Well, I did manage to offend a few folks with my posts, enough that I'll respond publicly. Sorry, not my intention, but given the nature of the medium, not really a surprise.

I'm not saying anyone in particular shouldn't be using a pro rig. Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my last message, and what I felt was not adequately covered in the previous messages, that there are less expensive options over a wide range of prices that will produce more than acceptable images _most_ of the time for many people. (And some of these things are more or less free, such as working on technique and composition, or as someone else mentioned, shooting in RAW to allow more post-processing.) My reason for chiming in is that, in my opinion, this message can be difficult to find when searching for camera info on the internet, where discussions are often dominated by pro-level photographers and may be misleading for someone just getting into photography. It also has the potential to scare off those who feel they can't afford to get started. In no way did I intend to suggest that a mid-priced camera will produce results as good as the best available, though if I switch equipment with Art Wolfe, I'll bet that he still gets better results than me.

My impression of the purpose of the conversation was to offer recommendations to those new to bird photography who may not be as interested in top-of-the-line image quality as they are in getting something between grab shots for ID purposes to something good for online display, though not good enough for the cover of National Geographic. Perhaps I was wrong, but based on that, I felt the mid-priced cameras and lenses weren't receiving adequate coverage.

Anyway, the Canon 7D ($1699 MSRP), along with Canon's 100-400mm zoom (~$1600 at B&H) and the 300mm f/4 (~$1260 at B&H) plus 1.4x teleconverter (~$300 at B$H) were mentioned, along with the Nikon equivalent. That's at least a $3200 investment, not counting CF cards and other accessories. You can get excellent results with that, but it still may be beyond the budget and needs of many. If that's you, I'd suggest taking a look at any of the Rebels or the 40D or 50D, all of which can be had for less than $1000, with some as low as $500. The Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 is a good lens for "only" $1200 at B&H. (I don't know Nikon or other brands so others will have to offer suggestions.) So you can get a rig for about $2000 that will enable you to get photos most of the time that are about 75-95%, depending on the situation (and that number is just based on my opinion) of the quality possible from pro equipment. A ~$500 point-and-shoot will get you photos a lower percentage of the time that will probably be of lower quality than the low-end DSLR. On the other hand, if you know you want to get the best image possible, by all means, spend as much as you can. For what it's worth, there were several winners and honorable mentions in the recent Audubon magazine contest (http://audubonmagazine.org/features1001/bigpicture.html) that were using Canon 30D-50Ds, though admittedly only two were using lenses costing <$2000.

So if you were offended, I'm sorry, but I wasn't pointing a finger at you or anyone else. I have no problem with anyone using a set-up that costs $20,000+, though I admit I'm still surprised by the proportion of people using that equipment. It's a bit like showing up for a recreational bike ride and over half the riders have Lance Armstrong's Tour de France bike. Anyway, maybe we're arguing two different issues, i.e., the expectations of the end product and the potential for increased demands on the equipment as the photographer develops (pun not intended).

John Puschock
Wedgwood, Seattle
g_g_allin at hotmail.com
http://www.zbirdtours.com & http://www.birdtreks.com

_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_3