Canon does have an equivalent lens -- the 300mm f/4 IS L, plus the
equivalent 1.4x teleconverter. The "IS" means it is image stabilized, which
is extremely useful, especially in the Pacific NW with our many low light
days. Nikon's equivalent of "IS" is "VR" -- vibration reduction.

For about $3k in the Canon world, you should be able to get an EOS 7D body +
300mm f/4 L IS + 1.4x TC.

In general, Nikon seems to currently be winning the image quality battle on
the crop (non full-frame) cameras. This is likely due, in large part, to
the fact that Nikon's cameras have less megapixels. I know many
photographer, pro and serious amateurs, who wish that Canon would follow
suit and focus more on image quality than cranking up the megapixels. As
the megapixels increase, the image quality decreases, especially as the ISO
goes up.

Another minor point to be aware of is that Nikon's crop cameras are 1.5x,
while Canon's are 1.6x. This means the Canon bodies have a bit more
reach/magnification, but the Nikon's likely have better image quality all
else being equal. The extra reach on the Canons (1.6x vs. 1.5x) will make
the bird appear 14% larger, all else equivalent.

I personally own Canon equipment, but am not sure what I would buy if I was
starting out today. I know people who own both, and prefer Nikon. I highly
recommend researching lenses first, and then once you decide which lens
appeals to you, figure out which body you are going to get. Your lens
should be top of the line for a while (unless it is an old model); the
camera body will be outdated in a few years, if not sooner. Once you commit
to a specific lens mount (Canon, Nikon, etc.), it can be expensive to
switch.

Like many birders, I own the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS lens. It is an
ok lens, given the price and lack of other IS options at 400mm, but I find
that it takes a long time to focus (with a 40D), and struggles tracking
birds in flight. It really struggles to produce sharp images at f/5.6, but
significantly improves at f/8. I find that when I use it, I usually have it
at 400mm 95% of the time. If you think you will use it at 400mm most of the
time, Dennis's setup of a 300mm + 1.4x may be better, as it would likely
result in sharper images and a lighter weight lens. Prime lenses (fixed
focal length) are almost always sharper than zoom lenses. For Canon lenses,
the weight difference between the 100-400mm and the 300mm is substantial,
especially if you plan to hike around with it for several hours.

As for the Canon 600mm, I've worked with four different individual lenses.
One was terrible (Canon agreed), the other two were ok, and one was/is
incredibly sharp. As a Canon tech rep told me, some individual lenses will
be sharper than others. I recommend keeping this in mind as you choose
where to buy yours lens -- you may want to make sure the vendor will be
willing to work with you if you get a bad copy of a lens. The Canon
100-400mm has a reputation as a lens with quality control issues (i.e., bad
individual lenses). I do not know what the scoop is for Nikon lenses.

Scott Carpenter
Portland, Oregon


On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Dennis Paulson
<dennispaulson at comcast.net>wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20100312/a675e18e/attachment.htm