Bird Photography
Posted by: Rockingdoc on 14 June 2004
As middle age takes a grip, I have become interested in birding and have taken to hanging about at RSPB reserves. While almost everyone seems to have a huge scope (and bins of course), I have yet to see anyone of the twitcher community using a camera with a big telephoto lens, I have seen a few perching small digital cameras on the eyepiece of scopes.
As my main interest would be taking photos, should I invest in a telephoto lens, and if so how big, or will a good scope and digi-camera give good results?
I suspect I already know the answer will be a telephoto lens for my SLR, but will this substitute for a scope because carrying both would be impractical.
Any birders out there?
As my main interest would be taking photos, should I invest in a telephoto lens, and if so how big, or will a good scope and digi-camera give good results?
I suspect I already know the answer will be a telephoto lens for my SLR, but will this substitute for a scope because carrying both would be impractical.
Any birders out there?
Posted on: 14 June 2004 by Steve G
I'm not a birder myself but I know you need a pretty long lens to do the shots justice as the subjects are generally quite small and a fair old distance away.
The pros tend to use 400mm F2.8 lenses with 2x convertors (F5.6 is the limit for most autofocusing systems) but I expect you'd still get reasonable (but not publishable) results with a half-decent 400mm consumer level zoom.
From my own kit I'd probably give a 80-200mm F2.8 zoom with 2x convertor a go but much of the time I doubt it'd be long enough.
The guys taking pictures through the scopes with little digicams won't be getting great results but they're probably just using the pictures to aid classification and to inform other twitchers what birds are where.
The pros tend to use 400mm F2.8 lenses with 2x convertors (F5.6 is the limit for most autofocusing systems) but I expect you'd still get reasonable (but not publishable) results with a half-decent 400mm consumer level zoom.
From my own kit I'd probably give a 80-200mm F2.8 zoom with 2x convertor a go but much of the time I doubt it'd be long enough.
The guys taking pictures through the scopes with little digicams won't be getting great results but they're probably just using the pictures to aid classification and to inform other twitchers what birds are where.
Posted on: 14 June 2004 by woody
I like bird watching. It's great this time of the year when the tits start coming out 
-- woody
-- woody
Posted on: 14 June 2004 by Rockingdoc
400mm certainly doesn't seem much. I have a crap 500mm mirror lens, and it was only just enough for birds in the garden. My initial experience of the reserves is that the birds are viewed from significantly further away than my little garden. I would have guessed at nearer a 1000mm lens?
Posted on: 14 June 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Rockingdoc:
400mm certainly doesn't seem much. I have a crap 500mm mirror lens, and it was only just enough for birds in the garden. My initial experience of the reserves is that the birds are viewed from significantly further away than my little garden. I would have guessed at nearer a 1000mm lens?
Yes - that's why I mentioned the pro's use a fast 400mm with a 2x convertor - i.e. 800mm F5.6. The consumer level zoom could be used with a convertor as well but it'd need focussed manually, it'll be tricky to focus in all but bright conditions and the images will be soft (especially with the lens wide open). They should still be fine for personal use though.
Posted on: 14 June 2004 by Derek Wright
I was walking around the Wakodahatchee Reserve
A week last Sunday - one of the visitors had a brace of Cannon DSLRs with about a foot of glass and metal stuck on the front of the lens - he said he had a 400 mm lens a 1.4 (aprox) teleconvertor and was complaining that was not sufficient.
Looking at the results I was getting with the 35mm equivalent of a 108mm lens and magnifying the image up by a factor of 4 a 400mm lens would not be suffiencient if you are after the smaller birds - eg stilts etc. With Frigates you can sometimes get away with 100mm when they are in flight.
Derek
<< >>
A week last Sunday - one of the visitors had a brace of Cannon DSLRs with about a foot of glass and metal stuck on the front of the lens - he said he had a 400 mm lens a 1.4 (aprox) teleconvertor and was complaining that was not sufficient.
Looking at the results I was getting with the 35mm equivalent of a 108mm lens and magnifying the image up by a factor of 4 a 400mm lens would not be suffiencient if you are after the smaller birds - eg stilts etc. With Frigates you can sometimes get away with 100mm when they are in flight.
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 14 June 2004 by Joe Petrik
Doc,
The need for specialized kit depends entirely on the species you want to photograph. The typical, "flighty" songbird will require a 300mm lens as a minimum. In fact, among professional bird photographers the 300 is considered a "normal" lens. If you want frame-filling shots, you'll need a 400mm or 500mm with teleconverter (1.4x or 2x). Unfortunately, these big pieces of glass are priced like small cars. And if you buy used, they're priced like used, small cars.
On the other hand, large birds or small, fearless ones can be photographed with lenses as short as 50mm. These shots of hummingbirds (1 and 2) were taken with a 200mm lens. These tiny birds -- barely bigger than butterflies -- are so utterly fearless that you can walk up within inches of them without scaring them off.
Joe
The need for specialized kit depends entirely on the species you want to photograph. The typical, "flighty" songbird will require a 300mm lens as a minimum. In fact, among professional bird photographers the 300 is considered a "normal" lens. If you want frame-filling shots, you'll need a 400mm or 500mm with teleconverter (1.4x or 2x). Unfortunately, these big pieces of glass are priced like small cars. And if you buy used, they're priced like used, small cars.
On the other hand, large birds or small, fearless ones can be photographed with lenses as short as 50mm. These shots of hummingbirds (1 and 2) were taken with a 200mm lens. These tiny birds -- barely bigger than butterflies -- are so utterly fearless that you can walk up within inches of them without scaring them off.
Joe
Posted on: 14 June 2004 by Geoff P
Is'nt it also important to get a "fast" telephoto lens (one with a large apeture)?. I would think this is quite important to capture birds in relatively low light conditions with movement involved.
That adds a lot of cost to the lens.
GEOFF
Listening every day planning to "not fade away"
That adds a lot of cost to the lens.
GEOFF
Listening every day planning to "not fade away"
Posted on: 15 June 2004 by Nigel Cavendish
One way to obviate the need for long lenses is to get the camera nearer to the subject either by using a hide or by setting up the camera in advance and operating it remotely
cheers
Nigel
cheers
Nigel
Posted on: 15 June 2004 by Rockingdoc
Thanks for the advice so far. What I really want (don't we all) are the frame filling bird portrait shots, beloved of the wildlife magazines. It looks like a Sigma prime AF 400mmm f5.6 may be the way to go.
Posted on: 15 June 2004 by Ron Brinsdon
As a keen photographer and once very enthusiastic birdwatcher, I found that the two did not combine in an easy way if traditional SLR equipment was used and high quality slides / prints were required. This was because:-
Previous comments regarding "fast" long lenses are quite correct - to get high enough magnification for a meaningful identification shot you would require a focal length of at least 600mm unless the bird was very close. With a quality medium speed slide film of say 100ASA you will be looking at an aperture setting of around F2.8 if using a shutter speed suitable for the focal length used, and this is using a tripod and cable release too.
Also consider the sheer weight and bulk of all of the photo-gear to carried for what may be a long period in the field or in the hide. This is in addition to 'scope / bins / food etc.
I found that trying to combine the two activities took the edge off each of them and that it remained more enjoyable to either go walking / birdwatching or just sit in a hide and take photos.
If it is just a record shot that is required then acceptable results can be obtained with a 500 or 600 mirror lens in good light and with willing subjects.
However - many birders are turning to "digiscoping" which as mentioned in another post is the result of attaching a digital camera to a telescope. A friend of mine tried this recently and even his initial results were staggering both in terms of sharpness and colour rendition.
Try this site for good info and prices etc
www.eagleeyeuk.com
Birding this weekend on the Exe estuary in Devon - an excellent place to practice bird photography
Ron
Previous comments regarding "fast" long lenses are quite correct - to get high enough magnification for a meaningful identification shot you would require a focal length of at least 600mm unless the bird was very close. With a quality medium speed slide film of say 100ASA you will be looking at an aperture setting of around F2.8 if using a shutter speed suitable for the focal length used, and this is using a tripod and cable release too.
Also consider the sheer weight and bulk of all of the photo-gear to carried for what may be a long period in the field or in the hide. This is in addition to 'scope / bins / food etc.
I found that trying to combine the two activities took the edge off each of them and that it remained more enjoyable to either go walking / birdwatching or just sit in a hide and take photos.
If it is just a record shot that is required then acceptable results can be obtained with a 500 or 600 mirror lens in good light and with willing subjects.
However - many birders are turning to "digiscoping" which as mentioned in another post is the result of attaching a digital camera to a telescope. A friend of mine tried this recently and even his initial results were staggering both in terms of sharpness and colour rendition.
Try this site for good info and prices etc
www.eagleeyeuk.com
Birding this weekend on the Exe estuary in Devon - an excellent place to practice bird photography
Ron
Posted on: 15 June 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Brinsdon:
Birding this weekend on the Exe estuary in Devon - an excellent place to practice bird photography
There is a RSPB hide in the nature reserve behind where I live which I've never actually visited. I might take my camera kit up there and have a play and see if I can get any shots. Given my longest lens is now a 80-200F2.8 zoom it looks like I'll be stacking teleconvertors though.
Posted on: 15 June 2004 by Rockingdoc
quote:
However - many birders are turning to "digiscoping" which as mentioned in another post is the result of attaching a digital camera to a telescope. A friend of mine tried this recently and even his initial results were staggering both in terms of sharpness and colour rendition.
Ron
Thanks Ron. The plot thickens. This was the point of my original post, could digi-scoping ever produce a printable image?
In addition to my SLR kit, I have a little Nikon Coolpix 4500 which is the model the digi-scopers seem to favour.
The investment in a big telephoto lens or scope is considerable and I certainly couldn't afford both.
Posted on: 15 June 2004 by Rockingdoc
quote:
Birding this weekend on the Exe estuary in Devon - an excellent place to practice bird photography
Ron
We have Dungeness, which is pretty good provided one is careful to exclude the power-station from your shots.