• 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.

Camera advice needed please! (1 Viewer)

Thank you very much everyone for the information. Yesterday after returning the FZ1000 I tried out the FZ82 bridge camera which has 1200mm zoom. I was impressed by what it could do in the shop car park especially considering it was half the price of the FZ1000 and it seemed to suit my needs perfectly. I’ve used it today on a few birds so distant I couldn’t ID them by eye, and ended up easily able to ID them, and even some decent photos (by my standards!). So it looks like my sigma lens will be packed away in th loft for the foreseeable future, and no longer will I have a stiff neck and back after lugging it around all day!

Many thanks,

Tom
Congratulations. I hope it works out well for you.

Looks like you've opted for a big downsize. Let us know how your setup goes for the purpose.

Keep in mind that Nikon will shortly launch a P1000 bridge camera (successor to the P900) with the same size sensor as your new kit, and it is rumoured to have a 125x zoom ! (24-3000mm) !! :king:

Also bear in mind that Sony development cycles are very short and we could expect an upgraded Sony RX-10 MkV (1" sensor - so handily bigger and better quality than what you have) in say ~12~24 months .......
This is currently the bees knees sensor on the market.

I'd sell whatever other gear you have (while it still retains some value) , and start saving pennies for one of these two. The Sony will be far superior for catching birds in motion or BIF, and the Nikon whilst not as good at BIF as the Sony will negate those drawbacks somewhat with 3000mm reach. Both should be better than your new rig (just saying as a helpful suggestion in case limitations and frustrations set in with your new acquisition :) :t:

Practice will make perfect - all the best !



Chosun :gh:
 
I'm just wondering if you've tried a different card in your Olympus camera, just in case that's the problem with it. It would be pity to let that lens go to waste, even if you opt to use the smaller camera most of the time.

Might be worth asking in the Olympus forum here.
 
I think you're trying to argue around in circles.

Not sure how demonstrating that some of your generalizations are inaccurate is "arguing in circles"?

But I appreciate your point of view and agree with much of what you say. My point is you are making some exaggerated and unfair claims to support your postion, and to denigrate a very attractive M4/3 system--even though you've never taken a single photo with a m4/3 camera. As another example, you keep on using the heaviest m4/3 lens--the oly 300mm prime--to minimize the weight advantage of m4/3, when the much lighter PL100-400 would show that advantage in a much better light. The fact is, all the alternatives to m4/3 will either have worse image quality, or require you to lug around a lot more weight. So m4/3 is a very attractive option for bird photographers tired of the weight of DSLR systems, but who want serious image quality. The light weight and excellent image quality of m4/3 systems is addictive!

i) You still have greater individual sensor pixel pitch with the APS-C system than with the m43, giving better dynamic range and noise control. The 24MP sensor of the Nikon D7200 is a Sony one and is a gem and clearly has a sensor advantage taking that into account.

Show me a noticeable difference between a cropped APS-C sensor photo and an uncropped top end m4/3 sensor--I've never seen it. There's only a "clear...sensor advantage" if you can see it, not just talk about it. Even uncropped, the differences between the newer m4/3 sensor and the old D7200 sensor are getting smaller and smaller. I believe Sony makes the m4/3 sensors as well by the way.
 
Last edited:
Not sure how demonstrating that some of your generalizations are inaccurate is "arguing in circles"?

But I appreciate your point of view and agree with much of what you say. My point is you are making some exaggerated and unfair claims to support your postion, and to denigrate a very attractive M4/3 system--even though you've never taken a single photo with a m4/3 camera. As another example, you keep on using the heaviest m4/3 lens--the oly 300mm prime--to minimize the weight advantage of m4/3, when the much lighter PL100-400 would show that advantage in a much better light. The fact is, all the alternatives to m4/3 will either have worse image quality, or require you to lug around a lot more weight. So m4/3 is a very attractive option for bird photographers tired of the weight of DSLR systems, but who want serious image quality. The light weight and excellent image quality of m4/3 systems is addictive!



Show me a noticeable difference between a cropped APS-C sensor photo and an uncropped top end m4/3 sensor--I've never seen it. There's only a "clear...sensor advantage" if you can see it, not just talk about it. Even uncropped, the differences between the newer m4/3 sensor and the old D7200 sensor are getting smaller and smaller. I believe Sony makes the m4/3 sensors as well by the way.
I don't want to hijack this thread, but pray tell what generalizations did I make? let alone where are the inaccuracies?
Jeez, whilst agreeing with me on most things (except what you have wrong?) , and with you even repeating what I have said, it seems that you are still somehow trying to argue with me.

I have made no unfair and exaggerated claims, and I don't have a position to defend. Did you even read my post #20 ? where I used the 100-400 Panny lens as an example.

The mathematics are quite clear. No native m43 system can match the reach of the Nikon D7200 + Tamron G2 150-600 let alone do it, or even get close, for the same amount of money. Do the maths yourself.

Many factors apart from sensor and focal length of the lens go to technically make a good image - closeness to subject, suitable atmospheric conditions, lighting, correctly exposing and capturing the data, correct shutter speed, lowest ISO possible, correct focus, and stability at the moment of shooting.

It matters not a jot whether you have shot one particular system, rig, or another - what we are talking about plain and simple is the number and quality of the pixels able to be placed on a subject from a given distance. That is sensor size, resolution, and focal length of the lens, natively with an aperture of at least f6.3 allowing AF on moving targets, and without TC's. I have made no inaccurate claims about weight, and I didn't even touch on the subject of ergonomics where the larger DSLR systems are widely regarded as superior.

You can't bandy about terms like "top end m43 sensor" without naming the model, the specs and the price. If there is a further reaching native m43 than the Nikon D7200 + Tamron G2 150-600, then please let me know what it is and show me the maths. :t:


Chosun :gh:
 
Chosun, you wrote
You still have greater individual sensor pixel pitch with the APS-C system than with the m43,
Numbers for d7200 pixel pitch: 3.92 microns
for my Pana g85 pixel pitch: 3.75 microns
The advantage for nikon: 4%, hardly earth-shattering.

I am not sure who made the sensor in my camera, but I can directly compare with an older model, and there is about a 1.5 iso step improvement in usable sensitivity for similar noise levels when compared to the GH2 I had in the past. [When processing from RAW using my preferred processing software]

Niels
 
Chosun, you wrote

Numbers for d7200 pixel pitch: 3.92 microns
for my Pana g85 pixel pitch: 3.75 microns
The advantage for nikon: 4%, hardly earth-shattering.

I am not sure who made the sensor in my camera, but I can directly compare with an older model, and there is about a 1.5 iso step improvement in usable sensitivity for similar noise levels when compared to the GH2 I had in the past. [When processing from RAW using my preferred processing software]

Niels
Niels,

That really doesn't tell the entire story. There's a fairly noticeable difference in IQ.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...=1&x=0.8525337137171048&y=0.22901122090576015
The DR figures show a much bigger difference. Check out the graphs on:
www.photonstophotos.net
www.Dxomark.com

The APS-C D7200 shows from 2 to 1 stop of advantage, and it's a higher resolution sensor to boot.

It's quite interesting to check out the data on those two sites - though they don't always agree ! :brains:

There's a lot of development in the m43 world, and the sensors are indeed improving as the Olympus OM-D EM-1 MkII shows. The Nikon D7200 sensor is getting on for 4 years old now. APS-C seems to be developing slower - the similar several years old Samsung NX-1 28MP BSI-CMOS sensor has still not been bettered yet .....



Chosun :gh:
 
First session with the FZ82

Here are a couple of photos taken with the FZ82 on my first time out with it, If it’s of any interest to you. They were all taken in auto mode, as I’m not sure which mode is best to use, and then just cropped using screenshot on my iPhone! As I hear that’s how all the pro’s do it! 😉

The Raven was about 40m away (I think you can still see a chunk of flesh on its bill from the lamb it was eating before I walked past!), Blue Tit 10m and Wheatear 30m.

Admittedly not the greatest quality, but once I get a bit more photography knowledge I’m sure they’ll get better. But they beat my binoculars for long distance ID anyways.

Thanks again,

Tom
 

Attachments

  • 2DB855A1-1899-4A0F-8217-1049C27F03A7.jpg
    2DB855A1-1899-4A0F-8217-1049C27F03A7.jpg
    39 KB · Views: 48
  • 6DDDB553-3BC8-4272-9D0E-FA83E9644DF3.jpg
    6DDDB553-3BC8-4272-9D0E-FA83E9644DF3.jpg
    79.2 KB · Views: 44
  • DF743301-86DA-4914-B914-EE88DB4574DC.jpg
    DF743301-86DA-4914-B914-EE88DB4574DC.jpg
    93.9 KB · Views: 53
thomasclark1985:

I won't get knee-deep in the "which camera is better for what purpose" because...as you can see it gets contentious really quickly around these parts. What works for you will require alot of self-awareness of your needs plus your budget plus alot of research and may not match anything anyone says here in this thread, even me. |:D|

If you decide to go down the road for consumer bridge cameras, then the SX60 has served me well. You can look at my gallery and are welcome to ask me questions. I also use an RX100 Mk III for closer-in photos. I'm on a tight budget so I generally research to death (often takes months) and make many compromises quite knowingly. One person's acceptable compromise is another person's high priority.

For reference, my girlfriend has a D700 + the Nikkor 70-300 lens and...no amount of magic makes 300mm = 1300+mm (we've tried). I have quality/speed envy of her camera, she has range envy of my camera (even if mine requires far more post processing).

If budget were no object, I'd likely get into m43; it's a good way to have the DSLR experience without all the size and weight and certainly very good quality. I did look into it, but getting the reach I wanted out of m43 was not possible at the time (or if it was, far outside my budget). I was favoring the Olympus line.
 

I've been playing around a bit with the DP Review image comparison tool. My results make the em1 mk ii comparison look better (mostly because the DSLR images look noisier) than Chosun's link above. But I can't link directly; here's the link where you can do your own comparisons:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m1-mark-ii/8

More importantly, the crop being compared is seriously magnified beyond what you'd do in actual photography. So it's showing differences that are a concern for pixel peepers, but not real world photographers. Moreover, Niels point was that a cropped DSLR image won't be much better than an uncropped m4/3 image. The comparison is showing differences at what look to be the same level of cropping.

In any event, these comparisons aren't exact, because they are taken with different lenses, among other things.
 
Last edited:
One really strange observation: when I clicked Chosun's link the other day, the two m4/3 images looked high exposure/low contrast and low vibrance compared to the two dSLR images. When I clicked today, it looked completely different. At this time I do not know what to think, except that a link that looks different from day to day is more or less worthless.

Niels
 
One really strange observation: when I clicked Chosun's link the other day, the two m4/3 images looked high exposure/low contrast and low vibrance compared to the two dSLR images. When I clicked today, it looked completely different. At this time I do not know what to think, except that a link that looks different from day to day is more or less worthless.

Niels

DPReview is owned by Amazon, so hopefully they value their reputation.
That said, screw-ups are not unusual in this space, there are just too many links between here and getting to the appropriate photo.
That is why there is value in checking several sites. Fortunately Europe has several options.
 
One really strange observation: when I clicked Chosun's link the other day, the two m4/3 images looked high exposure/low contrast and low vibrance compared to the two dSLR images. When I clicked today, it looked completely different. At this time I do not know what to think, except that a link that looks different from day to day is more or less worthless.

Niels
Niels,

With that sample imaging tool I have noticed that you need to make sure that all the ISO levels of the cameras you are comparing are the same and refreshed.

Also they are displayed as jpegs, and I'm not too certain whether DPReview converts them themselves from raw via some app, or uses each individual cameras jpegs engines direct. I'm sure they detail the specifics somewhere, or would respond with an answer if you ask them directly via email.

The files are available as RAW should you wish to process them via your normal work flow before a detailed comparison.

Just some possible explanations for any variations seen - there may be others ..... hope that helps.



Chosun :gh:
 
Here are a couple of photos taken with the FZ82 on my first time out with it, If it’s of any interest to you. They were all taken in auto mode, as I’m not sure which mode is best to use, and then just cropped using screenshot on my iPhone! As I hear that’s how all the pro’s do it! 😉

The Raven was about 40m away (I think you can still see a chunk of flesh on its bill from the lamb it was eating before I walked past!), Blue Tit 10m and Wheatear 30m.

Admittedly not the greatest quality, but once I get a bit more photography knowledge I’m sure they’ll get better. But they beat my binoculars for long distance ID anyways.

Thanks again,

Tom

The Panasonic FZ82 is an excellent camera for birders. Your photo of a raven is better than anything I've ever shot of that species. So far I've only met ravens in flight.

The FZ82 resembles in many respects the Canon SX50 which I used for many years. A great tool for stationary birds, IDying and observation. In threads like this one the discussion often meanders to "best IQ", BIF etc. Today I carry a 1kg camera around, which is officially "better" than the SX50 and can shoot BIF. But from many species I've shot the best photo with the 560g SX50.

Have fun with the FZ82, and happy birding.
 
Also they are displayed as jpegs, and I'm not too certain whether DPReview converts them themselves from raw via some app, or uses each individual cameras jpegs engines direct. I'm sure they detail the specifics somewhere, or would respond with an answer if you ask them directly via email.

The files are available as RAW should you wish to process them via your normal work flow before a detailed comparison.

Just some possible explanations for any variations seen - there may be others ..... hope that helps.
To make matters worse, most people shouldn't trust their monitors. Raise your hand if you're using a color-calibrated display; something like an Eizo with one built-in, or a nicer NEC or Eizo using a Datacolor Spyder or X-rite i1. |8.|

Or even better, you know how to "do it by the numbers"; raise your hand if you're a color separator or other profession along those lines. In which case, the screen matters less for the post-production.

DPReview may be spot on or not (not my area of expertise) but unless you've gone out of your way to limit the variables on your local machine, any on-screen comparison has to be taken with a grain of salt.

I often have to remind myself of this when reviewing the Gallery here. Some photos look very sharp and well composed, and obviously nice equipment was used, so I can only assume they are "great photos," but the color and tonality looks off or even amateurish. Or the photo hits all the right checkboxes but is blurry or has compression artifacts. My mental conclusion: they adjusted the photo by eye on their screen and their screen isn't set-up properly, they resized it improperly, etc. I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to the operator's skill and assume it's perfect on their end.

You kinda have to trust the reviewers at that point; whatever commentary they are making is hopefully before the browser made it's changes to the image and your screen changed it further. "Looked correct on their end."
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top