Advice please (2 Viewers)

[Birdandcakes]

Hi I wanted to upgrade from my bridge which has a 63 optical zoom. So far the recommendations from my local camera shop have either been far too heavy or not enough reach. I’ve got a budget of £1500 to £2000. I did try Sony rx10 but not enough reach. I was recommended the Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 Contemporary DG OS HSM Lens with 1.4x Teleconverter - Canon Fit but that’s really too heavy for me. I was also looking at a Mirrorless canon but struggling with a lens. I was looking at the RF 800mm F11 IS STM but it has restrictions. I’m a beginner so struggling. I I orally thought of a Nikon p950 but wanted better quality pics. Any advice greatly appreciated.

 

[delia todd]

Hi B&C and a warm welcome to you from all the Staff and Moderators. Someone will soon be along to give you some advice.

I'm sure you will enjoy it here and I look forward to hearing your news.

 

[Richard D]

Sadly if you want something of that reach with significantly better image quality than the Nikon P950/1000 you are going to need something with a bigger sensor and hence a bigger and heavier lens (and spend a lot more).

Something like the M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm f/5.0-6.3 IS and and OM1 will get you reasonable reach (800mm 35mm equivalent) and isn't horrendously heavy but combined will be around £2700

 

[Birdandcakes]

Hi B&C and a warm welcome to you from all the Staff and Moderators. Someone will soon be along to give you some advice.

I'm sure you will enjoy it here and I look forward to hearing your news.

Thanks

 

[seawatcher]

Sadly if you want something of that reach with significantly better image quality than the Nikon P950/1000 you are going to need something with a bigger sensor and hence a bigger and heavier lens (and spend a lot more).

Something like the M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm f/5.0-6.3 IS and and OM1 will get you reasonable reach (800mm 35mm equivalent) and isn't horrendously heavy but combined will be around £2700

The suggested combination is a good choice. If budget is tight, look for second-hand gear. There are some good deals on older Olympus cameras after the OM-1 was launched, such as the OM-1i mk iii. Canon r6 / R7 / R10 with the new and relatively cheap 100-400 zoom is also a good buy for documentation, and weighs very little.
But it is a jungle out there. Get advice from local photographers, camera shops etc.
And I am sure someone else will be along here soon with some other recommendations. Good luck and let us know what you decide, but don't rush things. SW

 

[Ian Byrnes]

If you look through other posts on this subject you will see some good advice but in all honesty if you think the Sigma 150-600 with camera is too heavy at your budget you won't find many options.
Your best bet is to get a used Nikon d500 DSLR with as low shutter count as possible at about £900 & a used Sigma Contemporary 150 - 600 at about £600. You won't need the 1.4TC as it softens the image slightly. Use a Rapid Sport body harness which helps with any weight problems.
The image quality of that combination at that price is unbeatable.
Regards
Ian

 

[njlarsen]

A panasonic G9 new at Amazon is £825, and a PanaLeica 100-400 is 1149. Used you should be able to get it cheaper. Weight in total about 1.7 kg. Reach the same as the olympus/OM1 option. If you want something that is cheaper but not quite as good with birds in flight, check the pana G80 (that is the model I am using). If you want something with less weight, try the 100-300 lens for the panasonic - not quite the same reach or sharpness.

I can walk for hours with the G80/PL100-400 hanging from my shoulder, and I am past 60, spends way too much time on a chair.
Niels.

 

[Oldnintheway]

If you look through other posts on this subject you will see some good advice but in all honesty if you think the Sigma 150-600 with camera is too heavy at your budget you won't find many options.
Your best bet is to get a used Nikon d500 DSLR with as low shutter count as possible at about £900 & a used Sigma Contemporary 150 - 600 at about £600. You won't need the 1.4TC as it softens the image slightly. Use a Rapid Sport body harness which helps with any weight problems.
The image quality of that combination at that price is unbeatable.
Regards
Ian

This would be my choice also, but include the Tamron 150-600 in your search, as well as the Nikon D7200. The Tamron & the Sigma contemporaries are equals by all accounts. You may even get lucky and find a deal on a Tamron G2. Avoid the Sigma Sport as it's quite a bit heavier.

 

[Richard D]

A panasonic G9 new at Amazon is £825, and a PanaLeica 100-400 is 1149. Used you should be able to get it cheaper. Weight in total about 1.7 kg. Reach the same as the olympus/OM1 option. If you want something that is cheaper but not quite as good with birds in flight, check the pana G80 (that is the model I am using). If you want something with less weight, try the 100-300 lens for the panasonic - not quite the same reach or sharpness.

I can walk for hours with the G80/PL100-400 hanging from my shoulder, and I am past 60, spends way too much time on a chair.
Niels.

Good shout on a Pana body. I wouldn't choose the 100-300 as it drops off a lot beyond 275mm

 

[Steve Babbs]

Sadly if you want something of that reach with significantly better image quality than the Nikon P950/1000 you are going to need something with a bigger sensor and hence a bigger and heavier lens (and spend a lot more).

Something like the M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm f/5.0-6.3 IS and and OM1 will get you reasonable reach (800mm 35mm equivalent) and isn't horrendously heavy but combined will be around £2700

A good combination but £3168 on Wex which is usually one of the cheaper places.

 

[Andrew Whitehouse]

If you go down the Olympus route and are looking for something very lightweight, you might consider the 40-150 f.2.8 pro lens. There are some 'nearly new' ones available on WEX for under £800. You could then also get a 2x converter (available for £334 on Amazon), giving you an 80-300mm f.5.6 (160-600mm equivalent). It's a high quality lens and has good enough reach for most birding situations. Even with the converter, it will weigh under a kilo. If you can stretch to an OM1 that would be the best option, but it should still work well with the cheaper OM mirrorless options. It's a very versatile set up and the lens and converter are designed to work well together.

 

[Richard D]

A good combination but £3168 on Wex which is usually one of the cheaper places.

I didn't look in detail - I may have used Grey Import prices - Wex is at least reliable!

 

[Steve Babbs]

I didn't look in detail - I may have used Grey Import prices - Wex is at least reliable!

When I bought an OM1 through the grey market is was more expensive as it was the only way I could get hold of it. I guess that has probably changed now that it is more wildly available.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Hi I wanted to upgrade from my bridge which has a 63 optical zoom. So far the recommendations from my local camera shop have either been far too heavy or not enough reach. I’ve got a budget of £1500 to £2000. I did try Sony rx10 but not enough reach. I was recommended the Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 Contemporary DG OS HSM Lens with 1.4x Teleconverter - Canon Fit but that’s really too heavy for me. I was also looking at a Mirrorless canon but struggling with a lens. I was looking at the RF 800mm F11 IS STM but it has restrictions. I’m a beginner so struggling. I I orally thought of a Nikon p950 but wanted better quality pics. Any advice greatly appreciated.

You'd need to supply more details to get the right advice for you.

How do you take pictures? What constitutes 'better quality pictures' for you?

Nobody can give you a fair statement on the back of what you have posted.

 

[njlarsen]

A good combination but £3168 on Wex which is usually one of the cheaper places.

Makes the Panasonic solution sound like a bargain
Niels

 

[Steve Babbs]

Makes the Panasonic solution sound like a bargain
Niels

They're not really comparable cameras but it does sound like the Panasonic would fit OP's budget better.

 

[Birdandcakes]

You'd need to supply more details to get the right advice for you.

How do you take pictures? What constitutes 'better quality pictures' for you?

Nobody can give you a fair statement on the back of what you have posted.

I mainly take pics of birds at the coast where I live and also local wetland bird hides. I like really close up photos and want to be able to see the bird filling the view finder rather than cropping pic later (does this make sense…. told you I was a beginner 😉 ). I can do this with my Sony bridge hx400 but wanted to upgrade and get finer detail in my photos. I tried a Sony rx10 but did not have the reach. I’m in my mid 50s with tennis elbow so wanted to avoid anything really heavy. Hope that helps.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

I mainly take pics of birds at the coast where I live and also local wetland bird hides. I like really close up photos and want to be able to see the bird filling the view finder rather than cropping pic later (does this make sense…. told you I was a beginner 😉 ). I can do this with my Sony bridge hx400 but wanted to upgrade and get finer detail in my photos. I tried a Sony rx10 but did not have the reach. I’m in my mid 50s with tennis elbow so wanted to avoid anything really heavy. Hope that helps.

'Makes sense, mate.

I would say the one advantage of a superzoom is portability, and so providing you're prepared to roll around over sheep and horse shite, and with health permitting, you can get closer to birds without them flying off than you can with the heavier equipment (and it follows you get more bird in the frame).

On the other hand, taking pictures of birds from a distance, when stood up, won't produce the quality of picture you're hoping for. If that is how you take pictures and your aspirations are really good quality, then I would forget superzooms and save up/plough your money into the more expensive equipment. It's more relevant since you're talking wetlands and coasts. You won't have that much cover, they'll be distantish and so you're going to need a camera with more reach and a larger sensor.

I think the superzooms are more suited to your little songbirds because generally they don't mind human company so much and their habitat means you have cover to enable you to get closer.

Long story short: to get decent quality pictures with a superzoom you need to be able to get close, and you'd have to work out whether or not you think you can do that with waders and the like. In my opinion, I think it's more difficult with the waders. That means you're gonna need a camera with more reach than a superzoom.

 

[Birdandcakes]

'Makes sense, mate.

I would say the one advantage of a superzoom is portability, and so providing you're prepared to roll around over sheep and horse shite, and with health permitting, you can get closer to birds without them flying off than you can with the heavier equipment (and it follows you get more bird in the frame).

On the other hand, taking pictures of birds from a distance, when stood up, won't produce the quality of picture you're hoping for. If that is how you take pictures and your aspirations are really good quality, then I would forget superzooms and save up/plough your money into the more expensive equipment. It's more relevant since you're talking wetlands and coasts. You won't have that much cover, they'll be distantish and so you're going to need a camera with more reach and a larger sensor.

I think the superzooms are more suited to your little songbirds because generally they don't mind human company so much and their habitat means you have cover to enable you to get closer.

Long story short: to get decent quality pictures with a superzoom you need to be able to get close, and you'd have to work out whether or not you think you can do that with waders and the like. In my opinion, I think it's more difficult with the waders. That means you're gonna need a camera with more reach than a superzoom.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[Birdandcakes]

A panasonic G9 new at Amazon is £825, and a PanaLeica 100-400 is 1149. Used you should be able to get it cheaper. Weight in total about 1.7 kg. Reach the same as the olympus/OM1 option. If you want something that is cheaper but not quite as good with birds in flight, check the pana G80 (that is the model I am using). If you want something with less weight, try the 100-300 lens for the panasonic - not quite the same reach or sharpness.

I can walk for hours with the G80/PL100-400 hanging from my shoulder, and I am past 60, spends way too much time on a chair.
Niels.

Thanks so much . After researching your recommendation I’m heading towards the

panasonic G9 and a PanaLeica 100-400

Do you know if this will be enough reach. I’ve read it goes up to 800 but don’t understand this to be honest. is there a teleconvertor available for these? . Apologies if I don’t know what I’m talking about!! Thanks again.