How much do I lose by going from DSLR to superzoom? (1 Viewer)

[PaulCountyDurham]

Agreed - I could have got closer, but disturbing feeding birds in this weather is something I avoid. I think it shows how a drastic crop keeps enough detail for ID purposes (okay not a species you need details for ;-) ) but does push the limits of what the camera is capable of recording (well that was my intention!).

It would be interesting to see a picture taken in similar circumstances, and taken with the more expensive equipment.

I don't doubt that the more expensive equipment will produce better results, all other things being equal. I know some people with the more expensive equipment and their pictures are pretty special. Still, it would be interesting to see a comparison from the same hand.

I'd just ask, were you stood up when you took the picture of the robin? If so, it is much more difficult to keep the camera steady. I very rarely, if ever, take pictures standing up. I'd rather lie in the snow for 20 minutes, in -4 temperature and take the cold pain, than stand up taking pictures; which I have done most of this week for absolutely no gain whatsoever.

 

[kimmik]

Another bino iphone photo



Panasonic superzoom



Full frame



Apologies they were screenshots, old photos harder to download fullsize off the cloud.

 

[Original PaulE]

I would say if weight is the main problem, save your money and buy yourself a harness, I have a Canon 7d Mk2 and sigma 150-600, with the neck strap I could do an hour tops, before the pain in my neck was killing me, with a harness I can easily to do 5/6 hrs with no problem, bottom of me back aches a bit sometimes but that could be just from the walking!

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

I would say if weight is the main problem, save your money and buy yourself a harness, I have a Canon 7d Mk2 and sigma 150-600, with the neck strap I could do an hour tops, before the pain in my neck was killing me, with a harness I can easily to do 5/6 hrs with no problem, bottom of me back aches a bit sometimes but that could be just from the walking!

I'd say that's the solution for the OP given his/her stated motivation in switching to a bridge camera/super zoom.

It is possible to get some good pictures with the P950 but it takes effort, patience and a bit of creativity. I get the impression that the OP doesn't have that in him/her and is more the impulsive type who would buy the camera, conclude within a day it is rubbish and shove it in a drawer somewhere never to see the light of day again; despite the fact that a cursory glance on-line will show some outstanding pictures taken with this camera. Maybe the OP has far too much money for his/her own good, and can afford to buy stuff on a whim and forget about it the next day, his/her life I suppose, but it would remain a criminal waste of a good camera. In that event, I would question whether or not someone actually values photography and any camera.

In the end, undoubted experts who work for the like of the National Geographic do not rubbish these cameras and they see owning such a camera as an opportunity, and that, more than anything written on Bird Forum by self-proclaimed experts, tells the story.

 

[Steve Babbs]

Ok, I have a kind of answer. I was able to borrow a Canon SX70, and even though it has twice as much zoom as my Olympus with 75-300 lens (150-600 equivalent), the pictures are worse. The pixels are fuzzy, by more than a factor of two; the autofocus is much slower and less precise, and the zoom is slower too. As my Oly with 75-300 is of manageable weight, I will stick with that.

And btw, no, my pictures above are crap. I chose them explicitly to show off subpar pics, that are however very useful for bird id.

The fact is, sometimes, rare times, I aim at great photos. Most often, my joy is in identifying the birds and observing them, and I throw away (delete) the pictures once the identification is done. I used to be obsessive about photography, I developed my own film, etc etc. I still am obsessive for some photos I care. But I learned that simplicity in life has value. When I walk around to birdwatch, my goal is the birds, and everything else is best kept simple.

The only superzoom which will get anywhere near the the picture quality you are used to, unless the light is extremely good, and which handles/focusses like dslr/mirrorless in the Sony Rx10 iv which is expensive and not as light as some. I got fed up of lugging my 7D + 100 - 400 lens around and swapped to this for a while. I have now got an OM1 and the lens that you have. I have kept my Sony for when I am walking a long way, and photography is less of a priority, or when I go out by bike but I would have trouble justifying the cost if i didn't already have it.

 

[MiddleRiver]

I have had the opportunity to ponder IQ with diff camera rigs by virtue of birding in groups which range from superzoom, to my aps-C (a6600), to FF Nikon or Canon. The images then posted to local bird club, are pretty much what you would expect. When viewed on typical laptop screen and without zooming in to fill screen, they are all 'close enough'. But if you examine them on a larger external monitor and filling the screen, the smaller sensor pics get muddy and tho adequate for bird ID, less-than-gratifying aesthetically. The aps-C holds its own to a point but there's no question the big-rig FF images are superior.

I suppose what I'm saying is that you get-what-you-pay-for and what you are willing to hump around. If you want 'ok' pics (or even 'pretty darn nice for a small camera' pics), then yes the superzoom does the trick. But if you are printing photos or sharing on photography venues or hoping to get 'beautiful' wildlife photos, I think you have to keep to more demanding gear (weight, cost, complexity).

 

[LucaPCP]

I have had the opportunity to ponder IQ with diff camera rigs by virtue of birding in groups which range from superzoom, to my aps-C (a6600), to FF Nikon or Canon. The images then posted to local bird club, are pretty much what you would expect. When viewed on typical laptop screen and without zooming in to fill screen, they are all 'close enough'. But if you examine them on a larger external monitor and filling the screen, the smaller sensor pics get muddy and tho adequate for bird ID, less-than-gratifying aesthetically. The aps-C holds its own to a point but there's no question the big-rig FF images are superior.

I suppose what I'm saying is that you get-what-you-pay-for and what you are willing to hump around. If you want 'ok' pics (or even 'pretty darn nice for a small camera' pics), then yes the superzoom does the trick. But if you are printing photos or sharing on photography venues or hoping to get 'beautiful' wildlife photos, I think you have to keep to more demanding gear (weight, cost, complexity).

Yes, I think you are right. Right now, my plan is to keep the Olympus with 75-300 for when I just need ID photos, and switch to the 100-400 for when I care about quality. With the 75-300 the camera is in the end light enough, and the controls and in particular AF are much more responsive.