Finally time for a new lightweight camera for birding and wildlife, would like some help deciding on a good fit for me.

[Egon]

First of all, as this is my first post on the forum I would like to extend my warmest greetings to all forum members.
As far as the subject is concerned, I would like to suggest the Sony a6700. Plus Sony 70-350 lens. The whole weighs approximately 1120 grams.I've had this kit for about six months and I'm very satisfied. I'm not just focused on birds, I'm interested in nature in general. I have a Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN MACRO A for it and for me that's enough. In favour of the Sony a6700 is the wonderful autofocus, very good image quality from the sensor, a large selection of lenses and probably also the price. For a body with a 70-350 lens you will pay around 2400 USD. I previously had a Panasonic G9 and a Nikon Z6. I think the Sony a6700 is better.I am already retired and value every gram of ballast but quality is also very important.
Have a nice weekend

 

[Calson]

90% of the weight is with the lenses and not the camera body. Even the Z9 with its EN-ELH battery weighs only 2.9 lbs. The problem with crop cameras is that they require either full frame lenses or use slow f/5.6 or f/6.3 lenses. APS-C lenses are lower quality and do not save much weight over their full frame counterparts so not really a way to have a lighter or more compact kit.

The advantage of the Olympus MFT lenses is that they are half the weight of full frame lenses and they are fast. A wide range of zooms that are f/2.8 constant aperture lenses from 7mm to 140mm. The 40-140mm f/2.8 lens provides the view angles of a 80-300mm full frame lens at a fraction of the cost and weight of equivalent full frame lenses. They provide functions like pre-capture in Raw that I do not have with my Z9 cameras. Up to ISO 6400 the image files are quite usable and I shoot at higher ISOs less than 1% of the time with my full frame cameras.

My wife has been shooting with MFT cameras and lenses for more than 15 years and there are no wildlife images where a full frame camera would have been better. How many people make 20x30 prints or larger? Even for this size there are ways to enlarge an image file and provide sufficient resolution, in part because the larger the print and therefore the greater the normal viewing distance, the less dpi is needed. A billboard for example is commonly printed at 110 dpi.

I read so many posts where people are agonizing over the cost of a full frame super telephoto or the weight they need to carry, or want advice on what lenses to take and which to leave at home. My wife's complete wildlife photo kit fits inside an 18L backpack that weighs less than 20 lbs and with no lenses needing to be left behind.

 

[Egon]

Olympus has one huge advantage over other systems and that is macro photography. And it's not just the OM-1 but also the older models that are unbeatable. If I were only focused on the macro the choice would be simple. However, for more general photography I'm more suited to an apsc from Sony or a full frame. I had a Panasonic G9 ( I know, it's an older model and the Olympus generates more aesthetically pleasing images ) and as far as macro goes I was very happy. However, other types of photography did not satisfy me. The 70-350 lens has very fast autofocus and one thing I don't like is the quality of the blur. You need to find a good background to make it pretty.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

If subject separation and background blur are what is of primary value to you, you need a full frame camera and an f4 lens. Usually that is an expensive and heavy proposition.

I had a D-500 (APSC cropped sensor) and a Nikon 500mm PF f/5.6 lens and my OM-1/300f4 takes better pictures. I have my doubts that even a Z-8/600pf f/6.3 would do better than the OM-1/300f4

 

[Craig Yuill]

Thank you! I will take a look at your suggestions. Would you lean toward the Nikon Z50?

A member of a Nikon Z System forum on another site used a Nikon Z 50 with 50-250mm lens and adapted Sigma 100-400mm lens for a while. Like you, he needed a lightweight and compact system. He was able to capture some amazing birds-in-flight photos, but it took quite a bit of effort to get those photos. He moved on to get a Sony a6700, Sony 70-350mm lens, and Tamron 150-500mm lens. He seems to be very happy with his new system.

 

[Egon]

If subject separation and background blur are what is of primary value to you, you need a full frame camera and an f4 lens. Usually that is an expensive and heavy proposition.

I had a D-500 (APSC cropped sensor) and a Nikon 500mm PF f/5.6 lens and my OM-1/300f4 takes better pictures. I have my doubts that even a Z-8/600pf f/6.3 would do better than the OM-1/300f4

I have been looking at galleries of Olympus system users with the long tele and the results are indeed impressive. I don't even mention the macro because it is top class. If I were concentrating on birds there are some interesting positions in the Sony system with a long tele but automatically the weight and price are at a different level. So far I am happy with the Sony a6700 and can recommend it. Also the macro with focus bracketing is a plus.

 

[StefanSC]

The A6700 is a very nice camera and you can build an awesome light-weight kit around it (almost as lightweight as a comparable m43rds kit), and that Sigma 500mm f5.6 in E-mount does looks very nice .

Where the A6700 falls just a bit short is the single card slot, the poor evf, the "only" 11 fps frame-rate and the somewhat iffy TC situation of the E-mount.

If I were a 50% people/landscape - 50% wildlife shooter, I'd take the A6700 over pretty much any crop sensor camera currently on the market ...

If I were more in the 30-70% area, I'd pick an OM-1...

 

[Palmor]

The A6700 is a very nice camera and you can build an awesome light-weight kit around it (almost as lightweight as a comparable m43rds kit), and that Sigma 500mm f5.6 in E-mount does looks very nice .

Where the A6700 falls just a bit short is the single card slot, the poor evf, the "only" 11 fps frame-rate and the somewhat iffy TC situation of the E-mount.

If I were a 50% people/landscape - 50% wildlife shooter, I'd take the A6700 over pretty much any crop sensor camera currently on the market ...

If I were more in the 30-70% area, I'd pick an OM-1...

The slower sensor also means rolling shutter with electronic shutter and no blackout free shooting. For me even if I was 50/50 those two things are non negotiable.

Even someone who does more landscape the computational features like Live ND, GND and vastly superior IS would put it above the 6700 in my book.

 

[Brentendo]

If subject separation and background blur are what is of primary value to you, you need a full frame camera and an f4 lens. Usually that is an expensive and heavy proposition.

I had a D-500 (APSC cropped sensor) and a Nikon 500mm PF f/5.6 lens and my OM-1/300f4 takes better pictures. I have my doubts that even a Z-8/600pf f/6.3 would do better than the OM-1/300f4

As someone who sold the OM-1/300f4 for the Z8/600pf I miss a lot of the functions and layout of the om-1 I don’t find the autofocus that much better on the z8 either.

I think the OM-1 is stellar for the money and can say the 300/4 with a 2x converter is surprisingly useful-unless you want the background out of focus.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

It gets more interesting if you want a zoom.

Sony A1-/200-600 f/6.3 Weight 4.65+1.6=6.25 Price $8.5K
Nikon Z-8/180-600 f/6.3 Weight 4.3+2.0=6.30 Price $5.5K
OM Systems OM-1/150-400 f/4.5 weight 4.14+ 1.4=5.54 Price $10K
OM Systems OM-1/150-600 f/6.3 weight 4.55+1.4=6.05 Price $5K
OM Systems OM-1/OM Systems 100-400 f/6.3 Weight 1.4+2.5=3.9 Price $3.7K

Weights and prices are approximate.

 

[AlainCh2]

What I own I can suggest.

Small and light and cheap but wonderful:
Nikon Z30 + 18-140 <27-210mmEq> [865gr]

Now for reach:
Nikon Z30 + AF-P 70-300E+FtzII <105-450mmEq> [1376gr]
Long Reach:
Nikon Z30 + 180-600Z + 1.4TC <270-1260mmEq> [3001gr]

This solution is well under the 4000$. The budget OP exposed.

Subject recognition:
Zf + lenses <Fx or Dx mode> [Add 310gr to the Z30 weights]

Lenses for Zf:
24-120Z + 180-600Z > getting something used you stay under 4000$
not cheap but you have a fantastic body and a TWO LENSES KIT with a huge useful range >24-1260mmEq<

( Like a Z8 on the cheap side, but with impressive performance )

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[splatbass]

I use the OM-1/Oly100-400 and I can recommend it. Small and light (comparatively), I switched from Nikon due to rheumatoid arthritis issues and love it.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

My recommendation is an OM-1 mark 1, available for about $1900 new and about $1200 used. I would pair it with a 100-400 f/6.3 which sells new for $1300 new and about $800 used. I would get two high-speed SC XC UD-2 cards, 250 mb/sec write at a bit over $100 each and an OM Systems charger and extra battery. Hopefully, if you have a bit left over a TC 14 1.4 TC would round out your kit.

Regards,
Tom

 

[fcotterill]

Of interest, and wider relevance, from an interview with an OM System executive:

"Currently we are focusing on outdoor use photography," he says: "Based on our research findings, the number of outdoor photographers is expected to increase, or at least to stay stable."

OM System's focus on the outdoors leaves door open for PEN

OM System's focus on outdoor photography isn't just about wildlife and "adventurous" photography, its VP for Brand Strategy and Product Planning tells us.

www.dpreview.com

 

[realspeed]

Just bought the Panasonic G9 original version with the kit 12-60mm lens. Later on will get the Panasonic 100-300 mm lens to go with it. Does it really matter how old a camera model is if bought new anyway? first impressions I have to say it is a great camera and so different from my FF cameras.
below I don't think I could have got a better flower shot hand held , so judging by this I am happy with the camera

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[realspeed]

Ok had it for a few days now and found out a bit more. First the querky bits that may be overlooked. 1= getting a wireless remote shutter trigger switch Not as easy as one would think, the cable between the remote receiver and camera os a bit odd. It has to be a 2.5mm cable with a 4 pole plug on one end and a 3 pole plujg on the other Had to go to China for this and a spare cable just in case.
2= something I had not thought about and that is sensor cleaning, it need a 12mm spade end swab not the 24mm one for full frame cameras.

amazing thing is the digital zoom on the kit 12-60mm lens.
from 12mm to 4x digital zoom@ 60mm on a tripod with remote wireless trigger same position un edited

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Just one of the things this G9 can do let alone High speed bursts and pre shutter fully pressed photos as well if wanted ao as not to miss a moment

 

[PhotoLover]

If subject separation and background blur are what is of primary value to you, you need a full frame camera and an f4 lens. Usually that is an expensive and heavy proposition.

I had a D-500 (APSC cropped sensor) and a Nikon 500mm PF f/5.6 lens and my OM-1/300f4 takes better pictures. I have my doubts that even a Z-8/600pf f/6.3 would do better than the OM-1/300f4

I'm not disagreeing, since I've never even touched an OM-1, but in what way were the pictures from the OM-1/300f4 "better" than those taken with the D500 and 500 pf?

Better AF (so you could get more good BIF pictures)? Better low light performance (lower noise), sharper images? Etc.

 

[StefanSC]

@PhotoLover:

Of the hundreds if not thousands of images I saw made with a D500 and 500mm pf and the OM-1 and 300mm f4 (and 1.4x TC), image quality itself is a bit in favor of the Nikon set-up for most situations (backlight and subjects that are far away is where the Olympus setup seems to edge the Nikon one just a bit).

Where the OM-1 eats the Nikon's lunch is in how many keepers you get. The ability to go 25fps (or even 50) with a blackout free evf and the ease of initial subject acquisition thanks to the bird detection AF make it much easier to get better poses from both static and flying subjects.

Though there are a few situations where the Nikon D500 is a bit better AF wise (e.g: single point on a bird between reeds).

But overall the OM1 makes it much easier to get the shot you want compared to the D500.

One situation for example, a few days ago I was shooting with the Nikon D500 from a moving and bobbing boat and I really wished I had my OM-1 with me as I could have let it's AF track the birds and I would have focused on the action and the shots.


P.S: and yeah, I got an OM-1 and 300mm f4 and 1.4x TC for not much more than the price of a 500m PF and 6 months later I am very happy I went this route...

P.P.S: the ergonomics of the OM-1 are atrocious when compared to the D500 but then again it's got a lot more features...

 

[PhotoLover]

@PhotoLover:

Of the hundreds if not thousands of images I saw made with a D500 and 500mm pf and the OM-1 and 300mm f4 (and 1.4x TC), image quality itself is a bit in favor of the Nikon set-up for most situations (backlight and subjects that are far away is where the Olympus setup seems to edge the Nikon one just a bit).

Where the OM-1 eats the Nikon's lunch is in how many keepers you get. The ability to go 25fps (or even 50) with a blackout free evf and the ease of initial subject acquisition thanks to the bird detection AF make it much easier to get better poses from both static and flying subjects.

Though there are a few situations where the Nikon D500 is a bit better AF wise (e.g: single point on a bird between reeds).

But overall the OM1 makes it much easier to get the shot you want compared to the D500.

One situation for example, a few days ago I was shooting with the Nikon D500 from a moving and bobbing boat and I really wished I had my OM-1 with me as I could have let it's AF track the birds and I would have focused on the action and the shots.


P.S: and yeah, I got an OM-1 and 300mm f4 and 1.4x TC for not much more than the price of a 500m PF and 6 months later I am very happy I went this route...

P.P.S: the ergonomics of the OM-1 are atrocious when compared to the D500 but then again it's got a lot more features...

Then why bother with the bigger Nikons? From your description, except for the controls, it sounds like the OM-1 is better than at least the Nikon dSLRs for wildlife, along with being cheaper and lighter.

 

[StefanSC]

Basically because you can't get the look of a 400mm f2.8, 500mm and 600mm f4 lens on a D500 (or a FX camera) with m43rds *.

And because, if I really needed a zoom, I'd take a Sigma 150-600mm C over any of the m43rds 100-400s any day of the week **.

And because, compared to something like a Z8 or even a D850, which are more "jacks of all trades", the OM-1 is a bit of specialized speed camera.

* - technically you can finesse it using certain lenses and a speedbooster but you end up in a very compromised situation.
** - I can hand hold the ~4 pounds Sigma for a long period of time... not everybody can.

 

[PhotoLover]

Basically because you can't get the look of a 400mm f2.8, 500mm and 600mm f4 lens on a D500 (or a FX camera) with m43rds *.

And because, if I really needed a zoom, I'd take a Sigma 150-600mm C over any of the m43rds 100-400s any day of the week **.

And because, compared to something like a Z8 or even a D850, which are more "jacks of all trades", the OM-1 is a bit of specialized speed camera.

* - technically you can finesse it using certain lenses and a speedbooster but you end up in a very compromised situation.
** - I can hand hold the ~4 pounds Sigma for a long period of time... not everybody can.

My apologies for all the questions ... so what is the "look" you are referring to? I'm using a D500 and D7500 shooting mostly a 500 pf, sometimes a 100-400 Tamron, and less often, the Nikon 70-200. And they all sorta have the same look to me if I do my part on focus, shutter speed, etc and have a clean background. In particular, I don't have one of the exotics, like a 600 f4.

 

[StefanSC]

No need to apologize

The look I'm referring to is the shallow depth of field/ 3d pop / subject isolation capabilities of a larger sensor + fast glass.

I don't own any of the exotics but I've shot with them in the past and they always seem capable to melt the background and make the subject stand-out better. Unfortunately I don't have any images handy to help me make the point and it's hard to put into words ...

Using m43rds best wildlife lenses, you'll be getting the equivalent angle of view and depth of field to something like 400mm f5.6, 600mm f8, 800mm f9 in full-frame terms.
And while you can somewhat compensate for 1/2 to 2/3rds of a stop aperture difference by smart subject placement and choosing the background plus some post processing tricks, it means more work and it can only take you so far.

P.S:
Writing this post, I just got an idea on how to do make a clear example of the different looks of the different sensor sizes maybe I'll make a post in about it in the next few days...

 

[PhotoLover]

No need to apologize

The look I'm referring to is the shallow depth of field/ 3d pop / subject isolation capabilities of a larger sensor + fast glass.

I don't own any of the exotics but I've shot with them in the past and they always seem capable to melt the background and make the subject stand-out better. Unfortunately I don't have any images handy to help me make the point and it's hard to put into words ...

Using m43rds best wildlife lenses, you'll be getting the equivalent angle of view and depth of field to something like 400mm f5.6, 600mm f8, 800mm f9 in full-frame terms.
And while you can somewhat compensate for 1/2 to 2/3rds of a stop aperture difference by smart subject placement and choosing the background plus some post processing tricks, it means more work and it can only take you so far.

P.S:
Writing this post, I just got an idea on how to do make a clear example of the different looks of the different sensor sizes maybe I'll make a post in about it in the next few days...

If you are just making the "shallow depth of field is really cool" point and you can't get that very well with the OM gear no need to explain that point to me .

Though taken to an extreme, you can wind up with the viewpoint that unless you have a FF camera and a 600 f4 or faster lens, you can only get crap photos....

 

[StefanSC]

It's not about "shallow dof is really cool" ... is that depth of field control can be an important tool when creating an image as it plays an important role in keeping at least some of the spatiality that is lost when we flatten the 3D world in a 2D image.

And you give up some of that control when you go m43rds, or APS-C ... or FF as compared to Medium Format

 

[GrandNagus50]

People emphasize those particular factors that seem most important to them. If the "shallow DOF look" is essential to one's photography (as it apparently is), then not only do you have to go to a full frame system, you need to carry a large, wide-aperture telephoto AND use it wide open. I always wonder, what percentage of one's actual wildlife photos depend upon this particular shallow DOF phenomenon?

For many of us, the extra size/weight related to toting a 600mm f4 lens for the sake of that minority of photos with superb "bokeh" is a big darned deal. Yes, you "give up control" with lighter gear, but you are repaid in spades with portability, easier handling, and lower cost. Tradeoffs.

Meanwhile, way earlier in this thread I mentioned that longtime Zeiss rep Stephen Ingraham, who became the self-styled "Point and Shoot Wildlife Photography" guru, scrapped actual point and shoot cameras (he had used the Sony RX10IV) and then went to Olympus for a time. More recently, he has switched to using a Sony A6700 with the Tamron 50-400mm zoom lens. To me, this is no longer really "point and shoot," though he claims that is a "philosophy," not a literal equipment limitation.

I still own and use a Sony R10IV, which I will be taking to Italy on an upcoming trip with my wife, a trip where we will have a couple of mornings in wildlife areas but otherwise we will be walking, walking, walking around Italian cities and villages. I want to travel light, period.

I recently traveled to Guatemala, using my beloved high-end M43 rig: OM1 with Olympus 150-400mm zoom (plus teleconverters). This is an easy combination to travel with---my camera bag was/is a Mindshift Backlight 26L that travels as a carry-on, no questions asked, on all airlines, big and small. While there, my Guatemalan guide, who also uses Olympus (he has the 300mm f4 tele) told me that a well-known bird photographer whom I shall not name here dismisses M43 cameras as "toys." Hmmmmph. Truth be told, the day will come when, unless OM Systems steps up and develops or purchases an improved sensor from what it now employs, M43 will go the way of the big dinosaurs. But I have been told for five years or more now that M43 is "obsolete," and yet at this moment it is not.

I now use two different systems, M43 and Nikon. M43 travels better, no doubt about it. Full frame gives me a bigger, more cropable image and some subtle but real image advantages (better dynamic range, lower high ISO noise levels). If I can travel by full-size jet, particularly as flown by a US airline with few restrictions on carry-on luggage, I take the Nikon gear (usually these days it's the 800mm f6.3 plus 180-600 zoom, but sometimes still my aging 600mm f4GVR behemoth). On trips where I know I would have to gate check a full size camera bag (as in an upcoming trip to Bismarck, ND this June), I take the M43 gear.