Introduction / My Equipment

Equipment Advice    

	Camera Body -- Digital verses Film Digital Film The Ideal Verdict The Practical Verdict
	Lenses Focal Length Speed/Aperture "Prime" vs. Zoom Lenses Teleconverters "Mirror" lenses
	Tripods/Support
	Flash/lighting
	Film

Photographing Birds

	Birding first, photography second
	Keep a low profile
	Getting Close - Tricks of the Trade Stalking Hiding Remote Triggering
	Be Prepared!!!

DIGITAL BODY - I'm not talking about the cheaper "point-and-shoot" digital cameras that are extremely popular.  One thing you'll immediately learn is that you can NEVER have a long enough lens, and most point-and-shoot cameras simply don't have the reach you're going to need when photographing birds. Point-and-shoot digital cameras often try to inflate their zoom potential by mentioning a "digital" or "software" zoom.  Don't fall for it.  A "digital" zoom is basically digitally blowing up a smaller image to a larger size.  The results will never be as good as the equivalent "optical" zoom.  Anyway...you'll likely want a digital SLR, the digital equivalent of standard film camera bodies that allow for the use of a wide variety of detachable lenses.

Advantages: The most obvious...no need for film!! Purchasing and processing film can be an expensive proposition when shooting birds.  Keep in mind that birds aren't the most considerate of subjects!  You'll often find yourself a bit frustrated when that shot-of-a-lifetime disappears because you just weren't quite quick enough in getting the shot.  Unless you're really good or really lucky, a good portion of the shots you take will be less than ideal.  With a digital body, it's no problem...you simply delete the "bad" images.  With film, you will inevitably end up throwing out many of your shots, something of a downer when you're paying for film and developing. With a digital body, your images are recorded in a digital format.  Given the large number of digital applications (including my very own web page), having a digital camera eliminates the need for a film or flatbed scanner, saving you some $$$$.  You'll also save yourself the time involved in scanning film products. Zoom...Zoom...Zoom.  If you get a digital SLR that's compatible with many lens lines, chances are that your "Zooms" will get "Zoomier" (this from a college grad...).  There is generally a multiplier ranging from 1.2 to 1.6 for most digital SLR's.  What does that mean?  If there's a 1.4 multiplier, it means your 300mm lens has suddenly become a 420mm lens when attached to the digital body.  Given that you can NEVER have a long enough lens in bird photography, this is a definite plus.

Disadvantages: Cost.  The cheapest digital SLR body right now is the Canon 300D, at $899 (a bit cheaper now that it's been out awhile).   As of the date I'm writing this, digital SLR bodies are still MUCH more expensive than their film counterparts.  and this is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Resolution? I initially listed this as a disadvantage.  I really don't think so any more.  The lowest-res new digital SLR is a 6 megapixels.  A 6 megapixel camera will give you beautiful 8x10 prints, and I routinely make 13x19 prints with my 6.3 megapixel Canon 300D.  In the strictest sense, a 6 megapixel digital SLR probably doesn't give as high a native resolution as high-quality film (and a good drum scan to make a digital product from it).  HOWEVER...digital SLR's do MUCH better with regard to grain/noise.  Film products have a grain which often detracts from the look of bigger prints.  Digital SLR's equivalent to "grain" is "noise", but for the most part, the photos you get from a digital will have a much smoother, "noiseless" look to them than a film product shot.

FILM BODY

Advantages Cost.  You can purchase a very high-quality, many-featured film SLR body for between $500-800.  Very good quality entry-level SLR's are available for $250 or even less.  Availability, familiarity, and documentation.  Just a quick glance online will show the vast amount of resources regarding film photography.  Techniques, tips, equipment reviews, etc...all are out there in great abundance.  You definitely won't feel like you're out there breaking new ground.  If you have any problem or photographic challenge, you can generally be assured you're not the first, and you'll be able to find the information you need.

Disadvantages Cost.  Yeah, I know, I listed cost as an advantage as well.  While the camera body itself is less of an investment, film and film developing can be a little pricey if you're a very active photographer. Non-digital format.  If you ever want to get your photographs into a digital format for a web page, to e-mail to your friends, etc, you'll need a film scanner if you get a film camera body.  Note I didn't say a flatbed scanner, the cheap, often under $100 scanners that scan print products.  To get the highest quality digital products from your film camera, you'll need a film/slide scanner.  This will generally run $350 or more (at the date of writing this). Waste.  Shooting birds often results in "bad" shots.  You'll end up throwing away many shots, shots for which you've shelled out $$$$ for film and developing.

THE IDEAL VERDICT - I've gone exclusively digital, and HIGHLY recommend it if you're trying to decide between film and digital.  Save your money and make one, up-front larger investment in a digital SLR and lenses.  Once you choose a product line, you'll be able to use those lenses for decades (if handled properly).  If you go with film, you'll end up spending quite a bit on film and developing, costs that will eventually surpass the costs of initially purchasing a good digital SLR.  If you ever want to get digital products out of a film camera body, keep in mind that you will also be spending quite a bit of time scanning and digitally manipulating your film products.  

THE PRACTICAL VERDICT - When I first wanted to get into bird photography, I didn't have the money for a digital SLR, and didn't want to wait until I've saved up enough money for one.  I decided to go ahead and purchase a film body, but made sure I purchased a body with lenses compatible with both film and digital SLR's.  By doing so, I started building a collection of lenses that were also usable with digital SLR bodies.  Now, I've purchased a digital SLR, and can keep on using those older lenses.  Keep in mind that it's the lenses that are more important for getting sharp shots than the body you choose, so if you want to skimp, skimp on a body, not on lenses.

FOCAL LENGTH - Focal length is measured in millimeters.  The larger the number, the greater the magnification and the narrower the field of view.  The focal length you'll require is dependent upon the types of shots you hope to get.  If you're looking for "habitat" shots that show the bird in its natural surroundings, or if you're primarily photographing large birds, then you could possibly get by with a 200 mm lens.  However, if you're looking for the "fill-the-frame" shots of small species of birds, even a 600 mm lens could be "short" quite a bit of the time.  A word of warning...the longer telephoto lenses can cost as much as a good used car.  A 600 mm prime lens is likely going to cost in the neighborhood of $8,000.  Weight is another consideration, as that 600 mm lens may weigh as much as 20 pounds!!!  Not exactly the type of lens you'll be carrying around while you hike!!  

Advice (Ideal) - Ideally, money wouldn't be an issue.  If this just does happen to be the case with you, then I'd definitely shell out the $$$$ to get a 600 mm prime lens, along with a good 300 mm prime lens, and 1.4X and 2.0X teleconverters (read about teleconverters below).  With this combination, you'll have the reach for most situations, but still be flexible enough to capture the close and/or larger birds.

Advice (Practical) -  Hmmm...the "ideal" lens set above (2 lenses, 2 teleconverters) will likely cost in the neighborhood of $12,000.  Ouch.  If you're like me and money IS definitely an issue, you can get by with a more practical set of lenses.  My longest lens is 400mm.  Do I need more length?  No doubt I could use it at times.  I miss some shots by only having a 400mm, and many of the shots I DO get end up having the bird filling only 10% of the frame.  Can I still have fun, and get some good shots? Definitely!!  As I said above, patience and persistence is free, and can (often) compensate for equipment that is a little lacking (read about techniques below).  So what will a 400mm set you back?  A good, reasonably fast 300mm - 400mm prime lens will probably set you back $600 to $1300.  A zoom lens with a maximum reach of 300mm - 400mm can be had at a considerably cheaper cost (as low as $200), but with some sacrifice in sharpness, and likely in speed.

SPEED/APERTURE - The aperture controls the amount of light that reaches the film (or digital sensor), and is controlled by the size of the opening through which the light passes.  Aperture also controls the depth of field, the amount of depth that is "in focus".  Typical lens aperatures are f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8.0, etc.  The smaller the number, the wider the aperture.  The wider the aperture, the "faster" your lens is, as it doesn't have to be open as long to collect the same amount of light as a more narrow aperture.  When photographing birds, a fast lens is definitely an advantage.  A faster lens allows the shutter speed to be much quicker, which reduces the chances that you'll get "motion blurring" of an active bird.  It also gives you a better chance at getting a decent shot in low-light conditions.  Buy the fastest lens that you can afford (smaller f/X numbers).  Keep in mind that you definitely will pay to get a faster lens.  A Canon 300mm f/4.0 lens will cost around $1100, while the 300mm f/2.8 lens will be closer to $4,000!!!  Also keep in mind the weight factor.  Just as longer focal lengths result in heavier lenses, faster speeds also generally come at the cost of higher weight.

	Advice (Ideal) - Ideally, you'd have the 600mm f/4.0 lens, along with a very fast 300mm f/2.8.  Both would be quite heavy (especially the 600mm), but you'd definitely have the length and speed to get most shots.
	Advice (Practical) - OK, let's say 300mm is the most you can afford to start.  If that is the case, does it make sense to spend an extra $3000 to get the f/2.8 instead of the f/4.0?  Unless you're independently wealthy, spending $3000 for one extra f-stop doesn't make a lot of sense in my book.  Just make sure you don't get anything slower than a f/5.6, or you will suffer from a lack of speed (and lack of auto-focus on most camera bodies).
	And on a related note...faster speeds are great for photographing birds, because they allow you to have fast shutter speeds, reducing blurring on moving targets like birds.  Canon also has an "Image Stabilization" (IS) feature on many of their higher quality lenses.  The IS compensates for camera motion and shaking when taking a shot, reducing the amount of blur you may see in your photos.  IS enables you to hand-hold a shot more often instead of using a tripod, and is great for photographing birds. (See notes on tripods below).

"PRIME" vs. ZOOM LENSES - "Prime" lenses refer to those which have one, unadjustable focal length.  "Zoom" lenses typically have a continuous range of usable focal length between two end marks.  Zoom lenses have the advantage of offering much greater flexibility.  One zoom lens can be used for a wide variety of situations.  Prime lenses generally offer the advantage of greater sharpness and less distortion.  Using a 75mm-300mm zoom at the 300mm length generally won't get you as sharp an image as a good 300mm prime lens, and unfortunately for those doing bird photography, zoom lenses tend to be the "softest" at the longer focal lengths.   Primes also generally allow the use of teleconverters to extend effective focal length, something that often isn't possible with zoom lenses.

Advice (Ideal) - Go with primes.  You simply can't beat the sharpness, and if you're after that great, publishable photo, primes are the way to go.  You'll need multiple lenses to give yourself flexibility for different situations.  If money were no problem...once again, a 600mm f/4.0, a 300mm f/2.8, and 1.4X and 2.0X teleconverters should cover most bird photography situations.

Advice (Practical) - If you're like most people, the $12,000 set above is too much.  If possible, though, I'd still recommend a good prime lens for bird photography.  A 300mm f/4.0, with 1.4X and 2.0X teleconverters, will probably cost around $1700 (at least for the Canon line).  You'll have great sharpness, and decent reach.  If this is still too much (as it was for me when I first got my equipment), then go ahead and get a good zoom lens.  I initially bought a cheap Canon 75mm-300mm zoom.  300mm is awfully short for a lot of situations, but a 75mm-300mm zoom can cost you as little as $200.  For a bit more, you can get 100mm-400mm zooms, or even some zooms that go up to 500mm.  Just keep in mind your photos might not be as "tack-sharp" as you'd like.

TELECONVERTERS - Teleconverters are basically little extenders which fit between your lens and the camera body.  The result is an increase in your effective focal length.  Teleconverters generally come in 2 magnification factors, 1.4X and 2.0X.  Using a 1.4X with a 300mm lens will give you an effective focal length of 420mm, while a 2.0X will give you can effective focal length of 600mm.  Teleconverters sound like a GREAT idea for bird photographers, as you're always wanting more length.  Given a good, prime lens and a good, compatible teleconverter, you WILL have an excellent combination for bird photography.  Keep in mind 2 things, however.  Adding a teleconverter will have an affect on sharpness and distortion.  The higher quality converters minimize this somewhat, but you will still suffer a bit of loss in your sharpness.  Teleconverters also make your lens slower, with a 1 f-stop decrease with a 1.4X teleconverter and a 2-stop decrease with a 2.0X teleconverter.  If you use a 2.0X teleconverter with a f/5.6 lens, you will end up with a VERY slow f/11 lens that will be quite unusable for most birding situations.  Teleconverters will be the most effective if you have a fast lens to begin with, and if you're using the teleconverter made by the manufacturer of your lens.  A Canon lens, for example, will probably work best with the Canon teleconverters.

Advice (Ideal) - Ideally, you'll have that 300mm f/2.8, and the 600mm f/4.0. With the appropriate 1.4X and 2.0X teleconverters, you'll have a wide range of options from a 300mm f/2.8 up to a monster 1200mm f/8, combinations which should fit the bill in nearly any bird photography situation.

Advice (Practical) - OK, you couldn't afford the fast primes above.  If you couldn't afford anything faster than an f/5.6, then teleconverters probably aren't going to work well for you.  You'll end up with a lens that is just too slow.  If you did buy the lower priced 300mm f/4.0, then you probably will get a lot of use out of 1.4X and 2.0X teleconverters.  The 300mm f4.0 with a 2.0X teleconverter will give you a 600mm f/8, something that is definitely not as desirable as the 600mm f4.0, but is definitely quite usable for bird photography.

MIRROR LENSES - If you're anything like me, you'll probably wonder about the "Mirror" (also refered to as "Reflex") lenses that are offered.  A quick search for 600mm lenses on E-Bay, for example, might give you several of the $10,000 prime lenses, but you may also run across an amazingly cheap $200 600mm mirror lens.  These lenses use reflective mirrors to effectively increase focal length.  They're incredibly small and light for the effective focal length, and INCREDIBLY cheap compared to the standard lenses of the same focal length.  The BIG, BIG, BIG tradeoff?  The image quality is often very, very poor.  Mirror lenses also often result in these little ring-shaped image artifacts that really detract from the photos you shoot.

Advice (Ideal) - Ideally, you'd have already bought the $10,000 600mm lens.  You wouldn't be tempted for the incredibly cheap mirror lens at 600mm.

Advice (Practical) - Practically, if you can't afford the lens above, it's awfully tempting to try this incredibly cheap alternative.  As somebody who has tried this, I can wholeheartedly recommend...DON'T DO IT!!!  Will you get a very long effective focal length?  Yes.  Will you also get a cheap piece-of-crud (pardon my English) that won't give you any photos you'd even let another human being look at?  Yes.

Camera Stocks - Camera stocks are somewhat similar to gun stocks, and provide additional stability while still "hand-holding" your camera.  I must admit I've never tried them, so can't give a lot of insight.

Monopod - A monopod is simply a one-legged version of a tripod.  While it isn't able to fully support your camera, using a monopod will provide additional stability.  They are lighter weight than tripods, and can be a good option when hiking, or for capturing shots that don't allow for a complete tripod setup.

Tripod - A good sturdy tripod is truly wonderful in stabilizing your camera and giving you sharp, clear photos.  When using extremely long focal lengths (such as the 600mm), use of a tripod is pretty much mandatory. A wide variety of tripods are available, with a wide variety of locking mechanisms.  The cheaper, lighter models often don't have enough mass to prevent camera shake caused by the wind or other sources.  Consistent use of a good, heavy tripod is one of the best ways to improve your image quality.

Other Support methods - There are many other things you can do to improve your camera's stability when taking a shot.  When birding, you may often find yourself taking shots out of a car window.  Specialized window braces are available which will help you stabilize your camera in these situations.  Something as simple as a bean bag placed on the window frame can help immensely when shooting from a car.

"Image Stabilization" - I believe it was Canon that first introduced the concept of Image Stabilization (IS) to its lens line.  Image stabilization uses software in the lens itself to compensate for camera shake.  The result is that you can effectively hand-hold shots with an IS lens that you would have to use a tripod for with other lenses.  Most claims I've seen is that it allows you to hand-hold at one or two stops higher than you normally would.  Because the subject in bird photography tends to move around a lot, hand-holding is often the only way you can quickly get the shot.  Use of an IS lens in such situations is very helpful.

Total Flash - Total flash is used when both the subject and the background need to be illuminated in order to get the shot.  This is typically the case in any low-light situation, either because of time of day, or because of location (as with the forest understory example above).  Most 35mm SLR's offer electronic through-the-lens (TTL) flash systems, which have internal flash meters in your camera that determines the appropriate flash based on your current aperture and shutter speed settings.  

Fill Flash - Fill flash is used to augment ambient light by filling in the shadows or for lighting a back-lit subject.  For example, let's say you're shooting a gull sitting on a post.  The gull is backlit by the sun.  Shooting without a flash will result in a photo showing the bird as a dark shadow, revealing only it's outline.  By providing light to a backlit subject, you "fill-in" the details of the subject itself.  Fill-flash is also useful when taking photos of birds in vegetation canopies, as the fill-flash will fill in the shadows.

SLIDE vs. PRINT FILM - Your first choice will be selecting between slide film or print film.  Which product is most appropriate for you is dependent on your goals.  I'll give you advantages and disadvantages to both.

Slide Film Advantages Generally considered to to offer greater sharpness Used by most professional nature photographers, slide film is the preferred format when submitting photos for publication. Color reproduction is generally better than print film, and is much less dependent upon the developer of the film. Slide film scans wonderfully, and can give you great, high-res digital images. Disadvantages Slide film is much less forgiving in terms of exposure.  Poor exposures can be compensated for somewhat when processing print film.  Poor exposure with slide film generally results in an unusable result. Film speeds are generally slow.  This can be a big disadvantage when shooting in low-light conditions.

FILM SPEED - An inverse relationship generally exists between film speed and sharpness.  Slow films can offer wonderful sharpness and clarity, but are sometimes inappropriate for bird photography.  Fast films allow you to "freeze" the action of a bird in motion, but it may come at the cost of a high graininess.  Film speed is expressed by an ISO number, generally ranging from 25 up to 800 or more.  The higher the number, the faster the speed. Most slide film is at ISO 50 to 100...relatively slow.  Print film can be found at any speed from 100 to 800 or more. My

Recommendation?  I generally carry both 100 and 400 speed film.  I STRONGLY prefer 100 speed film due to the clarity and general lack of grain.  I end up scanning my slides to make digital images, and 100 speed slide film generally scans very well, giving digital images with a relative lack of grain and high sharpness.  The disadvantage is that you will lose shots if you only use 100 speed film.  In low-light situations, 100 speed film is generally inadequate for bird photography.  Low-light, coupled with motion by the subject matter, is a killer for 100-speed film.  If I know I'm going to be photographing in low-light situations, or if I know I need to "freeze" the action of a moving bird, I will use 400-speed film.  You do lose clarity and have a pretty substantial increase in graininess, but you have much less to worry about with regard to a blurry subject because of inadequate shutter speeds.

Specific Film Recommendations? Like I said earlier, everybody has their own preference with regard to film.  I shoot slide film almost exclusively.  Fuji Velvia is strongly preferred by many nature photographers, due to it's wonderful clarity and bold, vivid colors.  I too enjoy using Velvia, but it is a very slow film, with an ISO of 50. Velvia is great for sunny outdoor shots, but when shooting birds under the canopy at Newton Hills or shooting birds near dawn or dusk, Velvia is just too slow.  Velvia also tends to over-saturate colors, making some shots look almost cartoonish.  My general, multipurpose film that I use the most is Fuji Provia 100F.  Provia 100 is said to have the smallest grain of ANY film, slide or film.  It scans beautifully, giving wonderful sharp, clear images, and provides very good color reproduction without the gaudy overdone look that Velvia can have.  The 100 speed of the Provia 100F is still a relatively slow film, but is a step up from the ISO 50 of Velvia.  I also carry Provia 400F, a 400-speed slide film.  I use this film for low-light conditions or for photographing moving subjects. It is definitely grainier than the Provia 100F, but still provides a very good image.

Don't upset the birds.  Avoid nest photography unless you can be absolutely sure you're not causing harm to the parents or their chicks.  Sure, it's tempting to try and get that great shot of a mother feeding her chicks or incubating eggs.  However, that's generally very difficult to do without upsetting the birds themselves.  Don't approach a nest site unless you can do it in a way that won't upset the birds, and NEVER alter habitat (clearing brush from around a nest, etc.) in order to get a clearer picture.  Remember...Birds First, Photography Second.

Don't approach endangered or threatened species for the purposes of photographing them.  Unless you have a good telephoto lens and can photograph them from a good distance, you shouldn't attempt to photograph endangered species.  Just a few people disturbing an endangered species can have a severe impact on that species' chances for survival.

Some people use tapes of bird calls to coax certain species closer to the photographer.  These can either be courtship calls for certain species in attempt to attract that species, or tapes of predators, which can arouse a defense instinct in many birds.  Using taped calls not only temporarily disturbs the birds, but repeated use of a predators call could cause a species to vacate the area.

Stalking - Many species of birds simply do not tolerate the presence of human beings very well.  It's a very rare situation where you can walk right up to wild bird and take a photo from a fairly close distance.  So...can you approach (stalk) a wild bird for the purpose of taking it's photo?  Yes, you can.  Patience and a calm demeanor will go a long way when stalking a bird.  More often than not, the bird you're stalking will take off before you get the shot.  Some things to keep in mind or try when stalking:

	Different species show wildly different tolerances for human presence.  For example.it's MUCH easier to approach a wren, for example, than it is a Brown Thrasher.  Some species are simply "tamer" than others, and are easier to approach and photograph.  One thing I've learned, however, is that individual birds within a species can act vastly different.  My ability to photograph a Merlin is a good example.  I've occasionally seen them around, but they've always been SO shy that I can't get anything close to a good shot.  Well, one cold morning, I came across this Merlin, sitting on a fencepost eating a Lapland Longspur.  I pulled up with my car to within 20 feet and started clicking away, while he just sat there and ate his breakfast.  You NEVER know when a bird may decide to cooperate!
	Stay readily visible when stalking.  Alright, I know this seems counter-intuitive.  You would expect the last thing you'd want to do is make yourself seen to the species you're trying to stalk.  I beg to differ.  Let's face it...our ability to stalk and hide a wild creature is pretty limited, and you can generally be pretty sure that unless you're 100% concealed, a wild bird is going to be aware of your presence.  Approaching a wild bird while trying to stay concealed is very similar to predatory behavior, and birds will generally react accordingly.  Staying out in the open, remaining readily visible and letting the bird keep track of your movements, is generally a better way to approach a bird.
	Move slowly and erratically.  Don't approach the bird in a steady, straight-on gait.  You'll have more luck if you make very slow, zig-zag movements instead of making a direct approach.  This worked very well in stalking a bald eagle sitting in a cottonwood tree below Gavin's Point Dam near Yankton.  The eagle was facing the river as I approached from behind.  I took a few small, slow steps at a time, during which the eagle would always turn its head to check out what I was doing.  I'd pause, take another step or two, pause, take another step, until after 20 minutes or so I was quite close.  I was able to get a pretty good shot of a bird I never thought I'd be able to approach.

Hiding (using blinds) - The "best of the best" of your photographs are generally going to come when you're using some form of concealment.  To get photos of a naturally acting bird, nothing beats taking its photo from a blind, where it is totally unaware of your presence.  Not only will you be able to capture natural behavior, but the use of a blind generally allows you to get much closer than you ever could by stalking.

	Permanent blinds - With the increasing popularity of birding, the availability of permanent blinds in key locations is gradually increasing.  Many parks and other government-owned areas have permanent blinds build in locations that allow wonderful photography of certain species.  Did you ever have the urge to capture the Sandhill Crane migration along the Platte River in Nebraska?  An entire cottage industry has been creating that caters to birders and bird photographers.  Even private land owners in the key areas along the Platte often now rent the use of carefully placed blinds.  Places like Farm Island near Pierre and other park areas have blinds that can be used by bird photographers.  If you are fortunate to own a piece of land with some good birding locations, you yourself can build simple, permanent blinds.  Although you lack some flexibility due to their fixed locations, permanent blinds are a wonderful tool for a bird photographer to use.
	"Body" blinds - Want to have the advantages of a blind, but also have mobility and the ability to place the blind wherever you choose?  You might want to think about a personal "body" blind.  These generally take the form of a rather shapeless, camouflaged bag of cloth that you place over yourself while you sit and wait for birds to approach.  You do run the risk of looking like a complete fool, sitting under a bag of cloth in a public park while children come up to you and laugh, and dogs use you as their own personal fire hydrant!!!  Well, if your personal pride can take looking a little weird, body blinds offer a wonderful, transportable method for getting close to your subject.
	Your Car - Probably the most overlooked birding tool is your car.  Many species of birds are immediately threatened by a visible human presence, but will readily tolerate the close proximity of a car.  As with the use of any blind, using your car as a blind will require patience.  Driving right up to the edge of a wetland, for example, is likely to scare off any bird that's close.  Don't give up, however.   Open your window, get your camera ready, and wait.  You'd be surprised at how short a wait it sometimes is.  Many birds will easily accept the presence of a parked car in their area, and will start to behave normally again within several minutes of the car first arriving.  Don't believe me?  Check out this Gyrfalcon.  This is shot from a car window.  He landed on the fence post, and didn't seem to care at all about the presence of a car.  If I had opened the car door, I'd bet my life he would have flown away.  Cars make GREAT blinds.

Remote Triggering - Can't get yourself close to the birds?  Well, keep in mind that it's not YOU that has to be close to the bird, it's the camera itself.  Remote triggering of your camera often allows you to photograph natural behavior that you'd never be able to photograph if you were actually present.  Remotely triggering your camera could mean using a corded shutter release, an infrared cordless shutter release, or a remote triggering mechanism that automatically fires when motion is detected in a camera's viewing frame.  I've often used my corded shutter release and a 40-foot extension cord to capture birds at feeders.  My shorter lens, a 28-105mm zoom, is truly a great lens and provides very sharp photos, but is generally much too short to use for bird photography.  It works great, however, when using this remote triggering method.  I simply set my tripod and camera up right next to a feeder or other location, attached the corded release, back off a ways, and wait for the birds to arrive.  They become used to the presence of the camera very quickly, and even the sound of the shutter firing doesn't affect them very much.