Advice on best camera/lens combo (1 Viewer)

[nikonmike]

Interesting Video. You get the impression that all are very good in fast autofocus, very close to DSLR, and differences between cameras are minute. In this discussion here it sounded that difference between cameras and between mirrorless and dslr are much bigger. But perhaps birds in flight are more difficult than motobikes in flight :-O

Most definitely the thing is we all love our gear choice,a lot of the arguments being put forward against mirrorless i was using 12 months ago.
I don't think you will fail which ever way you go.

 

[Jim M.]

Interesting Video. You get the impression that all are very good in fast autofocus, very close to DSLR, and differences between cameras are minute. In this discussion here it sounded that difference between cameras and between mirrorless and dslr are much bigger. But perhaps birds in flight are more difficult than motobikes in flight :-O

The differences are small and getting smaller. But, at least in the past, the small differences can make a significant difference in certain contexts, e.g. when you are watching a stream of migrating raptors or landbirds in flight and are literally relying on your photos to ID many of them. In that situation, you have traditionally been better off with a DSLR.

 

[njlarsen]

A couple of numbers: The review of G85 that I am reading right now says that AF works down to -4eV, while the Nikon 7100 worked to -2eV and the 7200 to -3ev.

Quote from the review

Focusing is very fast, acquiring focus in just 0.07 seconds. In my experience, while the continuous autofocus was certainly quick, the single-shot focus is where the G85 shines.

I am wondering if the use described by Herman, if the C-AF really is the most important or if fast S-AF really is the way to go. The C-AF to me is a question of getting a great image of the flyby where the wings are turned the way you want, so more a question of photo beauty rather than getting any photos at all?

Niels

 

[dalat]

To throw an additonal autofocus question in: one common tricky situation for getting focus is a bird in scrub or dense foliage, where you see only bits of the bird and have to get that bit in focus, but not the twigs or leaves before and behind the bird. On my bridge, I usually set the focus point on the smallest possible square in the centre and try to bring that on the bird. Works generally, but often not, especially in low light.

I guess better lenses with good manual focus help a lot in these situations, while manual focus does not work at all with my bridge.

But for AF only, is there any difference of the different systems discussed, or is that rather a question of settings and skills?

 

[HermitIbis]

But perhaps birds in flight are more difficult than motobikes in flight :-O

If they had focused on the heads, and not on entire fossil fuel vehicles, the scenario would have been closer to BIF.

 

[njlarsen]

To throw an additonal autofocus question in: one common tricky situation for getting focus is a bird in scrub or dense foliage, where you see only bits of the bird and have to get that bit in focus, but not the twigs or leaves before and behind the bird. On my bridge, I usually set the focus point on the smallest possible square in the centre and try to bring that on the bird. Works generally, but often not, especially in low light.

I guess better lenses with good manual focus help a lot in these situations, while manual focus does not work at all with my bridge.

But for AF only, is there any difference of the different systems discussed, or is that rather a question of settings and skills?

For the AF part, yes using the smallest possible focusing area is what I do as well. Regarding switching to MF after having used AF, I think the ease of doing that might be a little different in different systems and also depend on how you have customized your camera settings. It is very easy on my GH2 after changing one setting in the menu, I do not know about the other cameras.

Niels

 

[dalat]

When reading about different camara's AF performance, I read things like "49 focus points" or similar. I assume that in the above described situation, when choosing the smallest possible focus area, then only a few of these many focus points would be used. This could possibly change the perfomance of the focus and also how one camera compares to others. Ok, perhaps a bit nitpicky now... But to keep it more simply, does a DSLR with its different focus technology perform better in principle in this type of situation, or not?

 

[stevo]

Not all focus points are usable,some act as assist points.

Cheers.

Steve.

 

[njlarsen]

Not all focus points are usable,some act as assist points.

Cheers.
4/3
Steve.

I think the difference between primary and assist focus points only exists with phase detection AF so most m4/3 this is not relevant. I doubt there is much change to what we said above even regarding to use the smallest focusing point.

Niels

 

[Hermann]

I am wondering if the use described by Herman, if the C-AF really is the most important or if fast S-AF really is the way to go. The C-AF to me is a question of getting a great image of the flyby where the wings are turned the way you want, so more a question of photo beauty rather than getting any photos at all?

The thing is AF-S is really good enough with most modern cameras, even with low-end DSLRs. If you just use the central AF point even an entry level DSLR is quick enough. What's more important than a superfast AF-S is quick startup times, and that's where a DSLR still wins. Bridge cameras are notoriously slow, and all mirrorless cameras I know also take their time. More time than a DSLR anyway.

AF-C - you need AF-C for quite a lot of stuff as well. Take an acrocephalus warbler doing its thing in the reeds, there you need fast and reliable AF-C to document its features, like the wing and tail structure. Or a wheatear: For "difficult" species you need flight shots, often enough at longisch distance against some "noisy" background, to document the tail pattern. Or a harrier flying past, over a field ... The list is endless.

Hermann

 

[njlarsen]

What is the time from turning on to getting a shot on a mid level dSLR such as nikon 7200?

Niels

 

[Hermann]

What is the time from turning on to getting a shot on a mid level dSLR such as nikon 7200?

You turn on a DSLR as soon as you're in the field, and you leave it turned on. You can start shooting right away. No need to wait for the camera to power up at all.

Battery drain is negligible, you get on average ~600-1000 shots on one battery (unless you spend a lot of time reviewing the results).

Hermann

 

[njlarsen]

I have shot at least 600 photos in one day. Usually my Pana GH2 runs up to one day on a battery, sometimes I have to change towards the end of the day. But, yes, not if I do not turn off. I cannot imagine that being a problem, my thumb turns on the camera as I start raising it, by the time it reaches my eye it is ready for AF.

Niels

 

[Hermann]

An interesting blog by an Indian photographer who shoots both Nikon and M4/2, including a review of the Panasonic 100-300 (https://mayurbehindthelens.com/2015...hotography-panasonic-100-300-f4-0-5-6-review/) and some general thoughts on M4/3 (https://mayurbehindthelens.com/2015/07/19/micro-43-my-second-system-of-choice/) as a "second system".

The blog is a bit difficult to navigate, but it's well worth the effort. Lots of interesting thoughts and some excellent photographs.

Hermann

 

[njlarsen]

Thanks Hermann,
I had not seen this. One thing to remember is that looking at his statements today, it is worth remembering that his m4/3 cameras are at least 1 generation back from those we have otherwise discussed. The second thing I believe is that the pana 100-300 suffer from quality variation one copy to another.

Niels

 

[nikonmike]

From what i understand the 100-300 has a lot slower focus motor than the 100-400

 

[Hermann]

One thing to remember is that looking at his statements today, it is worth remembering that his m4/3 cameras are at least 1 generation back from those we have otherwise discussed.

Sure. I'm not really sure if things got really that much better though. The sensors from a few years ago were already up to scratch, and the problem with AF-C seems to be a problem inherent in the focusing system they use. Maybe the new Olympus M1 is a bit better, that remains to be seen.

The second thing I believe is that the pana 100-300 suffer from quality variation one copy to another.

Probably yes. My partner has got one, it's pretty sharp up to 250mm, after that it loses quite a bit of acuity. Stopping down to 7.1 or 8 helps somewhat, but my old adapted primes are definitely better, like the Nikon 4.5/300 IF-ED.

Actually, that Indian guy's blog convinced me to try the Panasonic for a few weeks as a walk about lens. I've got an Olympus M5 Mark I that I use with short primes and with some adapted old Nikkors. Works nicely, but I want to have at least some sort of AF. And AF-S works pretty well with M4/3 as long as the light is reasonable. AF-C doesn't.

Hermann

 

[Jim M.]

Sure. I'm not really sure if things got really that much better though. The sensors from a few years ago were already up to scratch, and the problem with AF-C seems to be a problem inherent in the focusing system they use. Maybe the new Olympus M1 is a bit better, that remains to be seen.

The blog is over a year old, and the equipment even older. He even mentions considering the EM-1, which came out in 2012 iirc, as an upgrade. It is also from before either the Olympus 300mm f4 or the Pany-Leica 100-400mm were released--both of which he mentions as lenses he is looking forward to and are certainly equal or better in optical quality to equivalent DSLR lenses, which could not be said of the 100mm-300mm he was using. Every review/preview of the GX80/85 or the EM-1 mk ii indicate autofocus tracking is much improved--how could it not be on the latter when they have tripled the number of autofocus points? (In any event the importance of autofocus tracking is over-rated imo; small portion of most bird photography make use of it). Dual image stabilization is better than what DSLRs offer. In short, it is clear that m4/3 system has since moved much closer to mainstream DSLRs, and beyond them in some respects.

In any event, because of it's weight advantage, m4/3s doesn't have to surpass or even equal DSLRs in all respects to be competitive.

 

[njlarsen]

The focusing system has developed recently on both brands. Panasonic has come out with the DFD which does not function with the 100-300 but does function with the 100-400, and appeared first on something like the G7 I believe and was added by update to the GH4. Olympus has added on-chip PDAF with the EM1-i as their first camera to have it (so not present in your em5-i). Both Pana and Oly has increased the sensor readout times (I did not check, so I hope my memory is accurate here) for faster AF.

Niels

 

[dalat]

I read the review on dpr of the Olympus EM-1 ii, also discussed here: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=3487555#post3487555

Sounds good to me, a step close to DSLR AF performance, although not yet there... What's to expect of the Panasonic GH5? I read mostly about announced improvements regarding video, but Panasonic does not seem to boast about faster AF as much as Olympus did. Does that indicate it will be rather behind the Oly in this regard?

Anyway, at the moment I don't see me paying 2000 for either. I'd rather would go for the G81 which costs half and seems quite decent as well. But as I don't have the cash ready at the moment, I still have some time to wait o