Budding Bird Photographer - ready to go DSLR, factors to consider?

[apragmaticoptimist]

I am an avid birdwatcher and love photographing my feathered friends, which can

be very challenging. I'm planning to purchase my first DSLR camera this year

prior to a trip to Costa Rica at the end of the year. I want to take my new

purchase with me to photograph wildlife in CR. So, the qualities I consider

important are:

 

1. Weight - I have back issues and don't want to lug more weight around than

necessary. This is a VERY important factor for me since I will be outside

looking for birds on very long walks.

2. Sharpness/resolution - I don't think this will matter much among the cameras

Iﾒm considering, but since I'm shooting often faraway subjects, I want to be

able to take pictures that are as sharp as possible so that I can crop and get

the best results. The 4/3rds system appeals to me since I can take a 200mm lens

and get effectively 400mm out of it.

3. Action shots - I like taking photos of birds doing things rather than just

sitting around. Behavior is a lot more interesting to me than still shots.

4. Autofocus speed is important since the bird may not hang around on the branch

waiting for my camera to focus.

5. I do like macro photography as well - when the birds aren't around, I tend to

focus on the tiny things around me like insects, reptiles, or flowers.

6. Ruggedness - If I'm going to be traipsing around jungles and be outdoors in

general, I need a camera body as well as lens options that can take the "heat"

or, more importantly, the humidity.

7. Image Stabilization - Given I'm shooting birds, this would seem to be very

important. Is in-body IS better?

8. Price - I'm willing to shell out a pretty good sum for this camera. I'd like

it to be one that I can use for many years to come. I want to get into a system

that I can grow with and not need to start over again in a couple of years.

However, I'm not a professional photographer, so I guess I don't need to go

crazy with this purchase.

 

I'm still a novice to serious photography, so I would love to hear if I'm

missing out on any important considerations in the list above.

 

So it seems the Pentax K200D (a bit weighty), the soon to be Olympus E-520, and

the Canon EOS Rebel Xti are likely candidates for me. However, I may be

shortchanging myself here... should I be stepping up to a more expensive,

serious camera? The weight factor led me to the Canon and Olympus choices. The

Pentax just seemed a good camera for the money since it had in-body IS, but it

is heavier.

 

I would appreciate any feedback/guidance to ensure I'm considering all of the

right qualities in a camera given my back problem and my intended subjects.

Many thanks.

[don_cooper]

I think you're starting backwards by making the camera body your first choice. My suggestion would be to consider the lens(s) you'll need and work the body into that. If you're going to be serious about bird photography you'll probably find that your current lens considerations just won't make it. 200mm with the crop factor would be at the very bottom of the list of what you'd need. Unfortunately the weight of the long lenses (500mm) is a lot but it's probably what you'll need for quality bird photos. You might try renting a long lens until you're sure as to what you really need.

[apragmaticoptimist]

Thanks, Don. Very good point on the lens consideration. So this makes me think that going Olympus is a good choice since (if I understand it correctly) the Four Thirds system would allow me to have a 300 mm focal length lens (so lighter weight than a 500mm) but would cover about the same angle of view as a 600 mm focal length lens for the 35 mm film standard. Does that seem logical or am I missing a critical point here? Thanks again for the quick response and advice on the lens factor.

[bruce_margolis]

Andrea, I am not familar with Olympus lenses but I can tell you generally, the good quality wildlife lenses are big, heavy, and very expensive, as in thousands of dollars. Also, they require very good support. Most wildlife/birding photogs use a tripod. That's more weight to lug around.

 

Since weight is a big concern to you, this will be about tradeoffs. I would suggest you review the lens offerings from Olympus and others to narrow your options. Then you can look at body options from the various vendors. The process of elimination make make an eventual selection easier.

[ShunCheung]

Andrea, serious bird photography means you'll eventually need those big and heavy lenses, such as a 500mm/f4 or better yet, a 600mm/f4. That means costly lenses and, unfortunately, doesn't go along with someone with back problems. In particular, in Costa Rica, you'll need fast lenses and perhaps plenty of flash.

 

If light weight is important to you, I would consider digi-scoping. You won't get the same type of quality as you would from a DSLR and traditional lenses, but it is a lot lighter.

 

If you don't have existing lenses and therefore can go with any brand, I would stick with the major players, namely Canon and Nikon. As far as I know Olympus' camera division is still losing money, and Hoya bought Pentax last year mainly for Pentax's other lines of business than their camera division.

[apragmaticoptimist]

To clarify my existing situation, the only modern lens I have is a Canon zoom

lens that I bought with my original Canon EOS Rebel 35 mm film camera. So I

really do not have a commitment to a brand with only one Canon lens. I'm

getting pretty serious about this hobby now. I seem to have a knack for it from

what I've been told. So that's why I want to be sure I buy into something that

will be a long-term investment. Good point about Olympus as far as company

stability goes. I will research that point and the lenses available with an

Olympus camera. Leica, Olympus and Sigma have compatible lenses in the market

for the Four Thirds system. Thanks!

[apragmaticoptimist]

Having a little trouble finding information on Olympus and their camera division as far as financial stability. I think it is a very valid point that I should research since I want to go down the right path while still giving lots of "weight" to the weight factor. (sorry, pun intended) Since Canon does have lighter weight bodies, this might make the most long-term sense.

[bruce_margolis]

Andrea, there is an Olympus forum here you might want to check out. I don't know that it's true Canon or Nikon or anyone has lighter weight bodies. But to be honest, the body weight can be minimal compared to everything else.

 

For example, I use a Nikon D300. When I add on my 300mm lens and teleconverter, the weight is about 8 lbs. What you are talking about is an even larger lens. Now throw in a very solid tripod, head, and Wimberly attachment along with perhaps a flash, and you are over 20 lbs. Like I said earlier, this can get to be very very heavy so you might want to consider some alternatives.

[richard_crowe4]

The 400mm f/5.6L is arguably one of the best, if not THE BEST, birds-in-flight lens. It is light enough to use hand held given decent lighting, although I prefer a monopod.

 

The shortcoming would be the slower f/5.6 aperture which might make its use difficult in heavy tree cover.

 

In addition to the crop factor of a camera, I would also consider the high ISO perfomance of any camera which I would select because, even with an f/2.8 aperture (and long lenses with that aperture are VERY heavy and expensive) you will probably need to shoot with higherISO in heavily shaded sreas.

[stemked]

Hi Andrea.

 

I just got back from Costa Rica-where are you going, I might be able to give you a couple of location pointers.

 

I went with 40 college kids (13 from our school, the rest from other Universities) . It was a tad tough to be a naturalist and avid birder but I did come back with get bird photos.

 

Because of the nature of our trip I found myself really haveing to consider weight issues. I did bring a tripod though; A Manfroto 190CX3 (a great tripod for the price) w/Markin's head w Arca Swiss quick release. Overall a great combo until it flew out of an overhead bin on the bus right onto one of the tour-directors head. (she was ok, I felt pretty bad)

 

As to equipment I brought a Pentax K10D. Two features that you might really look for that this camera offers, vibration reduction with ALL lenses you have (when you hand-hold the camera) and it is Water proof (not just water resistant-lens dependant).

 

My lens choice was very limited, again beacuse of the nature of our tour.

1) Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 Macro. Slow, I know. And short, I know. But all I could realistically bring with me. I would rather have brought along my Sigma 400mm f5.6 macro, but it wouldn't be pratical for this trip.

 

2) a 1.4X Tamron TC

 

3) 100mm f4 Pentax A macro. You are going to get lots of macro shots. Actually the Tamron is a pretty decent macro lens, but I'm very picky when it comes to macro images.

 

4) 20-35mm f4 Pentax FA for landscapes.

 

It has been noted that flash is not allowed in Monteverde. I'd probably bring one though, especially if you want to do a night walk in Santa Elena. There are lots of other parks in Costa Rica, frankly our better birding was in some of the other parks.

 

I used the tripod as much as was possible. However I did rely on the shake reduction on a boat and I was pretty impressed with the quality of the images considering the conditions.

 

Even limited in this way I came back with some truely fantastic shots. I got great images of Speckled Owl, Collard Redstart, three species of parrot (including Scarlot Macaw), Crested and Yellow headed Caracara, several wading bird species, several dove species, 5 Hummingbird species (saw several more), 3 kingfisher species , Emerald Toucannet, 2 Motmot species, 3 woodpecker species, Chestnut Antbird, Barred Antshrike,Long-Tailed Manakin (my favorite bird of the trip), too many flycatchers to note, Several Tanager species, and that's just a subset of the ones I actually got good shots of. There are many other images that are for Id purposes only (how excited can you get of birds on electrical wires?). All this with a very slow, 70-300 f5.8 +1.4X TC. I think my ISO was variably set from 400 to 1600 depending on the light conditions.

 

So even dragging along all those college kids I was able to add, in about a week to my life lists, ~70 new birds (105 total species seen), 10 reptile species (total 11 species seen), 9 mammals (10 total species seen), 6 amphibian species, a couple of species of fish (I didn't really bring the guide books for fish), and was positively amazed at the botinical diversity I was able to identify. If we hadn't been going with the students I suspect we could easily have added another 1/3 new species to each of those lists.

[stemked]

On books.

 

There are two great bird books to consider:

 

The Birds of Costa Rica: A Field Guide by Richard Garrigues and Robert Dean

 

and

 

A Guide to the Birds of Costa Rica Stiles and Skutch (

 

The Garrigues book has larger images and is a smaller book with less info although the colors were generally a bit too light and sometimes confusing.Map locations is on the same pages as the images

 

The Stiles book offers more accurate colors and a ton more locality info (almost essential when you have a lot of similar species) but is a very hefty book. If you have the time, and are so inclined I would almost recommend buying this book and (gulp) cutting it up, separating the plates so you can hike with them alone and then getting your final id back at the hotel. If you have enough serious birders you can distrubute the text and plates amungst hikers.

 

We carried both books, but then we didn't hike more than a mile or two.

[Landrum Kelly]

If the lighting is not so decent, you might consider the Canon EOS 300mm f/4.0. It costs (and weighs) a fraction of what the 300mm f/2.8 version costs (and weighs).

 

Used on a Canon cropped sensor camera, along with a 1.4 extender ("teleconverter"). it could give you 300mm x 1.6 x 1.4 = ? effective focal length. Of course, you are going to lose light as you increase the focal length, but these cameras are quite low noise at high ISO and so you might still be able to shoot with a very fast shutter.

 

This lens weighs about 2.6 pounds, I believe, and costs about the same as the 400 5.6, but is faster and has IMAGE STABILIZATION, which ought to be good for a couple of stops more. (The 400 5.6 does not have IS, which limits it as a hand-held lens, especially in low light.)

 

Birding lenses are typically much larger, but, used with a smaller sensor camera, this might be light enough to be manageable. You don't want to lug around a tripod if you have back problems, after all.

 

--Lannie

[john_smyte]

I didn't see anyone mention this, but the rain forest is called that for a

reason. It gets wet. So will your equipment if you're not careful. A weather

sealed camera and lenses would be a plus. It also gets chilly in the forest.

Also, most of birds are in the canopy (i.e. 30ft+ of the ground).<p/> I took one

of those canopy trips and in between cables, there's a platform to take photos.

Some of those tours have baskets that you can sit in. Try to go with a small

quiet group - if you have to go with a group. The noisy groups hoot and holler

and scare anything you may want to photograph away - or it flushes them out.<p/>

The forest can be think and lots of green; with no appearance of wildlife. There

were times where my cynical inner voice said, "Ecological diversity! All I see

is trees!" I saw more birds (like a Toucan) right outside the door of the cabin

we were in. The animals know that the humans will feed them left over fruit. The

monkeys kept their distance, but they were visible.<p/>Boating. I went on a sail

cruise (I was on the Pacific coast) and the dolphins will come right up to the

boat, off of the bow, and just swam along coming up for air - awesome sight. I

kept looking down and got sea sick. I had to spend that leg of the trip staring

out at the horizon so that I wouldn't vomit.<p/>Most of all have fun!

[joseph_smith3]

Hi Andrea, all of the birding photographers I know of shoot with either Canon or Nikon systems supported by monopods, tripods and gimbal heads. They ususlly take advantage of the crop or magnification factor offered by the camera's sensor that increases the effective focal length of their lenses as focal length and lens speed (wide f stops) are sought after if your budget and back can support it.

 

For lenses, I would recommend starting with a 300mm f 4.0, or a 400mm f 5.6 or a 500mm f 4.0 or a 600mm f 4.0. If your budget allows for it, get the lens with IS or VR. For a camera body, get one that produces good to above average images at high ISOs and that has an above average auto focus (AF ) system especially if you are going ot be doing any flight or motion bird photography. In the Nikon line, that means ideally a D 300. The less expensive bodies do not have the features you need. Since Nikon does not make a 400mm f 5.6 you buy the Nikon 300mm f 4.0 AFS lens and the Nikon 1.4x teleconverter. When it is added to the lens, it effectively becomes a 420mm f 5.6 lens.

 

Remember that the camera needs light for AF to work. That is why those more expensive and heavier f 4.0 and f 2.8 lenses are so sought after by bird photographers especially for use in the jungle or forests. And the wider f stops help "blur" or take away bad backgrounds and yield higher shutter speeds too.

 

Joe Smith

[apragmaticoptimist]

Thanks, Douglas, for the Pentax info and tips regarding Costa Rica (books, too- that's very helpful). The Pentax K20D looks interesting. I know getting birds in flight is going to take much practice, but on my last field trip I was getting better at it. If I have a good arrangement for carrying my equipment where I'm not putting uneven stress on my back, I think I will be generally ok. Thanks to all for the lens pointers and also the fact that the Canon cropped sensor with a teleconverter can provide excellent effective focal length. And thanks for the rainforest tips, too. The Pentax K20D is weather resistant. I think I saw a Canon that had a sealed battery and storage compartment, but not sure how weather resistant in general compared to the Pentax. I'll check into that. John, I'll try to avoid the seasickness part on boat trips and stick to having fun. :) I'm going to see about renting some equipment to get a feel for weight and my own limitations. Thanks everyone for all of the detailed advice!

[larry h.]

Douglas Stemke -- I have a couple of questions I would like to ask you about your trip to Costa Rica recently. I am considering leading a similar trip (but for high school upperclassmen) next April. Could you offer some advice, please? I will email you directly. Thanks, Larry

[stemked]

Larry,

 

Already sent.

 

Andrea,

 

If you are getting the K20D because it is weather resistant remember you'll need to get the weather resistant lenses as well if that is your intention. Most Pentax lenses are NOT waterproof. Personally I did use the K10D with non-water resistant lenses in full rain in CR; no problem, but I was pretty careful. (Mind you the Pentax Youtube ads actually show the Pentax rep washing the camera off in running water).

[greg s]

I have been to Costa Rica 4 times doing bird photography (last time used a 500mm f/4 + TC)... but now am older with an increasing back problem (serious). If I was to pick a low weight, tripod free, lens/body setup I'd be taking a very close look at Canon's 300mm f/4 IS prime + a 1.4x TC. I've used a Nikon 300mm + prime with good results in Australia on 2 trips, but the Aussie birds are a bit more tolerant. It can be done though. In Panama last year I did miss not having the 500mm, but there was no way I could have moved it around anyway. A stabilized lens gives you the chance to photograph smaller birds by walking/observing and getting lucky here and there with respect to distance. I've never been to impressed with the 70-400mm stabilized zoom pics I've seen, but a 300mm prime can deliver very sharp results.

 

As a side note, it can be useful to have a low weight tripod + cable release for very low light shots w/o flash. Have fun in Costa Rica! -g-

[apragmaticoptimist]

Greg S, thanks to you and Lannie for the feedback on the Canon's 300mm f/4. Joe

also mentioned a 300mm f/4. One B&H reviewer on the Canon lens said he was able

to shoot an osprey overhead as well as flowers and butterflies on the ground.

That seems pretty darn versatile. I have a very lightweight tripod, but might be

too "lightweight" in capabilities. I have a very nice Manfroto monopod, that I'm

very fond of. Thanks very much for the tips! Oh, from a weather resistant

standpoint, if one is careful, does a Canon EOS XSi or Canon 40D hold up ok in

Panama and Costa Rica (I'm planning to go to Panama the following year)? Seems

I read somewhere that the 40D does have some extra seals on the battery and

storage compartments. The 40D does have ISO 3200 as well, though I'm not sure

yet how critical that will be for me over the XSi given the XSi is lighter

weight (by slightly less than a pound, so not sure how big a deal that is either).

 

Sadly, I cannot find anywhere around me that rents camera equipment. So I won't

be able to seriously try before I buy unless I can find a local friend with

relevant equipment.

 

Thanks again folks. I love this forum.

[stemked]

One final Pentax note: the new Pentax smc P-DA* 300mm F4 ED(IF) SDM is "Weather and dust resistant, itﾒs the perfect lens for extreme weather conditions."

[apragmaticoptimist]

Thanks, Douglas. Intriguingly I had a Ritz camera employee tell me that their Nikon Rep said Pentax was laying lots of people off. So he was clearly trying to warn me about Pentax. He thinks they will be acquired down the road. Funny how a Nikon rep is saying stuff like that. I'm not ruling the Pentax out yet. I'm going to try to upload a couple of photos I took with my Olympus C740 Ultra Zoom. A fun little camera, but I've outgrown it.<div></div>

[stemked]

Pentax ws aquired by Hoya (of filter fame). Still they have released new bodies and lenses. I believe many of the distributors were laid off several months ago and it is always possible that Hoya may sell off the imaging segment of Pentax keeping the medical divisions themselves. All that said the new bodies have proven themselves viable and Pentax cameras have been moving up in sales, my understanding is that in SLRs Pentax is now in the number three slot, but don't quote me on that. The biggest problem now with Pentax is that because of the popularity of the new digital bodies it has gotten a lot more expensive to buy old glass, one of the reasons many people were attacted to Pentax in the first place. I read this as an insentive for Pentax and third party lens makers to make more lenses, not fewer, and both Pentax and 3rd party makers are responding to the demand.

 

The future is always hard to predict, but not being a business person, I don't see Pentax going away anytime soon. The future is always hard to predict. If you'd like to check out the K20D I would point you to the following youtube video:

 

 

Personally I think its a very impressive camera, just a tad outside my price range. It is an excellent piece of equipment for the serious nature photographer.

 

I cannot tell you for how many years I have heard people giving the epitaph of Pentax. However, the technology and inovations pumped into this camera hardly seem to represent last gasp of a dying camera maker. If the rumor mill is anything to bank on, there are even more exciting products right around the corner.

[douglas_greenberg]

My two cents' worth: I'm not paid by either company :), but if you are into

nature photography for the long haul I would stick to Canon and Nikon, as they

have the fullest complement of gear and compatible gear that nature

photographers use. The differences in size and weight being discussed are not

that significant when it comes to "real world situations."

 

I use Nikon myself, and one nice feature of (higher-end) Nikon bodies is that

you can use older, MF Nikon lenses and have full metering. It's amazing! If

one realizes that really, AF is a luxury, not a necessity (we all focused

manually for decades and thought little about it), you can get top-notch,

professional-quality glass older lenses for a veritable song. I use a couple of

superb older Nikkor superteles that I purchased for amazingly low prices.

 

But Canon is great, too :))).

 

I went to Costa Rica late last summer, and let me emphasize--EMPHASIZE--that the

ban on flash photography within the Monteverde preserve is all but irrelevant to

actual bird photography in that area. The Monteverde region was fabulous for

bird photos and yet I did not set foot inside the preserve with a camera. What

you need to do is to hire a GUIDE (I found my guy through the Monteverde Lodge

and Gardens) and let this person take you directly where the birds are OUTSIDE

of the preserve. You will be glad you did this! Also, there is still the

famous hummingbird garden just outside of the preserve, which is wonderful for

photography. This is not run by the preserve management and as far as I know

flash photography is still permitted. Go there!

 

As for equipment, I was VERY glad that I invested in a carbon-fiber lightweight

tripod. I bought one of those Benro Chinese Gitzo knock-offs that are very

cheap. It is fabulous. It used it in conjunction with a small Markins ballhead.

 

I brought a whole slew of lenses, but had I been concerned about traveling light

I would have either taken just my 80-400mm. VR zoom or my 300mm. f4 w/Kenko

Teleplus Pro 1.4x. Either one would have been adequate for getting a lot of

great bird photos. If you have a flash unit you can use for fill, that is

helpful, too. The truth is that some birds will just be too furtive, too much in

the shade, or too far away for good photos. You do what you can.

 

I brought along various pieces of rain protection gear, but rarely used it.

Truth is that when it started to rain I covered up the camera and took a break.

I guess I'm a wuss, but it worked out.

[greg s]

Hi Andrea, With respect to a camera 'holding up' to tropical conditions... I have 2 main recommendations, no matter what you bring.

 

(1) Keep a lightweight plastic bag in your hip pocket, as heavy rain can appear surprisingly fast

 

(2) Don't bring your camera/lens out from an air con'd room outside to the humidity, as water condensation will coat things. If you have to do that, then keep the camera/lens in a plastic bag til it can reach outside ambient temp. If possible, I will leave the equipment in the bathroom with the door closed so the bedroom's air con doesn't cool it off. That way at 6am when the bird's are getting started I can grab my stuff and head outside w/o needing to warm it up.

 

Also, after the trip mount the lens on a tripod in a room at home and make sure it gets fully dried out internally to avoid fungus problems later.

 

Cheers, -Greg-

[joseph_smith3]

Andrea, if you get a Nikon system, the best affordable long lens is the 500mm f 4.0 P lens. It is manual focus, but is chipped, or electronic. That is what the P signifies. It will meter with any current Nikon film or digital SLR body. You can usually purchase them on eBay in good condition for for about $2100 as opposed to $5000 for the AF version. It is also lighter than its AF and AFS cousins. Optically it is a fantastic lens. Like most long teles, it is designed to be shot wide open. Joe Smith