How technolgy is changing Bird Photography

[Andreas Jonsson]

I originally posted this comment on Michael's blog, but I'd like to share this with the forum here as well:

"How about using a camera with a greater crop factor than what you get with standard SLR? E.g. with the new Panasonic G1, with a 2x crop factor, you could get away with using a 300mm lens to get the same reach as with that 200-500mm mm lens of yours. Just an idea".

Have anybody given this any thought? I'm not at all an exert on the subject. I don't even own an SLR at the moment. I do all my bird documentation photography with a superzoom compact, but I'd be interested to upgrade to something better. However, price, weight and bulkiness has always prevented me from going the SLR route (I carry binos and a spotting scope as well). I'm think that this new Four Thirds System is a way forward. What do you think?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcg1/

[Kin Lau]

The G1 is nice, but you can actually get much cheaper than that. 4/3rd bodies were on clearance @ Henry's for $150- for a Olympus E-310, then another $300- for a 70-300 and that's the lightest and cheapest 600mm equiv available. You would likely get faster AF with the regular 4/3 body instead of the micro 4/3 body.

But keep in mind that a 500mm on a 1.6x crop body is actually 800mm equiv.

ps the Panasonic G1 is a "Micro 4/3" body and choice of lenses is more limited at this time.

[ichiro17]

Sorry if it sounds a bit negative, but this whole crop factor thing is very meaningless unless you are comparing on the same pixel level.

For example, I have a 30D and a 5D Mark II, the 30 is a 1.6x crop factor and the 5DII a full frame.  However, the 30D is 8MP and the 5DII is 21MP.  The number of pixels that hits my target if I put the same 500mm lens on both camera is exactly the same.  The pixels at both 8 microns which means I gain no extra resolution, however, I get the extra viewfinder range with the 5DII, and I like that

Just make sure you don't fall in the same trap as everyone else.  You aren't getting 800mm reach, you are getting 800mm field of view on a 500mm lens, which means you are more or less losing out.  However, if my 30D was 16MP, then I would get double the pixels on my subject, increased resolution, and potentially a better, larger file.

Lesson:  compare pixel sizes in the sensor, not crop factors if you want to make an educated decision.

[Kin Lau]

@ichiro17. With the current state of DSLR's, that's a given.  Any current body has _enough_

800mm equiv means equal to FOV of a 800mm lens on 35mm film.

There's really no such thing as "800mm reach". 800mm on 4x5 or 8x10 film isn't very much...it's only on a 35mm crop factor that it means anything.

[ichiro17]

Yes, 800mm on different formats is a completely different ball game.  But we are talking dSLR and 35mm crops.  All I'm saying is that because its 35mm lenses, take a look at the size of the pixels and how many pixes you can get on your subject vs. what the crop factor is.  If I were to crop the 5DII's files to 8MP, it would look identical to the 30D's file.  No difference other than a better camera.

[Kin Lau]

That's well understood. You're forgetting that 4/3 lenses are not 35mm... we _are_ talking about different formats.

As for better or worse, it's comes down to what you're using it for.

A couple of good reasons to use a crop camera _for_birding_ is the faster FPS and larger area covered by the AF points.

For the extra $2000- difference btwn a 30D and 5Dm2 body, if birding is the main application, better/longer glass offer greater returns. For the extra $2k, you could also get a 40D + 400/5.6L, a very good flight combo.

[Andreas Jonsson]

Ichiro17, from my point of view, coming from using a super-zoom camera, my requirements for optical performance is obviously much less than yours.  I use my camera for documentation, not for making optimal photographs.

I'm simply not interested in investing thousands of dollars to buy a nice 400mm+ lens required for decent bird photography with a regular Canon/Nikon DSLR.

I'm sure you are right in your comments, I simply wanted to say that it seems to me that with the 4/3 cameras there is now an affordable way to step up from a super-zoom camera to an DSLR setup suitable for bird photography.

Wouldn't you agree that a 4/3 camera with a cheap 300mm lens (giving 600mm "reach") would be a nice upgrade for a super-zoom user like myself? Sure, Canon 40D or whatever, with a 400mm+ lens would be better but also much more expensive, too expensive for me.

[accwai]

Ichiro17, from my point of view, coming from using a super-zoom camera, my requirements for optical performance is obviously much less than yours.  I use my camera for documentation, not for making optimal photographs.  [...]  Wouldn't you agree that a 4/3 camera with a cheap 300mm lens (giving 600mm "reach") would be a nice upgrade for a super-zoom user like myself? [...]

If you already own a decent scope, perhaps digiscoping would be the less expensive way--you don't even need an SLR to get massive reach...

Andy

[Andreas Jonsson]

Yes, thanks. I'd tried digiscoping a bit. But it is a little to complicated for my liking, and quality is only OK, although you get massive reach. And my scope isn't of great quality either.

[ichiro17]

That's well understood. You're forgetting that 4/3 lenses are not 35mm... we _are_ talking about different formats.

As for better or worse, it's comes down to what you're using it for.

A couple of good reasons to use a crop camera _for_birding_ is the faster FPS and larger area covered by the AF points.

For the extra $2000- difference btwn a 30D and 5Dm2 body, if birding is the main application, better/longer glass offer greater returns. For the extra $2k, you could also get a 40D + 400/5.6L, a very good flight combo.

I'm not sure the size of the 4/3rds sensor, but if the mount and the the focal length are listed in 35mm equivalent, the 4/3rds still relies on the number of pixels you are getting on the subject.

Never used the 40D, but I can guarantee that I'd rather have my 5D instead given the same lens.  However, I'm not a fan of the 400 5.6 because its just too slow and impossible to use with a teleconverter.  I find 400mm is not enough.  Just my opinion though.  In the end, its a subjective and financial decision and that will never change.

[Mathew Rossi]

Never used the 40D, but I can guarantee that I'd rather have my 5D instead given the same lens.  

ichiro17, I'm wondering why you'd say this. [Edit, duh, I re-read the above posts and you're talking 5D MKII, so I suppose that's a bit different than the original 5D]...

As for the 5D MK I, personally I prefer birding with a 30D over my 5D for the reasons Kin stated (faster FPS and AF not spread out across a larger sensor). I say this in reference to birds off in a distance or in flight, if I were able to fill a frame on my 5D with a bird then sure I'd rather use that. Don't get me wrong, I love my 5D but I generally don't prefer it for birds, and that's compared to a 30D, not even a 40D or 50D.

I've tried both under similar conditions (ie. shooting the same birds at the same distance under the same conditions with the same lens) and frankly I'd rather crop the 30D's image than a smaller image of bird from a much bigger shot that I'd get with the 5D.

I know there's a lot of debate over crops not really giving you more reach than a full-frame, and I agree, but I still found the end result (cropped images) to be nearly the same from either, but I find the weight and performance of the 30D to be better for me in the field. Besides the fact that I don't mind doing a little bushwhacking with the 30D on the end of my tripid over my shoulder, saving the 5D for more pristine (is architecutre, macro, studio) shooting conditions.

To each their own but I do think that from a distance, crop factor bodies are more useful for birds.

[ichiro17]

Never used the 40D, but I can guarantee that I'd rather have my 5D instead given the same lens.  

ichiro17, I'm wondering why you'd say this. [Edit, duh, I re-read the above posts and you're talking 5D MKII, so I suppose that's a bit different than the original 5D]...

As for the 5D MK I, personally I prefer birding with a 30D over my 5D for the reasons Kin stated (faster FPS and AF not spread out across a larger sensor). I say this in reference to birds off in a distance or in flight, if I were able to fill a frame on my 5D with a bird then sure I'd rather use that. Don't get me wrong, I love my 5D but I generally don't prefer it for birds, and that's compared to a 30D, not even a 40D or 50D.

I've tried both under similar conditions (ie. shooting the same birds at the same distance under the same conditions with the same lens) and frankly I'd rather crop the 30D's image than a smaller image of bird from a much bigger shot that I'd get with the 5D.

I know there's a lot of debate over crops not really giving you more reach than a full-frame, and I agree, but I still found the end result (cropped images) to be nearly the same from either, but I find the weight and performance of the 30D to be better for me in the field. Besides the fact that I don't mind doing a little bushwhacking with the 30D on the end of my tripid over my shoulder, saving the 5D for more pristine (is architecutre, macro, studio) shooting conditions.

To each their own but I do think that from a distance, crop factor bodies are more useful for birds.

the 5DII is what I might.  And I believe that if you need to have those autofocus points all over the place, you will need to refine your tracking skills anyways.  Plus, the 5DII's autofocus performance is better than the 30D's in all aspects, including servo, and probably better than the 40 and 50Ds but I have no proof other than online forums and the sharpness of my own work with the 5DII, since I don't own any of the others.  The much better ISO performance (one of the best, no doubt) means I can shoot 1600 ISO and have shots that look like 400 ISO on the 50D.  Plus, the bigger viewfiinder gives you more of an ability to track if the birds are moving quickly.  I don't find the difference from 4 to 5 fps to be a big deal.

[Kin Lau]

That's well understood. You're forgetting that 4/3 lenses are not 35mm... we _are_ talking about different formats.
.

I'm not sure the size of the 4/3rds sensor, but if the mount and the the focal length are listed in 35mm equivalent, the 4/3rds still relies on the number of pixels you are getting on the subject.

On any current dslr, that's about 6-8 mp's, plenty for birding. Except that a 300mm (physical not equiv) lens that with 4/3rds coverage is considerably smaller and lighter than the 400mm that you'd need if shooting a 1.6x crop or the 600mm that you'd need for the same FOV if shooting a full-frame.

Again, the discussion is not about serious bird photography, but _birders_ who want good photos. Weight, price and ease of use are now factors that come _first_, not secondary.

I do get the "quality" argument and I'm willing to put up with the weight and cost. But for "birders", you simply have to recognize that the priorities are different.

[ichiro17]

Yup, I get that

Different purpose, different medium for results