Bird Identification

>Could I get a good image of a 6 inch bird from 800 feet away?

No... you're better off getting some high powered binoculars if you want to ID quickly.

File: 001.jpg (3MB, 5472x3648px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5472x3648px

>>3071202
The only camera in your price range that would be useful for what you want is a Nikon P900, but once you get on the long end of it's zoom range, the image will be so shaky (even on most tripods) you won't be able to readily identify anything.

Outside of that, the best you can do with a lens is an image stabilized 70ish-300mm variable aperture zoom (every camera company has several in this range and they're all kinda crap). If you want a good lens in this range, you're talking at least 50% more than your budget just for the lens.

>6" 130ish yards?
Pic related is a bird around that size at maybe 90 feet away, shot at 300mm.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 70D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10 (Windows)
Photographer	D.Rutledge
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	2500 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2500 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:07 07:19:27
Exposure Time	1/2500 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	300.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3071447
Actually, thinking back, that's probably more like 60 feet away, or maybe even closer.

Point is, for the kind of reach you're talking about, you'll want something at or above the 1000mm range which will cost you as much as a decent car through the same amount as a pretty nice house.

https://youtu.be/U3vNur71xfY

If you want to be on target instantly and have quick focus that doesn't hunt, nothing beats large binoculars.

You have both eyes working for you, stability, and high power with a wide field.

I keep Celestron 25 x 70 in my car... amazing quality for the price. They are dirt cheap.

>>3071447
>Nikon P900

Someone else recommended me this one too. I saw it briefly at Best Buy. I don't know, for a point and shoot I'm not really convinced it's worth $600. Like maybe that money should just go to a dedicated DSLR. The guy did say if I could get a used one for $200 it'd be a steal but I haven't looked into it much yet.

Thanks for the example pic though. It's a nice one. Can definitely tell it's a red-winged blackbird. I figure even if I can't ID it by looking through the screen I could at least blow the picture up later and do some photoshopping on it to find out what it is. Wouldn't be as cool as watching it live through a scope, but at least I would have some sort of proof on hand too rather than just my memory of what I saw.

I only said 800 feet because the wetlands near me I like to go to is about that far across from one shore to another, so that would be about the maximum I would have to see across to ID a sandpiper.

>>3071492
Just looked at some reviews of these. Sounds great on paper but they said they're pretty bad at focusing, giving double images and just not very clear. The binoculars I got now are 7x50 and the scope is 20-60x60 but I rarely take it above 30x anyway. Ideally I wouldn't want to pay more than $200 for a scope since it'll get beaten around being out in nature, but there's just no good quality ones at that price point.

>>3071490
$80 huh? Shit that's like 100x better view than the $340 scope I just returned. I don't need National Geographic quality, that would be more than enough for what I'd want. What kind of camera would I need for it? I've never owned a DSLR admittedly.

>>3071624
https://youtu.be/JuC5JejmMmI

>>3071624

Have fun continuing to fail.

OP:

"I buy cheap garbage that is too big and slow to use, and keep getting cheap garbage results, what can I do differently?"

/p/:

"Try more large cheap garbage, m8"

OP:

"Will do!"

>>3072388
It wasn't garbage, it was a highly rated scope, I just didn't think the quality was worth the price. Had it been half of what I paid I'd love it. It got 4.5/5 stars on basically every site, but a lot of it was admittedly from rifle shooters who just take it to the gun range and don't mind some fuzziness or glare. For tracking birds it was more awkward to use.

I'm looking for recommendations on a good DSLR. I'll go up to about $1,000 as a ceiling since I plan on making this last a decade. I didn't realize the P900 was a Coolpix model. I had one a couple years ago and it really was garbage so I returned it. I like how this one has an 83x zoom but from all the reviews it's terrible for wildlife photography because it's too slow to focus and zoom, and the picture quality can be grainy. So I'm still aiming for a DSLR, I just want to get an idea of what a realistic zoom is. I don't know how camera zooms equate to spotting scope zooms. I use about a 20-25x in my scope so if I can get at least that as an equivalent lens that'll be good.

>>3072929
$1000 will not get you anything.
20-25x on your scope is 1000-1250mm worth of lens length.

You would need at least a decent crop frame camera and a lens that goes up to 400mm (8x) with a teleconverter 2x to bump it up to 800mm (16x) which on a crop frame would give you 1280mm (25.6x).

Crop Frame cost: Anwhere from $750-1400
Lens Cost: As low as $800 (for an older non prime zoom such as 100-400)
Teleconverter: $150-300

And this is bare minimum for bare minimum results unless you are really good with DSLR and birding.

You realize 83x is equivalent to 4150mm. That is an unrealistic length unless you can really spend some big bucks on DSLR level equipment. The cost of an 800mm lens is upwards to $13,000.

NOW, if IMAGE QUALITY is of no matter to you:

- Cheap used DSLR Crop Frame: ~$500
- CHEAP SUPER Telephoto MANUAL FOCUS lens
>> Opteka 650-1300mm (with 2x- 1300-2600mm) Telephoto
>>>$175

This is definitely possible. But you will not have autofocus, only manual. It will be as good as your eyes are and your steady hands to take any picture.

Otherwise, your expectations and approach are way off as far as birding photography goes.

>>3073053
Thank you anon, this was very helpful. I'll save it for consideration.

At this point I'm not sure what I'll do. Better scopes are heavy (I do 3-5 hour walks usually) so with a tripod weight is a factor, and it's cumbersome to have to set it down if I want to use my binoculars because in that short time window the bird could be gone.

I was planning a 16 hour round trip drive to a wildlife refuge so I figured a good camera would be more valuable than a scope since I would have a nice picture collection from my trip but with a lot of these places animals are usually sequestered pretty far at the edges away from the trails. Guess I'll keep the cheap scope I have now and wait on a camera since I would like to learn to use one properly in the future.

Here's something to consider - buy a M4/3 camera. Because of the crop sensor, focal lengths are doubled (i.e. your 300mm becomes a 600mm).

If you get a GH5 for example (pushing the budget a bit here) you'll get IBIS and if you're afraid of missing the shot you can whack it on video mode and extract 20MP stills.