49 replies to this topic

[JimBob]

Okay, it may seem weird that I want to get a new camera even though I got the Canon sx40 just a few months back. . . but, I'm planning ahead.

I would like to find a DSLR body for under $550. I don't care if it is Nikon or Canon. I have used both of them, and don't see that much of a difference. Melissa suggested the Canon t2i or something. Looked into it and looks good, but I wanted your opinions.

It seems like Canon is more popular with birders, but I would love it if some nikon users would give some info, cause I don't know much about them.

Thanks, JB

[JimBob]

Okay, thinking the Canon Rebel T3i might be better. . . thoughts?

[canon eos]

This gets into muddy waters as folks have some personal feelings about Nikon and Canon, and it often has little to do with the actual capabilities of one brand over the other. They both offer excellent cameras and lenses, they both have competitive pricing, from approximately $500 to approx $5000 (or more), they both have all the selection of lenses that you may ever want, need or can afford.

One thing that sets the two makes apart, particularly for bird photographers, is the one lens that Canon has, the 400L prime (non-zoom).
It's relatively light and portable and has no stabilization. You don't need IS/VR for especially BIF photography. And it's about $1300.

The Canon T3i offers no advantage over the T2i for a bird photographer. But get one while they're still available as the T4i has pushed the T2i out the door! (I'd buy a T2i used in a blink if mine died!).

[Joejr14]

As far as Nikon goes...

D5100 can be had used on Keh.com for under $500. The newer D3200 (24mp) can be had for around $600 used when you can find it.

Nikon also filed a patent on a new 300mm f/4 VR lens this year that will probably be released at Photokina in September. While it's not the 400mm f/5.6 that Canon shooters rave about, it becomes a 420mm f/5.6 with VR with a 1.4x TC on it. I have an older 300mm f/4 and it is a fantastically sharp lens even with a TC on it and it is totally hand-holdable.

[JimBob]

Thanks joe!

And does MP mean Mega-pixels?

[canon eos]

And does MP mean Mega-pixels?

Yes, Mp does refer to megapixels!

I would strongly suggest that for you, and so many more new in the field of photography, to get a good book or two on photographic principles.
Bird photography is a specialized area of photography, but/and the principles are the same whether with Canon or Nikon or auto-focus or camera settings.

I've been 'doing photography' for over 3 decades and I know there are so many things that are second-nature to me, but I am continually learning and evaluating, especially with bird photography. The more you can have 'stored away' in your memory the less you have to concern yourself with.
As an example, when I am in a field or trail and pursuing a bird I often look down at my shadow to see the direction* of the sun, and many times won't even bother shooting a bird that is not in 'good' light. (*I use the shadow rather than looking at or for the sun so as to not blind myself even for a second or so!).

So if you, or others, are serious about getting good at bird photography, treat yourself to a few good photo books!

[JimBob]

Will do. . . know any ones I should get/look at?

[Liam]

On the Nikon vs. Canon argument. I lean towards Canon all the way. Nikon doesn't sell the quality telephotos Canon has. Canon has two affordable 400mm lenses, but the only affordable 400mm Nikon sells is an old, slow 80-400mm. Another option would be an off-brand product like Sigma or Tamron, and my luck hasn't been so great with those. To put it into perspective, a Canon T3i body and a Canon 400mm lens, both new, would cost a total $1900, while a Nikon D5100 body with an 80-400mm lens would cost $2200. The lens+teleconverter combo Joe mentioned, plus a D5100 body would be $2400.

As for a guide to bird photography, I'd suggest Bill Majoros's online book: http://digitalbirdph...dows/cover.html

[Joejr14]

On the Nikon vs. Canon argument. I lean towards Canon all the way. Nikon doesn't sell the quality telephotos Canon has.

Bullcheet! They're both leaders in the optical glass department and neither really has an advantage on quality.

Canon has two affordable 400mm lenses, but the only affordable 400mm Nikon sells is an old, slow 80-400mm.

Agreed. The 80-400 isn't optimal for bird photography. Nikon also filed for a patent this year for a 300mm f/4 VR. I'm sure that will drive the price of the older 300mm f/4 down.

Another option would be an off-brand product like Sigma or Tamron, and my luck hasn't been so great with those. To put it into perspective, a Canon T3i body and a Canon 400mm lens, both new, would cost a total $1900, while a Nikon D5100 body with an 80-400mm lens would cost $2200. The lens+teleconverter combo Joe mentioned, plus a D5100 body would be $2400.

$2174.95 (D5100, 300mm f/4, and Kenko Pro 1.4x) v $1892 for the Canon. The difference, imo, is that you can't turn a 400mm f/5.6 into a 300mm f/4. And while that might sound stupid, there's plenty of times that 420mm was too much and plenty of times the stop of light made a big deal. Plus, with the $250 TC you're adding you can easily use that down the road on other lenses.

As for a guide to bird photography, I'd suggest Bill Majoros's online book: http://digitalbirdph...dows/cover.html

Agree. Also LOTS to read over on Birdphotographers.net.

[canon eos]

Will do. . . know any ones I should get/look at?

One of the highest rated books is by Scott Kelby, "The Digital Photography Book"............

http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/032147404X/181-2339406-8534537?SubscriptionId=02ZH6J1W0649DTNS6002

I use his books as a reference for Lightroom and find his writings understandable and comprehensive.

[JimBob]

I was looking into Sigmas and other off-brand brands, are they worth the money? Or should you just get the more expensive, Canon, or Nikon?

[Liam]

I was looking into Sigmas and other off-brand brands, are they worth the money? Or should you just get the more expensive, Canon, or Nikon?

In my experience, off-brand products like Sigma aren't reliable. Maybe I just got a crappy lens, but it seems to be consistent with other users. Overall, I noticed the quality of the expensive brand lenses are far better than those of the off-brand.

Just as a simple example. I had a friend who bought a Canon T2i and a Sigma 150-500mm. He ended up trading the Sigma 150-500mm for a Canon 100-400mm because he was tired of the fuzzy quality and noise. He says the switch was one of the best choices he made.

I use a Sigma AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG. It works decently, but the focus motor is crap now (even though I had it replaced twice). Autofocus doesn't work correctly and I use manual focus most of the time. A repair would cost up to $200, which is as much as I bought the lens for. My Nikkor 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5 has worked flawlessly for years.

[JimBob]

Okay, so I guess I'll save up for a 400mm Nikon or Canon, depending on which I get. Thanks for all the advice.

[Jenny81]

By the way, since I have a Canon camera, I love saying that when I bird I go around shooting birds with my Canon. It is one of my best puns.

[SPiercePhotography]

Lens wise, I just picked up a Nikkor 300mm f/4 and LOVE it. Would highly recommend! My opinion, for what it's worth! the sharpness on it is amazing, compared to my sigma 500mm that didnt' really focus all that well.

[JimBob]

I think lens wise I'm going to get a 400mm...

[SPiercePhotography]

I think lens wise I'm going to get a 400mm...

Aye, I wish I could have too. But the difference in price is just a bit too much for me! Hope whatever you get, works out for you!

The biggest thing i've learned is not to do an off brand. It just doesn't work as well sharpness wise at the nikon or canon lenses. No matter what tothers might say!

[JimBob]

Aye, I wish I could have too. But the difference in price is just a bit too much for me! Hope whatever you get, works out for you!

The biggest thing i've learned is not to do an off brand. It just doesn't work as well sharpness wise at the nikon or canon lenses. No matter what tothers might say!

Since I'm twelve, and I don't have a job, other then chores around the house. . . and my parents don't get me things that cost $1,200. . . I think it'll be harder for me.

And thanks again, Canon/Nikon it is!

[Doug Herr]

The biggest thing i've learned is not to do an off brand. It just doesn't work as well sharpness wise at the nikon or canon lenses. No matter what tothers might say!

Pretty much my experience too. And there are lenses better than Canon/Nikon too. (hint: they don't cost less)

[SPiercePhotography]

Since I'm twelve, and I don't have a job, other then chores around the house. . . and my parents don't get me things that cost $1,200. . . I think it'll be harder for me.

And thanks again, Canon/Nikon it is!

I know, but a 300mm Nikkor f/4 ( a bit older, but very sharp!) is only about $750. Add in some teleconverters to get yourself to a 500mm

And a Nikkor 400mm costs $7,000 . Huge price difference!

I've been trying to make do with a Sigma 170-500 before picking up the 300mm. I've never gotten a truly "sharp" image from it. Just trying to make sure you don't make the same mistake I do, and end up paying for it!