Which camera and lens???? (1 Viewer)

let me add,...that a ton of my pics could well be under 10-15 yards or less in my yard or simply out on a photography hike hunt as well. I've been reading researching all over the net and many threads here all afternoon. I will say that while I think the P1000 is most impressive and takes some great photos and also is very versatile,..........in the end the WOW factor for me that I most commonly see is taken with the DSLR type cameras. By wow factor I mean detailed feather texture,..shine in the eye,...dirt granules on beaks,...the details and texture of the limb a subject may be sitting on. I think the zoom cameras will get there,..no doubt..but I suppose dslr's will improve as well at the same rate with the whole pixel count thing. It is about the quality for me. Also give or take on the fps isn't a deal breaker so much as the ability to "freeze" the action...which I think goes to shutter speed??

Below are some long, sometimes technical answers. The short answers are:

• if you really want to shot tiny birds at long distances (songbirds at 25 - 50 yards), you need the P1000 or something else with a 2000 - 3000 mm equivalent lens. If that's not the case and you're working more like 10 yards or less, than the d7500 + 150-600 is useful.
  
• In low light, I'm still going to say the DSLR will win over a bridge camera. You'll get higher ISO and better dynamic range, such as something in a ray of sunlight preserving shadow details or the micro contrast on feathers.
  
• Winning in any one category, of course, doesn't mean it's right for you. I still suggest you try before you buy.

aaronc said:

1. At 25 yards on a bright sunny day will there be any discernible difference in IQ on a songbird sized subject sitting in a tree between theses to camera types?

Click to expand...

Note: I think in the past I said the P1000 is 2000mm equivalent, but it's really 3000mm equivalent.

I'm assuming by songbird, you mean something under 10" and more like 5" - 7". Is that wrong? Also, in this answer, I'm assuming we're more-or-less in the linear region of the tangent function, so I blithely use linear scaling. I'm ballparking some of these numbers, so take them for order-of-magnitude not precise calculations. Also, I'm assuming you want the resulting photo to be at least 5MP - 10MP, not some super tiny thing.

To answer your question: a DSLR will have a hard time at this (maybe a d850 or a7riii with 600mm lens plus heavy cropping will get close). The P1000 would be the choice here.

For some perspective, I put a 7"x5" postcard on a tree. With a 500mm lens on full frame, the postcard fills the image at about 9.2 feet (say 3 yards). On a DX crop sensor, it's about 15 feet (say 5 yards). Those are both as-measured on a d850 in FX and DX modes. A 3000mm lens (6x distance) would only be 18 yards (that's approximate).

A d7500 with a 600mm (900mm equivalent) lens would be at about 6 yards. You would need a 4x crop in editing which would bring the 21MP sensor down to 1.3MP (it's square because MP is area). That's not workable. A more practical size would be a 2x - 3x crop, so the songbird would be about 1/3 - 1/2 of the frame width.

I've shot the d850 with 600mm and cropped down from 45MP to about 5MP. That gives me a 2000mm equivalent focal length. Doing that, the song bird would be a bit under 1/2 the width of the cropped image.

At 25 yards, a P1000 would need a 1.4x extra crop, which it's 16MP sensor might deliver (especially editing down from a raw file).

If you're into math, a 200mm lens has a 10.3* horizontal angle of view. From trig, if the width of a subject is w, then your distance d = w / (2 * tan(a/2)). For w = 0.6ft (~7") and a=10.3*, d = 3.3ft. For 500mm, a = 10.3/2.5 = 4.12*, so d= 8.3 ft (compared to my measured 9.2 ft -- the actual angle of view of the lenses vary a bit). In any case, if you have d = 75ft, w = 0.6ft, then a= 0.46*, so you would need about a 4400 mm equivalent focal length.

Some other rants about IQ. First, you need good shooting discipline (technique) to get top IQ. Otherwise you'll get blur from bad settings, camera shake, mirror bounce, etc. Generally, the larger the sensor the better the low-light performance and the dynamic range. We've not talked DR yet. It's how well a camera can render shadows and highlights. A high DR means you maintain details in deeper shadows and brighter highlights than a lower DR. There's also the lens quality (often seen as MTF charts) -- how much distortion and aberration it has. Some cameras correct distortion in the body, but that can lead to lower IQ because it can blur fine details. So, there are lots of fine details that affect IQ.

2. What about 50 yards,..same scenario?

Click to expand...

Event worse than above. When I take photos of songbirds, it's under 10 yards and with an equivalent 1200mm - 1500mm lens (including cropping in post).

3. If we cut the light down to an overcast cloudy day deep in the woods which camera would have the best IQ?

Click to expand...

Full frame, low megapixel DSLR. Something like the d750 or d5 or Z6 or d500 (or equivalent Canons), or Sony a7iii or a7sII or a9. Not listed in any particular order.

In something in your price range, probably the d7500 (or equivalent Canon). Or Sony a6500.

Or maybe at these distances there is no huge difference? If not how far out do we need to stretch these camera types to see a difference between the two on IQ?

Click to expand...

The longer the distance, the longer the needed equivalent focal length. Equivalent focal length is the real lens focal length times the sensor crop factor times the edited crop factor. A DX sensor is a 1.5x crop factor (A full frame sensor is 1.5x bigger [usually measures along the diagonal] than a DX sensor). Micro 4/3 is a 2x crop factor. The P1000 is 5.6x crop factor. The editing crop factor is the amount of extra you cut off in your editing software.

In general, the larger the sensor crop factor, the worse the low light performance, for equivalent megapixels. In general, you can crop down to about 5MP - 10 MP. Let's just say 10MP. A 20 MP camera could crop down 1.4x to get to 10 MP (it's square root because MP is an area measurement). A 16 MP sensor (say P1000) would be 1.3x crop factor down to 10 MP. In my experience, the P900 did not crop well at least from the jpeg and did not have a raw option. The P1000 might have better jpeg and has a raw option, so you might be able to get that 1.3x crop.

With the 150-600 and the p1000 is it common to feel the need for a tripod or to shoot off of a rest sort of speak. Not sure how you guys word it.

Click to expand...

There's a few aspects to answering this.

1) A 7500 + 150-600 is about 6lb combined. A p1000 is about 3 lb. I use the d850 + 150-600 (maybe 7lb combined). I have no problem hand holding it for quick shots or BIF. But, I often want to wait for a perched bird to do something interesting. I could not hold 6lb - 8lb on target ready to shoot for more than a half a minute. I use a monopod and that lets me keep aim on a target and ready to shutter release for essentially as long as my feet hold up. But clearly the P1000 wins here.

2) Shooting at 500mm equivalent or above becomes hard to find things and track things (it gets easier with practice). Shooting on a monopod or a gimbal head tripod makes it a lot easier. The P900 has a feature to press a button to zoom out and when you release it goes back to your original zoom. This lets you find something then zoom in. i assume the P1000 has the same feature. This can really help hand holding. In any case, shooting at really high equivalent focal lengths needs steady hands and a support really helps.

3) you need a good way to carry the load. The P1000 is not too bad, but for any of these 6lb or above combos I would use the black rapids sling strap.

It seems camera bodies kind of come and go from what I have read so far and if I go the more traditional route I will somewhat be buying into a system of lenses.,..at least that's how I see it. Correct me if I'm wrong. That would be perhaps the Nikon VS Canon thing but lets just stay with nikon here. These new bridge cameras are certainly interesting and appear to be the new way of doing things,..as stated before I somewhat wonder if that is where it is headed as far as the industry goes,..sometimes those things happen in a hurry. I am basically talking out loud here simply letting you guys know where my thoughts are,..any responses to my scenarios above would be helpful.

Click to expand...

Yes. Your main options are Nikon, Canon, or Sony.

We've not talked about Sony, but they are a solid platform too and have some impressive high ISO performance. But they can get expensive and there's no good long lens options in your price range. You can do something like an a6500/a6400 + tamron/sig 150-600 + mount adapter, but I've seen mixed things about the AF performance and I've not tried that combo.

I don't think it's "the way the industry is going" so much as a way to sell the tiny sensors in a package that fills a niche that full frame and APS-C sensors do not (either DSLR or mirrorless). You can get either tiny cameras with normal zoom ranges or small(ish) cameras with insane zoom ranges.

marcsantacurz said:

Below are some long, sometimes technical answers. The short answers are:

• if you really want to shot tiny birds at long distances (songbirds at 25 - 50 yards), you need the P1000 or something else with a 2000 - 3000 mm equivalent lens. If that's not the case and you're working more like 10 yards or less, than the d7500 + 150-600 is useful.
  
• In low light, I'm still going to say the DSLR will win over a bridge camera. You'll get higher ISO and better dynamic range, such as something in a ray of sunlight preserving shadow details or the micro contrast on feathers.
  
• Winning in any one category, of course, doesn't mean it's right for you. I still suggest you try before you buy.

Note: I think in the past I said the P1000 is 2000mm equivalent, but it's really 3000mm equivalent.

I'm assuming by songbird, you mean something under 10" and more like 5" - 7". Is that wrong? Also, in this answer, I'm assuming we're more-or-less in the linear region of the tangent function, so I blithely use linear scaling. I'm ballparking some of these numbers, so take them for order-of-magnitude not precise calculations. Also, I'm assuming you want the resulting photo to be at least 5MP - 10MP, not some super tiny thing.

To answer your question: a DSLR will have a hard time at this (maybe a d850 or a7riii with 600mm lens plus heavy cropping will get close). The P1000 would be the choice here.

For some perspective, I put a 7"x5" postcard on a tree. With a 500mm lens on full frame, the postcard fills the image at about 9.2 feet (say 3 yards). On a DX crop sensor, it's about 15 feet (say 5 yards). Those are both as-measured on a d850 in FX and DX modes. A 3000mm lens (6x distance) would only be 18 yards (that's approximate).

A d7500 with a 600mm (900mm equivalent) lens would be at about 6 yards. You would need a 4x crop in editing which would bring the 21MP sensor down to 1.3MP (it's square because MP is area). That's not workable. A more practical size would be a 2x - 3x crop, so the songbird would be about 1/3 - 1/2 of the frame width.

I've shot the d850 with 600mm and cropped down from 45MP to about 5MP. That gives me a 2000mm equivalent focal length. Doing that, the song bird would be a bit under 1/2 the width of the cropped image.

At 25 yards, a P1000 would need a 1.4x extra crop, which it's 16MP sensor might deliver (especially editing down from a raw file).

If you're into math, a 200mm lens has a 10.3* horizontal angle of view. From trig, if the width of a subject is w, then your distance d = w / (2 * tan(a/2)). For w = 0.6ft (~7") and a=10.3*, d = 3.3ft. For 500mm, a = 10.3/2.5 = 4.12*, so d= 8.3 ft (compared to my measured 9.2 ft -- the actual angle of view of the lenses vary a bit). In any case, if you have d = 75ft, w = 0.6ft, then a= 0.46*, so you would need about a 4400 mm equivalent focal length.

Some other rants about IQ. First, you need good shooting discipline (technique) to get top IQ. Otherwise you'll get blur from bad settings, camera shake, mirror bounce, etc. Generally, the larger the sensor the better the low-light performance and the dynamic range. We've not talked DR yet. It's how well a camera can render shadows and highlights. A high DR means you maintain details in deeper shadows and brighter highlights than a lower DR. There's also the lens quality (often seen as MTF charts) -- how much distortion and aberration it has. Some cameras correct distortion in the body, but that can lead to lower IQ because it can blur fine details. So, there are lots of fine details that affect IQ.



Event worse than above. When I take photos of songbirds, it's under 10 yards and with an equivalent 1200mm - 1500mm lens (including cropping in post).



Full frame, low megapixel DSLR. Something like the d750 or d5 or Z6 or d500 (or equivalent Canons), or Sony a7iii or a7sII or a9. Not listed in any particular order.

In something in your price range, probably the d7500 (or equivalent Canon). Or Sony a6500.



The longer the distance, the longer the needed equivalent focal length. Equivalent focal length is the real lens focal length times the sensor crop factor times the edited crop factor. A DX sensor is a 1.5x crop factor (A full frame sensor is 1.5x bigger [usually measures along the diagonal] than a DX sensor). Micro 4/3 is a 2x crop factor. The P1000 is 5.6x crop factor. The editing crop factor is the amount of extra you cut off in your editing software.

In general, the larger the sensor crop factor, the worse the low light performance, for equivalent megapixels. In general, you can crop down to about 5MP - 10 MP. Let's just say 10MP. A 20 MP camera could crop down 1.4x to get to 10 MP (it's square root because MP is an area measurement). A 16 MP sensor (say P1000) would be 1.3x crop factor down to 10 MP. In my experience, the P900 did not crop well at least from the jpeg and did not have a raw option. The P1000 might have better jpeg and has a raw option, so you might be able to get that 1.3x crop.



There's a few aspects to answering this.

1) A 7500 + 150-600 is about 6lb combined. A p1000 is about 3 lb. I use the d850 + 150-600 (maybe 7lb combined). I have no problem hand holding it for quick shots or BIF. But, I often want to wait for a perched bird to do something interesting. I could not hold 6lb - 8lb on target ready to shoot for more than a half a minute. I use a monopod and that lets me keep aim on a target and ready to shutter release for essentially as long as my feet hold up. But clearly the P1000 wins here.

2) Shooting at 500mm equivalent or above becomes hard to find things and track things (it gets easier with practice). Shooting on a monopod or a gimbal head tripod makes it a lot easier. The P900 has a feature to press a button to zoom out and when you release it goes back to your original zoom. This lets you find something then zoom in. i assume the P1000 has the same feature. This can really help hand holding. In any case, shooting at really high equivalent focal lengths needs steady hands and a support really helps.

3) you need a good way to carry the load. The P1000 is not too bad, but for any of these 6lb or above combos I would use the black rapids sling strap.



Yes. Your main options are Nikon, Canon, or Sony.

We've not talked about Sony, but they are a solid platform too and have some impressive high ISO performance. But they can get expensive and there's no good long lens options in your price range. You can do something like an a6500/a6400 + tamron/sig 150-600 + mount adapter, but I've seen mixed things about the AF performance and I've not tried that combo.

I don't think it's "the way the industry is going" so much as a way to sell the tiny sensors in a package that fills a niche that full frame and APS-C sensors do not (either DSLR or mirrorless). You can get either tiny cameras with normal zoom ranges or small(ish) cameras with insane zoom ranges.

Click to expand...

Marc,..thanks for your extended response and your time. I'll take some time to break down and look at the detailed numbers you've posted tonight and tomorrow. Let me say this,..even if I overestimated the comparison ranges in the post you responded to I really have no issue with having to be closer for the type of pics we are talking about. I can easily do 3 yards here in the yard as far as that goes. ,..and as for "in the wild" ..well thats part of the hunt and from a deer stand birds are literally feet away up in the canopy where I spend my time on all day extended sits. I could see myself purchasing a zoom lens type camera down the road...very easily. ,..but at this time I really am focused on the quality as in details and sharpness. I'll be reading over your numbers and soaking that in. -Aaron

aaronc said:

It is about the quality for me.

Click to expand...

DSLR or mirrorless.

Also give or take on the fps isn't a deal breaker so much as the ability to "freeze" the action...which I think goes to shutter speed??

Click to expand...

Yes, shutter speed. FPS just gives you more changes to catch the right action. I think 7 FPS or above is pretty good. 10 FPS - 14 FPS is really really fast. The 20 FPS sony are excessive.

Marc

Thought I would post this,, 150mtrs hand held 3000mm 1/320sec 400iso f8 and some digital on top of the 3000mm optical. I know it is noisy but I was the only one to get any sort of shot today...maybe some of the dslr men weren't wanting to waste their time

https://flic.kr/p/2g6fyZJ

Den

poledark said:

Thought I would post this,, 150mtrs hand held 3000mm 1/320sec 400iso f8 and some digital on top of the 3000mm optical. I know it is noisy but I was the only one to get any sort of shot today...maybe some of the dslr men weren't wanting to waste their time

https://flic.kr/p/2g6fyZJ

Den

Click to expand...

It's amazing how good the VR is nowadays, that must be about 4 stops of gain.

Here's an example from the d850 at an equivalent of 5038mm at ISO 800 using a tripod. I think it was 1/2000th at f/8 using the tammy 150-600 g2. I got to that extreme FL by cropping the heck out of it down to 766x766 (it says 1024 in the gallery, I think it got up scaled when I exported it, didn't notice that before now). I was maybe 15-20 ft (5-6m) away.

Marc

I took a lot of shots spread over 30 minutes or so. First off heard the bird, zoomed out to 3000 to search the far side of pool and spotted 3 pigeons on separate posts..no cuckoo. a couple of minutes later heard it again a bit closer and there it was on one of the posts. These are 140 yards away.
Set camera on S at 1000sec and fired off a burst..not bad but need to slow the shutter down a bit as pics not very bright, so took some more at different shutter speeds. Bird flew off.

Ten minutes or so later it came back and I decided to try manual focus as there was some foliage in front of bird, flicked a switch twist the focus ring and quite a nice shot.
Switched to video and took 20 seconds or so...pretty pleased with that.

Now decided to use some digital zoom, I usually have this turned off, but worth a try, so tried this at various levels but was unable to keep the bird in frame at maximum, about 8000mm ? but got reasonable result at 5000mm equivalent.

All these alterations were done mostly without taking my eye from the viewfinder and using the snap back function enabled me to find the bird easily.
The P1000 is not just about huge zoom, all the most helpful functions are built in and easily accessible, mostly at the touch of a button.

I am no expert on camera design, but would it make sense (or is it possible) to shorten the zoom to max of 2000mm but fit a larger sensor? The front lens diameter is about 50% larger than most other bridge cameras, gathers more light (proved from actual usage compared to the P900)


Den

poledark said:

I am no expert on camera design, but would it make sense (or is it possible) to shorten the zoom to max of 2000mm but fit a larger sensor? The front lens diameter is about 50% larger than most other bridge cameras, gathers more light (proved from actual usage compared to the P900)

Click to expand...

I'm no expert either, but it's fun to hypothesize.
This article shows the common crop factors. The P1000 is a 1/2.3" sensor (5.6x crop factor) with a 539 mm f/8 lens, giving the 3018mm equivalent zoom.

Lets say you go with a 2/3" sensor with a 3.9x crop factor. That would give a 2102mm zoom, but the problem is the sensor is bigger (6.6mm height vs 4.55mm on the 1/2.3"). This means the lens needs to project a larger image circle so the lens design would need to change. If the aperture (as opposed to the f-stop) needs to be bigger, the length would need to be longer or the focal length would reduce.

Another issue is there might not be the same quality of sensors in each size category or the same volume production.

Marc

A couple more from today in my garden, both hand held, the woody was screened off behind foliage so had to shoot through a small gap.
https://flic.kr/p/2g6Lhig


https://flic.kr/p/2g6LArE

Den

poledark said:

A couple more from today in my garden, both hand held, the woody was screened off behind foliage so had to shoot through a small gap.
https://flic.kr/p/2g6Lhig


https://flic.kr/p/2g6LArE

Den

Click to expand...

Den,..thanks for posting. You make a strong case for your 1000.

marcsantacurz said:

It's amazing how good the VR is nowadays, that must be about 4 stops of gain.

Here's an example from the d850 at an equivalent of 5038mm at ISO 800 using a tripod. I think it was 1/2000th at f/8 using the tammy 150-600 g2. I got to that extreme FL by cropping the heck out of it down to 766x766 (it says 1024 in the gallery, I think it got up scaled when I exported it, didn't notice that before now). I was maybe 15-20 ft (5-6m) away.

Marc

Click to expand...

That's fantastic Marc.

Here's a nice one from yesterday..

https://flic.kr/p/2gaeZs9

That is the young one that is being fed in the next shot.

Den