Bird Photography

I am interested in outdoor bird photography. Would the Canon Rebel T1

be sufficient for this. I do perfer film still, also what is a good

loong lense & film speed for this. Thanks.

People who are really serious about bird photography pretty much all use 500/4 and

600/4 lenses, plus teleconverters. These are mounted on solid tripods with gimbal heads.

We're talking about a lot of money for that kind of setup. A somewhat less expensive but

good opition is the Sigma 500/4.5, but that's still a couple of thousand dollars at least.

 

Most Canon owners who want to do bird photography but aren't insane enough to plunge

into 500 and 600 mm lens territory get a 400/5.6L, a 100-400 zoom, or a 300/4 + 1.4X

converter.

 

Your camera is probably fine for most work, but don't expect to reliably do high-speed

flight shots where fast autofocus is crucial. Nothing wrong with film, but I should say that

bird photography is an area where digital offers real benefits (crop factor, the inevitable

large number of not-so-good images that cost real money with film, etc.).

Hey, once upon a time I bought a Samyang 500mm lens with 2X teleconvertor, and of course, had to try it out with birds. This was a $129 outfit, you understand, not the umpty thousand dollar rigs mentioned above. Anyway, it was a learning experience.

 

One thing I found is that with small birds, you just can't get a long enough lens to do what you want to do. So if you see a sharp picture of some little tweety bird that's more or less filling the frame, it's not because someone had a superduper lens, it's because they went to some time and trouble to take it (and probably had an expensive lens as well). Even with 500mm + 2x or 1,000mm, a small bird in a treetop is still very small in the frame. Plus, they tend to move around, so using tripod gets tricky. And fast framing becomes difficult- you see such a small angle of view it can be hard to FIND the bird with the lens.

 

An issue with that lens is that closest focusing distance is about 30', so even if you manage to get closer, it doesn't help. I think most of the more serious lenses focus much closer, though.

 

You'll find that people serious about this stuff spend a lot of time on getting closer- building blinds and suchlike.

 

Consider hanging a birdfeeder in your backyard. That will attract a few odd birds that you'd never notice otherwise, and hold them in one place easier for you to shoot.

 

Anyway, don't let me scare you off, but don't just assume that the right long lens will turn out scads of beautiful bird pictures all by itself. You'll get some easily enough, but there's a lot of work in it to get very many good shots.

I would agree with Mark that digital makes a lot of sense for bird photography. I have just purchased my last load of film. If you want to learn more try searching photonet and vist Art Morris' site birdsasart.com. A canon or sigma 500 4.5 is probably the best value way to a proper bird lens and Mark mentioned some other cheaper, shorter alternatives in his post. One option I have been considering is a 300 2.8 with a x2 converter. With shorter lens you ust need to work on getting closer by using a hide, finding tamer birds or setting up feeders in your back garden. I also have a couple of articles on my website - "<a href="http://www.jasonelsworth.co.nz/howto.html ">Jason Elsworth Photography</a>"

I am not familiar with that camera, but wanted to mention that when I first got into nature photography I used the Sigma 50-500 lens. I couldn't afford much more, and honestly didn't know if I would stick with photography long enough to warrant making a bigger investment (five years now and going strong). I ended up getting prime lenses after three years when I switched systems, from Nikon to Canon. I have always been glad for the versatility that the 50-500 gave me, especially that it got me 500mm for about $1,000.

 

I used this lens with film and digital. It was hard contemplating the switch to digital, but I was glad I did and haven't shot much for film since. The immediate feedback of digital really helps accelerate the learning curve, too.

 

Good luck!

>digital offers real benefits (crop factor<

 

Is this really a benefit? For example, my 400mm lens becomes, on my DSLR, about a 600mm lens. But since it's a cropped image (from what would appear on 35mm), is there a real gain? Film can be cropped, too, and the size of the subject - let's say a bird - is essentially going to be the same digitally and on film, isn't it? Or no?

Paul -- Rebel TI is fine for a start. Heather had some good comments on how she got started. Not knowing your budget, it is hard to make recommendations. Bob

<I>"...is there a real gain? Film can be cropped, too..."</I>

<P>

Depends on who you ask, what lens, and on what film and digital camera you are comparing. If you were to compare a Canon Digital Rebel XT at 400 ISO, to a Rebel T1 with 400 ISO film that has been *cropped* to 1.6x, the digital would probably be sharper and more detailed. Less difference would be noticed with very good 100 ISO film, but if cropped the same, the digital might still be better.

<P>

Usually these comparisons are done full frame film to 1.6x crop digital & surprisingly, digital SLRs make a very good showing for them selves. Crop sensor digitals do very well with long lenses.

<P>

Ultimate resolution is often not the major issue though, and with digital, most of us are willing to shoot a lot more frames to get the one we want. The cost of film & processing have a way of damping experimentation and slowing learning. I'm not a bird photographer, but I can sure see the advantage small frame, and even full frame, digtal offers.

<P>

A somewhat less expensive option might be a Panasonic FZ30. Fast f/2.8 aperture 35-420mm lens, with image stabilization, coupled with a decent 2x lens adapter makes for a good bird lens. This camera's AF is greatly improved over the older FZ20 which was used for quite a few bird pics. For less than $1000 with everthing included, and considering it's size & weight, it might be a half decent substitute for the traditional bird lens. Of course it does a few other things well too.

<P>

Back to your question, Paul, I think the Rebel T1 would be fine. Its AF is fairly fast & has the necessary features. But getting a decent long lens for it might not be so cheap. You can get low cost 300mm zoom lenses, but the image qualiy at the long end is not so good, their AF is generally slow and I would think 300mm will be limiting for birds. 400mm and longer lenses are either poor quality or very expensive. That FZ30 is sounding better all the time.

A high paying job is the biggest requirement for bird photography. lol! In all honesty, its probably the most cost prohibitive type of photography there is. You can try come creative techniques to get close and use shorter lenses but for the more wary species it can become an exercise in futility. Unfortunately there aren't many substitutes for 500mm lenses and teleconverters which = mega $$. Its amazing how the little critters seem to shrink in size when you look at the actual image. Its the reason I never got into it seriously.

Paul, take a look at the bird photo i took with a sigma 80-210 lens i payed $140. for, they are as good as can be gotten as cheap as can be done, the camera is a cannon digital rebel. it,s a set up i put bird seed outside my dinning room window and use props for the birds to perch on,i,am only about six feet away. other than doing local birds this way i would think you,ll need to spend some big buck.

Paul, you have already plenty advices including some very good ones. As they are coming from people with different goals some may and some may not be useful to you. Only you know precisely the reason(s) why you are interested in photographing birds - you did not share this info. If you want to take record shots almost any rig is good (except maybe Holga which is good for art only). If you are interested only in selected species then their size and behavior will or will not require longer lenses. They are some freaks chasing birds even with LF cameras. Some have interesting results but they are very patient and dedicated to study selective birds. From what you wrote I can only guess that you even did not start yet. As with any hobby or passion when it become more serious it will cost more money but you will enjoy spending them. Once you become serious my only advice is to buy the best you can afford. But advice is a very danger gift (costly in this case as well). Good luck.

Paul, Look for Douglas Herr's posts (and his site). He still uses manual focus lenses for bird photography (Leica gear). Yes, he captures them on film.

 

You also have some excellent advice from some very fine photographers (Mark C, Heather, Mark B,..).

The old time big game hunters had a saying "use enough gun" and I would apply that to your choice of lens - it is what I found out and to me is the only way to avoid constant frustration or just hoping for some serendipity.

 

( I hasten to add that I do not approve of big game hunting ! )

Someone above made a good point. If you don't mind giving up auto-focus, you can buy an older body and manual focus lens for substantially less money than a modern super telephoto for your canon. The optics on older Pentax, Nikons and Canon FDs are excellent. After all, autofocus was an unheard of luxury prior to the 90's.

"After all, autofocus was an unheard of luxury prior to the 90's."

 

 

And because of that majority of good photographs of small, fast flying birds or fast moving animals were taking by accident or luck. Few with countless trying and this approach was too costly for most film users anyway.

I only tried it once or twice, but another cool trick: We used to live in a house that had a deck along one end, and had a birdfeeder mounted on the handrail on the deck. I got one of those bulb-type cable releases (uses bulb and 30' long air hose, not cable), mounted the camera right next to the birdfeeder, and got inside the house. Sure enough, birds landed eventually and I took my shot. Seems like this was with a 24mm lens, no less. Anyway, there are some tricks you can use without the long lens. Check out your local zoo for another option.

"And because of that majority of good photographs of small, fast flying birds or fast moving animals were taking by accident or luck. Few with countless trying and this approach was too costly for most film users anyway"

 

No argument there, but it beats not shooting at all. Not everyone can front the several thousand dollars it costs for a Canon lens that is 400mm or longer. Like anything else, you start with what you can get and go from there. I use an old 400 mm on an Olympus OM-1 for action shots (surfing etc.) but granted I've not attmepted flying birds. I have my fair share of wasted shots but it is possible to become somwhat proficient given enough practice.

There are many approaches to bird photography, just as there are many approaches to people photography. The huge lens on an equally massive tripod is one very popular approach, and for many species particularly many of the small songbirds it's by far the most practical way to go. However with patience and familiarity with the species its possible to use much shorter lenses at closer distances without disturbing the birds; I've found that many species of birds are much more wary of the really big lenses like a 400mm f/2.8 and will be much easier to approach with a less-intimidating lens. My toy box has lenses as long as 800mm but I find myself using the 280mm or 400mm focal length (on a film camera) much more often than 560mm or 800mm. Examples at <A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/index.html">http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds</A>.

Doug nailed it. Talent, study, work and patience will beat a $5,000 lens every time. Bob

<I>Doug nailed it. Talent, study, work and patience will beat a $5,000 lens every time

</i><p>

 

Not every time, but that certainly helps. And talent, study, work, and patience AND a $5K

lens are an even better combination.

:)

Mark C summarized remark perfectly nothing to add.

<p>

I just came back home after all day in field. Here is an example randomly chosen from many frames taken just to show it now. Sorry but I could not be able to get this photo using anything below 500 or 600mm. It is not only focal length but also quality those lenses deliver. Shot was taken half hour AFTER sunset. ISO 800, 1/50sec (some other shots @ 1/30) f5.6. Canon 20D with 500mm f4 L IS plus 1.4X. Handheld, bracing elbows against my car?s roof. Full frame, no manipulation.

<p style="text-align:center"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3960446-lg.jpg" /></p>

 

Also here is one more example: <p>

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DnrS

<p>

Talk is cheap, I like examples.

... And one from me, also shot today out of the car window, and also not possible without a

long lens (500+2X in this case).

Hey guys there's no need to play the 'mine is bigger' game. The photos posted above certainly would not be possible given the stated working conditions without the huge lenses - but being without the huge lenses (and the requiste dinero to buy them) doesn't mean you're out of the game. There are often (not always) ways to arrange working conditions so that a shorter lens will work fine.

<P>

I've set up web pages that show what kind of photos I've made with 300mm, 400mm, and 560mm lenses (not all birds, sorry!). Different strokes for different folks, ya know.

<P>

<A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/300.html" target="_blank">300mm (including 250mm and 280mm)</A><BR>

<A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/400.html" target="_blank">400mm</A><BR>

<A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/560.html" target="_blank">560mm</A><BR>

Douglas, IMHO telling people that they can do anything with any lens is not only misleading but also taking away time from them. The sooner they get best lenses the better and less lost opportunities. Also you should tell them how much Leica lenses cost. Showing headshots of captive birds is also misleading, anybody can use macro lens and get not a head but a full frame eye. Same with birds and other animals around feeders in parks. We should help here beginners, not slowing them down. If you could get the same results with $70 dollars 50mm no sane person on earth would spend 5-7K for lens. How come every well known pro is using 500 or/and 600? Except maybe for few freaks who want to look original. Quality of expensive lenses can not be compare to cheap imitations. It will save time and a lot of disappointment. Well let everybody have different strokes, why should I care?