Lightweight combination for bird/nature photography

[Ronald Orenstein]

For some years I have been using a Nikon D500 with a Sigma 100-400 zoom and have been very happy with the results. However, at age 77 this combo is getting too heavy to carry (I travel a lot and spend part of each year in Malaysia where I am often shooting in forest interiors at high ISO levels). I would value advice on any lightweight combo that would give me similar performance at a lesser weight (my current combo weighs about 2 kg). I photograph mostly birds, flowers and insects (especially dragonflies). Is my best bet an OM1 system?

 

[Nimi]

For some years I have been using a Nikon D500 with a Sigma 100-400 zoom and have been very happy with the results. However, at age 77 this combo is getting too heavy to carry (I travel a lot and spend part of each year in Malaysia where I am often shooting in forest interiors at high ISO levels). I would value advice on any lightweight combo that would give me similar performance at a lesser weight (my current combo weighs about 2 kg). I photograph mostly birds, flowers and insects (especially dragonflies). Is my best bet an OM1 system?

OM is the wrong choice for high ISO shots. You'll be "advised" that the noise can be cleaned up, but in fact You'll end up with "plasticy" photos once you run it through denoise.

Your best bet is a lightweight FF sensor like the Z6iii in the Nikon ecosystem.

 

[jeffnles1]

I shoot Canon R7 and Canon RF 100-500.

You will receive as many suggestions as there are cameras out there. Canon, Nikon, Fuji, OM, Sony, you name it, someone shoots it and someone will tout the virtues of each brand / camera / lens combination with gusto. Best advice e, try a couple if you can rent them or have friends into photography and try out their camera. Find the one that feels best to you, has the controls in a good spot for you (ergonomics) and has the lens selection to enable the type of photography you desire. Other than nuance, the difference between brands is really minor and the differences between camera bodies these days isn't as great as the review videos would make you believe.

Check the weight of the lenses, check the weight of the camera bodies and compare to what you have today and go from there.

I know it's not the "get camera X and lens Y with tripod Z" you were hoping for but none of us can really answer the question for you, we can tell you what we have and you can run from that point.

Hope this helps. I am not trying to be snarky and hope it did not come off that way

Jeff

 

[Ronald Orenstein]

I appreciate what you say. Perhaps a better way to put my question would be to ask what is the lightest lens-camera combo that could replace my system without a serious loss of quality or performance? That should be more independent of my own subjective judgment (which, as you say, is best dealt with by testing the equipment personally).

 

[David Berry]

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

 

[JAJohnson]

I appreciate what you say. Perhaps a better way to put my question would be to ask what is the lightest lens-camera combo that could replace my system without a serious loss of quality or performance? That should be more independent of my own subjective judgment (which, as you say, is best dealt with by testing the equipment personally).

Ronald, I don't know the options offered camera brands very well other than Nikon. In Nikon mirrorless, as @Nimi said the Z6III is the lightest of the cameras with the most recent processor and autofocus capability. You could use Nikon's 100-400 lens but it's probably is heavier than you'd like (1435 g). There is a 28-400 lens, but it's f/8 from 200mm to 400mm. It's light (725 g), image quality is acceptable (in my opinion), but f/8 can be limiting (not great for lower light situations). The 70-180 f/2.8 is probably the best option. It's 795 g. To get near 400mm you need a 2.0xTC (270 g). That would get you to 360mm f/5.6.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[Nimi]

@Tom Reynolds has done excellent analysis on weight of body/lens combos including OM. He's an OM user and can speak with authority on its high ISO performance.

Probably worth looking at some Fujis as well. I don't think their AF is as good, but the make light bodies and have excellent glass.

 

[Ronald Orenstein]

Thanks! I’m new here - how do I access this?

 

[ricardo00]

For some years I have been using a Nikon D500 with a Sigma 100-400 zoom and have been very happy with the results. However, at age 77 this combo is getting too heavy to carry (I travel a lot and spend part of each year in Malaysia where I am often shooting in forest interiors at high ISO levels). I would value advice on any lightweight combo that would give me similar performance at a lesser weight (my current combo weighs about 2 kg). I photograph mostly birds, flowers and insects (especially dragonflies). Is my best bet an OM1 system?

One "quick fix" would be to substitute the 300mm PF f/4 lens for your Sigma 100-400mm. This would shave a pound off your current set up and allow you to shoot at f/4. It is a great lens and has short minimum focussing distance. Switching to a Nikon Z6 miii would lose pixels on your subject. It is possible that Nikon will bring out the D500 in a mirrorless version but, as a former D500 shooter, don't think there is a Nikon mirrorless equivalent.
Switching the the Canon R5ii as suggested by David is a nice way to go, though more expensive and would require learning the Canon controls.

 

[Lee R]

I have a OM10ii and 75-300 that’s my lightest kit. Eq. To 150-600, it’s tiny. In the middle between a K-3 and 60-250 and a D-750 with a Sigma 150-600 C.

The newer OM-5 and that lens is 758 grams.

ISO has been workable on the OM for me and it‘s a very easy setup to take with me.

Note I own the OM10ii a Zf and Z8 now. I kept the OM because it’s so portable and light.

 

[ricardo00]

I have a OM10ii and 75-300 that’s my lightest kit. Eq. To 150-600, it’s tiny. In the middle between a K-3 and 60-250 and a D-750 with a Sigma 150-600 C.

The newer OM-5 and that lens is 758 grams.

ISO has been workable on the OM for me and it‘s a very easy setup to take with me.

Note I own the OM10ii a Zf and Z8 now. I kept the OM because it’s so portable and light.

Is the OM10ii the OM-1 Mark II?

 

[Lee R]

Is the OM10ii the OM-1 Mark II?

OM10ii, about the size of the current OM-5. The OM-1 line is much larger. I would get the OM-5 today as the AF and other features are much nicer. I bought that OM-10ii @ 2016.

For me the OM-1 line is too large and I’d rather go with a full frame or APS-C body at that point. The OM10/5 line though are truly compact with the right lenses.

But if you don’t mind a bit extra weight and want the best AF and framerates (in the OM line) the OM-1ii and the compact 75-300 would be a much smaller kit and get you a 600mm reach. Total weight of about 1022 grams which is pretty light still.
Lens flickr page to get an idea of image quality.

Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm f4.8-6.7

A group for photos taken with Olympus's wonderful little Micro Four Thirds telephoto. The Mighty Atom of the big zoom world, this lens packs a 35mm equivalent focal length of 150-600mm into a lens smaller than most bottles of mineral water, and weighs only 430g. In the words of Olympus...

www.flickr.com

 

[Lee R]

Guys keep in mind the D500 and Sigma 100-400 is about 2015 grams. Many of these combos like a Z6iii and eq. are the same weight or barely reducing the weight.

I know max image quality would be a FF and lenses but it’s heavy.

I’m not sure there’s another way to get to a significant reduction in weight other than a focal length decrease to a 70-300 or OM system. OM at least can keep a long focal length. Yes it’s not the best for image quality but it’s still quite good.

I’ve found the non-pro line of OM to be the stuff that’s actually light weight, bonus being much less expensive, and some of them are really quite good for the price.

Here’s a fiddler crab with the $100 40-150 on the $600 OM-10ii for example. This one was maybe an inch wide.

 

[Nimi]

For some years I have been using a Nikon D500 with a Sigma 100-400 zoom and have been very happy with the results. However, at age 77 this combo is getting too heavy to carry (I travel a lot and spend part of each year in Malaysia where I am often shooting in forest interiors at high ISO levels). I would value advice on any lightweight combo that would give me similar performance at a lesser weight (my current combo weighs about 2 kg). I photograph mostly birds, flowers and insects (especially dragonflies). Is my best bet an OM1 system?

When you say "high ISO," how high are we talking?

 

[Tom Reynolds]

There are two lightweight combos that would meet your needs.

1-The OM-1 mk 2 and a 100-400 f/6.3 lens. Without the lens foot the camera/lens combo weighs in at 3.9# (This is the actual weight on my electronic scale with the hood, battery and two cards)

2-The Canon R-7 and a 100-400 F/6.8 lens. The published weight is 2.7# which makes it the lightest reasonable choice out there and it is significantly less expensive than the OM-1 combo.

My view is that there are lots of reasons to pick the OM-1 over the R-7 if you can handle the extra weight and cost.

What is similar:
1-I suspend my camera on a Black Rapids strap from the camera. The lens is light, and the combo hangs straight down so any torque on the camera/lens connection is minimal. I believe that you could do the same thing with the R7. This is a great way to easily carry a camera.
2-Reach and effective F/Stop are surprisingly similar. The OM-1 is 800mm of reach in FF terms where the R-7 is 640mm in FF terms, but the Canon sensor has 50% more pixels so you can crop down to the same magnification as the OM-1. If you do the math the OM-1 has an equivalent F-stop of 12.6 while the R-7 has an equivalent F/stop of 9.5 but when you crop down to equivalent magnification it becomes 12-6.

What is different:

Lenses
----------
The OM Systems lens is better by far than the Canon lens. When I tested both cameras, I had the excellent Cannon 100-500 lens attached and it appeared that the images were better on the OM-1 combo. (Take this with a grain of salt. Both combos have had upgrades to firmware and Photoshop capability since I did my comparison.) Unfortunately, that 100-500 lens weighs 3+# and costs $2700 so you lose all your weight and price advantage.

However, if I was considering the R-7 it would only be with the 100-500 f/7.1, and in fact, it was a close choice. I had both rigs and shot them side by side. Since then, I have upgraded to the OM-1 mk 2 and the increased buffer, autofocus and High -Res mode now would make my choice not close.

On the other hand, since we are considering alternatives, an OM Systems 300 f4 prime also weighs about 3# and would be your best bet for low-light photography. That is the combo I have, 100-400 and 300f4.

Finally, if money is no object, all the OM Pros use the unbelievable OM Systems 150-400 zoom with a built in 1.2 TC. Unfortunately, that combo weighs in at 6# which is above my ability.

Camera
--------
Don't listen to the full-frame guys prejudices. The crop factors of the OM-1 (2.0) and the R-7 (1.6) is what get the necessary magnification tor bird photography. I had a D-500 with both a 500pf and a 300pf and the 300pf was virtually never used. The best lightweight combo in the FF world is a Nikon Z-8 and a 600pf. Yes, it is 5+# and too heavy for me but will produce great pictures. The FF zooms are all simply too heavy for my taste. If you can handle the additional weight that is my choice although based on what you have said this combo is too heavy for you even now and it doesn't get easier. (Trust me on this. I am 83 and just had a hip replacement.)

OM-1 mk 2 versus Canon R-7
--------------------------------
The R-7 is considerably cheaper and has a 32mp sensor vs. a 24mp sensor BUT the OM-1 is a better camera in every other way. Autofocus is better and bird subject ID is better. The readout speed on the R-7 is slow while it is quite quick on the OM-1. The buffer is much, much larger and its pre-capture capabilities far advanced over the R-7. You will get shots with the OM-1 that you won't get with the R-7 or the Z-8 for that matter. I shoot the 100-400 lens @ 25 f/s and the 300f4 @ 50 f/s and I always shoot in pre-capture saving about 1/3 of a second in the pre-buffer in case something interesting happens. As you are not currently shooting a mirrorless camera you may not really appreciate what this does to your photography, but the results are dramatic and the R7 does not have either the buffer or the readout speed to shoot in this manner. You also have hand-held High-Res mode which will yield a 50MP image for stationary subjects.

Regards,

Tom

 

[fcotterill]

Ronald, I don't know the options offered camera brands very well other than Nikon. In Nikon mirrorless, as @Nimi said the Z6III is the lightest of the cameras with the most recent processor and autofocus capability. You could use Nikon's 100-400 lens but it's probably is heavier than you'd like (1435 g). There is a 28-400 lens, but it's f/8 from 200mm to 400mm. It's light (725 g), image quality is acceptable (in my opinion), but f/8 can be limiting (not great for lower light situations). The 70-180 f/2.8 is probably the best option. It's 795 g. To get near 400mm you need a 2.0xTC (270 g). That would get you to 360mm f/5.6.

Hope this is helpful.

I carry the Z 70-180 f2.8 for close ups and macros, and it weighs 795g. It certainly pairs surprisingly well with the ZTCs. So these optics will be a sound choices on a Z6 III

Nikon Z walk-around, general travel lens recommendations

We'll be traveling to India for what will primarily be a wildlife photography trip that will also include some street scene, architecture and portrait opportunities. I carry a Z9 and am considering the Z24-120mm f/4S for the non-wildlife photography. (I have the Z24-70mm for landscapes and long...

bcgforums.com

My 0.02c is to test a 755g 300 f4E PF Nikkor, which continues to hold its own for ergonomics and optical quality. It pairs well with all 3 F-mount Teleconverters, even the TC17 II and especially the TC14 III. At most a 300 PF + TC2 III still weighs < 1.1kg only.

Note using a Teleconverter combination with MILC AF, including Z6 III, obviates the need for focus tuning.

Although you need a FTZ adapter on a Z6, I don't know of a lighter telephoto solution, considering the options of a 400 f4.5S (1260g), 500 f5.6E PF (1460g) or 600 f6.3S PF at 1390g

I further suggest to keep the D500, which weighs only 160g more than the Olympus OM-1

Nikon 300mm AF-S F/4 PF ED VR lens review

I recently upgraded from a nikon D7500 to a D850. I'm still using my tamron 150-600g2. I never shot with a prime lens and was thinking of a getting a nikon 300 to start. I like the idea of the light weight PF model, but I read a lot of mixed reviews. I often carry my camera while kayaking...

bcgforums.com

 

[Marcepan]

My vote is for the Nikkor 300 F4 PF + Nikon D7500 set (1.47 kg)

A very light, fast and responsive combo - most importantly, with exceptionally good image quality.

I have been using 300 PF for a long time. It worked with several cameras at my place. The cameras have changed, but the lens... is still the same.
I still have it today. In a few days, he will travel with me again for a photo session.
I took many of my best shots with it.

Here, for example, two angry hornets:

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

 

[StefanSC]

Perhaps a better way to put my question would be to ask what is the lightest lens-camera combo that could replace my system without a serious loss of quality or performance?

Sony's A6700 with the E-mount Sigma 100-400mm would be the closes equivalent to what you have now and it comes in at 1.6kg (so about 400g lighter).

Panasonic's G9II with the Panasonic-Leica 50-200mm f2.8-f4 and 1.4x TC would be second closest to what you have now and it comes at about 1.4kg. But man that Leica lens is expensive for what it is and the 1.4x TC is so hard to find.

Sony's RX10 IV would be my third pick at about 1kg, trading off sensor size for lens brightness to maintain comparable light gathering abilities to what you have now.

Other options: Nikon Z50 or Fuji X-H2s with the Nikon 300mm f4 PF but you end up having to faff around with adapters and your AF-C will be ho-hum.

Finally, if you don't use it already, a BlackRapid RS-7 or similar camera strap. It works wonders for carrying heavy gear when hiking.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

"For some years I have been using a Nikon D500 with a Sigma 100-400 zoom and have been very happy with the results."

Looking up your camera-lens combo the combo weight about 4.6 pounds and has a FF equivariant reach of 600mm (400 x 1.5) and has an effective F/stop equivalent of 9.45 (6.3 x 1.5) with a 20mp sensor. You are saying that you have been "very happy with the results." These specs indicate a very light combo with limited reach and not good low light capability as compared to the standards of most photographers here.

I would not worry about low light issues, and I would not worry about sensor size.

 

[Anjin San]

While I’m currently shooting Z8s…I have to admit they’re heavier than I would like them to be. And TBH…the various discussions about frame size and crop factor and relative high ISO performance are technically absolutely correct. But…and there’s always a but…I have to suggest that in addition to all of that one should consider an additional factor in a decision…the question of “does it really matter?”

For a pro like Steve or somebody making money in s9me fashion with photography…sure, it matters because their income depends on reputation so getting the absolute best makes sense, plus it’s business related so depreciation and business expense deductions can come into play. For really, really serious amateurs…it can make sense but less than for a pro…if they’re willing to accept the drawbacks that come with best like cost and weight and flexibility. For a lot of people…they want nice images of the GBH or lion or bighorn sheep to use for digital display or prints smaller than poster size. For those people…the benefits of best are far lower and the final images at output pretty much the same quality for both best and less than best. And less than best may be smaller and lighter or more flexible or allow more stuff on the hike and that is ok…remember, better is the enemy of good enough.

Truth is…for a significantly large majority of photographers IMO…any current frame size is plenty good enough if coupled with good lenses which is an important factor…and while I’m not trading in my Z8s yet…as I continue to age light has a quality all its own…and if that increases my enjoyment in the field and still gives good results for the blog…then why not? Software continues to improve…and while the $15K f2.8 lens gives great bokeh…I would be willing to bet that for most users noise reduction and lens blur features applied to the same shot with different gear will produce display images or prints that most people will not see a difference in. I have never shown an image to somebody of an interesting critter doing something interesting and had them reply that a blurrier background would make a better shot. Maybe I’m looking t all of this “image quality” stuff with the wrong attitude though.

 

[Lee R]

While I’m currently shooting Z8s…I have to admit they’re heavier than I would like them to be. And TBH…the various discussions about frame size and crop factor and relative high ISO performance are technically absolutely correct. But…and there’s always a but…I have to suggest that in addition to all of that one should consider an additional factor in a decision…the question of “does it really matter?”

For a pro like Steve or somebody making money in s9me fashion with photography…sure, it matters because their income depends on reputation so getting the absolute best makes sense, plus it’s business related so depreciation and business expense deductions can come into play. For really, really serious amateurs…it can make sense but less than for a pro…if they’re willing to accept the drawbacks that come with best like cost and weight and flexibility. For a lot of people…they want nice images of the GBH or lion or bighorn sheep to use for digital display or prints smaller than poster size. For those people…the benefits of best are far lower and the final images at output pretty much the same quality for both best and less than best. And less than best may be smaller and lighter or more flexible or allow more stuff on the hike and that is ok…remember, better is the enemy of good enough.

Truth is…for a significantly large majority of photographers IMO…any current frame size is plenty good enough if coupled with good lenses which is an important factor…and while I’m not trading in my Z8s yet…as I continue to age light has a quality all its own…and if that increases my enjoyment in the field and still gives good results for the blog…then why not? Software continues to improve…and while the $15K f2.8 lens gives great bokeh…I would be willing to bet that for most users noise reduction and lens blur features applied to the same shot with different gear will produce display images or prints that most people will not see a difference in. I have never shown an image to somebody of an interesting critter doing something interesting and had them reply that a blurrier background would make a better shot. Maybe I’m looking t all of this “image quality” stuff with the wrong attitude though.

This^. I own a Z8 and an older OM10ii with 75-300, it still takes plenty good enough images. If I bought today I’d get the OM5 and that lens for a compact light wildlife setup that you can easily pack and take anywhere. Plus the inexpensive non pro M43 lenses can take really nice shots and are feather light. As soon as you step to the OM-1 and pro glass it gets way larger and way heavier, also way more expensive.

So you have to ask what level of image quality do you demand, because OM cameras won’t match a FF and top level Prime, but they are not that far off and they’re way more likely to be grabbed on the way out the door because of how small and light it is.

Many of the suggestions here are fantastic camera combos but are just as heavy and bulky as the D500 and 100-400 listed in the opening comment which was a request to go lighter for the least image quality impact. So under 2000 grams for the combo. OM gets you to half that weight or less for I think an acceptable image quality reduction. The R7 with 100-500 or Z6iii with 100-400 is basically right at square one with the D500 combo weight.

 

[joe43]

Here are some options for Nikon mirrorless with a Z6iii. Using the Nikon F mount 300mm f4 pf is the only option that reduces the total weight below 2.0 kg.

Z6iii + 600mm f6.3 S prime = 2.23 kg

Z6iii + 100-400mm S = 2.195 kg

Z6iii + 400mm f4.5 S prime = 2.0 kg

Z6iii + Nikon 300mm f4 pf + ftz ii adapter = 1.64 kg

My walk around light weight kit is my D500 + the 300mm f4 pf. I now have the Z9 and the 100-400mm S and that sometimes replaces the D500 and the 300mm f4. I am 81 so I share your concerns for a good kit for walk around nature photography. The OM system is an option some of my friends have gone to.

 

[Lee R]

Here are some options for Nikon mirrorless with a Z6iii. Using the Nikon F mount 300mm f4 pf is the only option that reduces the total weight below 2.0 kg.

Z6iii + 600mm f6.3 S prime = 2.23 kg

Z6iii + 100-400mm S = 2.195 kg

Z6iii + 400mm f4.5 S prime = 2.0 kg

Z6iii + Nikon 300mm f4 pf + ftz ii adapter = 1.64 kg

My walk around light weight kit is my D500 + the 300mm f4 pf. I now have the Z9 and the 100-400mm S and that sometimes replaces the D500 and the 300mm f4. I am 81 so I share your concerns for a good kit for walk around nature photography. The OM system is an option some of my friends have gone to.

I would include the 70-300 Tamron for Nikon Z as it would be a 1.25kg combo with the Z6iii.

 

[TurtleCat]

Everything comes with a compromise of some sort unfortunately. I think a Nikon Z50 (or Z50 mark 2 if it comes soon) and a 70-300 lens would get you where you want to be but without subject detection. A Fuji X-T5 and their 70-300 would also be very good.

 

[Doug Herr]

…I would be willing to bet that for most users noise reduction and lens blur features applied to the same shot with different gear will produce display images or prints that most people will not see a difference in. I have never shown an image to somebody of an interesting critter doing something interesting and had them reply that a blurrier background would make a better shot. Maybe I’m looking t all of this “image quality” stuff with the wrong attitude though.

I dislike being told what I should / should not care about. My phototographs, my choice.