Best portable birding camera + lens set-up (1 Viewer)

[dalat]

I broke my lens, and while I still hope it's repairable, it made me start thinking about what if I were to buy a new set-up.

I use a MFT set-up, Panasonic G9 with the Panasonic 100-400 lens (both Mark 1 versions). I'm overall very happy with it. I appreciate the portability of the set-up and also the performance is fine overall. I feel limitations mainly with birds in flights and the image quality at the longer end. While I would be ready to carry a slightly larger lens, it's clear that portability and hand-held shooting for record shots and the occasional beautiful images will remain my priority

The updated versions are more performing (e.g. all the newer bodies seem to be quite good with birds in flight now), but prices have also increased. If I were to replace this with current versions, either G9ii and Pana 100-400 ii, or OM-1ii and Oly 100-400, this would cost around 3500 €. If I were to invest in a new lense, the obvious upgrade would be the Oly 300 mm, this would cost around 5000 € (including new body). Not cheap at all.

While a few years back, MFT was the only really portable alternative to the heavier DSLR rigs, a lot has happened with mirrorless bodies and new lenses of the other brands in the last years.

So with the options available today, what would be an alternative camera + lens set-up from e.g. Sony, Canon, Nikon or other, that still offer good portability, reach of 600-800 mm equalivalent, equal or better image quality to the Pana 100-400 lens, and within the price range of 3500 or not much more?

Thanks, Florian

 

[aucarius]

I can't speak to the other brands but I use OM-1 v1 with the Olympus 300mm plus 1.4 extender. I got the lens second-hand from a reputable vendor offering a limited warranty which saved me a fair amount. I'm very happy with the sharpness of the results & portability.

 

[WRL]

[...]
So with the options available today, what would be an alternative camera + lens set-up from e.g. Sony, Canon, Nikon or other, that still offer good portability, reach of 600-800 mm equalivalent, equal or better image quality to the Pana 100-400 lens, and within the price range of 3500 or not much more?

Thanks, Florian

Possibility: Fujifilm X-T5 (around 1800 € or less with cashback) and Fujinon XF 150-600 (1800 to 1850 €).
I have the X-T4 with that lens and quite happy with this setup.
Werner

 

[Bill Atwood]

Canon R7 and 100-500 runs $4,100 in the US.

 

[tx2ad]

Canon APS with their slightly higher crop of 1.6x coupled with the RF100-500 make a very compelling case against going M4/3. The AOV being 160-900 equivalent, and the body being smaller and lighter than either G9 ii or the OM 1 Mk ii. More reach, more pixels, larger pixels, lower price.

 

[MelospizaMelodiaFan]

I use M43, but if I upgraded, I'd skip APS-C and go straight to FF. For all that money, you might as well jump up two tiers and get more of a wow factor.

 

[Ignatius]

I am planning to very soon trade in my Fuji setup for a Nikon Z8 and the Z 150-600 plus the 1.4x TC.

 

[tx2ad]

I am planning to very soon trade in my Fuji setup for a Nikon Z8 and the Z 150-600 plus the 1.4x TC.

Which Fuji gear are you using now?
How will the kit size and weight compare to what you use now?

 

[Ignatius]

An XT3 with the XF100-400 and a 1.4 TC. The new kit will be about 1 kg heavier. Sizewise there will not be that much difference as far as I can gather. The gains in IQ and above all AF will be huge, since Fuji steadfastly refuse to do some much needed work on their AF - something indispensable for BIF for example.

 

[njlarsen]

Canon APS with their slightly higher crop of 1.6x coupled with the RF100-500 make a very compelling case against going M4/3. The AOV being 160-900 equivalent, and the body being smaller and lighter than either G9 ii or the OM 1 Mk ii. More reach, more pixels, larger pixels, lower price.

I saw a note in one of the canon threads that at least the Canon R7 was relatively cheap because it uses a sensor with slow readout which negatively affects the AF performance, and can produce rolling shutter effects if you use electronic shutter. People have had difficulty showing rolling shutter effects in the OM1-ii.

Are you sure about the larger pixel size on Canon? If you take the published sensor size and divide by the Mpix count, you actually get a smaller number for the R7 than you get for an OM1-ii.

Niels

 

[tx2ad]

Ok - I did the calc for a bunch of cameras - the OM1 and Canon R7 are close - if you want bigger pixels than the R7, then use one of their cameras that have fewer than 33 MPix. Looking at static tests trying to produce curved poles that should be straight doesn't seem like great advice to spread around.

Does the 67% higher pixel count mean nothing? If pixel size matters heavily then my old 10MP Rebel XTi (400D) would be king of this list - but its not.

Is the M4/3 system, especially the OM1 Mk2 a quite capable camera - yes.
Does the OM1 have the fastest sensor read-out or auto-focus - from what I've read, no - and others are catching and passing it.
Is that camera smaller or lighter or less expensive than other cameras with similar capabilities? No.
Does everyone want to take only bird in flight pics? No.
In the field - does the R7 work very well - by all accounts I've seen - yes.

 

[njlarsen]

Canon APS with their slightly higher crop of 1.6x coupled with the RF100-500 make a very compelling case against going M4/3. The AOV being 160-900 equivalent, and the body being smaller and lighter than either G9 ii or the OM 1 Mk ii. More reach, more pixels, larger pixels, lower price.

I think the opposing views of the R7 vs R5 (canon) are shown quite well in this thread:

R5 or R7 with rf100-500

I am so stuck and going round and round in circles here. I have an R10 but looking to pass that on to my son and ise as a second body. But what to get. I have the rf100-500 lens. Do I go with the R7 and gain the equivalent of around 700mm or get the R5 I am worried about the reach of a...

www.birdforum.net

 

[tx2ad]

I did not see any opposing views there at all.
What I did see is some excellent R7 pics,
some advice on how to get the most out of the R7,
confirmation that the 100-500 is a great lens,
A user that has the R5 and R7 and now only uses the R7 when photographing birds.

 

[njlarsen]

I did not see any opposing views there at all.
What I did see is some excellent R7 pics,
some advice on how to get the most out of the R7,
confirmation that the 100-500 is a great lens,
A user that has the R5 and R7 and now only uses the R7 when photographing birds.

You did not read post 7? There were also opposing opinions about whether rolling shutters were a problem
Niels

 

[Gzoladz74]

I broke my lens, and while I still hope it's repairable, it made me start thinking about what if I were to buy a new set-up.

I use a MFT set-up, Panasonic G9 with the Panasonic 100-400 lens (both Mark 1 versions). I'm overall very happy with it. I appreciate the portability of the set-up and also the performance is fine overall. I feel limitations mainly with birds in flights and the image quality at the longer end. While I would be ready to carry a slightly larger lens, it's clear that portability and hand-held shooting for record shots and the occasional beautiful images will remain my priority

The updated versions are more performing (e.g. all the newer bodies seem to be quite good with birds in flight now), but prices have also increased. If I were to replace this with current versions, either G9ii and Pana 100-400 ii, or OM-1ii and Oly 100-400, this would cost around 3500 €. If I were to invest in a new lense, the obvious upgrade would be the Oly 300 mm, this would cost around 5000 € (including new body). Not cheap at all.

While a few years back, MFT was the only really portable alternative to the heavier DSLR rigs, a lot has happened with mirrorless bodies and new lenses of the other brands in the last years.

So with the options available today, what would be an alternative camera + lens set-up from e.g. Sony, Canon, Nikon or other, that still offer good portability, reach of 600-800 mm equalivalent, equal or better image quality to the Pana 100-400 lens, and within the price range of 3500 or not much more?

Thanks, Florian

For portability and versatility you cannot beat a bridge camera. I appreciate some people would not go anywhere near them but I suggest them given that you mention that record shots and portability are the priority.

 

[dalat]

For portability and versatility you cannot beat a bridge camera. I appreciate some people would not go anywhere near them but I suggest them given that you mention that record shots and portability are the priority.

Hi, I used a bridge before moving to MFT, and I do not see me moving back, having gotten the taste of improved functionality and quality.

Gladly my 100-400 could be repaired and it will do for now. But interesting comments here, many thanks!

 

[Chotacabras]

The point is, you can more or less easily carry a bridge camera (e.g. P950) alongside binoculars, scope and tripod. Carrying DSLR with long lens plus binoculars and scope/tripod is challenging, certainly over any distance. So if you're primarily a birder, bridge camera wins hands down in my view. If you're primarily a bird photographer, you will probably not carry a scope, and of course a DSLR makes sense.

[Also, comparisons with bridge cameras are often a bit unfair, in my view. Record shots are frequently at extreme distance, with the bird very small in frame even at 2000mm-equivalent. To get like-for-like comparison, you need to compare bridge camera image (at say 2000-mm equivalent) with extreme crop of DSLR image (at say 600mm). Though certainly, I don't doubt that an excellent lens on a DSLR body with state-of-the-art sensor will give better results than bridge camera even at extreme crop: sadly, current "superzoom" bridge cameras don't have the state-of-the-art sensors seen in high-end phones.]

 

[asp09]

Gladly my 100-400 could be repaired and it will do for now. But interesting comments here, many thanks!

I'm glad you managed to get your 100-400 repaired. The word on the net is that this lens is not repairable; was yours repaired by Panasonic, or did you have to send it to an independent repair shop?

it's clear that portability and hand-held shooting for record shots and the occasional beautiful images will remain my priority

I have the same priorities as you, and I think the 100-400 is very well suited to this, although I find the G9 a little big (I use a G85). Having said that, my favourite lightweight combo is the Nikon Z50 with 300PF & 1.4 teleconverter; this gives me an equivalent focal length of 630mm (at f5.6) and weighs slightly less than the G9 + 100-400. If I was starting anew, I think I would look at the R7 & RF100-400, which is even lighter.

I sold my Panasonic 100-400 earlier this year, but recently picked up a 100-300II. I know it's a downgrade, but it's so small and light that I take it everywhere with me just in case. It's also light enough to take along when I'm carrying a scope.

 

[dalat]

The word on the net is that this lens is not repairable; was yours repaired by Panasonic, or did you have to send it to an independent repair shop?

It was repaired through the dealer where I bought it. Not sure if they did it through Panasonic or in other ways. The broken bit was the lens mount, so perhaps not the most difficult to repair...

 

[Jim M.]

I'm glad you managed to get your 100-400 repaired. The word on the net is that this lens is not repairable; was yours repaired by Panasonic, or did you have to send it to an independent repair shop?

I had a broken lens mount on my PL100-400 repaired at a Panasonic service center in Florida earlier this year. I think the "word" you are referring to is dated now.