Can someone recommend a Mirrorless Camera for backyard photography? (1 Viewer)

[Danielbirdwatcher]

So I now own a Nikon Coolpix P-1000 and it's good however I thought I could get better pictures with a mirrorless Camera that doesn't require a lot of lens since winter is coming. In Winter, there are bare branches and I live right at the end of the woods and should be able to capture easier images without needing so much telephoto lens strength. I know Mirrorless costs money and my wife isn't in spending money lol but for the heck of it I like to branch out a little and see what happens. Anyway, love to hear your suggestions.

 

[njlarsen]

I think an idea of what you think your budget would be should still help. Likewise, some idea of what the distance would be and what you think the P1000 would be zoomed to for the pictures you are thinking about, that would help.

If, as I assume, you are looking low budget, then perhaps this camera without a lens?

Amazon.com

And a lens like this: Amazon.com
Total for brand new less than $900. If you are willing to go for second hand (and you probably should) this should be available cheaper and possible both cheaper and better.
Niels

 

[Jim M.]

So I now own a Nikon Coolpix P-1000 and it's good however I thought I could get better pictures with a mirrorless Camera..

The Nikon coolpix P-1000 is a mirrorless camera, so it is not really clear what you are asking. The only cameras with mirrors these days are DSLRs.

 

[MelospizaMelodiaFan]

The Nikon coolpix P-1000 is a mirrorless camera, so it is not really clear what you are asking. The only cameras with mirrors these days are DSLRs.

I think he is looking to upgrade from a bridge camera, but I will let him confirm this.
I am in the same boat. The question for me is, how little $$ do I need to spend to gain a significant improvement over my bridge camera? It is a tough question to answer.

 

[Danielbirdwatcher]

I think he is looking to upgrade from a bridge camera, but I will let him confirm this.
I am in the same boat. The question for me is, how little $$ do I need to spend to gain a significant improvement over my bridge camera? It is a tough question to answer.

Exactly, I want to upgrade to a better camera for sharpness and color. I know the Nikon P-1000 is limited in quality. Since I'm talking in shorter distances like most forty feet I would like to get an upgrade over my bridge camera.

 

[MelospizaMelodiaFan]

Exactly, I want to upgrade to a better camera for sharpness and color. I know the Nikon P-1000 is limited in quality. Since I'm talking in shorter distances like most forty feet I would like to get an upgrade over my bridge camera.

You and I both use cameras with 1/2.3" sensors. The progression in size goes like this:

1/2.3" -> 1" -> Micro 4/3 (M43) -> APS-C -> Full Frame

1" is still bridge camera territory (non-interchangeable lens), ruled by the Sony RX10 IV.
M43 and APS-C are considered "crop sensors" because they are smaller than full frame, and will have a "magnifying" effect when using lenses with the same focal length compared to a full frame camera. For example M43 has a 2x crop factor, so a 300 mm lens will have the same apparent field of view as a 600 mm lens in a full frame camera. That has cost and weight savings when you want to reach out and capture a small bird.
Full Frame is the standard for most pros and serious hobbyists. That also means full price and full weight.

I am leaning towards M43, because I can use shorter lenses to get the same reach. There are also many lens options to choose from. What I question is the leap in image quality and low light performance. @njlarsen has navigated this progression and kindly shared his experience. If I understand correctly, he believes it is a significant leap in performance to go from a bridge camera to M43.

There are no guarantees in life, at some point you'll have to take the leap.

 

[njlarsen]

I am leaning towards M43, because I can use shorter lenses to get the same reach. There are also many lens options to choose from. What I question is the leap in image quality and low light performance. @njlarsen has navigated this progression and kindly shared his experience. If I understand correctly, he believes it is a significant leap in performance to go from a bridge camera to M43.

The difficulty of stating this today is that I do not know the current lineup of 1/2.3" bridge cameras (or 1" for that matter). It was a huge leap when I made the decision to jump. I expect that low light performance of the bridge cameras have improved since then -- and I know that the m4/3 performance have.

From a different thread

The Sony Rx 10 iv is the only bridge camera that can even vaguely compare for this. It handles like a mirrorless/SLR; it's low light performance is a long way ahead of other bridge cameras but considerably behind SLRs/mirrorless.

Steve had a Sony Rx 10 iv for a while but switched to a m43 (the OM1) so he has relatively recent comparison of the different groups.

by the way: Some professionals have now switched to the m4/3 world, and especially those who do nature photography. Of course I cannot find the video that I was thinking of right now, but make a search.
Niels

 

[Steve Babbs]

The difficulty of stating this today is that I do not know the current lineup of 1/2.3" bridge cameras (or 1" for that matter). It was a huge leap when I made the decision to jump. I expect that low light performance of the bridge cameras have improved since then -- and I know that the m4/3 performance have.

From a different thread

Steve had a Sony Rx 10 iv for a while but switched to a m43 (the OM1) so he has relatively recent comparison of the different groups.

by the way: Some professionals have now switched to the m4/3 world, and especially those who do nature photography. Of course I cannot find the video that I was thinking of right now, but make a search.
Niels

I loved the Sony. It offered SLR like usability in a small, light body. I now use the OM1 with a 100 - 400mm lens and a 60mm macro. The Sony sits in a cupboard unused. The OM1 is a different league and not just lighter but better in every way than the Canon 7D mark ii and 100 - 400 mark ii I used to use.

 

[Roynato]

If you guys don't mind me joining in the conversation, I have newbie question, since I'm new to cameras, only ever had one and it is a bridge camera.

Considering Daniel's bridge camera, the P1000, that has a 125X Optical Zoom, 3000mm. Or my P950, that has 83X optical zoom, 2000mm, what would be the equivalent in distance for a lens, if I would buy a camera body and wanted to keep, let's say, the same zoom distance I have with my P950?

For birding, I see a lot of people recommending for beginners on their first camera body a 70-300 lens. Isn't this too little zoom for wildlife photography? Unless the "300" here does not mean the same as the "3000" or the "2000" mean in the bridge cameras.

For example M43 has a 2x crop factor, so a 300 mm lens will have the same apparent field of view as a 600 mm

So, for a camera body that has a 4.3 sensor, a 70-300 lens wound actually means double. Isn't this still very short zoom for birding? Or am I getting this all wrong?

 

[MelospizaMelodiaFan]

If you guys don't mind me joining in the conversation, I have newbie question, since I'm new to cameras, only ever had one and it is a bridge camera.

Considering Daniel's bridge camera, the P1000, that has a 125X Optical Zoom, 3000mm. Or my P950, that has 83X optical zoom, 2000mm, what would be the equivalent in distance for a lens, if I would buy a camera body and wanted to keep, let's say, the same zoom distance I have with my P950?

For birding, I see a lot of people recommending for beginners on their first camera body a 70-300 lens. Isn't this too little zoom for wildlife photography? Unless the "300" here does not mean the same as the "3000" or the "2000" mean in the bridge cameras.



So, for a camera body that has a 4.3 sensor, a 70-300 lens wound actually means double. Isn't this still very short zoom for birding? Or am I getting this all wrong?

In M43, there is a 2x boost to the focal length due to the crop factor. So a 300 mm lens becomes a 600 mm. Both Panasonic and Olympus sell 100-400 zoom lenses that take teleconverters. Add a 2x teleconverter, and the 400mm becomes a 1600mm. All that magnification comes at a price, because it reduces the amount of light hitting your sensor. A 2x TC reduces aperture by two stops, and these zooms are already slow to begin with. Something like 1600 mm is only usable on days with good light unless you really push the ISO. A teleconverter magnifies any optical flaws in the lens, so you need high quality glass to use a TC. Also, when you take photos from very far away, the air can cause you image to be soft from haze or mirage. A long lens also becomes very heavy and expensive, so most people use a 600mm or shorter lens (when shooting full frame).

 

[njlarsen]

There is no doubt that the bridge cameras with their very small sensor provides the maximum reach. When switching to a camera with larger sensor, one of the costs is that you have less reach. I believe when you switch to a larger sensor camera, you gain a better ability to crop and get a decent image from that crop. So the difference is possibly less than perceived.

Generally, quality of the shot is better when closer to the bird. At closer distances, a reach corresponding to 600-800 on a full frame is often enough for a decent shot. I recommended a lens with reach of 600 in my initial post because the person was talking about backyard photos (less distance) and was giving an impression of needing low cost. If cost would be less a problem then I would recommend one of the other lenses, I use a 100-400 myself.

Hope this helps
Niels

 

[Roynato]

Alright thank you both for the replies. I think I'm getting a better idea of how this works now.

The zoom of systems with camera body + lenses will almost always be smaller than these super zoom cameras. But you can get close with the sensors like the 4.3, and tele converters, multiplying the zoom of the lenses. And also, the way better image quality allow you to crop the images to get your close-ups without losing much detail.

So let's say a camera with a 4.3 sensor and a 150-600 lens would make a good set for birding. And if extra zoom is needed, add a 2x teleconverter. Then it would be a lot of zoom, actually more than my 2000mm P950.

 

[Jim M.]

Alright thank you both for the replies. I think I'm getting a better idea of how this works now.

The zoom of systems with camera body + lenses will almost always be smaller than these super zoom cameras. But you can get close with the sensors like the 4.3, and tele converters, multiplying the zoom of the lenses. And also, the way better image quality allow you to crop the images to get your close-ups without losing much detail.
So let's say a camera with a 4.3 sensor and a 150-600 lens would make a good set for birding. And if extra zoom is needed, add a 2x teleconverter. Then it would be a lot of zoom, actually more than my 2000mm P950.

Superzoom cameras like the P950 trade image quality for high magnifications. If you just want record shots of birds, that is all you may need or want. But if you want excellent image quality you need a camera with a better sensor and better optics. (But atmospheric distortion will often prevent good image quality for birds at long distances regardless of the optics/sensor, so those who prefer image quality don't really look to have super high magnifications, e.g. those much beyond 800mm full frame equivalent--plus the weight of quality optics at that range gets quite high.)

P.S. The original meaning of "birding" is the activity of finding birds and identifying them. Using it as a synonym for "bird photography" is an unhelpful distortion of the original meaning that I have seen cropping up on photography forums.

 

[Mikbul]

Why go mirrorless when you can get a Nikon D3500?

Nikon Cameras

Nikon D3500 Review