[Tweeters] Yes, it IS possible to buy a better birding camera

[Peggy Mundy]

Zooms vs Primes
One factor is cost.  Zoom lenses are almost always less expensive than long primes.  For example, I have a Nikon 200-500mm lens which currently sells for $1,060.  I have considered the AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR, it sells for $3,300.  The lens I would love to have is Nikon's AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR, but it sells for $11,200!!
Another factor is versatility.  Although it is nice to have maximum reach when birding, there are times where you really don't need it all.  I use my set up for birds and wildlife and yes, often I don't need all 500mm, so it is nice to have that versatility without having to change lenses--or pack extra lenses when traveling.
It really depends what your needs and priorities are.  There is no right or wrong choice.
Peggy MundyBothell, WA
peggy_busby at yahoo.com@scenebypeggy on Instagram 

    On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 09:05:48 a.m. PDT, Robert O'Brien <baro at pdx.edu> wrote:  
 
 Thanks to Jim for a very helpful birding camera review.  I'm still using an older Canon EOS 7D Mark II which is a very good camera, but maybe not "great"?I'd say its weak point is autofocus, especially when the subject is in a,say, a twiggy environment where the twigs confuse the AF system.I'm guessing from the review that this is less-of, or not, a problem?  This is always a major problem with bird photography.
But a more general question I've always had is why to buy a zoom lens for a 'birding' camera.  For a general purpose camera a zoom lens has the obvious advantages.  But for a bird camera, would not a 400mm lens, lacking lots of useless moving parts, be better.  Would you ever want to use the 100mm for a bird?  This would be when  you're too close to the bird?  That has always been a puzzler for me, why so many 'serious' birder photographers buy zoom lenses.Grateful for any and all answers to both questions.Bob OBrien  Portland

On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 7:39 AM <jimbetz at jimbetz.com> wrote:

Hello all,

   Several months ago I asked "what camera do you recommend?" and
several of you responded.  I found that I just wasn't able to
make a decision - even though I also consulted my nephew who
used to be a Nikon Tech Rep.  So I went dormant on the topic.
But the desire to get better pictures, especially of birds in
flight, was always there in the back of my mind.
   I have made a decision and will make a purchase very soon.

   There was something I did that was key to making that decision.
My nephew recommended I consider renting a camera and lens - or
two.  Since he was going to be here (lives in NYC) we used that
opportunity ... and rented both a Nikon D500 and a Canon EOS R7.
Both were with manufacturer zoom lenses in the 100-400 range.
At this point it is important that I remind you that I own a
Panasonic Lumix DZ-1000 ... which I still consider an excellent
"entry level camera".  It is a mirrorless "bridge camera" that
does not have interchangeable lenses but has a 25-400 zoom.

   Sooooo, the R7 with the 100-400 lens is a clear winner.  It has
an -amazing- auto focus system that really works.  Set up for
"Sports and Animals" it finds the bird and focuses on it and
follows it with razor sharp accuracy.  Even when the bird is
flying across in front of you.  All I have to do is to keep the
bird in the frame and hold the shutter down and the camera does
the rest.  In fact one of 'problems' I'm dealing with is that I
have far more images of BIF than I can use and have to select
the one I want to keep/use based upon the timing of the action
(wings up/down/folded/etc. or head up/left/right/etc.).
   Is every picture "perfect"?  Of course not.  But by far the
majority of them are "as good as this camera can do" ... which is
very good.  If you take the time to look up my eBird checklists
for the last 3 days you will find some examples of Great Blue
Herons, Bald Eagles, an Osprey, Oystercatchers, Harlequin Ducks,
Red-tailed Hawk, etc.  Many of them are BIF (birds in flight)
which was one of the primary things I was disappointed in
with the Lumix.  But the better sensor and better optics of
the R7 are a big plus.

   Yes, there are probably even better cameras out there that
will do an even better job.  But perhaps not so much if you
include my priorities?  I want (need?) handheld and ease of
carry (low weight).  It's my birding camera.  Yes, even
better pictures are available with a longer lens on a tripod
with a gimbal mount while shooting from a blind that you hide
out in for several hours ... but I'm not that kind of bird
photographer.

   Yes, this comes with a significant price tag compared to the
Lumix ... but having seen the results possible that was an
easy decision.  I will still keep and use my Lumix - for
stuff like landscapes and grab style portraits.  But the R7
will quickly become my 'only' birding camera.
                                                      - Jim

P.S. BTW, with the Canon 100-400 zoom this camera is about as
      good as 4x or 6x binoculars would be.  It's not the reach
      of our 8x      nor even close to our 12x ... but it still
      does a useful job of being a "spotting scope".  Plus if
      you like what you see you just have to push to capture.  *G*

_______________________________________________
Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters

_______________________________________________
Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20230521/ea54cf25/attachment.html>