Bridge Camera for backyard Birding

Several years ago I was an avid backyard bird photographer, and somewhat active on this forum. I learned alot, grew alot, and it was great. Then I had kids and went MIA. Lol.

I'm getting back into the game, but unfortunately have parted with my 300 2.8L, and am not sure one is in the financial cards right now. I remember someone here producing amazing backyard bird photography on one of those crazy long zoom canon Powershots. The SX series I think.

Right now it seems the leader in the pack might be the Nikon P900 (come on canon, where is the 24-2000mm zoom camera? Lol.) The specs on it seem like something that would be more than satisfying for a budget way back into the birding world. Would love some input, thoughts, and ideas.

Fyi, it would be used almost exclusively at the long range end. My 1D3 and Sigma Art Primes would handle shorter work. And for reference, I still have my Manfrotto tripod and ballhead.

Oh my, just saw the Nikon p1000. 24-3000mm equivalent. Reviews seem impressive. Definitely stretches my budget. Looks like the p900 is in the $450 range, while the p1000 is like $900.

Might not be worth it given the f/stop difference. Given I'm pretty used to 1092mm (300 x 2 x 1.4 x 1.3) 2000mm would be more than plenty.

P900 is f/6.5 @ 2000mm
P1000 is f/8 @ 3000mm

IMHO it were me, I'd put a SIGMA 150-600mm C on that 1D3 for about the same price as your superzoom P&S.

I'll take a look at that. Certainly value your opinion. And appreciate your input.

Wow, so the 150-600 C seems to be a great piece of glass for my budget.

Does anyone know if AF would work with a 1.4x on my 1D3? I know my body is getting old. I remember dreaming over the 1d4 when I first started shooting. Perhaps after a decent piece of glass that will be next on the radar.

mjHession wrote in post #18943885
.
I know my body is getting old. I remember dreaming over the 1d4 when I first started shooting. Perhaps after a decent piece of glass that will be next on the radar.
.

.
The 1D Mark 4 is a lot of camera for the money, with nice used ones selling for $600 to $750 nowadays.

If you are reach challenged, as it seems you may be, with your interest in the 150-600mm / 1.4 extender combination, you may also be interested in a 7D Mark 2 .....nice used ones can now be found for around $750 to $850.

.

Hmm, didnt think about the 7d2. Any one care to link a decent comparison of the two, particularly in regard to birs photography. I suck at searching this forum. ߤ


I've found the 1d series AF to be a big step up from the original 7d. The 7d had more AF features, but I feel like even my 1d2 is more reliable when used properly. That said, I imagine the gen 2 7D has improved the AF quite a bit.

Try these

If you get a Kenko 1.4x, and tape the last 3 pins to cover them, the TC shouldn't report to the 1D3, and therefore you should get fully working AF in good lighting. However, natively that lens is going to give you the equivalent reach of 780mm on a FF, so I am not sure you need to add a 1.4x.

Adding a 7D2 only adds a bit more "equivalent reach", you already have half that now. However the 7D2 does better at high ISO and has more resolution, so the advantages will be more noticeable there than a bit extra cropping it gives you over the 1D3. Then again, you would have to buy a camera and a body, and that seemed like it wasn't an option.

I replaced my 7D2 with an M50, since I wasn't using the 7D2 for sports once I picked up the 5D4. Like the 7D2, it also does 10fps, it has more resolution again over the 7D2, has the same crop factor, and is cheaper even when you buy a $50 adapter to fit the Sigma. It is also very portable for travel if you have the M lenses, or small EF glass. It is also mirrorless, meaning you won't have any AFMA to really worry about (focus adjustments), and you have many more AF points to choose from. It isn't for speed, like birds in flight, so it would be a huge challenge in that regard. Finally, the M50 takes even the 2x on the Sigma and AF still works (slowly but it does lock).

M50 with Sigma with 1.4x

mjHession wrote in post #18943096
Oh my, just saw the Nikon p1000. 24-3000mm equivalent. Reviews seem impressive. Definitely stretches my budget. Looks like the p900 is in the $450 range, while the p1000 is like $900.

Might not be worth it given the f/stop difference. Given I'm pretty used to 1092mm (300 x 2 x 1.4 x 1.3) 2000mm would be more than plenty.

P900 is f/6.5 @ 2000mm

360mm / 6.5 = 55.4mm

540mm / 8 = 67.5mm

The f-stop is superior with the P1000, because f-stops have no absolute value, per se. They must be factored by focal length to show you the amount of light captured from a subject, or the size of the diffraction blur relative to the subject. At the long end, the P1000 had less subject noise, and less subject diffraction, and more pixels on subject. All assuming the same subject distance and shutter speed.

You would need to know the f-number used at 2000mm on the P1000 compared to the P900 at its 2000mm" max, to know how they compare there, and at any common 35mm-equivalent focal length.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18943126
IMHO it were me, I'd put a SIGMA 150-600mm C on that 1D3 for about the same price as your superzoom P&S.

Certainly, if the 35mm-equivalent focal length remains low, but a crop from 600/6.3 on the 1D3 to match "2000mm" or "3000mm" with the superzooms will only have slightly less noise and slightly less subject diffraction, but much lower subject resolution. The P1000 at "3000mm" is basically a 16MP 5.5x crop from a very sharp 540/8 lens on a 520MP FF camera, or a 308MP APS-H.

These superzooms do get a bit "super" at the very long ends. You'd have to stack TCs and deal with all the extra aberrations, mulitple mount contacts, drooping, and loss of AF to simulate this with larger, less dense sensors.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18943898
.
The 1D Mark 4 is a lot of camera for the money, with nice used ones selling for $600 to $750 nowadays.

If you are reach challenged, as it seems you may be, with your interest in the 150-600mm / 1.4 extender combination, you may also be interested in a 7D Mark 2 .....nice used ones can now be found for around $750 to $850.

.

150-600 zooms with TCs are prone to AF hunt. Not practical, except for manual focus, or live view AF, but even that will be slow. They are not sharpest wide open, either, which means reduced returns for a TC wide open, or stopping down to get the most detail. These 150-600 zooms are best used when you can fill the frame well at 600mm, or can zoom out.

mjHession wrote in post #18943935
Hmm, didnt think about the 7d2. Any one care to link a decent comparison of the two, particularly in regard to birs photography. I suck at searching this forum. ߤ


I've found the 1d series AF to be a big step up from the original 7d. The 7d had more AF features, but I feel like even my 1d2 is more reliable when used properly. That said, I imagine the gen 2 7D has improved the AF quite a bit.

How easy is it for the 1D2 to appear to miss focus, with its huge pixels?

Huge pixels hide focus variations, and encourage you to examine results at a lower magnification, making it harder to see the slight misses as such.

View the 1D2 at 50%, compared to the 7D at 100%, to get a fair comparison, or the 1D2 at 200% and the 7D at 100%. That will get rid of the pixel size factor, and bring it back to AF accuracy. I'm not saying the 1D2 isn't possibly better; I'm just saying that the difference may be much smaller than it initially seems when you let pixel size influence examination scale.

I see both the 1D3 (original post) and now the 1D2 mentioned.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18944046
I see both the 1D3 (original post) and now the 1D2 mentioned.

The OP was talking about how his earlier 1D2 seemed to focus better than his 7D. I was explaining how it could seem that way, even if it weren't actually true.