Looking for a camera setup advice for shore/song birds.

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).

NScott

NScott

New member
Member's gallery
Looking for suggestions on a wildlife setup, I shoot mostly shore birds and song birds given I live in Rhode Island. I have rented a Sony A6700/A7IV with the Sony 200-600, Nikon z8 with the 180-600mm lens, and the canon R6mii with the 200-800mm. I hated the Sony autofocus, I had such a hard time with it. Up close the AF was amazing but anything medium to far away and it was constantly searching, so Sony would be out of the picture for me. I am currently looking at these setups:

Budget: $3000 USD

Debating this setups, I am open to any substitutions.

Nikon: Nikon z50ii with 180-600mm

Canon: R7 with RF100-400, R8 , R6mii with possibly the canon 200-800 (If I go FF), not impressed with the canon 100-500 price and reach. Also not a fan of their lack of 3rd party lens support.


Out of all the setups I rented I feel the z8 was the best overall, canon r6mii had the best AF, but their lackluster lens lineup concerns me. Their lenses also tend to be extremely expensive. If it was in my budget I would go with the z8 180-600 hands down, but clearly it's not lol.


Any help would be much appreciated!
 
Member's gallery
NScott said:
Looking for suggestions on a wildlife setup, I shoot mostly shore birds and song birds given I live in Rhode Island. I have rented a Sony A6700/A7IV with the Sony 200-600, Nikon z8 with the 180-600mm lens, and the canon R6mii with the 200-800mm. I hated the Sony autofocus, I had such a hard time with it. Up close the AF was amazing but anything medium to far away and it was constantly searching, so Sony would be out of the picture for me. I am currently looking at these setups:

Budget: $3000 USD

Debating this setups, I am open to any substitutions.

Nikon: Nikon z50ii with 180-600mm

Canon: R7 with RF100-400, R8 , R6mii with possibly the canon 200-800 (If I go FF), not impressed with the canon 100-500 price and reach. Also not a fan of their lack of 3rd party lens support.


Out of all the setups I rented I feel the z8 was the best overall, canon r6mii had the best AF, but their lackluster lens lineup concerns me. Their lenses also tend to be extremely expensive. If it was in my budget I would go with the z8 180-600 hands down, but clearly it's not lol.


Any help would be much appreciated!
Click to expand...
Have you considered a Z6III with 180-600? Slight higher sensor resolution. Faster shutter speed (1/6000 vs 1/4000), faster bursts (14 fps mech / 20 fps elec vs 11 fps mech & elec). Higher price, though (approx $1200 at list price).
 
Member's gallery
Subject detection was a big gain for me with a mirrorless camera and it enabled me to forgo manual focus override entirely. The capabilities of this feature vary by camera. With Nikon one really needs a Z8 or Z9. With Sony the A1 or the A7R provide this functionality better than with other Sony cameras.

I would not overlook the OM-1 camera which is excellent for subject detection and has pre-capture with Raw which is not available from full size sensor cameras. The lenses from Olympus are half the size and half the weight and a third the cost of comparable lenses from Nikon, Canon, and Sony. Olympus also has a full range of f/2.8 constant aperture zoom lenses including the 40-150mm f/2.8 with the equivalent view angle of a conventional 80-300mm lens.

On the seashore there is plenty of reflected light from the sand and the water and the open sky so one can shoot with a lower ISO setting.
 
Member's gallery
Calson said:
Subject detection was a big gain for me with a mirrorless camera and it enabled me to forgo manual focus override entirely. The capabilities of this feature vary by camera. With Nikon one really needs a Z8 or Z9. With Sony the A1 or the A7R provide this functionality better than with other Sony cameras.

I would not overlook the OM-1 camera which is excellent for subject detection and has pre-capture with Raw which is not available from full size sensor cameras. The lenses from Olympus are half the size and half the weight and a third the cost of comparable lenses from Nikon, Canon, and Sony. Olympus also has a full range of f/2.8 constant aperture zoom lenses including the 40-150mm f/2.8 with the equivalent view angle of a conventional 80-300mm lens.

On the seashore there is plenty of reflected light from the sand and the water and the open sky so one can shoot with a lower ISO setting.
Click to expand...
ive looked into that system, the only downside is I also do some landscape/beach photography as well and MFT really isn't going to do well in that arena.
 
Member's gallery
NScott said:
*-*-Looking for suggestions on a wildlife setup, I shoot mostly shore birds and song birds given I live in Rhode Island. I have rented a Sony A6700/A7IV with the Sony 200-600, Nikon z8 with the 180-600mm +lens, and the canon R6mii with the 200-800mm. I hated the Sony autofocus, I had such a hard time with it. Up close the AF was amazing but anything medium to far away and it was constantly searching, so Sony would be out of the picture for me. I am currently looking at these setups:

Budget: $3000 USD

Debating this setups, I am open to any substitutions.

Nikon: Nikon z50ii with 180-600mm

Canon: R7 with RF100-400, R8 , R6mii with possibly the canon 200-800 (If I go FF), not impressed with the canon 100-500 price and reach. Also not a fan of their lack of 3rd party lens support.


Out of all the setups I rented I feel the z8 was the best overall, canon r6mii had the best AF, but their lackluster lens lineup concerns me. Their lenses also tend to be extremely expensive. If it was in my budget I would go with the z8 180-600 hands down, but clearly it's not lol.


Any help would be much appreciated!
Click to expand...
Appreciate the circumstances and I applaud you for being specific and candid. I really think that your best bet to maximize value would be to purchase used and perhaps a generation earlier body. While your primary application is for shore birds, you don't want to be stuck with a cripple hammer which won't have some utility elsewhere (think travel, family, other applications). The smallest, lightweight combination would be Olympus though you have to be satisfied shooting their 4/3rds. A lot of folks love the Olympus and for good reason. An OM-1 MkII used is around $1500 and you can pair it with a used 100-400 or 150-600 and stay well under the $3k budget.

In terms of Nikon, the Z8 is a fantastic choice though it will put you beyond your budget. I don't have a lot of experience with the lesser Z bodies in terms of AF/performance. The Z6III would offer similar class AF though the body alone would bring you close to your total budget and it's only 24.5 MP.

With respect to Canon, I would stay away from the R7. Though I used this camera since it first came out, the slow read out speed alone was enough to drive me away. Nonetheless, it does produce fairly good images, all thing considering and the AP-C + pixel density is a plus. Apart from the older sensor technology, my biggest concern with this camera was the wonky AF. I found that it behaved much like the older 7d and the AF consistency wasn't there. Sometimes it simply would miss focus even though the eye detect was clearly on the appropriate target. Also, the processing speed was insufficient in that frequently if eye detect was used along with tracking for BIF, it struggled. Turning off eye detect for those subjects helped though the buffer was so limited even with compressed RAW that it was only good for short burst. If you do want to stay with Canon, I would seriously look at a used R5. For less than $2k you'll get a world class body with excellent AF, high MP images, great IQ, albeit offset by a lack of a stacked sensor so there is a bit of EVF lag. This camera will take you everywhere and is stellar for landscapes, portraits, studio work, etc. Paired to a 100-400 or if you can find a 100-500 you'd be in really good shape.

Sony will offer a few more challenges as the approach point for cameras and lenses may be prohibitive. You could look at an A9II as it provides excellent AF and pair it with a 200-600? That should come in under budget though it's only 24.5 MP. I can't speak to the lesser expensive Sony bodies A7's and the A1, A1 II, and A9 III are astronomically expensive.
 
Member's gallery
ajrmd said:
Appreciate the circumstances and I applaud you for being specific and candid. I really think that your best bet to maximize value would be to purchase used and perhaps a generation earlier body. While your primary application is for shore birds, you don't want to be stuck with a cripple hammer which won't have some utility elsewhere (think travel, family, other applications). The smallest, lightweight combination would be Olympus though you have to be satisfied shooting their 4/3rds. A lot of folks love the Olympus and for good reason. An OM-1 MkII used is around $1500 and you can pair it with a used 100-400 or 150-600 and stay well under the $3k budget.

In terms of Nikon, the Z8 is a fantastic choice though it will put you beyond your budget. I don't have a lot of experience with the lesser Z bodies in terms of AF/performance. The Z6III would offer similar class AF though the body alone would bring you close to your total budget and it's only 24.5 MP.

With respect to Canon, I would stay away from the R7. Though I used this camera since it first came out, the slow read out speed alone was enough to drive me away. Nonetheless, it does produce fairly good images, all thing considering and the AP-C + pixel density is a plus. Apart from the older sensor technology, my biggest concern with this camera was the wonky AF. I found that it behaved much like the older 7d and the AF consistency wasn't there. Sometimes it simply would miss focus even though the eye detect was clearly on the appropriate target. Also, the processing speed was insufficient in that frequently if eye detect was used along with tracking for BIF, it struggled. Turning off eye detect for those subjects helped though the buffer was so limited even with compressed RAW that it was only good for short burst. If you do want to stay with Canon, I would seriously look at a used R5. For less than $2k you'll get a world class body with excellent AF, high MP images, great IQ, albeit offset by a lack of a stacked sensor so there is a bit of EVF lag. This camera will take you everywhere and is stellar for landscapes, portraits, studio work, etc. Paired to a 100-400 or if you can find a 100-500 you'd be in really good shape.

Sony will offer a few more challenges as the approach point for cameras and lenses may be prohibitive. You could look at an A9II as it provides excellent AF and pair it with a 200-600? That should come in under budget though it's only 24.5 MP. I can't speak to the lesser expensive Sony bodies A7's and the A1, A1 II, and A9 III are astronomically expensive.
Click to expand...
I was considering the R5 with the likes of the 100-400 and the cheap 600m f/11. my only concern is how slow that lens is but for $500 used its still something I would consider. R7 mark ii rumored with a stacked sensor would be crazy but who the hell knows with canon. I have heard the same story with the R7 AF jumping all over the place, so I will steer clear.
 
Member's gallery
NScott said:
I was considering the R5 with the likes of the 100-400 and the cheap 600m f/11. my only concern is how slow that lens is but for $500 used its still something I would consider. R7 mark ii rumored with a stacked sensor would be crazy but who the hell knows with canon. I have heard the same story with the R7 AF jumping all over the place, so I will steer clear.
Click to expand...
FWIW, I made the switch from Canon/Sony to Nikon so I don't have any particular allegiances (biases, certainly who doesn't?) The R5 is/was a special camera with which I've made several award-winning images. It's an excellent performer, very forgiving, and though it is several years old and without a stacked sensor, it has excellent AF, a great buffer, and is useful in many genres. The only major drawbacks IMHO are its potential for rolling shutter in certain situations, battery life, and the EVF lag. I became very accustomed to the EVF lag and was able to shoot butterflies/dragonflies in flight without difficulty (surprisingly, something, I'm still trying to accomplish reliably with the Z8). Unfortunately, I cannot speak to the f/11 DO lenses and while some people really liked them, the aperture just wasn't in my wheelhouse. I do hear good things about the inexpensive 100-400 and you can certainly consider some EF lenses with an adapter. The R5 functions very well with those. For around $2k I can't think of another body out there from the big three which offers as much value as the R5. Maybe the A9(II) but its 24.5 MP makes it less desirable for landscape and other work. Again, I think the micro 4/3'rds is worth considering though I personally don't care for the form/ergonomics.
 
Member's gallery
NS …

With reference to Canon: if the sub-US$2000 (before discounts) RF 200–800 is your choice of Canon long lenses, then it surely does not matter that there are no offerings from Sigma or Tamron.

This is my preferred lens for shorebirds: get low (so that the background is distant) and the f/9 + 800mm combo is acceptable. Shorebirds, even the little fellas, become very much bigger when they fly and it is likely that one will need a small aperture in order to keep them in focus from wingtip to wingtip. For shorebirds, on the beach or in flight, f/9 isn't such a drawback — but, maybe, that is not the case for songbirds in a thicket.

… David
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
ajrmd said:
FWIW, I made the switch from Canon/Sony to Nikon so I don't have any particular allegiances (biases, certainly who doesn't?) The R5 is/was a special camera with which I've made several award-winning images. It's an excellent performer, very forgiving, and though it is several years old and without a stacked sensor, it has excellent AF, a great buffer, and is useful in many genres. The only major drawbacks IMHO are its potential for rolling shutter in certain situations, battery life, and the EVF lag. I became very accustomed to the EVF lag and was able to shoot butterflies/dragonflies in flight without difficulty (surprisingly, something, I'm still trying to accomplish reliably with the Z8). Unfortunately, I cannot speak to the f/11 DO lenses and while some people really liked them, the aperture just wasn't in my wheelhouse. I do hear good things about the inexpensive 100-400 and you can certainly consider some EF lenses with an adapter. The R5 functions very well with those. For around $2k I can't think of another body out there from the big three which offers as much value as the R5. Maybe the A9(II) but its 24.5 MP makes it less desirable for landscape and other work. Again, I think the micro 4/3'rds is worth considering though I personally don't care for the form/ergonomics.
Click to expand...
What made you switch to Nikon if you don’t mind me asking?
 
Member's gallery
David Berry said:
NS …

With reference to Canon: if the sub-US$2000 (before discounts) RF 200–800 is your choice of Canon long lenses, then it surely does not matter that there are no offerings from Sigma or Tamron.

This is my preferred lens for shorebirds: get low (so that the background is distant) and the f/9 + 800mm combo is acceptable. Shorebirds, even the little fellas, become very much bigger when they fly and it is likely that one will need a small aperture in order to keep them in focus from wingtip to wingtip. Put differently, f/9 isn't such a drawback — but, maybe, different for songbirds in a thicket.

… David
Click to expand...
In order to get that lens I would have to go with an R8 body or R6 body. r8 is nice but no IBIS and small battery sucks.
 
Member's gallery
NScott said:
What made you switch to Nikon if you don’t mind me asking?
Click to expand...
Back in the film days I shot Minolta and then Nikon (we're talking about 70's-80's) then Canon came out with USM AF for its lenses. I was hooked and shot Canon both professionally and as a hobby as they transitioned from film to DSLR's to MILC's. Though I was extremely happy with my R5/R3 (less so but still enjoyed the R7), I had a lot of aging EF glass and since I was no longer making $ from photography, the RF long lenses were simply out of reach. Canon had tons of options for entry level lenses and some solid though unimaginative pro long glass, though they offered nothing in the mid-range apart from the 100-500. As an aside, I owned this lens and it was an excellent piece of glass, albeit the issue with the TC. Anyhow, Nikon had announced their Z-PF glass and I was very intrigued. A few months later the Z-8 was announced, and it was a very opportune time to switch. I started with a Z8, 800 PF, 400 f/4.5 (not PF but small/lightweight) and have never looked back. There are some downsides to the Nikon environment, though overall given the continued gap in Canon's lens lineup, I don't regret making the transition.

What I can say is that the overall market is contracting, and lenses/bodies/accessories are becoming increasingly expensive. I could quote Yogi Berra about the future, though what's the point? Brand is less important to me than value and needs. If Canon decides to offer a line of mid-priced, high quality, lightweight, DO like lenses, maybe I would consider returning?
 
Member's gallery
groob said:
You could get a used Z6iii + used 180-600mm on FredMiranda.com right now for about $3400 (and you could probably negotiate the sellers down to $3k total). I'd go for that combination if I were you. The 180-600 has been listed for a while, so it might not be there. But if it is, you should certainly be able to negotiate downward.
Click to expand...
This is the way, or go Z50II.

I was able to check out the Canon 200-800/9 on an R1 Monday when shooting some eagles with a friend, and while the R1 is an amazing camera, that 200-800 was STRUGGLING shooting in the morning and I was not impressed with how it was at 800mm and f/9.

Even focusing on relatively nearby branches and leaves, it was maybe about as sharp as my 400 4.5 with a 2xTC on it. At least in the middle. I'd expect the zoom to be crisper towards the peripheral.

womp womp.
 
Member's gallery
Mark_Laidlaw said:
This is the way, or go Z50II.

I was able to check out the Canon 200-800/9 on an R1 Monday when shooting some eagles with a friend, and while the R1 is an amazing camera, that 200-800 was STRUGGLING shooting in the morning and I was not impressed with how it was at 800mm and f/9.

Even focusing on relatively nearby branches and leaves, it was maybe about as sharp as my 400 4.5 with a 2xTC on it. At least in the middle. I'd expect the zoom to be crisper towards the peripheral.

womp womp.
Click to expand...

There is no way in the world I would use an f/9 lens for wildlife photography. I don’t think I’ve ever shot anything besides a landscape at f/9.
 
Member's gallery
I don’t know much about the conditions you’re shooting in but the smaller aperture lenses tend to cause struggles when the light is at its best. If you’re shooting in the bright daylight it won’t be a problem but once you start shooting more at golden hour it becomes a game of trying to get shutter speed low but still freeze action while the iso is at or above the max you’re comfortable with. This is my issue with Canon’s lens lineup. I think the R5 is a great camera and same with some of their others but unless you’re ready to pay for the big glass or adapt the EF versions there just isn’t much there.

I haven’t shot with the Z50ii but from what I have read it performs better than the Zf which I have. I think the Zf does ok but not as good as the Z8/Z9. I think the Z50ii & 180-600 combo would be worth trying. I’ve heard good things about it. I wish it had the 26mp sensor and ibis. I would have bought it already if it did.
 
Member's gallery
abc123brian said:
I don’t know much about the conditions you’re shooting in but the smaller aperture lenses tend to cause struggles when the light is at its best. If you’re shooting in the bright daylight it won’t be a problem but once you start shooting more at golden hour it becomes a game of trying to get shutter speed low but still freeze action while the iso is at or above the max you’re comfortable with. This is my issue with Canon’s lens lineup. I think the R5 is a great camera and same with some of their others but unless you’re ready to pay for the big glass or adapt the EF versions there just isn’t much there.

I haven’t shot with the Z50ii but from what I have read it performs better than the Zf which I have. I think the Zf does ok but not as good as the Z8/Z9. I think the Z50ii & 180-600 combo would be worth trying. I’ve heard good things about it. I wish it had the 26mp sensor and ibis. I would have bought it already if it did.
Click to expand...
I agree ibis and 26 MP it would be around the $1500 range I assume, but that would have been an automatic buy from me.
 
Member's gallery
Agree. Z6 III is a solid investment if possible, however the Z50II will perform well with the 180-600.

A used 500 PF is another excellent option on the FTZ adapter. It also pairs well with the TC14 III as a 700 f8 so more reach for small birds. Both optics are best sourced from a reputable Retailer with warranty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top