Thanks.
That's 2 votes for M4/3 (take your pic of camera) w/ the 100-400 lens (I presume Pana on Pana; Oly on Oly);
And 1 Sony 6700 or a7RV w/ the 100-400GM lens.
Seems the 100-400 lens are the popular choice.
-
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
That's 2 votes for M4/3 (take your pic of camera) w/ the 100-400 lens (I presume Pana on Pana; Oly on Oly);
And 1 Sony 6700 or a7RV w/ the 100-400GM lens.
Seems the 100-400 lens are the popular choice.
I watched the video - and the reviewer started by saying: stick with the same manufacturer for lens/body for best results.
And - focus is likely as important or more so than IS.
The reviewer then said that they switch lenses all the time - but those are up close lenses for humans, not far for birds.
I don't know if it matters - seems like "internet wisdom" (so, take with a healthy dose of salt)
is that the best AF performance is within a single manufacturer for lens/body.
Have also just found this site - I'm eager to look through and see what they've found in the field:
The Best Mirrorless Cameras for Birds in Flight Ranked - Mirrorless Comparison
A few years ago, our reader Alfredo suggested an idea for an article. Since we test the autofocus performance of many cameras at the same red kite feeding stations, why not publish a list of all the cameras we use with their keeper rate for birds in flight? I liked ... Read more
mirrorlesscomparison.com
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
If on a budget and cropping a lot anyway, the aps-C Sony 70-350 is very sharp and relatively compact. That said, it does not seem to 'lock on' subjects as fast/well as the 100-400GM. The latter lens also does great closeups.
I haven't uploaded much and actually just noticed there's nothing from my a7RV, but here you can see the evolution of my kit:
Media added by MiddleRiver
www.birdforum.net
THAT said, I would note that comparing user's pics is a poor way to review systems imho. You are really comparing photography, editing, interests, etc. of the photographers as much as anything else. Once you get above a certain point (superzooms like RX10 and up), they will all produce mediocre pics or masterpieces... Profesional reviews and comparos may tell you more in terms of who has the best image focus lock algorithms/hardware etc. But 'Gallery' pics... dunno :-/
I wanted to put some hard numbers on comparing the pixels in a M4/3 composition vs a high pixel count FF.
So - I took the OM1Mk2 (or really any M4/3) vs the A7cR with something I have been watching all summer - hummingbirds.
I've been watching them from ~ 20 meters. Lets say that the bird is about 10cm x 10cm.
This spreadsheet shows # of pixels occupied by the theoretical hummingbird using a 100-400 lens on each camera.
In this case the number of "bird pixels" is almost the same.
Seeing the hard numbers this way I think helps make a very good case for the system.
But I think that it also means that users can choose the camera that appeals to them most.
Happy to do the calcs for various other combos of distance and size of bird.
My calcs on the a7cR may be a little off as they are using the full sensor width
- but it seems that a 4:3 pic actually use a smaller portion of the sensor and so would change the calcs some.
So - I took the OM1Mk2 (or really any M4/3) vs the A7cR with something I have been watching all summer - hummingbirds.
I've been watching them from ~ 20 meters. Lets say that the bird is about 10cm x 10cm.
This spreadsheet shows # of pixels occupied by the theoretical hummingbird using a 100-400 lens on each camera.
In this case the number of "bird pixels" is almost the same.
Seeing the hard numbers this way I think helps make a very good case for the system.
But I think that it also means that users can choose the camera that appeals to them most.
Happy to do the calcs for various other combos of distance and size of bird.
My calcs on the a7cR may be a little off as they are using the full sensor width
- but it seems that a 4:3 pic actually use a smaller portion of the sensor and so would change the calcs some.
Nice! My only comment is that it takes a long time to get the best out of a camera, as I have experienced with my G85; The reasonably large number of shots they report is a start, but they could still find a way to do better on some of their tests - perhaps. But maybe they try to report what should be possible without that learning curve ?I watched the video - and the reviewer started by saying: stick with the same manufacturer for lens/body for best results.
And - focus is likely as important or more so than IS.
The reviewer then said that they switch lenses all the time - but those are up close lenses for humans, not far for birds.
I don't know if it matters - seems like "internet wisdom" (so, take with a healthy dose of salt)
is that the best AF performance is within a single manufacturer for lens/body.
Have also just found this site - I'm eager to look through and see what they've found in the field:
The Best Mirrorless Cameras for Birds in Flight Ranked - Mirrorless Comparison
A few years ago, our reader Alfredo suggested an idea for an article. Since we test the autofocus performance of many cameras at the same red kite feeding stations, why not publish a list of all the cameras we use with their keeper rate for birds in flight? I liked ... Read more
Niels
temmie
Well-known member
Not looking at price but useability / walkability / overal quality of shots, I would look into:
Why would I look into these?
All of those combos are used by other birdguides (or by myself ) and deliver fantastic photos. All of them are not overly heavy and thus 'comfortable' walking with them full days in the field. All of those are not cheap but also not the most expensive.
From your list, I only know the R7 + 100-500 well and it has more reach and for birds it won't be much worse than an R5, so it's a good choice in any way. What I do like very much about the 100-500 is its macro abilities: far better than any in the list (or maybe the Olympus is good too, have to check it, but I know the NIkon and Sony aren't as good in this).
My favourite bird lens in this series has to be the Nikon 600 6.3 PF or even the 800mm 6.3 PF: those are so light and sharp and compact! The Sony 200-600 is an absolute steal, if only it had a better minimal focus / macro abilities, I would take it over the Canon 100-500. The Olympus set-up is overall very light, sharp, ...(and the best bokeh)
- Olympus OMD M1 (or whatever their flagship is) + Olympus 300mm F4: a fantastic lens + wonderful bokeh (best of any in this list thanks to the F4).
- Sony Alpha 7 IV + 200-600 --> the lens is really the dealmaker in this one, and Sony sensors are really, really good.
- Nikon Z8 + 600mm 6.3 PF --> again, it's the lens that is awesome, the bodies are expensive. Maybe you can do with a cheaper one.
- Canon R5 + 100-500 --> I have the R6 + 100-500 and it's a very, very good combo. I would try and stretch the budget for an R5 now, but there is a personal reason I haven't gone for the R5 when it came out, and that's the combination of price and photo format, which wouldn't work well with my old, slow computer (an R5 would have required more budget for both the body and a new computer).
Why would I look into these?
All of those combos are used by other birdguides (or by myself
) and deliver fantastic photos. All of them are not overly heavy and thus 'comfortable' walking with them full days in the field. All of those are not cheap but also not the most expensive.From your list, I only know the R7 + 100-500 well and it has more reach and for birds it won't be much worse than an R5, so it's a good choice in any way. What I do like very much about the 100-500 is its macro abilities: far better than any in the list (or maybe the Olympus is good too, have to check it, but I know the NIkon and Sony aren't as good in this).
My favourite bird lens in this series has to be the Nikon 600 6.3 PF or even the 800mm 6.3 PF: those are so light and sharp and compact! The Sony 200-600 is an absolute steal, if only it had a better minimal focus / macro abilities, I would take it over the Canon 100-500. The Olympus set-up is overall very light, sharp, ...(and the best bokeh)
Just found this comment below a different review video
It seems the clear no-no for the G9-ii is resolved.
Niels
MelospizaMelodiaFan
I photograph birds
Late to the game here, only read some of the posts as it is too much technical hair-splitting. A few (hopefully) relevant thoughts I'd like to share.
- Based on your emphasis on technical details, I think you should go FF. It is objectively going to give you more dynamic range, low light performance, pixels, etc. It's a bigger sensor and there is no way around it.
- I shoot with an older Olympus EM-1 MkII; my friend shoots with Canon R5 MkI. I have the Oly 100-400 and he has a Sigma 150-600. It's a noticeably larger and heavier rig. He is a big fellow over 6 feet, and has no problem hiking around and hand holding that rig. I am an average sized male, and my m43 rig weighs about 4 lbs. I always carry it around my shoulder and prefer to walk around. When I was in 90 degree heat, hiking under a cloudless sky with no shade, I wished my camera was smaller. Otherwise, it is fine.
- My friend has a 45 mp sensor, with a 600mm lens. I have a 20 mp sensor with a 800mm equivalent FOV. He has 3/4 of my reach, but can crop down significantly and still have a high res image. I, on the other hand, am already cropped due to the sensor size. His IQ is usually impeccable. There is no free lunch.
- Regarding the triangle of camera-lens-skills, I'd say getting a nice photo is 80-90% skills. Of course, bird photography requires a long lens, fast AF, high frame rates, good IS for long focal lengths, but most manufacturers offer those features nowadays. It is a beginner mistake to expect instant improvement just by purchasing a nicer camera (I'm guilty of this). There is learning to use the new camera, but also how to use lighting, setting, composition, colors, bird knowledge, and fieldcraft to make a compelling photograph. Then there is post processing, just as complex and important as taking the photo itself. It takes years to develop all these skills.
- I think it is a great idea to print and display your photos. You will have photos you love, even if just starting down this path. It's a good encouragement to keep taking photos.
- I purchased my body used for $600 and the lens used for $900. For now, I feel there is plenty of room to grow.
- I have the pre-capture feature on my camera. For the first year, I was learning the basics, and was not ready to use this feature. Since I started using it, I have gotten images that would be impossible otherwise. However, I find it useful in certain situations, and not others. It has added another arrow in my quiver, but it does not replace everything else.
- You have the technical savvy to pick out a good rig. After that, go out and take photos. A lot of them. Ultimately, that is how you become a good photographer.
Last edited:
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
To be honest, if only wanting bird ID, i would have stayed aps-C or even moved down to 4/3. I'm happy with high MP FF because of the birds of course, but also because I enjoy a little astrophotography, landscapes, macro, portraits, travel, etc. And the quality I can get there, is in fact a notch above... Of course, just like bins, it's all about compromises. Just like the difference between a mid-tier bin and a top-alpha is arguable, so is the diff between aps-C and FF etc. Different strokes and all that ;-)
Oldnintheway
Well-known member
IMO 400mm is not enough reach unless you buy a very expensive f2.8 prime with a TC. My current kit is a Nikon Z8/ 180-600 lens. I love it. My previous kit, which I still have, was the D500/Tamron 150-600 G2. The Z8 combo was a clear upgrade, the D500 was very satisfying and produced fine images. You could find a second hand D500/150-600 for a very reasonable price. I'm almost 70 and hand hold these kits 95% of the time with no problem.
This site makes the M4/3 system seem extremely capable:
Small Sensor Photography by Thomas Stirr
This website celebrates the joy of photography and features a wide range of photographic subject matter. The content is designed to appeal to a wide range of people interested in photography. The website also demonstrates the image creating capability of small sensor cameras including micro four...
smallsensorphotography.com
MelospizaMelodiaFan
I photograph birds
He is a great photographer. He gets the most out of his gear, something I try to emulate.
Similar threads
