510 (or even the E-520) as there are some superb deals around at the moment. I use Oly kit, and I find the value for money is superb.

I have several additional lenses, and (as you have already mentioned it) I would certainly consider the superb Oly 70-300mm lens, but do also consider the EC14 which will provide additional reach (and reach is what you need in bird photography)

For examples of what can be achieved with the Oly 70-300mm lens, have a look at my Puffin shots here;

http://www.reflectingme.com/p28339871/

... and also the Bird Gallery link in my signature. The built in IS on the E-510 is awesome and will gain you several stops of light.

Shout if you need more help - oh, and perhaps pop across to http://e-group.uk.net/ which is a dedicated Oly forum where you'll find lots of good advice.

Good luck.

Click to expand...

Thanks Musicman. That makes two votes in favour of the Olympus E510. Now, if only a Sony user would tell of his experiences.The E510 seems to be more established among the bird photographers. I suppose that is also because of the relatively late entry by Sony. Btw, great shots of the puffins there musicman.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this forum to help me make my decision. Finally I did make up my mind and I have chosen the Sony A200 over the Olympus. I felt that not only was Sony offering the best value for money, but also it seemed to be a safe option with regards to "investing in a system". The recent release of the Sony A900 only justifies this point. Although, the 2x crop factor of the Olympus was tempting, the clincher came when I decided to look up the prices of additional new or 2nd hand lenses for the two cameras. Not only were there far less 2nd hand lenses available for the Olympus, the new lenses (zuiko) bigger than 300mm were off my charts.This essentially negated the original advantage with buying shorter(almost cheaper) zuiko lenses. On the other hand, Sony had a lot more options available and I have just bought my first lens - a used minolta 75-300mm for less than half the price of a new one! This essentially was the deal breaker. When I see someone with an olympus E-510 next, I shall think that it is one that I did consider strongly, but for now, I am more than happy with my decision to go Sony. I shall be receiving the camera tomorrow, and I hope to be able to share my impressions soon. Thanks again.