# Bird watching - What camera would you recommend?



## huntsman (May 9, 2013)

I have always used Canon, but am not dogmatic.

I love birdwatching and need a camera that is very fast, great with focussing, well-pixelated (if there is such a term), and very good in low light conditions.

I realise this will cost me a bundle, but hope to find a good used camera. What I really don't want to do is get stuck with the wrong body and have to change it, though I am well aware that the lens is probably as important, if not more so.

Actually, if you prefer to suggest a great lens, please feel free as I will be heading there next...

Here's hoping you can assist me in my choice. :hail:


----------



## Dao (May 9, 2013)

Take a look at this site.   The photographer there use Canon equipment and should give you some idea.  Camera body, lens and settings info are listed below the photo.  So you know what those equipment are capable.

Uccelli: Varie by Juza [JuzaPhoto]

Of course, Nikon, Sony, Pentax or Olympus should be able to do the same.


----------



## curtyoungblood (May 9, 2013)

You're describing one of the most expensive areas of photography, as far as equipment goes, so an idea of your budget would be helpful. 

Camera body recommendations would probably go something like this: 1DX, a used 1DIV (I think this camera's 1.3 crop factor is an advantage for you) or a 5diii (it has the same autofocus system as the 1DX and great low-light), then a 7D, although this model is fairly old and there are lots of rumors it is being updated. 

I typed that out, and then saw your line about a good used camera. I think the market is going to be tough on a used camera for birds. The cameras that are on the used market don't really excel at what you're looking for (I wouldn't go the 5dii route, personally). I should mention at this point that I'm not really familiar with the X0D line, and something there may work. 

As far as lenses go: you're looking for the longest, smallest aperture lens you can afford. I would think the ideal lens would be a 300 f2.8 or 400 f2.8, but a 300 f4 or the 100-400 may work for quite a bit less.


----------



## hirejn (May 9, 2013)

There's no such thing as a bird watching camera. However, a camera that fits your requirements would begin at the D700 and then move up to the D3s and D4, which yes are expensive. Enthusiast models would include the D600 and D7100. I leave the D800 out because the files are simply too huge, unless you need to regularly produce room-sized prints. Look up the Canon equivalents if you want. If you plan to use ISOs of 1600 and above regularly, you want the higher end cameras. The simple rule is you pay more for better ISO performance and faster frame rates. There's no way around that. The only way to save there is go used.

For small birds you need at least a 300 mm lens, and that's at 8 feet. Birds is one area where you pretty much can't have too much glass. There are instances where you can, but not often. Work on using biology to get close instead of glass.


----------



## Overread (May 9, 2013)

We really do need a rough idea of the budget you're contemplating. Wildlife photography is one of the most expensive areas (potentially) of photography and a very hard area to go cheap on. Yes there are affordable decent options, but we really need a rough idea of where you're budget is going to land you (we can suggest things from $100ish all the way up to $10K+)


----------



## goodguy (May 9, 2013)

I will give you 2 options for cameras but first I will add I am a Nikon guy and love Nikon DSLR
Saying that from your description I think the camera you want you should consider Canon 6D, its probably one of the BEST low light cameras to date, it even passes the Nikon D600 which on its own is a fantastic camera in low light condition.
The 6D AF system is amazing and can focuse better then the D600 if you dont use the AF light assist.
My second camera I would recommend would be the Nikon D600, while its not as good in low light as the 6D it is still AMAZINGLY good in low light and with the AF asist light on it is just as good and fast as the 6D in AF.

Both cameras with good fast lens will give you what you want and need.
They cost the same but the D600 does have few more advantages over the 6D like many more focusing points, in body flash and few more.
6D has Wi-Fi and other stuff.

Both cameras are amazing, really amazing and are both full frame, they are not sport cameras but in low light both will put to shame the 7D and 300S which are croped sensor spot cameras.

Of course you can go with the 6000$-7000$ pro sport cameras but these cameras with good glass will cost you like a down payment on a house so I would go with either the D600 or 6D, well I would go with the 600D but as I said I am a Nikon guy


----------



## table1349 (May 9, 2013)

This will do nicely.
Canon EOS-1D X Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) 5253B002 B&H Photo

Pick a lens...
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Lens 4412B002 B&H
Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM Telephoto Lens 5125B002 B&H Photo
Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM Autofocus Lens 2746B002 B&H Photo

Don't forget support....
Gitzo GT3541L Series 3 Mountaineer 6X Carbon Fiber Tripod
Wimberley WH-200 Gimbal Tripod Head II with Quick Release WH-200


You're all set.


----------



## KmH (May 9, 2013)

The best cameras are cheap compared to the best lenses. :lmao:

I have a friend that is very into bird photography - $60,000 in pro grade bird photography gear.


----------



## dxqcanada (May 9, 2013)

As others have stated, wildlife photography is expensive due to the cost of high quality long focal length lenses.

Many cameras can do the job ... but it is the lens that is the crucial part.
Going cheap is not going to cut it. I've got the cheap stuff and it is $1500+


----------



## 412 Burgh (May 9, 2013)

buy a p&s


----------



## huntsman (May 10, 2013)

Good replies folks - thank you!

No idea what a p&s is, however! :er: *Aha! Point and shoot. Very helpful - thanks. 

Budget...that tricky subject:

I have saved U$1100 so far, and am willing to double that on the body if I need to, but REALLY need to know I'm getting the right thing. Glass...well, do I really have any choice? I am guessing that either a 100-400mm or fixed 400mm might be where I am headed? 

I will have to save and pay whatever is required, but I have two questions:
A. Is an after-market lens (Sigma etc) going to do the biz or is a Canon/Nikon lens required?
B. What aperture would I need? From the replies it seems 5.6 is the minimum? (Note I would very much like to add a converter of say, 1.4 or more) {This apparently rules out the 7D from any consideration?}


----------



## Benco (May 10, 2013)

huntsman said:


> B. What aperture would I need? From the replies it seems 5.6 is the minimum? (Note I would very much like to add a converter of say, 1.4 or more) {This apparently rules out the 7D from any consideration?}



If the lens is any slower than f5.6 your autofocus system starts to struggle, the issue you have with a teleconverter is that it effectively reduces the widest aperture of the lens so you need a fast lens if you're going to use one (say f2.8). You can use one on the 7D.


----------



## huntsman (May 10, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> This will do nicely.
> Canon EOS-1D X Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) 5253B002 B&H Photo
> 
> Pick a lens...
> ...




You are a very cruel fellow, g99..! :lmao:


----------



## Overread (May 10, 2013)

A few thoughts:

1) With wildlife sink the bulk of your money into lenses. Wildlife is demanding on both camera bodies and lenses, but quality long reach comes with good glass first and foremost and you'll benefit much more from it (plus those quality long lenses will last you decades). If you want an idea check some of Juza's shots - some of his earlier bird photography of ducks was shot on a 350D rebel camera body using top end lenses and it stands side by side very well with higher level camera bodies. Better bodies are good and the 7D is an ideal crop sensor camera from Canon if you can afford it and a good lens in the same budget. 

2) Adding a teleconverter will reduce the effective aperture of the lens; on Canon camera bodies when the camera detects that the lenses effective maximum aperture is smaller than f5.6 the AF will disable. Note that you can use the "taping the pins" trick so that the camera cannot "see" a teleconverter attached, however the AF performance will be significantly reduced (accuracy, speed, reliability all take a big hit). 
Note that with the cameras that have live-view you can retain AF up to f8 when in live view mode only; this is because it uses a different set of AF sensors (essentially when you use AF normally part of the light from the lens is sent to the AF and part is sent up into the mirror for the viewfinder - thus it never gets the "full" light present - with liveview it gets more of the light because there is no mirror in the way). However liveview af is significantly slower - as a result it becomes less of a practical option for action (ok for a static shot though).
Note some higher level camera bodies (basically the 1D line) retain normal AF up to f8 (for those interested this now includes the 1DX after canon firmwire patched the feature in recently). 

3) Sigma glass can and will work, indeed they have some very impressive optics in their line up (heck they also make the only 500mm f2.8 lens on the market). It comes down to cost though, if you want quality it is going to cost you as much as it will for Canon. Sigma offer some alternatives, for example their 120-300mm f2.8 OS, which give a good quality result (its one of the few zoom lenses that can take up to a 2*TC and perform well). 

4) For bird photography the 400mm f5.6 is a very very popular choice for its image quality (the best you will get before you hit the big lenses like the 300mm f2.8 - 400mm f2.8) and its affordable price. The 100-400mm offers a similar range, but has a lower quality (Still very usable, esp if you stop down one stop from wide open at the 400mm end) but has the bonus of being a zoom if you feel you need that. The 300mm f4 IS L (+1.4 TC for an f5.6 420mm) is in the middle, with its gain being the IS feature which can help when handholding (for action you'll need 1/500sec ideally anyway, but IS does help give a smoother viewfinder image which can help a lot with framing a handheld shot at long ranges). 

5) If you want to use a teleconverter and really push things longer you can get away with one on the 400mm f5.6 in good light if you tape the pins on the teleconverter. You will need (as said) good lighting, but the lenses optics can take the image quality hit and still deliver. Other options for going longer are:
Canon 300mm f2.8 IS L M1 (second hand only now and tricky to find, expensive but can take up to a 2*TC and perform very well)
Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS - new or second hand (watch the second hand market as there is an older non OS edition out there) this can also take a 2*TC although it is heavier than the canon 300mm prime and is also not "as" high a quality with the 2*TC (but it will produce very usable results).


----------



## baturn (May 10, 2013)

Nobody asked what you are going to do with the photos. I suggest you might want to spend more if you are trying to sell to a publication than if you will just archive them on your computer for personal use.


----------



## Overread (May 10, 2013)

baturn said:


> Nobody asked what you are going to do with the photos. I suggest you might want to spend more if you are trying to sell to a publication than if you will just archive them on your computer for personal use.



Eh I don't see how if you're professional or not really has any effect. 
If you have the money to spend and can justify the cost to yourself and won't leave those dependant upon your earnings suffering then by all means get the best kit you can afford. Doesn't really matter if you're putting the shots in national geographic or on your desktop background or facebook profile - get what you can afford and do your best with it


----------



## huntsman (May 10, 2013)

Great answer, Overread - thank you.

baturn, this is purely for personal use...but I won't turn a job down either!


----------



## huntsman (May 10, 2013)

Dao said:


> Take a look at this site.   The photographer there use Canon equipment and should give you some idea.  Camera body, lens and settings info are listed below the photo.  So you know what those equipment are capable.
> 
> Uccelli: Varie by Juza [JuzaPhoto]
> 
> Of course, Nikon, Sony, Pentax or Olympus should be able to do the same.



Just spent some time on the site. Absolutely wonderful!
Thanks!


----------



## Dao (May 10, 2013)

huntsman said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > Take a look at this site.   The photographer there use Canon equipment and should give you some idea.  Camera body, lens and settings info are listed below the photo.  So you know what those equipment are capable.
> ...



I assume after browsing that site, you may notice the key elements for those beautiful images are the lenses and the photographer.  Some of those photos were taken with a Canon 350D or 20D which announced back in 2004.  So if you have a limited budget, spend more on the lens instead.


----------



## table1349 (May 10, 2013)

huntsman said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > This will do nicely.
> ...


Actually, other than the body I suggested, the lenses and support are on the money.  Wildlife photography is only slightly less demanding on equipment than sports photography.  Since my main focus is sports one of my bodies is a 1Dx.  

Long reach for low light is expensive and good support is a must.


----------



## huntsman (May 11, 2013)

Dao - point is well made. My only concern from one camera to another is that some are simply not able to do - physically - what others can do. ISO ratings, ability to add a TC and so much more.

I'm trying to ensure that I get the best camera for my buck, but fully realise that lenses will make the difference. I'm also entering my twilight years (53) so holding a longish lens is not easy for me so a tripod might well be worth looking at - more expenditure. Of course, if I go for the 100-400mm, it has IS which might negate the tripod need, so much planning is still needed and this thread is very helpful.

That said g99's last sentence sums up what I plan to do: Low light, long range...


----------



## CheepShot (May 12, 2013)

I recommend a D7100 with a used Sigma 150-500 OS and a DGX 1.4x TC for general birding.  The Sigma is much lighter than a 300/2.8.  For low light, any stabilized 70-200 with the TC.  For long shots, a Pentax Q (5.5x crop factor) with the 50500 OS does a great job, YouTube videos are available.   The D7100 will autofocus with tc's up to F8.

The D7100 offers a good enough buffer in cropped mode to shoot 25 shots or better before filling up.   The 51 AF points and the ability to autofocus with a TC even on a cheap 70-300 makes it a gem for amateur wildlife photography.  I also recommend a good car window tripod and use the car as a blind. 

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Gavjenks (May 13, 2013)

For around the $1100 that the OP said he has, starting with zero equipment, and preferring Canon, I would suggest:

Body: A halfway decent CROP sensor body like the Rebel T3i (~$700).  For two reasons: 1) you can't afford much else, 2) Crop sensors are wonderful for bird watching, since everything you shoot will be at long focal lengths.  Crop sensors are MORE cost effective than full frames at long focal distances (you rarely get close enough to fill a full frame with a bird at your budget, so you'd only be paying for pictures with more leaves in them if you bought a full frame)

Lens: Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (~$500) Absolutely fantastic lens. Why it is not "L" I have no idea.

Total = $1200, and can take some killer bird shots.  I don't have exactly that rig, but with a very similar one:


Sorry it's not a bird, but you get the idea.  Taken from about 5 feet away, handheld, oh a whim while passing by some milkweed on the way to work.

The only bird I have on hand from that lens is a teensy bit blurry, but this is literally the first bird I ever shot with it, and it was also un-prepared, on a whim, on the way to work (I didn't stalk the hummingbird for half an hour or anything to get it just perfect).  Note that the non-perfect motion capture is intentional, for artistic effect.  On a bright day with f/5.6, it would have been trivial to completely freeze the hummingbird in motion.

Also from ~5-7 feet away.


----------



## Gavjenks (May 13, 2013)

Note: if you can find a camera body that has a higher framerate (shots per second) than that one with the allowed budget, that might be preferable.  I think shots/second is probably your #2 priority on camera bodies (after crop sensor).  Unfortunately, there weren't a lot of options at that price, and I didn't see anything dramatically faster. T3i is ~4 shots a second, and 34 in a row without stopping to buffer. A 7D by comparison can do 8 per second and about 100+ in a row, but also costs a massive $700 more and leaves you no room in your budget for a lens


----------



## huntsman (May 14, 2013)

Thanks for the input fellas - I think I am going to have to get great glass for whichever camera I choose, but the budget stated is really just for the body, so I can manage the 7D secondhand.

Lenses are another story, and I will certainly not manage both before Christmas, but I have no problem getting the camera and putting it away whilst I save for a good lens.

Lovely pics, Gavjenks!


----------

