What camera do you use when birdwatching?

[Lynjupiter]

With my Digital Rebel I can get 20x30 prints that are fab. It is hard to tell if it was digital or film. See my above pictures, all were taken from a distance yet when I have a print made up they look wonderful. I sell prints at bird fairs.
Like Spectre points out it is the lower end digitals that fit your comments. The DSLRs are great to work with minus the expense of developing and film.

Stacy my only complaint for the Digital rebel is I have small trouble with the white balance. Though I am learning to adjust to that.
Lynda

Originally Posted by 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

[Beaks]

I like the 35 over the digital because the quality is beter in most situations like low light and action photos.

The same is true in digital video.

I shoot using night vision/IR alot and digital is just not there yet(the quality sucks)

I have digital cameras but i gave them to theresa because i pretty much just dont like them.

One of these days they may make a camera that doesnt spaz out when you take a picture while running or something like catching an owl feeding or a hawk as he snags a bunny.

I guess there may be a camera out there that can come close but 5 to 8 grand for a digital camera that comes close to my 35 is not cool.(close is not good enough)

John

[spectre]

Actually, for low light the thumbs up goes to digital in the 1500 - 3000 dollar range. The low noise ISO is better in digitals now than film. (once again I preface this by saying the mid to high range DSLRs the lower end are garbage) I can't speak for action photos as a rule but at 5 frames per second my 20d captures a good bit of detail. Yes, to get that I spent 1500 and most DSLRs can't touch a film based but that to will change. I know a couple professional landscape photographers here in CO that just recently made the switch. I think the advent of full frame DSLRs was what did it.

Take a peak at some of these articles http://www.luminous-landscape.com/


This guy is very thorough in comparing digital to 35mm and medium format and is very fair handed when one is better than the other. He and several others give the ISO/low light nod to digital versus 35/medium. As far as I can tell the general consensus is 35mm film is slightly better than the high end DSLRs and medium format is ahead of both.

I have to agree you need to go to several grand to match the photo quality of a 400 dollar film camera but when you look at the utter garbage digital cameras produced just five years ago I think that the switch over as far as quality is just around the corner. Look around for examples of high end today and 5 years ago, it is night and day, garbage and glory.

This isn't meant to be in the least inflammatory or baiting. I just think you ought to look at what is available and what the trends are. I am surprised by the reticience of people to examine the digital venue. I mean what are we really talking about? Ultimately a camera is just a system for capturing photons with some selective memory of quantity and wavelength. Film uses a chemical response and digital uses an electron shower. Neither is inherently good/bad, it is a matter of refinement and both use the same well perfected optic systems. Autofocus and other such amenities are inherently automated by algorithms and are no different in either. Film has reached its peak and it is a short time before affordable digital cameras equal and surpass it. For now you do have to spend tons of money but remember what the VCR cost when first introduced.

[Beaks]

Theresa likes digital but she just takes pictures.(I do mostly art type shots)

I will wait to get another digital until the tech and cost levels off so i can get a good camera.

Just look what they have done with CPU's and memory in the last few years, if they do that well with cameras i will have a much better choice.

John

[spectre]

If I had the time and patience I'd shoot on slide. I love the texture it results in for landscapes (more my forte). I'd say 3 years for digital to really come into its own though. Canon will bring the 12 mp full frame down from its high end and force others to as well, then we'll see great cameras in the 1000 dollar range.

What do you use now? What is your preffered subject matter? I like forests and sweeping mountain shots. I have little in the way of real portrait or animal training and want to take a sourse or Seminar before the Eagle Festival next November.

[Stacey32]

Originally Posted by 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

Lynn, I'm debating on getting a canon digital rebel. i liked the non digital canon rebel, so it woudl be familiar. what woudl be the major step ups when it comes to the Bigma?

[Lynjupiter]

I really don't know the step ups between the film Rebel and Digital Rebel. I have never used the film type. But with the digital Rebel you get film quality prints ( you really don't get film quality prints from a non SLR digital camera) without the cost of buying and developing film. Plus you can use any Canon EOS lens.

I have also seen a major drop in price for high speed flash cards. They went from 150-200 for a 1gb flash card in 2005 down to under a hundred this year. The Rebel is a super first time digital SLR. If your are serious about photography then the Rebel is the way to go and have dropped drastically in price.

Though if I were to add to this thread now I would say the most important thing for shooting wild birds is having a few really good lens. I use a 28-138 canon ef with IS, a 78-300 with IS, a 18-58 ef Canon for macros ( like a closeup of a parrot's eye) , I also have a 100-300 Canon EF backup lens and a 78-200 Sigma backup lens. Also try to use a tripod when ever shooting with bigger lens.
Lynda

[Lynjupiter]

Oh the Bigma, Duh I call it the great white now. A bigma is a Canon L series lens. They are big, white and super powered. The image stabilizer in it is super top quality and it is what all wild bird photographers dream of. It is very heavy but is the best lens you can buy if you can afford 3 or 4 thousand for a 400mm Lens. The image stabilizer is what keeps the picture clear even if the camera shakes a bit.
Lynda

[spectre]

That is something else, the bigma is a play on the company name -Sigma and is a 50-500 zoom they offer, it is ~800-900 $ and, while soft at the low end, is quite decent higher up.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=37&page=1

It is one of the lenses Sigma does a good job on.

You are referring to one of Canon's superb f4 or f2.8 prime L series 300 or 400 mm lenses
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...page=12&stype=
These will kill your wallet and all of its friends.

The Sigma is a fine lens but not a walk around.

I own the Bigma, a friend owns a Canon F4 L 300mm. The L series has SLIGHTLY better sharpness at 300 than the Sigma, not noticeable to most people except under intense scrutiny. The sigma also ofers more range. Neither can be used well without a tripod. Even vibration reducing technology tends to be iffy at high focal lengths.


To the prior poster. If you want a rebel go for the Digital Rebel XT
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

http://www.17photo.com/product.asp?id=0209B003

[Lynjupiter]

Ya you are right. I am confused this morning. I shouldn't even be posting LOL
We had a very late night at the House Of Blues and I have a HOB head this morning.
Lynda