Posted by Jamie Melnyk on March 27, 2009 at 1:40 PM
I am looking for some advice on what type of camera is best suited for bird photoghraphy. I have been a birdwatcher for years but would like to try taking pictures but don't even know where to begin. Any suggestions?
I'm a long-time bird photographer so I'll offer a few suggestions. I use Canon gear and am not familiar with the Nikon, Sony, Pentax and other makes and models out there. As far as I know all the major manufacturers offer equipment that will do well for you. So when I mention specific models it's not that I'm saying only Canon will do the job but that's the line I'm familiar with.
One consideration right up front is cost. Bird shooting requires long lenses most of the time and long focal lengths are costly. A typical setup is to have a body, at least one long lens of 300 mm or longer, a tele-convertor or two (1.4 TC and 2X TC), a flash unit (off camera), a Better Beamer flash extender and a good solid tripod with an appropriate head that can handle the weight of your gear easily. And of course you'll need a backpack or some other type of bag to carry all this gear.
In the Canon line the mid range bodies (currently the 50D) might be a good place to start. Depending on your budget there are often good deals to be had on the previous models lightly used like a 40D or even a 20D. For lenses in general the prime telephotos offer better sharpness and resolution than the zooms. Canon's pro series lenses, designated L (they're the white lenses in the long lengths) are very good and can also be found on the used market.
Like most manufacturers Canon makes a series of dedicated flash units that are made to function well with their various cameras. A higher guide number is preferable for the extended range. Tele-convertors are made by lots of different companies and can be of varying qualities. When it comes to selecting these I'd suggest you run some tests to see what's right for you.
With tripods be careful to select one that's tall enough will allow you to work standing up straight and looking up - your neck and back will thank you. As for a head, some folks use a combination of a ball head and a Wimberly Sidekick and other's prefer dedicated gimbal heads by various manufacturers. Again it's a personal choice that has to work for you.
If budget is less of an issue you could always jump in at the deep end: 1D Mark III, 500 f4 or 600 f4, (or the Sony, Canon or Pentax equivqlents) Gitzo carbon fiber tripod, Wimberley head etc. There are lots of reviews of all these brands of gear around on NPN and other good photo sites like Luminous Landscapes http://luminous-landscape.com/
From here I'd suggest you do your research, possibly starting on the NPN Avian forum to see who's using what and what they like and dislike about their gear and setup. My only warning: bird photography can be spendy and addictive.
Have fun
Posted by Jamie Melnyk on March 27, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Thanks Ed, I appreciate the advice, definitely something I need to do some research on before a major purchase but at least now I know where to start.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on March 27, 2009 at 7:23 PM
Ed's comments are a pretty good summary. Those big white Canon lenses you occasionally see out in the field are not cheap and once you start looking at prices, you may find yourself wondering what you were thinking.
Don't.
Most of us didn't start with a 600 f4 lens, top end camera body, flash, tripod strong enough to fend off bears
Keep in mind that I am not a birder and most of my photographer is geared towards other goals. My primary bird setup is a 300 f4 lens, 1.4x or 2x converter (the latter means manual focus), a 1.6 cropped body Canon body (20 D), midrange flash, solid tripod and ballhead. This setup works well at places like Magee Marsh near Toledo (south of Point Pelee in Ontario) and where birds naturally are converging such as bird feeders or other food sources. Even then, I still have a low success rate. Here is on example which was not a failure:
If you do get into bird photography, there is generally a very high failure rate for images. All of us who have tried have lots of great stories accompanied by shots of empty branches. Digital has been a godsend for this specialty. No more of the 21 rolls of film for a small handful of images that are actually worth keeping.
Some slightly less expensive alternatives:
Sigma makes some good supertelephotos, 300 mm and up. Their 500 f4.5 is a well regarded lens, but still not cheap.
Their superzooms, 50-500, 170-500 and a few others are decent, but slow. By this I mean that their largest aperature is relatively small (a number like f6.3 - [f8 is smaller, f11 even smaller, f16 teeny]) so less light hits the sensor, so you have a slower shutter speed. These lenses do make a decent starting point for getting into bird photography in terms of cost, but you can't use a teleconverter with them. It is tradeoff for cost vs quality, but a starting point.
You can also look for a used digital body (KEH.com is reliable). There is nothing wrong with a Canon 40D, even though it is not the latest and greatest.
I'd continue as you said - do some research, figure out what you want to spend, do some more research and keep asking questions. You can easily spend $25,000 on a Canon bird photography rig if you want to.
Posted by Kent Staubus on March 27, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Buy a very cheap, used camera. They don't matter so much. Put your money on a really good lens. A $300 camera on a $2,000 lens is my idea of a beginning bird set up.
Kent in SD
Posted by Paul DeCesare on March 27, 2009 at 10:37 PM
Good advice here! I agree with Steve and Kent, it might be good to start with the Canon 400mm 5.6, best bird lens with 400mm reach on a budget, and the lens is quite sharp. A used 30D or 40D or even a new Xsi body will get you the 1.6 crop factor (makes that 400mm work like a 640mm!). Decent tripod like a Manfrotto 055XPROB with the 322 grip head for starters would do. Photo editor is needed too, even Photoshop Elements 7.0 will work to get your feet wet (and your images cropped and sharpened!). Or, Lightroom is a favorite also for many, and has good "filing and storing" capabilities of your images. I prefer Photoshop because I like Layers, but for birding either software will do. No need to go for the $699 real Photoshop at this point.
But just don't take one person's advice, everyone here posted great advice (Cindy's right above me for instance... and look at that amazing hummingbird image next to her name!).
Posted by Jamie Melnyk on April 7, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Thank you everyone for your advice it is appreciated and will definitely come in handy when I go to purchase, I'll let you know what I get and hopefully will have something for you all to see.
Discussion
6 repliesI'm a long-time bird photographer so I'll offer a few suggestions. I use Canon gear and am not familiar with the Nikon, Sony, Pentax and other makes and models out there. As far as I know all the major manufacturers offer equipment that will do well for you. So when I mention specific models it's not that I'm saying only Canon will do the job but that's the line I'm familiar with.
One consideration right up front is cost. Bird shooting requires long lenses most of the time and long focal lengths are costly. A typical setup is to have a body, at least one long lens of 300 mm or longer, a tele-convertor or two (1.4 TC and 2X TC), a flash unit (off camera), a Better Beamer flash extender and a good solid tripod with an appropriate head that can handle the weight of your gear easily. And of course you'll need a backpack or some other type of bag to carry all this gear.
In the Canon line the mid range bodies (currently the 50D) might be a good place to start. Depending on your budget there are often good deals to be had on the previous models lightly used like a 40D or even a 20D. For lenses in general the prime telephotos offer better sharpness and resolution than the zooms. Canon's pro series lenses, designated L (they're the white lenses in the long lengths) are very good and can also be found on the used market.
Like most manufacturers Canon makes a series of dedicated flash units that are made to function well with their various cameras. A higher guide number is preferable for the extended range. Tele-convertors are made by lots of different companies and can be of varying qualities. When it comes to selecting these I'd suggest you run some tests to see what's right for you.
With tripods be careful to select one that's tall enough will allow you to work standing up straight and looking up - your neck and back will thank you. As for a head, some folks use a combination of a ball head and a Wimberly Sidekick and other's prefer dedicated gimbal heads by various manufacturers. Again it's a personal choice that has to work for you.
If budget is less of an issue you could always jump in at the deep end: 1D Mark III, 500 f4 or 600 f4, (or the Sony, Canon or Pentax equivqlents) Gitzo carbon fiber tripod, Wimberley head etc. There are lots of reviews of all these brands of gear around on NPN and other good photo sites like Luminous Landscapes http://luminous-landscape.com/
From here I'd suggest you do your research, possibly starting on the NPN Avian forum to see who's using what and what they like and dislike about their gear and setup. My only warning: bird photography can be spendy and addictive.
Have fun
Don't.
Most of us didn't start with a 600 f4 lens, top end camera body, flash, tripod strong enough to fend off bears
Keep in mind that I am not a birder and most of my photographer is geared towards other goals. My primary bird setup is a 300 f4 lens, 1.4x or 2x converter (the latter means manual focus), a 1.6 cropped body Canon body (20 D), midrange flash, solid tripod and ballhead. This setup works well at places like Magee Marsh near Toledo (south of Point Pelee in Ontario) and where birds naturally are converging such as bird feeders or other food sources. Even then, I still have a low success rate. Here is on example which was not a failure:
http://www.danborzynskiimages.com/avianimages/birdimageslw/golfinch2.htm
If you do get into bird photography, there is generally a very high failure rate for images. All of us who have tried have lots of great stories accompanied by shots of empty branches. Digital has been a godsend for this specialty. No more of the 21 rolls of film for a small handful of images that are actually worth keeping.
Some slightly less expensive alternatives:
Sigma makes some good supertelephotos, 300 mm and up. Their 500 f4.5 is a well regarded lens, but still not cheap.
Their superzooms, 50-500, 170-500 and a few others are decent, but slow. By this I mean that their largest aperature is relatively small (a number like f6.3 - [f8 is smaller, f11 even smaller, f16 teeny]) so less light hits the sensor, so you have a slower shutter speed. These lenses do make a decent starting point for getting into bird photography in terms of cost, but you can't use a teleconverter with them. It is tradeoff for cost vs quality, but a starting point.
You can also look for a used digital body (KEH.com is reliable). There is nothing wrong with a Canon 40D, even though it is not the latest and greatest.
I'd continue as you said - do some research, figure out what you want to spend, do some more research and keep asking questions. You can easily spend $25,000 on a Canon bird photography rig if you want to.
Kent in SD
But just don't take one person's advice, everyone here posted great advice (Cindy's right above me for instance... and look at that amazing hummingbird image next to her name!).