Whatbird.com

If you had $5000 to get outfitted (body, lenses, tripod, etc), what would you buy generally for wildlife and specifically for bird photography?

---

Twin Lakes Ranch
Central Texas

Thats a tough question. Some people prefer Canon, some Nikon. There are also other brands out there that are pretty good when it comes to DSLR. You are not going to be able to afford the top of the line for either Canon or Nikon with just $5000. That sounds ridiculus, but, Nikons D3 is around $4500 and the Canon is over $5000 easily. I had to choose between the Nikon D200 and the Canon 5D or the Canon 30D. It came down to what felt best in my hands, I went to a camera shop and ask to see the 3 cameras. I realized I couldn't afford the Canon 5D and the Nikon D200 felt better to me than the Canon 30D. Once I got the body with an 18-135mm lens, I knew I had to get a longer lens to get me farther out. I chose the 70-300mm VR lens and that was about $500. I spent about $2500 total and I am very happy with my selection. But, if you have the $5000 to spend, you might want to check into getting a 300mm f2.8 fixed lens if you go with Nikon. Thats a much faster and sharper lens than my 70-300mm VR lens, but, more expensive.

Here's a good site: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/

 

Thanks very much.  That's just the kind of real-word info. I'm looking for.  I find most of the review websites have some kind of axe to grind.  I've been a canon fan for a while, but I'm going to be open-minded about this deal.  I struggle with trading off mobility against pic. quality.  I'm using a Canon S3 IS with a 2.2 tele-extender, but the small ccd produces a lot of noise, especially in marginal light.  It also has no manual focus mode.  I've finally come to the decision that picture quality should determine the result.

---

Twin Lakes Ranch
Central Texas

Thank you.  I'll head over there and see what I can learn.

---

Twin Lakes Ranch
Central Texas

Personally I have both Sony & Olympus D-SLR's. I prefer the Sony but I purchased both cameras because they have shake reduction built into the camera itself rather then having to buy individual (and more expensive) shake reduction lenses . If you are not familiar with this feature, basically it compensates for our shaky hands enabling you to get sharp pictures at slower shutter speeds then you normally would be able to. I believe Pentax cameras also have this feature. Don't get me wrong, Canon & Nikon both make fantastic cameras & I would love to have one but with them you do have to buy the individual lenses to get the shake reduction. If you have naturally shaky hands like myself it's something you may wish to consider. Also, as far as lenses go there are very good lenses made by companies like Sigma & Tamron that can generally be purchased for quite a bit less money then lenses made by the camera manufacturers. If birding is what you are going to be mainly using it for I'd suggest getting as long a lens as possible. I always find myself wishing I had a longer lens to get close up views from a distance. For $5,000 you should be able to get a very good outfit though. Hope that helps.

 Greg

---

"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on --shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

George W. Bush

As I said, there are other brands out there that are very good. I can't comment on them because I have no knowledge of them. I shoot with a 70-300mm VR {vibration reduction} lens most of the time and I never use a tripod with it. I also have a Tokina 400mm f5.6 lens that does not have the vibration reduction and I have no problem with the picture being blurry even without a tri pod. The picture of the flycatcher I posted today was shot with the 400mm handheld and the bird was across the street from me. Now if I was shooting with the 300mm 2.8 lens which weighs a whole lot more then I would need a tripod. The good thing about digital is that if the picture is blurry for whatever reason, just hit the delete button and shoot again. But to each their own and this is just my opinion.

 

 Also look at www.dcresource.com. They have test shots at each ISO so one can compare the noise at different camera sensitivities. The shot across San Francisco Bay for each camera displays the noise and resolution very well. This was important for me because I also had a noisy nonSLR camera before purchasing a Canon XTi and 100-400mm L IS lens. This combination gave me the most for the money with the least amount of noise in early 2008 and has worked very well for me.

 

Also for your information www.dpreview.com is now owned by amazon.com.

 

amazon.com usually has the best price of any reputable web vendor.

 

You should come up with a very good system for $5000.

 

 

 

 

---

lap

That's an easy question for me.  I would buy the Canon 40D or 5D (if you want a full frame sensor) with the Canon 100-400mm F4-5.6 IS Lens, a Canon 1.4X teleconverter, a canon 580EXII Flash with a Better Beamer Fresnel Flash Lens.   I use an old Bogens Tripod because it is really heavy and stable but the Giottos Carbon Fiber tripods may be easier to lug around.    I almost never see photographers with the setup I suggested with a tripod.  The IS Lens stops camera shake up to three stops.   

The setup I would really love to have if I had and  extra 7K to spend would include the Canon 500mm F4 IS.  The sharpness is unbelievable for long distance bird shots.

Go to www.photosig.com and take a look at the shots taken with the 500mm lens.  I can tell just by the clarity and depth of field in most photos if it has been taken with the 500mm.  Photosig also has reviews on almost every camera and lens available. 

Thanks for your thoughts.  I have much to research now.

---

Twin Lakes Ranch
Central Texas

You have your work cut out for you. I really struggled between Canon and Nikon and trying to stay within the budget I set for the purchase. I am on a fixed income {retired}, so, the budget had to be met in my opinion. Once you get out there and see all the stuff that is available, its like a kid in a candy store. Some of my friends have the top of the line cameras and I can only envy them. But, whatever you purchase, I am sure you will be happy. I have taken my Nikon D200 out to the dusty field almost every day and beat the heck out of it and it still performs perfect. Could really use a cleaning, but, that means I would be without a camera for a few days and I can't have that. 

The 5D is actually below 2K now and you have to admit the Canon white lenses are really great looking.  I had to chose between the D200 and the Canon 20D.  Both camera's are really great so it really didn't matter either way to me.  My decision was became very easy when I got the 20D for free :-)   Right now the D300 and the 40D are close competitors in crop frame sensors.  The 5D has a full frame sensor so none of you picture information is cropped out.  the crop factor is explained here:

http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/crop-factor-explained/

IMPORTANT: If you buy your camera on the net, be very careful to use a reputable source. I've had good luck with both B&H and Ritz, and there are many other good ones. But there are a few very dishonest sellers on the net advertising too-good-to-be-true prices. They bait and switch, deliver lower quality merchandise without warranties or manuals. I was almost ready to purchase from one before I did some checking and discovered they were total crooks who had cheated hundreds of customers. Be careful!

Also 

If you decide to go with Nikon, the d80 for about 700 less might be a better buy. The D200 is sturdier, but I've used both and the picture quality is equal. For me, the d80 is easier to use. See comparison: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d80/vs-d200.htm

 

---

Chris from Denver

A Canon XTi or 40D with the best Canon low light lens (at least 600mm) you can purchase with the rest of the $5000. See www.dcresource.com for low light comparisons in their reviews.

---

lap

rdatkins:

That's an easy question for me.  I would buy the Canon 40D or 5D (if you want a full frame sensor) with the Canon 100-400mm F4-5.6 IS Lens, a Canon 1.4X teleconverter, a canon 580EXII Flash with a Better Beamer Fresnel Flash Lens.   I use an old Bogens Tripod because it is really heavy and stable but the Giottos Carbon Fiber tripods may be easier to lug around.    I almost never see photographers with the setup I suggested with a tripod.  The IS Lens stops camera shake up to three stops.   

The setup I would really love to have if I had and  extra 7K to spend would include the Canon 500mm F4 IS.  The sharpness is unbelievable for long distance bird shots.

Go to www.photosig.com and take a look at the shots taken with the 500mm lens.  I can tell just by the clarity and depth of field in most photos if it has been taken with the 500mm.  Photosig also has reviews on almost every camera and lens available. 

I can't argue with this statement above... BUT, you have your work cut out for you, as  I was there a few months ago...  It all comes down to what you want to shoot...  Wildlife, Portraits, Sports as these three will define pretty much what you'll need... Fast aperture and high ISO's, ie:3200 and which will handle noise better, particularly if your going to print photo's...

Good luck...

---

Did they get you to trade, your hero's for ghosts?