Let me see your birds!

SoapSurgeon

SoapSurgeon

SoapSurgeon

Associate
Joined
14 Apr 2003
Posts
1,101
Hi guys,

My dad is a keen birdwatcher and atm he uses a technique called 'digiscoping' to take photos of birds (this essentially means stick a point and shoot camera the the lens of a telescope).

His friend has now got a DSLR + 400mm lens and my dad is on about getting the same set up. As this will be his first DSLR camera I am trying to offer him some advice. He wants the following:

Canon 450D (I don't even know if that is out yet :confused:)
Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM

My advice was to get a cheaper, maybe second hand, body perhaps a 400D.

I also think that the lens might be a bit slow but there is a huge price gap between that lens and the next 400mm lens. I have never been into bird photography so don't know if 400mm is required. I have seen some fantastic bird photos on here so if you would be so kind as to post your best with the equipment you used then I might be able to suggest something to him.

I guess what I really want to know is:

What is a good set up for shooting birds? It doesn't have to be canon.

Sorry for the long winded post :p
 
Nikon D50 + Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6.
i.e. the cheapest possible option :P
These birds were just a few meters away though.

2314791890_e0ffe84101.jpg


2314792006_cd16162d7e_b.jpg


Bigger versions: http://www.flickr.com/photos/robertgilbert86/sets/72157604055207504/
 
Yeah you often see people saying 300mm is a minimum for wildlife. You may want to consider getting old old manual lenses, but it can be a bit hit and miss and you'd need a Nikon D200 or better if you wanted metering...
 
Well the 400mm lens on a 400d body would equate to 640mm if it were a full frame sensor (the 400d has a 1.6x crop so everythings already a bit "zoomed in")

Is there any particular reason he wants the 450d over the 400d? Does he even know what the differences are?

from what i've seen he can probably manage to get a 400d body and an L series piece of lens for around the same price as a new 450d and 400mm lens.
 
SoapSurgeon said:
<snip>
Click to expand...

Unfortunatley getting good bird shots requires an enormous amount of focal length 80% of the time, unless your working from a hide or have very good field craft, the scopes used for digiscoping also have the equivilent focal length of a 800-1600mm lens, which as you know - doesn't come cheap.

The 400mm F5.6 is regarded by many as the best lens for flight shot photography of birds, (i'm getting one in 2 weeks, along with a bushhawk) as its lightweight and has lightening AF, I wouldn't worry that much about it being F5.6 because you won't get anything better without spending £3k, and coupled with the fact that ultra fast F2.8 causes big problems with depth of field, you end up with a beak being in focus but the wings being well out.

Check out some of Authur Morris's photos, or that of Jody Melanson, they both pretty much swear by the 400 F5.6 and have photos which make my eyes water.

I currently use a 300mm F2.8 with converters, trouble is the 2x converter slows down the AF quite badly which makes hitting flight shots very very difficult, but it rocks at 300mm,
I'm currently saving for a 600mm F4 which will leave me covered for pretty much all ranges.

Another issue with moving from Digiscoping to DSLR, is that with scoping you can physically see the bird from a very long way away, the same as you can with a 600mm or 800mm lens, but its never going to make a very good picture, in order to get nice photographs containing more than 1 pixel of bird you do need to get physically close, which can be difficult, most bird watchers are only really concerned with being able to "see the bird" as opposed to having a picture in georgeous light which can be blown up to A2.

I'd honestly say that a 400mm F5.6 coupled with a 1.4x which will give around 600mm on a crop body at F8 in good light, would be a great introduction without spending thousands on a 500mm or 600mm F4.
I'd stay away from the 100-400mm as its nothing like as sharp as the 400mm 5.6, and if you're shooting birds you'll be using it at 400 all the time anyway..

Taken at 600mm from an angle 300mm + 2x converter:

2.jpg


300mm F2.8:

_J6G7881-Edit%20-%20Copy.jpg



Rest of them are:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17845960&highlight=startername_v-spec

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17848055&highlight=startername_v-spec
 
Thanks, that was very informative.

I did say to him "if you can give me one reason why you need a 450D over a 400D then I will allow you to buy one" He said it had more megapixels which I guess is a valid reason as I assume there will be a lot of cropping involved... I still think he should get a cheaper body though.

As for the lens, it sounds as if he has been given some good advice on that front so I will let him know. Do Nikon not offer a suitable alternative?


Nice photos btw.
 
Robin02FF.jpg


There you go. All I used for that was a 20D and a nifty fifty :D

It was quite tame though.
 
If he's happy with seagulls and pigeons then a 200mm is perfect! Otherwise, he'll need 400mm+ as they won't hang about for a bit of bread. :)

I'm not a birding person but did snap one pic of a seagull the other day with my 70-200.

seagull_70200.jpg
 
I would say 300mm is the minimum for birding, and thats when using a hide/feeding station. The 400mm f5.6 is about a cheap and good option as you can get. Couple that with a 400D and it will me a decent setup. Id probably forget the 450D for the moment and use the money saved on a decent tripod, or even better a tripod + a gimbal head and a remote shutter. :)

Blue_prince_by_MessiahKhan.jpg


Charlotte_the_Chaffinch_by_MessiahKhan.jpg


Leroy_the_Longtailtit_by_MessiahKhan.jpg


:)
 
The 400 5.6 is a fantastic lens for the price (I believe Kerso sells them for around £600) and is highly regarded by bird photographers. Arthur Morris regards it as the best lens on the market for flight shots.

400 5.6 vs 300 4.0 IS: http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_4f56or3is.html

Ideally you'd want a 500mm or 600mm lens, but most of us can't afford those beasts. Messiah Khan wisely mentioned putting some money towards a tripod and head, so I'd also like to recommend the Manfrotto 393 gimbal head as a real bargain.
 
Last edited:
worth checking out the POTN forums if thinking of Canon route (www.photography-on-the.net) and look at the lens section/birds sections for hints/tips and comparisons on lenses e.g. 400mm f5.6 vs 100-400mm etc.

Looking at the 100-400 myself as it will be replacing my 70-300 Sigma, so would utilise the zoom on it.

Ogbyte
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom