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

[Roynato]

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.

Yes it is a struggle with ISO in this camera. Well, on all bridge cameras with these small sensors I believe.
But sometimes there's just no getting around it, you have to let ISO go up a little bit or the subject just comes too dark, specially when I take photos in dense vegetation areas.

Maybe with expensive software there are good workarounds on post processing, but sadly this is not the case for me. I only use the Nikon free software. Some times some de-noise in some free website, but it's rare I use those because the image usually comes back without the metadata, and I don't like that when sharing pics.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Yes it is a struggle with ISO in this camera. Well, on all bridge cameras with these small sensors I believe.
But sometimes there's just no getting around it, you have to let ISO go up a little bit or the subject just comes too dark, specially when I take photos in dense vegetation areas.

Maybe with expensive software there are good workarounds on post processing, but sadly this is not the case for me. I only use the Nikon free software. Some times some de-noise in some free website, but it's rare I use those because the image usually comes back without the metadata, and I don't like that when sharing pics.

I post on another forum and a lad posted a picture before and after. The before was dark, really dark on the bird's belly and flanks. I was amazed at what he did with it. You would never have guessed that the picture had been taken in such poor light, really sharp on the stomach. 'No idea what software he's using, but I reckon Affinity could do that and it's not expensive, not that I know how to do it.

It's going to be a problem in dense vegetation with any camera I reckon. 'Could be an idea to find such a picture on this forum and message the picture taker to ask him or her what editing software is used. My guess is that in those circumstances you're going to have to do a lot of editing with the picture no matter the camera used.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Yes it is a struggle with ISO in this camera. Well, on all bridge cameras with these small sensors I believe.
But sometimes there's just no getting around it, you have to let ISO go up a little bit or the subject just comes too dark, specially when I take photos in dense vegetation areas.

Maybe with expensive software there are good workarounds on post processing, but sadly this is not the case for me. I only use the Nikon free software. Some times some de-noise in some free website, but it's rare I use those because the image usually comes back without the metadata, and I don't like that when sharing pics.

Roynato, 'just to come back to this, when you say 'dense vegetation' I'm not sure what that means in Brasil. Woodland/forests with little light getting in?

If so, I reckon all cameras are going to require a lot of post editing. If you like being in that type of habitat then I don't think you have any option other than to buy some photo editing software and learn how to use it or accept what you have and just forget about what you don't have.

I mentioned a lad's picture from another forum. He's using the Sony bridge camera and so not particularly expensive equipment. The light was such that it looked like he'd taken the picture in a very dark area. I've seen all sorts of pictures where you can tell the bird has been edited to death and it no longer looks like a bird. His picture wasn't, a beautifully judged bit of editing, and you would never have guessed the conditions the picture was taken in. He wasn't particularly close to the bird either judging by the original he posted. It can be done but it's going to require an investment and a lot of learning.

I suppose it's a case of what you want to achieve and how much time you have. What I would say is that there are boatloads of You Tube tutorials out there and so all of the information is available to you if you want it.

Alternatively, you could take pictures where there's some sun which has the added advantage of the bird having a sparkle in its eye, personally I think pictures without that have the bird looking lifeless.