Nikon vs. Canon vs. Sony Mirrorles Wildlife Setup <$3500 - My Experiences

[fcotterill]

Thanks for your big effort and writing it all up

Personally, I need a reliable MILC for silent shooting thus situations where action shooting and tracking is demanded rarely if at all. Until Nikon put out a Zed with performance close to D850 / D500 i will not buy any Z Nikkors. The crux o

I have built up approx $30 K of the best F Nikkors made to date. These deliver in spades, and I work the telephotos hard. The lens are the crux, as has always been the overriding factor in investing in a photographic system with minimal losses... "...change the Bodies, Keep the Lenses...".

My advice to anyone on a budget serious about succeeding in wildlife photography? Focus on the glass - excuse the pun and wait for ALL Mirrorless systems to mature and become more affordable. Do not hesitate to buy Used but only from a reputable shop with warranty. This applies especially to cameras. The grasshoppers dropping F-Nikkor telephotos into the Used markets makes this the ideal investment window to build up an excellent system for wildlife

As the situation stands.... a new kit of Nikon D500 ($1500) and either Sigma or Tamron superzoom is approx $2500, although upgrading to the either Sigma Sport zoom will be closer to $4000 but well within $3500 opting for Used. When finances permit expansion in a year or two, a 300 PF ($2 000-1800) or 500 PF ($3500) will be sound buys - especially if the price drops in one of Nikon's Specials.

A Sigma Sport is a shrewd investment, but only if one is serious about keeping the telephoto lens for better chunk of a decade - longer in fact. Any such optic must have a high probability of a long working life.

 

[eaj101]

Thank you for taking the time to compile the information.

I do think you are looking at the wrong setups though...

If zoom isn't a must, I think the best hybrid setup around the 3500$ mark is the Olympus E-M1 II with the Olympus 300mm f4.
The lens does a lot of heavy lifting to compensate for the smaller sensor by beeing both faster and sharper than what you chose initially, takes the TC14 like a champ and it's Dual IS is great for video work hand held at long focal lengths.
Not to mention the AF being more than decent (I've often seen shots of swifts with this combo) the 18fps and the Pre-Capture mode that buffers shots before you press the shutter.

I would also look at the Fuji X-T4 + 100-400 as they have good reviews.

Finally, the E-mount Sigma 100-400mm C has decent reviews and the Sony A6600 comes with the much apreciated Real Time Tracking (not present on the A7 III).

Excellent point. With a $1700 price (a $1200 discount) on the Olympus OM-D E-M1X right now, the 40-150 f2.8 at $1400, and the TC-20 you'd have a D6/A1 competitor kit at @$3000.

 

[Anjin San]

Rolling shutter is an issue with higher speed action photos. It's basically a sampling rate problem and is reduced in cameras that use higher sampling rate sensors like the stacked sensors used in some Sony and Canon cameras and in the upcoming Nikon Z9.

IOW, rolling shutter isn't an issue with static scenes or even scenes with relatively low speed motion but for high speed action like small or fast birds in flight it can definitely be an issue, especially for cameras that use lower sampling rate sensors (e.g. 60 Hz sampling vs 120 Hz sampling). So in terms of general guidelines, electronic shutter isn't a problem for perched birds or most mammal photography but can be an issue for high speed action photography though much less of an issue if you happen to shoot with a camera that includes a higher sampling rate stacked sensor.

Cameras using faster readout stacked sensors solve several MILC problems including: better EVF performance with reduced frame blackout, reduced rolling shutter effect, and improved AF performance as the AF system receives focus data from the sensor more frequently. From what I've read the biggest limitation of Nikon's current MILCs is the use of standard DSLR sensors that have limited readout rates relative to the latest generation of stacked sensors like what's used in Sony's A1, Canon's R3 or Nikon's Z9.

Thanks Dave…that makes sense. I need to see if the Z7II user settings remember the shutter type…if so then I'll set my action U setting for mechanical and my landscape/waterfall one for silent since the electronic shutter removes any vibration. If not…well even if it does…I have shutter type on my I menu.

 

[Backdoor Arts]

FWIW, and I don't know if it's in the budget, but we've been testing the 100-500 canon and it's outstanding in every respect.

Yeah, the one thing I was going to say here is that with the Nikon and Canon bodies you're shooting with not just a 3rd party lens but also with a mount converter which will slow focus down a bit even on native lenses. The 100-500mm is just amazing with the R5 and I was sorry to have to give back the loaner. Am shooting with my brother's 100-400mm EF until I can find one which is still really good, but not the same. That said, you can find one of those and a mount converter for about $1000 less, so it may play on a budget.

 

[RandomNumbers]

I have been unable to duplicate your observation. I made a base exposure with manual shutter speed & aperture, then set the ISO limits 1/3 stop over and under the ISO recorded by the Auto ISO function, then made test exposures with exposure compensation +1 and -1. The result was the Auto ISO hit the limits and the test exposures were over- and under-exposed. The aperture didn't change.

These are exceptionally complex tools and IMHO a weekend isn't sufficient to understand them well enough to draw any meaningful conclusions.

They sure are complex, but I'm certain that I saw changing Aperture in "M" mode - the behavior was so weird that I made sure to reproduce it back then (but I didn't write down any of the other settings). That said, I redacted that part of the summary as to not confuse people.

 

[RandomNumbers]

If zoom isn't a must, I think the best hybrid setup around the 3500$ mark is the Olympus E-M1 II with the Olympus 300mm f4.
The lens does a lot of heavy lifting to compensate for the smaller sensor by beeing both faster and sharper than what you chose initially, takes the TC14 like a champ and it's Dual IS is great for video work hand held at long focal lengths.
Not to mention the AF being more than decent (I've often seen shots of swifts with this combo) the 18fps and the Pre-Capture mode that buffers shots before you press the shutter.

I would also look at the Fuji X-T4 + 100-400 as they have good reviews.

Finally, the E-mount Sigma 100-400mm C has decent reviews and the Sony A6600 comes with the much apreciated Real Time Tracking (not present on the A7 III).

As the situation stands.... a new kit of Nikon D500 ($1500) and either Sigma or Tamron superzoom is approx $2500, although upgrading to the either Sigma Sport zoom will be closer to $4000 but well within $3500 opting for Used. When finances permit expansion in a year or two, a 300 PF ($2 000-1800) or 500 PF ($3500) will be sound buys - especially if the price drops in one of Nikon's Specials.

A Sigma Sport is a shrewd investment, but only if one is serious about keeping the telephoto lens for better chunk of a decade - longer in fact. Any such optic must have a high probability of a long working life.

Excellent point. With a $1700 price (a $1200 discount) on the Olympus OM-D E-M1X right now, the 40-150 f2.8 at $1400, and the TC-20 you'd have a D6/A1 competitor kit at @$3000.

Thanks for the suggestions, guys.
I have considered APS-C and MFT, but for the most part (not all, not all, not all) they don't provide the same light gathering at equivalent focal lenghts. E.g. 300 F4 on MFT would act like an FF 600 F8. Considering that I'm often at the edge of acceptability with my ISO on full-frame cameras, those options would be too constraining. Furtermore, a zoom is basically a must for me. I tend to shoot different things in different situations and wouldn't wanna constrain myself by a fixed focal lentgh.

 

[eaj101]

Thanks for the suggestions, guys.
I have considered APS-C and MFT, but for the most part (not all, not all, not all) they don't provide the same light gathering at equivalent focal lenghts. E.g. 300 F4 on MFT would act like an FF 600 F8. Considering that I'm often at the edge of acceptability with my ISO on full-frame cameras, those options would be too constraining. Furtermore, a zoom is basically a must for me. I tend to shoot different things in different situations and wouldn't wanna constrain myself by a fixed focal lentgh.

As I understand equivalence on m43, Olympus 300 f4 acts like a 600 f8 *for the purposes of depth of field*. For the purposes of exposure, however, it acts like a 300 f4, which is to say the exposure and ISO is the same as it would be on a full frame camera. Sunny f16 (1/ISO @f16 in full sun) still applies. So you lose the subject isolation but you still get the same exposure. m43 doesn't handle high ISOs as well as FF either, so I generally don't go above ISO 3200.

I understand your feeling about the zoom. While Olympus does make a 150-400 f4.5 (300-800mm equivalent) and a 100-400 f5.0-6.3, I've been using the 40-150mm f2.8 plus either the 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverters. I find no image quality degradation with the teleconverters and the lens is tack sharp. With the E-M1X it's an awesome portable birding rig at 3.5 lbs.

If portability isn't as much of a concern I bring the full frame D850+600 f4 (nearly 20 lbs) because I often need to print up to 20x30" and I think that's pushing it on m43.

Try renting the Olympus combination and see what you think.

 

[RandomNumbers]

The lens are the crux, as has always been the overriding factor in investing in a photographic system with minimal losses... "...change the Bodies, Keep the Lenses...".

My advice to anyone on a budget serious about succeeding in wildlife photography? Focus on the glass - excuse the pun and wait for ALL Mirrorless systems to mature and become more affordable. Do not hesitate to buy Used but only from a reputable shop with warranty. This applies especially to cameras. The grasshoppers dropping F-Nikkor telephotos into the Used markets makes this the ideal investment window to build up an excellent system for wildlife

"Invest in lenses" is a good approach in general, but not when you're in the transition period between lens mounts. 3rd party DSLR zooms are clearly performing worse on MILCs, Nikon's DSLR lenses seem to generally underperformon (current) Z cameras, the Sony 200-600 gave was a really unpleasant surprise wrt image defects. So in terms of sure-to-be-good lenses we have the 100-4(5)00s from Canon and Sony, and the fairly new 3rd party zooms on Sony E-Mount (both are a bit dark for their max focal length). A Sony 6400/6600 with the 100-400 might be a "wait till the A7IV" option, but many annoying things from the A7III will be compounded by more noise and worse handling there.

Oh well, perhaps I win the lottery tomorrow and get myself the R5 with the 100-500

 

[eaj101]

More on 'near equivalance':

The Problem with Near Equivalence | Sans Mirror | Thom Hogan

A discussion of near equivalence camera claims

www.sansmirror.com

 

[RandomNumbers]

Rolling shutter is an issue with higher speed action photos. It's basically a sampling rate problem and is reduced in cameras that use higher sampling rate sensors like the stacked sensors used in some Sony and Canon cameras and in the upcoming Nikon Z9.

IOW, rolling shutter isn't an issue with static scenes or even scenes with relatively low speed motion but for high speed action like small or fast birds in flight it can definitely be an issue, especially for cameras that use lower sampling rate sensors (e.g. 60 Hz sampling vs 120 Hz sampling). So in terms of general guidelines, electronic shutter isn't a problem for perched birds or most mammal photography but can be an issue for high speed action photography though much less of an issue if you happen to shoot with a camera that includes a higher sampling rate stacked sensor.

Cameras using faster readout stacked sensors solve several MILC problems including: better EVF performance with reduced frame blackout, reduced rolling shutter effect, and improved AF performance as the AF system receives focus data from the sensor more frequently. From what I've read the biggest limitation of Nikon's current MILCs is the use of standard DSLR sensors that have limited readout rates relative to the latest generation of stacked sensors like what's used in Sony's A1, Canon's R3 or Nikon's Z9.

A (somewhat rare) case where rolling shutter can mess up a photo of a static subject is when your image stabilization is working overtime and is shifitng your sensor during the capture.
Most often you won't notice it, unless scrolling through a series, but I did notice it every once in a while on the R6. To be fair, aggressive IBIS can even (rarely) add motion blur to an image taken with the mechanical shutter.

 

[RandomNumbers]

As I understand equivalence on m43, Olympus 300 f4 acts like a 600 f8 *for the purposes of depth of field*. For the purposes of exposure, however, it acts like a 300 f4, which is to say the exposure and ISO is the same as it would be on a full frame camera.

I am certain that it's both DOF and exposure (if you measure exposure in actual amount of light and not arbitrary ISO numbers).
I wouldn't wanna turn this thread into the ol' equivalence discussion though. I'm guessing the topic has gotten plenty of attention here already.

 

[jmurthy]

Thanks for the suggestions, guys.
I have considered APS-C and MFT, but for the most part (not all, not all, not all) they don't provide the same light gathering at equivalent focal lenghts. E.g. 300 F4 on MFT would act like an FF 600 F8. Considering that I'm often at the edge of acceptability with my ISO on full-frame cameras, those options would be too constraining. Furtermore, a zoom is basically a must for me. I tend to shoot different things in different situations and wouldn't wanna constrain myself by a fixed focal lentgh.

i have the 300mm olym pro and em1 mkii . this is a capable pair for birding, but the d500 with 500pf still takes the cake with slightly better focus acquisition. Noise levels, IQ, subject isolation are very comparable at least in my hands as i try to position myself the best as i can wrt background and available light. The 500pf is 5.6 at its widest and olympus 300 is f/4- so i can shoot at a lower iso on olympus, but at a penalty of higher rate of missing the desired focus.. hence i land up picking up my d500 500pf combo most times and with topaz denoise AI and dxophotolab prime noise reduction, i am happy with shooting at higher iso.. with em1x and em1 miii the experience could be much different due to improved CAF. I am hoping for a stacked MFT sensor with very competitive AF performance before i decide between that, a z9 or stay the course with f mount glass. for photographing predictable momentary fast action , olympus is great with its class leading pro capture mode.

 

[wild-pics]

Great analysis. Thank you. The 200-600 I use is sharp and works very well with the A9. I prefer this over the AF-S 200-500 or Tamron G2.

 

[Photos & BBQ]

Thank you very much for the information, it is a big help to me!!