Bird Photography

C R Fishwick wrote:
Cheers,
Thanks, I'll have a look at the Canon 20D/30D. I realise a 500mm lens
with a large aperture costs a bomb:-( £5000 maybe. So I'll try to get
away with a 300mm & 1.4 converter hopefully.

BTW. Excuse my ignorance but what's a cropped body?

Or maybe stick to digiscoping at least I have the gear for that;-)

Regards
Chris



A cropped body refers to a camera with a sensor smaller than a standard
35mm film size. It has the effect of cropping the image. In the cameras
you are considering it is the equivalent of an ideal 1.6 converter. It will
not reduce the light or add errors to the image.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

wrote:

Hi All,

Anyone any suggestions for taking bird photos (the avian sort). I need
a good middle of the road Digital SLR and lenses (500mm maybe). I don't
want to go bananas with the cost!

The minimum I'd suggest is something like a Canon 1.6x body (30D or
Rebel or whatever) with the 100-400 mm L IS lens or an entry level
Nikon body with the 80-400 VR. The more expensive bodies generally
have faster autofocus and higher frame rates and deeper buffers, all
benefits for bird photography, so if you can spend extra bucks on
models with these features it's worth it.

These lenses are a bit slow and a bit short but getting the fast
quality longer lenses will cost several thousand dollars more.

I usually recommend Canon for people interested in wildlife and sports
photography but if your budget is very tight and you want a 500 mm lens
and you can live without auto-focus Nikon might be a better bet because
you can pick up some of the old Nikkor manual focus lenses relatively
cheap.

Bill

"THO" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Charles Schuler" wrote:

Proves to whom? I regularly use a Canon ef 100-400 with IS and have
NEVER
turned the IS off (except for a few test shots). I am the type of birder
that cannot carry a tripod or even a monopod.

I'm just curious why you don't use a tripod or monopod. Are you
photographing birds in flight? I'm asking this as someone who hasn't
done any bird photography.

http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschu...8/site1057.jpg

One example of my walk-around work. I live in Naples FL and there are ample
opportunities here for bird shots. I love birds and will never exhaust what
can be done here with walking around.

A 20D with the 100-400 is all that I can carry (senior citizen). For me,
the IS is wonderful.

I have taken wildlife trips and observed Pros with their tripods sitting and
waiting and watching. Here is one from that exact situation (I was on a
tram and grabbed this without the tripod and the waiting and watching):
http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschu...8/site1056.jpg

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
ps.com...
wrote:

Hi All,

Anyone any suggestions for taking bird photos (the avian sort). I
need
a good middle of the road Digital SLR and lenses (500mm maybe). I
don't
want to go bananas with the cost!

The minimum I'd suggest is something like a Canon 1.6x body (30D or
Rebel or whatever) with the 100-400 mm L IS lens or an entry level
Nikon body with the 80-400 VR. The more expensive bodies generally
have faster autofocus and higher frame rates and deeper buffers, all
benefits for bird photography, so if you can spend extra bucks on
models with these features it's worth it.

These lenses are a bit slow and a bit short but getting the fast
quality longer lenses will cost several thousand dollars more.

I usually recommend Canon for people interested in wildlife and sports
photography but if your budget is very tight and you want a 500 mm
lens
and you can live without auto-focus Nikon might be a better bet
because
you can pick up some of the old Nikkor manual focus lenses relatively
cheap.

Bill


Or, you could just do like Mark did for his great pix of the hawk
and climb up the tree next to the bird (just kidding). I have no
idea why it didn't go somewhere else, but they were great shots !!

mikey

--
Craven and Pendle Birds:
Birdwatching in and around Craven & Pendle.
N. Yorks and East Lancs.

http://mysite.orange.co.uk/craven-and-pendle/
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Stu wrote:

Brett gets pretty good results from a EF 400 mm f/5.6L USM and a 1.4
teleconvertor, but it is a slow lens and lacks IS. Also, using the
1.4 converter, you loose AF, except on a 1 series body, but even
then, you don't have full AF.

It only proves a lens *WITHOUT* "IS" in skilled hands is far superior to
one
with IS in an unskilled person's hands.

What is IS? I assume something like lense stabalising mechanism! Personally
I'd use technique not gimmicks for bird shots;-)

Regards
Chris

C R Fishwick wrote:

http://mysite.orange.co.uk/craven-and-pendle/
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Stu wrote:

Brett gets pretty good results from a EF 400 mm f/5.6L USM and a 1.4
teleconvertor, but it is a slow lens and lacks IS. Also, using the
1.4 converter, you loose AF, except on a 1 series body, but even
then, you don't have full AF.

It only proves a lens *WITHOUT* "IS" in skilled hands is far
superior to one
with IS in an unskilled person's hands.

What is IS? I assume something like lense stabalising mechanism!
Personally I'd use technique not gimmicks for bird shots;-)

If you think IS is a gimmick, then you have much to discover.
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

C R Fishwick wrote:
http://mysite.orange.co.uk/craven-and-pendle/
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:0AAYg.43944$nm1.42143@fed1read04...
C R Fishwick wrote:

http://mysite.orange.co.uk/craven-and-pendle/
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Stu wrote:

Brett gets pretty good results from a EF 400 mm f/5.6L USM and a
1.4 teleconvertor, but it is a slow lens and lacks IS. Also,
using the 1.4 converter, you loose AF, except on a 1 series body, but
even
then, you don't have full AF.

It only proves a lens *WITHOUT* "IS" in skilled hands is far
superior to one
with IS in an unskilled person's hands.

What is IS? I assume something like lense stabalising mechanism!
Personally I'd use technique not gimmicks for bird shots;-)

If you think IS is a gimmick, then you have much to discover.

I've done enough bird photography, SLR, digiscoping etc to know I
don't need lens stabalising, actually;-) So I could cut costs on a
lens probably;-) Its seems as though it similar to binocular
stabalisers, Canon make these and to be honest they are cr*p;-)

Laik bilong yu...

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

http://mysite.orange.co.uk/craven-and-pendle/
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:0AAYg.43944$nm1.42143@fed1read04...
C R Fishwick wrote:

http://mysite.orange.co.uk/craven-and-pendle/
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Stu wrote:

Brett gets pretty good results from a EF 400 mm f/5.6L USM and a 1.4
teleconvertor, but it is a slow lens and lacks IS. Also, using the
1.4 converter, you loose AF, except on a 1 series body, but even
then, you don't have full AF.

It only proves a lens *WITHOUT* "IS" in skilled hands is far
superior to one
with IS in an unskilled person's hands.

What is IS? I assume something like lense stabalising mechanism!
Personally I'd use technique not gimmicks for bird shots;-)

If you think IS is a gimmick, then you have much to discover.

I've done enough bird photography, SLR, digiscoping etc to know I don't need
lens stabalising, actually;-) So I could cut costs on a lens probably;-)
Its seems as though it similar to binocular stabalisers, Canon make these
and to be honest they are cr*p;-)

Regards
Chris

--
Craven and Pendle Birds:
Birdwatching in and around Craven & Pendle.
N. Yorks and East Lancs.

C R Fishwick wrote:
much to discover.

I've done enough bird photography, SLR, digiscoping etc to know I don't need
lens stabalising, actually;-)

You must have a very good tripod or mount.
I've done enough bird photography without IS to know that I wish I had
it all the time.
If you want a truly sharp image and you're handholding a 400mm, you'd
better have at least a monopod and a big tree to lean against.

C R Fishwick wrote:
http://mysite.orange.co.uk/craven-and-pendle/
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:0AAYg.43944$nm1.42143@fed1read04...
C R Fishwick wrote:

http://mysite.orange.co.uk/craven-and-pendle/
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Stu wrote:

Brett gets pretty good results from a EF 400 mm f/5.6L USM and a
1.4 teleconvertor, but it is a slow lens and lacks IS. Also,
using the 1.4 converter, you loose AF, except on a 1 series body, but
even
then, you don't have full AF.

It only proves a lens *WITHOUT* "IS" in skilled hands is far
superior to one
with IS in an unskilled person's hands.

What is IS? I assume something like lense stabalising mechanism!
Personally I'd use technique not gimmicks for bird shots;-)

If you think IS is a gimmick, then you have much to discover.

I've done enough bird photography, SLR, digiscoping etc to know I
don't need lens stabalising, actually;-) So I could cut costs on a
lens probably;-) Its seems as though it similar to binocular
stabalisers, Canon make these and to be honest they are cr*p;-)

It's always a little amusing to hear someone spout such strong opinions
about something they've never even heard of...
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson