|
2.4 Brands
There are two very good reasons to
take brand into consideration
the next time you buy a digital camera. First, as in other
technological arenas, the camera companies with the most capital
invariably have greater research and development resources to bring to
bear in developing their product lines, and their cameras will
therefore tend to offer the best image quality, though they may also
have a higher price tag. Second, and perhaps even more
importantly, the more established brands will almost certainly have a
more extensive selection of lenses, and those lenses will also tend to
be better than those of smaller companies, on average. In this
section we’ll briefly review the brand landscape of DSLR manufacturers.
2.4.1
Leading Brands as of Today
As of today, the most popular
brands among bird photographers are Canon, Nikon, and Sony. If you
survey the most successful photographers of birds and other wildlife,
such as Art Wolfe and Arthur Morris, you’ll find that the vast majority
of them use one of these brands. Other companies occasionally
come out with individual products that promise to rival those of the
big three, but for bird photography the wisest choice seems to be to stick with one of the major brands that offer both
state-of-the-art cameras and a wide range of lenses useful for shooting
birds. Below I’ll survey the offerings of Canon and Nikon and some of
the leading second-tier companies; at this point Sony is also a major contender, though I'm less familiar with their products. Though this chapter is about
cameras (lenses are discussed in great detail in Chapter 3), I’ll be
briefly surveying the birding lenses available from these companies as
well, since I believe the lens line of a company is even more important
than their cameras, when choosing a brand for bird photography.
Canon and Nikon
To my knowledge, only Canon, Nikon, and Sony offer both high-quality cameras
and high-quality lenses spanning the range of useful birding focal
lengths from 400mm to 800mm. (As we’ll see in Chapter 3, pro bird
photographers do most of their work in the
400mm-800mm range, with an emphasis on the upper portion of that range—though there are certainly
exceptions). In the case of Canon, this range is more than
adequately covered. At the low end, there are no fewer than four 400mm lenses: the 400mm f/5.6 prime lens, the 400mm f/4 prime, the 400mm f/2.8 prime, and the 100-400mm f/5.6 zoom. (Focal lengths, f-numbers, and the relationship
between the two are all covered in great detail in Chapter 3). Two of
these are highly portable and hand-holdable (the two f/5.6 lenses), while one (the f/4) is hand-holdable by stronger
or more energetic individuals, and one (the f/2.8) requires a tripod unless
you’re a megalomaniac (which a fair number of bird photographers
are). Only the f/5.6
prime lacks image stabilization (“IS”). In the mid-range are the
500mm f/4 and the 600mm f/4, both with IS, and at the upper
range is the ultra-expensive (roughly $11,500 US as of this writing)
800mm f/5.6 lens with
IS. (I won’t bother discussing Canon’s 1200mm f/5.6 lens, since there are only
about 15 in existence, and they cost about $100,000 used).
Canon
|
Nikon
|
100-400mm f / 5.6 zoom
|
80-400mm f / 5.6 zoom
|
400mm f / 5.6
|
|
400mm f / 4
|
200-400mm f / 4 zoom
|
400mm
f / 2.8
|
400mm
f / 2.8
|
500mm f / 4
|
500mm f / 4
|
600mm f / 4
|
600mm f / 4
|
800 mm f / 5.6
|
|
Fig. 2.4.1:
Canon and Nikon birding lenses, as of 2013. The 400mm f/2.8
lenses of both brands are of questionable utility for birds, due to
large size
and low magnification. Canon has a slightly more complete range
of useful birding
glass, though the lenses from both brands are of
exceptional quality, and always preferable over third-party lenses.
Nikon’s current lens line is slightly less
extensive, at least within the useful range of birding focal
lengths. Of the really serious, hardcore Nikon birders I’ve seen
in
the field, the most popular lens has been the Nikkor
200mm-400mm f/4 lens (though
the 500mm f/4 is very popular
too).
This lens has a reputation for being extremely sharp, and though it
weighs
about 8 lbs., some people actually hand-hold it (though it’s not easy
to do so).
Like Canon, Nikon also has 400mm lenses at f/5.6 and f/2.8 apertures.
Unfortunately, for bird photography the 400mm focal length is most
useful for hand-held applications such as BIF (“birds in flight”), and
neither Canon’s nor Nikon’s 400mm f/2.8
is at all hand-holdable for extended periods, unless you’re the
Incredible Hulk. Though Nikon’s 80-400mm f/5.6 VR zoom is easily
hand-holdable, the older version of this lens can
be truly painful to use for birds in flight, since its autofocus
mechanism is extremely slow. However, in the spring of 2013 Nikon
finally upgraded this lens and it is now reported to be excellent
(though expensive); just make sure if you buy it that you are getting
the "G" version, which is the newer one. Nikon does produce
excellent
500mm f/4 and 600mm f/4 lenses. To my knowledge,
they do not offer an 800mm lens, though the Sigma 800mm f/5.6 is available in both Canon
and Nikon mounts.
In summary, given that both companies offer equally
great cameras and equally great lenses at very comparable prices,
either brand should be considered excellent for bird photography (and now that Sony has entered the market in a big way, they should also be considered a major contender).
I personally prefer Canon because of their two other 400mm lenses (the
fixed-aperture f/5.6 and the
lightweight f/4 with
Diffractive Optics), which Nikon doesn’t currently offer. But
otherwise Nikon is fully as good as Canon in the quality of their
cameras and lenses, and in some cases may be better (though the two
companies tend to leap-frog each other every few years).
The Others
Among the other brands of DSLR available today, only a few others even
warrant mention here. Besides Canon and Nikon, the only other
brands I think I’ve seen actually used in the field by really serious
bird photographers are Sony and Olympus, with Sony in particular releasing a number of very impressive cameras recently.
2.4.2
The Issue of Quality Control
No matter which brand you end up
going with, know this: Whatever model of camera you buy from that
company, there is a very real possibility that the individual unit you
get is defective. This is just as true for Canon and Nikon as the
others. Two consumer-grade Canon bodies that I purchased had
defective autofocus modules, and even after sending them back to Canon
for re-calibration (one of which was sent back twice), I felt they were not up to
my standards, and returned them for a refund. Those were, as I
said, cheap consumer-grade models (just slightly over $1000 US).
The case of the infamous Canon EOS 1D Mark III is now well-known: a
$4500 camera with a defective autofocus module, which the manufacturer
initially denied until Rob Galbraith,
a prominent sports photographer,
irrefutably demonstrated the defects publicly and forced the company to
issue a massive recall of its flagship product. Over a year after
the initial recall, the company is now announcing yet another “fix” for
these “professional” grade bodies. Make no
mistake: I love my
Canon EOS 1D Mark III bodies (both of them), and often sleep with one
or both under my pillow, but newer photographers have to realize that
any camera from any manufacturer, even the top-tier manufacturers, can
turn out to be defective.
I’ve heard it said that the reason Leica (or is it
Zeiss?) lenses are so insanely expensive is that the manufacturer tests
each and every lens before it leaves the factory, rejecting any lens
that doesn’t meet its rigorous testing regimen. The story goes
that Canon and Nikon, in order to cut costs, don’t test their lenses until after a lens is returned by a
customer complaining of a defect. Because many customers
are too inept to notice any defects in their lenses, this saves the
company many thousands of dollars by not having to pay workers to test
every single lens that leaves the factory. The residual cost is,
of course, borne by those discerning photographers who find that they
have purchased a defective lens which needs to be returned to the
factory for a week or more for re-calibration.
The moral of the story is: don’t assume that your
brand-new camera (or lens) is defect-free, even if it’s the most
expensive model offered by the most prestigious brand. Spend the
14-day return period aggressively testing the unit, so that you can
return it for a refund if it turns out to be defective. If you
can’t afford to spend the time testing the camera right away, then wait
to buy the unit until you know you’ll have some time to test it during
the return period.
Fig. 2.4.2:
Service Report for a Brand New, Defective Item.
The item, a 1.4x teleconverter, was brand-new. After comparing
images taken
with this unit to those taken with another brand-new unit of the same
exact model,
it was apparent that the first unit was defective. The
manufacturer tested the unit
and agreed it had not been properly calibrated at the factory, and
performed the
calibration free of charge. It now works flawlessly. Don’t
assume a brand-new
camera or lens has been properly calibrated by the manufacturer.
2.4.3
Safe Buying Practices
In addition to being careful as to
which brand of camera you buy, you should be careful in choosing the
merchant you buy that camera from. Make sure the merchant accepts
returns due to defects. Check that the merchant doesn’t charge a
restocking fee. Some merchants have a maximum actuations policy: if you take too
many photos with the unit and try to return it, they may say that the
actuations are too high for the unit to be re-sold, and won’t accept
the return. Check the merchant’s return period; it should be at
least 14 days. Amazon.com
has (last time I checked) a 30-day return period for cameras, and to my
knowledge they don’t check actuations on returned cameras.
If you miss the return period deadline, you’ll have
no choice but to try to resolve your issue directly with the
manufacturer. So far I’ve dealt with two manufacturers regarding
product defects: Canon and Sigma. On the positive side, both
companies were immediately willing to examine the unit for defects, and
in several cases they even paid for shipping both ways. On the
negative side, I’ve found that Canon repair technicians don’t always
fix the problem, though they’ll claim that they made some adjustments
and have “returned the product to factory
specifications”. Others
have reported the same issues, both with Canon and Nikon. The
problem seems to be hit-or-miss, possibly depending on which technician
ends up working on your unit. Just keep in mind when buying new
cameras (or lenses) that it’s best to find any defects during the
return period so you can return the product to the merchant, rather
than having to deal with the (sometimes lengthy) repair process
involved in dealing directly with the manufacturer.
If you’re buying used (which I don’t recommend), you
should first check to see if Adorama
or B&H have the item in
stock in their “used department”, and at the price you’re looking
for. Returning a defective used item to these companies is
generally hassle-free, in my experience. I once returned a 400mm f/2.8 lens that I bought used from
Adorama. It wasn’t sharp enough, in my opinion, and they accepted
it for a full refund, even paying the return shipping. You can
also sometimes find refurbished items at these shops. Factory
reconditioned items typically come with a fairly reasonable warranty
from either the manufacturer or the merchant, which you won’t get if
you buy from some bozo on eBay.
If the reputable camera shops don’t have your item
in their used department, and if you really have to buy used, then
there are other options besides eBay. Although I’ve never bought
a camera on eBay, and have never been scammed by a seller when buying
other items on eBay, I have been (almost) scammed by buyers on that
site, especially by Nigerians. I recommend steering clear of eBay
altogether, either for buying or selling (at least for photography
gear). If you’re a member of any internet photography forums,
check whether any of them have a Buy-and-Sell
board. I’ve heard that buying items on reputable forums such as Fred Miranda’s Buy/Sell forum can
be relatively safe, as long as you do your homework and check the
seller’s post history to see what kind of character you’re dealing
with. There’s also Craig’s List,
though I’ve heard of people getting scammed on there as well. I
personally don’t buy used equipment anymore, because I view buying used
equipment as “buying somebody else’s problems.”
If you do have to buy used, then consider sending
the used item you’ve purchased in to the manufacturer’s service center
to be calibrated. Calibrations of out-of-warranty equipment
generally aren’t free, but I highly recommend having this done, given
all the new equipment that
I’ve seen that needed calibration. Indeed, I’ve heard that some
pros automatically send every piece of gear they buy (even brand-new
cameras and lenses, fresh from the factory) in to the manufacturer’s
service center for calibration as soon as they receive it from their
supplier. If the cost of calibration is an issue, there are some
things, like autofocus accuracy, that you can test yourself, to see if
calibration is needed. In section 3.11
you’ll learn how to check
the calibration of your cameras and lenses, and in section 2.7.3 we’ll
discuss autofocus “microadjust”, for those cameras that support
this
feature.
|
|
|