-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Please share what kit you like and your advice (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter tx2ad
- Start date
Montereyman
Well-known member
Check as to whether these cameras can provide bird identification automatically. With Nikon this is true for only the Z8 and Z9 cameras. This feature helps not only to zero in on the eyes of the bird but also to focus on a bird when it is partly obscrured with branches as often is the situation.
Thanks.
Seems the Z50 is not great in that regard.
Just watched a preview from BackCountryGallery and the Z6 iii while not being bird specific, seemed impressive nonetheless. Almost made me want to run out and but that body.
Seemingly, I never hit submit on this post a couple of days ago ... 
A couple of thoughts: "no particular reasoning" will not cut it, which type of birding: sitting in a hide with a stationary camera on a heavy tripod is a very different proposition to a person hiking around and taking photos primarily for id purposes using only handheld kit. Do you need a kit that can last through a shower or do you not care?
I personally think you need to consider m4/3 as a different approach to bird photos.
Niels
A couple of thoughts: "no particular reasoning" will not cut it, which type of birding: sitting in a hide with a stationary camera on a heavy tripod is a very different proposition to a person hiking around and taking photos primarily for id purposes using only handheld kit. Do you need a kit that can last through a shower or do you not care?
I personally think you need to consider m4/3 as a different approach to bird photos.
Niels
Seemingly, I never hit submit on this post a couple of days ago ...
A couple of thoughts: "no particular reasoning" will not cut it, which type of birding: sitting in a hide with a stationary camera on a heavy tripod is a very different proposition to a person hiking around and taking photos primarily for id purposes using only handheld kit. Do you need a kit that can last through a shower or do you not care?
I personally think you need to consider m4/3 as a different approach to bird photos.
Niels
Not planning to sit around in a hide w/ a tripod. Would be going with me where I go - handheld, maybe monopod.
If going down to M4/3 - why not just go down to the Nikon P950 instead? Lower weight/cost and longer reach lens, yes?
Say I'd like to carry it with me, and say I want to also take it on a future safari trip - and would like to get some quailty pics out of it.
So more than just - can I id/prove a bird; can I get something I might want to print and frame and put on a wall.
I think that I focused on weather sealed, so as to be able to at least withstand some weather. If needed, I can carry a dry bag / hood - they're light.
I go out every day no matter the weather, not always birding, but more often than not.
The 3 Sony on the list all have the latest AI Subject/Focus processor and bird mode and cover APS-C, "Standard' pixel count FF; and High pixel count FF.
As a placeholder, this Tamron 50-400 on either a Sony or Nikon - from what I've seen so far - seems to be a nice lens for a relatively low weight/cost.
Could spend more for more reach but it'd be noticeably heavier. Based on my limited trolling, seems hard pressed to get better IQ for the range/price.
These kits seemed likely to provide a good compromise between size/weight/IQ/capability.
I don't want to carry around the largest/heaviest body and/or lens. These bodies all seem to have at least a decent grip.
I don't want a flat slab, I find cameras with more than a nub of a grip to be more comfortable than ones that are flat or only tiny grip nubs.
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
Camera selection really depends on what your desired outcome is. Is it for bird ID, or for social media posts, or for large prints on the wall? Are you a pixel peeper? Some people get very competent pics with 4/3 but I found that I needed at least aps-C and eventually migrated to FF. The $$ and the burden (size/weight) goes up accordingly and you just need to define your expectations first.
I will say that one advantage of LOT of mp and large sensor is that even very distant shots, provide useable blow-ups for ID.
Other considerations are low-light high-iso performance, lenses available, and AF speed and success.
I'm happy in the Sony universe and used an a6600 for a long time, before moving to an a7RV. Their 100-400GM is a fabulous lens, barely long enough, tack sharp, and actually does pretty good almost-macro.
If you want to compare cameras and IQ, I find dpreview's camera reviews very useful. E.g. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a6700-review#HC
Go down to Studio Scene and select the cameras you are evaluating.
I will say that one advantage of LOT of mp and large sensor is that even very distant shots, provide useable blow-ups for ID.
Other considerations are low-light high-iso performance, lenses available, and AF speed and success.
I'm happy in the Sony universe and used an a6600 for a long time, before moving to an a7RV. Their 100-400GM is a fabulous lens, barely long enough, tack sharp, and actually does pretty good almost-macro.
If you want to compare cameras and IQ, I find dpreview's camera reviews very useful. E.g. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a6700-review#HC
Go down to Studio Scene and select the cameras you are evaluating.
Thanks.
I have spent many hours recently and over many many years combing through the DPReview studio scene.
But that only tells me the pixel peeping controlled conditions tripod close up ability of a body.
I am asking people for whole kit advice - body and lens. Hoping that people with field experience birding, will give me more useful whole kit advice than me just trolling specs and pixels will get me.
Again, I want more than just - id/proof, I would like to be able to print and frame some shots.
I want to be on the more mobile / lighter side of a kit rather than bulky and heavy sitting on a tripod.
Making future plans to take a safari, and using the same body but maybe not same lens (but maybe) would be nice.
Also, I am not currently interested in spending in the range of $10k for a lens. Even $5k is pushing it.
if total kit is to be arounf $4k-ish - what have others used in the field that they enjoy?
Do people find pre-burst capture to be a useful feature?
We are talking about birding - often less than ideal lighting - have others found they really rely on excellent high iso?
Do other birders find they do much in flight shooting, or more perched?
If in flight, what fps have they found works well?
Autofocus speed - have people experienced some too slow? Had great experience with a very fast kit?
I think that the results are a combination of features from body, lens, and skill.
Seeking advice on what has and has not worked for the body/lens portion of the triangle.
Last edited:
OK, we are getting closer.
If you have never used a camera, then mayby a bridge camera such as the Nikon p950 is what you should be going for. Less expense (I think, didn't check) which could be good in the case you find this is not really you anyway.
I personally have a m43 setup. Current versions are all weather-sealed, and I believe the OM-systems cameras are sealed to a level no other manufacturer matches. Difference from bridge cameras is an actually much larger sensor.
My kit is an older panasonic g85 with a 100-400 (panaleica) lens. I am looking to change the camera body to either the G9-ii or the OM1-ii very soon, not quite decided (Purpose of change is better AF, newer = better sensor, etc). One of my reasons for not getting into larger sensor cameras is weight, this lens is about at my personal breaking point. I am not 20 anymore
Images taken with my current kit can be found here, a mixture of good light and poor light photos: Media added by njlarsen
On the difference going from bridge camera to m4/3, check this thread: Upgrading from Bridge Camera to M43
Regarding your sony cameras: generally speaking, full frame needs a longer lens than smaller formats to have enough pixels on the bird. I therefore doubt that you would find the standard pixel count with a 400 mm lens satisfactory. The high pixel count FF would have more pixels on the bird -- IF your lens is sufficiently high end to resolve that much. A second consideration of these high pixel count cameras is that they will not have the traditional advantage of FF which is better low light performance. Low light performance depends on a lot of things but one of them is pixel size, and in high pixel count FF you are in a very similar pixel size as in m4/3.
You specifically asked for use of camera in low light. I do that even if my rig is m43, especially when traveling or when my goal is help with ID rather than perfect image. I hope to do more flight photos once I upgrade the camera to one with a modern AF.
Finally: any camera, even the bridge camera can produce images you would want to print and hang on the wall; at least when the light is good. Even small pixel count FF struggle to achieve that when the light is poor.
Niels
If you have never used a camera, then mayby a bridge camera such as the Nikon p950 is what you should be going for. Less expense (I think, didn't check) which could be good in the case you find this is not really you anyway.
I personally have a m43 setup. Current versions are all weather-sealed, and I believe the OM-systems cameras are sealed to a level no other manufacturer matches. Difference from bridge cameras is an actually much larger sensor.
My kit is an older panasonic g85 with a 100-400 (panaleica) lens. I am looking to change the camera body to either the G9-ii or the OM1-ii very soon, not quite decided (Purpose of change is better AF, newer = better sensor, etc). One of my reasons for not getting into larger sensor cameras is weight, this lens is about at my personal breaking point. I am not 20 anymore
Images taken with my current kit can be found here, a mixture of good light and poor light photos: Media added by njlarsen
On the difference going from bridge camera to m4/3, check this thread: Upgrading from Bridge Camera to M43
Regarding your sony cameras: generally speaking, full frame needs a longer lens than smaller formats to have enough pixels on the bird. I therefore doubt that you would find the standard pixel count with a 400 mm lens satisfactory. The high pixel count FF would have more pixels on the bird -- IF your lens is sufficiently high end to resolve that much. A second consideration of these high pixel count cameras is that they will not have the traditional advantage of FF which is better low light performance. Low light performance depends on a lot of things but one of them is pixel size, and in high pixel count FF you are in a very similar pixel size as in m4/3.
You specifically asked for use of camera in low light. I do that even if my rig is m43, especially when traveling or when my goal is help with ID rather than perfect image. I hope to do more flight photos once I upgrade the camera to one with a modern AF.
Finally: any camera, even the bridge camera can produce images you would want to print and hang on the wall; at least when the light is good. Even small pixel count FF struggle to achieve that when the light is poor.
Niels
re: upgrading to G9 II for imprved bits - at least based n this, it might be a disappointing upgrade?
www.thephoblographer.com
Panasonic G9 II Review: Is This the Best M43 Camera Yet? - The Phoblographer
The Panasonic G9 II sees a serious upgrade in autofocus -- but is it the best Micro Four Thirds body available?
www.thephoblographer.com
The same source is putting me off the idea of the a6700 / Tamron lens combo for birding:
"The focus on the Sony a6700 seems slightly crippled. It delivers its best AF performance when the exposure preview is disabled. But that’s not really why we buy mirrorless cameras, do we? The WYSIWYG abilities of such cameras are one of their main appeal factors. This camera isn’t all that great for birding, especially when paired with Tamron lenses. And you have to ask, who’d use the a6700 with a G-master lens? "
(from various articles comparing the a6700 to other APS-C offerings, they put the same comment in all of them)
"The focus on the Sony a6700 seems slightly crippled. It delivers its best AF performance when the exposure preview is disabled. But that’s not really why we buy mirrorless cameras, do we? The WYSIWYG abilities of such cameras are one of their main appeal factors. This camera isn’t all that great for birding, especially when paired with Tamron lenses. And you have to ask, who’d use the a6700 with a G-master lens? "
(from various articles comparing the a6700 to other APS-C offerings, they put the same comment in all of them)
The OM1-ii is expected to be slightly better. Both would be huge steps up for me.re: upgrading to G9 II for imprved bits - at least based n this, it might be a disappointing upgrade?
Panasonic G9 II Review: Is This the Best M43 Camera Yet? - The Phoblographer
The Panasonic G9 II sees a serious upgrade in autofocus -- but is it the best Micro Four Thirds body available?
If the G9 ii buffering problem can't be solved via firmware fix - then, seemingly, for birding, the OM1Mk2 is the clear choice there between the two. If the buffering problem can be (or has been) fixed via firmware, then it seems like a tougher choice between the two and the G9 has a lot going for it if you're willing to put up with (apparently) slightly lower hit rate during bursts.
Convince me that these two lenses are not the smae exact lens just rebadged for M4/3 and significantly upcharged.
The OM lens, even with a current $400 discount, is $1,050 more expensive, for seemingly the exact same everything.
Also, if they are the same - is the M4/3 system straining the quality of the center of the glass too much?
If 600MM on FF is not enough reach, the Sony can go into “Clear Image Zoom”, and depending on the desired size of the resulting jpg, give from 1.5 to 4x in camera interpolated zoom. You can get in camera 1.5x and 60MP. Or choose to go to 23MP and get 4x, or down to 15MP and get 6x. And any time you want, go back to 60MP raw.
There are not many E lenses, but those work in a similar fashion, but slightly lower file sizes, and with the necessary 1.5x starting crop.
I know other brands offer some sort of digital zoom, are their resulting pixel counts smaller?
What do people think is the future of OMSystem after their covid corporate shuffle?
Will they be around long term? Will they provide excellent after sale service for a long time?
The OM1Mk2 or G9 ii are no longer smaller, lighter, cheaper than other MILC cameras.
When M4/3 came out, they were smaller and lighter and simpler than the DSLRs of the time.
Now, both the body and the long range glass are essentially the same, yes?
The “reach” is different because of the crop - but that has limitations, and I am not saying that the Sony at 2400mm would track or focus a bird the same as the OM at 1200. But at 1200 vs 1200 - where is the big difference? The Sony will give more resulting pixels - and maybe that is good or bad?
If you do the calculations, the Sony photsites, even at 60mp FF are larger than the Oly 20mp by a good margin.
I’ve heard said that the size vs ISO performance is not true - so maybe its not important. Though it seems many shooters want FF because they believe the larger photosites give them something desirable.
Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports Lens for Sony E
OM SYSTEM M.Zuiko Digital ED 150-600mm f/5-6.3 IS Lens
The OM lens, even with a current $400 discount, is $1,050 more expensive, for seemingly the exact same everything.
Also, if they are the same - is the M4/3 system straining the quality of the center of the glass too much?
If 600MM on FF is not enough reach, the Sony can go into “Clear Image Zoom”, and depending on the desired size of the resulting jpg, give from 1.5 to 4x in camera interpolated zoom. You can get in camera 1.5x and 60MP. Or choose to go to 23MP and get 4x, or down to 15MP and get 6x. And any time you want, go back to 60MP raw.
There are not many E lenses, but those work in a similar fashion, but slightly lower file sizes, and with the necessary 1.5x starting crop.
I know other brands offer some sort of digital zoom, are their resulting pixel counts smaller?
What do people think is the future of OMSystem after their covid corporate shuffle?
Will they be around long term? Will they provide excellent after sale service for a long time?
The OM1Mk2 or G9 ii are no longer smaller, lighter, cheaper than other MILC cameras.
When M4/3 came out, they were smaller and lighter and simpler than the DSLRs of the time.
Now, both the body and the long range glass are essentially the same, yes?
The “reach” is different because of the crop - but that has limitations, and I am not saying that the Sony at 2400mm would track or focus a bird the same as the OM at 1200. But at 1200 vs 1200 - where is the big difference? The Sony will give more resulting pixels - and maybe that is good or bad?
If you do the calculations, the Sony photsites, even at 60mp FF are larger than the Oly 20mp by a good margin.
I’ve heard said that the size vs ISO performance is not true - so maybe its not important. Though it seems many shooters want FF because they believe the larger photosites give them something desirable.
I do not expect to go to the 150-600 ever, due to weight. Theoretically, there could be differences in the two lenses even if the basic design is the same, for example in that the tolerance for each lens element that goes in is described differently. Again, this is not something I know anything about. If you want to look at the very best in m43 lenses, there are other, more expensive options, just like other camera systems have their own top models.
I feel you do have to include the reach of the lens in a given system in order to understand what it would be to use that system in practical terms.
I would not purchase a system expecting to use in-camera interpolation regularly at all. Those systems exist in all cameras, but they do not give native quality.
If you look at Canon, it is true that the R7 probably is cheaper than the m4/3 offerings. It has relatively slow sensor readout which is one of the reasons it is cheaper: this influences both AF and rolling shutter effects. So for Canon shooters, the faster sensor readout is one of the reasons that the much more expensive FF options are popular. For comparison, the OM1 when it came out had the fastest sensor read-out of any camera available. I do not know that any others match it yet, except perhaps the G9-ii.
Niels
I feel you do have to include the reach of the lens in a given system in order to understand what it would be to use that system in practical terms.
I would not purchase a system expecting to use in-camera interpolation regularly at all. Those systems exist in all cameras, but they do not give native quality.
If you look at Canon, it is true that the R7 probably is cheaper than the m4/3 offerings. It has relatively slow sensor readout which is one of the reasons it is cheaper: this influences both AF and rolling shutter effects. So for Canon shooters, the faster sensor readout is one of the reasons that the much more expensive FF options are popular. For comparison, the OM1 when it came out had the fastest sensor read-out of any camera available. I do not know that any others match it yet, except perhaps the G9-ii.
I get the sony pixels to be 25-30% larger than the OM1 pixels. I guess this would correspond to about 1/3 of an iso step in low light performance if everything else is equal. Not a huge difference in my mind.
Niels
What about the Sony a9iii and its global shutter and its 120fps burst mode?
Also, the Nikon Z6iii is quite speedy w/ its partially stacked sensor, it can produce 20fps for as long as you can hold the shutter down from what I've seen.
The Z6iii can also focus down to -10EV - the most impressive spec I've seen.
The OM1Mk2 does focus down to -8 - which seems to be super impressive as well, second best I've seen.
Smaller die size and fewer pixels = easier to read fast, yes?
So - the M4/3 may have a natural advantage in that regard.
I'm still very nervous about OM System as a company and the future.
I wish that Nikon had a better evolution to the Z50, say maybe a Z60 or Z70
- take most of the Z6iii and put it into an APS-C sized offering.
Any ILC system seems to really be about the glass you can use.
It seems like Sony have a ton of glass - more than the others.
Fuji have a good range, but not lots of choices/options - its Lens X for Range A-B and that's it.
Pana/Oly often have the 2 choices (one from each brand), and sometimes a low/high for each brand.
But the IBIS / Lens IS combo seem to work best (so I read) when sticking within the same brand
- especially at the longer zoom ranges, and so that seems to effectively 1/2 the choices.
Nikon and Canon having been closed for so long on their MILC mounts, seem to be playing catch-up to Sony.
And depending on your wants/needs - one may be doing better than the other.
Last edited:
If they had the same number of total pixels, I get this statement. But as there are natively > 3x as many of them - that seems like when you can use them that you can likely get considerably more detail out of the sensor, yes?
Sony make the M4/3 sensor for OMSystem, yes?
This one may actually be faster then.
The Z6 does not necessarily sound faster but may have a better write speed to the card.
My take on the lability of OM systems - if they are labile - is that there is a backup of going with panasonic body but keep the glass. You may only have 6 stops rather than 8 stops IS when mismatching lenses, but most birds move and the IS helps the most on very stationary objects.
I linked earlier to a video by m43-nerd. She did use lenses across brand while in the Faroes, detailed in this or one of her other videos.
Niels
Remember the crop factor. If you put a lens on each of these two that is truly 400 mm, you are illuminating 4 times as much sensor (in area) or 2 times as much (in linear dimensions) in the FF situation. In percentage of the sensor, you will get a much smaller part of the sensor covered by the bird in the FF situation. To achieve the same % coverage of the sensor, you will need a lens that truly is twice as long in the FF situation, and this makes that lens likely to also be much heavier.
Calculation example: you have a bird that covers the full sensor of the OM1 with a 400 mm lens, and you take a photo of the same bird with the FF system as well. Both are 400 mm lenses. In the OM system you will have 20 mpix on the bird, in the FF system with 60 mpix sensor you will have 15 mpix on the bird. Exactly because each pixel is slightly larger on the FF system.
Can all pixels be resolved with the lens in question? that depends on quality of the lens in each of these two situations. Which becomes another big topic of discussion if you want to go that way -- and one where I don't have the insight.
Niels
Peter.home
Well-known member
I have om-1 and 100-400mm lens.
Love the results. But only after purchasing Adobe lightroom. Other, cheaper photo editing, and the results weren't inspiring me at all.
Love the results. But only after purchasing Adobe lightroom. Other, cheaper photo editing, and the results weren't inspiring me at all.
Similar threads
