• 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.

DSLR or M43 - help me please! (1 Viewer)

kb57

kb57

Well-known member
Europe
I've currently got a bridge camera (Pana FZ200), which is great for portability and reach (600mm 35mm equivalent) and can take surprisingly good bird photos in the right circumstances, but can't match IQ of a DSLR.
I've been thinking about making the leap to DSLR photography for some months now, but want something lightweight and portable (its always going to be birds first, images second for me) and homed in on either a Nikon D5300 + TC1.4III + 300mm PF combo, or D7200 (not sure about extra size though, D5300 feels just like my FZ200 in the hand).
Recently my head has been turned by Panasonic GX8 and the new 100-400mm Pana/Leica lens, where some people seem to be getting great results. This would give me a larger sensor and more reach than I have at present. Problem is I can't find a GX8 to try locally, and there doesn't seem to be a 100-400 available anywhere in UK at the moment...I also worry about ergonomics of a 'rangefinder' style camera vs. chunkier DSLR / superzoom, and some talk of AF not being so good...
At the risk of starting a DSLR vs M43 bunfight, what do others think?
 
several years ago I went from a bridge camera to m4/3. I excluded the bigger SLRs simply based on size weight. I have used the combo of Pana GH2 with the older 100-300 for a few years, se photos here: http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/7427 (if you go back far enough you will see images with the FZ18 as well).

I am expecting to go to the 100-400 as well, and I will likely use it with the G7 (possibly G8 if they get one out before I upgrade). I might go to the oly line instead, rumors say that the em1-II will have a much improved tracking AF.

AF performance of m4/3 generally speaking is good enough in most situations. Where there still is a major advantage for the best dSLRs is in tracking AF which is a help for birds in flight. Notice that the Nikon D5xxx series is not in the class that has that advantage, according to the DPreview site: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-g7/8

At the end of the day, only you can make the decision what is good enough and still a step up for you.

Niels
 
I began with a Canon dslr (Tamron 70-300mm lens + Kenko 1.4 TC), but the birds didn't "fill the frame". It was a revelation when the Canon SX50 appeared at the end of 2011. For four years I used this camera enthusiastically. Only a few months ago I thought it was time to "grow" as a photographer and took a new look at my Canon DSLR, comparing it to the SX50, and became aware of the problems of the SX50:

- the manual focusing of the DSLR is superb,
- the OVF of the DSLR is a pleasure (closer to binos than to the SX50's EVF),
- DSLR much better in low light,
- DSLR in a different league regarding BIF,
- I borrowed a 400mm prime (with the Kenko 1.4 TC). Great stuff, although I needed a monopod, which was a major hassle.

I loved much of what DSLRs offered, but hated their noise and the weight. So I bought a Nikon V2 and a CX 70-300 and am happy with it. Look at Thomas Stirr's blog or at articles by Fredrik Glockner where he compares the Nikon CX 70-300 lens with other birding options, like the 300 PF (via the FT1 adapter) or the Tamron 150-600.
 
Thanks Niels, I can see from your gallery you are an experienced photographer with some great shots in what I guess are difficult environments, so I value your advice. They certainly make a good case for m4/3!
I had feared that the D5xxx series might not give me a good enough improvement in AF capability, but I'm a bit reluctant to go with the extra bulk and cost of a D7200. As I've never got into BIF before - and will have a steep learning curve with technique whatever camera I choose - I can't easily assess how much weight to attach to tracking AF.
You are right that at the end of the day I have to make the decision, and I guess both options would be a step up for me coming from the FZ200 - thanks again for the input.
 
I ditched my last Nikon dslr last year and my surviving Oly dslrs this year.

I have brought back into use my old 1980s Fotima bag last used for my OM4 etc as the OMD EM1 with a battery grip is now small enough to fit as do the lenses. The harness means it can be carried without stress and also used on the move. Moving to a fully CSC environment took longer than it should and photography is fun again.

I have yet to test my old Zuiko 500mm mirror lens on an EM body, but it will happen - an effective 1000mm 35mm equiv with 5 axis stabilisation - must be easier to use than when I first got it!

http://www.savazzi.net/photography/olympus500.html

You could achieve critical focus with the OM series viewfinders - especially with a magnifier, someday digital v/fs will catch up!, but this is where the fun is returning to photography.

N.B. A bean bag is usually better than a tripod for this lens, maybe not for bif, but nests etc., it may have its uses.

There are obviously occasions where a dslr is the only answer, as there are for pro 6x4.5 digital cameras or superzooms, however this will do for me now, the best of the old with the best of the new for my needs.

The bag is fantastic over 20 years of service before being mothballed, dragged abroad, taken camping, constant use and the only real defects are a tired looking shoulder strap and the elastic film holders have sagged, but so have I. It will outlast me.
 
Last edited:
Thank you HermitIbis, sorry I can't seem to quote your message in reply...
I had looked at Nikon 1 CX system and worry that it might be a little too small for me, grip on Nikon 1 v3 might help but I can see me breaking it when I try and change the battery...interesting how the PF 300 lens worked well, and absolutely stunning bird pictures on Thomas Stirr's blog, like the gull taking off at 60fps! It is almost exactly the same price as a D7200 in UK (Wex photographic), and I wouldn't need a TC...hmmm
 
I started off with a DSLR then switched to micro four thirds, first with a Panasonic GH2 and then an Olympus EM-1.

The Olympus was a fantastic camera although somewhat let down by the 75-300 lens I was using. For BIFs, while you could get decent images, the keeper rate was appalling.

Of course, the Olympus 300 f4 is now available, which is reputedly a great lens. However, it is very expensive and, in my opinion, far too heavy for what is supposed to be a smaller, lighter format.

I went back to using a DSLR, this time a Nikon D7200 with the 300 f4 PF and a 1.4 tc. This, for me, offers by far the best combination of performance, quality and portability. Mind you, I am quite tempted by the new D500.

Apart from the logistics, I just prefer the experience of shooting with a DSLR, but of course that might not be the case for you. As Niels said, only you can answer your own question.

Perhaps you could rent some gear to get a feel for it. I know it's extra expense but it might prevent you from making a more expensive "mistake".

Hope this helps. Probably not. Probably just adds to the confusion and uncertainty.;) Anyway, good luck with whatever you decide.

Malcolm
 
Just in the process of changing over from Nikon,i have the GX8 body and 12-35 f2.8 just waiting for the 100-400,i chose the Panasonic after a lot of research because i like to do BIF,obviously no results yet as i dont have the long lens,but with the one i have continuess AF and image view is great,have tested it on a car coming towards me @ 25-30 mph and with a burst of 14 shots they where all correct or acceptable.
 
Just checked and its 19 shots,i have them posted but its on another forum so dont know if i can link to it.if i do the gaps in the images are not missing pictures its a forum problem.

You need to go to the medium burst rate on the GX8 to get constant focus and image view but its 6 frames a second,i think i may go to low at two frames 6 is a bit too many.
 
MalR said:
I started off with a DSLR then switched to micro four thirds, first with a Panasonic GH2 and then an Olympus EM-1.

The Olympus was a fantastic camera although somewhat let down by the 75-300 lens I was using. For BIFs, while you could get decent images, the keeper rate was appalling.

Of course, the Olympus 300 f4 is now available, which is reputedly a great lens. However, it is very expensive and, in my opinion, far too heavy for what is supposed to be a smaller, lighter format.

I went back to using a DSLR, this time a Nikon D7200 with the 300 f4 PF and a 1.4 tc. This, for me, offers by far the best combination of performance, quality and portability. Mind you, I am quite tempted by the new D500.

Apart from the logistics, I just prefer the experience of shooting with a DSLR, but of course that might not be the case for you. As Niels said, only you can answer your own question.

Perhaps you could rent some gear to get a feel for it. I know it's extra expense but it might prevent you from making a more expensive "mistake".

Hope this helps. Probably not. Probably just adds to the confusion and uncertainty.;) Anyway, good luck with whatever you decide.

Malcolm
Click to expand...

Thanks Malcolm, that is really helpful - you are the first person I've come across shooting with what seemed to me like a great combination - my only issue if I go the DSLR route is if I go for D7200 rather than D5300 then I may have to delay purchase of the TC. I know what you mean about the feel of shooting with a DSLR - I borrowed my son's entry-level Canon and found it really intuitive (as a former 35mm SLR user), and the shape and feel is not that different from my DSLR-styled FZ200.

As for the D500, that would be one for the future if my photographic skills ever reached the point when I could justify it - part of my reasoning for getting the D5300 was to build up my skills rather than jumping in with pro kit, but buying a high-quality lens like the 300 PF.

Interesting you came from M4/3, while others are going in the opposite direction....
 
nikonmike said:
Just remembered have you seen this,i have used the settings here.
http://naturalexposures.com/birds-in-flight-settings-for-lumix-cameras/
Click to expand...

Thanks Mike, I had seen this (possibly linked by yourself in another part of the forum?) and it was one of the key reasons my head has been recently turned by the possibility of a GX8 / 100-400 combo. Steller's sea-eagle helped too, given a winter trip to Hokkaido is near the top of my bucket list!
Interesting that you chose the GX8 because of BIF...I've not really attempted BIF seriously before, but would like to develop my skills without being able to blame my kit for my own incompetence ;) I'm probably still leaning towards Nikon DSLR, but its finely balanced...
 
kb57 said:
Thanks Mike, I had seen this (possibly linked by yourself in another part of the forum?) and it was one of the key reasons my head has been recently turned by the possibility of a GX8 / 100-400 combo. Steller's sea-eagle helped too, given a winter trip to Hokkaido is near the top of my bucket list!
Interesting that you chose the GX8 because of BIF...I've not really attempted BIF seriously before, but would like to develop my skills without being able to blame my kit for my own incompetence ;) I'm probably still leaning towards Nikon DSLR, but its finely balanced...
Click to expand...

The DSLR would be the best choice,my only reason for moving is the weight,if i was putting a Nikon kit together it would be the D7200 nikon 200-500 and possibly a 1.4tc
 
nikonmike said:
The DSLR would be the best choice,my only reason for moving is the weight,if i was putting a Nikon kit together it would be the D7200 nikon 200-500 and possibly a 1.4tc
Click to expand...

Mike, I think your last comment, coming from someone who has tried both has just about swayed me towards a DSLR - the 300 f4 PF plus 1.4TC won't even be that heavy and will still give me slightly more reach than my FZ200, together with more cropping ability. I know the 200-500 is probably a better, more versatile option but I also know I'm less likely to carry a long lens around while birding. I do have some brand loyalty to Panasonic (I still use a TZ10 compact at work for record shots, although my wife will steal my FZ200), which was another factor in considering M4/3, but I'm definitely being drawn towards Nikon.

Thanks to everyone for comments, I'll update once I've bit the bullet, got my kit and tried it out!
 
MalR said:
Of course, the Olympus 300 f4 is now available, which is reputedly a great lens. However, it is very expensive and, in my opinion, far too heavy for what is supposed to be a smaller, lighter format.
Click to expand...

I have the Olympus E-M1 and the Olympus 300 mm F4 with 1.4 extender. I was skeptical of the weight before purchasing it, especially since I was making the transition from the Panasonic 100-300 mm lens, which is less than half the weight. However, I took the new combination on a 16 day trip to Ghana, and never found the weight to be a bother. I carry my camera via a shoulder strap, and never experienced any muscle soreness.

As for the DSLR vs M4/3 question, it's become a close call for me since the introduction of the Nikon PF 300mm lens, but I am sticking with m4/3 at this point. The advantages I see for m4/3 are superior image stabilization (i.e. dual IS when pairing a body made by same manufacturer as lens), slightly superior optical quality with the Olympus 300mm f4, the availability of a high quality light weight zoom lens in the pana-leica 100-400mm, and, at least with the newer 20mp m4/3 sensors, a small advantage in equivalent magnification (i.e. number of megapixels you can get on a bird at a given distance with the same length lens).
 
Jim M. said:
I have the Olympus E-M1 and the Olympus 300 mm F4 with 1.4 extender. I was skeptical of the weight before purchasing it, especially since I was making the transition from the Panasonic 100-300 mm lens, which is less than half the weight. However, I took the new combination on a 16 day trip to Ghana, and never found the weight to be a bother. I carry my camera via a shoulder strap, and never experienced any muscle soreness.

As for the DSLR vs M4/3 question, it's become a close call for me since the introduction of the Nikon PF 300mm lens, but I am sticking with m4/3 at this point. The advantages I see for m4/3 are superior image stabilization (i.e. dual IS when pairing a body made by same manufacturer as lens), slightly superior optical quality with the Olympus 300mm f4, the availability of a high quality light weight zoom lens in the pana-leica 100-400mm, and, at least with the newer 20mp m4/3 sensors, a small advantage in equivalent magnification (i.e. number of megapixels you can get on a bird at a given distance with the same length lens).
Click to expand...

Good statement,the only area i think my D7200 would have been a better camera is,high ISO but with not having the 100-400 yet i havent done any serious M4/3 birding, so i could be wrong.
I also think if you come from a DSLR for birding its easier to use mirrorless than if you start with it.
 
Different people have different sensitivity to how a high iso shot can look. I use an older pana camera with poorer high iso performance, and I routinely allow it to go to iso 3200. I would expect to be able to use at least iso 6400 on a newer cam. For me, getting lightning right (not pushing after exposure), and shooting raw helps. I linked to my results in post 2 of this thread, and many of the shots in the later pages were from forest in Ecuador with high iso a necessity. If you don't think these are good enough, I am fine with that -- I find them acceptable given the conditions. Knowing I would need something much larger (full frame) with much larger lenses to really make a big difference in iso performance holds me away from even thinking about it ;)

Niels
 
One thing to maybe consider with the D5300 is the buffer size. I don't know what it is off-hand, but I remember when I was considering switching to Nikon I was put off by the poor buffer of what was at that time the latest Nikon DX format camera, the D7100. That was why I waited for the D7200, which was much improved in that aspect.

Incidentally, I see you're based in Durham. I'm in Sunderland, so not too far away. I'd be happy to meet up and let you try the D7200 with the 300f4 PF and 1.4 tc. It might help convince you one way or another.

Drop me a PM if you're interested.

Malcolm
 
Since no one mentioned it - Tamron and Sigma both have a 150-600mm lens for either Canon or Nikon that is cheaper (<$1000) and has been getting excellent reviews. They are hand holdable but of course they are a lot more to carry around than a 300 + 1.4.
 
kb57 said:
Thank you HermitIbis, sorry I can't seem to quote your message in reply...
I had looked at Nikon 1 CX system and worry that it might be a little too small for me, grip on Nikon 1 v3 might help but I can see me breaking it when I try and change the battery...interesting how the PF 300 lens worked well, and absolutely stunning bird pictures on Thomas Stirr's blog, like the gull taking off at 60fps! It is almost exactly the same price as a D7200 in UK (Wex photographic), and I wouldn't need a TC...hmmm
Click to expand...

The Nikon 300 PF is a formidable lens and the option to use it on the V2 via the FT1 adapter was one of the reasons why I decided against MF4 and for the "One" system. Presently the 300 PF is too expensive, but when the price comes down it must be nice to shoot Firecrests in typical habitat (= dim light) using this lens. With the CX 70-300 I have to increase the ISO to 6400 or so, it hurts. On the other side the CX 70-300 is simply great for BIF.

Nikon DSLRs are noisy, I prefer the V2 - which (btw) has a solid grip that won't break. It is possible to operate the V2 with the right hand only. (-:

Postscript. To avoid confusion, with "noisy" DSLRs I don't mean noise as in ISO, but noise as in SONE. In 2014 a German magazine compared the noise generated by various camera models coming to results which clearly favoured, unsurprisingly, electronic shutters over the common DSLR shutters. For example, they measured for the Nikon D7000: 18 Sone (shutter noise) + 5 Sone (AF noise of the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 2,8/24-70 mm G ED).

And these old-style shutters do not only generate noise, they eventually break, every 130,000 clicks or so, with repair costs of 150 Euro or more. Electronic shutters don't.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 8 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.

Similar threads

I
Analysis Paralysis- Please help me choose!
2 3
Replies
42
Views
2K
Patudo
P
D
Beginner looking for advise (Canon 7d mkII + Tamron 100-400 Di VC USD)
Replies
12
Views
2K
mr_birdman
mr_birdman
L
Bridge camera advice, please
2
Replies
23
Views
6K
pshute
P
G
Is it just me?
3 4 5
Replies
99
Views
8K
Paultricounty
P
G
Hello, BirdForum!
Replies
7
Views
481
KC Foggin
KC Foggin

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top