• 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.

New non-DSLR Super-Zoom Camera vs New Nikon Lens (1 Viewer)

W

wng

New member
Does anyone use any of the super-zoom camera + teleconverter lenses for taking bird photos?

I have recently tried taking photos of small birds with a Nikon D50 and the Nikkor 28mm-200mm lens. 200mm (300mm equiv after 1.5 crop factor) is simply not enough reach for small birds. Being a newbie, my aim is just to take bird photos that are decent enough for posting on the Internet. Even though Nikkor quality is good, with my 200mm lens, it's like, "where's the bird?"

I don't have a high budget. So, with $400, I can get the Lumix DMC-FZ8 with a 1.7x teleconverter. Is that good enough for bird photos? I am thinking this is a good alternative as this already comes with Image Stabilization. The prices of Nikkor lenses with VR are a bit high, so I am really interested if the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G at less than $200 can get better photos than the FZ8. Sorry if it sounds ridiculous, but has anyone tried putting a teleconverter (such as an Olympus TCON 17) in front of a DSLR lens? Does this work? Am just asking because I cannot afford 400mm or longer lenses as of the moment.

I am leaning towards the FZ8 primarily because my P&S camera is too old and the DSLR is a bit large for travel. I take more travel and family photos compared to birds.

Your comments and experience are most welcome.
 
wng said:
I have recently tried taking photos of small birds with a Nikon D50 and the Nikkor 28mm-200mm lens [...] it's like, "where's the bird?"
Click to expand...

Heh, I can imagine. :)

I don't have a high budget. So, with $400, I can get the Lumix DMC-FZ8 with a 1.7x teleconverter. Is that good enough for bird photos?
Click to expand...

In good light it'll work fine. In poor light it'll be hit-and-miss. With a teleconverter you'll get purple fringing against bright backgrounds, unless you're very careful with the exposure. Burst mode is your best friend with a superzoom. For ID photos they're ideal. Superzooms also have electronic viewfinders and image stabilization, which are both VERY nice for bird photography. The ergonomics on the FZ-8 are wonderful, with the sole exception of the useless manual focus.

Sorry if it sounds ridiculous, but has anyone tried putting a teleconverter (such as an Olympus TCON 17) in front of a DSLR lens?
Click to expand...

Teleconverters go behind the lens on a DSLR.

I am leaning towards the FZ8 primarily because my P&S camera is too old and the DSLR is a bit large for travel.
Click to expand...

The FZ-8 is infinitely more portable than a bulky DSLR.
 
bkrownd said:
Teleconverters go behind the lens on a DSLR.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, teleconverters INTENDED for DSLRs go behind the lens, but I would also like to know - has anyone ever used a point-and-shoot teleconverter like the TCON-17 IN FRONT of the lens on a DSLR? I should think it would work. I mean, why wouldn't it (except perhaps you'd need a step-down ring, DSLR lenses often being quite large in diameter).
 
RAH said:
Well, yeah, teleconverters INTENDED for DSLRs go behind the lens, but I would also like to know - has anyone ever used a point-and-shoot teleconverter like the TCON-17 IN FRONT of the lens on a DSLR? I should think it would work. I mean, why wouldn't it (except perhaps you'd need a step-down ring, DSLR lenses often being quite large in diameter).
Click to expand...

Um, OK. I'm sure it would "work". You might just get a worse image than you would have without it, though. Why not get the appropriate DSLR teleconverter?
 
bkrownd said:
Why not get the appropriate DSLR teleconverter?
Click to expand...
One good reason would be that teleconverters that mount in front of the lens do not lose any light, unlike regular DSLR teleconverters which infamously lose 2 f-stops for a 2x converter (I think).

You may be right that the results might be disappointing, but if I had a DSLR, I'd try it this afternoon!
 
wng said:
Does anyone use any of the super-zoom camera + teleconverter lenses for taking bird photos?

I have recently tried taking photos of small birds with a Nikon D50 and the Nikkor 28mm-200mm lens. 200mm (300mm equiv after 1.5 crop factor) is simply not enough reach for small birds. Being a newbie, my aim is just to take bird photos that are decent enough for posting on the Internet. Even though Nikkor quality is good, with my 200mm lens, it's like, "where's the bird?"

I don't have a high budget. So, with $400, I can get the Lumix DMC-FZ8 with a 1.7x teleconverter. Is that good enough for bird photos? I am thinking this is a good alternative as this already comes with Image Stabilization. The prices of Nikkor lenses with VR are a bit high, so I am really interested if the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G at less than $200 can get better photos than the FZ8. Sorry if it sounds ridiculous, but has anyone tried putting a teleconverter (such as an Olympus TCON 17) in front of a DSLR lens? Does this work? Am just asking because I cannot afford 400mm or longer lenses as of the moment.

I am leaning towards the FZ8 primarily because my P&S camera is too old and the DSLR is a bit large for travel. I take more travel and family photos compared to birds.

Your comments and experience are most welcome.
Click to expand...

I use the FZ7 and TCon 17 a lot of the time see http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/data/527/26920bearded-tits.jpg . In general the setup works reasonably well and I find it a far more reliable way of getting a decent record shot than digiscoping. The Panasonic Mega OIS is excellent likewise it's reasonably quick focusing. I've often thought about a decent dslr and 500mm lens however an extra 5lb of weight to carry around plus the scope and bins is too much. The FZ7 and TCon 17 is a nice light setup. Obviously you won't get the same quality results as you would with a dslr however for what it costs its a bargain. In the past the drawback with the Panasonic's has been noisier than average photos. (easily cleaned up in neat image). I believe the FZ8 can shoot in RAW. If you go a-head with this set-up I'll be interested to know how the RAW and Jpeg compare.
 
RAH said:
One good reason would be that teleconverters that mount in front of the lens do not lose any light, unlike regular DSLR teleconverters which infamously lose 2 f-stops for a 2x converter (I think).
Click to expand...
This is only so if the front element of the front converter is bigger than the front element of the lens it is mounted on (1.7 times the diameter for a TCON 17).
Basically, a fixed amount of light is reflected from the object you are photographic through the front of the lens/converter combination. If that results in an image that covers twice as much of the sensor, the light intensity on the sensor is halved. The only way round this is to capture more light through a bigger front element.
The front element of DSLR telephotos is sufficiently large that mounting a front teleconverter is more likely to lose light than gain it.
 
ikw101 said:
In the past the drawback with the Panasonic's has been noisier than average photos. (easily cleaned up in neat image).
Click to expand...
Sure, but I think it's also true that traditionally Panasonic results at the higher ISOs where they were noisier than rivals also had more detail or appeared sharper. Seems the case from these ISO400 samples posted at dpreview over the years:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz3/page7.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz20/page7.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz5/page7.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz30/page10.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz7/page9.asp
Could be partly down to the better Panasonic/Leica lenses or maybe less smudging from less in-camera noise reduction. Lot to be said for being left with the option of selectively using a more sophisticated noise reduction algorithm like Neatimage. Once detail has been lost to in-camera noise reduction, it cannot be recovered from the jpeg. Jpegs from the more recent Panasonic models do however seem to show evidence of quite severe chroma noise suppression (colour smudging) which is presumably all linked with the continued trend for pixel packing. A good RAW workflow (perhaps using Bibble which includes Noise Ninja noise reduction) looks to be the route to eking out the best results where such high ISOs are required.
 
normjackson said:
Lot to be said for being left with the option of selectively using a more sophisticated noise reduction algorithm like Neatimage. Once detail has been lost to in-camera noise reduction, it cannot be recovered from the jpeg.
Click to expand...
This tradeoff battle between sharpness versus low noise (via in-camera reduction) isn't unique to super-zooms. Even with DSLRs, you get the same thing. In reviews, the Nikon D80 is highly praised by some for low noise at high ISOs (via in-caera tweaking) versus the Canon Rebel XTi. But on the other hand, there are those who praise the Rebel for having sharper (but noisier) images at high ISO. Depends on what you want.

Generally, I guess I agree that it's better to maintain the sharpness and take a little noise, which can be removed later. But really bad noise can obscure the detail, so go figure.
 
ikw101 said:
I use the FZ7 and TCon 17 a lot of the time see http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/data/527/26920bearded-tits.jpg . In general the setup works reasonably well and I find it a far more reliable way of getting a decent record shot than digiscoping. The Panasonic Mega OIS is excellent likewise it's reasonably quick focusing. I've often thought about a decent dslr and 500mm lens however an extra 5lb of weight to carry around plus the scope and bins is too much. The FZ7 and TCon 17 is a nice light setup. Obviously you won't get the same quality results as you would with a dslr however for what it costs its a bargain. In the past the drawback with the Panasonic's has been noisier than average photos. (easily cleaned up in neat image). I believe the FZ8 can shoot in RAW. If you go a-head with this set-up I'll be interested to know how the RAW and Jpeg compare.
Click to expand...

I would agree with these views on the FZ7. I am very much a beginner photographer but find that the FZ7 meets my current needs, and I have not used a t/c yet. All the photos that I have posted in my user gallery were taken with an FZ7.
 
The Tcon17 (in my case the B300 predecessor) works ok on the front of a number of my dslr lenses with little to no light loss. It's a big lump!. While one of the most popular and best telecons out there it's not tack sharp in dslr terms. On the front of my 90mm Macro lens it does the job but because the Macro unit is so sharp on it's own you know when the Tcon is fitted. On many other less sharp lenses it's OK. There is no real comparison to a true dslr telecon though, light loss or not. Mine is almost a permanent fixture to a Minolta A1 and photos can be seen on my gallery. Filename beginning 'Pict' will almost certainly have it fitted except in macro pics.

Camera choice would suggest at least waiting for the initial reviews and posted pics from the new Sony H9 due any day/week now to see how the new 8mp sensor and 15x Carl Zeiss 31-465 lens performs but the FZ's are very, very good.

Denis.
 
That's very interesting, Dave. The 70-300 Tamron - does the zoom or the focus cause the lens to lengthen (i.e. telescope in and out)? If so, isn't it kind of worrisome hanging the TCON-17 on the very end of it? Do you hold the whole mechanism for support, or is it not as bad as I think it might be?

I have an Olympus DSLR and Oly 70-300 lens, and I do have a TCON-17 left over from my superzoom days, so it would be something to try, but I am worried about damaging the focus or zoom mechanisms of the lens.
 
Sorry not to get back sooner. Well so far no problems although I have been largely manually focusing. Have now got Kenko 1.5x teleconverter which seems marginally sharper but is worse for purple fringing. I tried connecting all three to my Pentax K2000 and it wasn't that bad really for budget 1150mm equivalent!
:- http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2770/4111589183_7751af4a74_b.jpg

It was taken from ten metres and can was about 8.5 inches (22cm) high and is uncropped.
Dave
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 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.

Similar threads

james holdsworth
Looking for a good super zoom compact camera
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
PaulCountyDurham
P
D
Which camera?
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Jon555
J
T
Camera choice for birding around 3000 Euros with lens?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Tsvetan
T
S
Photographic equipment for rainforest trip
Replies
18
Views
2K
vupham
vupham
E
First serious birding camera advice (budget €2000 - 3000)
2
Replies
21
Views
4K
njlarsen
njlarsen

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top