Shooting Birds?

[Cutter]

Originally Posted by chris-p

I can't remember what camera you use off the top of my head (I know it's a Canon thanks to the Tv mode!) but assuming an APS-C sized sensor, a focal length of 400mm and a distance to subject of 20 metres (65 feet) and an aperture of f/11 you'll get a DoF of 1.07 metres which is more than enough for the wingspan of most birds.

Tom has posted a good example as 1/1000s isn't enough to freeze the action on the wings which just goes to show how difficult it can be. You ain't going to get a beercan onto a Canon though!

Perhaps set 1/1500 or 1/2000 and crank the ISO until you're getting a decent exposure.

Thanks Chris I have put your settings in my little black book for future ref. Yes I have a canon 50D

[Cutter]

Originally Posted by TommoR

Ah yes, good point chris. It was the OP that said they had a sony a330,

Cutter please ignore, ROB123 see my post as may help!

No prob TommorR, you did confuse me a bit though. Beer cans done a better job than me (so far)

[chris-p]

To answer Robs question, you've got lots of options for good long lenses. It really depends on budget. This is a list of potential new lenses (so ignoring the Beercan that Tom has already mentioned) roughly in price order...

Sigma 70-300f/4-5.6 ~£180
Sony 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 DT ~£180
Sony 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 G ~£675
Sony 70-400 f/4-5.6 G ~£1,600 - £1,700
Sony 300mm f/2.8 G ~£4,500

It's obviously very easy to say "buy the 300mm f/2.8" but at 4.£5K it's not cheap. Personally if you can afford it, I'd buy the 70-400 G.
If you want something cheaper I would go for the Sony 75-300 DT mainly because the Sigma is rubbish!

[ROB123]

Hi guys sorry for the slow responds having trouble with computer typing this from iPhone! http://www.jessops.com/online.store/...5807/show.html
would this lense above do the job? And am I right in thinking that the lower the F number the fast the shutter? and is my camera capable of taking images like I posted in my first post?

[chris-p]

Yes, this lens would be a good place to start. 300mm is a usefully long focal length.

Yes, the lower the f number the faster the shutter speed you are able to use. Also remember that, if your shutter speed is still too low you can increase the ISO as well.

Yes, your camera is capable of taking these sorts of pictures. The biggest factor is the lens and, as I said above, the 75-300 is a good place to start.

[Markulous]

Originally Posted by chris-p

If you want something cheaper I would go for the Sony 75-300 DT mainly because the Sigma is rubbish!

Have never used the Sony so I wouldn't comment but I have used the Sigma, so I can comment:

[Cutter]

Great shot Markulous it speaks volumes

[ROB123]

Originally Posted by Markulous

Have never used the Sony so I wouldn't comment but I have used the Sigma, so I can comment:

That's a really good photo what zoom where you using and how far away were you from the bird? thanks in advance !

[Markulous]

That's the "rubbish" (as chris-p calls it) Sigma 70-300mm @ 300mm (and it's the non-APO version - the APO is much better!). The APO is regarded as one of the best value lenses around

Other EXIF data: Sigma SD10, ISO400, f/13, 1/320, handheld, no crop (other than squared off aspect), taken 3 years ago

Arguably, I take better pics nowadays:


(S)he was drinking rather than singing (not a lot to sing about in this weather!) - taken yesterday morning with a Canon 300mm f/4 IS

I love the lens but it really doesn't have the reach (even with a 1.4x TC) out 'in the real wild' so use a Canon 100-400mm IS or, by preference for the longer reach, equal quality and better OS, the Bigmos (Sigma 150-500mm OS)

[ROB123]

Oh thanks I'm just interested to see how close up I will get will a 300mm zoom , looks like I should get up close to the action ! thanks again bur I think the sigma is too far out of my price range of around 150 ish. Edit: what's apo on the lens?