Lightweight combination for bird/nature photography

[ricardo00]

For those proposing alternative setups, it would be useful to actually show their combined weights (lens plus camera). For the current gear of the OP, it is 2.5 plus 1.9 pounds.
Not sure how one can quantify "similar performance" at low light as the OP requested. My proposal of the 300mm PF plus the D500 is 1.5 plus 1.9 pounds, a saving of 1 pound. One can save another 0.5 pounds without losing any pixels by switching to the D7500. I have the used the D500 plus 300mm PF in low light many times. One time shown below was at ISO 6,400:

https://flic.kr/p/2aTPYrr

I would be curious to see other examples at low light (ie. the OM system, either the 10ii, etc.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

A D-500/300pf combo takes great pictures but the reach is limited. Yes, you are shooting a F4 lens whereas most other proposed combinations are shooting f6.3 or greater and possibly with a larger crop factor so the D-500/300pf will be better in low light but I found myself cropping a lot with that combo which is why the 300pf was almost never used. (I also had a 500pf.)

The combo that the op has and indicates he is happy with the image he gets is really not a great low light combo, so, for him an OM-1/100-400 or R7/100-500 would be better.

For low light shots I prefer the 300f4 on my OM-1. I would say the combo takes better pictures than my D-500/500pf did which is saying a lot. I did not use the 300pf enough to have enough experience to say how it compares.

My experience is that the issue for me in low light is dynamic range not noise. The OM-1 is already giving up a stop or so compared to a FF camera and I find the results at high ISO in low light not acceptable

 

[Lee R]

Here’s an ISO 3200 of a scorpion and an ISO 6400 of a black widow from the EM10ii.

 

[ricardo00]

Here’s an ISO 3200 of a scorpion and an ISO 6400 of a black widow from the EM10ii

Was a flash used in the first one? Not sure how to say this, but there is little detail in either shot.

 

[ricardo00]

A D-500/300pf combo takes great pictures but the reach is limited. Yes, you are shooting a F4 lens whereas most other proposed combinations are shooting f6.3 or greater and possibly with a larger crop factor so the D-500/300pf will be better in low light but I found myself cropping a lot with that combo which is why the 300pf was almost never used. (I also had a 500pf.)

The combo that the op has and indicates he is happy with the image he gets is really not a great low light combo, so, for him an OM-1/100-400 or R7/100-500 would be better.

For low light shots I prefer the 300f4 on my OM-1. I would say the combo takes better pictures than my D-500/500pf did which is saying a lot. I did not use the 300pf enough to have enough experience to say how it compares.

My experience is that the issue for me in low light is dynamic range not noise. The OM-1 is already giving up a stop or so compared to a FF camera and I find the results at high ISO in low light not acceptable

Maybe Tom you can add some weights? But would think that the OM-1 plus 300mm f/4 is quite a bit heavier than the D7500 plus the 300mm f/4. Yes all are compromises. Have many shots with the 300mm PF on various DX Nikon camera bodies, sometimes with a TC, sometimes without.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Yes the OM Systems 300f4 is 1270 grams if you remove the lens foot. The Nikon 300f4 is 1406 grams I assume with the lens foot so removing the foot should make the lenses almost equivalent in weight. However, the D-750 is considerably heaver, and larger, than the OM-1.

I had a D-7500 and I do not consider it in any way comparable to the OM-1.

 

[ricardo00]

Yes the OM Systems 300f4 is 1270 grams if you remove the lens foot. The Nikon 300f4 is 1406 grams I assume with the lens foot so removing the foot should make the lenses almost equivalent in weight. However, the D-750 is considerably heaver, and larger, than the OM-1.

I had a D-7500 and I do not consider it in any way comparable to the OM-1.

Think you looked up the wrong Nikon 300mm f/4. The Nikon 300mm f/4 PF is 755 g (without foot) not 1406g.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1111442-REG/nikon_2223_af_s_nikkor_300mm_f_4e.html/specs

And I never suggested a D750. It would make no sense? So not sure why you would add this to the discussion. It is heavy and only 24 MP on a full frame body. If that was the goal, then the Z6iii would be the one, full frame and 24 MP and much lighter then the D750 (about 150 grams heavier than the OM-1). So please don't substitute a heavier camera to make your point. It would be as if I suggested the OM-M1X instead of the OM-1.
Glad you are happy with the OM system. May one day be getting it. So far I can still hold and hike with my Z8. And not yet convinced of the weight savings for an equivalent result with the OM system.

 

[Lee R]

Was a flash used in the first one? Not sure how to say this, but there is little detail in either shot.

No the scorpion had a black light above it, black widow was in a dark corner, but that‘s a crop of a 16mp so for sure less detail in that. More so to get an idea of what the noise looks like at those ISO’s. Both of those were taken with cheap zoom lenses which aren’t the best resolution to begin with. I don’t have that OM10ii with me on travel but I could take some shots side by side with the Z8/Zf and 150-600 and 75-300 to get a better idea of the difference on the same subject.

Here’s the un cropped image. The OM10ii does have pretty terrible low light contrast detect autofocus which didn’t hit right on the spider, but it barely works at 0 EV and below on that camera. I’m sure the newer models are vastly improved there. This was more so to get an idea of noise at those ISO’s.

The prime lenses are significantly sharper than these inexpensive ones that got these insects. Noise wise it’s not bad at 3200-6400.

 

[ricardo00]

No the scorpion had a black light above it, black widow was in a dark corner, but that‘s a crop of a 16mp so for sure less detail in that. More so to get an idea of what the noise looks like at those ISO’s. Both of those were taken with cheap zoom lenses which aren’t the best resolution to begin with. I don’t have that OM10ii with me on travel but I could take some shots side by side with the Z8/Zf and 150-600 and 75-300 to get a better idea of the difference on the same subject.

Here’s the un cropped image.

Thanks for the details of your photo Lee! A side by side comparison of some test subject with detail would be great at low light!

 

[Juliette]

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).

Hi, I spent months and months exploring this same question. Posted here twice, rented, etc., etc. At the end as much as I wanted smaller, lighter - the compromises were not acceptable to me. The clincher though was the weight and balance issues. At the end of the day, the Nikon system - even with my small hands and tendinitis issues - was still not that much heavier if I chose the right lenses and whatever weight issues there were, Olympus OM-1 ended up being close to the same weight.

I also feel it's very much a personal decision and renting is a great way to figure out what you like.

Good luck!

 

[Juliette]

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.

This is an excellent set of options.

 

[fcotterill]

Replacing a D500 with a D7500 only reduces camera mass by 120g but throws out important features. It's a Consumer versus Pro ILC including AF system, dual cards, OVF, LCD, chassis etc and not least the custom menus undergird Handover AF (AFmode+AFOn). There's nothing to gain but plenty to lose.

There are still no serious updates in the DX format that perform as well as the D500 for wildlife. Hence the recurring internet discussion about a Z replacement of the D500, presenting Pro features at a price to attract DSLR upgraders and others for the Nikkor telephotos.

The Z6 III has powerful features for birding but the FX versus DX sensor resolution in pixels/ duck is an important difference compared to the D500. This is an important reason why the FX 300 PF + Teleconverter remains competitive in 2024 on DX for wildlife. If you choose to use the same combination on a Z MILC, there are zero AF performance penalties using the FTZ.

 

[Anjin San]

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.

I agree…way too many people get overly interested IMO in best at the expense of good enough…and for display output images are going to get downsampled as I noted…and then it doesn’t matter if the FF/pr8me is better in LR…because OQ wise it’s the same output image as something from a smaller sensor and zoom. Bokeh differences won’t be downsampled away…but the difference will become smaller between the two once downsampled. Me…almost all my images go on 5he travel blog so good enough is good enough. Back before I sold a bunch of stuff…I compared my 500PF with several of my Z lenses with and without the TC and while I could see differences at 2:1…they’re gone at 1024 pixels or whatever wide outside of background blur differences and there are many PP ways to help deal with that.