Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: PeterAit on December 28, 2018, 11:36:44 am
-
My wife has become very interested in photographing birds, and with her current bridge camera (Lumix FZ-1000) has gotten a lot of very nice shots. In the pursuit of best IQ she is now considering upgrading to a full-frame system. But which one? I am not a bird photographer so cannot advise her. I use a Sony A7 so if she went with that we could share lenses. But maybe other systems are better for birds? Any advice will be welcome.
-
Looking at the photographers who crowd into the hides at our local bird reserve you should be budgeting £15000+ for EOS-1D X Mark II or D5, a 600mm f/4 and a Gitzo Tripod. :o
Seriously there are lots of amateur bird photographers spending that sort of money on their hobby but you can spend a lot less. That said you need to budget for a full frame or APS-C SLR and a lens of at least 300mm focal length. When I did some bird photography I had a D700 with 300mm f/2.8 plus 1.7x tele-converter. and a 180mm f/2.8.
-
Peter, you and your wife might want to view Glenn Bartley's (link) (http://www.glennbartley.com/naturephotography/articles/gear.htm) site for information concerning bird photography.
I don't know if you'll ever find a satisfactory answer in the quest for "best IQ", but Glenn's site offers a great deal of (his) gear information and fabulous photos. I imagine, gear might also depend upon which birds, which country, surroundings, etc.
Good luck!
Mike
-
Hi Pete,
The others have offered very good advice, let me add mine. I got very interested in photographing birds around 2000 or so and soon discovered a very successful shooter named Arthur Morris. I have his first book and refer to it often. Art was a Canon shooter and for reasons unknown, after MANY years, has switched to Nikon. That's neither here nor there as I have been using Nikon from the start.
I'm still a proponent of the APS-C size sensor as you will get the crop effect which increases say a 600 mm lens to an effective 900 mm lens without losing an Fstop or more which most Teleconverters will do.
For most bird shots there is no such thing as too much telephoto power unless you're shooting posed or captive subjects. I had VERY good luck in the beginning by just setting out various feeders in my yard and putting attractive perches nearby to catch the various visitors as they either waited their turns at the feeders or were eating their treats afterwards.
I also learned to use a flash booster (Better Beamer) to help when flash was required. One nice thing is that over the years, the use of high ISO settings has made it a lot easier to get nice, noise free, shots while still having an adequate depth of field. I can remember on my D1 that anything much over ISO 400 would not result in a usable shot.
In the early 2000's up until about 2010 when I grew tired of it, my wife and I made a very good supplementary income selling our photos, notecards, etc. at the various local Art Fairs. There were also many trips to gather the usual assortment of iconic landscape shots but the birds and later, other wildlife was my primary focus.
The print sales were also made easier (IMHO) because I did my own printing in-house and once you got your master image file the way you wanted it, it was a simple matter to reproduce it over and over in various sizes. Hope I haven't babbled on too much and feel free to PM if you have more questions.
-
While there is no denying the image quality possible with full-frame systems, the lenses required tend to be quite heavy. I consider 800mm to be the minimum satisfactory focal length for bird photography. Before buying expensive equipment, I strongly recommend renting to see how your wife tolerates the weight. One local bird photographer uses a Nikon D5 with a Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E FL ED lens, often with a teleconverter. Since the combination weighs 13 pounds, far too heavy for hand-holding, he also carries a hefty tripod and gimbal head, all of which weigh at least 20 pounds. Further, since 800mm is often too much and the minimum focus distance is almost 20 feet, he also carries a second camera with 300mm lens.
A lighter (and cheaper) alternative would be a Nikon D500 and a Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm lens. The crop factor of the D500 results in a maximum equivalent focal length of 900mm.
I gave up a pro-body Canon and full-frame lens for an Olympus MFT camera and a Panasonic 100-400mm lens, the same equivalent focal length (field of view) as the big Nikon. The combination weighs about 3 1/2 pounds and all my shooting has been hand-held. Olympus is apparently about to introduce a new high-end camera and lens that should provide high quality at a fraction of the weight and cost of the Nikon system mentioned.
https://www.43rumors.com/ft5-e-m1x-has-2-truepic-viii-processors/
https://www.43rumors.com/ft5-new-olympus-150-400mm-lens-has-integrated-125x-converter-and-additional-x2-converter/
Here are a few bird photos I took with my MFT system:
http://www.kjkahn.com/birds/images/goldfinch-09.jpg
http://www.kjkahn.com/birds/images/bay-breasted_warbler-3.jpg
http://www.kjkahn.com/birds/images/osprey-30.jpg
http://www.kjkahn.com/birds/images/clapper_rail-3.jpg
http://www.kjkahn.com/birds/images/snowy_owl-11.jpg
http://www.kjkahn.com/birds/images/thrush-1.jpg
http://www.kjkahn.com/birds/images/yc_night_heron-9.jpg
http://www.kjkahn.com/birds/images/tern-23.jpg
http://www.kjkahn.com/birds/images/tern-33.jpg
http://www.kjkahn.com/birds/images/house_finch-1.jpg
http://www.kjkahn.com/birds/images/oystercatcher-11.jpg
-
My wife has become very interested in photographing birds, and with her current bridge camera (Lumix FZ-1000) has gotten a lot of very nice shots. In the pursuit of best IQ she is now considering upgrading to a full-frame system. But which one? I am not a bird photographer so cannot advise her. I use a Sony A7 so if she went with that we could share lenses. But maybe other systems are better for birds? Any advice will be welcome.
may be you can share what your wife shoots ? sitting ducks or swifts in flight - that might make a big difference...
-
I agree with kjkahn that reach is what it's about with bird photography. You can do it with a 35mm format camera, a 400mm lens and excellent stalking/tracking skills & well-honed technique. But a smaller sensor in a lighter camera with a smaller & lighter lens of equivalent or greater reach is a more practical alternative.
-Dave-
-
The new Nikon 500PF mounted on a D500 is a game changer IMHO for bird photography...
http://www.ejphoto.com/Quack%20PDF/Nikon%20500PF.pdf
-
I agree with kjkahn that reach is what it's about with bird photography. You can do it with a 35mm format camera, a 400mm lens and excellent stalking/tracking skills & well-honed technique. But a smaller sensor in a lighter camera with a smaller & lighter lens of equivalent or greater reach is a more practical alternative.
-Dave-
Agreed that—short of affording the weight and cost of a 400/2.8 or 500/4—the best value for money in bird photography probably comes from a smaller format system, with the shorter and likely lighter and less expensive kit needed in most situations. For one thing, zoom lenses can often have the reach that only primes offer with larger, lower resolution(*) sensors of 35mm format.
* Meaning true resolution, lines per mm, which is what counts for focal length needs in long lens photography
-
The new Nikon 500PF mounted on a D500 is a game changer IMHO for bird photography...
I have to agree. This kind of photography is probably better with a DX camera than an FX, unless you are photo'ing owls at night. I bought the Nikon D500 for wildlife and action sports and have not been disappointed. It's far superior to my Nikon D800E for this. The new Nikon 500mm PF is a killer lens for bird shots, but it's a bit expensive and right now they can't make enough of them to supply. I've been using the Nikon 300mm PF f4 plus a TC-14E and like it a lot. That lens works well with the Nikon TC-17E which yields 510mm f6.3 (I think). The optics on that lens are superb, it's light enough to hand hold (and thus easy to catch birds in flight,) and the autofocus is the best available in any camera.
Kent in SD
-
The new Nikon 500PF mounted on a D500 is a game changer IMHO for bird photography...
http://www.ejphoto.com/Quack%20PDF/Nikon%20500PF.pdf
Hi EJ, very well written review and I must agree with you. I so remember struggling with my D1 and the non VR 600mm that cost me all the great outdoors!!
-
Thanks to y'all for the information.
-
entry level is a D500 + Nikkor 200-500/5.6 which should be handholdable.
-
Another very good medium priced option is the Nikon D500 (going used for around $1,000) and the Nikon 200-500mm VR lens ($1,400 new.) That combo will be a very noticeable increase in performance. If I were more into birds this is the route I would go. It's easy to get silly crazy buying camera gear for birds. :o
Kent in SD
-
I am a Canon user, so I can properly advise on Canon options.
Good and affordable APS-C dSLR option for bird photography is the Canon 7D2 or less expensive 80D and Canon EF 400 f/5.6L or EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS I or II.
Cameras: 7D2 is pro-grade-construction "bombproof", heavier, more water resistant, has more autofocus points and has good autofocus customization options, has fixed LCD, has "joystick" control as well as top wheel and back wheel for changing parameters, has more custom programming settings, has maximum 10 frames/ second continuous burst shooting. I own this camera. I formerly used the Canon 60D, which is a capable old (2010) APS-C dSLR camera with much less sophisticated autofocus capacity than either the 2010 7D original or the two 2015-2016 cameras 7D2 and 80D.
80D: more plasticky construction, lighter, less water resistant, burst mode 7 per second, fewer (but respectable number of) autofocus points, has movable LCD for video shooting
Both cameras have the ability to focus at the center point at f/8 maximum effective aperture given appropriate lens and teleconverter combinations (there are tables showing compatibility).
Canon EF 400 f/5.6L is a 7 element lens, very well balanced, very light (1.1 kilo), very sharp, very fast AF, and very affordable new or used, because it is an old and relatively simple design. Once one has practiced enough to get the hang of smooth panning and shutter release, the lens is a joy to use for hand-held bird-in-flight photography. Minuses: no stabilization means that for stationary (perched) birds, one needs either a fast shutter speed or some support (tripod or monopod); relatively long minimum focus distance. I have used this lens for 7 years.
Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS II. More versatile due to zoom and due to stabilization, sharp at all focal lengths (equivalent to affordable prime lens quality), somewhat heavier (1.6 kilo), packs better for air travel (ie shorter when at 100mm), has much closer minimum focus distance, enough so to get 1:3 magnification at 400mm. Also more expensive. I recently bought this lens. I am still getting used to the different balance and slightly increased weight of the lens.
Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS I: Push-pull ("trombone") zoom, which some people love and some people hate. The new version has "twist" (usual movement) zoom. Early generation stabilization, less effective than version II. Slightly less sharp than either the 400 f/5.6L or the 100-400 v. II, but I have seen many really good photos taken with "the trombone" at 400 mm. These lenses are no longer made (replaced by v. II), but are found on the used market, and are very affordable.
Appropriate 1.4x teleconverter: Canon 1.4 TC v. II works for EF 400 f/5.6 and version 1 EF 100-400. Canon 1.4 TC v. III works for those lenses plus the newer version 2 EF 100-400.
Yes. good gear helps, and reach is essential, but practice helps more. Field skills help more. What habitat does that species of bird use, where is it likely to feed and drink - very useful to pick most likely site to find said bird species. Bird temperament - will you need a blind/hide because the species tends to be jumpy and shy, or can you just sit/stand quietly in one place, allow the bird to see you and figure out that you aren't a threat, and wait for the bird to come closer. Join the local Audubon Society, join any local nature photography club, check out eBird and local internet resources to get info on sightings.
Finally, read this excellent site for how-to and for useful tips: http://www.digitalbirdphotography.com/
And Glenn Bartley's site has good advice and great photos.
Peter Ait mentioned the 1" sensor Sony bridge camera RX10 IV, with 25-600mm equivalent lens. This is the hot item for bird photography now, because the autofocus is said to be capable of capturing birds in flight reliably. I have not used it, but I have seen good reviews of it for birding, and there's no question that this is one of the simplest and least expensive options, and is lighter weight than the APS-C format dSLRs and appropriate lens. I would love to try it - it would be a great travel and hiking camera for birding.
-
Cameras: 7D2 is pro-grade-construction "bombproof", heavier, more water resistant, has more autofocus points and has good autofocus customization options, has fixed LCD, has "joystick" control as well as top wheel and back wheel for changing parameters, has more custom programming settings, has maximum 10 frames/ second continuous burst shooting.
Chris Bale is a very accomplished and published bird photographer who uses a Canon 7D2.
https://www.instagram.com/thebirdbox27/
-
Your wife might wish to consider a bridge camera such as the Canon SX70.
The article found here is quite persuasive: Bird Photography with the new Canon SX 70 (https://www.365daysofbirds.com/2018/12/19/canon-sx70-review-snowy-owls-spruce-grouse/)
The work of this photographer with the Canon Powershot SX60 is very excellent. Take a look at his Flickr page.
Gary Helm - Canon Powershot SX60 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ghelm/)
-
The other possibility is digiscoping (photographing through a spotting scope eyepiece), which requires nothing other than the existing camera and the existing spotting scope and maybe an adapter. For identification purposes this is fine. For web use, fine. Bad at low light.
-
The other possibility is digiscoping (photographing through a spotting scope eyepiece), which requires nothing other than the existing camera and the existing spotting scope and maybe an adapter. For identification purposes this is fine. For web use, fine. Bad at low light.
I have some experience with digiscoping, specifically with Swarowski ATX 95 fieldscope and Swarowski's APO camera adapter for ILCs (I've used various Sony A and E mount cameras). For good pictures digiscoping is not the easiest task and perhaps the trickiest part is to get the focus right as you have to focus the scope manually and if your subject moves, then it makes things even trickier as tracking some fast-moving bird with scope is not always the easiest task.
But for certainly the fieldscope offers lots of reach, that Swarowski ATX 95 + APO adapter provides something like 900-2100 mm focal lengths depending on the magnification (30-70×), and getting similar focal lengths to that longer end with telephoto lenses is quite tricky and even this rather expensive field scope is still cheaper than some of the fancy fast telephoto (prime) lenses.
And since I own that scope and hauling it (and the required tripod and its head + binoculars etc.) can be bit taxing, in last autumn I decided to test drive Sony RX10 IV since I had heard lots of praise for it. And indeed, if you want a nice compact camera with very good autofocus and lens that provides nice versatile zoom range from wide angle to supertelephoto (and with decent apertures), this is very fine choice. Sure, certain controls are less tactile than those of ILCs and the 1" sensor cannot do miracles in the low light or provide the same depth of field control as larger sensors, but you have to do some compromises.
Of course, the latest Sony FE camera generation does provide also very good autofocus and the two longest telephoto lenses for E mount (FE 4.5-5.6/100-400 GM OSS and FE 2.8/400 GM OSS) are high quality optics, although the 2.8/400 prime belongs to the price category where that Swarowski fieldscope is looking to be inexpensive. But the telezoom is pretty capable too and you can even use it with teleconverters without loosing the autofocus!
I don't (currently) own either of these FE telephoto lenses and as so far my primary birding ILCs have been APS-C A-mount cameras (primarily for the extra "reach" with the crop sensor), currently A77 II, which is not bad camera either, even if it may not offer as good AF as the newer Sony cameras.
-
my experience is similar to Nancy's. the Canon 100-400ii on a apsc camera that will autofocus at f8 so that you can use the 1.4x extender provides enough range for small birds (with patience in most circumstances) and has the IQ to make decent size prints. the zoom gives you a reasonable chance of capturing birds in flight. I'm not aware of any other long zoom that provides the same IQ at equivalent price.
unless you are a dedicated professional, i think you will get fewer good images with full frame and enormous costly lenses.
-
Peter Ait mentioned the 1" sensor Sony bridge camera RX10 IV, with 25-600mm equivalent lens. This is the hot item for bird photography now, because the autofocus is said to be capable of capturing birds in flight reliably. I have not used it, but I have seen good reviews of it for birding, and there's no question that this is one of the simplest and least expensive options, and is lighter weight than the APS-C format dSLRs and appropriate lens. I would love to try it - it would be a great travel and hiking camera for birding.
Focus is decent but zooming the lens takes a while and doesn’t really focus during zooming. You need good light otherwise the ISO will go up fast.
-
I know your wife is considering a full frame system, but I really would look at micro four thirds. I thinks it is absolutely perfect for this type of photography. Don't underestimate what it can do.
-
I am currently using a Panasonic G9 and the Leica 100-400 mm lens hand held with good results. I am mostly shooting water fowl (stationary) and small birds (Warblers, semi stationary) and when I switched to this combo, my positive comments from others went way up.
Dave S
-
The faster Micro 43 bodies (E-M1 mk II, or even E-M1x) with the 100-400 PanaLeica or the forthcoming (and probably expensive) Olympus Pro 150-400 would be a really interesting combination here, especially if a D500 and the 500mm PF Nikkor isn't long enough.
Nikon will get you to 750mm focal length equivalent (1050mm with a 1.4x teleconverter - although that brings the combo to f8 and reduces focus performance) in a somewhat reasonably sized and priced package (a little over $5000 for a D500 and the 500mm lens). Anything longer, and you're in the realm of huge, $10,000 lenses.
Olympus and Panasonic will get you to 800mm equivalent for around $3000, in a much smaller package. I've handled an E-M1 mkII with the 100-400 PanaLeica, and it's not a huge setup at all.
Next year, the Olympus PRO 150-400 lens will be out, which is f4.0 throughout the zoom range (the PanaLeica is, disappointingly, f6.3 at the long end although it's a nice lens in other respects). The Olympus PRO lens is not going to be small or cheap, but it doesn't look any bigger than the Nikkor 500mm PF, although it's hard to tell from the pictures.Since it's f4, it'll take a 2x teleconverter - 1600mm equivalent (at f8, which still autofocuses, although with reduced performance)! It actually has a built-in 1.25x converter, which Olympus claims will stack with the 2x converter and still autofocus, even though it'll be f9.5. Using the built-in converter ONLY, it'll get to 1000 mm equivalent at a very manageable f5.
As far as I know, there's only one way besides the new Olympus PRO lens to get to 2000mm with AF, and it's wildly impractical. It involves the Canon 1200mm f5.6 (the wildly impractical part - it's a 36 lb, $100,000 lens) on an APS-C body. That's 1920mm right there, and a 1.4x converter will fit for 2,688 mm! That's got to be the world's longest AF lens.
If you drop the AF requirement, what qualifies as a lens? I know at least one birder who digiscopes a Celestron 8" telescope with a native focal length over 2000mm (so it's equivalent to a bit over 3000mm with an APS-C camera, or 4000mm or so with Micro 43).
On the same principle, you could drop a DSLR into the prime focus of the Hale Telescope :), which is a 16,760mm f3.3 lens. As for attaching a camera, there's a Nikon F mount in there somewhere, although adapters to whatever else you might want are the least of the problems (it will also natively attach an 8x10" view camera). It's f3.3, so it'll take at least one teleconverter easily enough. Good luck getting the Hale Telescope off Mount Palomar, let alone to where the birds are
-
if weight and bulk is a consideration, the 43 is worth consideration. however you're giving up a stop of low light noise (not inconsequential with long fairly slow lenses) and the Pany 100-400 isn't the sharpest tack in the box. The forthcoming Oly 150- 400 on the other hand should be an excellent birding choice - but also not so small, light, or cheap - when it is available.
-
if weight and bulk is a consideration, the 43 is worth consideration. however you're giving up a stop of low light noise (not inconsequential with long fairly slow lenses) and the Pany 100-400 isn't the sharpest tack in the box. The forthcoming Oly 150-400 on the other hand should be an excellent birding choice - but also not so small, light, or cheap - when it is available.
The noise difference is only if one compared to lenses for the larger format covering the same FOV at the same minimum f-stops so that the same needed shutter speed can be achieved at the same ISO speeds. For the above lens examples:
- the roughly two stop less noisy alternatives for 35mm format would need about 200-800/4-6.3 and 300-800/4.5
- the roughly 0.6–0.8 stop less noisy alternatives for APS-C format would need about 130-530/4-6.3 and 200-530/4.5
Of course, in reality, those longer focal lengths would probably instead be achieved by lenses limited to higher minimum f-stops—perhaps through using teleconverters—and thus needing higher ISO speeds, canceling out some or all of the imagined noise advantage.
Roughly, if the lenses are of the same bulk, the f-stop and ISO speeds scale up and make noise levels about equal for equal shutter speed. It's the lenses that are faster or slower at gathering light from subject, and "there's no substitute for square mm of entrance pupil area".
-
Roughly, if the lenses are of the same bulk, the f-stop and ISO speeds scale up and make noise levels about equal for equal shutter speed. It's the lenses that are faster or slower at gathering light from subject, and "there's no substitute for square mm of entrance pupil area".
Right, complemented by sensor area. So for performance with the same angle of view in such situations "there's no substitute for square mm of sensor and entrance pupil area".
The same angle of view tells you that the D500's APS-C sensor needs about 1.3x the focal length of a uFT sensor. If the entrance pupil area is the same that means that APS-C's f-number is about 1.3x uFT's. Therefore both formats receive the same amount of light on the sensor and are equally clean/noisy. All else being equal.
Which means that - excluding sweetspot situations for either system at the edges of the envelope - in order for the performance of both formats to be roughly the same, the lenses will end up being roughly the same size. If they are not the same size it typically means that the relative manufacturer has taken shortcuts - hoping you will not notice that you are no longer comparing apples to apples vs the competition in terms of IQ metrics like resolution, distortion etc. etc. For instance the resolution one gets out of the Nikkor 500PF at 500mm f/8 on a D500 is substantially better than what one gets out of the Leica/Panasonic 100-400ASPH at 384mm f/6.3 on a uFT sensor. Plus the D500 would have the flexibility of shooting with more light at f/5.6, if one so desired.
But there are considerations other than noise or resolution. One of the reasons my birding friends tell me they don't use uFT for their hobby is that it's very hard to see the bird entering the field of view on a zoomed out, out of focus EVF, say in a BIF situation. On the other hand this is not on issue with the D500's optical view finder. And so it goes, to each their own.
Jack
-
But there are considerations other than noise or resolution. One of the reasons my birding friends tell me they don't use uFT for their hobby is that it's very hard to see the bird entering the field of view on a zoomed out, out of focus EVF, say in a BIF situation. On the other hand this is not on issue with the D500's optical view finder. And so it goes, to each their own.
In some circumstances, this device (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1116753-REG/olympus_ee_1_dot_sight_for.html (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1116753-REG/olympus_ee_1_dot_sight_for.html)) can help with that. It works surprisingly (to me) well but is one more contraption to fiddle with. If I practiced more, I could probably get better at using it. I don't know if other manufacturers make something similar.
-
...it's very hard to see the bird entering the field of view on a zoomed out, out of focus EVF, say in a BIF situation. On the other hand this is not on issue with the D500's optical view finder...
Jack
With my Sony RX10 IV, this is the case. Once it locks on, it's pretty good. But quickly achieving framing and lock can be difficult with this EVF.
-
Jack,
I think we are saying the same thing here about noise levels, which is all I was responding too—though as far as noise, I do not understand the point about "complemented by sensor area": entrance pupil ares alone measures "photons per second per bird", regardless of sensor area.
Right, complemented by sensor area. So for performance with the same angle of view in such situations "there's no substitute for square mm of sensor and entrance pupil area".
... If the entrance pupil area is the same ... both formats receive the same amount of light on the sensor and are equally clean/noisy. All else being equal.
For instance the resolution one gets out of the Nikkor 500PF at 500mm f/8 on a D500 is substantially better than what one gets out of the Leica/Panasonic 100-400ASPH at 384mm f/6.3 on a uFT sensor.
Quite likely a prime lens (with larger entrance pupil size) will perform better than a wide-ranging zoom, but way off the topic of the comparison I was addressing—and there are primes for MFT too! And on another off-topic comment:
One of the reasons my birding friends tell me they don't use uFT for their hobby is that it's very hard to see the bird entering the field of view on a zoomed out, out of focus EVF, say in a BIF situation. On the other hand this is not on issue with the D500's optical view finder.
Maybe true, though am enjoying using the Olympus dot site with the very narrow FOV at 300mm on my E-M5!
-
—though as far as noise, I do not understand the point about "complemented by sensor area": entrance pupil ares alone measures "photons per second per bird", regardless of sensor area.
Yes we agree on noise BJL, as mentioned. I responded to you but my comment was more general in nature.
BTW, out of curiosity, are there any 400mm primes for uFT, or would one need to use a teleconverter? It'd be interesting to compare resolution etc.
Jack
-
... are there any 400mm primes for uFT, or would one need to use a teleconverter?
Well, we seem to have strayed a long from Peter Alt's original topic of a system for someone stepping up from a bridge camera (the Lumix FZ-1000, with a 1" format sensor and a roughly 9-150mm f/2.8-4 zoom lens) to lenses limited to a single super-narrow FOV like 400mm for 4/3" (FOV of 800mm in 35mm). No, such lenses are as rare for MFT as the FOV-equivalent 800mm primes are for the 35mm format systems from Sony, Pentax, Leica and Panasonic, and were until a few years ago for Canon and Nikon! I suspect that even the 600mm that would be a FOV match in APS-C formats is not a likely option here.
On the other hand, that narrow FOV can sometimes be desirable, but most likely to be obtained with cropping and/or a teleconverter. Let me suggest that after cropping, most bird photography is fairly well served by enough resolution for "normal viewing", not the huge print/close viewing that some landscape photographers aspire too, and for that, about 12MP after cropping is probably fine, while more (20MP?) is desirable on the sensor, for loose framing and such. So it is interesting to me to look at what focal lengths are needed for "800mm FOV at 12MP crop", which also matches about "600mm FOV at 20MP". I get:
- 300mmm with a 20MP 4/3" sensor
- 370mm with a 24MP 24x16mm sensor (the Sony-Nikon-Pentax-Fujifilm version of APS-C)
- 560mm with a 24MP 35mm format sensor (which is the only option in "entry-level 35mm format", with any substantially higher pixel count starting at about $3200 body-only).
For the first two, there is the great advantage of being available with a zoom lens, which then has far more use cases than a super-narrow prime.
-
I have the Pana-Leica 100–400mm, which is pretty darn good but hardly small or light, so the long m43 lens I travel with is the Panasonic 100–300mm. I used it a lot on my recent Big Island holiday. It's CA-prone at the long end but this can be dealt with. Great size-weight/performance ratio, and fairly inexpensive too.
-Dave-
-
As far as I know, there's no prime longer than the (excellent) Olympus 300 mm f4 Pro. There's also not an extremely high quality zoom longer than that right now. There are a couple of midrange-quality lenses that go to 300 mm (the Panasonic is f5.6 at the long end, and the Olympus is a very disappointing f6.7).
Above that, there's only the PanaLeica that goes to 400mm, also slow (f6.3 at the long end), and about the quality of the good Canon or Sony 100-400s. A friend has it, and it's a nice lens, but not as sharp as the 100-400 Fujinon I use for wildlife, and certainly not at the level of the 180-400 and 200-400 professional options from Canon and Nikon.
The forthcoming Oly 150-400 seems like it's probably aimed at those expensive Canon and Nikon zooms, and what we know about Olympus PRO lenses suggests it'll be in that rarefied company. If it's that good, it's probably going to be (at least) a $5000 lens... The Canon and Nikon are closer to $10,000 - but earlier versions weren't quite that expensive, and the Oly is 1/3 stop slower.
Right now, Nikon actually has an advantage over Micro 43 if you want higher quality than the PanaLeica can provide. The 500mm PF is a relatively manageable lens from a size and weight perspective (not as easy from the perspective of finding one, and it's more expensive, although much cheaper than most exotic telephotos), and it's significantly longer (on APS-C) than the Olympus 300mm, even once you take differing crop factors into account. It's about the same speed or a little slower, depending on how you account for the crop. The Nikon 200-500 is a less expensive (and easier to find) alternative that is faster and sharper (although heavier) than the PanaLeica.
The new Olympus lens will probably give Micro 43 a lead once again
-
My advice, at this time, is to go for an optical viewfinder and a good focus system. I've been a serious bird photographer for over 20 years and have owned pretty near everything on the market. The only systems that focus effectively for bird photography are Canon 1 series, 7D2 (so-so) and the 5 Series(so-so), Nikon (1 series, 500 and 800 series) and the Sony A9. The olympus camera focus will leave you disappointed, as will panasonic. Birds move quickly, and often have complex backgrounds and branches to confuse the AF. As far as AF goes right now:
Best - D500 / 850 / 5: excellent focus and tracking, except for small birds flying at close range
Amazing - A9: excellent at tracking small flying birds, not so good at acquisition against brown and green backgrounds at a distance
1DX2 - Great at acquisition except as noted for A9 and does not track well in some circumstances. Other Canons are worse.
What folks shoot with:
Lower budget - 7D2 + 100-400 f/5.6
Modest budget - D500 + 200-500 or older 500/4
Medium budget D850 + previous generation 500/4
Cheers
-
Back to the original question - what camera and lens "system" would be best.
Your wife's current camera seems to work well for her. To spend a considerable amount of money to move to another camera and lens might be great but at what cost for money, weight and convenience.
I would suggest renting a camera and lens for a week or so to try it out. Then another system combo to try it out and to talk about the differences and advantages etc.
Weight - key if walking a lot or hiking. Cost is not insignificant. Clearly from the posts here, personal preferences play a big role.
She has to try the options out and then decide.
I started with I then Canon 100-400 mm lens - way too heavy and the Pany GH2 with 75-200 mm lens (not long enough) Then some years later I tried Fuji with the 100-400mm lens with 1.4 X tele-converter and still too heavy and now finally the Pany G9 with 100-400 mm lens which works for me and I find I can do manual focus if needed.
She needs to try the combs herself.
Dave S
-
I shoot with Nikon full frame cameras and lenses and my wife uses Olympus MFT cameras and lenses. I can produce a wall size print with the image files from the D850 but for a 14x16 size print our two cameras produce equivalent image quality and enlargement potential.
The difference with her mirrorless MFT kit is that her 300mm f/4 lens provides the view angle of my Nikon 600mm f/4 lens but the Olympus lens weighs 3.2 lbs and cost $2500 whereas the Nikon lens weighs over 8 lbs. and cost me $12,300. Her MFT kit with 3 other lenses, two bodies, flash, etc. all fits in a 18L backpack and weighs about 16 lbs in total. My kit fits in a 32L AND a 18L backpack with a total weight of 37 pounds.
Mirrorless provides perfect autofocus. With a mirror SLR there needs to be an adjustment factor to tell the camera that the measure AF distance using the mirror is off from the actual distance to the camera senor and this adjustment is only accurate for the one lens at a given target distance. It is why I tend to use manual focus a great deal of the time with my Nikon pro cameras and lenses.
Mirrorless also means having an electronic viewfinder. This allows the user to fully view the scene and subject in very low light. With my DSLR cameras in low light I shoot and chimp, make adjustment and reshoot and chimp. With the mirrorless any EV adjustments can be seen in the electronic viewfinder before the shutter is tripped.
Olympus also provides excellent image stabilization in its lenses and in its cameras and when the two are used together the IS is increased in an additive manner. This is not available from Sony or Nikon or Canon with their cameras and lenses.
Olympus has had for two years pro constant f/2.8 aperture lenses with its 40-150mm f/2.8 IS, 12-40mm f/2.8, 7-14mm f/2.8, and has added a 12-100mm f/4 IS (full frame would be a 24-200mm) along with its 300mm f/4 IS prime and 60mm f/2.8 macro. Olympus provides three levels of mirrorless cameras with the E-M5, E-M1, and new E-M1X. For someone going from a small camera the MFT approach is a much smaller incremental step than any APC-C or full frame camera based system.
-
The new e-m1x is pricey...but it’s plane ai seems to track birds fairly well too. Certainly well beyond their other cameras. It would be interesting to see what some good bird photographers think once they spend some time with this new one.
Size and weight are a factor for a lot of people, especially if you want to be more mobile and hand held for longer periods of time. An Olympus with the 300 is hand holdable all day, and even more so with the 100-400 Panasonic.