Gear choice upgrade for birds

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Member's gallery
orangecafe said:
I can not tell you how helpful your advice is — reading comparisons of options to specifically what I currently have. I saw a video linked from this forum reviewing the OM-1 (can’t locate it at the moment) He said it tracks birds well but then doesn’t hold the focus! That turned me off a bit to the OM-1. What do you guys think about that?
My estimations show:
Click to expand...

I have an OM-1 and a Sony A1 and I never have to worry about focus on either camera. They are both excellent at keeping targets on moving birds.

orangecafe said:
OM-1 + 100-400 is $3300 and about 4lbs total
Click to expand...

Unless the difference in weight is an issue I would think about the 300F4 plus TCs when needed. You can get the 300F4 used on fredmiranda and they go from $1200-$1700 USD (last one sold was $1200). I know the zoom is convenient but the 300F4 is a special lens (at least in my opinion) and worth a look.

orangecafe said:
Nikon D500 + 200-500 is $3600, 5-6 lbs
Click to expand...

I had this combo and it's good but the 200-500 is only slightly better than your Tamron 150-600 (which I also had) depending on copy variation. You would get more pixels on target with the D500+200-500 (750mm equivalent vs 600mm) and faster focusing with the D500 so overall a nice upgrade however. You can also buy used and get it much cheaper than $3600. D500's are going for $800-$900 on fredmiranda and the 200-500 is going for ~$800 as well.

orangecafe said:
Canon R7 + 100-500 $4100 4.3lbs

Objective: I’m trying to improve keeper rate, sharpness, tracking of bird eyes, over my current rig of D700 + Tamron 160-600)
Click to expand...

For me one of the big advantages of mirrorless is being able to shoot with electronic shutter (silent) 100% of the time. If that is important to you it really narrows down the choices, the cheapest being the OM-1.
 
Member's gallery
Palmor said:
I have an OM-1 and a Sony A1 and I never have to worry about focus on either camera. They are both excellent at keeping targets on moving birds.



Unless the difference in weight is an issue I would think about the 300F4 plus TCs when needed. You can get the 300F4 used on fredmiranda and they go from $1200-$1700 USD (last one sold was $1200). I know the zoom is convenient but the 300F4 is a special lens (at least in my opinion) and worth a look.



I had this combo and it's good but the 200-500 is only slightly better than your Tamron 150-600 (which I also had) depending on copy variation. You would get more pixels on target with the D500+200-500 (750mm equivalent vs 600mm) and faster focusing with the D500 so overall a nice upgrade however. You can also buy used and get it much cheaper than $3600. D500's are going for $800-$900 on fredmiranda and the 200-500 is going for ~$800 as well.



For me one of the big advantages of mirrorless is being able to shoot with electronic shutter (silent) 100% of the time. If that is important to you it really narrows down the choices, the cheapest being the OM-1.
Click to expand...
Thank you!
 
Member's gallery
I think we have to start this kind of conversation with two points. First everything is a compromise in some way and second what does your current gear not do that you expect the new gear to do?

For the compromise. OM is going to be the lightest camera and lens combo and will also be the smallest kit when comparing equivalent focal lengths. OM will have many if not all the best features you are looking for in a modern mirrorless camera. OM will likely be the cheapest system you could put together for wildlife.
Now for the potential negative. OM is a “new” brand after Olympus sold off the camera brand. I think it’s still a concern if they will be around in say the next 5-10 years. It’s a M4/3 sensor and consumers haven’t embraced it as much as crop and ff sensors. The sensor size has its good and bad. Good being the lenses can be smaller and lighter since you are getting a 2x factor when compared to a full frame camera. So a M4/3 300mm lens is an equivalent to a full frame 600mm. The negative or positive of the smaller sensor will have more depth of field vs FF. In some cases this is great and in others not so much. It really depends on where your shoot and how much subject isolation you want or don’t want. Example I often shoot small birds that I’m close enough to and the background is far enough away that even at f11 I have a creamy smooth background. You could be at say f5.6 and have the same look I have at f11. Your advantage is you will have a lower iso to achieve the same look. Now the opposite is if I want f4 to blow a background out and your lens is an f4 you can’t achieve the same blown out background as I can. Now your gear will weigh a few pounds and mine will be 10 lbs so again there is compromise. My Sony 600f4 with a1, grip and CFE-A cards is north of $20k. In an OM body and 300f4 (600f4 equivalent) you have around $4-5k invested and small enough to go in a small shoulder bag.

Your file sizes are smaller for M4/3 so less computing power and storage. Cards are SD so very affordable. A strong used market for glass are all advantages.

I know many photographers who love the OM system and with todays software they can do things in post to get pretty damn close to what I can do and in some cases you can’t tell a difference between mine and theirs.

End of the day if you are filling the frame with your subject it’s pretty hard to tell the difference. I’d rather fill the frame with an OM because I can afford the focal lengths I need than crop on a FF because I don’t have enough lens.
 
Member's gallery
DavidT said:
I think we have to start this kind of conversation with two points. First everything is a compromise in some way and second what does your current gear not do that you expect the new gear to do?

For the compromise. OM is going to be the lightest camera and lens combo and will also be the smallest kit when comparing equivalent focal lengths. OM will have many if not all the best features you are looking for in a modern mirrorless camera. OM will likely be the cheapest system you could put together for wildlife.
Now for the potential negative. OM is a “new” brand after Olympus sold off the camera brand. I think it’s still a concern if they will be around in say the next 5-10 years. It’s a M4/3 sensor and consumers haven’t embraced it as much as crop and ff sensors. The sensor size has its good and bad. Good being the lenses can be smaller and lighter since you are getting a 2x factor when compared to a full frame camera. So a M4/3 300mm lens is an equivalent to a full frame 600mm. The negative or positive of the smaller sensor will have more depth of field vs FF. In some cases this is great and in others not so much. It really depends on where your shoot and how much subject isolation you want or don’t want. Example I often shoot small birds that I’m close enough to and the background is far enough away that even at f11 I have a creamy smooth background. You could be at say f5.6 and have the same look I have at f11. Your advantage is you will have a lower iso to achieve the same look. Now the opposite is if I want f4 to blow a background out and your lens is an f4 you can’t achieve the same blown out background as I can. Now your gear will weigh a few pounds and mine will be 10 lbs so again there is compromise. My Sony 600f4 with a1, grip and CFE-A cards is north of $20k. In an OM body and 300f4 (600f4 equivalent) you have around $4-5k invested and small enough to go in a small shoulder bag.

Your file sizes are smaller for M4/3 so less computing power and storage. Cards are SD so very affordable. A strong used market for glass are all advantages.

I know many photographers who love the OM system and with todays software they can do things in post to get pretty damn close to what I can do and in some cases you can’t tell a difference between mine and theirs.

End of the day if you are filling the frame with your subject it’s pretty hard to tell the difference. I’d rather fill the frame with an OM because I can afford the focal lengths I need than crop on a FF because I don’t have enough lens.
Click to expand...
Fantastically helpful, David.
 
Member's gallery
orangecafe said:
Fantastically helpful, David.
Click to expand...
One additional thought - just as a 4/3 camera has a 2x crop factor providing more magnification - it's still a crop to half a full frame on each axis. That means your noise is going to be more pronounced at higher ISO levels compared to full frame - effectively by about 1.25 stops at most ISO levels but two stops at base ISO.

The other thing is you should be careful about longer lenses and cropping. At the long end it is certainly helpful, but it can be a lot harder to keep the subject in the frame. And using a shorter focal length often leads to less subject isolation so you have more background detail. Take a look at the difference in depth of field with a DOF calculator. 600mm at f/5.6 or f/6.3 still has a very clean background - a look I prefer over 300mm and cropping at the same aperture.
 
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
One additional thought - just as a 4/3 camera has a 2x crop factor providing more magnification - it's still a crop to half a full frame on each axis. That means your noise is going to be more pronounced at higher ISO levels compared to full frame - effectively by about 1.25 stops at most ISO levels but two stops at base ISO.

The other thing is you should be careful about longer lenses and cropping. At the long end it is certainly helpful, but it can be a lot harder to keep the subject in the frame. And using a shorter focal length often leads to less subject isolation so you have more background detail. Take a look at the difference in depth of field with a DOF calculator. 600mm at f/5.6 or f/6.3 still has a very clean background - a look I prefer over 300mm and cropping at the same aperture.
Click to expand...
This is true. I would add however that with modern denoise software this has become less of a concern.

It is also affordable to buy the faster M4/3 primes when compared to the full frame equivalents. Most people can't afford or don't want the size and weight of a FF 600F4 so they buy the 200-600 type zooms that are F6.3. For similar cost you can buy the 300F4 (600 FF equivalent) OM lens which is faster, smaller and lighter. This offsets a lot of the iso disadvantage of the smaller sensor. Pair that with software and the difference becomes less.

Now I will say for my above comments this applies to nice lighting that we would have for quality wildlife pictures. I don't shoot subjects in heavy shadows or poor light that isn't going to render an appealing image. However, if shooting astro or night scenes the FF sensor and even better is a medium format sensor has a major advantage. I would also say for landscape type images where you want details the FF and medium format is a big advantage. Fill the frame of say a bird with both systems and I doubt most could actually tell the difference. Shoot the milky way and most likely could.
 
I think you really want subject tracking and eye detection, and a path forward where the lens system starts to build even as you upgrade bodies.

Have you considered Z8 with a used 500pf?
 
Member's gallery
orangecafe said:
Thank you everyone!! Your comments helped me make my decision. I’m going with the OM-1 + 100-400. I also noticed that OM posts very helpful videos for setting guidance.
Click to expand...
Regardless of choice, do try out your preferred choice in hand it at all possible. I use both Olympus and Nikon gear, and while I love both brands, I do look to one or the other depending on what I am trying to accomplish. And, on paper, any piece of gear can sound ideal. I have looked at gear that sounded perfect until I put it in hand and found it to be unacceptable. If you do not have a store, try to rent for a long weekend.

Good luck,

--Ken
 
Member's gallery
Replytoken said:
Regardless of choice, do try out your preferred choice in hand it at all possible. I use both Olympus and Nikon gear, and while I love both brands, I do look to one or the other depending on what I am trying to accomplish. And, on paper, any piece of gear can sound ideal. I have looked at gear that sounded perfect until I put it in hand and found it to be unacceptable. If you do not have a store, try to rent for a long weekend.

Good luck,

--Ken
Click to expand...
Thanks, Ken. Solid advice. I will report back how it works out.
 
Member's gallery
I photograph small birds for ID for the vast majority of my photography. I am a run and gun photographer in all types of habitat and terrain and hand held 99.9% over the last 2 years. I use my photos primarily for E bird, facebook birding posts, donate a lot for use by non profit conservation oriented entities, sell a few prints occasionally and win a contest now and then like the Outdoor Idaho Monthly photo contest (the image below won last months contest).

I used everything form Fuji, Canon and Nikon bridge cameras, to first a Canon and then a range of Nikon DSLR's. I have friends who do great work with Olympus, Pentax and Sony mirrorless.

I used/owned Nikon D300s, D7100, D4s, D500, D850 and D6. Favorite birding lenses included Tamron 150-600 G2, Sigma 150-600 and 60-600 Sport and Nikon 600 mm f/4E.

I no longer own any DLSR's or f mount lenses.

Out of all the cameras and lenses I have used for birding and photography my current favorite is my Nikon Z9 and Nikon Z800mm pf.
My second camera is another Z9 and usually it has a Z100-400 on it.
I have a standing order with the small brick and mortar store I use the most for a Nikon Z200-600 if it ever gets released.

Z92_5709.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Ken Miracle said:
I photograph small birds for ID for the vast majority of my photography. I am a run and gun photographer in all types of habitat and terrain and hand held 99.9% over the last 2 years. I use my photos primarily for E bird, facebook birding posts, donate a lot for use by non profit conservation oriented entities, sell a few prints occasionally and win a contest now and then like the Outdoor Idaho Monthly photo contest (the image below won last months contest).

I used everything form Fuji, Canon and Nikon bridge cameras, to first a Canon and then a range of Nikon DSLR's. I have friends who do great work with Olympus, Pentax and Sony mirrorless.

I used/owned Nikon D300s, D7100, D4s, D500, D850 and D6. Favorite birding lenses included Tamron 150-600 G2, Sigma 150-600 and 60-600 Sport and Nikon 600 mm f/4E.

I no longer own any DLSR's or f mount lenses.

Out of all the cameras and lenses I have used for birding and photography my current favorite is my Nikon Z9 and Nikon Z800mm pf.
My second camera is another Z9 and usually it has a Z100-400 on it.
I have a standing order with the small brick and mortar store I use the most for a Nikon Z200-600 if it ever gets released.

View attachment 62544
Click to expand...

Nice photo. I’m in Idaho, too, but haven’t heard of that magazine. I’ll have to check it out.
 
Member's gallery
NikonBiologist said:
Nice photo. I’m in Idaho, too, but haven’t heard of that magazine. I’ll have to check it out.
Click to expand...
It is not a magazine it is Idaho Public Televisions Outdoor Idaho Facebook page and the new offshoot group for the photo contest that came about because of changes Facebook made to the original page. The photo contest has been running monthly for many years.
 
Member's gallery
Ken Miracle said:
I photograph small birds for ID for the vast majority of my photography. I am a run and gun photographer in all types of habitat and terrain and hand held 99.9% over the last 2 years. I use my photos primarily for E bird, facebook birding posts, donate a lot for use by non profit conservation oriented entities, sell a few prints occasionally and win a contest now and then like the Outdoor Idaho Monthly photo contest (the image below won last months contest).

I used everything form Fuji, Canon and Nikon bridge cameras, to first a Canon and then a range of Nikon DSLR's. I have friends who do great work with Olympus, Pentax and Sony mirrorless.

I used/owned Nikon D300s, D7100, D4s, D500, D850 and D6. Favorite birding lenses included Tamron 150-600 G2, Sigma 150-600 and 60-600 Sport and Nikon 600 mm f/4E.

I no longer own any DLSR's or f mount lenses.

Out of all the cameras and lenses I have used for birding and photography my current favorite is my Nikon Z9 and Nikon Z800mm pf.
My second camera is another Z9 and usually it has a Z100-400 on it.
I have a standing order with the small brick and mortar store I use the most for a Nikon Z200-600 if it ever gets released.

View attachment 62544
Click to expand...
Thanks so much! I think I’ll try the OM-1 100-400 and then “migrate” to Z8 or Z9. Just got the OM-1 yesterday so we’ll see how it goes!
 
Member's gallery
orangecafe said:
Thanks so much! I think I’ll try the OM-1 100-400 and then “migrate” to Z8 or Z9. Just got the OM-1 yesterday so we’ll see how it goes!
Click to expand...
With the OM-1 it is important to properly expose all shots. I have a button that adds 1.3EV to auto ISO when shooting black birds on a light background and another button that subtracts 1.3EV for shooting white birds on a dark background. I also have orange blinkies on to show overexposed areas because my goal is to shoot with the histogram as far to the right as possible without overexposing. I have my setup guide if you want it.

Tom
 
Member's gallery
Tom Reynolds said:
With the OM-1 it is important to properly expose all shots. I have a button that adds 1.3EV to auto ISO when shooting black birds on a light background and another button that subtracts 1.3EV for shooting white birds on a dark background. I also have orange blinkies on to show overexposed areas because my goal is to shoot with the histogram as far to the right as possible without overexposing. I have my setup guide if you want it.

Tom
Click to expand...
Wow, Tom. Sounds like amazing information. Sure I would love to see the setup guide.
 
Member's gallery
Tom Reynolds said:
With the OM-1 it is important to properly expose all shots. I have a button that adds 1.3EV to auto ISO when shooting black birds on a light background and another button that subtracts 1.3EV for shooting white birds on a dark background. I also have orange blinkies on to show overexposed areas because my goal is to shoot with the histogram as far to the right as possible without overexposing. I have my setup guide if you want it.

Tom
Click to expand...
After reading all of this discussion, I’m seriously thinking of moving to the OM-1. Would get more joy from a lighter system like this! Tom - with this in mind, I would love a copy of your setup guide, with much appreciation! Thanks!
Marsha Jane
 
Member's gallery
The OM-1+ the 100-400 is a VERY light and compact setup. BSI Stacked mirrorless sensor. It is less than 4# and very rugged. 800mm effective reach is very nice. It has excellent autofocus and Bird ID. The viewfinder is excellent and it has cool features that most other cameras don't have. Plus it is cheap. I have seen the OM-1 for $2K but $2.2K is standard. I have seen the 100-400 for $1.3K but $1.5K is standard.

BUT............

At F/6.3 @ 800MM your effective F/stop is F/12.6 and the 20MP sized sensor is less than most want. You will NOT get the subject isolation you get with a FF camera and can't crop like you can with 45-50mp.

SO.......
I would say that the OM-1 100-400 is the "most fun" choice currently out there but not the "most capable". I find it roughly comparable to my D-500/500pf in terms of picture quality.

Regards,
Tom
 
Member's gallery
orangecafe said:
Thanks so much! I think I’ll try the OM-1 100-400 and then “migrate” to Z8 or Z9. Just got the OM-1 yesterday so we’ll see how it goes!
Click to expand...
Cool congratulations on the new gear. One of my friends here who I coached on bird acquisition with long focal length lenses has the OM-1 and the OM systems 150-400 F4.5 zoom with built in 1.2 TC. I think about $7,500 for that lens and she ordered early and still had a wait. The combo works extremely well for her. She complains that she can not shoot in as low light as I can and can not print as large as I do but from what I have seen of her work that is an incredible and light weight set up.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Ken Miracle said:
Cool congratulations on the new gear. One of my friends here who I coached on bird acquisition with long focal length lenses has the OM-1 and the OM systems 140-400 F4.5 zoom with built in 1.2 TC. I think about $7,500 for that lens and she ordered early and still had a wait. The combo works extremely well for her. She complains that she can not shoot in as low light as I can and can not print as large as I do but from what I have seen of her work that is an incredible and light weight set up.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Thank you
 
Member's gallery
Tom Reynolds said:
The OM-1+ the 100-400 is a VERY light and compact setup. BSI Stacked mirrorless sensor. It is less than 4# and very rugged. 800mm effective reach is very nice. It has excellent autofocus and Bird ID. The viewfinder is excellent and it has cool features that most other cameras don't have. Plus it is cheap. I have seen the OM-1 for $2K but $2.2K is standard. I have seen the 100-400 for $1.3K but $1.5K is standard.

BUT............

At F/6.3 @ 800MM your effective F/stop is F/12.6 and the 20MP sized sensor is less than most want. You will NOT get the subject isolation you get with a FF camera and can't crop like you can with 45-50mp.

SO.......
I would say that the OM-1 100-400 is the "most fun" choice currently out there but not the "most capable". I find it roughly comparable to my D-500/500pf in terms of picture quality.

Regards,
Tom
Click to expand...
Interesting. Perhaps that is still an upgrade from an old (malfunctioning) D700 + Tamron 160-600. There is no back button autofocus and the 1/8000 shutter speed doesn’t ooen all the way. At least I’m hoping it is better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top