how to shoot birds if I can't carry weigh?

<p>Hi, has anyone succeeded at shooting birds and other wildlife with a small superzoom? I own a D300 and a couple of good lenses and a gitzo tripod but for health reasons I can't carry them around any more.<br>

Before I quit and stick to landscape photography I'd like to consider compromising on a superzoom P&S such as the Panasonic FZ 35 or the Canon SX20 / SX 10 IS.<br>

I take pictures for pleasure and I am not a sharpness/technical buff. However I usually need to crop a fair amount, even woking with a 500mm lens, and most of my shots are out of roads in the atlantic forest - quite dark - of small subjects that keep moving...<br>

Could any of you get decent pictures in similar conditions with one of these two cameras? or will I be better off with a plastic SLR combo, hand-held, such an entry-level nikon and a 70-300 (slow focus etc but much more cropping possibilities)? any other idea on how to shoot birds carrying 1kg or less?<br>

Thanks a lot,<br>

Cristian</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You won't be happy with any of those super zoom P&S. They are not good at anyhting higher than the base ISO and the shutter lag is going to be your biggest problem. By the time the cam takes the pic, your subject is gone. I don't know about Nikon, but Canon makes a 400mm 5.6 non-IS lens that is very compact and reasonably light weight. Marry that with any of the Rebel bodies and you have a reasonably light weight combo. Could you mount it on a mono pod and carry it over your shoulder?</p>

<p>The old 100-300 5.6 isn't long enough? With crop factor it's a 480. A fraction of the price and weight of the 400. </p>

<p>I have a Canon SX-10. In many ways it is an amazing camera, but in my opinion it is not a substitute for a DSLR for bird or other wildlife phtoography, based on my experience with shutter lag, frame rate, and image quality. When I don't want to carry a lot, I take a Nikon D40 and the 70-300 VR zoom. The 300 doesn't really have enough magnification, but sometimes I am lucky and find a cooperative (or large - great blue heron, etc) subject. A rebel with the 55-250 would be very light, but only equivalent to a 400mm field of view on 35mm. I would suggest two other alternatives, but please be aware I have no experience with either. First: other manufacturers (Casio, Sony, perhaps others) offer 'superzoom' cameras with high frame rates. Second: Sony still offers a 500mm f8 autofocus lens. I believe this is based on (if not identical to) the old Minolta design.</p>

<p>I recommend the Panasonic FZ35 (38 in Europe). It's small, light and the lens resolution is very good. Its sensor can be noisy but the 35/38s are much better than the older Panasonics.<br>

Check some of the reviews.</p>

<table border="0" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="0" width="100%">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td > </td>

<td width="100%"><a href="http://www.photoreview.com.au/Panasonic/reviews/advanced/panasonic-lumix-dmcfz35.aspx" target="_blank">Panasonic DMC-FZ38 review at PhotoReview</a></td>

<td align="right"><img src="http://www.dcviews.com/artlib/bg_link.gif" border="0" alt="" /></td>

</tr>

<tr >

<td > </td>

<td width="100%"> </td>

<td align="right"> </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >02Oct09 </td>

<td width="100%"><a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/FZ35/FZ35A.HTM" target="_blank">Panasonic DMC-FZ35 review at Imaging-resource</a></td>

<td align="right"><img src="http://www.dcviews.com/artlib/bg_link.gif" border="0" alt="" /></td>

</tr>

<tr >

<td > </td>

<td width="100%"> </td>

<td align="right"><img src="http://www.dcviews.com/artlib/bg_link.gif" border="0" alt="" /></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >20Sep09 </td>

<td width="100%"><a href="http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ35_FZ38/" target="_blank">Panasonic DMC-FZ35/FZ38 review at CameraLabs</a></td>

<td align="right"><img src="http://www.dcviews.com/artlib/bg_link.gif" border="0" alt="" /></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >14Sep09 </td>

<td width="100%"><a href="http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz35-review" target="_blank">Panasonic DMC-FZ35 review at DCResource</a></td>

<td align="right"><img src="http://www.dcviews.com/artlib/bg_link.gif" border="0" alt="" /></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >28Jul09 </td>

<td width="100%"><a href="http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2009/07/28/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-FZ38/p1" target="_blank">Panasonic DMC-FZ38 review at TrustedReviews</a></td>

<td align="right"><img src="http://www.dcviews.com/artlib/bg_link.gif" border="0" alt="" /></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >28Jul09 </td>

<td width="100%"><a href="http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_fz38_review/" target="_blank">Panasonic DMC-FZ38 review at PhotographyBLOG</a></td>

<td align="right"><img src="http://www.dcviews.com/artlib/bg_link.gif" border="0" alt="" /></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>Here's a link to the Panasonic page on the camera:<a href="http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/compact/fz35_fz38/index.html">Pana Home Page for DMC-FZ35/DMC-FZ38 | PRODUCTS | LUMIX | Digital Camera | Panasonic Global</a></p>

<p> </p>

As a bonus (I agree with John) the FZ35 is much lighter than the Canon SX10, 397 versus 600 grams. Also shutter lag is about 1/3 second compared to 2/3 second on the SX10 that Prof.K complains about. You will probably need to give up dawn and dusk shooting, and/or buy noise reduction software. The <i>op. cit.</i> DCresource review shows results at ISO 800 with and without NeatImage. Looks acceptable to me, though certainly not in D300 class.

<p>The other way to go is to get the birds to come to you with a lightweight hide and bait, then all you need is a moderate length lens</p>

<p>The other way to go is to get the birds to come to you with a lightweight hide and bait, then all you need is a moderate length lens</p><div></div>

<p>D60 camera. The problem with a long lens, ie Pansonic FZ x12 with x2.2 tele adaptor, is finding the birds in the small area of sky one sees through the finder. Shutter lag is no problem working in manual, it is how you go about it, but very little luck in finding even a quite large hawk. Bird above is about the same size as a sparrow.<br>

This shot was taken early overcast morning and worked up in editing, approx 2300mm angle of view with crop. Handheld sitting in car. Not sharp but helped by softening the surrounds to give illusion of sharpness :-) Again bird is about sparrow size.</p><div></div>

<p>4/3rds might help - it's 2x 35mm , so a 135 manual lens with adapter would be 270 - add a suitable 2x converter , and you have a light 540mm f 5.6 lens . Not the best quality , but probably equal to a cheap zoom .<br>

Adapters are available for almost all manual cameras . Micro 4/3rds will allow focusing on-screen - but I am not sure what adapters are available .<br>

Olympus 4/3rds longer lenses are always smaller and lighter .<br>

Good luck with your quest </p>

<p>4/3rds might help - it's 2x 35mm , so a 135 manual lens with adapter would be 270 - add a suitable 2x converter , and you have a light 540mm f 5.6 lens . Not the best quality , but probably equal to a cheap zoom .<br>

Adapters are available for almost all manual cameras . Micro 4/3rds will allow focusing on-screen - but I am not sure what adapters are available .<br>

Olympus 4/3rds longer lenses are always smaller and lighter .<br>

Good luck with your quest </p>

<p>Here's an example showing what can be done with the FZ35:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/828624/0#7699618">http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/828624/0</a></p>

<p>Another option is micro 4/3 format like panasonic GF1 or Olympus EP-1. You can match a small mirror lens such as Minolta's excellent 250/5.6 MD. With that, the field of view is 500mm and total system weight (body and lens) is arround one pound 10 ounce. If 500mm is too short, there is also the Tamron 350/5.6 mirror with a FOV of 700mm. Of-course the system is manual focus but you now have a 4/3 sensor and near DSLR ISO goodness.</p>

<p>I am sorry to hear you are having health problems.</p>

<p>The obvious answer is get someone to carry your equipment for you - a friend, a fellow photographer who is also interested in birding, or even hire someone. For safety's sake, with medical problems that restrict you to carrying no more than 1 kg, you should not be out in the woods alone.</p>

<p>Cristian</p>

<p>it is sorry to hear your suffering from health problems.</p>

<p>I would also second the micro 4/3, as observed it effectively doubles the reach of the same focal length lens on 35mm <strong>and</strong> (better yet ) gives a slightly greater depth of field when used at the same aperture. So while a 200mm f4 becomes like a 400mm it is not as shallow in depth of field (which is a good thing) as a 400mm f4 would be.</p>

<p>I use a G1 and while my FD 300mm may prove a burden a FD 200mm f4 is quite light and optically you will get far better results than any digicam solution. The suggestion of a mirror lens is an excellent one and the contrast issues which people may lament can easily be fixed in photoshop if they bother you.</p>

<p>for a light weight kit I would say it would be hard to beat a FD 200mm (weighing only 450 grammes) and the G1 (weighing about 460grammes including its kit 14-45). If you wish to set up and wait and watch using a tripod then a Sigma or even a Canon FD mirror lens would be both well priced and light weight. I have seen Canon FD mount Mirror lenses at Keh.com for under US$300, and Sigma or Tokina for under US$100, these are cheap because apart from micro 4/3 not much else can use FD lenses except FD ... certainly not much digital</p>

<p>This spring I took this one with my FD 300 waiting around the nest<br /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3648/3615557929_ab6936d774.jpg" alt="" width="314" height="500" /></p>

<p>and this one on a short walk with just the Zuiko OM 100mm f2.8 with me (another very light lens)<br /> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3396/3644283630_93edb23b71.jpg" alt="" width="401" height="500" /></p>

<p>if I had had the 200mm with me on that occasion (less than a can of coke heavier than the 100mm) I would have been even "closer"</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Christian</p>

<p>there is information on the Canon FD mirror lens at <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/500mm.htm"><strong>this site</strong> </a> . It is 700g which is outstanding for a 500mm lens. Clearly this is a tripod sort of lens, but that may be of benefit if an assistant helps you set up. You could sit back and keep an eye on the screen while pressing the shutter release by cable.</p>

<p>Hi all, thank you very much for the advice so far and the concerns with my health. I am on physiotherapy and have so far escaped surgery. Yes, I agree that I shouldn't be in the woods alone. My wife is also a bird photographer, which solves one problem but not the ohter - she's already carrying her own D300/tripod etc...<br>

Yoshio-san, thanks for the detailed advice and examples.<br>

Yesterday after posting I started looking into the 4/3 and micro 4/3 systems and they seem a great solution coupled with a FZ-35 - I need a small camera anyway and have been happy with my FZ5 and FZ18. A shot taken with the FZ5 at Yellowstone even made it to a desk calendar.<br>

Could you please tell me the difference between the micro 4/3 and 4/3 apart from camera size and features? is the mount of the 4/3 lenses adaptable to the micro 4/3 cameras? the sensor is the same size?<br>

Thanks a lot,<br>

Cristian<br>

Afeter I gget my lightweight solution and put it to use I'll post some of the new pictures here :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Cristian</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Could you please tell me the difference between the micro 4/3 and 4/3 apart from camera size and features? is the mount of the 4/3 lenses adaptable to the micro 4/3 cameras? the sensor is the same size?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Essensially the sensor is essentially the same size, but the mirror is removed allowing the lens to be fitted closer to the camera sensor. This also means there can be no optical view finder, but the electronic view finder is without doubt the best in the business. Auto Focus is by the sensor and metering is also direct from the sensor. This has the effect of making exposure more accurate with all lenses including older lenses such I use.</p>

<p>Compared to regular 4/3 the viewfinder is much bigger and brighter although electronic. Many people (including me) report that it makes focus easier than optical systems<br>

:-)</p>

<p>Panasonic G1 with the 45-200mm f/4-f/5.6 optically stabilized lens works very well giving the equivalent of 90-400mm. </p>

<p>Thank you all again.<br>

I'll first try out the FZ-35 simply because I can find it in Brazil where I live and I am leaving for e 10-day vacation today.<br>

Then I'll probably buy a 4/3 body, lens and teleconverter - I found that the micro 4/3 doesn't have the focal lenghts I need with AF and IS (the 45-200 would be the best one but still a bit short (eq 400 35mm) and BH shows it as back-ordered)</p>

<p>The E-620 is only 180g heavier than the G-1 and has sensor IS wich apparently works well and will allow me to use a slower and lighter lens such as the 70-300, maybe even with a converter. Does this make sense?<br>

Later I may get the 500/8 canon FD mirror lens.<br>

When I get stronger I can get a heavier and faster lens - the 150/2, the 50-200 and the sigma 70-200 2.8 all look good - I imagine a 150/2 + 2x TC + E-620 could help me a lot with just under 2kg (but well over $2K... anyway selling some nikon lenses and my D300 body may help here).<br>

If you are curious about brazilian birds this is my wife's website (mostrly in portuguese but the link is to the galleries):<br>

<a href="http://photorats.webs.com/apps/photos/">http://photorats.webs.com/apps/photos/</a><br>

Thanks, Cristian</p>

 

<p>Cristian</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The E-620 is only 180g heavier than the G-1 and has sensor IS wich apparently works well and will allow me to use a slower and lighter lens such as the 70-300,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it does ... the 620 is a nice camera ... while I prefer the G1 for its superior viewfinder (because the 4/3 optical viewfinders are so small I laughed when I used one after many years of large 35mm viewfinders).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>maybe even with a converter. Does this make sense?<br /> Later I may get the 500/8 canon FD mirror lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>but you will need to modify the mount of the FD lens to work with 4/3 ... micro 4/3 is different because it has no mirror and the mount is closer to the sensor. The FD mount is adaptable to the 4/3, but because of the style of flange needs to be modified. See <a href="http://oly43club.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=690"><strong>here</strong> </a> . If you are competent with your hands you can do it youself, if not I am sure a camera technician would do the work for little more than $50 assuming you take him the part.</p>

<p>enjoy your holiday</p>

<p>I do a lot of bird photography with a Sony A700 and a Minolta AF 500mm f8 mirror lens (see <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=807202">examples</a> here), a combo that weighs 1.5 kg. No mirror lens will do well in dark foresty settings but the Sony/Minolta AF version is one of the best optically and has the edge over all the others in ease of operation because you can let AF do most of the focus traveling (requires more turning than a conventional 500mm) and it gains a few stop equivalents thanks to the sensor stabilization of the camera combined with solid performance in the iso 800-1000 range of the A700 with its latest firmware.</p>

<p>You could reduce the weight further with a smaller/newer Sony alpha body but that would trade off against a smaller viewfinder and less convenient button layout to control AF/MF in order to get focus exactly right (accurate focus is especially challenging with mirror lenses because of their razor-thin DOF).</p>

<p>Forgot to mention: I never use a tripod with the Min AF 500 f8, to brace myself instead I go for any fencepost/tree/rock/wall available.</p>

<p>If you feel that a tripod is out for health reasons I would suggest you look at monopods which do support the camera with care and help one to travel the 'road' as a walking stick.</p>

<p> Another thing which I like is my mini-tripod which can be sat on things, walls, cars and also held firmly against walls, posts, tree trunks .... I hold the mini-tripod firmlyagainst the later and use 10 second delay release so the camera has time to settle down following pressing the trigger without me touching it. I normally always use the 10 second delay when shooting static objects with any tripod, large or mini versions.</p>