Getting my first camera for birding. I have two options. (1 Viewer)

[Roynato]

Good evening friends. I'm new here, happy to meet you all and if it wouldn't be too much trouble, I would appreciate some tips on the matter ahead.

I have been taking bird pictures with only my smartphone ever since I really got into the hobby a couple of years ago, and now I'm considering getting my first camera.

It's not gonna be anything professional, so I'm looking at a super zoom, or as I see people call "bridge" camera.

I have very limited options as I live in a small town in shoutheast Brazil, so the two main options that I can find online around my budget (and even that only sometimes, because they are very expensive here) are the Nikon P950 and the Canon SX70 HS.

The canon is a little cheaper here, but from what info I could find, its older then the Nikon. The Nikon p950 I see has a little more zoom and some cool features, but i read some people complaining about the image quality because of the smaller sensor. Is the p950 image quality really worse than the SX70?

Which one of these two would you guys get for birding if they cost the same?

Thank you in advance for your time.

 

[etudiant]

The Nikon is a more recent design, an upgraded version of the earlier P900. It has more reach, an 83x lens versus 65x for the Canon.
That said, neither is weatherproof and they both use a small 1/2.33" sensor (6.08 x 4.56 mm), which really works best in good light.
The Canon is no longer in production afaik, but refurbished specimens sell for about $600 US on Amazon.
The Nikon sells for about $800 US new and $650 US refurbished, also on Amazon.
I'd not owned either, but would opt for the Nikon, priced higher but more capable, but either camera will perform well in the hands of a skilled photographer.
There are extensive threads here on BF concerning both cameras, so you can get much more informed feedback there.
Good luck and please show us your photos after you decide.

 

[MelospizaMelodiaFan]

Look at jmorlan's gallery. He shoots the sx70. I find his work quite outstanding with a bridge camera.

 

[Grando]

I'd go for the P950 (and I say that as a satisfied P900 user). Its reach really is very good for getting record shots of distant birds. And with closer ones it's more than possible to get some very nice shots with it. It's just birds in flight that are problematic, but that will be the same problem for the SX70...

 

[Roynato]

Thank you all for the replies so far. I appreciate it.
Haven't decided yet but I'm pending more towards the P950 at the moment.

 

[robinlanark]

I've tried a bunch of superzooms, and it's important to understand the compromises. They provide huge zoom ranges with a reasonable size of camera and lens and price but at the cost of really sharp photos unless you have good light (and even then you cannot compare the results with cameras with larger sensors). So if, like me, you are only interested in getting observation records, for eg iNaturalist etc, then superzoom is great. But if you like to have sharp photos, where you can zoom in on the photo and continue to be noise-free, they might be disappointing.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

I've tried a bunch of superzooms, and it's important to understand the compromises. They provide huge zoom ranges with a reasonable size of camera and lens and price but at the cost of really sharp photos unless you have good light (and even then you cannot compare the results with cameras with larger sensors). So if, like me, you are only interested in getting observation records, for eg iNaturalist etc, then superzoom is great. But if you like to have sharp photos, where you can zoom in on the photo and continue to be noise-free, they might be disappointing.

Absolutely, there are good reasons as to why these cameras are priced at below 1,000 quid.

On the other hand, you still need to make the most of the camera, and so not all people get better results with cameras with larger sensors. You still need judgement, be able to quickly manoeuvre for background and light direction as a matter of instinct; patience, be able to keep the camera steady, so on and so forth. 6 grand's worth of camera will certainly help, but it's not the be all and end all when it comes to photographing birds.

Having said that, I wholeheartedly agree that those people who get the best out of their more expensive equipment, i.e have good fieldcraft, really do produce some outstanding pictures and no superzoom could compete no matter what you do.

There is one advantage with superzooms, portability, which means you can roam free and it gives you access to a wider range of birds on any given day. I rarely see people walking around with the more expensive equipment 'round their shoulders, they tend to go somewhere to photograph a specific bird and stay there for a long time. That isn't everyone's cup of tea.

The superzooms are probably the best choice for a first camera because you have to do more to get the best out of them. They demand that you improve your fieldcraft.

Roynato is in Brasil and so I'm guessing there will be plenty of light when out with a camera.

The other point is that Topaz thing. I've never used it but I've heard people describe it as a 'game changer' when it comes to noise removal, and so with the right software the noise you mention might not be an issue. I agree with your good light point, noise isn't so much of an issue for me, but rather more often than not the colours look washed out when taking pictures on a dull day (at least with the Nikon P950 anyway); and so I don't tend to pictures on a dull day and that works out fine: you can't be out photographing birds all of the time otherwise you'd get nothing else done and those duller days can be used for scouting interesting locations.

Even then, I wouldn't rule out the superzooms on a dull day entirely. I've attached a picture taken with the Nikon P950: dull day, wooded area, handheld, not in a hide, shutter speed is either 1/40 or 1/60 (can't remember which now). I think people with larger sensor cameras would be happy with that in those conditions. If you (general you) can improve your fieldcraft and practice keeping the camera steady, then you're giving yourself a good chance: with any camera, particularly when there's decent light.

 

[seawatcher]

Absolutely, there are good reasons as to why these cameras are priced at below 1,000 quid.

On the other hand, you still need to make the most of the camera, and so not all people get better results with cameras with larger sensors. You still need judgement, be able to quickly manoeuvre for background and light direction as a matter of instinct; patience, be able to keep the camera steady, so on and so forth. 6 grand's worth of camera will certainly help, but it's not the be all and end all when it comes to photographing birds.

Having said that, I wholeheartedly agree that those people who get the best out of their more expensive equipment, i.e have good fieldcraft, really do produce some outstanding pictures and no superzoom could compete no matter what you do.

There is one advantage with superzooms, portability, which means you can roam free and it gives you access to a wider range of birds on any given day. I rarely see people walking around with the more expensive equipment 'round their shoulders, they tend to go somewhere to photograph a specific bird and stay there for a long time. That isn't everyone's cup of tea.

The superzooms are probably the best choice for a first camera because you have to do more to get the best out of them. They demand that you improve your fieldcraft.

Roynato is in Brasil and so I'm guessing there will be plenty of light when out with a camera.

The other point is that Topaz thing. I've never used it but I've heard people describe it as a 'game changer' when it comes to noise removal, and so with the right software the noise you mention might not be an issue. I agree with your good light point, noise isn't so much of an issue for me, but rather more often than not the colours look washed out when taking pictures on a dull day (at least with the Nikon P950 anyway); and so I don't tend to pictures on a dull day and that works out fine: you can't be out photographing birds all of the time otherwise you'd get nothing else done and those duller days can be used for scouting interesting locations.

Even then, I wouldn't rule out the superzooms on a dull day entirely. I've attached a picture taken with the Nikon P950: dull day, wooded area, handheld, not in a hide, shutter speed is either 1/40 or 1/60 (can't remember which now). I think people with larger sensor cameras would be happy with that in those conditions. If you (general you) can improve your fieldcraft and practice keeping the camera steady, then you're giving yourself a good chance: with any camera, particularly when there's decent light.

That is a nice photo of the great spotted woodpecker, and shows what you can get in the way of nice shots using a superzoom. For those who don't like the prospect of lugging around a big DSLR and big lenses, then other alternatives are Micro Fourthirds cameras with a lens within your own personal budget (e.g. a 40-150 or 100-400mm depending upon what you are willing to pay for / carry around all day). Another option is the Lumix series of superzooms (I regret selling my FZ300). SW

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

That is a nice photo of the great spotted woodpecker, and shows what you can get in the way of nice shots using a superzoom. For those who don't like the prospect of lugging around a big DSLR and big lenses, then other alternatives are Micro Fourthirds cameras with a lens within your own personal budget (e.g. a 40-150 or 100-400mm depending upon what you are willing to pay for / carry around all day). Another option is the Lumix series of superzooms (I regret selling my FZ300). SW

There's a lad I bump into now and again and he bought a mirrorless body and banged an old lens on it (based on what I was told). 'Also told that he didn't pay a lot for the body, maybe 1,500 quid region. The pictures he gets are pretty impressive in terms of detail, pictures you couldn't match with a superzoom. It's lightweight by all accounts and easy to carry around.

Mind you, he has been around cameras for a long time, puts a lot of effort in and has a lot of knowledge on good places for certain birds.

He posted a few pictures of a Black Redstart taken in very cloudy conditions and they were superb in terms of the detail on the bird in those conditions, and all for not a great deal of money. I'd go as far as to say his pictures on average are as good as anyone's I've seen including those who've spent a fortune on equipment.

It's not all about the equipment.

I used to have the FZ330 by the way, the quality of the lens is much better than the Nikon P950 despite being much older technology. The only issue with that camera is that more often than not you're out of range. When I did get in range, the pictures were really crisp on a bright day.

 

[robinlanark]

Absolutely, there are good reasons as to why these cameras are priced at below 1,000 quid.

On the other hand, you still need to make the most of the camera, and so not all people get better results with cameras with larger sensors. You still need judgement, be able to quickly manoeuvre for background and light direction as a matter of instinct; patience, be able to keep the camera steady, so on and so forth. 6 grand's worth of camera will certainly help, but it's not the be all and end all when it comes to photographing birds.

Having said that, I wholeheartedly agree that those people who get the best out of their more expensive equipment, i.e have good fieldcraft, really do produce some outstanding pictures and no superzoom could compete no matter what you do.

There is one advantage with superzooms, portability, which means you can roam free and it gives you access to a wider range of birds on any given day. I rarely see people walking around with the more expensive equipment 'round their shoulders, they tend to go somewhere to photograph a specific bird and stay there for a long time. That isn't everyone's cup of tea.

The superzooms are probably the best choice for a first camera because you have to do more to get the best out of them. They demand that you improve your fieldcraft.

Roynato is in Brasil and so I'm guessing there will be plenty of light when out with a camera.

The other point is that Topaz thing. I've never used it but I've heard people describe it as a 'game changer' when it comes to noise removal, and so with the right software the noise you mention might not be an issue. I agree with your good light point, noise isn't so much of an issue for me, but rather more often than not the colours look washed out when taking pictures on a dull day (at least with the Nikon P950 anyway); and so I don't tend to pictures on a dull day and that works out fine: you can't be out photographing birds all of the time otherwise you'd get nothing else done and those duller days can be used for scouting interesting locations.

Even then, I wouldn't rule out the superzooms on a dull day entirely. I've attached a picture taken with the Nikon P950: dull day, wooded area, handheld, not in a hide, shutter speed is either 1/40 or 1/60 (can't remember which now). I think people with larger sensor cameras would be happy with that in those conditions. If you (general you) can improve your fieldcraft and practice keeping the camera steady, then you're giving yourself a good chance: with any camera, particularly when there's decent light.

I just had another look at this after having my SX70 for a week. I have not been able to get that kind of fantastically crisp detail, even with more light sometimes. I'm glad I can fiddle and find the adjustments I need to get better detail. EG I've just discovered a sharpness setting that can't be found by searching for "sharpness" in the manual, as it's called something else and is under Scene options. Thanks for your post.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

I just had another look at this after having my SX70 for a week. I have not been able to get that kind of fantastically crisp detail, even with more light sometimes. I'm glad I can fiddle and find the adjustments I need to get better detail. EG I've just discovered a sharpness setting that can't be found by searching for "sharpness" in the manual, as it's called something else and is under Scene options. Thanks for your post.

There's always the option to utilise photo editing software to sharpen. I have my camera sharpen setting to 0, 'come to think of it I have pretty much everything set to neutral in-camera (after experimenting and deciding it was best to apply sharpening, contrast etc during photo processing).

Everyone has their own way, but to me I don't think settings like those matter much at all providing you have photo editing software. I feel that concentrating on fieldcraft is far more important. Obviously, where the camera settings are more important is in the fundamentals such as aperture setting depending on what depth of field you want and so on.

As a general point, it's a creative pursuit and while you may get small margin improvements from having a detailed understanding of the technical aspects of a camera, those improvements will be dwarfed from the benefits that come with good fieldcraft. At least to my mind anyway. 'No use in knowing the ins and outs of a camera but you (general you) cannot get in the right positions for whatever reason.

By the way, when I was looking for a new superzoom I looked at the rankings of the cameras and with the exception of the Sony, the cameras were ranked pretty evenly across a selection of reviewers. There probably isn't much difference at all between these cameras and it's how you use them that matters.

I'll caveat all of that by saying that I understand there are many photographers out there who have been around cameras all of their lives and understand the right combination of the minor in-camera settings in order to help their pictures. I suppose it depends on whether or not you're (general you're) one of them. I'm not and so I don't attempt to get ahead of myself and think that I can apply 40 settings or whatever and when combined they're going to add meaningful benefit to my pictures: they could just as easily provide a meaningful negative impact due to my relative inexperience with cameras. From there, I just keep it simple with the camera settings and concentrate on getting into the right positions, with the right background, ensuring the light is in the right direction depending upon time of day and keeping the camera steady.

Either way, these cameras can deliver good pictures in decent light. According to the professionals: no camera is a bad camera.

 

[robinlanark]

There's always the option to utilise photo editing software to sharpen. I have my camera sharpen setting to 0, 'come to think of it I have pretty much everything set to neutral in-camera (after experimenting and deciding it was best to apply sharpening, contrast etc during photo processing).

Everyone has their own way, but to me I don't think settings like those matter much at all providing you have photo editing software. I feel that concentrating on fieldcraft is far more important. Obviously, where the camera settings are more important is in the fundamentals such as aperture setting depending on what depth of field you want and so on.

As a general point, it's a creative pursuit and while you may get small margin improvements from having a detailed understanding of the technical aspects of a camera, those improvements will be dwarfed from the benefits that come with good fieldcraft. At least to my mind anyway. 'No use in knowing the ins and outs of a camera but you (general you) cannot get in the right positions for whatever reason.

By the way, when I was looking for a new superzoom I looked at the rankings of the cameras and with the exception of the Sony, the cameras were ranked pretty evenly across a selection of reviewers. There probably isn't much difference at all between these cameras and it's how you use them that matters.

I'll caveat all of that by saying that I understand there are many photographers out there who have been around cameras all of their lives and understand the right combination of the minor in-camera settings in order to help their pictures. I suppose it depends on whether or not you're (general you're) one of them. I'm not and so I don't attempt to get ahead of myself and think that I can apply 40 settings or whatever and when combined they're going to add meaningful benefit to my pictures: they could just as easily provide a meaningful negative impact due to my relative inexperience with cameras. From there, I just keep it simple with the camera settings and concentrate on getting into the right positions, with the right background, ensuring the light is in the right direction depending upon time of day and keeping the camera steady.

Either way, these cameras can deliver good pictures in decent light. According to the professionals: no camera is a bad camera.

Thank you for the considered feedback, @PaulCountyDurham. This is what I needed to hear. I know (or knew) that superzooms just cannot always give the results you get in sunny and up-close conditions, but somewhere along the line I forgot that and got swept up in the excitement. I do get occasional excellent photos and will try to remember that my goal is observation records, not prize winning prints. Thanks.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Thank you for the considered feedback, @PaulCountyDurham. This is what I needed to hear. I know (or knew) that superzooms just cannot always give the results you get in sunny and up-close conditions, but somewhere along the line I forgot that and got swept up in the excitement. I do get occasional excellent photos and will try to remember that my goal is observation records, not prize winning prints. Thanks.

A pleasure, mate.

'Look forward to seeing the prize winning prints in an internationally renowned magazine.

Do me a favour, when you win your prize, mention me somewhere in the footnotes.

It doesn't have to be anything special, just something along the lines of: "this is all due to PaulCountyDurham".

Thanks in advance and best of luck.

 

[Roynato]

I've tried a bunch of superzooms, and it's important to understand the compromises. They provide huge zoom ranges with a reasonable size of camera and lens and price but at the cost of really sharp photos unless you have good light (and even then you cannot compare the results with cameras with larger sensors). So if, like me, you are only interested in getting observation records, for eg iNaturalist etc, then superzoom is great. But if you like to have sharp photos, where you can zoom in on the photo and continue to be noise-free, they might be disappointing.

Absolutely, there are good reasons as to why these cameras are priced at below 1,000 quid.

On the other hand, you still need to make the most of the camera, and so not all people get better results with cameras with larger sensors. You still need judgement, be able to quickly manoeuvre for background and light direction as a matter of instinct; patience, be able to keep the camera steady, so on and so forth. 6 grand's worth of camera will certainly help, but it's not the be all and end all when it comes to photographing birds.

Having said that, I wholeheartedly agree that those people who get the best out of their more expensive equipment, i.e have good fieldcraft, really do produce some outstanding pictures and no superzoom could compete no matter what you do.

There is one advantage with superzooms, portability, which means you can roam free and it gives you access to a wider range of birds on any given day. I rarely see people walking around with the more expensive equipment 'round their shoulders, they tend to go somewhere to photograph a specific bird and stay there for a long time. That isn't everyone's cup of tea.

The superzooms are probably the best choice for a first camera because you have to do more to get the best out of them. They demand that you improve your fieldcraft.

Roynato is in Brasil and so I'm guessing there will be plenty of light when out with a camera.

The other point is that Topaz thing. I've never used it but I've heard people describe it as a 'game changer' when it comes to noise removal, and so with the right software the noise you mention might not be an issue. I agree with your good light point, noise isn't so much of an issue for me, but rather more often than not the colours look washed out when taking pictures on a dull day (at least with the Nikon P950 anyway); and so I don't tend to pictures on a dull day and that works out fine: you can't be out photographing birds all of the time otherwise you'd get nothing else done and those duller days can be used for scouting interesting locations.

Even then, I wouldn't rule out the superzooms on a dull day entirely. I've attached a picture taken with the Nikon P950: dull day, wooded area, handheld, not in a hide, shutter speed is either 1/40 or 1/60 (can't remember which now). I think people with larger sensor cameras would be happy with that in those conditions. If you (general you) can improve your fieldcraft and practice keeping the camera steady, then you're giving yourself a good chance: with any camera, particularly when there's decent light.

Sorry guys for not having updated this thread. I should have posted here when I bought the camera.
I did go with the Nikon P950 not long after my last post here around july/august last year. I have some pics already taken with it uploaded here in the gallery.

For a first camera, and focusing on wildlife, I'm happy with my decision. Of course, as you all have mentioned, it has a lot of limitations, it has a small sensor so it struggles a lot in low light situations, among other things, but it is doing what it is suppose to do by being a bridge camera. It is light weight, practical, easy to use. A starter platform to understand cameras and get you ready to where you wanna go next.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

For a first camera, and focusing on wildlife, I'm happy with my decision. Of course, as you all have mentioned, it has a lot of limitations, it has a small sensor so it struggles a lot in low light situations, among other things, but it is doing what it is suppose to do by being a bridge camera. It is light weight, practical, easy to use. A starter platform to understand cameras and get you ready to where you wanna go next.

Hi Roynato,

My understanding is that Brasil has much more sunlight than England due to being in the southern hemisphere.

These cameras are fine with decent light and we get enough sun in England to make it viable, and so you certainly must do in Brasil.

If it helps, concentrate on: getting close to birds, using the sun direction and the background to your advantage, keeping the camera steady. Practice those things and it will become second nature and you'll get some pictures that won't look out of place when compared with expensive cameras.

The technical aspects? 'Not that important in my opinion but feel free to put up your camera settings for comment.

 

[robinlanark]

Hi Roynato,

My understanding is that Brasil has much more sunlight than England due to being in the southern hemisphere.

These cameras are fine with decent light and we get enough sun in England to make it viable, and so you certainly must do in Brasil.

If it helps, concentrate on: getting close to birds, using the sun direction and the background to your advantage, keeping the camera steady. Practice those things and it will become second nature and you'll get some pictures that won't look out of place when compared with expensive cameras.

The technical aspects? 'Not that important in my opinion but feel free to put up your camera settings for comment.

I think the sunlight in Brasil is likely more a factor of latitude. Our higher (north or south) latitudes have lower sun in general, which means weaker, I think. Not to mention that regional geography is more likely a factor in sunlight hours than hemisphere. Check out this map of sunlight hours. Cheers Global Solar Atlas

 

[robinlanark]

In case anyone can relate or explain, I have noticed that my Canon SX70HS has trouble focusing on an object when the object is on a gradual background, like water or a road. Comments are welcome. I'm trying out the different settings for focus size but maybe it's more a technique problem. Thx

 

[Gypa]

Hello Roynato. I have seen in your gallery the magnificent results you get with the p950. Would you be so kind as to share the configuration or settings you use? Thank you so much. Greetings.Pedro

 

[Roynato]

Hello Roynato. I have seen in your gallery the magnificent results you get with the p950. Would you be so kind as to share the configuration or settings you use? Thank you so much. Greetings.Pedro

Hello Pedro.
Thank you so much for your kind words. Too kind, even. Magnificent is a strong overstatement for my photos so far .

I'll tell you how I'm currently using the P950. If I forget any settings, you let me know and I'll check later cause I'm not in my home right now.

I'm soothing in RAW format, so I have to use a software to get the photos ready and convert it to JPEG format in my PC.
I use the Nikon NX Studio software. It's not the best one, it's free on Nikon website. Most people will use adobe lightroom or other payed ones and more professional, and they are awesome, it's just too expensive for me here in Brazil.

I currently shoot in the "S" mode, Shutter priority. If you're new to this but still wanna shoot in raw and use the settings below, you can shoot in "P" mode, letting the camera do all the job. It's how I was using before. It will still use all the settings bellow.

The settings I'm using right now are the following:
"White balance"= auto1 - default
"Methering" = matrix
"Continuos" = this one you can try some. I leave it at "L". So, if I keep the shutter pressed, it will take some shots in the sequence, but not so fast. If you want the fast, you select "H", but I don't think this camera take the fast modes here too well. It doesn't hurt to try though. Either way, whether you select "L" or "H", if you just click it once, a normal click, you will take your single shot, as usual. If you don't wanna mess with any of that, just leave it at "S - Single". It's how I usually end up using it anyways.
"ISO Sensitivy" = Nowadays I'm leaving this at "auto 100-1600", so it chooses the ISO automatically, but it does not go over 1600. From my short experience so far, pictures lose a lot of quality in this camera as the ISO value goes over 1000. But sometimes you need it because of the place and weather. It's always a fight against ISO with this camera because of the small sensor.
"Exposure bracketing" = off
"AF area mode" = I believe I leave this at "Spot". I try to focus on the birds eye/head when possible. The "Spot" mode seems better for this.
"Autofocus mode" = AF-F Full-time.
"Noise Reduction Filter" = NR- Low
"Active D-Lighting" = This one I leave in "Normal". But in the Nikon software I mentioned before, you will find that this, and many other settings here, you can change when editing your photo. Active-D Lighting is one that I find myself changing a lot in the software. Some photos do way better with it at low or off, and other you feel the "normal" is really what it needed.

I think this is it. Bear in mind that this is my first camera and I still have a lot to mess around with it. So I'm still finding out stuff as I go.

If you don't wanna shoot in RAW and don't wanna mess around with software, the camera does a pretty good job already in JPEG too. Just set the JPEG to "Fine" (comes "normal" in default"), and picture control I use SD - Standard. There's a "birding" mode too that is very practical for quick JPEG shots.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Hello Pedro.
Thank you so much for your kind words. Too kind, even. Magnificent is a strong overstatement for my photos so far .

I'll tell you how I'm currently using the P950. If I forget any settings, you let me know and I'll check later cause I'm not in my home right now.

I'm soothing in RAW format, so I have to use a software to get the photos ready and convert it to JPEG format in my PC.
I use the Nikon NX Studio software. It's not the best one, it's free on Nikon website. Most people will use adobe lightroom or other payed ones and more professional, and they are awesome, it's just too expensive for me here in Brazil.

I currently shoot in the "S" mode, Shutter priority. If you're new to this but still wanna shoot in raw and use the settings below, you can shoot in "P" mode, letting the camera do all the job. It's how I was using before. It will still use all the settings bellow.

The settings I'm using right now are the following:
"White balance"= auto1 - default
"Methering" = matrix
"Continuos" = this one you can try some. I leave it at "L". So, if I keep the shutter pressed, it will take some shots in the sequence, but not so fast. If you want the fast, you select "H", but I don't think this camera take the fast modes here too well. It doesn't hurt to try though. Either way, whether you select "L" or "H", if you just click it once, a normal click, you will take your single shot, as usual. If you don't wanna mess with any of that, just leave it at "S - Single". It's how I usually end up using it anyways.
"ISO Sensitivy" = Nowadays I'm leaving this at "auto 100-1600", so it chooses the ISO automatically, but it does not go over 1600. From my short experience so far, pictures lose a lot of quality in this camera as the ISO value goes over 1000. But sometimes you just need it because of the place and weather. It's always a fight against ISO with this camera because of the small sensor.
"Exposure bracketing" = off
"AF area mode" = I believe I leave this at "Spot". I try to focus on the birds eye/head when possible. The "Spot" mode seems better for this.
"Autofocus mode" = AF-F Full-time.
"Noise Reduction Filter" = NR- Low
"Active D-Lighting" = This one I leave in "Normal". But in the Nikon software I mentioned before, you will find that this, and many other settings here, you can change when editing your photo. Active-D Lighting is one that I find myself changing a lot in the software. Some photos do way better with it at low or off, and other you feel the "normal" is really what it needed.

I think this is it. Bear in mind that this is my first camera and I still have a lot to mess around with it. So I'm still finding out stuff as I go.

If you don't wanna shoot in RAW and don't wanna mess around with software, the camera does a pretty good job already in JPEG too. Just set the JPEG to "Fine" (comes "normal" in default"), and picture control I use SD - Standard. There's a "birding" mode too that is very practical for quick JPEG shots.

It's been a while for me, Roynato, I can't remember which settings I have for most of those mention you above.

The one I'd mention from that list is ISO. When I first bought the camera I read an article, complete with demonstration pictures, by a photography type organisation, I think based in the United States. They pulled the camera apart and did lots of testing. The article demonstrated image quality degradation at all ISO settings going upwards, when getting past 400 the loss of sharpness is particularly noticeable.