<html><head></head><body><div class="ydpc19e3d0ayahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><div style=""><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false" style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Zooms vs Primes</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false" style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false" style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">One factor is cost. Zoom lenses are almost always less expensive than long primes. For example, I have a Nikon 200-500mm lens which currently sells for $1,060. I have considered the <span>AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR, it sells for $3,300. The lens I would love to have is Nikon's <span>AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR, but it sells for $11,200!!</span></span></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false" style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><span><span><br></span></span></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false" style="">Another factor is versatility. Although it is nice to have maximum reach when birding, there are times where you really don't need it all. I use my set up for birds and wildlife and yes, often I don't need all 500mm, so it is nice to have that versatility without having to change lenses--or pack extra lenses when traveling.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false" style=""><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false" style="">It really depends what your needs and priorities are. There is no right or wrong choice.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false" style=""><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false" style="">Peggy Mundy</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false" style="">Bothell, WA</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br></div><div class="ydpc19e3d0asignature" style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><div style="font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div dir="ltr" style="font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;">peggy_busby@yahoo.com</div><div dir="ltr" style="font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;">@scenebypeggy on Instagram</div></div></div></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><br></div>
</div><div id="ydpd77dab49yahoo_quoted_5393688659" class="ydpd77dab49yahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 09:05:48 a.m. PDT, Robert O'Brien <baro@pdx.edu> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div id="ydpd77dab49yiv1868476585"><div><div dir="ltr">Thanks to Jim for a very helpful birding camera review. I'm still using an older Canon EOS 7D Mark II which is a very good camera, but maybe not "great"?<div>I'd say its weak point is autofocus, especially when the subject is in a,say, a twiggy environment where the twigs confuse the AF system.</div><div>I'm guessing from the review that this is less-of, or not, a problem? This is always a major problem with bird photography.</div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>But a more general question I've always had is why to buy a zoom lens for a 'birding' camera. For a general purpose camera a zoom lens has the obvious advantages. But for a bird camera, would not a 400mm lens, lacking lots of useless moving parts, be better. Would you ever want to use the 100mm for a bird? This would be when you're too close to the bird? That has always been a puzzler for me, why so many 'serious' birder photographers buy zoom lenses.</div><div>Grateful for any and all answers to both questions.</div><div>Bob OBrien Portland</div><div><br clear="none"></div></div><br clear="none"><div id="ydpd77dab49yiv1868476585yqt14320" class="ydpd77dab49yiv1868476585yqt0980625381"><div class="ydpd77dab49yiv1868476585gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="ydpd77dab49yiv1868476585gmail_attr">On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 7:39 AM <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:jimbetz@jimbetz.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">jimbetz@jimbetz.com</a>> wrote:<br clear="none"></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex;" class="ydpd77dab49yiv1868476585gmail_quote">Hello all,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Several months ago I asked "what camera do you recommend?" and<br clear="none">
several of you responded. I found that I just wasn't able to<br clear="none">
make a decision - even though I also consulted my nephew who<br clear="none">
used to be a Nikon Tech Rep. So I went dormant on the topic.<br clear="none">
But the desire to get better pictures, especially of birds in<br clear="none">
flight, was always there in the back of my mind.<br clear="none">
I have made a decision and will make a purchase very soon.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
There was something I did that was key to making that decision.<br clear="none">
My nephew recommended I consider renting a camera and lens - or<br clear="none">
two. Since he was going to be here (lives in NYC) we used that<br clear="none">
opportunity ... and rented both a Nikon D500 and a Canon EOS R7.<br clear="none">
Both were with manufacturer zoom lenses in the 100-400 range.<br clear="none">
At this point it is important that I remind you that I own a<br clear="none">
Panasonic Lumix DZ-1000 ... which I still consider an excellent<br clear="none">
"entry level camera". It is a mirrorless "bridge camera" that<br clear="none">
does not have interchangeable lenses but has a 25-400 zoom.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Sooooo, the R7 with the 100-400 lens is a clear winner. It has<br clear="none">
an -amazing- auto focus system that really works. Set up for<br clear="none">
"Sports and Animals" it finds the bird and focuses on it and<br clear="none">
follows it with razor sharp accuracy. Even when the bird is<br clear="none">
flying across in front of you. All I have to do is to keep the<br clear="none">
bird in the frame and hold the shutter down and the camera does<br clear="none">
the rest. In fact one of 'problems' I'm dealing with is that I<br clear="none">
have far more images of BIF than I can use and have to select<br clear="none">
the one I want to keep/use based upon the timing of the action<br clear="none">
(wings up/down/folded/etc. or head up/left/right/etc.).<br clear="none">
Is every picture "perfect"? Of course not. But by far the<br clear="none">
majority of them are "as good as this camera can do" ... which is<br clear="none">
very good. If you take the time to look up my eBird checklists<br clear="none">
for the last 3 days you will find some examples of Great Blue<br clear="none">
Herons, Bald Eagles, an Osprey, Oystercatchers, Harlequin Ducks,<br clear="none">
Red-tailed Hawk, etc. Many of them are BIF (birds in flight)<br clear="none">
which was one of the primary things I was disappointed in<br clear="none">
with the Lumix. But the better sensor and better optics of<br clear="none">
the R7 are a big plus.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Yes, there are probably even better cameras out there that<br clear="none">
will do an even better job. But perhaps not so much if you<br clear="none">
include my priorities? I want (need?) handheld and ease of<br clear="none">
carry (low weight). It's my birding camera. Yes, even<br clear="none">
better pictures are available with a longer lens on a tripod<br clear="none">
with a gimbal mount while shooting from a blind that you hide<br clear="none">
out in for several hours ... but I'm not that kind of bird<br clear="none">
photographer.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Yes, this comes with a significant price tag compared to the<br clear="none">
Lumix ... but having seen the results possible that was an<br clear="none">
easy decision. I will still keep and use my Lumix - for<br clear="none">
stuff like landscapes and grab style portraits. But the R7<br clear="none">
will quickly become my 'only' birding camera.<br clear="none">
- Jim<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
P.S. BTW, with the Canon 100-400 zoom this camera is about as<br clear="none">
good as 4x or 6x binoculars would be. It's not the reach<br clear="none">
of our 8x nor even close to our 12x ... but it still<br clear="none">
does a useful job of being a "spotting scope". Plus if<br clear="none">
you like what you see you just have to push to capture. *G*<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
_______________________________________________<br clear="none">
Tweeters mailing list<br clear="none">
<a shape="rect" href="mailto:Tweeters@u.washington.edu" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Tweeters@u.washington.edu</a><br clear="none">
<a shape="rect" href="http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters</a><br clear="none">
</blockquote></div></div>
</div></div><div class="ydpd77dab49yqt0980625381" id="ydpd77dab49yqt97704">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">Tweeters mailing list<br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="mailto:Tweeters@u.washington.edu" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Tweeters@u.washington.edu</a><br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters</a><br clear="none"></div></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>