• 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.

Will More Megapixels Help Me Here? (1 Viewer)

Only if it's a quality lens.

Instead of looking at the megapixel count you should be looking at the quality of the lens - that's what decides whether you get a good picture or not.

Yes, to a point, but as you allude to earlier, many (most?), people, really are not that adept with the tech side of photography.

The time you invest in camera settings is also important, for those that just point a press, like me, results won't be as good as those who prepare their camera and understand light, relative to shutter speed, exposure etc.

Even with the best equipment, you need to know what you're doing with it, if we have a stationary subject, my wife will spend a lot of time setting the camera, taking sample shots and getting things just so but that's not always possible in wildlife photography.

The OP has also stated that blowing up his images is an important factor so MP count will definitely be a factor at least as important as the lens.

Lets not forget that even with a big lens, a Willow Warbler at 50m will be a challenge so the object is also a consideration whereas a stationary Hippo at the same distance is another matter.

Bird photography, IMHO, provides the most challenging variation of conditions for photographers, it's not always hides and bird feeders, it's often tiny birds in a high dark canopy or skuling in undergrowth. It's also possible that polar opposite condition can be experienced within a few metres which will mean totally resetting your camera.

Given the right conditions i.e light, distance, relatively still subject, even low end cameras these days can capture images to challenge even the top end equipment. My wife has a samsung phone and the macro lens on that is just unbelievable, coloure reproduction is fantastic, it's acually better than my Olypmus Tough in many cases!


A
 
Last edited:
You can get good shots of birds in flight with bridge cameras but not so easy as an SLR. But playing the percentage game, the 5% of the time I get a realistic chance of a good flight shot seems a shame to persevere with tiny images that need cropping to blurred images. A bit self-defeating?

For me it's the overall package, weight perhaps 2.2lbs (1k) which enables rapid deployment of kit to target, yes more light gathering power from the bigger sensor, and the big manual ring...a big plus, especially on a dull day. However direct sunlight on the subject can level the playing field somewhat, especially within the shorter distance range (1-10m). I've held a full frame kit (c10-12k), a day in the field with that round your neck :eek!: then there's the cost....an eye watering £00000's. Yes undoubtedly overall a better image!...but £ for lb...I'll stick with the Bridge.
 
For me it's the overall package, weight perhaps 2.2lbs (1k) which enables rapid deployment of kit to target, yes more light gathering power from the bigger sensor, and

What you also need Ken is a lens with a Honey Buzzard / Goshawk detector!!!

:-O:-O:-O


A
 
Thanks all for the input. My wife actually does have a bridge camera. Not sure the model, about a 5 year old Nikon that I believe is ~600mm equivalent. I admit it is great in certain situations. The zoom is tremendous. Often though I am frustrated by it in how slow it is to zoom, autofocus, and release. I think once used to zooming/AFing/releasing with a DLSR, it's hard to enjoy doing the same with a compact (my opinion, I realize not shared among most). Much of my own frustration comes from fast-moving birds in flight, or birds that are skulky and move in and out a sight very quickly. At this point, I think I have gained a decent understanding of what the different types of solutions offer.

I still remain curious: can you get sharper cropped images with more MP? If not, what does high resolution do?
HeadWest ,

The sharpness has to be there to start with. To get this in all conditions requires really high quality fast glass, accurate AF, and a sensor that performs well at the given ISO, the right shutter speed and good technique. You will get larger details with cropped images, but they may not necessarily be better (still it could help in making an Id though).

For example, the Tamron G2 and Sigma C 150-600 f6.3 exhibit a bit of relative image softness beyond 500mm ie. the last 100mm to 600mm - the most useful bit! Thus Nikon's 200-500 f5.6 zoom would likely serve you better, though it is ~10-20% heavier, and ~ 40% more expensive than the Sigma, but about line ball with the Tammy. At f5.6 it is a half stop faster than both.

Even though the options you will be considering have Vibration Reduction (or Image Stabilization) to help with sharper images at slow shutter speeds, a higher shutter speed (~1/2000th of a second or quicker) is needed to reduce motion blur of the subject itself - Birds In Flight, or little geewhizzits that can't sit still, dart their heads and tails from side to side, or flit from branch to branch. Therefore you want the fastest, longest, best quality glass you can afford and can carry.

The new Sony RX-10 IV is perhaps the first bridge camera to offer DSLR levels of performance due to its new phase detect AF system which borrows heavily from the algorithms of Sony's flagship mirrorless models. It will handle BIF shots that other bridge cameras find difficult or impossible (giving the typical frustrating bridge camera experience that you mentioned). It's 20MP stacked BSI-CMOS sensor is cutting edge technology, and the 600mm equivalent f4 Zeiss glass is absolutely top notch. It will also shoot 900mm @10MP, and 1200mm @5MP. Its minimum focus distance is only 0.72m too. Check out its performance on BIF in this review here - I think you will be quite pleasantly surprised: https://www.cameralabs.com/sony-cyber-shot-rx10-mark-iv-review/
Also, check out the review of the superceded MkIII version (note the IQ is comparable, but the AF on BIF of the MKIV will be a quantum leap ahead) and look at the zoomed and heavily cropped photo of the high altitude jet airplane and see if that is enough IQ for a record shot! http://www.kenrockwell.com/sony/rx10-iii.htm

As I see it, your choices (for a given minimum BIF, quality, reach benchmark) are going to come down to 3 things - weight/size/cost.

1. Sony 1" 20MP RX-10 IV 24-600mm f2.4-f4 ..... 1.1kg ..... 145mm length .... 1700 USD.
2. Nikon APS-C 24MP D7200 (765gr/$900) + Nikon 300 PF f4 (=450mm equiv.) 755gr ..... 1.5kg ..... ~205mm length ..... 2900 USD total. NB. using 1.3x in-camera crop gives 585mm equiv. f4 @14.2 MP
3. Nikon APS-C 24MP D7200 (765gr/$900) + Nikon 300 PF f4 (755gr) + Nikon 1.4x TC III (=630mm equiv. @f5.6) ..... 1.7kg ..... ~230mm length ..... 3400 USD total. NB. using 1.3x in-camera crop gives 820mm equiv. f5.6 @14.2 MP
4. Nikon APS-C 24MP D7200 (765gr/$900) + Nikon 200-500 f4.5-f5.6 (=300mm-750mm equiv.) 2300gr ..... 3.1kg ..... ~325mm length ..... 2300 USD total. NB. using 1.3x in-camera crop gives 390mm-975mm equiv. f5.6 @14.2 MP

Compare these to your suggestion of the D7200 + 80-400:
5. Nikon APS-C 24MP D7200 (765gr/$900) + Nikon 80-400 f4.5-f5.6 (=120mm-600mm equiv.) 1570gr ..... 2.3kg ..... ~260mm length ..... 3200 USD total. NB. using 1.3x in-camera crop gives 155mm-780mm equiv. f5.6 @14.2 MP

All these rigs will perform about the same as far as AF and IS/VR and body size go. The Sony will give you about 3x the fps, and much better 4K video and slow motion capabilities, the least weight and length by about 1.5x - 3x. The Nikon D7200 + either of the lens setups mentioned will give slightly better Dynamic Range and battery life.

Finally, you will really need to hold/point/shoot all of the options mentioned to see if the ergonomics suit, and what the balance, point ability, start up times, and speed of acquisition are like.

Given you mostly want record shots - if you're doing that in good light, and moving around quite a bit, then why not save on the weight and expense of the DSLR setup and get the Sony RX-10 IV? - I'm sure it will show a tangible improvement over your current rig. Ultimately you will have to decide which compromise suits you best. Good luck with whichever way you go.


Chosun :gh:
 
The Pallid Harrier shots were taken through a slight mist, and the sun was NW to my lens (not ideal). Cheers
Incredible photo of a stone-curlew in flight, and the others are just as good! Looks like this camera is doing very well for BIF. - With the Canon SX50, it's possible to shoot raptors in flight. E.g. a bussard chased by a crow - I had posted an example in the SX50 thread. Raise the camera, focus and release - all within two seconds or so. However, there are a couple of limits: you need to have the SX50 constantly powered on, or risk to miss a fast BIF. It shoot only 3-4 fps. And small birds BIF are almost impossible.
 
The new Sony RX-10 IV is perhaps the first bridge camera to offer DSLR levels of performance due to its new phase detect AF system [...] Check out its performance on BIF in this review here - I think you will be quite pleasantly surprised: https://www.cameralabs.com/sony-cyber-shot-rx10-mark-iv-review/[...]
1. Sony 1" 20MP RX-10 IV 24-600mm f2.4-f4 ..... 1.1kg ..... 145mm length .... 1700 USD.
[...] Chosun :gh:

Great link - the photos showing a dog running towards the camera are indeed impressive. I've never tried that, yet the Nikon V2 might struggle. It does definitely struggle with small birds flying towards the camera, the AF of the Nikon V2 cannot adjust so fast.

By the way, are you tempted to buy this Sony bridge camera yourself? You are presently using a Nikon D7200, right? For an enthusiastic birder, will 600mm suffice in "most" situations? I used to consider 600mm rather as a (lower) point where the fun begins.
 
Incredible photo of a stone-curlew in flight, and the others are just as good! Looks like this camera is doing very well for BIF. - With the Canon SX50, it's possible to shoot raptors in flight. E.g. a bussard chased by a crow - I had posted an example in the SX50 thread. Raise the camera, focus and release - all within two seconds or so. However, there are a couple of limits: you need to have the SX50 constantly powered on, or risk to miss a fast BIF. It shoot only 3-4 fps. And small birds BIF are almost impossible.

I've set my camera to extend to max optical...as soon as I switch on...this saves on time and battery. When shooting a bird against a background (trees, bushes etc), it focuses very fast, however against the sky, it can "hunt" momentarily, the brighter the sky the better, grey skies can take a little longer, also another BIF image.

Cheers
 

Attachments

  • P1450855.jpeg  Mag.Kes.4..jpg
    P1450855.jpeg Mag.Kes.4..jpg
    52.9 KB · Views: 42
Last edited:
If you discuss bridge vs Nikon 7200, then I also feel I should mention the mirrorless option of m4/3. I have the Pana G85/PL100-400 combo which gives equivalent reach to 800 mm. Weight is 453 g + 985 g according to listings on DP review - in practical terms I have no problem with having it hanging over my shoulder for a couple of hours.

The last about 40 pictures here is with this combo: http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/7427 (back to about May 2017).

Niels
 
I've set my camera to extend to max optical...as soon as I switch on...this saves on time and battery. When shooting a bird against a background (trees, bushes etc), it focuses very fast, however against the sky, it can "hunt" momentarily, the brighter the sky the better, grey skies can take a little longer, also another BIF image.
Cheers

Very nice photo. It happens often enough: a smaller bird molesting a raptor, say a buzzard. Maybe this genre should be used as "test standard" for cameras when it comes to BIF. I remember an impressive sequence "blackbird chases a buzzard" by Thomas Stirr, at the end of the article he gives a link to an amazing Youtube video set up with these photos.
 
Last edited:
Great link - the photos showing a dog running towards the camera are indeed impressive. I've never tried that, yet the Nikon V2 might struggle. It does definitely struggle with small birds flying towards the camera, the AF of the Nikon V2 cannot adjust so fast.

By the way, are you tempted to buy this Sony bridge camera yourself? You are presently using a Nikon D7200, right? For an enthusiastic birder, will 600mm suffice in "most" situations? I used to consider 600mm rather as a (lower) point where the fun begins.

GREAT question! :)

I am currently mulling over several options ....

Upgrading to the more hand filling grip and greater frame rate of the Nikon D500 + maybe the 200-500 f5.6, or the Nikon D850 + 600 f4 and TC'S (madness!! :), and/or the Sony RX-10 IV .....

What I know for sure is that I would like a bit more sharpness at 600mm than the Tammy offers. I would also like a larger aperture than f6.3 --- f5.6 or numerically less. This will involve more weight and cost, with the weight being the issue of greatest concern. I also know that the Sony's grip is not quite hand filling enough for ultimate satisfaction (a friend has the RX-10 III which I've tried) - though this might be a small sacrifice to make on the Mk IV given its many other advantages.

I wish Nikon would hurry up and reduce the weight of their 300mm f2.8 down to ~2200 grams and give it some FL glass already. It would work great with a 2x TC on the D500 (I have a friend who runs the Canon equivalent - 7D MkII + 300mm f2.8 IS II + 2x TC ..... very nice, well apart from the Canon sensor which the Nikon D7200 flogs).

Then of course Canon has the lovely 400mm f4 DO IS II that takes a 1.4x TC beautifully (for which Nikon has no equivalent), and the rumoured 600mm f4 DO IS III should make an appearance within the next ~12 months (for which Nikon has no comparable - pull your finger out Nikon! :). Honestly a 600mm F4 DO (or PF) sounds like something of a holy grail ..... I would be on it quicker than a seagull on a hot chip!!!

Then there is the Canon 7D MkIII which will inevitably arrive (when ????) but will it match the D500??? Also, what could Canon do with a hi-res upgrade to the 5D - could it match or surpass the Nikon D850 for DR and fps? You would think Canon would be sick of getting trounced by Nikon in bodies by now .....

Arrrggggh! Decisions Decisions and forever just out of reach damn dangling carrots! :-O

Perhaps the Sony RX-10 IV makes a very sensible interim or even final resting spot! :brains:

I agree with you about the fun beginning at 600mm. My 150-600 Tammy is nearly always maxed out and the D7200 on 1.3x in-camera crop factor (this gives me about 1150mm equivalent @ 14.2MP all things considered) .... I would say it's needed about 3/4 of the time. A much shorter minimum focus distance (MFD) than 2.7m would help on a bit more too.

The Sony will crop losslessly (ie not digitally) to 900mm @10MP, and 1200mm @5MP, and the MFD is 0.72m, so that will be handy. I am due to trial the Nikon options I mentioned in a couple of weeks - hopefully I can get my hands on the little Sony to compare too :t:



Chosun :gh:
 
Thank you everyone for all of this feedback. It has been very helpful, and it's been great to see the photos people have posted with the various rigs.

I think bridge cameras are awesome. However, in this case I am sticking with DLSR. This is mostly because 1) I do a decent amount of landscape photography, and have a battery of Nikon lenses for that use case. I will want to continue to use them with whatever new body I buy. And 2) I really just love shooting DLSR, for many reasons.
 
GREAT question! :)

I am currently mulling over several options ....

Upgrading to the more hand filling grip and greater frame rate of the Nikon D500 + maybe the 200-500 f5.6, or the Nikon D850 + 600 f4 and TC'S (madness!! :), and/or the Sony RX-10 IV .....

What I know for sure is that I would like a bit more sharpness at 600mm than the Tammy offers. I would also like a larger aperture than f6.3 --- f5.6 or numerically less. This will involve more weight and cost, with the weight being the issue of greatest concern. I also know that the Sony's grip is not quite hand filling enough for ultimate satisfaction (a friend has the RX-10 III which I've tried) - though this might be a small sacrifice to make on the Mk IV given its many other advantages.

I wish Nikon would hurry up and reduce the weight of their 300mm f2.8 down to ~2200 grams and give it some FL glass already. It would work great with a 2x TC on the D500 (I have a friend who runs the Canon equivalent - 7D MkII + 300mm f2.8 IS II + 2x TC ..... very nice, well apart from the Canon sensor which the Nikon D7200 flogs).

Then of course Canon has the lovely 400mm f4 DO IS II that takes a 1.4x TC beautifully (for which Nikon has no equivalent), and the rumoured 600mm f4 DO IS III should make an appearance within the next ~12 months (for which Nikon has no comparable - pull your finger out Nikon! :). Honestly a 600mm F4 DO (or PF) sounds like something of a holy grail ..... I would be on it quicker than a seagull on a hot chip!!!

Then there is the Canon 7D MkIII which will inevitably arrive (when ????) but will it match the D500??? Also, what could Canon do with a hi-res upgrade to the 5D - could it match or surpass the Nikon D850 for DR and fps? You would think Canon would be sick of getting trounced by Nikon in bodies by now .....

Arrrggggh! Decisions Decisions and forever just out of reach damn dangling carrots! :-O

Perhaps the Sony RX-10 IV makes a very sensible interim or even final resting spot! :brains:

I agree with you about the fun beginning at 600mm. My 150-600 Tammy is nearly always maxed out and the D7200 on 1.3x in-camera crop factor (this gives me about 1150mm equivalent @ 14.2MP all things considered) .... I would say it's needed about 3/4 of the time. A much shorter minimum focus distance (MFD) than 2.7m would help on a bit more too.

The Sony will crop losslessly (ie not digitally) to 900mm @10MP, and 1200mm @5MP, and the MFD is 0.72m, so that will be handy. I am due to trial the Nikon options I mentioned in a couple of weeks - hopefully I can get my hands on the little Sony to compare too :t:



Chosun :gh:

Been trying to find some real world examples of this,do you have any links.
 
Been trying to find some real world examples of this,do you have any links.
Mike, I didn't find any pictures at a quick scan, but the section below is from the Rockwell review of the Mk III, that I linked on page 2 of this thread. Note - he states elsewhere he usually shoots in jpeg.


"Zooming

The incredible lens zooms very well. It's easy to set precise framing with the zoom ring, and just as easily you can use the little zoom lever in front of the shutter button to get in range quickly. Unlike camcorders, the zoom rings and lever only work at one speed each, with the lever faster than the ring.

At the lower 10MP and 5MP image sizes, it zooms through 1.5x or 2x "digital" zoom, while in fact it's smart enough simply to be doing some clever cropping of the full-resolution 20MP image and reformatting it to 10MP or 5MP; in other words, 1.5x or 2x zoom really does get to the equivalent of 900 or 1,200mm without losing sharpness at the 10MP and 5MP image settings, which are where I usually shoot.

The finder reports the equivalent focal length as you zoom from 24mm to 600mm, while the file's EXIF (and file information in Playback mode) reports the actual focal lengths (8.8 to 220mm).

In A mode, the lens always uses the aperture set on the aperture ring from f/4 to f/16. The lens has a variable maximum aperture, but the aperture ring has fixed markings. If you set wider than f/4 and the lens can't go that wide at longer zoom settings, no worries, the lens simply uses its widest aperture.

I find the zoom ring is too far back; sometimes I grab the front (focus) ring, which doesn't zoom the lens."


Hope that helps for now .....



Chosun :gh:
 
However, in this case I am sticking with DLSR. This is mostly because 1) I do a decent amount of landscape photography, and have a battery of Nikon lenses for that use case. I will want to continue to use them with whatever new body I buy. And 2) I really just love shooting DLSR, for many reasons.

After shooting with a V2 I couldn't return to my SX50 either. The EVF or the speed of 3-4 fps are a pain. Using a Canon DSLR with a 400mm prime creates such a lovely depth of field, impossible to get with a mirrorless like the V2. I did lots of comparison shooting with the SX50, the V2 (810mm equivalent) and the Canon DSLR (700mm equivalent). The DSLR won in terms of image quality. The V2 won in terms of BIF and 15fps. We have our preferences... o:D
 
Mike, I didn't find any pictures at a quick scan, but the section below is from the Rockwell review of the Mk III, that I linked on page 2 of this thread. Note - he states elsewhere he usually shoots in jpeg.


"Zooming

The incredible lens zooms very well. It's easy to set precise framing with the zoom ring, and just as easily you can use the little zoom lever in front of the shutter button to get in range quickly. Unlike camcorders, the zoom rings and lever only work at one speed each, with the lever faster than the ring.

At the lower 10MP and 5MP image sizes, it zooms through 1.5x or 2x "digital" zoom, while in fact it's smart enough simply to be doing some clever cropping of the full-resolution 20MP image and reformatting it to 10MP or 5MP; in other words, 1.5x or 2x zoom really does get to the equivalent of 900 or 1,200mm without losing sharpness at the 10MP and 5MP image settings, which are where I usually shoot.

The finder reports the equivalent focal length as you zoom from 24mm to 600mm, while the file's EXIF (and file information in Playback mode) reports the actual focal lengths (8.8 to 220mm).

In A mode, the lens always uses the aperture set on the aperture ring from f/4 to f/16. The lens has a variable maximum aperture, but the aperture ring has fixed markings. If you set wider than f/4 and the lens can't go that wide at longer zoom settings, no worries, the lens simply uses its widest aperture.

I find the zoom ring is too far back; sometimes I grab the front (focus) ring, which doesn't zoom the lens."


Hope that helps for now .....



Chosun :gh:

There has been a lot of positive talk about the extra zoom but like you i cant faind any photographic proof.
For the first time today out of interest i tried the 2X digital converter built into the Olympus EM10 MK11, with the kit 40-150.
Two samples without and with.
 

Attachments

  • PA290057.jpg
    PA290057.jpg
    152.4 KB · Views: 52
  • PA290058.jpg
    PA290058.jpg
    126.9 KB · Views: 60
There has been a lot of positive talk about the extra zoom but like you i cant faind any photographic proof.
For the first time today out of interest i tried the 2X digital converter built into the Olympus EM10 MK11, with the kit 40-150.
Two samples without and with.
Mike that looks pretty good. The way it works on all these cameras can't be magic though, it is simply cropping either within, or outside of the camera. Those truncated pixels from the periphery are discarded and the resultant resolution reduced correspondingly to the area (given by the new multiple reduction in Fov). I don't have any information on what the viewfinder display looks like for the Sony in this mode. In the D7200 there is a single line open frame around the 1.3x crop, making the rest of the viewfinder available for finding subjects. I would prefer a boundary a bit more solid though - like a thick line, as it is easy to chop off a wingtip etc.



Chosun :gh:
 
Mike that looks pretty good. The way it works on all these cameras can't be magic though, it is simply cropping either within, or outside of the camera. Those truncated pixels from the periphery are discarded and the resultant resolution reduced correspondingly to the area (given by the new multiple reduction in Fov). I don't have any information on what the viewfinder display looks like for the Sony in this mode. In the D7200 there is a single line open frame around the 1.3x crop, making the rest of the viewfinder available for finding subjects. I would prefer a boundary a bit more solid though - like a thick line, as it is easy to chop off a wingtip etc.



Chosun :gh:

Dont know if it works like the 1.3 crop in the Nikons but the none converter shot comes out the camera in jpeg at 4608 x 3456 @ 7.14mb the converter image 4608 x 3456 @ 6.10mb so not a lot in it.
I have a feeling though a small bird over some distance would not work very well.
 
Similar in camera crop has been found in Panasonic cameras for a long time. They only work in that camera if you are using jpg for saving, not in RAW mode. Given my preference for RAW I do not use the crop modes. Those who have used the crop modes have reported more precise focusing on small subjects at a distance when using the crop compared to not using it.

Niels
 
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