Hi Dennis and everyone,



There are definitely Canon equivalents to the setup that Dennis describes.? I also use (and I'm sure other 'big lens' guys out there like Paul Bannick and Gregg Thompson use as well) Canon's 1.4X teleconverter in conjunction with even the larger lenses most of the time.? Canon makes a 2.0X teleconverter, but most folks I know who have used it say that it does not yield nearly as good results as the 1.4X.? Except for digiscoping, which I have rarely used and had less-than-adequate results with - but which other folks on the list have used with extremely impressive results - here is my best attempt at summarizing the options and tradeoffs available out there for bird photography.



Bird photography is highly rewarding, but has unique challenges.? The subjects are often small, quite distant, very active, in low light ( or jumbled light) and visible for very short amounts of time.? And, for action shots, they're flying - sometimes at very high speeds - to boot.? This is the exact antithesis of studio photography, where most or all of these variables can be highly controlled.? The type, amount and quality of gear you buy, then, is a tradeoff between your pocketbook and interest in increasing the odds of getting a usable shot.? The best gear (but ONLY IF you learn how to take advantage of its capabilities) significantly increases the probability of getting a great shot because the lens magnification is higher, the lens is faster and will shoot in lower light, the lens is sharper, and the camera captures a large enough data file (I assume virtually no one is still seriously trying to use film in this digital age, for better or worse) that significant cropping can be done whi le still leaving sufficient data to get a great image.? Each step up in lens size and quality, camera size and quality, tripod size and quality, etc. increases the odds of getting a good shot at the expense of staggering amounts of money (at the top end), weight that you have to lug around, and the investment of time to really understand and efficiently use the additional capabilities of the gear.? My Lumix camera (which Michael Hobbs and others have used for some time with great results) can be thrown around my neck along with the binocs and used basically as a point and shoot.? But unless the subject is close and in good light, few of the images turn out nearly as well as when I lug the big gear around.? So, at the risk of oversimplifying things, pick your poison based on your goals and your wallet.?



Here is one specific example of the tradeoff in gear.? Perhaps the most satisfying shots I've ever gotten are in-flight shots of birds, particularly raptors.? When the subject is flying, you can take all the other factors about birds that make them difficult subjects to photograph and put a multiplier on top of that.? I haven't yet gotten a good in-flight shot with the Lumix (not saying it can't be done, perhaps it can) because it just doesn't have those capabilities.? With my high-end gear, these are the factors that allow at least the opportunity for a good in-flight shot (in addition to the factors already mentioned).? First, the lens/camera really needs to have an excellent autofocus capability while the lens and camera are moving to try to follow the bird.? (Otherwise, you have to focus at a distance that you think/hope the bird is flying at, shoot like crazy - if you can keep the bird in the image field - and hope like heck something came out.)? And, the lens needs ideally to have image stabilization capabilities while you are purposely moving the camera - most image stabilization systems are designed to work when the camera is on a tripod or being held still.? It is also a huge help to have multiple frame shooting capability (press the shutter release and the camera shoots three, four, eight or whatever number of virtually-instantaneous shots while you are hopefully keeping the subject in the image field).? This capability, coupled with autofocus and image stability while moving, is an expensive combination of features.? Now, even if you have all these capabilities to one degree or another, are you physically capable of lifting the big lens and camera, finding the flying bird in the small image field, locking autofocus on and depressing the shutter release - are you smooth enough to keep the flying bird where you want it while this is all going on?? And, of course, the bird is only in good range for perhaps a few seconds...you see the issue.? The logical answer is a tripod on which you can let the tripod hold the weight and you focus on the bird.? But...even normal tripod ball heads don't have sufficient range of motion, or smoothness, to reliably accomplish all this in the difficult situation you're dealing with.? So...enter the "gimbal" tripod head.? Basically, this is a specially-designed type of head (Wimberley is the typical manufacturer used) that allows simultaneous vertical and horizontal adjustment of the camera in a very smooth manner while you're trying to catch a Peregrine flying at 70 mph into a flock of Dunlin).? Once you use one, it's hard to bring yourself to try to pull this off in any other way.? The problem is that gimbal heads are precision pieces of gear and must be able to support a very heavy lens and camera or the image will be ruined for other 'normal' photographic reasons - and so a good gimbal head may cost $800 just for the head.? And, you can't put it on a cheap tripod, or the tripod's limitations will cancel out the gimbal head's capabilities, so add another $300 to $400 (or more) to get an adequate tripod .? You see where the financial issues add up ...



Why I mostly use the Lumix these days is that I found that carrying all the high-end camera gear was not only difficult physically, but really took a lot of attention away from the actual birding.? For me anyway, to some degree bird photography is a quite different activity than?normal birding. ? Nowadays, I'll take?the pro gear ?out if I have a particular bird I want to shoot, but if I'm just going birding, I'll take the Lumix (or no camera at all) and my sketching or field painting gear.?



For those interested in pursuing bird photography more seriously, my best advice is to do?TONS of research on the activity and the dizzying array of gear out there, talk to as many bird photographers as you can find , decide what your goal for photography really is, balance that against your budget and your willingness to put in the time to really learn the gear - and go from there.?



I hope this is of some interest to folks - my original post got several off-list comments and questions, so hopefully this will be useful to some readers of the list.



John Tubbs

Snoqualmie, WA

johntubbs at comcast.net

www.tubbsphoto.com




----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Paulson" <dennispaulson at comcast.net>
To: "TWEETERS" <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 9:55:27 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: [Tweeters] camera gear

Hello, tweets.

The posts by John Tubbs and others (even if by mistake) are of interest, especially the stark contrast between a point-and-shoot camera like the Panasonic Lumix and many others with shockingly large zoom ratios (up to about 25x now) that are usually <$1000 and a very high-end mind-numbingly expensive Canon (or Nikon) setup.

Several of us in the local birding community are using gear that costs *only* about three thousand dollars - Nikon D300 camera (now D300s) with Nikon 300 mm f4 lens + 1.4x teleconverter (TC-14E II). This gives you a 420 mm lens, and with the 1.5x multiplication factor because the sensor is smaller than a 35 mm slide, gives you the equivalent of a 630 mm lens on a film camera. This is a very sharp camera and lens combination, and the telecoverter works beautifully with the lens. The D300 is forgiving in low light situations, as you can set a pretty high ISO (up to 3200) and still get sharp photos. No, they won't be the quality of the equipment that John mentioned, but they're pretty darned good. I'm sure there is a Canon equivalent.

Dennis
-----
Dennis Paulson
1724 NE 98 St.
Seattle, WA 98115
206-528-1382
dennispaulson at comcast.net



_______________________________________________
Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters