Stephen Burch's Birding & Dragonfly Website

Home | Trip Reports | Gallery | UK index | Oxon pics | UK pics | Dragonflies | Other Nature | Links

Photographic equipment

INTRODUCTION
This page gives information on the photographic equipment used to take the pictures on this website. As a boy, my photography was based on a second-hand Rolleicord medium format twin lens reflex camera, with guidance from my grandmother, Lettice Ramsey, a notable professional portrait photographer. I even took a few black & white pictures of distant garden birds on feeders using a home made hide in the mid 1960s!

The earliest pictures on this website (see scanned pics on sunsets page) were taken in the late 1970s, using a low-cost Praktica SLR (LTL3) - my first 35mm film camera. There was then a long gap when my photographic activity was almost zero. But with the advent of the digital age, this dormant interest re-surfaced with a vengance, as it neatly combined three interests in one activity: birds, computers & photography.

I started digiscoping in 2003, and then in 2006 progressed to the DSLR & long lens combination. There then followed a major upgrade in DSLR gear in 2008, and a further (forced!) camera change in the summer of 2009.

My DSLR and related gear now comprises:

• Canon EOS 350D camera body
• Canon EOS 40D camera body (summer 08 - spring 09 only!)
• Canon EOS 50D camera body (from August 09)
• Canon EF400 mm f5.6 prime lens
• Canon EF400 mm f4 DO prime lens
• Canon EF100 mm f2.8 USM macro lens
• Canon x1.4 converter
• Jessop extension tubes (3 tube set up to 65 mm).
• Jobo GIGAone portable hard drive (40 Gb capacity)
• Canon RC-1 remote control
• 32 Gb total of fast CF cards [1 x 16 Gb + 1 x 8 Gb + 1 x 4 Gb & 1 x 2 Gb Sandisk Extreme III + 2 x 1 Gb Lexar (x80 speed)]

DLSRs

	Top: Canon EF400mm f5.6 & EOS350D
	Bottom: Canon EF400mm f4 DO & EOS40D

Now (November 2009), ever since I acquired an EOS50D in the summer, my current 'front-line' gear for bird photography is the EOS50D body with the EF400mmF4DO lens, almost always with a x1.4TC. This combination generally works well now, including the auto-focus even with the x1.4TC attached. Whenever possible I try to use this combination with my tripod. I don't have a huge experience of bird in flight photography with this equipment yet, but if this is my aim I will generally dispense with the tripod and possibly remove the x1.4TC.

For casual walks etc, where bird photography is only a possibility, I find the EF400mf4DO too heavy to carry, and prefer the lighter and more maneuverable 400mmf5.6, which is an excellent lens for its price.

EOS50D Review
The EOS50D features a sensor with a comparatively large number of pixels (15 Mp) given its x1.6 crop factor size. This gives a potential advantage in detail resolution - the extra number of pixels should be capable of giving more detail on the subject. This should be useful for those all too common occasions when the bird is too far away, and substantial cropping of the image is needed. Conversely, the small pixel size (the pixel pitch is only 4.7 micron!) means each pixel collects less light than is the case for sensors with fewer pixels. This makes the 50D potentially more susceptible to higher noise levels, particularly at higher ISO settings.

I've made some careful measurements of the noise levels on raw images from various DSLR cameras including the 50D. I've also studied the resolution achievable with the 50D, when used with my two 400mm lenses. For a brief summary of the main points, see below.

50D Noise levels
From some systematic quantitative measurements, it seems the smaller sized pixels on the 50D sensor (15 Mp), are giving substantially higher noise levels than on the 350D or 40D. Indeed using Adobe's Camera Raw (ACR) to convert the raw images, the 50D had by far the highest noise levels of these 3 cameras - giving about 1 stop more noise than the EOS 350D and a dismal 1.5 stops more than the 40D.

However, it seems that Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) gives somewhat lower noise level images than Adobe's Camera Raw (ACR), so I now use this all the time for 50D raw images.

Results with the 50D in the field generally show that, provided images are not under-exposed, noise levels at ISO 400 are tolerable, and using Neat Image (see page on processing camera images) effectively gets rid of nearly all visually apparent noise. Even at ISO 800, resuts aren't as bad as might be expected, given the quantitative noise analysis measurements. However, I wouldn't like to try it at ISO 1600!

50D pixels
The 50D has 15Mp, which is almost twice as many as the EOS 350D (8.0 Mp), and 50% up on the 40D (10.1 Mp). My resolution measurments show that with both my 400mm lenses, this gives a useful improvement in image detail - the linear pixel resolution of the 50D is 40% up on the 350D, which, threoretically means the resolution with the 50D and a 400mm lens is comparable to a 350D with a 560 mm lens! I suspect in practice the benefit may not be quite as marked as this, as the resolution tests were made in 'ideal' conditions with bright sun, and fast shutter times. Nevertheless, this provides some significant benefit to counteract the higher noise levels on the 50D.

Micro AF adjustment capability
Micro AF adjustment is, for me, an essential feature which is present on the 50D, and not either of the earlier models (40D and 350D), for the following reason.

After a self-inflicted disaster with the EF 400mm f4 DO and EOS40D, in April 2009 I obtained a replacement DO lens (courtesy of my insurance company). However, this then led to some very soft pics, when used with the x1.4 TC and the 40D camera, but not with my older 350D camera. Also, without the x1.4TC, the lens gave sharp pics with both cameras!

After various investigations, including the fruitless purchase of a second x1.4TC, I eventually discovered this was due to a pronounced back-focus problem. The explanation for the back-focus error defied any logic though, as it could not be attributed to either the DO, the x1.4TC or the 40D. All of these used with other combinations of lenses or cameras did not show the error. Only the one combination of (second) f4 DO + x1.4TC + 40D camera gave the error and resulting soft images!

Fortunately, my insurance company agreed that the fault appeared to lie with the 40D camera (probably damaged in the same accident as the original f4 DO), and after a protracted and unsuccessful 'repair', they agreed to replace the 40D with a brand new 50D.

Imagine my surprise when the 50D initially showed very similar back focus problem with the f4 DO + x1.4TC! However, the micro AF adjustment on the 50D allows lens specific back/front focus errors to be corrected. Having put in a large correction, my shots with the f4 DO + x1.4TC + 50D do not show any noticeable back focus error, at all distances from the camera. The microAF adjustment on the DO without the x1.4TC is much smaller.

I'd be very interested to hear if anyone else has experienced anything like this, and/or can offer any sort of explanation!

Canon EOS 50D compared with Canon EOS 350D
As it should given its higher price and more modern design, the 50D camera has some noticeable advantages over my older 350D:

• Significantly faster maximum frame rate - c. 6 frames/sec instead of c. 3 frames/sec on 350D. This can be a real benefit for getting plenty of shots, one of which might be sharp, or have the bird in just the right pose. Though more than often this tends to simply mean more pics to sort through to find the odd good one!
• Much higher capacity memory buffer, allowing plenty of raw format shots before filling up (takes c. 24 shots to fill the buffer, whereas with the EOS 350D this often happened - after only 4 or so shots, which was rather annoying at times).
• Faster maximum shutter speed (1/8000 sec instead of 1/4000).
• More pixels (15 mega pixels, compared with 8.0 with the 350D). My resolution tests suggest this is a potentially significant benefit, as discussed above.
• Larger and brighter LCD screen.
• The custom function to prevent the focus going wild when attempting flight shots is sometimes useful.
• A handy facility to create a list of 'favourite' menu options.
• The sensor clean function may cut down the number of times the sensor needs to be cleaned. Indeed, I don't think I have needed to clean it yet.

On the downside, I have the following grumbles about the 50D:

• The two stage on/off switch - awkward and fiddly, especially with gloves on for example. I can't see the point of the two stages.
• The mode select knob seems to rotate out of position too easily - a bit frustrating to suddenly find it has switched off Av just as the shot of a lifetime appears in the frame! I must remember to check the knob position regularly.
• Heavier than the 350D, but it does feel more robust.
• Significantly higher noise levels at all ISO settings. Compared with the 350D, the noise level on the 50D was about 1 stop more (see above and here for more details).

More in due course when I've used both the camera above for a bit longer.

50D Camera Settings
Here is a summary of the main camera settings I usually use for bird pics on the EOS 50D & EF400mmf4 DO:

EF 400mm F4 DO Review
Initially when I acquired the EOS350D & EF 400f5.6 in summer 2006, I was amazed by the step up in quality that the DSLR provides compared with my earlier digiscoping efforts. Over the next two years, I managed to obtain some quite reasonable pics with this combination, especially when it was possible to get close enough to the subject!

However, by the summer of 2008, with bird photography becoming more & more of an interest, I began to think seriously about how to further improve upon my gear. One area of frustration was the lack of reach of the 400mm lens - so often I wished for a longer lens. One way of achieving this is was with a teleconverter (TC) or extender, but with the EF400mm f5.6, focussing with the x1.4 TC can be problematic. After some time, I wasn't sure that the x1.4 TC was worth using much with the f5.6 (as I believe some others have found).

As many will know, the problem is that there is a huge step up in price beyond the EF 400mm f5.6, with a limited number of alternatives, mainly the EF 300mm f2.8, the EF 400mm DO f4, and the monster EF500mm f4 or even the EF 600mm f4. What I didn't want was a lens much heavier than the 400 f5.6 - which ruled out the 500mm and 600mm lenses. The EF 300mm f2.8 has rave reviews, but that was shorter than the 400mm I had already, so only using it with a x2 TC would offer any reach improvement. I suspected quality with a x2 TC would be a problem, and also the lens was pretty heavy.

Hence after much deliberation, I eventually decided on the relatively unfashionable EF 400 DO f4. This lens is considerably lighter than all the other 'super' telephotos but has had some mixed reviews. However a number of users of this lens I contacted were very positive.

Weight wise, the combination with the 50D camera comes in at 3.1 kg, which compares (unfavourably) with the EOS 350D & EF 400 mm f5.6 at 1.8 kg without the tripod mounting ring and 2.0 kg with it. This extra 1.1 kg (or 50%) is surprisingly noticeable! The DO is not something you want to take on a walk of any length with an outside chance of finding something interesting. As Nic Hallam aptly said, the DO seems on the limit of a true walk-about lens. Certainly in comparison with the f5.6, the f4 DO is a "big beast", but presumably much less so that the EF 500 mm or even the shorter 300 mm F2.8. Walking relatively short distances with it is not a problem.

So far, the pictures taken with the DO on its own have generally been excellent quality, although I've not done any side by side comparisons with the f5.6 yet. The extra stop of aperture is also useful at times, especially in poor light conditions.

One of my main reasons for investing in the DO was that it should work well with the x1.4 TC - this would give an effective 560mm f5.6 lens. As expected, having removed the tape (needed for the f5.6 - see below) from the 3 pins on the x1.4 TC, the auto-focus on the 40D is almost as quick as for the lens on its own.

I compare my main features of this lens with the Canon EF 400mm f5.6 lens, which I have had since 2006, in the table below:

Comparison between the EF400mmf5.6 and the EF400mmf4 DO Canon lenses

Table footnote
* A very brief encounter with water (not even fully submerged) resulted in my first DO becoming fogged inside, and an insurance write-off!

Summary
In summary, what do I think of these two lenses? Well, I would have no hesitation in recommending the EF400mmf5.6 USM lens. It is cost effective, as sharp as the DO and very light and portable. Excellent for hand holding for flight shots. The lack of IS is probably hardly a significant drawback. On the downside, it will AF with a taped x1.4.TC, but the hunting makes this problematic, and the resulting aperture of f8 can lead to longish exposures so that sharpness suffers.

However for general use, I do prefer the EF 400f4 DO. The extra 1 stop of aperture, giving good AF with the x1.4 TC, is the main benefit. The IS is probably only a marginal benefit. However, I have had limited experience with flight shots, and the f5.6 may be the better lens for BIFs. Are the advantages of the DO worth the additional weight and large difference in price? That depends on your viewpoint. When I purchased the DO it was under £4k. At its current price, I would think very long and hard about buying one. But I'm still not tempted by a 500mmf4 - too heavy and bulky for me!

DSLR - EOS 350D & EF 400mm F5.6 (May 2006 onwards)

In May 2006, I entered the DSLR market, selecting the entry-level lightweight Canon EOS 350D in preference to the more expensive and substantially heavier 20D or 30D, the prime EF 400 mm F5.6 lens, and a 1.4 X Canon converter.

The DSLR & long lens combination is much easier to use than digiscoping. There is no fiddling around with cable releases and adaptor tubes, by which time the bird has probably gone. With a DSLR you just point and fire, and finding the bird in the first place is much easier too. Also, the DSLR auto-focus usually works very well and quickly. And of course with a DSLR, there are no annoying delays after pressing the shutter - it takes straight away.

Experience to date shows the EOS 350/EF400 mm combination is capable of getting superb pictures (higher quality than the very best digiscoping results), but only in favourable circumstances when you can get VERY close to the bird. Sunlight also helps a lot, and is pretty much essential for any hand held shots. In cases when it is not possible to get close enough, digiscoping can win hands down, which can create the need to carry loads of gear around all the time, if you want to maximise your chances of success!

Flight shots are where the DSLR/400 mm hand held combination really comes into its own, as these are a virtual impossibility with digiscoping. Even so, tracking fast, erratically moving small flying birds close up is a difficult trick to master. The closer they are the more difficult it is - auto-focus seems hopeless in the cases. You seem to have to just use manual focus, hope for the best, and expect >95% reject rate! Larger birds, such as sea birds, which are tend to be further away, and are moving more predictably are easier, if you can get close enough (e.g. boat trips).

For more static targets, I prefer to still use a tripod for extra stability. On my Scottish day trip in spring 2006, using the car as a hide worked well in a couple of places, but this has limited potential generally in the UK. Overseas it can be more useful though.

All in all, I would currently agree with those who say that digiscoping is an excellent medium for the person who considers themself to be primarily a birder, with photography as an interesting extra. With a DSLR, things get more serious, and it is more suitable for those whose main interest is bird photography, and are prepared to go to considerable efforts to get close enough their subjects.

350D Camera Settings
Here is a summary of the main camera settings I usually use for bird pics on the EOS350D:

Canon 1.4x converter or extender with the EF400mm f5.6
I purchased the x1.4 converter at the same time as the EF400mmf5.6 lens, and when used together the result is a 560 mm focal length lens with a max aperture of about f8. The upside is clearly the increase in magnification, but the downside is the loss of a stop of aperture, which doubles the required exposure times. Also, even having done the pin taping trick, the auto-focus often 'hunts' and takes a long time to get to the right focus.

There can be occasions when the converter is useful (e.g. small birds), but I'm generally of the opinion it is often more trouble than its worth. If only you can get a bit closer, then the results with EF 400 on its own will be of better quality than putting on the converter.

Other DSLR bits & pieces

Jobo GIGAone portable hard drive
I purchased one of these in summer 2007, ahead of my Algarve and Texas trips, to free up my 4 Gb of memory cards for more pics, when away from a computer for more than a day or so. The GIGAone is so small and light, that it can also easily be used in the field or car as well, but I've yet to need more than 4 Gb of memory card capacity in a single day! It is also useful as a backup, when on trips with access to a computer (e.g. my visit to Texas in Nov 2007).

This unit has worked well so far, and is simple and easy to use. The only drawback is that when used on its own, without a computer, there is no verification that, once the transfer is complete, the memory card's contents are actually present on the hard drive. No problems so far, though.

Dragonfly pics and extension tubes
During the 2006 summer I found that the DSLR with the EF 400 mm lens can be quite good for dragonfly pics. The telephoto is good for those wary species which don't allow close approach. However the 3.5 m close focus distance is too long for preference. Quite late in the 2006 season, I found that, to my surprise, the x1.4 converter is actually quite useful in that it gives extra magnification, without seeming to extend the close focus distance, but it is still not enough for good close ups of damselflies.

During the 2007 so-called summer, I tried extension tubes to get the camera closer to those few dragonflies that have survived the elements. I purchased a 3-tube set from Jessops, which are a good deal cheaper than the Canon ones, and work well. With all 3 tubes stacked together, there is 65 mm of extension, which brings the close focus distance down from 3.5 m to around 1.7 m.

At 1.7 m distance, the horizontal field of view is then down to just over 70 mm, and the true magnification (on to the sensor) is about 0.3. This probably doesn't compare that well with true macro lenses, which will give magnifications as high as 1.0, but x0.3 is not bad, and does allow pretty good pics of even the smallest damselflies.

One important limitation with extension tubes is the reduced far focus distance. With all 65 mm of extension, the far focus distance is reduced from infinity right down to about 2.9 m (i.e. less than the normal near focus distance of the lens without the tubes on!). Of course using only 1 or 2 of the extension tubes improves the far focus distance, and can be better for the larger dragonflies (e.g. hawkers). All this leads to quite a lot of changing of tubes, with the added risk of getting more dust on the sensor - so learning how to clean the sensor gets more important.

Another issue with close-up work with this long lens is the very restricted depth of focus especially with wider apertures. Stopping down to to f11 or even f22 improves things a bit, but then the resulting slower shutter speeds mean a tripod is pretty much essential, together with the RC-1 remote control unit to avoid camera shake. I've even been experimenting with mirror lock-up to further reduce shake on the longer exposures, but I'm not sure yet whether it's useful or not.

All in all, given the fact I already had the 400 mm lens, the extension tubes are a pretty cost effective route to a reasonable macro capability.

Digiscoping (since 2003)

Now little used, but for the record, my digiscoping equipment was/is as follows:

• Nikon Coolpix 995 (summer 2003 to March 2005).
• Nikon Coolpix 4500 (March 2005 onwards).
• Swarovski AT 80HD 'scope with 20-60 zoom eyepiece
• London Camera Exchange camera adaptor
• Manual cable release and pillar which connects to camera mounting thread (from Jessops, I think).
• Manfrotto Carbon 443 Tripod with 128RC head
• "Slider bar" from Focus Optics between the scope and the tripod
• Home made sighting aids on 'scope and camera body - see below for more info.

Mechanical
I find the "slider bar" (see above list) useful to enable the 'scope balance point to be adjusted, so that with the camera and cable etc attached, the whole assembly is balanced, and doesn't tilt wildly upwards when the tripod head bolt is loosened. Keeping the head bolts untightened greatly helps in the fine adjustments needed to centre the bird in the field of view, especially if the bird is moving.

I find the cable release essential, as my fingers are far too shaky to make contact with the camera when the shutter is pressed. At high magnifications, remember that any slightest movement is amplified. How others manage without this, I don't understand! There are much more expensive electronic cable releases, but they don't seem worth the extra £100 or so to me.

Camera Options
There are numerous camera options, and for those interested in this subject, I always use the camera on the aperture priority setting, so I can get the fastest shutter time which is always a critical factor. I used to use the ISO 200 setting to get that extra factor of two on shutter speed, but I am now doubtful its worth the resulting slight but definite loss of picture quality. Hence I now usually stick to ISO 100.

I always use the camera on manual, not auto, as the extra flexibility is important in two main areas. Firstly, focus where I use the manual AF option which allows you to select which of 5 areas is used for focussing. This can be used to advantage to focus on exactly the point in the picture you are most interested in (ideally the bird's head), but of course in practice it doesnt always work out like that, and the head often won't coincide with any of the 5 focus areas. Secondly, on exposure, I like to use the manual override which allows up to 2 stops either way adjustment on the auto shutter speed (most useful for effectively dark birds against a light background, or very bright birds such as white gulls/herons in sunlight).

Increasingly, I use the shutter on continuous, to get as many shots as possible in a short space of time. Having recently purchased a 1 Gb memory card, there is no real downside to taking as many pictures as possible. I just download them all, and then delete the ones that are not worth keeping. I can sometimes take over 100 exposures of a bird to try to get one or two reasonable ones! In one morning, I filled a 512 Mb card with over 400 shots of just 2 or 3 subjects. Using a program that shows the pictures in slide show mode is then useful to look though them to find the best ones.

(No so) fast memory card
I paid extra for the 1 Gb memory card to get a super fast one, hoping that the continuous shutter mode would work better, and keep going for longer before filling up the memory buffer. I was disappointed that the new card seems no better than my old "standard" speed one. The limitation must be in the camera, not the card. Note that these fast cards do work well in DSLR's though.

Comments on the Nikon 4500: I purchased this in haste in April 2005 when I heard that the model was no longer being made by Nikon. At the time, there didn't appear to be a direct replacement which seemed to leave a big hole in the available cameras for digiscoping. However, I'm now told there are various current models which work well.

My first impressions of the CP4500 were that it was certainly smaller and lighter than my trusty 995, and slightly more "user friendly" to operate. There is also a slight increase in the number of pixels, but not enough to be very significant. Performance wise it is a bit early to tell, but focusing and getting pin sharp images continue to be the main area of difficulty. Also, the small size of the viewing screen is a drawback.

Having used the CP4500 for some time, I now definitely believe it has an edge over the old CP 995, especially in terms of size and weight. It is easier to use, apart from the smaller viewing screen, and may produce slightly better results in general.

Pointing aids
Another matter I have been thinking about is some form of sighting/pointing aid. As I generally keep the camera on the 'scope, it can be very difficult to find the bird, given the limited field of view of the scope/camera combination.

I have tried something made with my sons Meccano kit - at the front of the 'scope - stuck on with Bluetack and a piece of Bluetack on the camera at the other end! See pics below. This can produce surprisingly good results - much quicker to get on the birds! But there is extra hassle taking it off and then putting it back on everytime I move on, so it is only worthwhile if the bird is difficult to locate (e.g. in the middle of a hedge, bush or tree). A more permanent attachment would be useful, but I will be making do with this for the time being!

Home | Trip Reports | Gallery | UK index | Oxon pics | UK pics | Dragonflies | Other Nature | Links