Advice for my first camera (1 Viewer)

[LRL]

Hi
I was looking to buy my first camera for birdwatching purposes (not "bird photography"). The main objectives i want to accomplish with the camera-lens combo are:
- to help me later identify a bird that i dont know or have seen quickly
- record a sighting of a rare bird
After some researching , i think that bridge cameras wouldnt work for my , because i would like to be able to take a quick picture (only for id , nothing fancy) of a bird flying by , or of some bird that is moving between tree branches . The autofocus and manual focus of bridge cameras arent suitable for those purposes (again , im a novice , so i dont know if this is completely true )
I think that a APS-C sensor camera or a M4/3" would be preferable.
I would manly use the camera in woods , fields and lakes , although i also go to more open areas (marshes, beaches...)
I have looked at Olympus OM-D EM1 Mk II with a 100-300 or 100-400mm lense , or a APS-C body (i dont know which one) with a 100-400 mm lens . The problem is that my budget is around 800 EUR , and for that money i cant find a 100-400 lens (like the Zuiko) for the M4/3" camera , so i was wondering if it would be better to buy an APS-C body with a 100-400mm lens or to buy a M4/3" body with , for example, the Panasonic 100-300 mm lens . Which one is more likely to produce better image quality when croping a photo?Which combos would you recommend with my budget?

Thank you in advanced

 

[LRL]

Im open to the second hand market for the camera and/or lens

 

[njlarsen]

The sony RX10-iv is supposed to be a bridge camera capable of shooting birds in flight. I wonder if that will be available on the used market for the amount of money you have. Disclaimer: I have not personal experience with this.

I have used an older m4/3 and the pana 100-300 in the past. I found it worthwhile for the types of situations you mention, even though that particular older camera body wasn't the best for BIF. Using the smallest setting for focusing area, it was definitely possible to focus between branches, and using the setting where after AF you have manual focus override, it also was possible in those cases where the AF didn't get it completely right. If you want to see some of the better images with that combo go to my gallery page here from around page 30

Media added by njlarsen

www.birdforum.net

I later progressed to the 100-400 lens which is sharper but also heavier, as well as updated the camera body.

As I have never use an APC camera due to concerns over weight, I cannot comment on their relative merits.
Niels

 

[njlarsen]

Use of the m43/100-300 combo to identify a couple of distant birds is seen in this old id thread

Ecuador Hawks Aug 2015

This first post is about a hawk that was seen for a short time at Angel Paz's place NE of Mindo (somewhere between 2000 and 2500 m asl). I am attaching the three photos I got, but they were less than 1/2 second apart and shows much the same view. Immediately before, the hawk was turned the other...

www.birdforum.net

Niels

 

[LRL]

Thank you very much for your help njlarsen. By the way , how far away was that raptor ?
Thank you very much

 

[njlarsen]

By the way , how far away was that raptor ?

It’s been a long time, but I would say for both of them it was at least 50 meters.
Niels

 

[kb57]

If you are willing to buy secondhand, you can pick up bargain DSLRs and lenses now, as people move to mirrorless systems like Nikon Z.

I'm thinking APS-C bodies like Nikon D7200 (which I still use) or D500 paired with a 100-400mm or 200-500mm lens. Niels will point out that is much more bulky than the M4/3 alternatives - for a lighter weight you could look for a 300mm PF with a 1.4x converter, which until recently was my first choice for a walk around birding setup.

 

[njlarsen]

You are correct that I would not want anything heavier than my current setup!

I hope the OP is aware of crop factors meaning that the reach with 400 mm is different in m4/3 and APS-C.
Niels

 

[LRL]

Thanks kb57 and njlarsen for your answers.
Im aware of the different crop factors of both apsc and m4/3" systmes. The thing that i dont know is that if, with equivalent medium quality systems (apsc with 100-400 mm and m4/3 with 100-300), which one would deliver greater images?The Apsc because it has a bigger sensor?

Kb57 , i already looked at those cameras , but the thing is they are too heavy . Which lighter camera bodies would you recommend ?

Thank you in advance

 

[unospice]

Hi
I was looking to buy my first camera for birdwatching purposes (not "bird photography"). The main objectives i want to accomplish with the camera-lens combo are:
- to help me later identify a bird that i dont know or have seen quickly
- record a sighting of a rare bird
After some researching , i think that bridge cameras wouldnt work for my , because i would like to be able to take a quick picture (only for id , nothing fancy) of a bird flying by , or of some bird that is moving between tree branches . The autofocus and manual focus of bridge cameras arent suitable for those purposes (again , im a novice , so i dont know if this is completely true )
I think that a APS-C sensor camera or a M4/3" would be preferable.
I would manly use the camera in woods , fields and lakes , although i also go to more open areas (marshes, beaches...)
I have looked at Olympus OM-D EM1 Mk II with a 100-300 or 100-400mm lense , or a APS-C body (i dont know which one) with a 100-400 mm lens . The problem is that my budget is around 800 EUR , and for that money i cant find a 100-400 lens (like the Zuiko) for the M4/3" camera , so i was wondering if it would be better to buy an APS-C body with a 100-400mm lens or to buy a M4/3" body with , for example, the Panasonic 100-300 mm lens . Which one is more likely to produce better image quality when croping a photo?Which combos would you recommend with my budget?

Thank you in advanced

Hi,

My thoughts:

Functionally, most cameras on the market are good enough to produce decent results, even of birds in flight. The barriers are usually user experience and skill level. To take decent photos of birds in flight requires a keen sense of observation, a true and tried preset for the camera, and a good understanding of bird behavior. Fortunately, all 3 can be mastered with lots of on-field practice.

I don't know a lot about camera/lens cost. My hunch is 800 EUR= very few options.

For a camera that is suitable for ID purposes and good enough to capture decent photos, I recommend the Sony RX10IV. It is definitely over your budget. However, it is worth considering and saving up for it because it is a camera with all the right specs as a documentation and identification tool.

To my eyes, the image quality is decent enough for my desktop rotating gallery. I have zero interest in monetizing bird photos or entering competitions.

As with any equipment, you will need a good amount of time learning, testing, and failing repeatedly. Please do not expect decent photos out of the box.

Here are some samples from my Sony camera. I am terrible at bird in flight photos. My reflex is not what it once was!

 

[kb57]

Thanks kb57 and njlarsen for your answers.
Im aware of the different crop factors of both apsc and m4/3" systmes. The thing that i dont know is that if, with equivalent medium quality systems (apsc with 100-400 mm and m4/3 with 100-300), which one would deliver greater images?The Apsc because it has a bigger sensor?

Kb57 , i already looked at those cameras , but the thing is they are too heavy . Which lighter camera bodies would you recommend ?

Thank you in advance

My opinion is that all being equal, APSC will produce better images because of the bigger sensor. My partner finds my setup too big to carry round (especially after I bought a secondhand bargain 500mm PF lens), but as far as I'm aware there are no smaller / lighter Nikon cameras below the D7200 that will work with the PF lenses (when I bought the 500 PF they tried a D5xxx to test the lens as I didn't have my camera with me, and it didn't work - I tested it with a D850 instead). You then have to turn to the Z series mirrorless, which are way more expensive.
Regarding M4/3, my partner has a Panasonic G9 (mk I) with the Panasonic 100-300mm lens - this is certainly a lightweight setup, but the 100-300 doesn't perform as well as the 100-400mm or the Olympus lenses - but she likes it because of the lighter weight and significantly smaller size. However, she still grabs my Nikon off me, even with the 500, if she wants to get a better quality photo (i.e. with more fine detail) from a camera which acquires focus more quickly.
As a walk-around setup for record shots the G9/100-300 is fine though, and if you were happy with the extra weight, the 100-400 would give you better quality glass and more reach, but obviously for more €€€ unless you get a good secondhand example.
The photos below show her setup with and without zoom extended.

 

[njlarsen]

I have written this before somewhere: with my copy of the 100-300, zooming out just a tiny bit did improve the image quality.
Niels

 

[LRL]

Hi,

My thoughts:

Functionally, most cameras on the market are good enough to produce decent results, even of birds in flight. The barriers are usually user experience and skill level. To take decent photos of birds in flight requires a keen sense of observation, a true and tried preset for the camera, and a good understanding of bird behavior. Fortunately, all 3 can be mastered with lots of on-field practice.

I don't know a lot about camera/lens cost. My hunch is 800 EUR= very few options.

For a camera that is suitable for ID purposes and good enough to capture decent photos, I recommend the Sony RX10IV. It is definitely over your budget. However, it is worth considering and saving up for it because it is a camera with all the right specs as a documentation and identification tool.

To my eyes, the image quality is decent enough for my desktop rotating gallery. I have zero interest in monetizing bird photos or entering competitions.

As with any equipment, you will need a good amount of time learning, testing, and failing repeatedly. Please do not expect decent photos out of the box.

Here are some samples from my Sony camera. I am terrible at bird in flight photos. My reflex is not what it once was!


View attachment 1631803

View attachment 1631805View attachment 1631806

Thanks for your reply unospice. And with the autofocus or the manual focus of that camera , are you able to take pictures of birds (for example , leaf warblers) that are deep inside a tree? (for id purpouses i mean , not great quality photos)

 

[LRL]

My opinion is that all being equal, APSC will produce better images because of the bigger sensor. My partner finds my setup too big to carry round (especially after I bought a secondhand bargain 500mm PF lens), but as far as I'm aware there are no smaller / lighter Nikon cameras below the D7200 that will work with the PF lenses (when I bought the 500 PF they tried a D5xxx to test the lens as I didn't have my camera with me, and it didn't work - I tested it with a D850 instead). You then have to turn to the Z series mirrorless, which are way more expensive.
Regarding M4/3, my partner has a Panasonic G9 (mk I) with the Panasonic 100-300mm lens - this is certainly a lightweight setup, but the 100-300 doesn't perform as well as the 100-400mm or the Olympus lenses - but she likes it because of the lighter weight and significantly smaller size. However, she still grabs my Nikon off me, even with the 500, if she wants to get a better quality photo (i.e. with more fine detail) from a camera which acquires focus more quickly.
As a walk-around setup for record shots the G9/100-300 is fine though, and if you were happy with the extra weight, the 100-400 would give you better quality glass and more reach, but obviously for more €€€ unless you get a good secondhand example.
The photos below show her setup with and without zoom extended.

Thanks for your reply . If i go the apsc route , i am more or less convince yo buy the Tamron 100-400 . For the apsc bodies , i was looking at something like a Canon EOS 250d or a Nikon D5600 , primarily because the are under 500gr, but i dont know if they are a bit to old and maybe there are more modern bodies today for around 400€ used

 

[njlarsen]

My opinion is that all being equal, APSC will produce better images because of the bigger sensor. My partner finds my setup too big to carry round (especially after I bought a secondhand bargain 500mm PF lens), but as far as I'm aware there are no smaller / lighter Nikon cameras below the D7200 that will work with the PF lenses (when I bought the 500 PF they tried a D5xxx to test the lens as I didn't have my camera with me, and it didn't work - I tested it with a D850 instead). You then have to turn to the Z series mirrorless, which are way more expensive.
Regarding M4/3, my partner has a Panasonic G9 (mk I) with the Panasonic 100-300mm lens - this is certainly a lightweight setup, but the 100-300 doesn't perform as well as the 100-400mm or the Olympus lenses - but she likes it because of the lighter weight and significantly smaller size. However, she still grabs my Nikon off me, even with the 500, if she wants to get a better quality photo (i.e. with more fine detail) from a camera which acquires focus more quickly.
As a walk-around setup for record shots the G9/100-300 is fine though, and if you were happy with the extra weight, the 100-400 would give you better quality glass and more reach, but obviously for more €€€ unless you get a good secondhand example.
The photos below show her setup with and without zoom extended.

Reading this again, I myself believe that the main difference between the two setups is in the quality of the lens rather than the sensor -- unless you take photos in very low light. I was pitching the pana 100-300 for its low weight and cost. The PanaLeica 100-400 is a very definite step upwards in quality, but I am not sure how available it will be in the second hand market -- as new, definitely above the price given in the first post of this thread.
Niels

 

[kb57]

Thanks for your reply . If i go the apsc route , i am more or less convince yo buy the Tamron 100-400 . For the apsc bodies , i was looking at something like a Canon EOS 250d or a Nikon D5600 , primarily because the are under 500gr, but i dont know if they are a bit to old and maybe there are more modern bodies today for around 400€ used

I have no experience of Canon, but I would be wary of getting a D5600 or similar grade Nikon for bird photography, autofocus for birds in flight may not be that great, and buffer limitations are more likely to kick in when you are taking multiple images.

For sure it is 300g lighter than a D7200 (also available for around 400€, see for example Nikon D7200), but most of the weight will be in the lens, rather than the camera.

 

[LRL]

Ok , so after a bit more of searching (and raising a bit my budget ), i think i would get one of this 2 second hand options:

- Panasonic G7 + OM Zuiko 100-400 Mk I (1000€). This one i can try before buying

- Sony RX10 IV (1175€)

Which one would be best for my purposes

Thank you in advanced

 

[njlarsen]

I think I would try out the one that you can do that with first. If you are buying privately, there might even be advice on which settings have worked best for the seller.
Niels

 

[dannat]

- Panasonic G7 + OM Zuiko 100-400 Mk I (1000€).

- Sony RX10 IV (1175€)

the price on that rx10 is is high, i just paid 875€ in Oz, i compared my only em5 mk3 w 75-300, rx10 slightly better & focus was quicker..c-af seemed better, plus more versatile as i got some wide flower shots, easier to handle imo too. used a hand strap- - havn’t used the 100-400