Lightweight combination for bird/nature photography

[Lee R]

The top one is actually the iPhone!

To be fair to the ILC cameras like the Zf, the iPhone will lose if you break out the tripod in low light. There’s just that sweet spot as you illustrated in very low light where night mode can outperform it handheld, and only for slow subjects with the 3 seconds it takes for it to complete. But it beats a high iso single shot from either my Zf or my Z8. II have the iPhone 14 Pro Max.

The lidar autofocus is also very impressive in the dark.

For bright conditions the full frames capture more detail but the iPhone holds up really well even for large prints when using ProRaw. But it’s limited by the fixed lenses, action, wildlife and a bunch of other things. But I’m glad we have them as an option because you always have a good camera with you.

And the biggest most severe downside of the iPhone is not the image quality at all but the interface and shooting experience which is boring for me personally.

 

[AlanB313]

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.

I shoot with a d500 and a 300mm f4 pf and have a tc14III that brings it to 420mm at f5.6. A little short for birds but still very nice. It could be a lot lighter than the Sigma, I don't know. It would use the body you have and be cheaper. But the z6iii will have better performance.

I did get a 500mm pf as well. It's pretty light.

 

[ricardo00]

I shoot with a d500 and a 300mm f4 pf and have a tc14III that brings it to 420mm at f5.6. A little short for birds but still very nice. It could be a lot lighter than the Sigma, I don't know. It would use the body you have and be cheaper. But the z6iii will have better performance.

I did get a 500mm pf as well. It's pretty light.

The advantage of the D500 plus 300mm f/4 (plus or minus a TC) over the Z6ii is the greater number of pixels you have on the subject. Personally, the Z8 is not that much heavier than the Z6iii (about 5 ounces more) so went for that to have the greater pixel density. Yep it is a slippery slope, trying to get the best photos. More cost, more weight etc. I was happy getting the 300mm PF and then the 500mm PF to replace my 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4 and using them on the D500. Had hoped that my first mirrorless camera would be lighter but the Z8 still is for me the best wildlife mirrorless Nikon and happy with it. The 300mm PF and 500mm PF both work great on it, with or without a TC.

 

[geoawelch]

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.

Or not…ISO 25,600 on the OM-1/150-400

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

 

[AlanB313]

The advantage of the D500 plus 300mm f/4 (plus or minus a TC) over the Z6ii is the greater number of pixels you have on the subject. Personally, the Z8 is not that much heavier than the Z6iii (about 5 ounces more) so went for that to have the greater pixel density. Yep it is a slippery slope, trying to get the best photos. More cost, more weight etc. I was happy getting the 300mm PF and then the 500mm PF to replace my 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4 and using them on the D500. Had hoped that my first mirrorless camera would be lighter but the Z8 still is for me the best wildlife mirrorless Nikon and happy with it. The 300mm PF and 500mm PF both work great on it, with or without a TC.

You've taken the steps I most likely will take as well. I'm looking at a z8, but will consider a z6iii. But not for a while, other family expenses come first. I'm glad to hear you are liking the 300mm PF and 500mm pf with the z8.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I do not think that a 24mp FF camera is really in the running compared to the OM-1 mk2 or the Canon R7. In my view it is the 45mp Z-8 that is the runaway winner in FF for bird photography. The main advantage is the ability to crop 45mp more dramatically than the 20mp OM-1 or the 32mp R7. I don't think high ISO is much of an issue these days.

I think that the first question is "what is the weight you can enjoy"? I remember back in DSLR days Steve saying that the 500pf was his "most enjoyable lens" even as he showed videos of him marching down the trail with a 600f4 and camera attached to a tripod slung over his shoulder.

I can say from experience that even a small bit of weight can make a big difference.

So, if a Z-8/600pf is something can enjoy ten that is #1 in my book. Interestingly, in my view that tops an OM-1 mk 2 with a 150-400 lens as the Nikon rig is marginally lighter and no more expensive. You do get more reach with the Om-1/150-400 but in my view, the crop ability of the 45mp image makes the Z-8/600pf the winner in the 5-6 pound class.

In the sub 4 pound class is the OM-1 mk 2 with a 100-400 OM Systems zoom. The rig has enough reach that you will not need to crop as much as a FF Z-6iii-600pf and is both lighter and cheaper.

In the sub 3 pound class is the Canon R-7/rf 100-400. The 1.6 crop factor gets the effective the FF effective reach to 640mm and the 32mp sensor allows more cropping that the 20mp OM-1 or 24mp Z-6iii

 

[Doug Herr]

I think that the first question is "what is the weight you can enjoy"? I remember back in DSLR days Steve saying that the 500pf was his "most enjoyable lens" even as he showed videos of him marching down the trail with a 600f4 and camera attached to a tripod slung over his shoulder.

I can say from experience that even a small bit of weight can make a big difference.

Ansel Adams sums this up quite well: "the best camera is the biggest one you're willing to carry".

 

[bleirer]

Might have been mentioned, the R5 mark ii is 1.6 pounds with the battery. Add the 100-500 at 3.3 pounds and the 1.4x at 8 ounces and its a pro package at total 5.4 pounds.

 

[herjak]

We have read numerous questions as well as opinions about the subject of cameras and lenses as well as weight concerns expressed by many people planning trips to Africa or elsewhere. I have taken a slightly different tack when it comes to camera/lens combinations that give me a great deal of flexibility while keeping costs within a reasonable range as well as reducing weight without compromising on performance. What I have done is gone to a Sony a7RV which has a 61 MP sensor, and I have matched it with a 100-400 as well as a 24 - 105 lens. I have then set up the camera using a programable button to switch between crop mode and full frame. In crop mode my 100 - 400 becomes a 150 - 600 and I get 30.5 MP shots which is more than enough for most work. I also have the advantage of a slightly better f stop range 4.5 - 5.6 than the 200 - 600 would give of 5.6 - 6.3 which translates into lower ISO at comparable shutter speeds. Added bonus are a weight reduction of 1.55 lbs,, slightly shorter lens body as well as a smaller filter size. In addition, I believe the 100 - 400 is considered a sharper lens than the 200 - 600.
The use of this configuration allows my 24- 105 to become a 36 - 157.5 lens which covers a good range in crop mode. In fact, with this configuration with two lenses I am able to cover a range of 24 - 600 with the touch of a button. I actually have found that not only my carrying weight has gone down but my decision making has been simplified and my enjoyment of photography has gone up.
Some will challenge me on the issue of going from 61 MP to 30 MP but I will rebut your challenge by my own which is how often do you need to make an extra-large print that demands such a high MP count. An added benefit I have is my buffer has never filled up which is did in the past.
We welcome your thoughts about my approach.

 

[Doug Herr]

... What I have done is gone to a Sony a7RV which has a 61 MP sensor, and I have matched it with a 100-400 as well as a 24 - 105 lens. I have then set up the camera using a programable button to switch between crop mode and full frame. In crop mode my 100 - 400 becomes a 150 - 600 ... this configuration allows my 24- 105 to become a 36 - 157.5 ...

We welcome your thoughts about my approach.

I wish the photographic community had standardized on more accurate terminology than "crop mode makes my 100mm lens a 150mm lens". Crop mode does no such thing.

 

[StefanSC]

We welcome your thoughts about my approach

If it works for you, good.

Just be aware that you are throwing away a lot of light and in all practical ways, the guy shooting an A7IV with a 200-600 is getting better pixels than you are with the crop and 100-400...

 

[bleirer]

We have read numerous questions as well as opinions about the subject of cameras and lenses as well as weight concerns expressed by many people planning trips to Africa or elsewhere. I have taken a slightly different tack when it comes to camera/lens combinations that give me a great deal of flexibility while keeping costs within a reasonable range as well as reducing weight without compromising on performance. What I have done is gone to a Sony a7RV which has a 61 MP sensor, and I have matched it with a 100-400 as well as a 24 - 105 lens. I have then set up the camera using a programable button to switch between crop mode and full frame. In crop mode my 100 - 400 becomes a 150 - 600 and I get 30.5 MP shots which is more than enough for most work. I also have the advantage of a slightly better f stop range 4.5 - 5.6 than the 200 - 600 would give of 5.6 - 6.3 which translates into lower ISO at comparable shutter speeds. Added bonus are a weight reduction of 1.55 lbs,, slightly shorter lens body as well as a smaller filter size. In addition, I believe the 100 - 400 is considered a sharper lens than the 200 - 600.
The use of this configuration allows my 24- 105 to become a 36 - 157.5 lens which covers a good range in crop mode. In fact, with this configuration with two lenses I am able to cover a range of 24 - 600 with the touch of a button. I actually have found that not only my carrying weight has gone down but my decision making has been simplified and my enjoyment of photography has gone up.
Some will challenge me on the issue of going from 61 MP to 30 MP but I will rebut your challenge by my own which is how often do you need to make an extra-large print that demands such a high MP count. An added benefit I have is my buffer has never filled up which is did in the past.
We welcome your thoughts about my approach.

It seems like a good strategy when shedding weight is the priority, but you said without compromises and I think there are a couple compromises to cropping your way into the reach. It works for you, so it works. I do something similar, carry a 100-500 rather than the bigger and heavier 200-800, and sometimes cropping to aps-c size. I'm aware my cropping increases noise, reduces effective lens resolution since I'm effectively enlarging, and reduces depth of field depending on who you ask. DXO helps with the noise, the lens is super sharp so I don't notice that much loss.

 

[arbitrage]

We have read numerous questions as well as opinions about the subject of cameras and lenses as well as weight concerns expressed by many people planning trips to Africa or elsewhere. I have taken a slightly different tack when it comes to camera/lens combinations that give me a great deal of flexibility while keeping costs within a reasonable range as well as reducing weight without compromising on performance. What I have done is gone to a Sony a7RV which has a 61 MP sensor, and I have matched it with a 100-400 as well as a 24 - 105 lens. I have then set up the camera using a programable button to switch between crop mode and full frame. In crop mode my 100 - 400 becomes a 150 - 600 and I get 30.5 MP shots which is more than enough for most work. I also have the advantage of a slightly better f stop range 4.5 - 5.6 than the 200 - 600 would give of 5.6 - 6.3 which translates into lower ISO at comparable shutter speeds. Added bonus are a weight reduction of 1.55 lbs,, slightly shorter lens body as well as a smaller filter size. In addition, I believe the 100 - 400 is considered a sharper lens than the 200 - 600.
The use of this configuration allows my 24- 105 to become a 36 - 157.5 lens which covers a good range in crop mode. In fact, with this configuration with two lenses I am able to cover a range of 24 - 600 with the touch of a button. I actually have found that not only my carrying weight has gone down but my decision making has been simplified and my enjoyment of photography has gone up.
Some will challenge me on the issue of going from 61 MP to 30 MP but I will rebut your challenge by my own which is how often do you need to make an extra-large print that demands such a high MP count. An added benefit I have is my buffer has never filled up which is did in the past.
We welcome your thoughts about my approach.

Crop mode on an A7RV is 27MP, not 30.5MP.
Your lens is not becoming a 150-600 lens nor a 36-157.5mm. Your FOV would equal those numbers but if you are going to play that game then you need to multiply the aperture by 1.5 also to really know what you are getting. You do not all of a sudden own a 600 f/5.6 lens. You own approximately a 600 f/8 lens.

 

[westpalmdoc]

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?

Could consider the Nikon Z8, paired to Z 400 4.5. going with this lightweight prime over a zoom would be a weight advantage. high megapixels of z8 allows you to crop nicely. I am finding this to be a light kit, but I was using a d850 and the F mount 300 2.8 which was very heavy. I havent used a zoom lens in over 8y and dont feel it's impeded my ability in the field at all

 

[RickL]

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?

Since you are using Nikon, I suggest the Z8 with Nikon 28-300 as your walk around combo. Very lightweight. For more range, I use a Tamron 150-600g2 with excellent results. It is heavier, of course.

 

[cchuck]

As a 77-year-old fellow photographer, I'm experiencing the same issue. One aid that has made it less tiring for me to carry a camera and lens capable of capturing images of birds is the Cotton Carrier. Before I got it, I used a strap hung from one shoulder. The Cotton Carrier, by keeping camera and lens stabilized in the center of my body and distributing the load over both shoulders instead of just one, has made a huge difference in allowing me to hike farther and over more rugged terrain. I didn't realize how much a swinging camera/lens combo was affecting my gait and balance and sapping my endurance. Although it doesn't make the gear any lighter when shooting, I think it helps conserve some strength for that task. YMMV, but you might want to give it a try.

 

[bleirer]

Another useful tool for us old folks is a trekking stick with a small quick disconnect mount. AKA a monopod. It can take some of the weight when the shoulders get tired, and used as a walking stick helps make the hike easier. I like this one.

Trekking Pole Monopod | Non-Magnetic | Brunton

The security of a hiking staff with the possibility of enhanced stability for optics or measurements.

www.brunton.com

 

[Richard Stern]

About a year ago I switched from a D500 and 500-PF to an OM-1 and 100-400. I have now switched that lens for a 300 f/4 Pro and use am MC-14 on it most of the time. The combo iis slightly lighter than the Nikon combo, and is a bit more compact, and IMHO just as sharp. I have no problem with ISOs up to 12800 although I use Topaz AI on raw files some of the time. But the image stabilization of that combo is so good that camera shake doesn't really come into that equation - only subject movement. I use a Peak design slide strap with one end attached to the lens foot and the other to the camera body, so that It hangs with the lens pointing downward. I'm 77 andd not very fit, so sometimes I have to switch shoulders - no problem for quick hand-held shots though. I can walk a long way with that gear, and always shoot hand-held. Hope this info helps a bit.

 

[dwm55]

I've been through a similar journey, although out of a desire to not let the gear get in the way of traveling with my wife, who has little patience waiting for me to take the perfect photograph. When traveling, I find that heavy gear stays in the room and I shoot with the iPhone, and I'm never satisfied with those pictures. I've tried several combinations starting with a Z5 and a 24-200 as a small travel kit. It worked well for the most part, but there were several times I felt I wanted more reach. I settled on an OM-1 + 100-400 f/6.3, which is the only combination I've come up with that ticks most of the boxes for me. I picked up a 12-100mm f/4 to cover the rest. I was/am worried about high ISO / low light as much as the next guy. For my use, I find that the OM-1 and modern noise reduction tools, do a good job of producing more than acceptable images. In fact, I've been surprised how well the OM-1 does given the small sensor.

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

I still take my Nikon gear on trips where I am alone or traveling with a friend for the expressed objective of photographing landscapes and wildlife. But I'm starting to find myself using the OM-1 for grandchildren sports, family events, backyard bird pictures, and anytime I travel with others not interested in my hobby.

Dave