Gear choice upgrade for birds

[orangecafe]

There are multiple ways to approach this.

First off, try to shoot in better light.
If the light is poor (like dark overcast winter days), even the biggest sensor with the best lens will struggle to produce good shots.

Second, check how you use the AI Denoise.
I find that using it at full 100 setting leads to overly aggressive NR and a plasticky look to images. Dial it down to less values.
Also, I'm finding that for many images the classic NR works quite well if the ISO < 3200.

Third, check other NR tools.
For example DXOs Pure Raw 3 integrates with Lightroom as a plug-in these days and can output some decent results, in some cases better than Adobe's AI Denoise.

Fourth, look at a better, faster lens.
After all, the AI Denoise is just a piece of software so the better the input, the better the output, right?
And, while not a bad lens, the Olympus 100-400 is not the greatest lens ever, and at f6.3 is would be considered a slow lens for FF cameras...

As others have said above, the Olympus/OMDS 300mm f4 is the prime choice. Not only it will be much sharper than your 100-400 but it's 1.3 stops faster, so you'll go from ISO 3200 to ISO1250 for the same shutter speed.

Btw, here's how an OM1 with the 300mm f4 @ f4, ISO3200, 1/750s looks like, before and after Adobe AI Denoise at 50%:

View attachment 75950

Also, same shot denoised with DXO PureRAW 3 (left) vs Adobe AI Denoise (right)

View attachment 75951

Finally, there is the option to moving to a larger sensor.

Be it APS-C from Fuji, Sony or Canon or FF from Nikon, Sony or Canon.

The issue here is that depending on what camera and

Thanks so much for this feedback and photo examples! Do you find the 300mm gets you close enough? The way I shoot now, I’m uncertain if it would be. That may be a goal.

I’m considering moving to a larger sensor if it doesn’t, as you suggest, fail to move the needle in a positive direction for me. I am in the process of looking up the specs:

I own OM-1, 20 MP. 100-400mm f5-6.3
I own Tamron 150-600 G2 (Would buying a Canon R7 be an upgrade or not be redundant to the OM-1 system?) My Nikon D500 eventually malfunctioned.

Z8 46 MP, 2lbs $3656
180-600mm f5.6-6.3 $1696
Total $5352

Canon R7 33 MP
100-500mm f4.5-7.1 $2,399.
200-800mm 4.5lbs $1,899 f6.3-9. Pre-order
3lbs
Total $3248

 

[orangecafe]

I agree. That's why my recommendation is the 300f4 mounted on the OM-1 currently owned. Attached is a shots taken with theOM-1/300f4. In my view it is as sharp as it gets. Hard to see online I know but obvious on my wall printer @ 300DPI/ 11'x14"/ on glossy metal by Bay photo.View attachment 75942

 

[StefanSC]

Thanks so much for this feedback and photo examples! Do you find the 300mm gets you close enough? The way I shoot now, I’m uncertain if it would be. That may be a goal.

I was shooting up until recently the Nikon D500 and Sigma 150-600mm C and 300mm f4+ TC14x.

What I am finding with the 300mm f4 that, between the faster aperture and the sharper lens, I can crop much more aggressively than with the other two lenses.

For example (the Nikon setup is at f8 to eek out maximum sharpness out of the lens, the OM is at f4):

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

And 100% crop:

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

So, for me, the quality of the Olympus more than makes up for it's shorter focal length.
And keep in mind I'm talking about 900mm-equivalent FOV compared to the 800mm-equivalent FOV of the Oly 100-400.

Also, the 300mm f4 takes the 1.4x and 2x TCs quite well of what I've seen so this would more than make up for the lack of reach.

 

[tclune]

Nikon D500 + 200-500 is $3600, 5-6 lbs

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

If you're willing to get used equipment, you can get a D500 and a 500mm f/5.6 pf, both in excellent condition with guarantees from mpb or keh for about half of your budget. The weight of the 500 pf is nearly two pounds less than the 200-500, it's a sharper lens and focuses much more quickly. I can't hand-hold the 200-500 for very long, but I can hand-hold the 500 without problem for an entire outing. I don't know about the other rigs you are considering, but I shoot with the D500 and either the 500 or 200-500. I have no complaints about that equipment and no plans to upgrade from it. If you get the 500 pf, you might also like to get the version III of the 1.4 TC to go with it for small birds in good light. FWIW

 

[orangecafe]

Great shot. Looks like Bem Ti Ve Brazil. Great Kiskadee

 

[ARClark]

If you're willing to get used equipment, you can get a D500 and a 500mm f/5.6 pf, both in excellent condition with guarantees from mpb or keh for about half of your budget. The weight of the 500 pf is nearly two pounds less than the 200-500, it's a sharper lens and focuses much more quickly. I can't hand-hold the 200-500 for very long, but I can hand-hold the 500 without problem for an entire outing. I don't know about the other rigs you are considering, but I shoot with the D500 and either the 500 or 200-500. I have no complaints about that equipment and no plans to upgrade from it. If you get the 500 pf, you might also like to get the version III of the 1.4 TC to go with it for small birds in good light. FWIW

Good comments. I would add that version ii of the 1.4x TC should also suffice and save a few more dollars. My understanding from this limited Photography Life review is that the iii version may be most effective with the newest high end primes, and that there might not be much of a difference with other lenses like the 500 PF. Another review mentioned that the iii had a flourine coating that might be desirable. I haven't seen any obvious IQ/sharpness differences using both the ii and iii versions on my 500 PF.

Nikon TC-14E III vs TC-14E II Performance Comparison

photographylife.com

I'm not aware of an update to this article.

 

[orangecafe]

M43 sensor is a much smaller sensor. The factor is 2x (ignoring the differences between the 4:3 ratio of M43 and the 3:2 ratio of most other systems). You are currently shooting a FF 12MP camera. OM-1 is a 20MP M43 sensor. Pixel density would be similar to an 80MP FF sensor!!

The FOV of a given lens is 2x what it is on your D700. You currently have up to a 600mm FOV with your lens. You would get that same 600mm FOV with a 300mm lens on the M43 system. However, there is no free lunch. The resulting DOF for a given aperture also has to be adjusted by 2 stops. So if you put the 300 f/4 lens on the OM-1 that would give you a similar image to a 600 f/8 lens on your D700. Currently you have 600 f/6.3 out of your Tamron lens. So a little more DOF and a little less subject isolation compared to what you ahve now. Also the OM-1 is letting in 2x less light so even though you are at f/4 for light gathering your noise performance would be ~2stops worse than f/4 on FF...but you are already using 1 1/3 stops worse so you aren't too far off. The much more modern sensor of the OM-1 would probably offset some of that noise performance anyways.

I think the OM-1 with 300/4 lens (or the 100-400) maybe with 1.4TC would be a really good option. OM-1 has excellent AF and Subject detection...probably as good as any of the other big FF cameras like A1, R5, Z9.

I purchased the OM-1 with 100-400mm lens. Just frustrated in low light and grain that needs to be adjusted in post, rendering the image too smooth for me at times. I would like to compensate for this with perhaps the 300mm (?) but I’m very used to Zoom. Although I am usually shooting at the highest end of the zoom.

 

[orangecafe]

I was shooting up until recently the Nikon D500 and Sigma 150-600mm C and 300mm f4+ TC14x.

What I am finding with the 300mm f4 that, between the faster aperture and the sharper lens, I can crop much more aggressively than with the other two lenses.

For example (the Nikon setup is at f8 to eek out maximum sharpness out of the lens, the OM is at f4):

View attachment 75973

And 100% crop:

View attachment 75976

So, for me, the quality of the Olympus more than makes up for it's shorter focal length.
And keep in mind I'm talking about 900mm-equivalent FOV compared to the 800mm-equivalent FOV of the Oly 100-400.

Also, the 300mm f4 takes the 1.4x and 2x TCs quite well of what I've seen so this would more than make up for the lack of reach.

So you like the 300mm and the f4 in your opinion would give me (noticeably??) more light than my 100-400mm f5-6.3?

 

[Tom Reynolds]

So you like the 300mm and the f4 in your opinion would give me (noticeably??) more light than my 100-400mm f5-6.3?

More light and greater stabilization with a small weight penalty. If you add the 1.4TC you get slightly more magnification, a stop less light and slightly more weight. If you shoot the 300f4 and then crop it saves the weight penalty.

The m43 sensor costs you about 2 stops of light, maybe a bit less, maybe a bit more. That's physics.

A Full-frame lens will add about 2# weight, maybe a bit less, maybe a bit more. That's also physics.

The m43 sensor doubles the effective magnification and doubles the effective fstop.

In comparing zooms your realistic choices for birds are:
1-Sony A1/200-600 zoom F/6.3
2-Nikon D-8/180-600 zoom F/6.3
3-OM-1/150-400 zoom F/4.5
4-Canon R-7/100-500 zoom f/7.1
5-OM-1/100-400 zoom F/6.3

For light weight #5, which you have is the lightest by far. I purchased the Canon R-7/100-500 and shot it side by side with the OM-1/100-400. I liked the OM-1 combo better but it was personal preference. I don't think you get an advantage over what you already have.

Of #1, #2 and #3, #3 is lightest but is 6#. That lens is also expensive but has a built in 1.2TC which is cool. #1 also has the m4s sensor. The wider aperture of the lens gains back 1/2 a stop and the lens is sharper than either #2 or #3. So, the tradeoff between #1 and either #2 or #3 is less weight, less light, more dollars and better optics.

Between #2 and #3, this discussion has been going on for a couple of years. Steve's lens tests seem to say both zooms are about equal but inferior to the Nikon primes he tested them against. The Sony A1 is 1/2# lighter than the D-800. Which camera is better, I can't say. The Nikon is cheaper.

The obvious work around is the OM Systems 300f4 and get closer. As long as you can reasonably fill the frame with the 300f4 it will yield better IQ than any zoom choice but #3 (OM Systems 150-400). However, a 600pf/Z-8 might get even better IQ or maybe not.

 

[orangecafe]

More light and greater stabilization with a small weight penalty. If you add the 1.4TC you get slightly more magnification, a stop less light and slightly more weight. If you shoot the 300f4 and then crop it saves the weight penalty.

The m43 sensor costs you about 2 stops of light, maybe a bit less, maybe a bit more. That's physics.

A Full-frame lens will add about 2# weight, maybe a bit less, maybe a bit more. That's also physics.

The m43 sensor doubles the effective magnification and doubles the effective fstop.

In comparing zooms your realistic choices for birds are:
1-Sony A1/200-600 zoom F/6.3
2-Nikon D-8/180-600 zoom F/6.3
3-OM-1/150-400 zoom F/4.5
4-Canon R-7/100-500 zoom f/7.1
5-OM-1/100-400 zoom F/6.3

For light weight #5, which you have is the lightest by far. I purchased the Canon R-7/100-500 and shot it side by side with the OM-1/100-400. I liked the OM-1 combo better but it was personal preference. I don't think you get an advantage over what you already have.

Of #1, #2 and #3, #3 is lightest but is 6#. That lens is also expensive but has a built in 1.2TC which is cool. #1 also has the m4s sensor. The wider aperture of the lens gains back 1/2 a stop and the lens is sharper than either #2 or #3. So, the tradeoff between #1 and either #2 or #3 is less weight, less light, more dollars and better optics.

Between #2 and #3, this discussion has been going on for a couple of years. Steve's lens tests seem to say both zooms are about equal but inferior to the Nikon primes he tested them against. The Sony A1 is 1/2# lighter than the D-800. Which camera is better, I can't say. The Nikon is cheaper.

The obvious work around is the OM Systems 300f4 and get closer. As long as you can reasonably fill the frame with the 300f4 it will yield better IQ than any zoom choice but #3 (OM Systems 150-400). However, a 600pf/Z-8 might get even better IQ or maybe not.

Amazing break down. Thank you. I may try shooting at 300mm without the option of zoom to see how that feels. I will revisit this more tomorrow.

 

[orangecafe]

More light and greater stabilization with a small weight penalty. If you add the 1.4TC you get slightly more magnification, a stop less light and slightly more weight. If you shoot the 300f4 and then crop it saves the weight penalty.

The m43 sensor costs you about 2 stops of light, maybe a bit less, maybe a bit more. That's physics.

A Full-frame lens will add about 2# weight, maybe a bit less, maybe a bit more. That's also physics.

The m43 sensor doubles the effective magnification and doubles the effective fstop.

In comparing zooms your realistic choices for birds are:
1-Sony A1/200-600 zoom F/6.3
2-Nikon D-8/180-600 zoom F/6.3
3-OM-1/150-400 zoom F/4.5
4-Canon R-7/100-500 zoom f/7.1
5-OM-1/100-400 zoom F/6.3

For light weight #5, which you have is the lightest by far. I purchased the Canon R-7/100-500 and shot it side by side with the OM-1/100-400. I liked the OM-1 combo better but it was personal preference. I don't think you get an advantage over what you already have.

Of #1, #2 and #3, #3 is lightest but is 6#. That lens is also expensive but has a built in 1.2TC which is cool. #1 also has the m4s sensor. The wider aperture of the lens gains back 1/2 a stop and the lens is sharper than either #2 or #3. So, the tradeoff between #1 and either #2 or #3 is less weight, less light, more dollars and better optics.

Between #2 and #3, this discussion has been going on for a couple of years. Steve's lens tests seem to say both zooms are about equal but inferior to the Nikon primes he tested them against. The Sony A1 is 1/2# lighter than the D-800. Which camera is better, I can't say. The Nikon is cheaper.

The obvious work around is the OM Systems 300f4 and get closer. As long as you can reasonably fill the frame with the 300f4 it will yield better IQ than any zoom choice but #3 (OM Systems 150-400). However, a 600pf/Z-8 might get even better IQ or maybe not.

Did you mean Nikon Z-8? vs D-8?

 

[ricardo00]

Did you mean Nikon Z-8? vs D-8?

There is no such thing as a D8, so it is a Z8. Also, think there are some other mistakes in the comments of Tom? He says the "#1 also has the m4s sensor. " The #1 he lists is the Sony A1, a full frame sensor? Not sure what he is referring to? And the discussion on # 2 and # 3 could not have been going on for a couple of years since the Nikon lens was just released? And think he meant again the Nikon Z8 when he said Nikon D 800?
The bottom line there are lots of choices. The Nikon Z8 and 500mm PF or now the 600mm PF make a terrific light weight full frame package if you are willing to give up the zoom but still much heavier than an OM-1 and 100-400mm (but comparable to an OM-1 and 150-400mm).

 

[orangecafe]

There is no such thing as a D8, so it is a Z8. Also, think there are some other mistakes in the comments of Tom? He says the "#1 also has the m4s sensor. " The #1 he lists is the Sony A1, a full frame sensor? Not sure what he is referring to? And the discussion on # 2 and # 3 could not have been going on for a couple of years since the Nikon lens was just released? And think he meant again the Nikon Z8 when he said Nikon D 800?
The bottom line there are lots of choices. The Nikon Z8 and 500mm PF or now the 600mm PF make a terrific light weight full frame package if you are willing to give up the zoom but still much heavier than an OM-1 and 100-400mm (but comparable to an OM-1 and 150-400mm).

Thank you.

 

[orangecafe]

There is no such thing as a D8, so it is a Z8. Also, think there are some other mistakes in the comments of Tom? He says the "#1 also has the m4s sensor. " The #1 he lists is the Sony A1, a full frame sensor? Not sure what he is referring to? And the discussion on # 2 and # 3 could not have been going on for a couple of years since the Nikon lens was just released? And think he meant again the Nikon Z8 when he said Nikon D 800?
The bottom line there are lots of choices. The Nikon Z8 and 500mm PF or now the 600mm PF make a terrific light weight full frame package if you are willing to give up the zoom but still much heavier than an OM-1 and 100-400mm (but comparable to an OM-1 and 150-400mm).

Pretty convinced next step at some point is the Z8. But are you saying the OM-1 150-400mm is comparable to the Z8? Again, trying to find another solution for cloudy days basically since I am getting very picky about the IQ.

 

[ricardo00]

Pretty convinced next step at some point is the Z8. But are you saying the OM-1 150-400mm is comparable to the Z8? Again, trying to find another solution for cloudy days basically since I am getting very picky about the IQ.

I am saying that the Z8 plus a 600mm PF weighs about the same as the OM-1 150-400mm. Not comparing the quality of the photos or the positives or negatives on focus acquisition, noise, etc. Purely weight (and cost). The OM system weighs 5.44 pounds (and costs about $9,300) versus Nikon weighing 5.2 pounds (costs $8,600) (assuming my math is correct). I don't know how they would compare noise wise, focus wise, etc. I contemplate some day renting the OM system to compare but since I already own the Nikon system and their is no weight advantage, the primary advantage would be that the OM system is capable of zooming out whereas the Nikon system cannot.

 

[Andrew Lamberson]

I switched from Nikon to Sony a few years ago and I currently have the Sony a7r V and it is a truly amazing camera with outstanding autofocus on bird's eyes. If your arms and shoulder can take it the Sony 200-600 is a super birding lens. I have it and the 100-400 with a 1.4 Teleconverter in my pocket and it is my lens of choice if I have to carry a camera any distance.

That being said, if I had to do it again, I would probably go with the OM-1 with best Zoom you can afford. It gets outstanding reviews and there is a LOT of positives to go as light as possible!! It is also an A+ macro camera with their macro lens if you are into bugs. It even can do in camera image stacking for focus shift shooting of bugs (for example a 25 image stack from front to back of the bug for a perfectly focused bug.

BUT, The Nikon Z8 with the 180-600 gets very high reviews from Steve, and He is THE EXPERT !

Good luck making up your mind!!!

 

[orangecafe]

I am saying that the Z8 plus a 600mm PF weighs about the same as the OM-1 150-400mm. Not comparing the quality of the photos or the positives or negatives on focus acquisition, noise, etc. Purely weight (and cost). The OM system weighs 5.44 pounds (and costs about $9,300) versus Nikon weighing 5.2 pounds (costs $8,600) (assuming my math is correct). I don't know how they would compare noise wise, focus wise, etc. I contemplate some day renting the OM system to compare but since I already own the Nikon system and their is no weight advantage, the primary advantage would be that the OM system is capable of zooming out whereas the Nikon system cannot.

I se. Thank you.

 

[Andrew Lamberson]

So...just out of curiosity.... What did you pick? Or was all that info too overwhelming and you bought some new golf clubs instead?

 

[orangecafe]

So...just out of curiosity.... What did you pick? Or was all that info too overwhelming and you bought some new golf clubs instead?

I decided that the next purchases for me would be full frame with a long zoom. Not in place of the OM-1 but to use in lower light conditions when weight isn’t an issue (perhaps wouldn’t travel with the heavier gear) Maybe a prime but personally might need it to be a zoom. The main thing is full frame. I had a tight timeframe I was under but that is no longer the case so can wait. But I’ve learned a lot during this process.

 

[TNTphotos]

I decided that the next purchases for me would be full frame with a long zoom. Not in place of the OM-1 but to use in lower light conditions when weight isn’t an issue (perhaps wouldn’t travel with the heavier gear) Maybe a prime but personally might need it to be a zoom. The main thing is full frame. I had a tight timeframe I was under but that is no longer the case so can wait. But I’ve learned a lot during this process.

Long zooms on Nikon or Sony will get you to 600mm f/6.3. You'd need to crop to match the FoV of 400mm on OM-1 and that'd negate the sensor size advantage which means you'd gain absolutely nothing when shooting in low light. Not sure what you based your decision on but you can certainly try it out.

On the other hand, a faster lens (f/4, f/2.8 or faster) on any system will bring substantially higher image quality or faster shutter speed.

You can also leverage the OM-1's great IBIS capability and shoot at slower shutter speed. Lens IS on the 100-400 zoom is not very good so switch it off in order to use the OM-1's IBIS which is effective with this lens down to 1/25s -1/40s.

 

[orangecafe]

Long zooms on Nikon or Sony will get you to 600mm f/6.3. You'd need to crop to match the FoV of 400mm on OM-1 and that'd negate the sensor size advantage which means you'd gain absolutely nothing when shooting in low light. Not sure what you based your decision on but you can certainly try it out.

On the other hand, a faster lens (f/4, f/2.8 or faster) on any system will bring substantially higher image quality or faster shutter speed.

You can also leverage the OM-1's great IBIS capability and shoot at slower shutter speed. Lens IS on the 100-400 zoom is not very good so switch it off in order to use the OM-1's IBIS which is effective with this lens down to 1/25s -1/40s.

Thank you. Will explore these ideas and the IS switch off.

 

[Nimi]

Thank you. Will explore these ideas and the IS switch off.

Cropping is just one factor and not as important than the inherent dynamic range of the sensor which decreases exponentially with sensor size. That's what you experienced and your decision to move to FF will greatly improve your low-light (and most other) shots.

 

[orangecafe]

Cropping is just one factor and not as important than the inherent dynamic range of the sensor which decreases exponentially with sensor size. That's what you experienced and your decision to move to FF will greatly improve your low-light (and most other) shots.

Thanks. I think what’s missing from discussions like these is people’s satisfaction level and what they are trying to achieve. The galleries help a lot. FF has to be better for capturing more light and since I have a new tripod but haven’t adjusted quite yet to it (ever?) light and stability are important to what I’m trying to achieve. That is, some may be satisfied with one thing while another would not be. At any rate, I appreciate all of the feedback and technical information.

 

[tclune]

...the inherent dynamic range of the sensor which decreases exponentially with sensor size.

?????

 

[Nimi]

?????

Dynamic range is measured in stops, which is an exponential scale. Approximately a stop per sensor size change, meaning doubling. Two stop, quadrupling.