What I think would be the perfect birding (rather than bird photography) camera (2 Viewers)

[Oregon John]

I have been birding for decades with binoculars. A while ago I started photography with a low-end bridge camera (Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82). I loved the reach and portability, of course, but was frustrated by slow hit-and-miss AF and poor quality in low light.

I have since tried the Nikon Coolpix 950 (greater reach but not a lot better IQ in low light, so returned), the Canon RF with RF 100-500mm (which I also returned because the reach wasn't great I thought the Q quite soft at 500mm) and the Sony a6700 with Sony 200-600mm (which I still own). Although the image quality of the Sony setup is great, it's just too heavy to be much fun hour after hour. (I'm 72 and arm strength not what it used to be.) In any event, both the Canon and Sony setups made me miss a lot the very light weight and very long reach of the Lumix.

All this has led me to believe that if you don't want top-of-the-line professional level IQ, the perfect birding camera for me would be a bridge camera with the 66X zoom of the Lumix or Canon SX70 and the 1" sensor, fast AF and great IQ of the Sony RX10. Eye tracking would be a plus of course but probably too much to ask for in a bridge camera.

Thoughts? What are the chances Sony (or another maker) will produce any time soon a high-IQ bridge camera with 65X or better reach?

 

[nkbj]

Thoughts? What are the chances Sony (or another maker) will produce any time soon a high-IQ bridge camera with 65X or better reach?

The chances are just about zero. Such a zoom range on a 1" sensor will be as big and heavy (and expensive) as the Canon with a 100-500mm lens.

 

[MiddleRiver]

I have been birding for decades with binoculars. A while ago I started photography with a low-end bridge camera (Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82). I loved the reach and portability, of course, but was frustrated by slow hit-and-miss AF and poor quality in low light.

I have since tried the Nikon Coolpix 950 (greater reach but not a lot better IQ in low light, so returned), the Canon RF with RF 100-500mm (which I also returned because the reach wasn't great I thought the Q quite soft at 500mm) and the Sony a6700 with Sony 200-600mm (which I still own). Although the image quality of the Sony setup is great, it's just too heavy to be much fun hour after hour. (I'm 72 and arm strength not what it used to be.) In any event, both the Canon and Sony setups made me miss a lot the very light weight and very long reach of the Lumix.

All this has led me to believe that if you don't want top-of-the-line professional level IQ, the perfect birding camera for me would be a bridge camera with the 66X zoom of the Lumix or Canon SX70 and the 1" sensor, fast AF and great IQ of the Sony RX10. Eye tracking would be a plus of course but probably too much to ask for in a bridge camera.

Thoughts? What are the chances Sony (or another maker) will produce any time soon a high-IQ bridge camera with 65X or better reach?

I don’t own the 200-600 but I do carry a6600 with 100-400gm and it does great. If that is still too much then the 70-350 is much more portable and almost as good.
If still too big or not enough reach, From there I would look at 4/3 rigs. Of course each one is a compromise…

 

[njlarsen]

What is it actually you are trying to do? get great photos at impossible distances? That is not going to happen because air movement etc will reduce the quality of the product.

However, if you are happy with getting good photos when you are close and put on a TC for long reach when you need the id proof picture, then I would go with a m43 camera (OM1 or G9-ii) with a 100-400 and purchase a TC for that added reach when you need the long distance proof picture.
Niels

 

[Oregon John]

The chances are just about zero. Such a zoom range on a 1" sensor will be as big and heavy (and expensive) as the Canon with a 100-500mm lens.

You think it'd be US$ 4,500?? I'd be willing to pay US$ 2,000-2,500 for something like the RX10 with longer reach. (1200mm equivalent would be enough.) The bridge form factor, even weighing "the equivalent of the Canon with 100-500mm", would still be acceptably portable. I found the R7 with 100-500mm much less burdensome than the a6700 with 200-600mm. That said, I'm not sure there's a market even for a US$ 2,000-2,500 bridge camera.

 

[Oregon John]

I don’t own the 200-600 but I do carry a6600 with 100-400gm and it does great. If that is still too much then the 70-350 is much more portable and almost as good.
If still too big or not enough reach, From there I would look at 4/3 rigs. Of course each one is a compromise…

Yes, I've been thinking that. Or put a Sigma 100-400 with 1.4 TC on the a6700. Lighter and much less expensive than the 100-400mm GM, but not as light as the Sony 70-350 of course.

 

[njlarsen]

Well, the m43 cameras (OM1 or G9-ii) combined with a panasonic 100-400 weigh in less than the Canon setup (1643 g vs 1979 g) and gives you reach corresponding to 800 mm (slightly more than the R7/100-500 combo from canon). Add a TC and the weight goes up to about the same level as the canon. However the reach would be 1120 if using a 1.4x TC, and 1600 if using a 2x TC. Generally speaking, a m43 can be cropped more in post than any small-sensor bridge, so you would be able to id at quite a distance.

For decent low light performance, you would need to shoot in raw and use some reasonable post processing app. I shoot in JPG+Raw just because I can, and rarely use the jpg because the product from the raw is slightly more pleasing and does not take significantly longer to work on.
Niels

 

[nkbj]

You think it'd be US$ 4,500?? I'd be willing to pay US$ 2,000-2,500 for something like the RX10 with longer reach. (1200mm equivalent would be enough.) The bridge form factor, even weighing "the equivalent of the Canon with 100-500mm", would still be acceptably portable. I found the R7 with 100-500mm much less burdensome than the a6700 with 200-600mm. That said, I'm not sure there's a market even for a US$ 2,000-2,500 bridge camera.

I don't think there is a market for anything much larger and more expensive than the RX10 IV. I currently use my RX10 IV with Clear Image Zoom (giving me 1200mm eqv. with some quality loss), when I have to document a bird at longer distances. It is not optimal, but it works for me.

I have thought about getting a Canon R7 with 100-400mm f/5.6-8 and 800mm f/11 lenses to combine light weight and reach.

 

[Vollmeise]

Did You think about a higher res APS-C camera?
The latest Fujifilm X-H2 delivers 40MP which is 1,4x the reach of a 20MP APS-C body with the same lens.
There are some lightweight lens gems suited for birder's needs also:

Fujifilm X-H2: 40 MP, bird recognition, 660g

Lens: Fujifilm XF100-400 4,5-5,6 OIS, 1375g (Extender XF1,4x if needed)
alternatively:
Lens: Fujifilm Fujinon XF 150-600mm f5.6-8 R LM OIS WR, 1.605g

For comparison: the excellent Sony 200-400 (which I do own and use w/ my A7RV) is 2.300g w/ sunshade

Cheers

 

[MiddleRiver]

You'll never match the reach and convenience of the super-zoom-all-in-ones. But it's a compromise. As you move through larger sensor sizes, the image-quality goes up and the 'professional' features increase. I found my happy-place with aps-C but it's (relatively speaking) a hugely more demanding endevour than carrying and RX10 for instance. I contemplated moving down (in weight and size) to 4/3 but ended up moving up to a FF body mostly because with 60mp bodies I have the best of both worlds - I can operate it as an aps-c (same number of pixels in crop mode) or go to FF when I'm shooting non-bird stuff. More money, more hassle, more bigger lenses, more weight... Time will tell if I go back to aps-C or give up on 'screen saver' pics of birds and get a super-zoom (for bird ID and record)!

 

[robinlanark]

You think it'd be US$ 4,500?? I'd be willing to pay US$ 2,000-2,500 for something like the RX10 with longer reach. (1200mm equivalent would be enough.) The bridge form factor, even weighing "the equivalent of the Canon with 100-500mm", would still be acceptably portable. I found the R7 with 100-500mm much less burdensome than the a6700 with 200-600mm. That said, I'm not sure there's a market even for a US$ 2,000-2,500 bridge camera.

I'm new to the conversation and have been looking for someone to answer this question with this bit of info: the reason they use small sensors for superzooms, and give up quality for range, is that the physics of the smaller sensors with a reasonable amount of glass allows the superlong zoom. To have the same thing with a large sensor would mean you'd be back to carrying a 10 pound lens like on DSLRs. I need to find a diagram showing this to link to.

 

[robinlanark]

I'm new to the conversation and have been looking for someone to answer this question with this bit of info: the reason they use small sensors for superzooms, and give up quality for range, is that the physics of the smaller sensors with a reasonable amount of glass allows the superlong zoom. To have the same thing with a large sensor would mean you'd be back to carrying a 10 pound lens like on DSLRs. I need to find a diagram showing this to link to.

Well since i posted this I got a Canon SX70 HS and have had a ball IDing and reporting birds. My brother ruined it though when he asked why I didn't try to do the same thing but get better pictures by getting a M43 camera. I thought about this thread and that physics is physics but now own a Panasonic G9 and will soon have the Leica 100-400mm zoom. This will give much better results at 800mm FFE but which still won't match the bridge's 1400mm FFE, but some digital zoom or a teleconverter should end up ahead.

 

[samnew]

I'm new to the conversation and have been looking for someone to answer this question with this bit of info: the reason they use small sensors for superzooms, and give up quality for range, is that the physics of the smaller sensors with a reasonable amount of glass allows the superlong zoom. To have the same thing with a large sensor would mean you'd be back to carrying a 10 pound lens like on DSLRs. I need to find a diagram showing this to link to.

This picture I found on: https://article-imgs.scribdassets.com/3603zkrqv47e9lpp/images/fileMICDI78I.jpg

Shows how the smaller the sensor, the smaller the field of view. Even has a bird in the picture as a bonus! I did find others of portraits, mountains, but I thought this was more apropriate for this forum.

 

[robinlanark]

View attachment 1597161

This picture I found on: https://article-imgs.scribdassets.com/3603zkrqv47e9lpp/images/fileMICDI78I.jpg

Shows how the smaller the sensor, the smaller the field of view. Even has a bird in the picture as a bonus! I did find others of portraits, mountains, but I thought this was more apropriate for this forum.

Thanks. Birds are good. I find myself thinking it should also mention resolution but I guess you can't show everything.

 

[etudiant]

Thanks. Birds are good. I find myself thinking it should also mention resolution but I guess you can't show everything.

Diffraction is the spoiler here, resolution is limited by the coarseness of light.
The lens and sensor combo may promise more than what visible light allows to be delivered.
It was mentioned elsewhere on BF that the Nikon 1000s effective resolution at full zoom is about 2 megapixels, way less than the sensor could handle.
Imho that is one reason why the camera makers have not put more emphasis on the superzoom segment, those designs show their limitations all too clearly when pushed..