• 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.

DSLR or mirrorless for wildlife photography (1 Viewer)

This have been mentioned in the thread but the form factor and handling is not unimportant. The camera must feel comfortable in the hand and the camera must be able to be controlled without taking the eye from the viewfinder.

We also see that the latest pro MFT cameras is growing in size (grip is larger, weight is higher) since they are expected to be handled with longer and heavier lenses. The prices also have grown unfortunately. The Nikon D500 now seems cheap compared to the Pana GH5...I never thought that would happen. But Panasonic seem to have good confidence.

Mirrorless cams with larger FF sensors won't save much weight since the lenses is as heavy as any other, and I think APS-C format at 20-24MP gives the best bang for the buck for telephoto shooting. Reasonably good performance in low light but still high sensor resolution in better light conditions, and the possibility to crop.
 
Zackiedawg said:
There are quite a few in that gallery - though it would take some searching through the EXIF to see what time of day they were and what ISO. Some examples I can pick out for post-sunset birds-in-flight, taken at high ISOs up to ISO6400, after 5pm winter - either after the sun had set in dusk light, or when the sun had fallen behind the tree line so the birds were in shadow...and I've included a few low light shots of non-flying birds or animals - some really pushing it - the African animals posted were taken at night on a safari ride, so they are at extreme ISO ranges from 25,600 to 32,000...but still demonstrating the ability to autofocus in extreme cases.
Click to expand...

Impressive! Do you have examples of birds at dusk partly, obscured by vegetation? It was a common "failure scenario" of my El Cheapo superzoom.
 
I don't know if I can dig up that exact scenario - dusk, partially obscured, etc. But I do have to 'thread the needle' with birds a lot, focusing the smallest focus spot point through dense foliage to focus on a bird that doesn't want to be out in the open - usually this is in denser forest areas where the sun isn't penetrating well, so that usually means I'm in the higher ISO range too. A few samples I can dig up...some are with the big Tamron 150-600mm lens. The smallest focus spot point is quite tiny and does a nice job of picking through dense cover.
 

Attachments

  • GrnWakoA6326nov1339.JPG
    GrnWakoA6326nov1339.JPG
    295.9 KB · Views: 282
  • GrnWakoA6326nov260.JPG
    GrnWakoA6326nov260.JPG
    289.5 KB · Views: 282
  • GreenWakoA6330oct16038.JPG
    GreenWakoA6330oct16038.JPG
    252.2 KB · Views: 308
Zackiedawg said:
I'll politely disagree on the comment that if IQ is paramount, the decision must be DSLR. Mirrorless cameras come in many different forms, and not all forms mean smaller sensors or less capable IQ.
Click to expand...

Strongly agree. In fact the latest micro 4/3s sensors appear to be the equal of the best APS-C sensors when it comes to noise and low light shooting (see Oly EM-1 mk ii and probably GH-5--though no rigorous tests of the latter yet). See here:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Com...-D-E-M1-Mark-II-versus-Nikon-D500___1136_1061

Moreover, the Oly 300mm f4 is superior optically to the Nikon PF300mm f4.
 
katastrofa said:
I would prefer a zoom telephoto lens, easier to adjust to changes in the distance between me and the object.
Click to expand...

If you want a zoom lens with relatively light weight, I think the panny 100-400 (200-800mm equiv) is your best option. The only issue is that it might not be within your budget, especially if you pair it with the top of the line m4/3 such as the GH5, which will give you dual IS, or the EM-1 ii, which we now know has a new DSLR-matching sensor and excellent autofocus capabilities (also lighter than the GH5). The next best option appears to be the G80.

I think the bottom line is that you can only get three of these four desidarata: excellent image quality, light weight zoom lens, top autofocus capabilities, and within your budget. You'll have to decide how you want to compromise.
 
The absolute max. budget is £4000. Above that, and I won't feel comfortable lugging such amount of expensive stuff around, say, Central America. Or East London, for that matter :p
 
Jim M. said:
Strongly agree. In fact the latest micro 4/3s sensors appear to be the equal of the best APS-C sensors when it comes to noise and low light shooting (see Oly EM-1 mk ii and probably GH-5--though no rigorous tests of the latter yet). See here:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Com...-D-E-M1-Mark-II-versus-Nikon-D500___1136_1061

Moreover, the Oly 300mm f4 is superior optically to the Nikon PF300mm f4.
Click to expand...

If you look at the dynamic range diagram above ISO400 you see that the D500 is actually 1 stop better than the E-M1 II. That is as expected.

When choosing MFT you are stuck with the small sensor size, but the 300mm PF will also work on FF cameras, for even better high ISO performance.

No doubt the Oly 300mm is a superior lens, but it's also heavy and very expensive (with the EM1-II) in comparison.
 
Vespobuteo said:
If you look at the dynamic range diagram above ISO400 you see that the D500 is actually 1 stop better than the E-M1 II. That is as expected.

When choosing MFT you are stuck with the small sensor size, but the 300mm PF will also work on FF cameras, for even better high ISO performance.

No doubt the Oly 300mm is a superior lens, but it's also heavy and very expensive (with the EM1-II) in comparison.
Click to expand...

I wasn't commenting on dynamic range, but on noise/low light, which is reflected in the sports shooting scores. In any event, we are talking about small differences which most people could not visibly detect.

I was skeptical of the oly lens weight at first myself, but I have no problem carrying the Oly 300mm (600mm equiv on a m4/3 camera) with TC all day with the EM-1 on a shoulder strap. In any event, the D500 is heavier than the EM-1 mkii, so the phase fresnel weight advantage is partially offset by the body weight difference.
 
Last edited:
Jim M. said:
I wasn't commenting on dynamic range, but on noise/low light, which is reflected in the sports shooting scores. In any event, we are talking about small differences which most people could not visibly detect.

I was skeptical of the oly lens weight at first myself, but I have no problem carrying the Oly 300mm (600mm equiv on a m4/3 camera) with TC all day with the EM-1 on a shoulder strap. In any event, the D500 is heavier than the EM-1 mkii, so the phase fresnel weight advantage is partially offset by the body weight difference.
Click to expand...

Compare the RAW files at ISO 6400 for example and select "low light" (click the bulb).

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d500/7

To me the D500 clearly wins, the higher ISO the bigger difference.
DR is definitely relevant, at least 10 stops is nice to have IMO at higher ISO.

Considering the differences seen on DPreview at higher ISO, I am a bit surprised of the DXO Sports rating results for the E-M1 II actually.
Other early tests I've seen also did not show much improvement from the E-M1 I,
rather than getting closer to Canon EOS 7D.

But as you say, the difference might not be important for your needs and type of shooting.

Much worse cameras than these have been used in publications for the National Geographic...;)
 
Last edited:
My #1 reason for considering a mirrorless camera is that they're said to be quieter than DSLRs. If there are quiet DSLRs which do not spook the birds with mirror/shutter sound, I'd go for a DSLRs, if only for the longer battery life and bigger choice of lenses.
 
I watch the camps debate this constantly on dpreview all the time. The truth is if you are serious about shooting birds, you will need a big lens, which will be heavy no matter what system you use.
Most of the cameras these days are amazing. You can do well with all of them.
I went with Canon because I was guaranteed not to have any regrets later. It is the most used system and is very intuitive to use and there is a massive community out there. I promise you can get amazing shots with it and that no matter what system you buy into your results will be limited by your ability and not the camera.

I bought the Sigma 150-600mm C lens along with a Canon 80D which is a $2000 package. It is very large and heavy but I don't mind it on a shoulder strap. If you prefer smaller and the same price I would recommend the Canon 400mm f/5.6 prime which is an amazing lens for the price.

Enjoy your research, it can be fun. There are a lot of great choices out there right now. After months of looking, I decided to go with the safe route but there are definitely a lot of alternatives that will work.
 
I really wouldn't bother too much about shutter noise. My experience photographing small birds from a hide at about 4 metres is that the vast majority of birds, whilst they undoubtably hear the shutter, are not spooked by it. Indeed some stop and listen which makes getting the shot easier. What does spook them all is movement, even in the hide. Even the slightest movement will spook some birds. I had a hide set up at 4 metres to get Greater Spotted Woodpecker photos. They flew off at the slightest hint of movement. The only way I could get the shots was to preset the camera and use a cable release and keep absolutely still.
 
Shutter noise may be a minor factor when you photograph from a hide, not so when you walk around. Comparing my experiences with a noisy Canon DSLR to my four years with the silent Canon SX50, the latter clearly allowed a more relaxed kind of bird photography, less stress for the birds. Spending seven minutes with a Kingfisher just 10m away, or even more time with a very cooperative Firecrest - none of that is possible with a DSLR. Someone showed me how silent his 5D Mk iii in "silent mode" was, and I thought by myself: wow, that is loud.

Shooting a Dipper in a distance of 7m with a DSLR was fun and I really loved the results - but that was under the deafening noise of a waterfall, a rare exception. For me, noise is a major factor, but perhaps I am rather a birder than a photographer. I gave up the SX50 only because it wasn't good at BIF. Presently I love my Nikon V2 with the CX 70-300 lens, a very capable combination for BIF. Costs: about Euro 800, used.
 
I was afraid of that! Now my life is more complicated - for a DSLR the choice was clear (Nikon D500), for a mirrorless there are several options, each with their own pros and cons...
 
I value silent shooting for causing minimal disturbance to non-photographer birders in hides - brillant being able to sit there rattling shots off with no sound.
 
Vespobuteo said:
Compare the RAW files at ISO 6400 for example and select "low light" (click the bulb).

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d500/7

To me the D500 clearly wins, the higher ISO the bigger difference.
DR is definitely relevant, at least 10 stops is nice to have IMO at higher ISO.
Click to expand...

I don't see any significant difference between the D500 and EM-1 mk II. Think you can see what you want if you look long enough at such shots when there are small differences. Also, those DP Review shots are not carefully controlled; they use inferior lenses on some cameras and process some shots differently than others.

Going beyond tests, here's a real world report from another forum that I linked to in another post:
I shoot with the D500 and assorted lenses up to the 600mm f/4. My wife shoots with the E-M1 Mark II and the E-M5 Mark II cameras and the Olympus Pro lenses (12-40 f/2.8, 40-150mm f/2.8, 12mm f/2, 300mm f/4). Her images are the equal of mine and sometimes better as the autofocus is more accurate with mirrorless cameras.
​
Her 300mm f/4 provides the field of view of my 600mm f/4 lens but cost a quarter as much and weighs a third as much. With the in-camera optical stabilization combined with the lens stabilization of the 300mm f/4 lens she can take a shot at 1/8s hand held and the image is perfectly sharp. I cannot do that with my Nikon D500 and any of my VR lenses (70-200, 80-400, 500mm f/4, 600mm f/4).
​
On a trip this month to Costa Rica we had equivalent kits and mine fit in a 32 liter bag and weighed over 36 lbs., while hers fit in a 18 liter backpack and weighed in at 19 lbs. Which would you rather carry?
​
I read so many posts where people agonize over what to take on a trip and with MFT cameras and lenses there would be no issue as they could take it all.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58988370​
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 7 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.

Similar threads

T
Camera choice for birding around 3000 Euros with lens?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Tsvetan
T
S
Photographic equipment for rainforest trip
Replies
18
Views
2K
vupham
vupham
E
First serious birding camera advice (budget €2000 - 3000)
2
Replies
21
Views
4K
njlarsen
njlarsen
L
Any advice appreciated 🙏
2 3
Replies
47
Views
3K
avidopticguy
A
C
SWAROVSKI AX VISIO: MY LEARNINGS IN A NUTSHELL
Replies
18
Views
2K
Canip
C

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top