PS. If I was to buy just 1 lens for Olympus, which one should it be? 100-400? 300? 70-300?
PS. If I was to buy just 1 lens for Olympus, which one should it be? 100-400? 300? 70-300?
PS. If I was to buy just 1 lens for Olympus, which one should it be? 100-400? 300? 70-300?
PS. If I was to buy just 1 lens for Olympus, which one should it be? 100-400? 300? 70-300?
PS. If I was to buy just 1 lens for Olympus, which one should it be? 100-400? 300? 70-300?
Thanks, that's one thing off my mind - the difference between Olympus and APS-C cameras is quite small at 6400 ISO.
The 300mm lens is quite expensive... And there is the problem with fixed magnification, as Jim said.
But 100-400 lens is Panasonic / Leica, how this will affect image stabilisation?
Is it possible to photograph a stationary bird using the 100-400mm Panasonic lens on an Olympus E-M1 Mk2 (so no in-body IS), handheld, and at the longest focal length? What would be the maximum exposure time?
I've gone through the same frustrations when I used a superzoom (SX50): birds sitting in bushes were a challenge. This photo is one of the few examples where I was almost satisfied with the result.Thanks. Could you point me to some examples of photos taken in low light condition (e.g. at dusk) with your Sony mirrorless?
My superzoom gave me most grief when I tried to photograph insect-eating birds like wrens or antshrikes which become particularly active before the sun falls (possibly because they're less afraid of predators then), but keep themselves to the bushes. It was hard to focus the camera then. I wonder how a mirrorless camera would handle such conditions.
However, precision and ease of manual focus on a DSLR surely takes the crown.
The counter argument is that often, too much of the bird is out of focus due to the paper thin DOF. I sometimes feel even my m4/3 (pana 100-300) suffers from that.A mirrorless cannot isolate the bird from the background in the way a DSLR can.
I completely agree on this oneSuch a decision is a compromise and nobody knows better than you what you want to shoot.
For shots of small songbirds in the (dim) forest there is a clear winner: a DSLR with a prime lens. A mirrorless cannot isolate the bird from the background in the way a DSLR can. If your main purpose is "forest", this fact (and ISO) matters.
Focusing in dense foliage is a particular skill of my mirrorless camera