Canon vs Nikon - entry level. (1 Viewer)

[Andrew Whitehouse]

Here are some reviews for the 70-300mm AF-P, which I mentioned earlier. It weighs 400 grams and is available at around £339.

https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/nikon_afp_dx_nikkor_70_300mm_f_45_63_g_ed_vr_review
https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300mm-vr-afp.htm
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-p-dx-nikkor-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-3-g-ed-vr-review-30569
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-70-300mm-dx-vr-af-p

I don't have a problem with the idea that a bigger and more expensive lens is going to give better results in most situations (though I wonder if all are as sharp or quick to focus as this lens). However, this is really a different type of lens that is so small it's almost imperceptible to carry. Even if one were to graduate to a big lens, I think you'd hang on to this lens for when you want something lighter and smaller that can still give very good results. In my experience it's a significant step up from other cheapish 300mm zoom lenses. The IQ, focus speed (it hardly hunts at all) and sharpness are much better than anything similar that I've ever used. it's also pretty much at its best wide open at 300mm.

I normally use a 300mm f4 PF but have been using this while that lens has been fixed. I've been surprised at how little I miss it. It's an excellent, inexpensive lens for anyone starting out with DSLR wildlife photography. You can learn a lot about what a DSLR brings over a superzoom and about how to use the lens and camera. You get this in a package that's not much bigger or more expensive than a decent superzoom.

 

[Apodidae49]

I think, for my budget, the Nikon outfit is getting more attractive daily and I can always get a long lens later. I’ll have a chat with the blokes at In Focus, Martin Mere as at least one of them is a Nikon man and are they are generally very good at dispensing advice. The advice I have received here is spot-on though, and keep it coming.

 

[marcsantacurz]

I think, for my budget, the Nikon outfit is getting more attractive daily and I can always get a long lens later. I’ll have a chat with the blokes at In Focus, Martin Mere as at least one of them is a Nikon man and are they are generally very good at dispensing advice. The advice I have received here is spot-on though, and keep it coming.

Something else I mentioned in a different camera thread for 800 GBP is the d7100. It's almost the same thing as the d7200, but with a smaller buffer and not as nice top display. Like the 7200, there's no AA filter and can shoot 7 fps in 1.3 crop. But you could likely get a used one for under 500 GBP. Need to watch the shutter count and all the other things buying used, but it could be a good deal.

In any case, the d5300 + 70-300 DX AF-P would be a decent starter, but will be very short compared to your Panasonic. I'd try to get a 400mm or 600mm native plus a used d7100 or d7200, if the reason for all this is shooting birds.

Marc

 

[Apodidae49]

How does a used D5100 with a 18-105 zoom and a 35mm f1.8 with a Lowepro Slingshot bag and a Sun Sniper sling for £350 sound?

Your input will be much appreciated.

 

[locustella]

300 mm is far too low focal length for bird photography, especially without hide.

Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM | Sports (Canon EOS)
http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/977-sigma150600f563sports?start=1

and mentined above

Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD (Canon EOS)
http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/976-tamron150600f563vc?start=1

have suspiciously and strangely high MTF resolution. Much higher than

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS
http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/609-canon100400f4556ff?start=1

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS II
http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1

Nikkor AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 D ED VR
http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/552-nikkorafd80400vrff?start=1

But if that is true, Sigma would be the best one, however very heavy (2860 g). Minimal focus distances for Sigma and Tamron are a little longer then for Canon and Nikon original lenses, but maximum magnification 1:5 seems to be good enough for birds, frogs (?). In case of Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS II it is only 0.98m (1:3.2). Such lens would be good to photograph the Eurasian penduline building nest by a photographer sitting on a branch very close to the nest. So Sigma's 2.6 m in some cases would be to long distance ?
And zooms up to 400 mm are more lighter and handy then those up to 600 mm.

Original Canon and Nikon lenses are much more expensive.

You can compute relation between focal length and distance here:
https://darekk.com/calculator/bird-size-focal-length-distance-calculator

Actually even 1000 mm would be to little in most of cases to photograph birds without a hide.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited next day:

Resolution on the website opticallimits.com is measured in line widths per picture height (LW/PH), in all 5 cases for the full frame.
But different sensors were used.

Canon EOS:
1) 50 mp:
Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG HSM OS SPORTS
Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di USD VC

2) 21 mp:
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS II

3) Nikon FX:
Nikkor AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 D ED VR

So these results (1-3) are not comparable despite same dimensions of a sensor, because at least 3 different sensor systems were used ...
According to www.dxomark.com the rank for sharpness is: Canon > Nikon > Tamron, but Nikon and Canon/Tamron were tested on different cameras..

I was using www.opticallimits.com/ (= www.photozone.de) tests results sometimes before digital era ...

 

[Apodidae49]

300 mm is far too low focal length for bird photography, especially without hide.

Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM | Sports (Canon EOS)
http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/977-sigma150600f563sports?start=1

and mentined above

Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD (Canon EOS)
http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/976-tamron150600f563vc?start=1

have suspiciously and strangely high MTF resolution. Much higher than

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS
http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/609-canon100400f4556ff?start=1

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS II
http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=1

Nikkor AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 D ED VR (FX)
http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/552-nikkorafd80400vrff?start=1

But if that is true, Sigma would be the best one, however very heavy (2860 g) and probably without image stabilization. Minimal focus distances for Sigma and Tamron are a little longer then for Canon and Nikon original lenses, but maximum magnification 1:5 seems to be good enough for birds, frogs (?). In case of Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS II it is only 0.98m (1:3.2). Such lens would be good to photograph the Eurasian penduline building nest by a photographer sitting on a branch very close to the nest. So Sigma's 2.6 m in some cases would be to long distance ?
And zooms up to 400 mm are more lighter and handy then those up to 600 mm.

Original Canon and Nikon lenses are much more expensive:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/SLR-Camera-Lenses/ci/274/N/4288584247
(I don't know why, but this links doesn't work, is being redirected to a nonsense webpage)

You can compute relation between focal length and distance here:
https://darekk.com/calculator/bird-size-focal-length-distance-calculator

Actually even 1000 mm would be to little in most of cases to photograph birds without a hide.

500 mm mirror lenses are cheapper, small and very light, but they have usually only one aperture, no autofocus, produce images with bagel-shaped unsharp elements and dark corners. But I can't find ones with Canon or Nikon mounts ...

Thank you for your input but much of my birding IS from hides and my budget is not that great!

 

[locustella]

(my budget is 0.000 from many years) 300, 500 and 600 mm reflex (mirror) lenses are cheaper, something like three times shorter than "classical" lenses and and very light, but they have usually only one fixed aperture, no autofocus, produce images with donut-shaped unsharp elements and dark corners. But I can't find ones with Canon or Nikon mounts ... Only Opteka and Bower mirror lenses with T-mount for many camera types (?), strangely cheap, even below $100, and 300 mm Rokinon and Samyang reflex lenses for Canon, also cheap, but not so much. Probably image quality is not ideal for such price, but I don't know. Many years ago Minolta (currently Sony) had mirror 500 mm, those times the only one mirror lens with AF. Here are example images taken about 18 years ago with that lens, without hide. Dark corners are visible in the second image, donut bokeh in two last images:

 

[marcsantacurz]

How does a used D5100 with a 18-105 zoom and a 35mm f1.8 with a Lowepro Slingshot bag and a Sun Sniper sling for £350 sound?

Your input will be much appreciated.

The 35mm f/1.8 is a great lens for DX. Small light great IQ and fast. Great general purpose. If you don't really shoot wide angle (it is its own art), some people will just use a 35mm and either walk a few steps closer or a few steps back and skip the short zoom. Same idea as just using your iPhone for that same stuff.

The 18-105, while takes ok images (not great, but ok), is way too short for birds. Even from a hide. It also does not get very good reviews. Maybe you could at least get the 18-200 DX VR, if not the older 18-300 DX VR? Or the 55-300 DX VR?

I guess I keep stumbling on the premise that the upgrade to the DSLR is for bird photography, so I don't see why getting a DSLR but with an inappropriate lens is worth any money.

Let's throw some math at this. Let's say you have a 2' bird at 100'. Using a right triangle, 2 * tan-1 (1 / 100) = 7.16*. Looking at a FoV table (https://www.nikonians.org/reviews/fov-tables), you find that for DX a 180mm lens has a 7.4* FoV, so that's what you need to get a full-frame shot. If the bird is only 1' wide, then you have 3.6* and need 400mm on DX (not 400mm equivalent, but 400mm native). You could play around with the distance (100') and bird size (1' - 2', 4", etc.) to adjust to whatever your actual hide is like.

Another way to think about it is an 8x42 binocular will be about 7.5* - 8* field of view, so right around that 180mm (actual focal length) lens size on DX. If the birds you're looking at only fill about 1/2 the 8x binocular view, you probably want closer to 300mm actual (450mm equivalent) lenses. If they only fill about 1/4 of the binocular, you want 600mm actual.

Marc

 

[Andrew Whitehouse]

I find it really odd when people say things like '300mm is too short for bird photography'. Are the photos I posted earlier in this thread not 'bird photography'? They were all taken with a 300mm lens (none of them in a hide) in a wide range of conditions. There are birds in flight, small birds in bushes, birds in poor light, larger birds at a distance etc. These are the sort of pictures that are possible with a modern, fairly cheap 300mm zoom lens. Saying things like '300mm is too short for bird photography' is misinformation. It may not be your preference and I'm well aware that a longer lens will get you closer but to suggest that it's not possible to get pleasing photos with 300mm (and with this lens very easily) is simply not true.

 

[Apodidae49]

The 35mm f/1.8 is a great lens for DX. Small light great IQ and fast. Great general purpose. If you don't really shoot wide angle (it is its own art), some people will just use a 35mm and either walk a few steps closer or a few steps back and skip the short zoom. Same idea as just using your iPhone for that same stuff.

The 18-105, while takes ok images (not great, but ok), is way too short for birds. Even from a hide. It also does not get very good reviews. Maybe you could at least get the 18-200 DX VR, if not the older 18-300 DX VR? Or the 55-300 DX VR?

I guess I keep stumbling on the premise that the upgrade to the DSLR is for bird photography, so I don't see why getting a DSLR but with an inappropriate lens is worth any money.

Let's throw some math at this. Let's say you have a 2' bird at 100'. Using a right triangle, 2 * tan-1 (1 / 100) = 7.16*. Looking at a FoV table (https://www.nikonians.org/reviews/fov-tables), you find that for DX a 180mm lens has a 7.4* FoV, so that's what you need to get a full-frame shot. If the bird is only 1' wide, then you have 3.6* and need 400mm on DX (not 400mm equivalent, but 400mm native). You could play around with the distance (100') and bird size (1' - 2', 4", etc.) to adjust to whatever your actual hide is like.

Another way to think about it is an 8x42 binocular will be about 7.5* - 8* field of view, so right around that 180mm (actual focal length) lens size on DX. If the birds you're looking at only fill about 1/2 the 8x binocular view, you probably want closer to 300mm actual (450mm equivalent) lenses. If they only fill about 1/4 of the binocular, you want 600mm actual.

Marc

You’re missing the point, which is the opportunity to get a decent DSLR for a good price (£350) with a good all-round lens, which then gives a bit of wriggle room to get a long lens for birding.

 

[locustella]

They were all taken with a 300mm lens

But where they were taken ? Some species look exotic, maybe they have longer escape distance than most of European birds living outside of parks, zoos, highly populated areas ? And what you were wearing ?
To photograph a bird of size of sparrow with 300 mm lens, you have to get closer to a distance of 4.34 m (https://darekk.com/calculator/). Providing that length of the sparrow is 15 cm and it takes 50% of the 22.3 mm sensor length. This is not so easy.
In case of 400 and 600 mm it is 5.78 and 8.67 m respectively.

 

[Andrew Whitehouse]

But where they were taken ? Some species look exotic, maybe they have longer escape distance than most of European birds living outside of parks, zoos, highly populated areas ? And what you were wearing ?
To photograph a bird of size of sparrow with 300 mm lens, you have to get closer to a distance of 4.34 m (https://darekk.com/calculator/). Providing that length of the sparrow is 15 cm and it takes 50% of the 22.3 mm sensor length. This is not so easy.
In case of 400 and 600 mm it is 5.78 and 8.67 m respectively.

The first set were mostly taken within one mile of where I live in Scotland (except the tropicbird, which wasn't particularly close). The second set were taken in China, in a variety of conditions but mostly in less populated forest areas.

They were all photographed easily and straightforwardly with no special techniques and all as part of regular birding. I'd love to be able to tell you it's all down to hours of effort and great skill on my part but it isn't. It's just a good 300mm lens for bird photography.

 

[locustella]

Many years ago I was using 75-300 mm Minolta zoom and it was rather impossible to approach anything wild.

 

[Zackiedawg]

Of course the place where the photographer lives or will be shooting needs to be taken into consideration. Birds in tropical places and along heavy migrational routes that pass by or through urban areas are much more accustomed to people being close by and will not fly off as readily. Some tropical spots, the birds are downright apathetic towards people - where I live in Florida, I can routinely walk up to birds within arm's reach without them moving - and no behavioral changes - I can stand 5 feet from a heron or egret who will go on fishing and wading around without even looking up at me. So of course, 300mm is plenty for shooting all kinds of species - even 200mm is fine. I bought an extended kit travel zoom, 18-135mm, and tested it on my crop sensor body just to make sure the focus and IQ were solid, by taking it around the wetlands and shooting birds and birds in flight. So statements about a required focal length for birding need to be taken in a broad sense, based on where you shoot.

Back to the original topic, I'd throw out a few other possibilities if you're looking for a somewhat budget birding kit but want larger sensors and interchangeable lenses...you might shop around a bit for Pentax DSLR or Sony DSLR/SLT kits used or new...both mounts are not as popular as Canon and Nikon, but that also often renders them cheaper when buying used. The sensors are mostly Sony-made, just as in Nikon cameras, and are solid performers, and both kits have lenses available from 300mm to 500mm primes and zooms up to 500mm or 600mm. Hitting the budget should be possible with either kit. If you're going to be wanting to do bird-in-flight photography, you'd want to probably avoid Pentax - not that they can't do it, just that they're not known as the best AF-C cameras...older Sony models will be OK, newer ones much better.

You might also consider some of the newer mirrorless camera systems - same APS-C sensors, generally small and light bodies, and though lens selection is more limited and often more expensive, it would still be possible to hit around the same price range with older bodies. Continuous and standard focus on most new systems are quite fast and can match entry DSLRs, sometimes even better than some entry DSLRs due to the mirrorless' on-sensor PDAF focusing systems that have dozens to hundreds more focus points to work with on tracking. Sony's A6000, A6300, and A6500 are APS-C sensor bodies all with good focus tracking, Fuji's X-T2 should be cheaper now that the X-T3 debuted and will do pretty well with continuous focus, and a few M4:3 sensor bodies, notably Olympus' EM series that have on-sensor PDAF, will be capable. Some of these bodies can also work pretty well with adapted lenses - notably the Sony A6300 and 6500 mate quite well to Sigma's MC11 Canon-EOS mount adapters to use Canon's lens collection with pretty solid focus, and the LA-EA3 adapter to use some of Sony Alpha-mount lenses pretty well...giving some cheaper options to get reach when you need it.

 

[marcsantacurz]

I find it really odd when people say things like '300mm is too short for bird photography'. Are the photos I posted earlier in this thread not 'bird photography'? They were all taken with a 300mm lens (none of them in a hide) in a wide range of conditions. There are birds in flight, small birds in bushes, birds in poor light, larger birds at a distance etc. These are the sort of pictures that are possible with a modern, fairly cheap 300mm zoom lens. Saying things like '300mm is too short for bird photography' is misinformation. It may not be your preference and I'm well aware that a longer lens will get you closer but to suggest that it's not possible to get pleasing photos with 300mm (and with this lens very easily) is simply not true.

You are correct that a 300mm can take great bird photos. Back in the day, I was even doing some on my d90 + 55-200mm. I am basing my recommendations on the OP's original post in a different thread (https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=367955) where he says

Up to now I have been using a LUMIX FZ72 Megazoom for my (non too-serious) birding forays but the small sensor and massive 60x zoom don’t make comfortable bedfellows.

If I buy a DSLR, like an Eos 200D, and add a EF 75-300 zoom will I be able to get pictures that will crop for decent results?

I’m not in the market for a 500mm that costs thousands but I would like to be able to get some nice studies from crops as well as do some good all-round photography.

The FZ72 is a 20 - 1200mm equivalent camera. He says that the small sensor is a problem at high zoom, not that high zoom is a problem. So, I read that as he wants the reach but with better quality. So while I agree that you can do bird photography with 300mm, I did not think that would address the underlying need.

A 300mm lens on a Canon 1.6x is 480mm. You would need another 2.5x crop to get to 1200. That would make the 200d (or other 24MP) into a 9.6 MP (say 3098x3098). That's passable if you won't enlarge too much. Screen viewing should be ok. I, personally, find raw files crop better than jpeg at that amount mostly because of the in-camera noise reduction. And you'll need to keep the ISO pretty low or the ISO artifacts will become an issue at that magnification. I suspect handheld or monopod, even with VR, will not give a large percentage of truly sharp images at a 2.5x crop but you will get some.

In one of my early responses, I suggest taking the existing FZ72 and shooting it as if you only have 450mm (equivalent) of reach. See what it is like. Or maybe assume that you can crop another 1.5x off a DSLR and shoot it as if you only have 675mm of reach. I'd try to decide what reach I'm comfortable with given where and what I shoot and back into a DSLR combo that way rather than trying to find a deal first.

 

[locustella]

Digiscoping allows easy photographing without a hide. This is why it was invented - because lenses are too week for bird photography in most of cases. A kit lens + telescope corresponds to lens with focal length larger than 1000 mm. But quality of such images is poor.
Many years ago almost only 300 mm lenses were used.

A 300mm lens on a Canon 1.6x is 480mm. (...)

Today with small APS sensor like 22.3x14.9 mm they give same angle as 484 mm lens for 24x36 mm film, 4oo mm corresponds to 645 mm, 500 mm to 807 mm, 600 mm to 968 mm.

 

[marcsantacurz]

A 300mm lens on a Canon 1.6x is 480mm. You would need another 2.5x crop to get to 1200. That would make the 200d (or other 24MP) into a 9.6 MP (say 3098x3098). That's passable if you won't enlarge too much. Screen viewing should be ok.

That was an incorrect calculation. Crop is a linear factor and MP is a square area. A 2.5x image crop is a 6.26x reduction in area (MP), so a 24MP camera becomes 3.84 MP camera. That is getty low, even for screen viewing. On a camera with an AA filter, it will be hard, I think, to get a really sharp photo at that much crop.

Marc

 

[Jos Stratford]

I find it really odd when people say things like '300mm is too short for bird photography'. Are the photos I posted earlier in this thread not 'bird photography'? They were all taken with a 300mm lens (none of them in a hide) in a wide range of conditions. There are birds in flight, small birds in bushes, birds in poor light, larger birds at a distance etc. These are the sort of pictures that are possible with a modern, fairly cheap 300mm zoom lens. Saying things like '300mm is too short for bird photography' is misinformation. It may not be your preference and I'm well aware that a longer lens will get you closer but to suggest that it's not possible to get pleasing photos with 300mm (and with this lens very easily) is simply not true.

Completely agree :t:

 

[HermitIbis]

The FZ72 is a 20 - 1200mm equivalent camera. He says that the small sensor is a problem at high zoom, not that high zoom is a problem. So, I read that as he wants the reach but with better quality. So while I agree that you can do bird photography with 300mm, I did not think that would address the underlying need.

Agreed. The OP should take a longer walk with a DSLR + 70-300 lens and see whether this is really the goal: tiny birds in the viewfinder, shutter noise, heavy in comparison to the FZ72, no macro capability... there are real trade-offs. - I can recommend the Nikon V2 as a lightweight alternative.

 

[Andrew Whitehouse]

Agreed. The OP should take a longer walk with a DSLR + 70-300 lens and see whether this is really the goal: tiny birds in the viewfinder, shutter noise, heavy in comparison to the FZ72, no macro capability... there are real trade-offs. - I can recommend the Nikon V2 as a lightweight alternative.

The DSLR/70-300 combinations mentioned on this thread are well under a kilo in weight combined, so not that much more than most superzooms (and less than some). About as much as a 42mm pair of binoculars, in fact. The 70-300 mentioned also has pretty much silent focusing so is a relatively quiet set up, even with some shutter noise from the camera. It also seems to take nice close-ups:
https://img.photographyblog.com/rev...afp_dx_nikkor_70_300mm_f_45_63_g_ed_vr_66.jpg
Maybe not such real trade offs?