Decisions, decisions

[biglouis]

I have a number of good friends here in this part of the forum and over time we have traded ideas, suggestions and observations about m4rds and the lenses.

I am having a lot of problems continuing to feel committed to using my Leica Lumix 100-400 for my growing interest in bird photography.

I feel the lens is not very good above 300mm and I also feel that the camera, the GX8 is not good enough, as well. I can achieve good results and have posted them here but after several visits to bird reserves where I have had the time and opportunity to photograph a variety of animals the 100-400 has often let me down in terms of speed of AF and sharpness at 400mm.

My main issue is the AF, specifically that with the number of AF points available, it is difficult to be sure about achieving critical focus - and anyone with experience of birding will know you often only have split seconds to get it right.

As I see it I have 3 possible ways forward:

1. The cheapest in terms of additional cost: replace the GX8 with a GH5 - I've already noticed that the sensor on my GX80 is sharper without the AA filter and I also think it supresses noise by up to 1 more stop. I would continue to use the 100-400 and hope that the better AF, better shutter and other features (like 16K capture) would help me to up my keeper rate.

2. The second cheapest (or most expensive) solution is to abandon m43rds for birding and get the new Nikon D500 - which is aclaimed as having excellent performance for birding - and something like the 300/4 PF lens + 1.4 and 1.7x teleconverters. This is actually the same weight as my GX8+100-400. The D500 is clearly a better camera than the GH5 as far as IQ goes at higher ISOs, something m43rds cannot compete with. One drawback though is returning to an optical viewfinder - a bit like going backwards in some respects.

3. The most expensive - paradoxically - is to stay with m43rds but change to a OM-D EM1 MkII and the 300/4 Pro + MC1.4 teleconverter (which is not essential but might be a useful add-on in certain circumstances). Believe it or not the camera and lens together are about 30% more expensive than the Nikon solution and together weighs 300g more than my existing and the Nikon solution. However, it remains within the m43rds family with all the benefits of small size and can use all my m43rds lenses as well.

4. The fourth solution which I have dismissed is to go with a Canon 7D MkII + 400/f5.6 - which is in many ways the 'birding standard' but only because of weight of the system. When I compare the weight of all 4 solutions, the Canon is the heaviest and reading the reviews for someone like me I'd have problems trying to using it handheld for BIF. I do use a tripod sometimes at reserves but I don't want to be compelled to use it at all times because of weight.

So, I would like to improve my kit - I know it is wrong to blame one's kit but after a year of using the 100-400 I really do think my lack of success is a little more than my technique alone - but I am not sure whether to invest more in Panasonic, abdandon Panasonic and invest in a dedicated Nikon solution (I would remain with m43rds for all my other work) or invest what seems to be a considerable amount of money - which seems paradoxical for m43rds - and change to Olympus.

These types of posts, I know can be incredibly frustrating for the reader but as I said at the beginning there are a lot of people in this part of the forum whose opinion I value and I would be interested in your thoughts - even if they are: stop fussing and take more photos!

LouisB

 

[ptomsu]

With all my experiences I would suggest the following:

1) staying in m43 - go the EM1.2 and 4/300 PRO route with optional TC14. This his allies you to stay in the same ecosystem and is definitely a great approach

2) go the APSC route but NOT with the Nikon D500 - instead with the Fuji XT2 and the lovely 100-400 (if needed with whatever TC like 1.4 or 2.0) - a bit more expensive than 1) -. This is my absolute killer wildlife combo and IMHO at least as capable as any of the Nikon DF500 and Nikkor lens combos, but you do not have to go back to DSLR - which I personally never would!

My two suggestions - I personally wanted to add the 4/300 to my EM1.2 but would have to do that by funding through selling the Fuji combo - which I will not do as this is justice such a marvellous camera system - not only for wildlife.

Hope this helps and does decisions make easier instead of more difficult.

Peter

 

[Knorp]

Perhaps you can rent a GH5 to see if your PL100-400 is really up to your standards in the 100-300 range.
If it is, buy a GH5. If not, well - you've got still three other options to explore ...

 

[leuallen]

Check out the Fredmiranda.com/micro four thirds forum site. Lots of birding pictures there. The EM-1 II with the pl 100-400 lens seems to be a favorite. They do not seem to have a problem with sharpness at 400, but these photogs have impeccable technique. The 300/4 may be sharper but it is not as versatile.

I have the GX8, EM-1 II, and the pl 100-400. I use the lens on the GX8, usually tripod, on landscapes and it is just fine for me. But I am not super critical when it comes to sharpness.

Larry

 

[k-hawinkler]

Over at FM check out the images by Tony Markle alias Imagemaster taken with E-M1.2 and PL 100-400, especially his Hummingbird shots. :thumbs:

Olympus E-M1 Mark II image thread - FM Forums

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

1. If staying with m4/3, the E-M1 II is the obvious choice with either the 100-400 or the 300.

2. My second choice would be the D500 with either the 300 PF and/or the 200-500 f/5.6. It's rather heavy at above 2 kilograms, but very sharp at all focal lengths.

3. The Fuji 100-400mm seems to be sharper than the PL, but you lose reach, so you would have to compare that lens at 400mm with the PL at 300mm.

I would try the E-M1 with your current lens first.

 

[drb]

Perhaps you can rent a GH5 to see if your PL100-400 is really up to your standards in the 100-300 range.
If it is, buy a GH5. If not, well - you've got still three other options to explore ...

Rent both the GH5 and the OMD1.2 and compare both with the 100-400 and see if either of those work for you.

 

[biglouis]

Thanks so much for all the great responses - it has certainly helped me think things through.

I'm not even close to making a decision although the links showing spectacular results with the PL100-400 do point to my technique needing work - but also, even if I am blaming my tool - perhaps the GX8 not being up to the task.

I should add the GX8 has been invaluable to me in completing one of my books and I have every confidence I can continue to use it for the urban landscape and architecture photography I do. The Lumix, PL and Olympus lenses are excellent for this type of work - especially the 7-14/Pro, 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8. So, I have no problem with the GX8 for this type of work.

I'd like to avoid starting another camera system. I have two and a half systems at present. The m43rds system, my various Sigma compacts (which I class as a second system), my Rioch GR and the Leica Q. In fact, I already have too many systems - so much as I agree with Peter that the Fuji system is probably the way to go with APS-C format - I'd rather avoid both Fuji and Nikon, or rather consider them as a last resort.

Daniel Cox, at Natural Exposures, whose opinion I admire a lot has a lot of positive things to say about the EM-1 mkII and the PL 100-400 together. It makes an interesting read.

If I can rent one I think I need to try the GH5 with the PL 100-400. After all, I've already made the investment in the lens so it only makes sense to see if a better platform improves image quality.

Thanks again to everyone for indulging me in my thinking on what to do.

LouisB

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Thanks so much for all the great responses - it has certainly helped me think things through.

I'm not even close to making a decision although the links showing spectacular results with the PL100-400 do point to my technique needing work - but also, even if I am blaming my tool - perhaps the GX8 not being up to the task.

I should add the GX8 has been invaluable to me in completing one of my books and I have every confidence I can continue to use it for the urban landscape and architecture photography I do. The Lumix, PL and Olympus lenses are excellent for this type of work - especially the 7-14/Pro, 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8. So, I have no problem with the GX8 for this type of work.

I'd like to avoid starting another camera system. I have two and a half systems at present. The m43rds system, my various Sigma compacts (which I class as a second system), my Rioch GR and the Leica Q. In fact, I already have too many systems - so much as I agree with Peter that the Fuji system is probably the way to go with APS-C format - I'd rather avoid both Fuji and Nikon, or rather consider them as a last resort.

Daniel Cox, at Natural Exposures, whose opinion I admire a lot has a lot of positive things to say about the EM-1 mkII and the PL 100-400 together. It makes an interesting read.

If I can rent one I think I need to try the GH5 with the PL 100-400. After all, I've already made the investment in the lens so it only makes sense to see if a better platform improves image quality.

Thanks again to everyone for indulging me in my thinking on what to do.

LouisB

I agree that the GX8 might not be up to it. As you mention, it's a camera that do amazingly well with the very best glass (I use the 12-35, 35-100, 75mm trio myself), but once there's a tiny weakness, images tend to look slightly soft. The G85 is in my experience better for this kind of work, but you would have to try that for yourself. I have no experience with the GH5.

 

[retow]

Concerning Nikon, the new D7500 might be an option to save some money and weight as compared to the D500. As far as Fuji is concerned, I tried (XPro1, XT1), and sold, and tried again (XPro2), and will sell again. I simply struggle with the xtrans sensor and when compared to best in class AA free mft (EM1.2) and aps-c sensors (Nikon 24MP, 21MP, Sony 24MP), I miss micro contrast and pop with these Fujis. Also, the praised (and perceived) high iso performance of the X-trans sensors comes at the expense of sharpness and detail imho.

 

[BradA]

Thanks so much for all the great responses - it has certainly helped me think things through.

I'm not even close to making a decision although the links showing spectacular results with the PL100-400 do point to my technique needing work - but also, even if I am blaming my tool - perhaps the GX8 not being up to the task.

I should add the GX8 has been invaluable to me in completing one of my books and I have every confidence I can continue to use it for the urban landscape and architecture photography I do. The Lumix, PL and Olympus lenses are excellent for this type of work - especially the 7-14/Pro, 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8. So, I have no problem with the GX8 for this type of work.

I'd like to avoid starting another camera system. I have two and a half systems at present. The m43rds system, my various Sigma compacts (which I class as a second system), my Rioch GR and the Leica Q. In fact, I already have too many systems - so much as I agree with Peter that the Fuji system is probably the way to go with APS-C format - I'd rather avoid both Fuji and Nikon, or rather consider them as a last resort.

Daniel Cox, at Natural Exposures, whose opinion I admire a lot has a lot of positive things to say about the EM-1 mkII and the PL 100-400 together. It makes an interesting read.

If I can rent one I think I need to try the GH5 with the PL 100-400. After all, I've already made the investment in the lens so it only makes sense to see if a better platform improves image quality.

Thanks again to everyone for indulging me in my thinking on what to do.

LouisB

Could you have a poor copy of the 100-400? I read a lot of very positive user reviews of that lens, but now and then I run across reviews that are not impressed with the IQ.

 

[biglouis]

Could you have a poor copy of the 100-400? I read a lot of very positive user reviews of that lens, but now and then I run across reviews that are not impressed with the IQ.

Possibly. I have achieved very high quality stills with the camera. Mainly while photographing statues and other architectural features.

What I feel is happening with bird photography a lot is missed focus. It could be down to me but it could also be down to the relatively simplistic AF on the GX8.

I'm leaning towards getting a GH5 with its expanded AF points, DFD and 16mpx 6K capture.

LouisB

 

[biglouis]

Doing more research I am now leaning towards the EM1-MkII.

I can't find any real information, or explanation of the functioning of the AF on the GH-5 other than lots of videos with people squabling about problems with the AF video quality.

Only Olympus seem to be putting effort into explaining the autofocus abilities of their camera for stills photography.

Maybe Panasonic do not want stills shooters?

LouisB

 

[Knorp]

Doing more research I am now leaning towards the EM1-MkII.

I can't find any real information, or explanation of the functioning of the AF on the GH-5 other than lots of videos with people squabling about problems with the AF video quality.

Only Olympus seem to be putting effort into explaining the autofocus abilities of their camera for stills photography.

Maybe Panasonic do not want stills shooters?

LouisB

Well, the 'overall consensus' seems to be GH5 for video and EM1.2 for stills.
Maybe a future GX9 will come to the rescue ?

 

[Dustbak]

I own a GH5 (Next to a lot of Nikon bodies and HB MFD's) and must say I am really pleased with it. The image quality is so much better than the GH3 I used to have before. I used to use the GH3 for video only and took the D800e when I needed images.

Now, I leave the D800e at home and use the GH5 instead for both video as well as stills. The IQ of the GH5 is still not on par with the D800e but it is not far off. It actually renders still images really really nice. The whole thing of the GH for video and the Olympus for stills is I.M.O something of the past. It does no longer apply for the GH5.

Having said that. For birding I think I would go for something like the D500.

I use the GH5 with the Pana lenses (12-35/2.8, 35-100/2.8) but I also have the 40-150 Olympus with the TC. I rarely use that because it is so big.

 

[Matix]

Doing more research I am now leaning towards the EM1-MkII.

I can't find any real information, or explanation of the functioning of the AF on the GH-5 other than lots of videos with people squabling about problems with the AF video quality.

Only Olympus seem to be putting effort into explaining the autofocus abilities of their camera for stills photography.

Maybe Panasonic do not want stills shooters?

LouisB

Louis I agree, I like the Lumix bodies and lenses they are so much less work to set up and use, but they are lagging in stills technology for sure. I too was holding out for the GH5, have been using GX7 and a GX8 for the time waiting.

For my Antarctica trip, I purchased the PL 100-400 and was lucky enough to find a super deal on the G85 body. The focusing and 5 axis in body with dual stabilization is amazing on the G85 and 100-400 combo, and the electro mechanical shutter is a dream, but apart from the 20mp sensor I do not see much value in investing an additional $1,500 for the GH5, it is essentially a videocentric camera which is where most of the new features are.

I just purchased the Olympus E-M1 Mark 2, and 5 days later I think I have the menu setup done. It is for sure a stillscentric body, and while you lose the dual stabilization of the G85, it does not seem to suffer. I use the in body stabilization for all but the PL 100-400. This weekend will be the test, taking it out to see what birds I can find to test on.

Watch this space.....

Phil

 

[k-hawinkler]

I find the Olympus E-M1 Mark 2 does also pretty darn good video. :thumbup:

 

[ptomsu]

I find the Olympus E-M1 Mark 2 does also pretty darn good video. :thumbup:

I have to back this experience. All video modes supported (1K, 4K, different frame rates) are excellent

 

[biglouis]

I just purchased the Olympus E-M1 Mark 2, and 5 days later I think I have the menu setup done. It is for sure a stillscentric body, and while you lose the dual stabilization of the G85, it does not seem to suffer. I use the in body stabilization for all but the PL 100-400. This weekend will be the test, taking it out to see what birds I can find to test on.

Watch this space.....

Phil

Phil, I think we'd all like to read of your views once you give the E-M1mkII a good try out.

My head keeps on saying "get the Nikon kit, you know it has better high iso support, superior AF and the 300 f4 PF is a great lens" but my heart says "can you really live without an EVF? Can you really go back to no instant feedback on EV and composition without having to take your eye from the viewfinder?".

Louis

 

[Dustbak]

The Nikon definitely has better high iso but the difference is not that large anymore.

I did try the Olympus as well but found the holding not comfortable. The Panasonic felt much more like the Nikon. More like a real camera.

I would suggest at least trying all 3 of them. For me, the Nikon is the ultimate body. I can use it without thinking. A true extention of myself (having used Nikon bodies for the last 30 years helps). The GH5 feels less intuitive but still as a real camera, comfortable.

As said before, great video and today the image quality is really good too (the Olympus everyone is telling it the other way around. Great image quality and today the video is good too). I think either of these things is capable of delivering the goods. Just make sure you have the one that you enjoy using the most.