rwhillman

"The 1.6X crop factor is a help, but the frame rate and AF performance -- both very important for fast-moving sports and flying birds -- are not up to 1DII standards."

 

Mark -- Yes, but I was responding to John's comment on the 5D. As between the IDII and the 20D for bird work, I would take the IDII. But not the 5D. Bob

"Regardless, I think that unless you primarily shoot sports or birds in flight that the 5D is the obvious choice."

 

The 20D might be an even better choice for sports and birds because of the 1.6x crop factor, not to mention the price. Bob

I am sure that Paul got more than be bargained for when he opened this thread with a simple question about pursuing an interest in bird photography. There are many great comments and photos in this thread, but I hope that we have not left him with the impression that he should not bother if he is not willing to shell out $5,000+ for a lens alone. As Doug points out, there are many reasons to pursue bird photography. For some, the simple joy of the outdoor activity, an interest in learning more about birds, and the pleasure of getting a few good images (even though they may be less than perfect) are reasons enough. Bob

Kin -- Outstanding shot, and a good lesson here for Paul. Bob

Bob, I think you are overreacting. What I meant to say was simply that you need both skill and the right tools. Sometimes -- very often in bird photography -- the right tool is a big lens. Your analogy with golf missed the point: a cheap golf club and an expensive golf club are both golf clubs. A cheap paint brush and an expensive paint brush are both paint brushes. But a 200 mm or 300 mm lens is not a 600 mm lens, and in the re"al world the latter is a lot more expensive than the former."

 

Mark - if you look again at Paul's question there is very little encouragement in the responses he received. Doug has very ably demonstrated that you don't need the biggest and the most expensive lenses to pursue this hobby. Sure, the $5,000 lens helps, but there are other options and it would be nice if Paul have been given some more suggestions on how to pursue this within a reasonable budget. I am afraid the message he may be getting is don't bother if you don't have the big bucks, and I think that is dead wrong.

 

Bob

"Not every time, but that certainly helps. And talent, study, work, and patience AND a $5K lens are an even better combination."

 

A silly statement by someone who should know better. That is a little like saying don't play golf, fish, paint or whatever unless you can afford the expensive clubs, gear, or brushes. I suppose if you do spend $5,000 on a lens for bird photography (and I did) it helps calm you down if you keep saying that this is the only way you can take good pictures of birds. Ridiculous.

 

Bob

I have had less luck with expensive Canon brand 511s than $12 substitutes I have purchased through ebay. But I would also like to know if there is any real testing. Bob

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

Kathleen -- good that you could see through some pretty off the wall answers. Unlike some of the posters, I have a 20D and like it a lot. There is a rebate that expires soon, but if you can wait a few months it will only get cheaper.

 

Bob

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

"As Richard himself pointed out WB bracketing gains you nothing and I think it is disable in RAW mode. Even in JPG it is pretty useless. I don't know anyone who uses it."

 

Alistair -- I think that is what I said.

"The D200 sounds like a really nice camera. Why worry about anything other than that -- especially a meaningless label in some product description?"

 

Exactly!

Apart from much better build quality (durability, weather sealing, etc.) a pro camera like the D2X will offer features like 100% viewfinder accuracy and mirror lock up. Depending on your needs, these may or may not justify the price difference. The quality of the image depends much more on the photographer than the camera. Bob

"I like my Gitzo 1325 too, but I get the feeling it's a bit overkill for the Canon Rebel and Nikon 8700 that Jennifer states she is using. . ."

 

Steve -- I agree. On the other hand, several times I found myself trying to save a little on tripods only to wind up replacing them after a short period (a few years). She might want to look at 1200 series of CF tripods if the 1325 is too much.

 

Bob

Jennifer, I suggest pricing the Gitzo carbon fiber tripods to see if this would work with your budget. I use the 1325 and like it a great deal. I have learned the hard way that you can't really save money on a tripod. The limitations of the downscale tripods became apparent only after use, and sooner or later you probably will decide that this is the part of your system where quality of design and materials matter a great deal. The right tripod will last you a very long time. The wrong one will be replaced soon. Bob

"So will WB bracketing gain me anything when using raw mode?"

 

Probably not much, and certainly not worth the CF space it uses. If you want to bracket, I would go with exposure bracketing instead. Bob

"I have both. While the 400/5.6 is optically better, I wouldn't be happy with it if I didn't have other lenses to cover the 100-300 range."

 

For general use I would agree, but Avian is most interested in wildlife photography. For that, I think the 400/5.6 (possibly with a 1.4x converter) would be better. Bob

"So if that 2000+ shots per month camera failed at 13 months, that's only 26000 shots - yes, that would appear to be an inherent fault."

 

Alex -- I don't think you are going to get much protection under this law on a camera that fails after 26,000 shots (that is about 66 shots a day for more than a year). Bob

I switched from Nikon to the 20D and like it very much, but I had a very specific reason for doing it (wanted telephotos with IS). But for that reason, I would have stuck with Nikon. And with the D200 you will have backward compatability with some of your older lenses. Bob

"However, if something is only a few days or even months out of warranty, you should be still be OK."

 

Sean -- this makes sense. As a warranty lapse/transition protection it might work, but I doubt that it is going to do all the things that some people seem to assume it will do. Bob

As between the two lens you are looking at, I would give a slight edge to the 400 f5.6. It lacks IS, but will give you better results wide open and will also be better if you later add a 1.4 extender. Moreover, it is slightly less expensive. But it is a close call, and you will probably enjoy either lens. Bob

"I have some first hand knowledge of this, having taken a PC supplier to court over a PC that failed completely (motherboard actually blew up!) when it was just under a year old."

 

Sean -- Would you have the same success if the PC was four years old?

 

Bob

I doubt that the authorities are going to spend a lot of time helping a consumer with an expensive digital camera that broke down after 30,000 shots. Priorities.

"from my understanding it would be up to a court to decide if 2000 shots per month is a normal number to take."

 

Yes, but who goes to court over a digital camera?

"I really don't like the 'digital negative' analogy for raw files, it's really a forced fit."

 

Maybe, but it does express the idea that the raw file is something close to the orginal source, certainly with less programmed alteration than jpg. Like a print negative, the final product is very much a function of what the photographer does with the file.