What camera do you use when birdwatching?

[MiniMacMum]

Spectre,
Yeah I did hear the other forums are not so nice. I guess I just picked the right forum & a Kodak, LOL!!! I couldn't get over the prices for cameras in Australia. Some people on the forum were saying what they paid & they sure are higher. This is only my 2nd digital & I am still learning all the modes. I think it will be a good camera to learn on!!!

[Lynjupiter]

I use a Canon digital rebel with a 28-200 sigma lens. Now I have experince often times a 200mm lens does not cut it and I am hoping to have a 75-300mm soon.

Personally I think for bird watching and taking wild bird pictures you need an SLR with a good sized lens, preferably a couple good sized lens but something around a 200mm is a good place to start. It gives you a feel for using a zoom lens. Once you can get some good pics with that start adding to your collection when you can. A good tripod is a must, a remote control is nice and cheap for a canon rebel. Lens filters are nice and I reccomend a polarized filter ( a circular one for digital) for a start.

A good digital SLR will only run you about 800 now. The other 200 you kick into the other equipment you need. Read the instruction book carefully and learn as you go.
I have had no classes but I have good reading ability.
I have had my camera one year. here is an example of my pictures.
Lynda

[spectre]

My pic for the most underated lens on the planet for birdwatching would be the Sigma 50-500, aptly nicknamed the BIGMA :)

I'd say you want a 300 or 400 to really start but with the 1.3-1.6 crop factors on reduced frame SLRs you get that free with a 200. I also agree you really need an SLR. Even if you get a decent quality built in lens you just can't get the iso control really needed to adjust to different lighting situations.

Here is a good site for tips/hints/etc
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/

The Digital Rebel is very hard to beat for price/performance, especially the 350 xt version. I just find Canons tactic of neutiring features somewhat abhorrent. They actually spent money to remove capabilities in the chip used to control the Rebel 300 just to stick it in its own market category. Oh well, big business is what it is. The Cannons are fantastic. My only real gripe is that a full size DSLR is a real pain to carry up technical mountaineering routes. Since I just donated my smaller camera to a local raptor rescue I have no choice.

Nice pics by the way, I love the composition/tone of the one on the right.

[Lynjupiter]

I would love the Bigma but it comes with a hugema price. Almost a grand, way more then I could even dream off.

My big choice is choosing between the Canon, Sigma and Quantray model of the basic 70-300mm with a budget of $200
Lynda

[Stacey32]

yes, i have experienced boxing day sales, but whilst living in london, not in australia. Since then, I have done a good job avoiding all 'after holiday sales', full stop. I really hate shopping.

i am so overwhelmed with the info available. yikes. I did have a cannon rebel (non digital) years ago and really liked how easy it was to use. I quite enjoyed switching the lenses (it secretely made me feel like a photographer! ha!).

Does anyone have complaints with their current camera? Something you'd like different with it?

Stacey

[Tiki]

Oops, I should point out that the Aussie $ is .75 a USD $. So my $499 Kodak would be $375 USD, now that isn't quite so bad!

Yeah, those Boxing Day sales can be brutal. I do my best not to maim or injure anyone! I love to shop, but as I did so much of it in the States, I am flat broke now! I did try Circuit City and Best Buy for the external flash attachment for my camera, they didn't have it. I don't need it until my June trip to Egypt so no hurry. Stacey, since you asked, that is the one fault, the flash has a low range. With an external flash, you can get better indoor shots from far away, like in a nightclub.

[sleslie]

I have a Canon A95, digital and I am very pleased with the photos, It is a 5.o mega pexil, which means you can get really good prints up to an 8 x 10
. It was a Christmas gift last year and there are so many options on the darn thigg I still haven't figured out. I have had a Canon AE1 for 27 years and the quality has been excellent, so I went with the Canon digital, It has a exceptional lense........go with the experts

[Tiki]

Stacey, I got the Clive Anthony's ad in my junk mail. Here's a few promising models, sorry the add doesn't give the model number, only the specs:

Panasonic 5mp, 12x optical zoom, image stabilizer $649, down from $769
Olympus 6mp, 10x optical zoom $529 down from $579
Canon 5mp, 12x optical zoom, image stabilizer $699 down from $799
Fuji 9(!!!)mp, 10x optical zoom $799 down from $899
Canon digital slr, 8mp, $1399 no "down from"

Americans, for USD, take these prices x .75.

You know what I am craving? One of those hard disk camcorders! After all the trouble I had on my trip with the mini dv getting stuck, a hard disk would be heaven!

[Beaks]

I use a Minolta vectis 35mm loaded with 400 to 800 speed film (depending on what i am shooting)to get really good shots.

Digitals are too slow and the quality is not very good and with the 35 i can drop the film off and in an hour i get them back on CD and print.

John

[spectre]

Ahh,
That last post's quibbles with digitals is not true. The lower quality digitals are all of those things but even moderately priced DLSRs are quickly coming to equal the quality of film based cameras. The Canon 20D is still considered low end for actual professional quality and has a burst rate of 5 frames per second. This is faster than I have used and slower than its big brother the 5D.

The quality issue is also off. Resolution, the primary thing people think of when discussing quality, has now been extended to 12 mp on some of the higher end cameras by turning to full frame ccds so as to maintain noise levels at higher isos. While numbers llike 22 mp float around in discussions regarding what level would be needed to equal film this is highly depndent on the film discussed and 12-22 mp is past the sensitivity of the human eye to differentiate. You can blow an 8mp shot up to a poster with no real noticeable difference when compared to film. I think you'd need to use a magnifying glass to tell. ISO also continues to amaze me. I can use 800 without any grain, 1600 and 3200 with some beginning to be noticeable but hardly objectionable and even then invisible on 5x7 prints.

Here are real issues with digitals (I refer to DSLRs)

-Poor Dynamic Range
It is hard to capture a broad range of light which results in generally washed out features. This is because CCDs are linear photon counting devices, they record everything. If you have a specific threshold and one area exceeds it then it is washed out. Film on the other hand is a logarithmic detector. This means to double the brightness may require 10 times the number of lght. This is the area where digital ACTUALLY pales in comparison and no real solution has been found.

-Cost
You can get an equivalent build quality for alot less in film based cameras.

-Reduced Frame Sensors
If you like landscapes the crop factor in most DSLRs increases the effective focal length. To date a 10mm lens which becomes a 16mm for the Cannon line is the shortest you can go.

-Dust
Dust invariably creeps onto the CCD as you switch lenses in DSLR, this has to be taken care of periodically by cleaning, (generally 20 or so USD)

As for the rest, speed, quality, ISO cleanliness, these are not issues if you can afford the camera. For me the convenience of DSLRs far outweighs the cons. With a decent photo printer I can process 10x the pictures at a 10th the cost. You also don't waste money on bad shots and have huge flexibility in post processing pictures freely by using editors such as the GIMP. The real issue is that some people simply are used to shooting with film cameras. They tend to force one to compose shots much better as you don't have the freedom to erase missed shots. This aspect tends to make better photographers out of film based users.

Also I generally find there is a difference in color and tone with films. They have a slightly more muted and 'natural' look. These issues however can be mimicked with image software.


For the lower end John is dead on. The speed is abyssmal (both shot to shot and autofocus) and ISOs above 100 are just about useless. The iso issue is what really kills them in my mind. All in all it is a preference and cost issue. If you can afford it go with what you like but the days of horrendous digitals is past.

EDIT-
These are my advisors shots, I think he has a GREAT eye. Try to tell which were done digitally with a 20d andwhich were done on slide http://www.philarmitage.net/index.html