Hello (1 Viewer)

[aspeckofdust]

I use to take bird pictures in the past... in case that you like to have a look, some are here: top
Now, I'm thinking of going out and taking pictures again but I'd like to have a lighter equipment. My Pentax/Sigma system, depending on the combination is 2-2.3kg. I think with a Olympus camera with 100-400 lens may be under 2kg and Sony RX10 IV is even lighter. These are 800/f6.3 and 600/f4, both at 20MP. Which one would you recommend more?

 

[delia todd]

Hi aspeckofdust and a warm welcome to you from all the Staff and Moderators. I hope we may be able to see some of your pictures in the Gallery when you have sorted out your equipment.

I've moved your post to the Binoculars forum, as I think they're better placed to be able to advise you there.

I'm sure you will enjoy it here and I look forward to hearing your news.

 

[Kits]

Welcome to Birdforum. I hope you enjoy your visits.

 

[aspeckofdust]

Thanks, I will be happy to post pictures in the Gallery, when I have some new

 

[KC Foggin]

Welcome aboard aspeckofdust and enjoy your visits with us

 

[njlarsen]

I think it all depends on what you want to be able to do. @Steve Babbs went from a larger older setup to the Rx10-iv and from there to the oly/OM systems setup. I hope he will see this thread and comment.
Niels

 

[Steve Babbs]

As Neils said I have moved between all three. I was hiking up a mountain in Spain getting fed up with lugging my Canon 7d mark ii and 100 - 400, especially as I wasn't actually using it much. had a trip to Ethiopia booked which involved two sessions of hiking up mountains for several days at a time and I thought I must do something about this. The Sony RX10 IV was the obvious choice - although then it seemed very expensive for a non SLR - so I splashed out and I was so pleased that I had done. I clearly raved about it a lot as I feel Sony owe me commision with several friends making the switch either from SLR gear of from lower quality 'compacts'. I described it as 2/3 of the quality of my Canon + 100 - 400 at 1/3 of the weight. Plus I found myself actually taking landscape shots again.

However there were times when I was frustrated. It really wasn't ideal for taking photos of tapir at night for example. I was off for an extended trip to Uganda which would involve once in a lifetime opportunity to photograph chimps, gorillas and green-breasted pitta (which I shot at an ISO of 20,000). The OM system gave me chance to still have a considerable reduction in weight from the SLR but with lower noise and more reach plus the chance to use a macro lens - I spend a lot of time looking at insects. I would desribe it as 1 1/3 the quality of my SLR set up (or higher) at about 2/3 of the weight (the weight estimates are top of my head estimates - I haven't checked the figures). I have kept the Sony and do still use it very occasionally when out on my bike or when I am very much concentrating on birding not photography.

Not really an answer to your question but I thought you might be interested in my thought processes.

 

[njlarsen]

No-one can decide except yourself, but this might also be relevant: I am not sure about the weather sealing of the Sony. My own Panasonic w 100-400 has survived drizzle plenty of times, but the weather sealing of the OM1 is described as second to none.
Niels

 

[aspeckofdust]

That's a lot of useful info. So m4/3 has some advantage at poor light but it may be true with a fast lens (300/f4 for example). Is it still the case with 100-400/f6.3?

 

[njlarsen]

It has been a long time since I used something with a smaller sensor than m4/3. When I changed, there certainly was an advantage in low light, and I never owned the 300f4.
Niels

 

[Steve Babbs]

That's a lot of useful info. So m4/3 has some advantage at poor light but it may be true with a fast lens (300/f4 for example). Is it still the case with 100-400/f6.3?

The OM-1, whichever lens is used, is far better in poor light. The f4 of the Sony compared to 6.3 for the 100 - 400 nowhere near makes up for that.

The two systems are not really comparable. The Sony is great for its weight and price. Far better than any other compact cameras both in image quality and its usability - good AF, arond 20 frames per second etc. The OM-1 is a pro-level camera.

 

[aspeckofdust]

I appreciate sharing your experience. I wonder how Oly 100-400 compares to Canon 100-400. I think that it is fare to compare OM-1 with Canon 7d Mark II as both are 20 MP. I will be happy if possible to have a look on some pics from these lens/camera systems.

 

[Steve Babbs]

I appreciate sharing your experience. I wonder how Oly 100-400 compares to Canon 100-400. I think that it is fare to compare OM-1 with Canon 7d Mark II as both are 20 MP. I will be happy if possible to have a look on some pics from these lens/camera systems.

I've had both. I got rid of the Canon for the Sony I much prefer the OM1. Better AF, much lighter, much better image stablisation. I have never got round to comparing like for like shots but I'm sure the noise is considerably lower in the OM despite its smaller sensor.

 

[njlarsen]

Remember that the sensor size is different on these cameras. The reach you have in the canon with the 100-400 is less, you also need to add a 1.4x extender to have the same reach.

but I'm sure the noise is considerably lower than in the OM despite its smaller sensor.

Did you mean to remove the "than"? I am not sure the sentence makes sense right now ...

Niels

 

[Steve Babbs]

Remember that the sensor size is different on these cameras. The reach you have in the canon with the 100-400 is less, you also need to add a 1.4x extender to have the same reach.

Did you mean to remove the "than"? I am not sure the sentence makes sense right now ...

Niels

Yep. My proof-reading isn't great normally but it has been a particuarly hard couple of days at work so it is even worse this evening! Corrected now.

 

[aspeckofdust]

I got the idea. It's much clearer to me now. This Hello thread has become very useful.

 

[MelospizaMelodiaFan]

Late to the discussion, sorry. Have you purchased anything already?
If weight is the primary concern, I say go with the bridge camera (Sony RX10 or other), or, a different lens in M43. OM-1 with 100-400 is only a fraction of kg lighter than your current setup, really not worth starting over with a new system, in my opinion. M43 is getting heavier as time goes on; both OM System is re-badging full frame lenses (e.g. the Sigma 100-400, 150-600) and the Pansonic G9ii uses a full frame body. The days of M43 having a weight advantage seem to be in the past. Consider the 75-300 for OM or the 100-300 for Panasonic, but then you are giving up some image quality and other features. You have to be willing to compromise.

 

[aspeckofdust]

Thanks for the comment It's not too late, I haven't bought a new camera yet. I started this thread with the idea of finding out if the RX10 IQ would be good enough for birds. As I understand from others' comments, the M43 does better in low light conditions (larger sensor).
For this it seems that my idea of getting a lighter system has no easy solution that can maintains a good IQ. You're right that the OM1+100-400 is only a fraction lighter than my current setup, but with the M43 I also will get 800mm with higher FPS and most likely better AF. I expect that if I try to go lighter than the M43, the IQ will suffer for my taste... still thinking.

 

[njlarsen]

I started my experience with m4/3 with panasonic GH2 and a 100-300 lens, which is considerably lighter than the 100-400, and indeed a setup with this would even be lighter than the sony RX. Disadvantage is that you cannot truly go to 300, at least with my copy, 275 was much better. And even there, the IQ is not on par with the current 100-400, but it is not bad either. - By the way, I use the panasonic version of the 100-400, which is slightly lighter than the oly version.
Niels

 

[MelospizaMelodiaFan]

Thanks for the comment It's not too late, I haven't bought a new camera yet. I started this thread with the idea of finding out if the RX10 IQ would be good enough for birds. As I understand from others' comments, the M43 does better in low light conditions (larger sensor).
For this it seems that my idea of getting a lighter system has no easy solution that can maintains a good IQ. You're right that the OM1+100-400 is only a fraction lighter than my current setup, but with the M43 I also will get 800mm with higher FPS and most likely better AF. I expect that if I try to go lighter than the M43, the IQ will suffer for my taste... still thinking.

Well, it's all about finding the sweet spot, i.e. which compromises you are willing to live with. The 1" sensor is no slouch in most lighting situations. If you mostly shoot around dawn/dusk, or are frequently facing cloudy weather, then go with a bigger sensor.