How-to sites for bird photography with eos 20-d

[rwolfert]

I have a Canon 20-D and will be purchasing a Canon 100-400 IS zoom lens for bird photography. Are there any sites that provide information on camera settings for this? The camera offers a wealth of options and I understand that the 'techniques' will be significantly different than my landscape and scenic photography.

Any help would be appreciated.


Thanks,
Rich

[Biko]

Dunno aboput sites but here are a few tips using my 20D and 100 - 400:

Unless you live in a sunny country poor light is usually an issue, At the moment being in UK and finding light poor at this time of year. If I am in one spot and light is constant the I choose M and look for a speed of about 200 (or higher if possible) and aperture is set at widest 5.6 (always at 400 for birds and still want more reach) ISO is set accordingly I wish for 400 but find 800 and sometimes 1600 being used. M is good because you can set the camera to what you want regarding light, if bird is on branches and shooting skywards, or a white duck on a lake you can adjust setting.

If I am walking about I set camera on TV and speed 200 (again higher if possible). The speeds I have given are not the best and reliant on bird being fairly still, I prefer to shoot higher say 400. IS is always on as I rarely get a speed where it would not be useful. I like to shoot at 6.3 or higher as images are slightly sharper but conditions don't always allow - its been a grey day here today!

Focus is A1 Servo and centre spot.

I shoot RAW but will change to JPEG if I need more speed.

I have a Tcon 1.4 for more reach but problem is the aperture is at F8.

[nwyman]

I use an XT - but I agree with the previous post about using M - I was amazed at how much better my shots turned out with that.

Also - I usually shoot at about 380mm rather than the full 400.

FWIW

[Airedale1]

Welcome to the forum. Lots can be learned right here. That being said I would suggest that you get yourself a copy of, "The Art of bird Photography" by Arthur Morris. It is a great book and one that I find myself re-reading quite often.

Also, check out the threads on here regarding the lens you now favor, v.s. the 400 f/5.6L Some of us here favor that lens over the zoom. The rational for me being that the prime is slightly sharper out at 400mm which is where I shoot at 99% of the time.

[rwolfert]

Good suggestions here about using the 'M' setting. I understand the concept.
1-With regard to the 400 prime; I don't think it's an IS lens. The zoom is.
2-Nearly 30 years ago, I was a beginner birder when Art Morris started walking the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge with me. Needless to say, he passed my capabilities in birding within a year. I will be attending a workshop he's giving in Queens, NY this summer. The tables have turned, so to speak, and I can take advantage of his very broad knowledge and experience now.

Still want to know as much as I can beforehand, though.

Rich
rwolfert@comcast.net

[canonloader]

Like Paul says, a lot of us like the 400L prime. It seems to be somewhat sharper than the zoom, and works on almost all bird situations where they are over 12 feet away, except Eagles. If they are at 12 feet, you won't get him all in the frame. :D

But seriously, if your in or near NYC, try and rent one of each to test before you buy. While a lot of guys here have good zooms, there are a number of them that just aren't sharp, no matter what. Needless to say, this can be a super bummer if you get a bad one.

[Keith R]

Like Paul says, a lot of us like the 400L prime. It seems to be somewhat sharper than the zoom

...and some of us don't - I haven't seen a single picture which proves the supposed sharpness advantage.

Not one.

[canonloader]

...and some of us don't - I haven't seen a single picture which proves the supposed sharpness advantage.

Not one.
And I have seen many that do.

Many, many. And produced some too.

[GyRob]

...and some of us don't - I haven't seen a single picture which proves the supposed sharpness advantage.

Not one.
The problem seems to be the QC of the 100/400 zoom iv seen some lousy unsharp shots with this len's yet they are in focuse just soft -THEN iv seen shots that match My 400f5.6L and make me want the zoom, but i just wont risk it so most of my lenses are prime's the QC just seem's better Canon Need a kick up the pant's imo.
Rob.

[Alex Paul]

Now boys...... This is an argument that has been going on since the first zoom came on the market..... Some like em some don't :D Me... I like em all as long as they have a red stripe and are good copies.... I have a good copy of the 100-400 and love it,,, The main advantage in my eyes with the 400 prime is it focuses a little faster and so for faster birds in flight it makes life easier.... Now as far as shooting manual all the time..... Um.... I disagree. The camera has good technology. Use some of it... Conditions in lighting, backgrounds, and subjects are always changing where I shoot and so constantly fiddling, (for most of us mortals) blows way to many shots..... Use AV or P with ISO setting up the range of auto adjusting for higher shutter speeds, and exposure, fine tuning for contrast with EC wheel.... I shoot all day long and only spin the EC wheel to accomplish every shot, with one exception, I change between ISO 800 in moderate light and ISO 400 in good.. If I need 1600 I go golfing.. It is pretty easy to know which will be needed before getting to the shooting part. Take care......

[scb]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

[canonloader]

Good one Simon. I had that bookmarked and forgot about it. :)

[Alex Paul]

Oooooo you got me there :D :D I wonder why my 100-400 produces such sharp images?? Ohhh I know.....It must be defective ;) ;)

[Keith R]

Oh yes, Michael's old, utterly discredited comparison - does anybody still believe that represents most users' reality?

;)

I'll say it again: I've yet to see a single Real World picture which indicated - to the exclusion of any other explanation - that the prime is sharper as a matter of course, than the zoom.

And nobody else has seen one either. But we've all seen amazingly sharp pictures from each lens.

Yep, I've seen "dollar bill" tests that show that one prime happened to be sharper than one zoom, but I've seen any number of similar tests showing that of the two lenses tested the zoom was sharper than the prime.

I've also seen tests showing that one prime was sharper than another prime; or that one zoom was sharper than another zoom.

The fact is all these measurebating tests prove is that one lens was sharper than another in a given test - they provide no definitive proof of anything, except in relation to the two lenses tested.

Back in the Real World, I can point at any number of (say) bird shots, here and on birforum.net, where pictures using the zoom are sharper than a given selection of shots from the prime.

Of course, you can do it the other way round, too.

Sorry guys, I just rankle at this oft-repeated "opinion masquerading as fact" that the prime is incontrovertibly proven to be the sharpest of the two lenses.

Art Morris has given up using his 400mm prime in favour of the zoom for all of his "walkaround" bird shooting - including flight shots - and I think it's fair to say that he knows the difference between a sharp lens and a soft one.

Confession No. 1 (http://www.birdsasart.com/b13.html)...

Oh - and I can guarantee that my zoom is sharper than your prime at 100mm, 200mm, 300mm, or at a distance to subject of say, 6 feet...

;)

Love your lens for what it is - a great little bit of kit - but don't expect your "the prime is always sharper" mantra to fool everyone..!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[jimtfoto]

Check this - http://www.web-nat.com/bic/ont/tipsindex.html

cheers,
jim

[nitsch]

As Keith says, the sharpness between a good copy of the zoom and the prime is so close that it is not an issue. I know, I own what I consider to be good copies of both lenses. There are well documented pros and cons to each lens but IQ is virtually identical.

Back to the OP's question. I like to use AV and set the lens wide open. I then adjust ISO depending on the shutterspeed I need for the subject matter. I like to shoot handheld whenever possible and the IS on the zoom helps greatly with this, but sometimes I resort to using a monopod too with both the zoom and the prime. I very rarely use my tripod with these lenses. HTH! :)

[canonloader]

The fact is all these measurebating tests prove is that one lens was sharper than another in a given test
Well, duhhhh....

[dancad]

I'm another who agrees about the similarity of the IQ of both these lens. It is certainly not distinguishable to the naked eye, and I have absolutely no issues whatsoever with my zoom either. Again, there are pros and cons for each but IQ is not a factor. OK, got that out of the way...;-)

For shooting birds you may want to try manual exposure, but it is much easier to shoot in AV or TV mode and compensate, if and when needed, with the EC dial. You'll soon find out that tracking a nervous and skittish bird that is constantly changing perch, tree, or branch and causing the exposure to change ALOT with different BGs and lighting conditions is a pain to shoot manual with. Manual will be easier with a motionless heron or owl, or slower moving birds such as ducks floating by or a woodpecker working a hole. Otherwise AV or TV is your best bet.

The links provided by others offer plenty of good tips...

Oh, and practice practice practice!

[canonloader]

Dan, you, Alex and a fair number of others have very sharp copies of the zoom, they are as good as the prime, any day, as they are supposed to be. On the other hand, there are a fair number of others that come soft, out of the box.

And I agree with AV mode, Manual is too slow for action shooting. Too much fumbling around.

[canonshooter4life]

Art Morris has given up using his 400mm prime in favour of the zoom for all of his "walkaround" bird shooting - including flight shots - and I think it's fair to say that he knows the difference between a sharp lens and a soft one.



If you look on Arts website it shows no where that he has done this... quoted from questions he has answered on his site...

"Now, on most sunny days, I carry the 300 IS lens with an A2 body over my left shoulder, the 400 f/5.6 outfit on my right shoulder, and the tripod-mounted 600mm f/4."

"I will use this lens only occasionally. I prefer, instead--for everyday bird photography--to carry my beloved "toy lens" (the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L) on my shoulder as a flight lens, and storing the 28-135 IS zoom in a vest pocket for grab shooting."

But he does say that the 1-4 would be perfect for someone who is not shooting birds exclusively.

[Airedale1]

If you look on Arts website it shows no where that he has done this... quoted from questions he has answered on his site...

"Now, on most sunny days, I carry the 300 IS lens with an A2 body over my left shoulder, the 400 f/5.6 outfit on my right shoulder, and the tripod-mounted 600mm f/4."

"I will use this lens only occasionally. I prefer, instead--for everyday bird photography--to carry my beloved "toy lens" (the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L) on my shoulder as a flight lens, and storing the 28-135 IS zoom in a vest pocket for grab shooting."

But he does say that the 1-4 would be perfect for someone who is not shooting birds exclusively.

He also writes in, The Art of Bird Photography, on page 30 in a section entitled, My Favorite Lenses, "The Canon EF 400mm F5.6L is my absolute favorite."

Before I bought the 400L I was seriously leaning to the zoom: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=94944&highlight=400L

and

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=177199&highlight=400L

I do this on a budget and I do my homework before I make a purchase. I tried the zoom before I bought the prime (which I also tried first before buying) and to my old eyes, I was capturing sharper images more consistently out at 400mm with the prime.

Also, IMO rockyc2 http://photography-on-the.net/forum/search.php?searchid=2064868

consistently produces the sharpest small bird images that I see on this forum and he does so with prime and a 1.4TC. What does that mean? Well, not a whole lot scientifically speaking, but for me the proof is in the pudding and he makes a hell of a pudding.

[canonshooter4life]

Also on his CD book he says he has sold it and now uses the 70-200 f2.8 IS, but borrows a 1-4 for safaris...