Hi Stephen and Paul,
The Sigma I was talking about is out but in very low numbers in the USA. I
have used it on the 1dx as well as the Tameron and the old Sigma 150-500.
It absolutely blows the others out of the water and is truly in the Canon
class (something the old Sigma and Tamron cannot do). It is also up there
with the canon in price costing $2100 USD in the states. The Tamron ($1000
USD) is very slow to track, and the older Sigma ($800 USD just did not hold
up in the forests of Ecuador. I have also been with the new Sigma 150-600
which is due in three months time in the US, but it was a Nikon mount, so
could not shoot with it. It is compatible to the Nikon and old Sigma, so
not built for rugged use when birding. I use a 500 f/4 over one shoulder
while guiding, but was looking for a safari type zoom lens for better light
conditions over the other shoulder. I messed a Tiger shot earlier this year
when I had too much glass and it killed me.
For forest birding you will need something that can track in low light.
Cheers,
Iain
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Paul Dodd <> wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> We seem to have these discussions on birding-aus every few months.
>
> It is not easy to answer the question, "What camera should I buy?" Whether
> it is for birding or any other purpose. There are quite a few questions
> that
> would need to be asked in order to make a recommendation, for instance:
>
> 1. What's your budget - how much are you wanting or expecting to spend?
> 2. Is your primary use birding, or will it be used for landscapes,
> portraits, travel photography as well as birding?
> 3. What is your level of expertise? Have you had or used a camera before?
> 4. How serious are you about bird photography? Are you primarily a birder
> that will take the occasional photograph, or do you intend to become a bird
> photographer?
> 5. How much weight are you able or willing to carry?
> 6. And, question 1 again, what is your budget?!
>
> I ask the budget question twice, because without knowing that it is hard to
> even give a range of recommendations.
>
> Iain, in his answer, recommended the Canon 100-400mm lens coupled with a
> Canon 7D body. This is the current "workman" rig used by many birders (and
> bird photographers). That setup works well and is a good all-round
> combination. Nikon make a similar lens, an 80-400mm, and the equivalent
> body
> would be the Nikon D7100 (or new D7200). The limitations of this
> combination
> are that at 400mm the lens is "only" f/5.6 which can make rainforest
> photography more challenging. Iain also recommended the new Sigma 150-600mm
> lens (and Tamron also make an equivalent lens). It's hard to recommend this
> lens currently as there are simply none in use at the moment - however the
> earlier Sigma 150-500mm is well reviewed and I know a number of birders
> using it. The advantage of the 150-500mm and 150-600mm are, of course, the
> longer "reach" - essential for photographing waders, and useful for birds
> of
> prey and bush birds at a distance. The disadvantage with these lenses is
> that they are much slower than the Canon and Nikon xx-400mm lenses, with a
> maximum aperture of f/6.3 at their longest extensions. At f/6.3 you can
> struggle in conditions that are not well lit. Of course, these days, the
> argument is that cameras are much better in low light - and that is
> certainly true.
>
> A Canon 7D will cost you $2,200 and the 100-400mm lens will cost you $2,600
> - bringing the total to $4,800. Incidentally, Canon recently released both
> a
> 7D Mark II and a second version of the 100-400mm lens, which means that you
> could pick up the earlier versions as either run-out stock from dealers or
> second hand (check eBay) for about 60% of that figure. The Nikon
> equivalents
> are $1,250 for the D7100, $1,400 for the D7200 and $3,500 for the 80-400mm
> lens. This is Nikon's second version of that lens and I definitely DO NOT
> recommend the previous version - I had one and hated it. The Sigma
> 150-500mm
> lens is $1,000 and the Tamron 150-600mm lens is $1,250 (I expect the Sigma
> equivalent is a similar price).
>
> There are alternative lenses. Many birders use the Canon 400mm f/5.6 lens
> ($1,700). The "disadvantages" with this lens are that it is a prime lens
> not
> a zoom (I say disadvantage, because if this is to be your only lens, then
> it
> is somewhat limited), and that it has no image stabilisation - which makes
> a
> big difference with bird photography with lenses in the 400mm range. Both
> Canon and Nikon have 70-300mm zooms with image stabilisation, both of which
> are good lenses and come in around $1,650 for the "L" series (top-end)
> Canon, $470 for the regular Canon lens and $800 for the regular Nikon lens
> (they don't have this range in their top-end).
>
> If you didn't want a DSLR then there are two paths to follow - the fixed
> lens "point and shoot" type cameras (although that name really does them a
> disservice) and the compact system or mirrorless cameras. Starting with the
> fixed lens cameras, the Canon SX60HS with 16 megapixels and a 65x zoom
> (equivalent to 21-1365mm) for $600 is well regarded by birders. The Nikon
> equivalent is the Coolpix P900 with 16 megapixels and a staggering 83x zoom
> (equivalent to 24-2000mm) for $750. Whilst it is easy to think that these
> cameras sound absolutely amazing, there are disadvantages - firstly when
> designing optics with those sorts of ranges in a hand-holdable camera, an
> awful lot of compromise is involved - meaning that either at the wide end,
> the telephoto end, or more generally all across the range, image quality
> will never be as good as the top-end DSLR lenses. Secondly, the image
> sensors in these cameras are physically small (I don't mean in megapixel
> count, I mean in physical dimensions). This means that for various
> technical
> reasons I won't cover here, the image quality can't be anywhere near as
> good
> as the quality from a DSLR and the low-light capabilities of cameras with
> these sensors will be poor. This is an important point as, even in bright
> sunlight, birds tend to stay in the bushes in shadow (which equals low
> light). Other manufacturers have similar cameras, so if you choose this
> route, do your homework. Oh, ALL manufacturers will quote zoom ranges
> including "digital zoom". DO NOT take that into account. Never, ever, ever
> use digital zoom - as the images will be useless. If you do buy a camera
> that includes digital zoom make sure you understand how to turn it off and
> then TURN IT OFF!
>
> The second range of cameras that I mentioned is a relatively new category -
> the so-called, compact system or "mirrorless" cameras. These are
> interchangeable lens cameras with, electronic viewfinders. This gives these
> cameras two distinct advantages over DSLRs, first they are smaller and
> lighter and secondly, they don't include mirrors, so are mechanically
> simpler and don't suffer from problems caused by the vibration when the
> DSLR
> mirror moves ("mirror slap"). There are several brands that compete in this
> category - most notably Olympus, Fuji and to a lesser extent Sony. Canon
> does have a mirrorless camera, but it should be ignored. Nikon has a superb
> little player in this category that I'll describe in a minute. In my
> opinion
> the Fuji X series cameras are as good as you can buy - they are absolutely
> brilliant for almost anything except bird photography. Why? Because they do
> not have the lenses with the telephoto range currently (I believe they have
> a 100-400mm lens on the way). The Fuji cameras use the same sized sensor
> that the Canon 7D and Nikon D7200 have, so the image quality is equivalent
> with no degradation. The Olympus OM-D cameras are incredibly well reviewed
> (generally rated equal to or better than the Fuji) and they do have a
> 75-300mm lens (equivalent to 150-600mm). The Olympus cameras use a sensor
> size known as "Micro 4/3" which is smaller than the sensors found in DSLRs
> and is subject to more noise (but a lot less noise than the
> point-and-shoots). The Nikon contender in the mirrorless category is the
> Nikon 1 - which comes in a multitude of bodies. Probably the best body for
> bird photography is the Nikon 1 V2 ($750). The later Nikon 1 V3 ($950) is
> better specified, but you need to purchase a separate viewfinder ($350) and
> grip ($200) to meet and better the specifications for the V2. What is
> amazing about this camera, apart from the fact that it is tiny and light,
> is
> that you can buy a 70-300mm lens (equivalent to a mind-blowing 189-810mm)
> for $1100. This lens is built to the same standards as Nikon's top-end
> lenses, and is simply amazing. No, you can't really hand-hold it at maximum
> zoom, but image quality and sharpness are amazing. The Nikon 1 series of
> cameras use a "CX" sized sensor which is much larger than the point and
> shoot cameras, but much smaller than the DSLRs. Yes, the images can be
> noisy
> and the low-light capabilities are not as good as a fast lens on a DSLR,
> but
> all things considered, this is a good combination. I wrote a bit of a
> review
> on this system in an earlier post and provided some links to photographs I
> had taken with it.
>
> Coming full-circle and returning to DSLRs for a moment. Beyond the basics I
> mentioned earlier, the DSLR has the ability to grow with you. For example,
> both Canon and Nikon have wonderful 200-400mm lenses (in the $7,000 price
> range) that offer you versatility and superb image quality - I have met
> many
> birders and bird photographers that use these lenses, and they are often
> regarded as favourites amongst safari photographers. Both Nikon and Canon
> have 300mm f/2.8 lenses, also in the $7,500 price range, that are well
> regarded by bird photographers. Coupled with a teleconverter, they offer
> absolutely amazing quality and have reach to around the 450mm-600mm range.
> I
> know a number of the top bird photographers that use exactly this
> combination. The mainstay of bird photographers, however, are the 500mm f/4
> lenses. Both Canon and Nikon have these lenses, and when coupled with a
> teleconverter extend to around 700mm. Moving up again, you have the 600mm
> f/4 lenses. These are another kettle of fish - much, much heavier than the
> 500mm lenses, almost impossible to travel with (I should know, I have done
> precisely that), these beasts really do need a tripod. You are looking at
> $13,000 for these beauties. Both Nikon and Canon also have 800 f/5.6 lenses
> - I must confess that I have not seen one in the wild, and have certainly
> not used one. They are undoubtedly great lenses, but would be very hard to
> use due to their very narrow field of view. Also at 800mm, when
> photographing waders (say), you are having to deal with heat haze and other
> atmospheric conditions that make photography tough.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Paul Dodd
> Docklands, Victoria
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Birding-Aus On Behalf
> Of
> Stephen
> Sent: Saturday, 21 March 2015 12:18 PM
> To:
> Subject: [Birding-Aus] suitable camera
>
> I am thinking of buying a suitable camera and lens for bird photos. I start
> from scratch, and have no knowledge of what is suitable - presumably it
> would be a SLR, used on a tripod.
>
> I'd be grateful for advice from experienced users.
>
> Stephen
>
> <HR>
> <BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
> <BR>
> <BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
> <BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
> </HR>
>
>
> <HR>
> <BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
> <BR>
> <BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
> <BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
> </HR>
>
--
Iain Campbell
Tropical Birding Tours
www.tropicalbirding.com
<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR>
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>
|
