Advice please (1 Viewer)

[Andrew Whitehouse]

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.

WEX have a used version of that lens for £794.

Panasonic 100-400mm f4-6.3 Power OIS - Micro Four Thirds Fit | Wex Photo Video

www.wexphotovideo.com

I think the 800mm will be the 'full frame equivalent' on a micro 4/3 camera with a 400mm lens.

 

[Birdandcakes]

WEX have a used version of that lens for £794.

Panasonic 100-400mm f4-6.3 Power OIS - Micro Four Thirds Fit | Wex Photo Video

www.wexphotovideo.com

I think the 800mm will be the 'full frame equivalent' on a micro 4/3 camera with a 400mm lens.

Thanks. I’m scared to go for it!

 

[njlarsen]

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.

There is no teleconverter for this lens. If you go to my images in the birdforum gallery, you will see images taken with this lens and the G85 (at least those from the last several years).

Media added by njlarsen

www.birdforum.net

Niels

 

[Ian Byrnes]

Thanks. I’m scared to go for it!

I think you may be dissapointed. You need as much reach as possible.
Try them out at a camera store first.

 

[Birdandcakes]

There is no teleconverter for this lens. If you go to my images in the birdforum gallery, you will see images taken with this lens and the G85 (at least those from the last several years).

Media added by njlarsen

www.birdforum.net

Niels

Your photos are beautiful 🤩

 

[Birdandcakes]

Your photos are beautiful 🤩

Here’s one of my beginner efforts. A snow bunting.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Here’s one of my beginner efforts. A snow bunting.

That's nice mate. Being brutally honest, 'just a shame part of the bird is in shadow.

If it helps, I see people taking pictures the second a bird turns up regardless of where the sun is in relation to your camera (as if they will never see such a bird again and so they have to take that picture at that second). I think it's best to manoeuvre yourself into a position where the light is more in your favour. If the bird flies off while you're doing this, then never mind because you will see that species again at some point in the near future.

 

[njlarsen]

That's nice mate. Being brutally honest, 'just a shame part of the bird is in shadow.

If it helps, I see people taking pictures the second a bird turns up regardless of where the sun is in relation to your camera (as if they will never see such a bird again and so they have to take that picture at that second). I think it's best to manoeuvre yourself into a position where the light is more in your favour. If the bird flies off while you're doing this, then never mind because you will see that species again at some point in the near future.

With digital cameras, why not do both? Shoot early and then if the bird stays, look at how to improve.
Niels

 

[Birdandcakes]

I think you may be dissapointed. You need as much reach as possible.
Try them out at a camera store first.

 

[Birdandcakes]

Ah thanks

 

[Richard D]

A 400mm M43 lens is equivalent to 800mm full frame/35mm and roughly equivalent to the view you'd get from a 20x spotting scope.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

With digital cameras, why not do both? Shoot early and then if the bird stays, look at how to improve.
Niels

Birds don't stay long in the same spot, the longer you take the more chance there is of the bird flying off . When Birdandcakes has set himself/herself certain standards he/she won't want to keep a picture of a bird half in shadow and so why bother taking a picture you know you're not going to keep, knowing you're wasting precious seconds that could be used to get yourself in the right position before the bird flies off.

That's a really nice picture he or she has taken there, 'just the direction of the light in relation to the camera is not in favour, 'would have been a beauty if he/she had manoeuvred a bit in relation to the light.

We have a saying in this country: "all good things come to those who wait", and I think that applies photographing birds. We have another saying: "more haste; less speed".

 

[Birdandcakes]

A 400mm M43 lens is equivalent to 800mm full frame/35mm and roughly equivalent to the view you'd get from a 20x spotting scope.

So less than my cheap bridge which is 63 optical zoom?

 

[Richard D]

So less than my cheap bridge which is 63 optical zoom?

I'm not sure what your 63x starts at - 63x isn't a useful measure if you don't know what it's multiplying What's the model? It probably does have more range though. But with a M43 sensor you would be able to crop the image more before losing quality...

 

[Steve Babbs]

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.

Is there anywhere close to you that you can try it out? That would let you test the 'reach'. Most people would like more reach but even with modern day image stabilisation you have a limit to what you can hand hold especially if the light isn't great.

 

[Steve Babbs]

Thanks. I’m scared to go for it!

If you are not happy with it, you could resell for not much loss.

 

[Steve Babbs]

I'm not sure what your 63x starts at - 63x isn't a useful measure if you don't know what it's multiplying What's the model? It probably does have more range though. But with a M43 sensor you would be able to crop the image more before losing quality...

As Richard says. A larger sensor and much less noise.

 

[etudiant]

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.

The Panasonic (also Olympus) uses a sensor half the size of the 36x24mm 'full frame' used in the big Sony, Canon and Nikon models.
That translates to a 2x magnification versus the full frame for the same size lens. Note that the superzooms take advantage of this aspect, that smaller sensor translates to bigger magnification with same size lens. To illustrate, the sensor in the Nikon P950 is only 6.1x4.6mm, the Sony RX10s is 13.2x8.8mm.
That is a big part of why the Sony has less reach than the Nikon, it would need a bigger, heavier lens to feed its bigger sensor a more magnified image.
Against that, the Sony's bigger sensor allows shooting in lower light and produces more detailed images.
So as usual, at any given price the variables are image quality, camera size and reach, pick any two.

 

[Birdandcakes]

Thanks all. I’m still just as lost as ever!

 

[njlarsen]

Pick some models you fancy and check their weight - remove those that you find are too heavy. I know that I have reached my maximum with the panasonic/panaleica 100-400 combo.

then, among those you feel are acceptable in weight - check images taken with that combo.

Niels