Camera for birder recommendations (1 Viewer)

[simmojunior]

Hi all,

I am in need of a new camera for birding to take record shots on the rare occasion I find something unusual and for use on trips abroad. I am not a photographer interested in sitting in a hide all day to get the perfect shot but would like some better photos than I am currently able to take (my photos are notoriously bad). I have an old Canon SX 40 that I never have really got used to and it is now very battered. Years ago I had what I think was a Fuji and I really liked it. When I found a Red-backed Shrike two months ago on Scilly, my record shots were hardly good enough to substantiate the record when it should not have been that hard.

Therefore, I am looking to purchase a new camera and am very unsure about what I should look for or what my budget would be. I cannot imagine carrying around something too heavy as well as my scope and bins but equally would be willing to spend a bit more for something a lot better. I assume I should go for a bridge camera (if so which one?) but could be persuaded with a cheap and light DSLR if the advantages are clear. What do people suggest?

Thanks!

Oli

 

[MalR]

I was in the same boat as you when my old Canon SX50 needed replacing. I've owned DSLRs in the past, but even rigs that would be considered lightweight were too heavy for me. In the end I went for the Sony RX10IV, and I've been delighted with it.

As bridge cameras go, it's not cheap and it doesn't have the longest reach by any means. But it has a larger sensor than most (1 inch) and a superb Zeiss lens, which is f4 at the long end.

Its autofocus is excellent, and it shoots 4k and slow-motion video.

Of course, it isn't perfect (what camera is?), but its versatility and excellent image quality make it the best fit for me.

I've attached some images to give you an idea of what it can do.

Malcolm

 

[delia todd]

Hi Oli

I have a Nikon Coolpix P900, the latest one is a P1000.

I've been really pleased with mine, using it mostly on their preprogrammed Birdwatching mode, taking a burst of 7 shots, so the likelihood is that one of them should be sharp if the bird is moving.

 

[njlarsen]

Both of the things mentioned are bridge cameras and that would be the segment I think you should concentrate on. If for some reason you want to go above I would encourage you to consider micro-4/3 (this is what I have).

Among the bridge cameras, the current highest risers in what I have read have been the nicons for reach or the sony mentioned above for larger sensor and better ability for birds in flight. Therefore, some additional description of what you expect to do with the camera will be helpful: long distance or what?

Niels

 

[simmojunior]

Both of the things mentioned are bridge cameras and that would be the segment I think you should concentrate on. If for some reason you want to go above I would encourage you to consider micro-4/3 (this is what I have).

Among the bridge cameras, the current highest risers in what I have read have been the nicons for reach or the sony mentioned above for larger sensor and better ability for birds in flight. Therefore, some additional description of what you expect to do with the camera will be helpful: long distance or what?

Thanks Niels and everyone else. I expect to carry the camera when out birding so some birds will be in flight or relatively long distance but I am not expecting to take pictures of distant shearwaters on a seawatch.

The Sony looks great but is incredibly expensive - is it really worth the price? It is more than I expected to spend! The Nikon P900 gets very mixed reviews - what sort of quality of image do you get Delia? Do either have image stabiliser - for some reason I am not very good at holding a camera steady.

 

[MalR]

As I said in my reply to your original post, the Sony is not cheap for a bridge camera. I dithered for months before buying one because I felt no bridge camera could justify that sort of price.

Having finally taken the plunge, I can honestly say I have no regrets and, to me, it is worth the money. It does have image stabilisation, although off the top of my head I'm not sure how many stops it's rated as.

The Sony will be better than the Nikons in low light because of its larger sensor and faster lens, although like all bridge cameras it isn't great. Its phase detect autofocus system will make it better for birds in flight. But, of course, it can't compete in terms of reach, so if you think that's the most important thing for you, then you'd be better off with one of the Nikons.

Malcolm

 

[delia todd]

Hi Oli

I'm really pleased with the results from the P900. However, I'm not a photographer I just like taking pictures of what I see, particularly distant birds that I want to try and ID later perhaps.

Here is a link to my Gallery here with pictures taken using this camera (all I'm managed to tag so far with the new system here). They start from early October 2019 when I got it in Australia. That's where most of the flight pictures were taken, as I've not been able to do much 'proper' birding since my return (Covid and other issues). I find flight pictures much easier with this camera than with my previous ones.

Search results for query: nikon coolpix P900

www.birdforum.net

Yes, there's an image stabiliser. Also a little known facility - a button on the side that you can press if, say, you've lost a bird in a tree and can't see it. Press the button and it will zoom out and if it finds what it thinks is a bird will zoom back in on it. Seven out of ten times so far it's been right! It would probably find a bird in the sky too, if it was still in the same general area.

If you see TTTW in the tags, I've taken them through the window, which could possibly affect the clarity. (That's my excuse anyway)

 

[Chosun Juan]

Oli, - I agree with what's been said so far.

For BIF, lower light shots, and better quality optics /sensor - go for the Sony RX10 IV. Great value for money.

For more static shots in better light, with longer reach, go for the Nikon P950.

All cameras have compromises, but unless you wish to spend more money and/or carry more weight, that's about it.



Chosun 🙅‍♀️

 

[simmojunior]

Thanks all. As such a novice with cameras, I am unclear whether I prioritise light and focus over reach. I imagine for UK birding, reach is more important as I am often at wetland sites whereas overseas when I am generally in the forest, light becomes more important. To be honest I probably would go for the Sony if it was in the £750 range but £1,500 is really offputting. How do cheaper options compare?

 

[njlarsen]

Perhaps some other threads will help:

Nikon P950 vs Nikon P1000

Does anybody have experience of using the P950 and the P1000? I used to have a P900 and moved to a P1000 which I prefer, although the P1000 is somewhat large and heavy. Since then the P950 has been released. I have been wondering whether to sell the P1000 and move to a P950. I am aware of the...

www.birdforum.net

Nikon P900,P950,P1000 spec comparison

Nothing that puts it ahead of the P900 for me

www.birdforum.net

Nikon P950: first impressions and any advice appreciated

'Went ahead and bought the Nikon P950. 'Weather has been awful here during the last few days and so I've been researching settings and the like. Tonight, after work, there was about an hour of decent light for the first time since I bought the camera and so I took it out for a try. First...

www.birdforum.net

Niels

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

I was in the same boat as you when my old Canon SX50 needed replacing. I've owned DSLRs in the past, but even rigs that would be considered lightweight were too heavy for me. In the end I went for the Sony RX10IV, and I've been delighted with it.

As bridge cameras go, it's not cheap and it doesn't have the longest reach by any means. But it has a larger sensor than most (1 inch) and a superb Zeiss lens, which is f4 at the long end.

Its autofocus is excellent, and it shoots 4k and slow-motion video.

Of course, it isn't perfect (what camera is?), but its versatility and excellent image quality make it the best fit for me.

I've attached some images to give you an idea of what it can do.

Malcolm

'Beauty of a picture of the stonechat there, Mal!

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Thanks all. As such a novice with cameras, I am unclear whether I prioritise light and focus over reach. I imagine for UK birding, reach is more important as I am often at wetland sites whereas overseas when I am generally in the forest, light becomes more important. To be honest I probably would go for the Sony if it was in the £750 range but £1,500 is really offputting. How do cheaper options compare?

'Similar question to what I asked myself: zoom over lens size, and similarly from a position of limited knowledge.

I am confident I made the right choice for me, which obviously isn't necessarily the right choice for someone else.

If you have a look at my pictures of a kingfisher taken with the Nikon P950, there is pretty much no light as the kingfisher is at the bottom of a murky river and surrounded by trees, shutter speed 1/50. Similarly, there is a linnet on there taken in very overcast conditions. In fact, the thing that bothered me most when I was choosing was how a small sensor would cope with pictures in poor light, but it turns out it produces better pictures in those conditions than summer days, not winter days with a nice blue sky mind you; but definitely better than the hazy, summer days we tend to get.

The good thing about the Nikon P950 is that it's a pretty simple menu, even for someone like me with not a lot of camera experience, and bang all of the controls on neutral and you're away with a bit of post processing.

I probably sound like I'm coming over as some sort of expert here when I'm not, but I reckon it's a cast-iron fact that when you're using a bridge camera what matters most is your ability to get close without scaring away the bird. I was exactly like you in that I was fretting about whether I'd get what I wanted for the money but knowing what I know now I reckon any bridge camera in the range of 400 quid upwards will get you some nice pictures if you do the other things right such as being able to get close and keep the camera steady. What the Nikon P950 does is give you extra zoom to get close but then that's a lot of glass you're taking pictures with to generate some sort of warping.

I really think it is important to work out how close you can get, because if you can't and you have 600m zoom: you could be disappointed.

 

[simmojunior]

Thanks everyone. Genuinely really helpful but now I'm even more unsure what to do!

 

[MalR]

'Beauty of a picture of the stonechat there, Mal!

Thank you, Paul. That magic ingredient of good light.

Malcolm

 

[cafe birder]

Thank you, Paul. That magic ingredient of good light.

Malcolm

I have used a Nikon P900 for several years. It's purely to record unusual finds and take pics on my patch for twitter etc. I love the reach and don't find it heavy. It will go in a coat pocket at a pinch. At long range the sharpness does not begin to compare with dslr images but much of that is my lack of talent. The key thing about bridge cameras is that they are light enough to have them slung over a shoulder while you are birding. This is critical when you do bump into a rarity as the camera you have ready is always better than the one in your rucksack.
Regards Howard

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Thank you, Paul. That magic ingredient of good light.

Malcolm

And a beauty of a little bird!

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

I have used a Nikon P900 for several years. It's purely to record unusual finds and take pics on my patch for twitter etc. I love the reach and don't find it heavy. It will go in a coat pocket at a pinch. At long range the sharpness does not begin to compare with dslr images but much of that is my lack of talent. The key thing about bridge cameras is that they are light enough to have them slung over a shoulder while you are birding. This is critical when you do bump into a rarity as the camera you have ready is always better than the one in your rucksack.
Regards Howard

I have the P950 and when I was looking for a camera I read quite a few times that it was bulky. 'Doesn't feel like that to me. I have it 'round my neck and it's comfortable.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Thanks everyone. Genuinely really helpful but now I'm even more unsure what to do!

One of the most important things from my experience is keeping the camera steady. I read that you have an unsteady hand. It's really not easy when you're stood up no matter how steady your hand is, particularly with a long zoom, but lie down with your elbows on the ground or sit down with your arms resting into your thighs and it's a world of difference. It also gives you an added advantage that birds are less intimidated when you're not stood up. I've been within very close range of a wheatear that took absolutely no notice of me when I was lying down even though I was out in the open, but stand up and they're gone before you get anywhere near.

If I couldn't lie down or sit down for some reason I would undoubtedly get a tripod/monopod because it's just too difficult to stand up, take pictures of a bird and keep the camera steady.

You might not want to roll around in the grass with people around but personally I couldn't care less what they think: I'm not there for their appreciation or otherwise.

The pictures I took of the kingfisher that are in my gallery were taken lying down in the grass, I'm very close, he/she didn't know I was there and in the end I had to sneak back out the way I came in because my neck was hurting. The bird looked at my camera sneaking through the grass a couple of times but clearly wasn't alarmed because he/she didn't move from the perch. I sneaked out the way I sneaked in, got within enough distance away to stand up and look back without alarming the bird and he/she was still there on the perch. I could have taken a 1,000 photos from very close rang had I wanted and my neck held up.

There are monumental advantages of not taking pictures stood up, but instead sitting down or lying down. What I'm trying to say is that I reckon 400 quids worth of camera will get you some very nice pictures if you're a bit agile in getting close and you can keep the camera steady, although I would add that the extra zoom comes in very handy. I personally wouldn't change for a smaller zoom, no matter the difference in size of sensor, and the only thing that will make me move away from this camera is a version that has long zoom, larger sensor.

Either way, good luck, and whatever you buy you'll probably be like me and within no time thinking why was I fretting over it.

 

[delia todd]

You're fitter than me Paul.... I can't get down on the ground any more, or rather, I can't get up if I do.

Usually I try and find a tree or something to lean against. A couple of times I've used a friend's shoulder to rest the zoom on.

 

[lgonz1008]

I see a lot of love/recommendations for the P900, I don't use it in birdwatching mode since the photos rarely take what I want, but I still think it's the best camera I've owned as a birder first and photographer second. I don't spend 2-3 hours for the perfect shot of that hummingbird or cardinal in someone's feeder. I mostly walk/drive and if I see a good bird, I take the shot and hope it comes out good and most times, I can say that even my accidental shots come out better than the ones I prepared for. Flight photos are almost a no-go for me, but if you want a good zoom, lightweight camera and pretty good shots for a good price, Nikon P900 is the way to go.

Here are the pictures I've taken (and uploaded to eBird) with that camera, pictures are a bit more square, so no landscape shots, but I'd be hard pressed to say a camera with a bridge would get me as many photos in the brief window between lowering the binoculars and getting the camera ready.