Bird watchers birthday please help

[AlanF]

A tripod is NOT essential. One of the finest bird photographers I have seen on the net, Arash Hazeghi, http://ari1982.smugmug.com prides himself on not using a tripod. He uses light lenses hand held for all his work.

I would agree... For example, try tracking birds in flight with a tripod....and for stuff that isn't moving, try leaning against a tree, wall, or fence..... It does wonders for your stability....

And what do you think about the advice to use a remote trigger? Ok for digiscoping I suppose, but you have to be able to adjust rapidly the direction of the lens to focus on the eye of a bird that is moving around etc.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

A tripod is NOT essential. One of the finest bird photographers I have seen on the net, Arash Hazeghi, http://ari1982.smugmug.com prides himself on not using a tripod. He uses light lenses hand held for all his work.

As long as you keep the shutter speed high enough, you can do find without a tripod. Some people can hold a camera very still, but older people like me who have compromised balance have to brace against something solid, and that's not always possible. The issue with his camera is that high ISO's needed for a high shutter speed along with a slow lens make this more difficult.

I generally feel that I could make it work, but I'd add in my flash and better beamer to help freeze still images in shady areas, or where shadows are a issue.

 

[Hillsilly]

I wonder if your grandfather's blurry images are just because of slow shutter speeds? For me, I find I need to be shooting at 1/1500s or faster to get a sharp shot, and at those sort of speeds, a tripod / monopod isn't needed. They are useful, though. They can help keep the camera steady while you are framing your image. And a monopod is one of the cheaper accessories. They also make good walking sticks and are good for prodding bears, snakes, tigers etc so that they appear more active in your shots.

On cameras, just note that the 1300D lacks the autofocus features and speed of more expensive models. This could be another reason why he's getting blurry shots.

I'm seeing more older people using Olympus and Panasonic cameras because of the 2x crop. And my sister seems to be able to take good photos with a SX40HS, and I'd assume the current SX65HS would be even better. But as long as his fitness and health are up to it, a DSLR remains the best option. So make sure he has a suitable lens, first. Then next birthday, maybe a camera body upgrade.

 

[Talys]

Note that I said tripod or equivalent could really help That includes all of the things to keep your picture from being blurry because your camera moves. It might be something to steady your arm, a monopod, something to rest the lens on...

The original complaint was that the pictures were coming out blurry, IIRC. I assume that one of the reasons for this is that grandpa can't hold his camera+lens still enough based on his exposure settings. Since pretty much all of the suggested lens are heavier (or much, much heavier) than the 18-55, and many of the suggested lens are f/5.6 (or worse...) at the longest focal range, I don't think that's going to improve.

Obviously, there are professional photographers and enthusiasts who don't use tripods, but they probably have a combination of gear that allows them to shoot at wide apertures (and fast shutter speeds), high levels of image stabilization, possibly prime lens rather than zoom (making them smaller, lighter, and faster), and a whole bunch of experience. Grandpa probably won't have these benefits on a budget.

Realistically, I think it would really help to try a tripod, even crappy one. Crappy tripods cost pretty much nothing; I've gotten them tossed in for free with stuff from Amazon. Once you start taking crisp pictures, you can always try more portable methods. And if Grandpa has a favorite spot on his patio he likes to shoot from, he can always leave the tripod there, especially if it's a crappy one he doesn't care about.

A remote shutter release is like, a $5 tool. It's not the most amazing thing in the world, but if your camera is on a tripod pointed at a bird's nest, you can set it to manual focus, watch the live view screen, and just click away at your leisure without worrying about disturbing focus.

Remote shutter releases also come in wireless (either IR or 2.4GHz) form. I use a wireless one when doing product photography -- I have the camera pre-focused and the image displaying on a large laptop screen using WiFi remote shooting. I'm 10 feet (or more) away, with the products, and constantly adjusting them between pictures. It allows me to fiddle with the composition of the product and shoot without going back to the camera. Some of them can also double as a flash trigger, which can be helpful. But a wireless one is not helpful for your grandfather, I think; they're just more batteries and gizmos to deal with.

 

[AlanF]

Do you actually do bird photography or are you extrapolating from your other activities to what you think is required for bird photography?

 

[arbitrage]

I'd consider in a reasonable budget:

55-250
400/5.6
300/4 IS +/- TC
100-400 I

But other options could be one of the superzoom 1" sensor type cameras or even the smaller sensor ones like the Panasonic line or Canon's own line.

Then there is Olympus EM 1 Mk2 with 100-400 but that is getting very expensive and doesn't make use of his current camera.

Then on a high budget:
400DOII +2xTCIII with a 7D2
And maybe a monopod with that setup.....

As to the monopod/tripod issue, if I was going out with friends birding I would never lug a tripod around, heck I do only about 10% of my birding on a tripod and that is shooting an eagle nest where I'm in a fixed location with fixed subject. I use a monopod sparingly but I can still shoot handheld with the monopod dangling. 85% for me is handheld but I'm still in my 30s so handholding is not an issue for me even with my 600II.

 

[Talys]

Do you actually do bird photography or are you extrapolating from your other activities to what you think is required for bird photography?

If you're talking to me, I have tens of thousands of photos of birds, mostly from my own property -- I have a large property, and many, many feeders. I have a number of birds like the Stellar's jay below that will come right up to me and let me photograph them from two feet away because they're so used to me feeding them (peanuts do the trick, in his case).

I did not realize that suggesting a tripod when someone's pictures were blurry was a controversial thing... I've never said "you must use a tripod". Only that if you're having problems with blurry pics, it's one simple and cheap solution, and a starting point.

By the way, to shoot at around 1/1500 on a 5.6 lens, in regular daylight, you'd need to set your camera at ISO 1600+. I suspect in most conditions it'd be more like 3200.

These two photos are taken with gear that might be comparable to what your grandpa might have on a budget -- a t2i and 55-250. They are taken on tripod, and before lens correction. You can see, for example, visible CA that wouldn't be present if I had used a better lens.

 

[AlanF]

I did not realize that suggesting a tripod when someone's pictures were blurry was a controversial thing... I've never said "you must use a tripod".

Apologies, I misunderstood

A tripod (or equivalent) is really essential at 250mm+,

to mean that you must use one.

 

[Talys]

I did not realize that suggesting a tripod when someone's pictures were blurry was a controversial thing... I've never said "you must use a tripod".

Apologies, I misunderstood

A tripod (or equivalent) is really essential at 250mm+,

to mean that you must use one.

I was inarticulate; I'm sorry.

What I should have said was: if grandpa's birding photos are coming out blurry, it's most likely because the camera's moving during the time that the shutter is open. It's really essential that this not happen if you want sharp images -- and a tripod, monopod, or something to brace the camera with/against is extremely helpful.

It's also critical to understand that as the range and level of magnification increases, very small movements become exaggerated, exacerbating blurriness. Pretend there's a string between your camera lens and the subject. If you move the camera a tiny bit and the subject is close, the string moves not nearly as much as if the subject is really far away. To take it to an extreme, if you're looking at the moon with a telescope, a tiny bump will take the whole moon out of the picture.

So to fix the problem of blurriness (assuming the issue isn't just focus), a cheap and easy solution is to make sure the camera isn't moving, or at least not moving as much as possible. This is especially true of kit lens and inexpensive consumer grade lens, which have little apertures, usually 5.6 or 6.3 at the longest focal lengths, because this forces you to shoot at a slower shutter speed, or suffer grainy photos.

It's a perfectly valid point that if birding is really your thing, investing in a good lens that lets you shoot at faster shutter speeds is worth your while. Plus, better image stabilization makes a big difference, too. But then you also get into a bit of a vicious circle of discovering, hey, your awesome new lens shoots higher IQ when it's not wide open, so instead of the f/4, you want the f/2.8... and on it goes

There's also the whole weight thing; if he's having trouble holding still a 18-55 kit lens, just about anything else is going to be worse.

I guess all I'm saying is that you don't need exotic gear to take nice pictures of birds. It doesn't hurt to learn to cope with cheap stuff, because you can get great image quality out of today's kit lenses, as long as you work within their limitations. Then, the enthusiast/pro-grade gear will open up more opportunities for the shot and to express creativity as you go on. I would recommend that over buying L, and then going, "why are my pictures still blurry after I blew a thousand bucks?", but hey, whatever makes someone happy

 

[neonlight]

Josh
You have had some good advice but I suspect the 1300D will limit the shutter speed because its ISO rating of 6400 would suggest to me that it would start to appear grainy after about 800. I've seen some good bird shots using the 70-200f/4L with a 600D (a similar body, perhaps slightly better ISO) and I would suggest that an f/4 would be better than the 55-250F/4.5-5.6 because of the wider aperture (lower ISO can be used), but the new 55-250STM appears to be a good lens for the money.
I use a 100-400 and can recommend that. Whether you need image stabilisation is questionable since I have turned it off when tracking birds as it makes things worse. Which means that you might be able to use the 70-200 non IS, which is cheapest. But with shaky hands your grandfather will need to find a way to support his arm when holding it - the wider aperture should allow for the fastest possible speed which will help. High ISO may be needed too but on my 600D noise is quite noticable at 1600, which is about the highest ISO I like to use though have had to use 3200 on occasions. Trouble is more expensive bodies may perform better. FWIW I think the tripod idea might work with a pan/tilt head that you can move readily. I use a 30 year old Velbon that has a smoother motion than a modern well known make, and I never got to control a ball head very well. I wonder if your grandfather is trying to take birds in flight or stationary, when a tripod would suit.

... bird photography is an expensive hobby ...

 

[TheJock]

Hi Josh,

There’s one thing that I don’t see mentioned (or that I may have missed) is a comment from you telling us what camera your grandfather is using just now that’s causing the blurry photographs?
If he’s using a basic point and shoot camera then moving over to a DSLR (like the Canon 1300D DSLR that your considering buying) is a completely different ball game with a massive learning curve, the reason I bring this up is that there may actually be other options on the market that may better suit your grandfather.
I am a serious birder and have just spend $4,500 on a 600mm lens to go on to one of the two cameras I own, they themselves cost me an additional $3,500, so the potential for spending is phenomenal.
There are very powerful compact/point and shoot cameras available with massive zoom capabilities at a fraction of the price of going all out on a DSLR, if you don’t mind me making a couple of suggestions I will add some links below.
P.S. I have several friends who are very serious birders and they travel with one of these options when they have limited capabilities to carry huge amounts of gear, like while on business trips.

These are your Canon options if it’s definitely a Canon camera that you want (if your grandfather is familiar with the Canon layout of menu items/options), there are a couple with excellent long range capabilities.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Brand_Canon&ci=8612&N=4288586279+4052359762+4291570227

I can’t not mention the Nikon P900 as the power of the zoom is incredible, at 2000mm those birds will be very close in his photographs.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1127274-REG/nikon_26499_coolpix_p900_digital_camera.html

I hope I haven’t missed the point here, but I wanted to give you some much cheaper options that are essentially very simple to use, if your grandfather is more interested in the birdwatching than in the whole photography process then these might interest you.

All the best

Stewart

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Hi Josh,

There’s one thing that I don’t see mentioned (or that I may have missed) is a comment from you telling us what camera your grandfather is using just now that’s causing the blurry photographs?
If he’s using a basic point and shoot camera then moving over to a DSLR (like the Canon

Stewart, try reading his 1st post. Its a 1300D

 

[TheJock]

Hi Josh,

There’s one thing that I don’t see mentioned (or that I may have missed) is a comment from you telling us what camera your grandfather is using just now that’s causing the blurry photographs?
If he’s using a basic point and shoot camera then moving over to a DSLR (like the Canon

Stewart, try reading his 1st post. Its a 1300D

Sorry mate, I just re-read the 2nd paragraph, I thought he was considering the 1300D.
OK, then the easy solution is either one of the 150-600mm options, there are two from Tamron and two from Sigma, I'd suggest the Sigma 150-600 Sport if he wants more reach, otherwise the Canon 100-400L, the mark 1 will be easy to find quite cheap at the moment as the mark 2 is still relatively new.

 

[AlanF]

The mega heavy Sigma Sport is not a suitable lens for the OP's grandfather unless the grandson is going to carry it and a tripod for him! The much lighter C is as about as heavy as a senior would comfortably carry or use. (Though I do carry and hold the heavier 400mm DO II plus TCs but it has better balance than the sport.)

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The mega heavy Sigma Sport is not a suitable lens for the OP's grandfather unless the grandson is going to carry it and a tripod for him! The much lighter C is as about as heavy as a senior would comfortably carry or use. (Though I do carry and hold the heavier 400mm DO II plus TCs but it has better balance than the sport.)

Being someone's grandfather does not really mean that he is elderly and weak. I've been a grandfather for close to 30 years, and would not have a issue using a large lens, but to hold it stable, I'd use at least a monopod, because I have a balance issue. No such issue with my 100-400L, but I did find my Nikon 200-400 f/4G and Canon 600mmL too much to hold steady for more than a few seconds. I could hold them OK, but holding them stead was a different story. I've sold them off because all the space in my car and time / hassle to setup a tripod is not my thing.

Some people much older than me do fine with heavy lenses, I find that lifting a 50 pound bag of feed is a lot more difficult than it used to be, but I bought 8 bags last week and carried each one into the barn and dumped them into my grain bins. I also buy dog food and bird food in 50 lb bags. I'm glad they do not sell grain in the 100 pound burlap bags like they did when I was a kid. Those were a pain to lug around, but the bags were handy. Coffee beans can still come in the huge burlap bags, I've bought several of those (empty) from local bean roasters for general use. Concrete bags are still very heavy, but bags have been reduced in weight as well.

 

[Talys]

@Josh -

On reflection, you should take your grandpa to a camera shop and have him try out a couple of lenses (including the kit ones) to see if the pictures are coming out blurry. That will eliminate the possibility of an equipment problem, and also settle whether he has steady enough hands to take a telephoto picture without some type of device. It also gives him a good idea of what different lenses weigh.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the pictured lens is an 18-55 III. That is not an image stabilized lens, so getting something like a 55-250 IS or IS STM might just do the trick.

At that point, before you pull the trigger, you need to figure out what you're willing to give up, because every lens purchase is a compromise. If you use a "consumer" lens, it will weigh less and perhaps that will allow your grandpa to shoot without a tripod, but he'll be shooting with smaller aperture, which means high ISO (grainier pictures) or slower shutter speeds (maybe blurry). If you buy a higher end lens, the image quality and aperture size go way up, but you're usually looking at much more weight -- even the new, non-L 70-300 nano USM feels a lot heavier than 55-250, nevermind the L series options. And of course, there's price, and availability, especially if you're only looking at used; some are very plentiful, others are rare finds, or at least, the deals are rare finds.

There seems to be some resistance to tripod (or monopod) shooting here, but I maintain that it's a great way to take excellent bird pictures without spending a lot of money. At the expense of lugging around another piece of gear, it allows you to shoot at low ISOs (100, 200) and slower shutter speeds. Depending on the bird you're shooting, sometimes, you don't want crazy high shutter speeds, because a bit of blur in the right place conveys motion (like a hummingbird), and the lowest possible ISO is always preferable.

If you're just hiking and shooting birds along the way, a tripod probably isn't the way to go. But if you're going to a specific place and setting up to shoot a specific bird, it could be. And if you're shooting them from your own home, I think it's definitely something to consider.

 

[JakeP]

You guys really know your stuff 8) I love the discussion about the lenses and what different effects they all have, there pros and cons, I mean everything!! Swell

 

[midluk]

I'm really interested in what became of the birthday.

But to throw some more knowledge into the game, I can think of some reasons why photos might be blurry:
1. Too little magnification
2. Camera shake
3. Subject movement
4. Improper focus
5. bad/defective lens

1. Even if you zoom in 100% the bird is really tiny. Either go closer to the bird, or get a longer lens (larger focal length).
2. Small bright spots become curved or elongated trails, different in each image but similar trail form for all bright spots in each image. Use faster shutter speeds, activate IS (might need a new lens) or put the camera onto a tripod/monopod.
3. Only the bird is blurry, but not the rest of the image (if it has the same distance), or only part of the bird is blurry. Faster shutter speed is needed.
4. You might see that other parts of the image at different distances than the bird are sharp. Might be random (some images are great. some bad, without anything changing). Perhaps the wrong AF settings are used, perhaps the lens or camera body are not properly calibrated. Or the AF system of the camera is just not good enough. It is really difficult to make any recommendations here.
5. Should be apparent when the lens is tested under good lighting with static subject and fast shutter speed.

Without having identified the root cause of the problem, recommending new equipment does not really help.

 

[NancyP]

A used Canon 400 f/5.6L is a good lens for light weight, easy use during bird-in-flight shots, can be paired with a monopod or tripod for stationary shots (eg, nests, feeding areas). No image stabilization, so it takes a bit of practice to get the hang of birds-in-flight. Requires shutter speeds of 1/500 or faster with an APS-C format camera.

Also good are used Canon 100-400 f/4-5.6 L IS version 1 lenses, slightly heavier, has image stabilization, will be more expensive than the 400 f/5.6L, but the used price has come down a lot since the version 2 has come out. I have seen a LOT of great shots with these too. It is more versatile due to the zoom.

Any APS-C camera with a shutter speed of 1/4,000 or better 1/8,000 will do. My 6 or 7 year old 60D is still a good camera. My birding lens is the 400 f/5.6L. I like this little lens a lot.

One of the new Sigma contemporary 150-600mm lenses would be great - more expensive than the used Canons above, but not much more expensive that the used 100-400 v. 1.

 

[NancyP]

Since people are speculating on the condition of the photographer, might I mention that a nice sturdy monopod also makes a decent walking stick for navigating slopes, stream fords, and other situations where a little balance help is needed. The hiking birder will have different interests than the stationary (hide) birder. Also, hiking birders may want to figure out how to carry all the gear, the lunch, raincoat, seat, etc. I have a belt holster for the monopod, a "Cotton Carrier" vest that I use to carry the camera, and a small frameless day pack for the water bottles, coat, snack, and a closed-cell foam gardener's kneeling pad (slipped into the sleeve intended to hold a 2 L water reservoir with hose) for the seat - sit on ground or log, and wear cargo pants with large pockets into which the small camera gear goes - lens caps, filters, extra battery, extra card.