PS. If I was to buy just 1 lens for Olympus, which one should it be? 100-400? 300? 70-300?
-
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.
DSLR or mirrorless for wildlife photography (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter katastrofa
- Start date
The 300 is the sharper lens. I would wait for the GH5 and see how that compares. If you want stabilisation of the body to work with the lens you will have to match Panasonic with Panasonic, or Olympus with Olympus.
Personally if money and size and weight was no object I would want to see how the 300 (plus tc) compares on GH5 vs EM1 mk2 - I think it may be close - people will see pro capture as a swaying factor, although 6K photo might be quite good on the GH5.
I don't think there is a wrong answer, and there will always be something in the future that will be better, but I decided G85 plus 100-400 suited me, I don't think sensors seem developed enough yet to make 4MP a major enough difference to combat the downsides the extra pixel density can bring, and if I was after ultimate picture quality I would be going full frame anyway, I wanted maximum reach with quality in as compact a package as possible - my goal is for good record shots, and when I can get close enough in good light, the odd really good shot.
Good luck choosing, don't rush the decision, and enjoy whatever you may decide upon.
Pretty sure NOT the 70-300. Some people say the 100-400 is not crisp enough at the long end, I would like to have one in my hands to know for sure.
Niels
It depends on your normal subject situation,the 300 would be no good for me i need to use the full range of 100-400,the new Panasonic 100-300 is showing some good results.
The 100-400. Your original post mentions shooting large mammals, including cows and marine mammals from a boat. The 300 mm prime, which for birding purposes is usually used with the 1.4x teleconverter, won't work well for those subjects/situations because the field of view is too narrow. Unless your subjects are distant, all you will be able to shoot would be the head.
As for the 75-300 mm, you could get some good shots with it but having the extra reach of a 400 mm is definitely helpful for bird photography.
The 300mm lens is quite expensive... And there is the problem with fixed magnification, as Jim said.
But 100-400 lens is Panasonic / Leica, how this will affect image stabilisation?
But 100-400 lens is Panasonic / Leica, how this will affect image stabilisation?
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Attachments
Thanks, that's one thing off my mind - the difference between Olympus and APS-C cameras is quite small at 6400 ISO.
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
If you think that it's a small difference you might need to calibrate your monitor...
the E-M1 II image have more blue pixels than black..and show clearly less details.
To me it looks like about 1 stop difference, and that is significant (at least to me..).
But if you only shoot up to ISO1600, the E-M1 II would be fine.
D500 I would shoot with confidence up to ISO3200, and D5 up to ISO6400.
(in "lower light" that is, in good light you can go higher)
Some more on Auto Focus and noise performance here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG69QUeOJpE
Last edited:
Funnily, I thought that Olympus showed an excess of RED pixels 
I compared Olympus E-M1 Mk 2, Fuji X-T2, Nikon D500 and (as benchmark) Canon 1D X Mark II. At 6400 ISO, all 4 have noise on the black background. Olympus is the worst of them, but not by the amount I expected.
Now, if comparing autofocus in controlled conditions was possible...
I compared Olympus E-M1 Mk 2, Fuji X-T2, Nikon D500 and (as benchmark) Canon 1D X Mark II. At 6400 ISO, all 4 have noise on the black background. Olympus is the worst of them, but not by the amount I expected.
Now, if comparing autofocus in controlled conditions was possible...
PS. When I have time, I can prepare a blind test for you, and we'll see if the differences between cameras are still apparent.
One thing to bear in mind when comparing APS-C and m4/3 images for bird photography is that the APS-C shot will typically need to be cropped more because it has a lower crop factor to begin with. Cropping more increases apparent noise.
The 100-400 has very good in-lens image stabilization. When you mix brands, you do not get the benefit of the relatively new dual image stabilization of the camera and lens working together. This can allow you to shoot handheld at very low shutter speeds, e.g. 1/30 of a second. It is state-of-the-art as far as image stabilization goes (no DSLR has it afaik); however, it is only useful when the subject is stationary and light is very low.
As for cost, I worry less about plunking down cash on lenses than cameras because lenses hold their value better, so can be re-sold, if need be, without taking a major depreciation hit.
The 100-400 has very good in-lens image stabilization. When you mix brands, you do not get the benefit of the relatively new dual image stabilization of the camera and lens working together. This can allow you to shoot handheld at very low shutter speeds, e.g. 1/30 of a second. It is state-of-the-art as far as image stabilization goes (no DSLR has it afaik); however, it is only useful when the subject is stationary and light is very low.
As for cost, I worry less about plunking down cash on lenses than cameras because lenses hold their value better, so can be re-sold, if need be, without taking a major depreciation hit.
Is it possible to photograph a stationary bird using the 100-400mm Panasonic lens on an Olympus E-M1 Mk2 (so no in-body IS), handheld, and at the longest focal length? What would be the maximum exposure time?
Zackiedawg
Well-known member
Of course it's always possible, but when stabilization is not involved, it's going to be up to the photographer - how steady of a stance do you have, do you know long-lens holding techniques for maximum stability, and of course keeping an appropriate shutter speed depending on your ability to handhold (if you're not very steady, you may need very fast shutter speeds which will be difficult in low light - but if you have good technique and a steady stance, you can get away with much slower shutter speeds). The old rule of 1/focal can be beat without stabilization if you practice how to hold steady...I shoot a 600mm lens at 600mm handheld on a mirrorless body with no stabilization and can get away with 1/500 shutter speeds - but I've learned how to be quite steady.
PS - I see now you were referring to a lens that has lens-based IS - so even without IBIS, you still have stabilization. So that doubly makes my point that you can absolutely shoot handheld at full focal reach!
PS - I see now you were referring to a lens that has lens-based IS - so even without IBIS, you still have stabilization. So that doubly makes my point that you can absolutely shoot handheld at full focal reach!
Last edited:
Have only used it with Mk 1. You can choose to use either the olys IBIS or the lens's OIS. I choose the latter and shoot everything hand held and have been happy with the results. But I'm usually using the oly 300mm in low light situations. If you want specific figures, some of the reviews of the lens may provide them with the Mk 1.
HermitIbis
Well-known member
I've gone through the same frustrations when I used a superzoom (SX50): birds sitting in bushes were a challenge. This photo is one of the few examples where I was almost satisfied with the result.
Focusing manually is more straightforward and easy with Nikon V2 and the CX 70-300, as the lens has a manual focus ring. However, precision and ease of manual focus on a DSLR surely takes the crown. For shots of small songbirds in the (dim) forest there is a clear winner: a DSLR with a prime lens. A mirrorless cannot isolate the bird from the background in the way a DSLR can. If your main purpose is "forest", this fact (and ISO) matters.
Such a decision is a compromise and nobody knows better than you what you want to shoot. A focal length of 800+ mm feels just right for smaller birds.
Last edited:
Your photo is very nice, and the pose of the bird is amazingly comical Good work IMHO.
I have two photos so far of a bird in the bushes, taken by patiently repeating photos and discarding most of the pictures: Riverside wren and Black-throated trogon.
The quality is much below DSLR standards, but I could stand almost right next to the wren and do not disturb him.
Good work IMHO.I have two photos so far of a bird in the bushes, taken by patiently repeating photos and discarding most of the pictures: Riverside wren and Black-throated trogon.
The quality is much below DSLR standards, but I could stand almost right next to the wren and do not disturb him.
I don't think so. The enlargement of the central part of the EVF on my m4/3 makes it easy (once you get used to that feature) and on newer models there are additional features to help you tell what is in focus and what is not when you focus manually.
The counter argument is that often, too much of the bird is out of focus due to the paper thin DOF. I sometimes feel even my m4/3 (pana 100-300) suffers from that.
I completely agree on this one
Niels
Zackiedawg
Well-known member
I think that's not quite universally accurate anymore - though still truthful in general. Many mirrorless cameras with more basic focus systems, and older mirrorless, indeed might struggle in low contrast to distinguish the bird from the background - but the latest batch of mirrorless have addressed those issues very well - focus in very low contrast situations has become much more reliable, much more capable, and the focus systems have much more control, with the focus spot points capable of being extremely small to thread through tight spots and still achieve autofocus, with 300-400+ focus points all over the frame, the focus point can be moved to almost infinite positions if shooting off a tripod, and the OSPDAF systems have been tuned much better to work in lower light before resorting to CDAF focusing.
As a whole, most DSLRs are still capable of focusing more reliably in low light than most mirrorless...but some mirrorless have imrpoved low light focus, and can take advantage of some nice features to help with focusing in these low light situations, such as being able to gain up the EVF to see in very dark conditions, being able to zoom in on the EVF to see fine details when focusing (both auto or manual), and being able to reduce the focus point down to just a few pixels in size.
I still shoot DSLR and mirrorless when birding - I don't find one 'better' than the other - each has some advantages, and each has some disadvantages. But I've also seen many of the biggest disadvantages of mirrorless be resolved, to the point where they are as good, and occasionally better, than my DSLR. Focusing in dense foliage is a particular skill of my mirrorless camera, as is BIF shooting...both areas where just 2-3 years ago, large-sensor mirrorless cameras were almost completely inept.
Can I ask which camera it is?
Similar threads
