What ISO are you hoping to shoot? That, in large part, would determine whether you're "locked" into full-frame? Denoising has become better, but as @Tom Reynolds mentioned above, exposure latitude might be as important (maybe more) as noise.
Lightweight combination for bird/nature photography
- Thread starter Ronald Orenstein
- Start date
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).
O
Well-known member
If you concerned at age 77, i think going forward may become another consideration so.........a different twist.......
What is your fitness level currently, can you build strength or muscles, often i see club members loosing muscle strength which also effects many people in later life, mostly as the body's ability to absorb protein properly greatly diminishes. Adi quit Protein intake, exercise, can make a profound difference.
Using a light smaller mono pod is very popular with birders, hikers, and is very useful and effective image quality wise, and its easier to carry your gear over your shoulder.
If your shooting in lower light at higher iso then as Nimi says the OM isn't a real solution as much as a Z6III would be or in my opinion even a ZF would deliver as the lightest Nikon option.
Whichever way you cut it, yes you can reduce gear weight, but with what compromise, and can you buy your way out of the issue rather than going to the source and looking at what solutions exist physically with strength building that has far more other reaching benefits as well.
Only an opinion
What is your fitness level currently, can you build strength or muscles, often i see club members loosing muscle strength which also effects many people in later life, mostly as the body's ability to absorb protein properly greatly diminishes. Adi quit Protein intake, exercise, can make a profound difference.
Using a light smaller mono pod is very popular with birders, hikers, and is very useful and effective image quality wise, and its easier to carry your gear over your shoulder.
If your shooting in lower light at higher iso then as Nimi says the OM isn't a real solution as much as a Z6III would be or in my opinion even a ZF would deliver as the lightest Nikon option.
Whichever way you cut it, yes you can reduce gear weight, but with what compromise, and can you buy your way out of the issue rather than going to the source and looking at what solutions exist physically with strength building that has far more other reaching benefits as well.
Only an opinion
Last edited:
I currently shoot with Z9/Z8 with the 600TC (prior to that 400TC), 70-200mm, 100-400mm, 85mm 1.2 and 24-120mm. I was a heavy user of Olympus gear for number of years all the way up to the OM-1 + 150-400TC. I will say there are many times I can achieve the same results at high ISO (4000-6400) with the Olympus kit as I can with the Nikon gear. Keep in mind you have to nail it with the Olympus to give you the latitude in post that you would otherwise easily get out of a higher MP full frame sensor. One big advantages of M43 isn't so much the weight anymore as it is having less bulk (i.e.: girth) when it comes to long focal length lenses.
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.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Last edited:
I am about your age, and have used the D500 with 500PF for years . Getting heavy for me too. I bought a Nikon z6iii and a 28-400 lens. Very light and versatile. The lens is certainly not like my 600PF, but I can carry this kit anywhere., and it can come close in image quality. I use a Black rapid strap. This combo won't break the bank! The 300 PF is also an outstanding lens quality for your present camera, without needing the Z learning curve. But..it's not a zoom.
The first two photos are Raw , right out of the camera, the third was de-noised with Topaz. I usually do a bit of fine tuning with Raw images, but wanted to she these "as is"
The first two photos are Raw , right out of the camera, the third was de-noised with Topaz. I usually do a bit of fine tuning with Raw images, but wanted to she these "as is"
Attachments
Coming from a D500 (1.9lbs) which I had from release day until last February (I still have it, just passed it down to my son and before that a D7100 --> D300 --> D70). Your Sigma 100-400 weighs 2.55lbs making your total 4.45lbs. I love my Z8. But that does not solve your weight issue. The Z6III is a smaller body but also full frame which means you'll need more lens than a crop sensor. Unfortunately, Nikon's crop sensor offerings are not up to the competition which really bugs me because I have a friend looking to move from an old Canon Rebel and I just can't recommend a crop sensor Nikon. So, if you want a crop sensor, I would look at the Canon R7 (1.3lbs) and the RF 100-500 (3lbs) for a total of 4.3lbs. But that really doesn't solve the weight issue either. You could try the Canon RF 100-400 (1.4lbs for a total of 2.7lbs) but that lens is f/8 at 400mm.
Last edited:
ricardo00
Well-known member
Some great photos but the OM 150-400TC with hood and foot is about the same weight as the OP's D500 plus lens, so doesn't help them reduce weight of their gear.
Thank you! I hear what you’re saying but it’s not just about weight. Overall balance, length and girth come into play—there’s more to getting fatigue than from just shear weight. That’s why comparing the weight of a body and lens of one brand vs another can be misleading.
I have the D500 + Sigma 100-400mm C lens as well. Good combo - although I would like some more reach at times. A few thoughts crossed my mind as I read various replies.
- I am surprised no one suggested the Sony a6700 + 70-350mm G lens. 1.08 lb + 1.38 lb = 2.46 lb. The reach is a bit less than the 100-400, but the AF is supposed to be very good. And the a6700 has a 26MP sensor rather than a 20.9MP sensor.
- The OM Systems 100-400mm lens is supposed to be a rebadged version of the Sigma 100-400mm C lens that you use. Don’t expect weight savings there.
- Will you be satisfied with a prime tele lens? There is some merit to using the 300mm PF lens with your D500. I rented one of those along with the TC14E III teleconverter. By itself the lens is very sharp, and rather petite compared to most telephotos. The TC14E III turns it into a 420mm f/5.6 lens that didn’t seem to be quite as sharp or fast to AF as the 300 by itself.
Here are identical scenes taken with the iPhone 14 Pro and the Zf with Z28 2.8. Can you tell the difference?
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.
I own that combo, so I'll redact this answer and wait, may want to blank my quote 
Last edited:
I won’t answer until hef19898 checks in
Handheld or tripod?
Both hand held.
Doug Herr
Well-known member
Computer screens are the great equalizer. Print 'em both big then ask the same question.
If the computer screen is the intended output then it's foolish to spend any $$$ on an ILC camera of any size.
How many of us print big? I haven’t done it in years and if I intended to of course I’d use my camera. I wonder what the gentleman who started the thread wants to do with them. I did an around the world trip a few years ago and I used my phone because I wanted to travel light. Never once regretted it or wished I’d been carrying my expensive equipment.
It's been done, this guy does it each year. It's about 50/50 who can tell the difference in a landscape printed large with a recent iPhone (RAW files processed in Lightroom) vs a Canon R5. This is amongst the public.
Not to say ILC is obsolete, they absolutely are not, here is the best example why (wildlife), but they really are pretty amazing for a pocket camera. iPhone is supposed to get a midrange telephoto this year.
I just want to see that computational technique applied to full frame, give me the option to turn on/off, but if you can get that out of a tiny sensor, imagine what a full frame could do. I think we're getting close with global shutters and a bit longer for those top of the line CPU's to be in the price range Canon/Sony/Nikon are willing to pay for.
Last edited:
Thanks for sharing that. I hope the guy who started the thread sees that video. And yes the iPhone 16 Pro is almost certainly going to get a 5 x optical lens.
hef19898
Well-known member
On screens, phone picks look good. Especially when smaller image sizes are used like on tthis forum. I'd say top one is the non-iPhone one, could be wrong, small screen JPEG and all that.
Now do two things: Use the raw files, try to edit them and print larger than a4. Or crop heavily.
Because if people don't print, 48MP is useless. If you don't crop heavily, as well. And yet, most people here think 24MP is pointless.
If you travel the world with an iPhone and are happy, good for you.
Now do two things: Use the raw files, try to edit them and print larger than a4. Or crop heavily.
Because if people don't print, 48MP is useless. If you don't crop heavily, as well. And yet, most people here think 24MP is pointless.
If you travel the world with an iPhone and are happy, good for you.
The top one is actually the iPhone!
hef19898
Well-known member
Ok. You are aware of the differences between a MFT, DX or full frame sensor and the ones used in phones? And the difference between the optics? By the way, are those two RAW files out of camera or JPEGs exported from lightroom or whatever to upload?
Doug Herr
Well-known member
I print, sometimes big, and I crop as needed. I won't pretend I can speak for most people but for myself, primarily a wildlife photographer, 24 MP is very limiting.
hef19898
Well-known member
Other wildlife photographers propossed the new iPhone as an alternative... I think both extremes are somewhat funny. Not as funny as the aeticle about image quality I read lately, where the auther said that, basically only 100 MP give him acceotabel results for his landscape photography. Cool. Hilarious that by sayimg that the auther also devalued all his own work before the latest Hasselblads and Fuji medium format cameras were available. And also invalidating some of the photos in the same magazine that were taken on slide film. Or work from people like Ansel Adams.
What happened to just taking good, interesting and nice pictures? Even if one only gets a dozen or so of those a year, thats a) plenty and b) worth persuing. And I don't care about the gear people use to achieve this.
What happened to just taking good, interesting and nice pictures? Even if one only gets a dozen or so of those a year, thats a) plenty and b) worth persuing. And I don't care about the gear people use to achieve this.
Doug Herr
Well-known member
It shouldn't be necessary to mention it, but one person saying only 100MP gives him acceptable results doesn't make it a universal truth.
According to my sales records over the last 50+ years I've made good, interesting and nice photos with 35mm film, and with 10MP and 24MP cameras. The IQ bar has been raised substantially since then so only a small handful of these photos remain competitive, or 'interesting' in the eyes of my target market. The better image quality of the 50MP images isn't what makes them interesting but comparing prints of the older photos side-by-side with newer, higher quality photos makes the weaker IQ images stand out, not in a good way.
I prefer working with a 50MP camera because it allows more choices: print bigger, crop more, or both. It means I no longer delete photos with obvious, distracting color moire in feathers. It means more photos that are likely to stand the test of time.
If 24MP or iPhone camera images meet your needs, who am I to say you're wrong? They are less likely to meet my needs. YMMV.
hef19898
Well-known member
Is the reason older images look "worse" because one compares prints of photos edited back the day with new prints edited with the newest software or is it really the sensor?
Not to say that in the print market, people prefer dye inks for no other reason than marketing (the differences in longvivity are not relevant in the photographers or clients lifetime).
Are there differences? Sure. Do they matter at times? Yes. Are they more important than the photograph itself? No, not at all.
Not to say that in the print market, people prefer dye inks for no other reason than marketing (the differences in longvivity are not relevant in the photographers or clients lifetime).
Are there differences? Sure. Do they matter at times? Yes. Are they more important than the photograph itself? No, not at all.
Doug Herr
Well-known member
well I'm glad you're here to set me straight. I was sooo ignorant before!
FWIW, and I'm certain you'll want to continue telling me you're right, I'm comparing recent prints/edits of older photos with the newest ones, using identical printing technology and surfaces for all of the prints.
Last edited: