-
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.
equipment (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
IanF
Moderator
I think it is like most other things, budget is a big deciding factor !
Nature photography in general requires big lens capabilities.
You have two ways to go, 35 mm or digital - which includes digiscoping of course - which is dealt with elsewhere in the site.
I still think 35 mm gives better results quality wise. Digital is getting there but the high end cameras are the only ones that truly compete and they are out of my league at least.
With 35 mm, the camera body isn't critical in terms of needing the top model, but the lens has to be good. A lot of 35 mm equipment can be picked up quite cheaply nowadays, but you are still faced with high processing costs.
Digital is an ideal media for bird photography. You may take thirty or forty shots but only keep a couple, just deleting the rest. The problem area is the quality of those captured shots. The 2 - 3 mp cameras don't really cut it for me, the image quality is just not high enough. Don't get me wrong, you can take excellent shots with such cameras, but they still don't compete with a 5 or 6 mp camera.
I went for a budget approach to my birding photography. I use an Olympus C2100UZ, a 2.1 mp camera with a 10x optical zoom. The big zoom really helps, but sadly the camera is no longer available. The Canon Pro 90IS (also discontinued) had pretty much the same spec. sharing the same lens and Image Stabiliser but with a slightly larger CCD, I think it was 2.65 mp, but I could be wrong. The subsequent Olympus cameras have increased memory but shorter zooms, though I think the C740 has a 10x optical zoom. None now have the Image Stabiliser which makes such a big difference enabling hand holding. The Sony 707 and now 717 seems to give excellent results from what I've seen, but again the price goes up.
In terms of reach of the lens, the Olympus C2100UZ equates to around 380mm in terms of 35 mm photography, pretty handy in itself, but never quite enough unless you can creep up real close on the birds! In addition I use two Olympus tele-extender lenses coupled together, the B300 (1.7x) and Tcon 14 (1.45x). They work like the 35 mm tele-converter lenses, except they screw into the camera filter thread. Someone calculated they boost the length to over 1000 mm, but actual figures like that never really interested me. Using the B300 alone gives very little loss of image quality and only very slight loss when coupled with the Tcon14. In addition there is next to no loss of light entering the camera so exposure isn't greatly affected. The set up suits me fine for ease of use and manoeuvrability, useful in following the birds around. I have even coupled two Tcon14's to use with the B300, for those really distant birds, but to be truthful I only regard the quality as being suitable for a record shot.
Best of all are the true digital SLR's such as the Canon D30 and especially the Canon D60, which allow use of all the big lenses. The results from these cameras are outstanding, out performing even 35mm. I wish the trade had gone down that course right from day one. Each manufacturer could have produced digital SLR's with interchangeable lenses, but of course would have made far less money. The downside is that unless you have really deep pockets, you can only dream :bounce:
Sorry at the length of the reply, I got a little carried away !
Nature photography in general requires big lens capabilities.
You have two ways to go, 35 mm or digital - which includes digiscoping of course - which is dealt with elsewhere in the site.
I still think 35 mm gives better results quality wise. Digital is getting there but the high end cameras are the only ones that truly compete and they are out of my league at least.
With 35 mm, the camera body isn't critical in terms of needing the top model, but the lens has to be good. A lot of 35 mm equipment can be picked up quite cheaply nowadays, but you are still faced with high processing costs.
Digital is an ideal media for bird photography. You may take thirty or forty shots but only keep a couple, just deleting the rest. The problem area is the quality of those captured shots. The 2 - 3 mp cameras don't really cut it for me, the image quality is just not high enough. Don't get me wrong, you can take excellent shots with such cameras, but they still don't compete with a 5 or 6 mp camera.
I went for a budget approach to my birding photography. I use an Olympus C2100UZ, a 2.1 mp camera with a 10x optical zoom. The big zoom really helps, but sadly the camera is no longer available. The Canon Pro 90IS (also discontinued) had pretty much the same spec. sharing the same lens and Image Stabiliser but with a slightly larger CCD, I think it was 2.65 mp, but I could be wrong. The subsequent Olympus cameras have increased memory but shorter zooms, though I think the C740 has a 10x optical zoom. None now have the Image Stabiliser which makes such a big difference enabling hand holding. The Sony 707 and now 717 seems to give excellent results from what I've seen, but again the price goes up.
In terms of reach of the lens, the Olympus C2100UZ equates to around 380mm in terms of 35 mm photography, pretty handy in itself, but never quite enough unless you can creep up real close on the birds! In addition I use two Olympus tele-extender lenses coupled together, the B300 (1.7x) and Tcon 14 (1.45x). They work like the 35 mm tele-converter lenses, except they screw into the camera filter thread. Someone calculated they boost the length to over 1000 mm, but actual figures like that never really interested me. Using the B300 alone gives very little loss of image quality and only very slight loss when coupled with the Tcon14. In addition there is next to no loss of light entering the camera so exposure isn't greatly affected. The set up suits me fine for ease of use and manoeuvrability, useful in following the birds around. I have even coupled two Tcon14's to use with the B300, for those really distant birds, but to be truthful I only regard the quality as being suitable for a record shot.
Best of all are the true digital SLR's such as the Canon D30 and especially the Canon D60, which allow use of all the big lenses. The results from these cameras are outstanding, out performing even 35mm. I wish the trade had gone down that course right from day one. Each manufacturer could have produced digital SLR's with interchangeable lenses, but of course would have made far less money. The downside is that unless you have really deep pockets, you can only dream :bounce:
Sorry at the length of the reply, I got a little carried away !
P
peter hayes
Guest
Ian
Thanks very much for that considered reply. How does Coolpix compare with Olympus and Canon, and is it the very best of the pure digital range?
Thanks very much for that considered reply. How does Coolpix compare with Olympus and Canon, and is it the very best of the pure digital range?
IanF
Moderator
Hi Peter,
I can only offer my personal opinion on such matters.
The Nikon Coolpix range are excellent cameras all round. Due to their small lens diameter they are ideal for digiscoping use. You can also use them with supplementary lenses such as the EagleEye Optic Zoom, a 5x extender lens which can give superb results, but you still have that stability problem of using a longer lens and the need for a tripod.
The Olympus C2100UZ and Canon Pro IS90 share the same high quality Image Stabiliser and 10x optic lens, which is much more versatile in that the camera can be hand held. However the lenses are of a larger diameter and less suitable for digiscoping use. Also they fall in the 2-3 mp range and really you need something more like 5-6 mp. Both cameras are discontinued, though can be picked up second hand. I find it amusing that the C2100UZ's on eBay fetch prices £120 dearer than I paid for mine new a year ago. I think Olympus made a mistake in withdrawing that camera.
I have several friends who, lucky for them, possess the Canon D60 which provided you can afford the lenses too, give outstanding results. Certainly the best that I have seen, but then I have had a sheltered life
Due to it's size it would be unsuitable for digiscoping or for humping great distances on foot.
If I had the money, I'd have the D60, 400mm lens plus 2x teleconverter.
Having said that, in six months time no doubt there will be even better specified digital SLR's on the market and prices may begin to drop.
I know I haven't answered the question that you asked, but really the cameras shouldn't be compared directly as to which is the best. They are all good at what they do. I'd be happy with mine if only it was a 5 or 6 mp instead of 2.1.
I can only offer my personal opinion on such matters.
The Nikon Coolpix range are excellent cameras all round. Due to their small lens diameter they are ideal for digiscoping use. You can also use them with supplementary lenses such as the EagleEye Optic Zoom, a 5x extender lens which can give superb results, but you still have that stability problem of using a longer lens and the need for a tripod.
The Olympus C2100UZ and Canon Pro IS90 share the same high quality Image Stabiliser and 10x optic lens, which is much more versatile in that the camera can be hand held. However the lenses are of a larger diameter and less suitable for digiscoping use. Also they fall in the 2-3 mp range and really you need something more like 5-6 mp. Both cameras are discontinued, though can be picked up second hand. I find it amusing that the C2100UZ's on eBay fetch prices £120 dearer than I paid for mine new a year ago. I think Olympus made a mistake in withdrawing that camera.
I have several friends who, lucky for them, possess the Canon D60 which provided you can afford the lenses too, give outstanding results. Certainly the best that I have seen, but then I have had a sheltered life
Due to it's size it would be unsuitable for digiscoping or for humping great distances on foot.If I had the money, I'd have the D60, 400mm lens plus 2x teleconverter.
Having said that, in six months time no doubt there will be even better specified digital SLR's on the market and prices may begin to drop.
I know I haven't answered the question that you asked, but really the cameras shouldn't be compared directly as to which is the best. They are all good at what they do. I'd be happy with mine if only it was a 5 or 6 mp instead of 2.1.
G
Gaye Horn
Guest
Steve, I have the Olympus C-2100 UZ with a B-300 teleconverter... I get fabulous shots with this little 2.1 mp camera... I have also pushed it and me to our limitations... I dearly love this camera.. and still think that in it's mp range there is none better.
My husband has a Canon A1 from his Mom with a wonderful assortment of absolutely incredible lens,.. but the film and developing are a bug bear...
He also has the Canon Pro90 IS with a2X Crystal Vision high speed auto focus teleconverter.
I have the Canon D60 as of Christmas morning with the 400LIS lens(Canon) and a Sigma28-100mm wide angle lens and the Canon 1.4x Extender that is absolutely too expensive and not working with the big lens at all... I am disappointed in it. I also have the Canon Macro lens...an assortment of filters and batteries and accessories.. when is enough enough ;never apparently.
WE do not digiscope as there is no Nikon 995 in our home(I would rather have another lens for the D60) and we do have a spotting scope of no particular excitement.. we have a Busnell scope and we also have three different types of tripods and I like none of them.. too heavy too short and not a good enough head..
WE also have a Digital wallet for storing photos on a field trip (3 gig) and now we wish we had gotten the 20 gig one!!!
WE are presently looking at a laptop for field trips now.. and a Canon s9000 printer.. that is it for equipment except I have a new computer that is strictly for editing and printing photographs(meaning not ever on line with that one.)
That sounds like way too much even to me... but it is our passion and our hobby and it fits in very nicely with our love of the outsdoors and our birds.
I should mention we are also retired from the working world now and that makes a big difference.
My husband has a Canon A1 from his Mom with a wonderful assortment of absolutely incredible lens,.. but the film and developing are a bug bear...
He also has the Canon Pro90 IS with a2X Crystal Vision high speed auto focus teleconverter.
I have the Canon D60 as of Christmas morning with the 400LIS lens(Canon) and a Sigma28-100mm wide angle lens and the Canon 1.4x Extender that is absolutely too expensive and not working with the big lens at all... I am disappointed in it. I also have the Canon Macro lens...an assortment of filters and batteries and accessories.. when is enough enough ;never apparently.
WE do not digiscope as there is no Nikon 995 in our home(I would rather have another lens for the D60) and we do have a spotting scope of no particular excitement.. we have a Busnell scope and we also have three different types of tripods and I like none of them.. too heavy too short and not a good enough head..
WE also have a Digital wallet for storing photos on a field trip (3 gig) and now we wish we had gotten the 20 gig one!!!
WE are presently looking at a laptop for field trips now.. and a Canon s9000 printer.. that is it for equipment except I have a new computer that is strictly for editing and printing photographs(meaning not ever on line with that one.)
That sounds like way too much even to me... but it is our passion and our hobby and it fits in very nicely with our love of the outsdoors and our birds.
I should mention we are also retired from the working world now and that makes a big difference.
Colin
Axeman (Retired)
You can have the greatest camera in the world but you need to consider a pretty good scope if you are into digiscoping. Even the best cameras cannot overcome the 'looking through the bottom of a milk bottle' effect of some cheapo scopes. So, perhaps the initial question should read 'camera and scope' if your are considering the digiscoping aspect.
Colin
Colin
Just to add my two cents, I agree with most of what has been said here on cameras. The D60 is the model to have, but really not worth the price compared to the C2100UZ or Pro90. You will definitely get better photos (though that of course depends on the photographer), but is it worth several thousand dollars (US) more. I really do not think so. As Ian said, you can pick up either one of those second hand, though of course be careful. I have the Canon Pro90. Ian was very close, it has 2.61 mp. I alos have the B-300, and am looking to get a TCON 14 per Ian's suggestion/influence. The image stabilization on either one of these cameras is tough to beat.
There has been discussion (on dpreview?) about digital vs. film in quality. All things being equal, somebody figured it out and you would have to get to something like 50 or 60 mp for an exact duplication (don't remember the exact figure but it was in that ball park). There is an 11 mp that has been developed (just the sensor), as well as a 22 mp. They have yet to figure how to get the sensor for the 22 mp in a camera body (don't mind carrying a suitcase with you, do you?). With a little patience, we will all be able to upgrade far less costly in the next 12-18 months. I prefer digital because the film is so cheap. I am using it to learn/re-learn all the SLR functions so that when I do upgrade to a more costly camera, I will not waste my time learning on that one.
There has been discussion (on dpreview?) about digital vs. film in quality. All things being equal, somebody figured it out and you would have to get to something like 50 or 60 mp for an exact duplication (don't remember the exact figure but it was in that ball park). There is an 11 mp that has been developed (just the sensor), as well as a 22 mp. They have yet to figure how to get the sensor for the 22 mp in a camera body (don't mind carrying a suitcase with you, do you?). With a little patience, we will all be able to upgrade far less costly in the next 12-18 months. I prefer digital because the film is so cheap. I am using it to learn/re-learn all the SLR functions so that when I do upgrade to a more costly camera, I will not waste my time learning on that one.
nigelblake
don't re member
I find it very interesting that so much onus is put on the equipment that a bird photographer uses, this may seem odd coming from one who uses very high-end Canon 35mm and digital gear, but the most necessary things required for stunning images are a good eye, fieldcraft, and thorough research and understanding of the subject (species) and most importantly being out there behind a camera, or Digiscope. It don't matter how much you spend on gear its not much use if you don't know what you're doing with it.
Nigel
Nigel
Colin
Axeman (Retired)
Nigel,
I totally agree with what you say. I am extremely amateurish when it comes to taking pictures but I plod along and produce some images for my website and sometimes I get what I call a 'record shot', i.e. you can see what the species is and although the picture may be absolutely rubbish through lots of circumstances, it is nevertheless a picture of a certain bird at a certain place on a certain date ( usually refers to less common species).
Colin
I totally agree with what you say. I am extremely amateurish when it comes to taking pictures but I plod along and produce some images for my website and sometimes I get what I call a 'record shot', i.e. you can see what the species is and although the picture may be absolutely rubbish through lots of circumstances, it is nevertheless a picture of a certain bird at a certain place on a certain date ( usually refers to less common species).
Colin
nigelblake
don't re member
Good to see some agreement here, after I posted the comment above I wondered if maybe it was a bit blunt!
In all honesty though, reading the manual and having an affinity with your subject is the best equipment you can have. I do a lot of night time (owl) photography and have spent many hours sitting at home in the dark using my cameras, so that I know them by inside out by feel, of course this has a benefit at all times of camera use, insofar as when it all happens i can use my gear instinctively.
happy new year all
Nigel
In all honesty though, reading the manual and having an affinity with your subject is the best equipment you can have. I do a lot of night time (owl) photography and have spent many hours sitting at home in the dark using my cameras, so that I know them by inside out by feel, of course this has a benefit at all times of camera use, insofar as when it all happens i can use my gear instinctively.
happy new year all
Nigel
G
Gaye Horn
Guest
Nigel.. I could not agree with you more on the subject of what a person has in the way of equipment. It is so true that no matter what the size and price of the toy; if one does not know how to use it or does not have an affinity for what the capture is to be;then all is for naught...
I prefer blunt most times as it leads the reader to know exactly what to respond to. Thanks and BY the way I think your work is more then smashing... Happy New Year to you too...3
I prefer blunt most times as it leads the reader to know exactly what to respond to. Thanks and BY the way I think your work is more then smashing... Happy New Year to you too...3
P
peter hayes
Guest
Top notch advice, Nigel: fiddle around with your gear in the dark and you'll know how to handle it instinctively!
Similar threads
