Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Friday 11th November 2016, 14:42   #26
HermitIbis
Registered User
 
HermitIbis's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Black Forest
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalat View Post
What's that?
Rolling shutter explained.
HermitIbis is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 11th November 2016, 15:11   #27
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portsmouth, Dominica
Posts: 20,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalat View Post
shutter shock issue with its mechanical shutter -- What's that?
There has been a period where the movement of the shutter when it opened could induce shaking of the camera/lens in a way that could negatively affect the result. This is most pronounced around 1/100 s shutter time and is gone when the shutter is faster than 1/200 s. There are some combinations of camera and lens where this is more pronounced than others, but it has been seen in both panasonic and olympus cameras, and I feel I have seen reports that show the same effect in cameras from other manufacturers even though the name shutter shock may not have been applied. The cause has been speculated on in several different ways, but one thing changed in the G80/81/85 is that the opening of the shutter is different, it is only really the closing that is truly mechanical (if I have understood what is being said).

I have not really seen this issue mentioned with the new Oly em1-ii (positively or negatively).

How have I lived with this issue (my camera predates the fully electronic shutter): for other reasons, I prefer a shutter faster than 1/350 anyway (to freeze moving birds), so I am not affected by this in my normal shooting.

Niels
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean
njlarsen is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 11th November 2016, 15:20   #28
Jim M.
Choose Civility

 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6,697
The effect on the photo of shutter shock is similar to camera shake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by njlarsen View Post
This is most pronounced around 1/100 s shutter time and is gone when the shutter is faster than 1/200 s.
I have seen varying reports about what shutter speeds are most affected, and it probably varies somewhat from camera to camera. My Olympus EM-1 has a setting (I think added by a firmware update) that greatly reduces the effect, and it is designed to shutoff at shutter speeds of 1/320 sec or above. I have read reports that the EM-1 mk. ii does reduce the problem even further; of course it is completely eliminated if you use the electronic shutter.
Jim M. is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 11th November 2016, 15:31   #29
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portsmouth, Dominica
Posts: 20,190
This is a case where I might remember the numbers ("around 1/100") from Pana better because I have one.

The redesign of the shutter in G80 is one of the reasons that would be my preferred camera among the Panas currently available.

Niels
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean
njlarsen is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 11th November 2016, 16:00   #30
Hermann
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by HermitIbis View Post
But wasn't Dalat's question about shutter shock rather than rolling shutter?

Hermann
Hermann is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 11th November 2016, 17:18   #31
HermitIbis
Registered User
 
HermitIbis's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Black Forest
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermann View Post
But wasn't Dalat's question about shutter shock rather than rolling shutter?

Hermann
OK, I didn't read carefully. Should really leave the hard stuff to the experts...
HermitIbis is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 11th November 2016, 17:31   #32
nikonmike
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: grimsby uk
Posts: 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim M. View Post
Hi Mike. Just wanted to clarify something for the newer folks who maybe reading this thread. AFAIK, all m4/3 cameras have the option of using a mechanical or an electronic shutter. There would be any reason to avoid a camera simply because it has an option.

Moreover, in addition to Niels point about reduced rolling shutter effect in the EM-1 mk ii, reviews of the Panasonic G80/G85 indicate the shutter shock issue with its mechanical shutter has been virtually eliminated (think the same is true with the new Olympus), which eliminates one of the main reasons for resort to an electronic shutter.

Wasnt suggesting avoid any camera with the option i was talking about the GX8 and the possible need (due to shutter shock)and so the consequences of using electronic shutters,you can also from what i understand lose some DR with electronic shutters.
As for any improvements with the EM1 MK11,it would have to filter its way down a few models before i could afford it
nikonmike is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 11th November 2016, 17:35   #33
nikonmike
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: grimsby uk
Posts: 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by njlarsen View Post
This is a case where I might remember the numbers ("around 1/100") from Pana better because I have one.

The redesign of the shutter in G80 is one of the reasons that would be my preferred camera among the Panas currently available.

Niels
This camera interests me but as yet i haven't found any reports on its ability to capture moving targets either AFS or AFC,have you seen any thing,sort of decided ime replacing my GX8 although its such a great camera especially for AFC on birds in flight.
nikonmike is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 11th November 2016, 18:15   #34
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portsmouth, Dominica
Posts: 20,190
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pan...-dmc-g85-g80/5 says that the AF works essentially the same as the GX cameras except for 1 or 2 new tricks

Niels
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean
njlarsen is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 11th November 2016, 22:18   #35
dalat
.
 
dalat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 2,277
Indeed I wanted to know what actually is shutter shock, so thanks all for the explainations! I had previously looked up the rolling shuter effect, but could not find anyhing clear on shutter shock...
dalat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 12th November 2016, 15:38   #36
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portsmouth, Dominica
Posts: 20,190
DPReview is doing their annual roundup of best cameras within different price brackets. The winner in 900-1200 is the Pana G8/80/81/85 and whatever other names they market it under. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/201...as-900-1200/12

Niels
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean
njlarsen is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 13th November 2016, 17:54   #37
opticoholic
Registered User
 
opticoholic's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: northern CA
Posts: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalat View Post
However, I feel rather like just going for the best kit at once, shell out the money and then not worry any more for quite a while (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, ...
In recent years, the evolution of digital camera capability has been much more rapid than binoculars. That is perhaps even more true in the mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras (ICL) where features such as continuous autofocus are now at this moment making big strides. Even so, we already have cameras that are more than *good enough* to take great bird photos. More important than having the latest/greatest gear is learning to use the gear you have and getting out often with it to practice and find more lucky opportunities. I would simply caution you that although micro-4/3 camera improvements are becoming more incremental, we are still seeing some major improvements and lots of smaller refinements.

For those who are contemplating a new camera purchase right now, the very latest "flagship" Olympus E-M1 Mk II and Panasonic GH5 models costing ~US $2000 will probably be incrementally better in many ways, but the previous generation flagship or intermediate models are definitely a much better value. For example, the "old" flagship Olympus E-M1 is not quite as old as its 2013 release date would suggest, because there have been multiple firmware upgrades that significantly boosted functionality, and the E-M1 can be purchased for less than half the cost of the E-M1 Mk II. If you're willing to buy used I bet you could get one for only ~$300-400! Right now here in the states, you can get a brand-new E-M1 WITH the great general purpose 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro lens, an outstanding lens, for $1300, with a 4% reward on future purchase. A "normal" sale price for the 12-40mm lens is ~$800, so that is like getting the E-M1 brand-new for $500. So for customers who want to be more thrifty, one option is to wait and not pay full price for a new camera until you are more confident it will be your "last camera"... Lenses are generally longer term investments than camera bodies. However I must admit, I usually don't heed my own advice; I've squandered a large sum over the years chasing after better and better cameras...

Dave

Last edited by opticoholic : Sunday 13th November 2016 at 18:40.
opticoholic is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2012 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 13th November 2016, 18:17   #38
dalat
.
 
dalat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 2,277
Good advice, thanks a lot!
dalat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 14th November 2016, 00:06   #39
Hermann
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,674
A quick thought: Given that M4/3 cameras are still "not there", I'd seriously consider either waiting some more or getting a (reasonably) lightweight DSLR instead.

After all, a decent M4/3 body+the Leica/Panasonic 100-400mm is not cheap, and I still hear from users over here that the AF-C isn't quite up to scratch. That combination is also not that light, so you''re talking about something like 2kg of weight. There also about a stop difference minimum between the best M4/3 sensors and the best APS-C sensors with regard to high ISO capabilities.

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.

Hermann
Hermann is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 14th November 2016, 00:15   #40
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portsmouth, Dominica
Posts: 20,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermann View Post
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.

Hermann
I think you are wrong on what the reason is. Most birders do not carry a d500 or a 7dii and your statements only really carry for those. I personally think that once you are invested in a system with lenses, it is difficult and expensive to change and that is the biggest reason that more people have canikon.

Niels
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean
njlarsen is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 14th November 2016, 06:23   #41
nikonmike
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: grimsby uk
Posts: 496
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 by nikonmike : Monday 14th November 2016 at 06:59.
nikonmike is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 14th November 2016, 13:21   #42
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portsmouth, Dominica
Posts: 20,190
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
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean
njlarsen is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 14th November 2016, 13:59   #43
Jim M.
Choose Civility

 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermann View Post
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 by Jim M. : Monday 14th November 2016 at 14:15.
Jim M. is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 14th November 2016, 14:14   #44
dalat
.
 
dalat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 2,277
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 by dalat : Monday 14th November 2016 at 15:38.
dalat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 14th November 2016, 14:24   #45
Jim M.
Choose Civility

 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalat View Post

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 by Jim M. : Monday 14th November 2016 at 14:29.
Jim M. is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 14th November 2016, 14:45   #46
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portsmouth, Dominica
Posts: 20,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalat View Post
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
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean
njlarsen is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 14th November 2016, 15:38   #47
dalat
.
 
dalat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 2,277
Ok, thanks a lot for clearing that up as well. I'm learning a lot here...
dalat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 14th November 2016, 16:11   #48
Hermann
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim M. View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim M. View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim M. View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim M. View Post
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 by Hermann : Monday 14th November 2016 at 20:39.
Hermann is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 14th November 2016, 16:26   #49
nikonmike
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: grimsby uk
Posts: 496
I notice dalat mentioned birding in a tropical forest,never been in one but would weather sealing be important in such a situation.
nikonmike is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 14th November 2016, 16:34   #50
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portsmouth, Dominica
Posts: 20,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonmike View Post
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
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean
njlarsen is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
camera / lens combo for Kowa 883 dominic.patagonia Digiscoping cameras 0 Tuesday 15th September 2015 01:55
Sony A77 camera/70-400mm G lens combo digiscope09 Sony 12 Monday 24th September 2012 23:58
Lightweight DSLR camera/lens combo for bird photos? Jim M. Cameras And Photography 9 Wednesday 5th October 2011 14:06
Canon EF 400mm F4 DO lens + Canon 60D combo - advice needed Hor Kee Canon 6 Tuesday 6th September 2011 19:05
Can any camera / lens combo instantly focus on small BIF arjacee Cameras And Photography 10 Friday 27th May 2011 23:14



Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.18708801 seconds with 35 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:37.