This zesty guy makes a call like he drank too much, "uhzahhh!"
Drink you say
>Hurr wat camera? durrA bunch of birds made nests in my trees. I want to photograph them at a passable level. My phone's optical zoom is only 2x, and the 6x cropped zoom looks awful.I'd like to photograph them digitally at a budget of like ~$400, but I'm not sure that's realistic. The most common recs I see are used mirrorless like Sony A6000s.
>>4515418Don't let gear humpers convince you that you have to spend a fortune. Whole theatrical release movies are being shot on iPhones and the Battle of New York from the Avengers movie was partially shot on an EOS 7D.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cameras_on_the_International_Space_Station is the shot and the chaser.My recommendation is buy something with an actual viewfinder on the used market and then shoot with it every chance you get.
>>4515418Used DSLR, APSC, like a Nikon D7100/D7200 or Canon 70D-90D and the system equivalent of a 70-300mm zoom lens, preferably the newest version because only those are optimized for the long end. Aperture set to F8-F11, AF servo and center zone. If you have branches near it will confuse the AF no matter how modern or fast it is, bushes and trees are manual focus territory. The more you step down the aperture the more depth of field you have to work with. Look for the catch light in the eyes.Happy shooting
>>4515482Also for Canon if you can find a 7DMkII that will last you for a long time and get the best AF in the class.
I saw two doves being cute
He knows
>>4515482Okay I'll give this all a shot. I borrowed a film camera (Canon EOS) from a friend for now, and someone else is giving me a 60D for free with a ~18-200m lens iirc>Used DSLR, APSC, like a Nikon D7100/D7200 or Canon 70D-90D and the system equivalent of a 70-300mm zoom lensIn the long run I will look to upgrade to these as needed. Not sure yet what exactly my needs are desuAnd yeah I noticed the manual focus seemed to do better than the auto focus. Still trying to play around with how the aperture affects the depth of field
>>4515640>60DEh, not the best but not the worst. Free camera beats anything. Be aware it comes from the era where 1600 ISO was something to be afraid of and for birds in the shades you will have to crank up the ISO.The 18-200 is trash but it will give you some idea on framing. Get an EF 70-300 II IS or if you are already looking for new glass look for an EF 400/5.6 or 300/4 prime. People do increadible shots with a 40D and 400/5.6 combo even today.Depth of field with long lenses mainly comes from the focal length but AF inaccuracy can be leveraged with a closed down aperture giving you a bit more DoF to work with. The longer the lens the shallower the DoF and comes down to a cm of usable depth, with f/11 giving you a cm more, at 10m distance focusing on a small bird.
>>4515692With new lenses just get an EF 100-400 II when you have fallen into the bottomless pit of birding, it is a very good lens and will work for you for years to come.
Looking for a long dong lens for my canon.Are there any still-in-production telezooms for the EF mount in 150-600mm (or similar)?Or was the whole DSLR ecosystem rugpulled in the last few years?
>>4515723
>>4515725
>>4515713Sigma 150-600 (equivalent of image quality of cheap telezooms, would not recommend) or Sigma 60-600 (would definitely not recommend, seriously stay away from Sigma!)Tamron 150-600 G2 CanonCanon EF 100-400 II (+1.4x TC)All of the above can be had for cheap on the used market
>>4515713I have a Sigma 150-600 myself. Now, it might not be the best lens out there, but it is working great for me as a beginner. You can get them relatively cheap if you buy used.If you have a lot of money to spend - Canon themselves make quite good lenses. For example, a Canon EF 600mm f/4. This will, however, cost you a lot more than the Sigma.
>>4515728>>4515756I can see a couple of Tamrons for a not too painful amount of money on my local equivalent of ebay.Do they work decently with mirrorless cameras if I wanted to upgrade to an RF body down the line? I see reports of focus hunting/pulsing but I'm not sure if where this falls between "literally unusable" and "mildly inconvenient".
>>4515756The problem is even if the better one costs double of that the Sigma still costs too much for such a poor image quality. It is effectively a 400 or 450mm on the long end considering how usable it is, after that you get strong blurring. And don't get me started on the bokeh quality, anything with branches or grass in the background just looks super busy with the hard bokeh. Even Tamron managed to bring down the hardness in the backgorund falloff and first party lenses not just give you the juicy sharpness but the pleasant bokeh as well. You can be sure your shots will be nice.>>4515760Third party are a hit and miss with the EF-RF converter, I know Sigma had some trouble with rapid focus instability on the Sigma 150-600, instead locking on, the focus would jump back and forth behind and front of the subject making it unusable. Like I said above, you are already dishing out a good amount of money, just get the first party lens, it can play well with the 1.4x first party teleconverter. Also you can be certain Canon makes sure their flagship EF 100-400 II plays well with the RF adapter. This is a lens you buy for long time use.
>>4515723Cute photo
Do crows dream of a house in the hills?
Sleeping with one eye open
FUUUUUUUUUUUCK shutter was too slow when he popped out of nowhere.
>>4515854Gripping your pillow tight
>>4515854Based mirror lens enjoyer
>>4515912It's a bit soft on the details, but I love the compact reach for walking around
>>4516614>window with a direct view on the canalPeak comfiness
>>4516615Nice light, perfect focus. Maybe the branch in the background is a bit unfortunate but otherwise this is as good as they come
Double kill
bug in beak
>>4517213and you have a natural frame too, kinda nice
The fluffballs are growing up so fast
>>4517190Another one, not the best, but pretty cool.
Help that polish anon to take care of his birb >>>/int/223016389
birband i'm not even a birb guy
Booted eagle, light morph, most likely a male.Quite uncommon in these parts
>>4517300I had better lighting today.
Standard Bird On A Branch picture of a robin with sunrise creating a backlight.
>>4517491your mask is showing brudda and that birds glows out of the picture, gotta be more carefulI am sure this is a lovely picture even unedited
>>4517484You cut off his head in the reflection :-(
>>4517613its common for mirrorless babbies to make oversights like that because they see the cameras tone curve instead of the light of the scene
Who's hungry?
