Cameras

Kaz Horrocks · Status: Offline

Cameras

Steve Suttill · Status: Offline

Thanks for that, John. I think I'd better go back to living in the 20th Century where I belong

On the other hand, is there a camera which makes a nice cup of tea for when I do get lost?

Steve

JOHN TYMON · Status: Offline

Steve Suttill wrote:

I've just seen an ad for a Pentax camera which is waterproof, shockproof and has a BUILT-IN GPS SYSTEM. Only has a x5 zoom but this seems to me to be ideal for us birdwatchers who get lost on the moors

Steve

I think the gps on these cameras is only something that shows up in the data of the picture taken as to where the picture was taken,but of no use for direction finding,most of the more expensive compacts include gps now.My panasonic fz150 has it ,but it only turns up in the data after they have been loaded onto the computer and the exif data can then be read.

Steve Suttill · Status: Offline

I've just seen an ad for a Pentax camera which is waterproof, shockproof and has a BUILT-IN GPS SYSTEM. Only has a x5 zoom but this seems to me to be ideal for us birdwatchers who get lost on the moors

Steve

JOHN TYMON · Status: Offline

pete berry wrote:

Thanks Ian,took the words out of my mouth.I certainly was not getting at photography/photographers at all,just that I don't believe its a good way to start birding.I take a few pics myself,but I ALWAYS spend sufficient time grilling the bird,and trying to making sure of its correct id before I take any pics.On the odd occasion the bird flies off before I can id. it,and then I think maybe I should have got a record shot,but in birding this(anogram) happens,its all part of birding,no one can expect to get prolonged views of every bird they see,everybody who's been birding a while must have a "ones that got away"list.
ps John,apologies unreservedly accepted

Also it is a fact to be a good bird photographer,you need to put the time in birding first as without the instinct of what a bird is going to do,its not easy getting the best shots,and for me them formative 25 years using nowt but a notebook ,means I can almost predict what a birds going to do next,which gives a distinct advantage when taking the pics

pete berry · Status: Offline

Thanks Ian,took the words out of my mouth.I certainly was not getting at photography/photographers at all,just that I don't believe its a good way to start birding.I take a few pics myself,but I ALWAYS spend sufficient time grilling the bird,and trying to making sure of its correct id before I take any pics.On the odd occasion the bird flies off before I can id. it,and then I think maybe I should have got a record shot,but in birding this(anogram) happens,its all part of birding,no one can expect to get prolonged views of every bird they see,everybody who's been birding a while must have a "ones that got away"list.
ps John,apologies unreservedly accepted

JOHN TYMON · Status: Offline

Ian McKerchar wrote:

I think you've taken Pete's comments out of context a little there John. His post is in relation to Andews original post about using photography as a primary means of identifying birds, which as a new and inexperienced birder is indeed very flawed.

Photography is on the increase and I for one benefit from it enormously, not only thanks to the great images I receive of everyday or indeed rare and scarce birds but also via what can be learned from these images. However, using it as a primary means of identification when back at ones home is hardly satisfying I'd have thought. It is hugely flawed by the tricks images can play on a birds appearance or colour hues and many can be very misleading. Take a look at the mystery bird competition is anyone needs any proof! The joy of birds is surely in watching them with one's own eyes in appreciating their subtle differences and beauty. I like most birders take images but they're always secondary to filling my boots with an eyeful first. Some birds attempt to defy identification and indeed images can be almost essential in these cases but no birder will ever learn their craft by judging images alone. In most cases, careful field observation will glean the prerequisite identification features, but sometimes I worry we're getting lazy as it's so much easier to shoot a few images off first and refer to them instead of the bird infront of us. It's something I've witnessed many times at rarities etc.

The rest of it, including John's comments about the use of images for rarities committees would entail a very loing discussion I'm afraid which would detract from this initial thread but needless to say there are pros and cons to each side of that debate.

yer reet always forget the original thread-sorry pete

-- Edited by JOHN TYMON on Friday 5th of August 2011 03:00:22 PM

Ian McKerchar · Status: Offline

I think you've taken Pete's comments out of context a little there John. His post is in relation to Andews original post about using photography as a primary means of identifying birds, which as a new and inexperienced birder is indeed very flawed.

Photography is on the increase and I for one benefit from it enormously, not only thanks to the great images I receive of everyday or indeed rare and scarce birds but also via what can be learned from these images. However, using it as a primary means of identification when back at ones home is hardly satisfying I'd have thought. It is hugely flawed by the tricks images can play on a birds appearance or colour hues and many can be very misleading. Take a look at the mystery bird competition is anyone needs any proof! The joy of birds is surely in watching them with one's own eyes in appreciating their subtle differences and beauty. I like most birders take images but they're always secondary to filling my boots with an eyeful first. Some birds attempt to defy identification and indeed images can be almost essential in these cases but no birder will ever learn their craft by judging images alone. In most cases, careful field observation will glean the prerequisite identification features, but sometimes I worry we're getting lazy as it's so much easier to shoot a few images off first and refer to them instead of the bird infront of us. It's something I've witnessed many times at rarities etc.

The rest of it, including John's comments about the use of images for rarities committees would entail a very loing discussion I'm afraid which would detract from this initial thread but needless to say there are pros and cons to each side of that debate.

JOHN TYMON · Status: Offline

pete berry wrote:

I personally think you would be much better spending the money on a decent pair of secondhand bins,a notebook and a decent fieldguide,assuming you don't have any of these.Taking photos can never show how a bird behaves,moves around etc.Much better to spend time actually watching the birds,enjoying their behaviour,plumage,learn their calls/song so you can easily recognise the commoner birds.No photograph can ever help you learn most of these things.
Last autumn I found a couple of Black Redstarts up in Scotland,I instantly knew what they were before I even put my bins up,just by the way they were behaving and feeding,no photograph will ever convey this,much better to spend time actually watching what birds do.

This site galleries and articles would be much the poorer without the people who do photograph what they see.if none of us lugged cameras around with us many recent rare records would never have been excepted without photographic evidence,or rejected more so,as with many yellow legged gull records,which a photograph can definately help for the raraties commitee to make there mind up,as I know to my cost.
I am pretty sure most people on here would have bins and a fieldguide,but very few a notebook,its just not seen in the field as much these days.

-- Edited by JOHN TYMON on Thursday 4th of August 2011 04:28:32 AM

pete berry · Status: Offline

I personally think you would be much better spending the money on a decent pair of secondhand bins,a notebook and a decent fieldguide,assuming you don't have any of these.Taking photos can never show how a bird behaves,moves around etc.Much better to spend time actually watching the birds,enjoying their behaviour,plumage,learn their calls/song so you can easily recognise the commoner birds.No photograph can ever help you learn most of these things.
Last autumn I found a couple of Black Redstarts up in Scotland,I instantly knew what they were before I even put my bins up,just by the way they were behaving and feeding,no photograph will ever convey this,much better to spend time actually watching what birds do.

David Wilson · Status: Offline

I have had a Panasonic Lumix FZ38 bridge camera for nearly two years, amd my mate Paul Risley has had his FZ7 for about four years. We were really surprised by the quality and strength of these cameras, especially ar will fit in a coat pocket, and have the equivalant of 500 mm strength lens of a DSLR. The macro is superb and mine also takes HD video. It is 12 mp but you can reduce these slightly to get even more zoom. For around £250 i dont think there is a better buy around,especially as they have Leica lenses, unless you want to part with thousands of pounds. Some of our pictures can be found on Manchester birding gallery, Manchester wildlife, Moore nature reserve ane facebook moore nature reserve. Take a look and judge for yourself.

Tony Coatsworth · Status: Offline

Doh - I just sold my Canon 350d and a 75-300mm zoom on eBay for about £200

That was an ideal setup for hand-held shots and casual wildlife photography.

However I found 300mm wasn't quite enough, so I went for the 100-400mm and upgraded to the 60d (a 50th birthday present)

JOHN TYMON · Status: Offline

Adrian Dancy wrote:

I am considering getting a Panasonic Lumix fz45 to take out when I do not take out my DSLR equipment.

I have had the fz100 which is the top model,but after the dslr,they are so dissapointing.They are ok for record shots, useless for birds in flight as the screen goas black each time you take a shot.I have tried all the models canon/nikon/lumix/Fuji and each one used them for a day and got my money back.The noise above 100 iso is poor and anything above 400 unusable in the main.
That said for the birder ,rather than the photographer,they are the way to go to keep a record,the newer cameras sport an 800mm lens which you know would cost in the regeon of £10,000 for the dslr.
Also unless you got rid of all the dslr stuff you would end up like I was carrying both,as theres always the worry that a mega will drop at your feet and you only have the bridge camera.
Bridge cameras need really good light,are great for the birder who like to take a few landscapes,have a bash at macro and are happy with record shots of static birds.

I have been thinking the same way for 5 years,but still to find a bridge camera thats really usable for bird photographer,look on birdguides and compare the few fz45 shots with yours and you will see the difference is vast

Adrian Dancy · Status: Offline

I am considering getting a Panasonic Lumix fz45 to take out when I do not take out my DSLR equipment.

JOHN TYMON · Status: Offline

A good bridge camera would suit your needs,but any under about £250 are pretty useless-the lumix fz45/100 ,fuji hx10/hx20,or the canon sx30,they are the only ones worth looking at

Ian McKerchar · Status: Offline

Originally posted by Joe Wynn:

Hi Andy,
I started photography about 2 years ago, and started with a digiscope. This would be a very good buy if you already have a telescope, as the camera itself is fairly inexpensive, and the end result is quite good quality. However, if you want to get an SLR, it may just bee worth trying to get a more expensive canon or nikon model (or looking at them second hand, that'd be about £300 for an entry level one), as there are more options in terms of lenses. I don't know much about bridge cameras, but I have been told that they are quite good, someone else can prehaps help with information about them?
Hope this helps!
Joe

Andrew Smith · Status: Offline

Hi all. I'm fairly new to this lark (pun not intended) and as my poor mince pies frequently let me down, methinks I need a camera to capture my sightings so I can identify at my leisure.
I don't want to pitch in at the deep end and pay £500+ for a Canon or Olympus, I'd probably never use 25% of the capacity of those things so I've been looking at up to the £150 range.
Fujifilm Finepix S2750 or S2950, would seem to fit the bill, has anyone got any comments on either these or others in a similar price range? I wouldn't be averse to buying a decent second hand one either.
Thanks in advance for any assistance...