• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Advice on best camera/lens combo (1 Viewer)

There is quiet a lot of assuming by people that have not used both systems and especially those that have not used top and bottom end DSLR camera bodies.

M4/3 is not as fast in AFC as your top end Nikon bodies,cant talk Canon as I have never used them but I cant see them being much different,just taking two of the Nikon bodies I have owned and used with a Sigma 150-600 contemporary.
D750 extremely quick and accurate AFC ahead of top M4/3,Nikon D7200 on a par with top M4/3.anything below D7 series in Nikon is a gamble with long lenses,if you have a front or back focus issue nothing can be done as the D5xxx bodies do not have focus fine tune.(Canon could be the same) mirrorles cameras dont suffer this problem.

Note you can get a dock and do the fine tuning on the lens with the Sigma 150-600 but not with most lenses.

AFS,this is where mirrorles shines its blindingly fast,so fast in fact ime moving away from AFC as a trial,following the BIF and pumping the shutter in single shot mode,for a stationery subject IMO its ahead of most DSLRs.

Weight

D7200 and Sigma 150-600 2.6kg

GX8 and 100-400 1.4kg


Price

D7200 and Sigma 150-600 @ WEX £1649 including free 1.4 converter

GX8 and 100 -400 @ WEX £2118

As you can see the Nikon has the price advantage but you pay for that in extra weight and bulk,i tried to show two systems i consider to be similar,on both systems you can go up or down with spec,price and weight.
 
Last edited:
Mike, I think this is a very fair comparison. Given that you have used both you should know ;) but it also fit with my impression from other sources.

Niels
 
There's a reason why virtually *all* birders here who carry a camera for record shots prefer a DSLRs over an M4/3. A DSLR is faster and the AF-C is more reliable.

I believe your first claim is wrong, and the second claim is not true of the latest generation of m4/3 cameras. In my experience the majority of birders who want record shots use superzooms. Birders who want high quality shots without lugging heavy gear opt for m4/3. Birders who want high quality shots and don't mind carrying heavy gear or who never thought about other options have DSLRs.

If you visit the m4/3 forum on the DP Review, one of the most heavily trafficked forums on the site, you'll see that about half the posters there who share their photos focus on bird photography, and many of them produce outstanding results. Yes, birds in flight take a little more work with m4/3s (though that is changing with the latest generation of cameras), but you can still get great shots and those are usually a small fraction of bird shots anyway. I often get a lot more shots than those carrying DSLRs on the tours I go on because my gear is light enough to carry all day.

Finally, the noise advantage of APS-C sensors is due to a larger sensor size. It vanishes when you have to significantly crop your photo, which you almost always have to do with such cameras because you get less reach than m4/3 because of the lower crop factor. If you just want to compare sensor noise while ignoring cropping needs, we should all be using full frame cameras which blow away the D500 APS-C, and which are becoming more affordable all the time.
 
Last edited:
Hi All, thanks for throwing DSLR in the mix and discussing it, great comments!

I thought about DSLR at first (my wife has a Canon 60D), but discarded this mainly because I believe that portability is one of my strongest priorities.

But one more question on APS-C versus m4/3: I think I moreless understood the issue of autofocus performance and birds in flight. I'm not yet sure about differences in low-light performance (e.g. birding in tropical forest). Ist the main difference that DSLR (APS-C sensors) generally allow higher ISO?
 
Last edited:
But one more question on APS-C versus m4/3: I think I moreless understood the issue of autofocus performance and birds in flight. I'm not yet sure about differences in low-light performance (e.g. birding in tropical forest). Ist the main difference that DSLR (APS-C sensors) generally allow higher ISO?

Basically, yes. They are larger sensors, so of course can gather more light. I added a third paragraph to my comment above that addresses this while you were posting. The best sensors for low light are full frame sensors, which have no crop factor and require even heavier lenses than APS-C to get equivalent reach. Basically the options are a sliding scale of trade-offs and advantages by changing sensor size, and we are fortunate to have many good choices all along the scale. (Full-frame, APS-C, m4/3, nikon 1, superzoom/compact).
 
Last edited:
But one more question on APS-C versus m4/3: I think I moreless understood the issue of autofocus performance and birds in flight. I'm not yet sure about differences in low-light performance (e.g. birding in tropical forest). Ist the main difference that DSLR (APS-C sensors) generally allow higher ISO?

Dalat, the sensor is a little larger on an APC sensor, and with the most commonly used pixel numbers, the individual pixel units on the sensor is a little larger as well. That gives a slightly better signal to noice ratio which results in being able to functionally use a little higher iso for same quality of output. The above is under the assumption that everything else is equal such as the same generation of sensor. My older GH2 has a sensor from a previous generation so I expect to be able to get at least a 1 stop improvement in iso when going to a newer m4/3 camera. How this comparison (generation) comes down between m4/3 and canikon APS I am not sure, especially not with the newer sensors in the oly em1-ii and in the upcoming GH5.

One funny thing: several newer Nikon APC cameras have a 1.3x crop mode that effectively means you are using a sensor of the same size as the m4/3 sensor ;)

The other item with low light is the accuracy of focusing. dSLR cameras usually focus using a separate chip which has different demands on light levels in different cameras (more light is demanded in cheaper dSLRs). If there is not enough light to drive that chip, then you can use the "live-view focusing" which on dSLRs usually means slower focusing without all the bells and whistles of the advanced AF system that they build into the separate chip.
m4/3 and other mirrorless systems AF using the actual sensor that takes the photo and usually can continue to focus until it is quite dark. This is actually similar to the life-view focusing on a dSLR. But because the mirrorless systems use that as their main AF system, this is where the bells and whistles have been added. (this last section is not something I usually think about, so I hope I got it reasonably right)

Niels
 
I believe your first claim is wrong, and the second claim is not true of the latest generation of m4/3 cameras. In my experience the majority of birders who want record shots use superzooms. Birders who want high quality shots without lugging heavy gear opt for m4/3. Birders who want high quality shots and don't mind carrying heavy gear or who never thought about other options have DSLRs.

On the subject of what birders use: That seems to depend on where you are. Over here the great majority of birders (not "virtually all", as I wrote in the post you replied to, that was an exaggeration) switched to DSLRs, mainly because the AF-C is faster and more reliable. If you want to get a record shot of some interesting bird (like a hybrid harrier, for instance, or a rarity) you don't have a lot of time, and if you don't get the bird at once it may be gone forever.

Superzooms are too slow for that sort of thing, and the M4/3 cameras I'm familiar with (GX85, EM-5 II) don't work all that well either. Cameras like the GX85+Panasonic 100-300 are ok - but they'e IME slower than even an old D300 or Canon 7D when it comes to moving birds. Even a Nikon 1 V1+70-300 is faster in that kind of situation.

So I see a lot of Canons and Nikons all over the place, including older cameras like the Nikon D300 or some older Canons. And sure, these cameras are heavier than a typical M4/3, but if you combine, say, a D7200 with a lens like the Nikon 4/300 PF+TC, the weight difference isn't really a killer.

If you visit the m4/3 forum on the DP Review, one of the most heavily trafficked forums on the site, you'll see that about half the posters there who share their photos focus on bird photography, and many of them produce outstanding results.

That forum is perhaps the most partisan forum on the whole of DP Review, and a lot of what's written there is pretty ludicrous, and that's putting it mildly. Or what should one think of claims that the new Olympus is going to beat the Nikon D500 *in all departments*? Mind-boggling.

That said, there are quite a few very, very good photographers there, like Danny, who get excellent shots. But most photographs posted on that forum are not of grotty little brown birds disappearing in the middle of a bush never to be seen again. Or a harrier disppearing in the mist on a foggy day in late September. In fact, most shots there look as if the photographer had all the time in the world to get the shot. But that's not the kind of shots I'm interested in, I'm interested in that grotty brown bird that *may* have been a Siberian Accentor. Or perhaps not. And to get that shot I think you're better off with a decent DSLR than an m4/3 camera.

I often get a lot more shots than those carrying DSLRs on the tours I go on because my gear is light enough to carry all day.

Definitely. I personally can't carry my DSLR gear around all day, especially not in "difficult" terrain. Not when I'm also carrying a scope+tripod. That's the reason why I'm looking at other systems all the time, more or less. But so far I haven't found anything that comes close to nevermind beats a DX DSLR.

Finally, the noise advantage of APS-C sensors is due to a larger sensor size. It vanishes when you have to significantly crop your photo, which you almost always have to do with such cameras because you get less reach than m4/3 because of the lower crop factor.

I think you can get shots with a DSLR that you won't with an M4/3, simply because it's faster. So with the DSLR you'll have some shots, even if you have to crop and thus lose the advantage in image quality. So you may end up with a (technically) not entirely satisfactory shot - but with an M4/3 you may end up having no shot at all.

I'm not in any way "against" M4/3, far from it. I think it's a very interesting system, especially when you use it with some lightweight lenses like the Oly 75-300 or the Pana 100-300, despite their limitations in IQ. But one should not forget about the limitations of that system.

Hermann
 
Last edited:
I notice dalat mentioned birding in a tropical forest,never been in one but would weather sealing be important in such a situation.
 
I notice dalat mentioned birding in a tropical forest,never been in one but would weather sealing be important in such a situation.

I live on a humid tropical island and have used a non-weather sealed system for years. I have additionally visited places like Costa Rica and Ecuador. Either do not go out in the worst downpours or make sure to bring a good quality bag that can keep it dry. Having said that, the new G85/81/?? and the real top models are all weather sealed as are both new top lenses.

Niels
 
But most photographs posted on that forum are not of grotty little brown birds disappearing in the middle of a bush never to be seen again. Or a harrier disppearing in the mist on a foggy day in late September. In fact, most shots there look as if the photographer had all the time in the world to get the shot. But that's not the kind of shots I'm interested in, I'm interested that grotty brown bird that *may* have been a Siberian Accentor. Or perhaps not. And to get that shot I think you're better off with a decent DSLR than an m4/3 camera.

I would probably be rather close to your type of use of cameras rather than to those who spend a day to get the perfect shot of a common bird. However, I'm probably much less demanding, as I'm coming from the other end, using currently a bridge and just wanting to get better photos of more birds.

Regarding speed, I totally see your point, it's because of speed that I loose most opportunities. The bridge takes 2 seconds or more to power up, another second to zoom out, and then the autofocus takes time to lock. Autofocus time has been discussed above, zooming out shouldn't be a problem with lenses with manual zoom, but what about the start up time? Do DSRLs also have an advantage here over the latest M4/3 cameras?

I notice dalat mentioned birding in a tropical forest,never been in one but would weather sealing be important in such a situation.

Here in Swtzerland, it's also raining pretty often unfortunately, so I think weather sealing would nice to have both here or in the tropics (but I could live with unsealed gear I think). Difference in the tropics is more the air humidity than the frequency of rains, and for air humidity, there is no difference in use but in storage of the gear
 
what about the start up time?
I think it was the recent DPreview of G85 that mentioned a 1.2 second total time from flipping on the camera to the image was written to the memory card so including start up and AF times. In the Adds for the new Oly, they claim it is the worlds fastest camera so they must be doing even better o:)

By the way: any AF is going to struggle with a bird behind branches. That is why I love the setting on my Pana with manual override: I autofocus (AF-S) while holding the focus ring, it is not where I want it, but as soon as I turn the focus ring the center of the image enlarges and I can manually change focus. I do not need to first flip a switch to allow manual.

Niels
 
Last edited:
When i go out its maybe only for 3-4 hours and a spare battery lets me leave my camera switched on,no matter what system i used i would be looking at having enough batteries to leave it on,thats just me though.
 
I would probably be rather close to your type of use of cameras rather than to those who spend a day to get the perfect shot of a common bird. However, I'm probably much less demanding, as I'm coming from the other end, using currently a bridge and just wanting to get better photos of more birds.

Regarding speed, I totally see your point, it's because of speed that I loose most opportunities. The bridge takes 2 seconds or more to power up, another second to zoom out, and then the autofocus takes time to lock. Autofocus time has been discussed above, zooming out shouldn't be a problem with lenses with manual zoom, but what about the start up time? Do DSRLs also have an advantage here over the latest M4/3 cameras?



Here in Swtzerland, it's also raining pretty often unfortunately, so I think weather sealing would nice to have both here or in the tropics (but I could live with unsealed gear I think). Difference in the tropics is more the air humidity than the frequency of rains, and for air humidity, there is no difference in use but in storage of the gear

We get just a little rain in the uk,it doesn't help image quality;)
 

Attachments

  • 30754350566_87ed7f24d3_o.jpg
    30754350566_87ed7f24d3_o.jpg
    343.3 KB · Views: 131
If you want to get a record shot of some interesting bird (like a hybrid harrier, for instance, or a rarity) you don't have a lot of time, and if you don't get the bird at once it may be gone forever.

Looks like we are using "record shot" in two different senses. I usually see it used, somewhat pejoratively, in the sense of "I don't care much about image quality, I just want a record (souvenir) that I've seen the bird." You are using it more in the sense of "I need confirmation of the species identity, e.g. to document a rarity." I'd consider that to be something of a special need outside of ordinary bird photography. I don't disagree that some DSLRs are probably going to be more reliable for the latter--at least excepting the most recent generation of m4/3s, for which the results are not in yet. As Niels points out, Olympus claims it has souped up the speed of the EM-1 mk ii on almost every level.
 
Looks like we are using "record shot" in two different senses. I usually see it used, somewhat pejoratively, in the sense of "I don't care much about image quality, I just want a record (souvenir) that I've seen the bird." You are using it more in the sense of "I need confirmation of the species identity, e.g. to document a rarity." I'd consider that to be something of a special need outside of ordinary bird photography. I don't disagree that some DSLRs are probably going to be more reliable for the latter--at least excepting the most recent generation of m4/3s, for which the results are not in yet. As Niels points out, Olympus claims it has souped up the speed of the EM-1 mk ii on almost every level.

Yep, that makes a lot of sense. Documenting rarities (or "interesting" birds, like hybrids) has been getting more and more important over here over the past few years, and nowadays most records of such birds are supported by at least half-way decent shots. A typical combination used by a lot of birders is e.g. the Canon 7DII+100-400L.

It's going to be interesting to see if the latest Olympus does get close to some of the fast DSLRs - carrying a suitable DSLR+long lens isn't really a lot of fun. And the AF of the lightweight consumer bodies isn't really good enough, so we're talking about bodies weighing something like 800gr.+ in addition to the lens.

Hermann
 
[...] (the m4/3 with a 100-400 lens is about the biggest gear I currently can imagine to lug around). I did this with binoculars, just bought a Leica straight away, which I think saved me quite some money, compared to slowly climb the ladder and upgrade in steps.
The best demonstration I can presently find for the new camera's BIF capability is a hovering Kingfisher. Obviously there is a certain amount of luck involved to have this bird hover in mid-air not far away from you, but I have faced this situation three times before (from a distance of about 15m). It seems to me that its BIF performance is on a par with my N1 cameras, maybe even a little better. :t:

An informative comparison of the older Olympus model and the Canon 7dmkii is here.

If you lug around a Leica bin, a Swarovski scope and a tripod, an extra 1.4kg is a burden, but the photos may be worth it.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top