biglouis
Well-known member
Just spitballing. I just don't feel I have a satisfying bird photography rig.
I've really been round and round trying to determine best bang for buck plus best weight for my age.
I currently use the X-T3 and 100-400 and it a good set-up. Far, far better than the G9+200/2.8 I was previously shooting with. I hate to sound like I am trolling but the DFD system on the G9 is just plain poor. Now, I attempt bird in flight situations with success which before I would just say, "too bad, not worth trying".
There are two big drawbacks with the X-T3 and 100-400. Firstly, the controls of the camera are not really set-up for action photography. There are no dedicated custom setting buttons so I am forever madly tweaking the front and rear control dials - where with the G9 I would just switch the control knob from C1, C2, C3 etc which I could do by touch very easily.
Secondly, the 100-400 is a great optic but it is slow (f5.6) and is a tad weak at the long end. It lacks the kind of sharpness you can only get with a prime lens. In bright summer sunlight it is absolutely super because I can easily stop down to f7.1 or above but as soon as you enter the dog days of winter here in the UK, it is a constant fight to get below iso3200 at max aperture. Actually, iso3200 on the X-T3 is pretty damn good (far better than on my G9) and usable but even so, I'd love to shoot at iso1600 or even less.
The X-T3 also lacks IBIS although the 100-400 does have OIS. Here is the funny thing, though. If you engage OIS at high shutter speeds it actually causes blur in the photos, something I never recall happening with the G9 and 200/2.8. Sure, the AF would miss but locked on the photos were sharp. I never even thought to turn off the IBIS/OIS whereas I have ruined a few photos with the X-T3+100-300 at high shutter speeds by forgetting to turn the OIS off.
I know this is long winded but if you stick with me I'll get to the point. So my criteria for a bird photography kit is:
1. Bright prime lens, maximum f4 (e.g. Nikkor/Canon 500 f4 prime).
2. Rugged, weather sealed camera which can be set up with 3 or more custom modes at the turn of a wheel/control button.
3. Weight as low as possible - I cannot lift a D850+Nikkor 500/f4 - just not realistic and I definitely would not be able to cart that rig plus a tripod any long distance (unlike carrying my X-T3 rig which I can sometimes rack up 10K when hiking).
4. IBIS which is less temperamental than the X-T3 which really does seem to cause problems above 1/500th in my experience.
Now, I have been evaluating several systems:
1. Canon 7dMkIII plus 300 L IS f4 (plus 1.4x TC when necessary) - a great rig by all accounts BUT I am not sure I can go back to an OVF. Lots of second hand kit at ridiculously low prices - probably cost me about GBP1500 all in. Well established IQ but how does it compare to modern mirrorless offerings?
2. Nikon D500 pus 300 PF f4 (plus 1.4x TC etc) - lightest of all possibilities but - again - I have to sacrifice the EVF for an OVF. Lots of second hand kit at good prices - probably cost me about GBP2,500 all in. Also, well established IQ but again a bit long in the tooth.
3. Nikon Z6+adapter+pf500/5.6 - a prime lens but not as bright as 1 and 2, up to date sensor, very portable but probably about GBP 5,000 all-in as there is no second hand market at present for the 500 pf.
4. Sony A9+200-600 - agreed to be about the best there is - priced it up today at my local camera store and it will come in at about GBP 4,000 - although I can probably shave GBP 500 by finding a used A9. Not a bright lens at all. Actually, thinking about it, probably not that much better than I have at present with the X-T3 (sorry Sony fans) so why make the change?
5. Olympus OMD E-M1X + Olympus Pro 300 f4. A bright lens, a great camera body in terms of ergos, lighter than the A9+200-600 but not as light as the D500+300pf. However, incredibly compact for what it is - easily hikeable across 10K. Biggest question mark: sacrificing image quality for body ergos and f4 aperture above iso 2000?
Now, someone, somewhere following my logic is going to say "what about the Fuji XF 200 f2 with the 1.4tc?" Well, there are two problems. In the UK the asking price is about GBP 5,000. Secondly, the analysis above shows there are entire systems with cameras and lenses and way, way more reach for less than that. It just does not make economic or commercial sense.
So, I just cannot see moving away from mirror less and that means 1 & 2, no matter how obvious it is that this makes the most common sense, are ruled out.
Casting common sense aside - the Z6+FTZ+500pf, really is a bit of a kludge, no matter what anyone says. And it is the largest investment of all (even if you can get hold of the lens which appears to be as rare as hens teeth). Risky, but might be the best IQ of all.
The decision in my mind comes down to the A9+200-600 or the EM1X+Pro300.
The problem with the Sony is that I don't think I will achieve anything more than I already have with the X-T3+100-400 and indeed I'll be losing a stop (or is it half stop?) at the long end where I'll probably spend most of the time. Sure, the AF is fantastic, the IQ is fantastic but will noise defeat all these advantages if I am constrained to the lowest aperture being f6.3?
The EM1X is the best body I have played with in a long time. Easily as good as the G9 which was the best body I owned before that. (For all its wonderful features the X-T3 is a good, not great, body). The ergonomics of the Pro 300 (with its AF/MF clutch) is also very good. Together they feel great in the hand compared to the A9+200-600 I tried. The A9+200-600 feels a bit like the lens 'tail' wagging the camera body 'dog'. Whereas with the EM1X the body is clearly capable of handling the lens even one handed.
I handled both systems at my local camera store today and came away with mixed feelings. Looking back, there is something about the Sony ergonomics and handling I just did not like. The Olympus was much, much better. But my head keeps on saying "Sony - no risk. Olympus - risky, especially in terms of IQ which may completely negate the bright aperture and ergonomics".
Not too sure what to do and in fact I'm inclined to do nothing as I am not satisfied that the kit I want exists at present. This down in part to Fuji's failure to give us well priced prime with reach, e.g. a 300 f4. The 200 f2 may be a technical masterpiece but I bet you wont see many of them at the Olympics in 2020.
I don't know if anyone has had the energy to read all this but your comments would be valuable.
LouisB
I've really been round and round trying to determine best bang for buck plus best weight for my age.
I currently use the X-T3 and 100-400 and it a good set-up. Far, far better than the G9+200/2.8 I was previously shooting with. I hate to sound like I am trolling but the DFD system on the G9 is just plain poor. Now, I attempt bird in flight situations with success which before I would just say, "too bad, not worth trying".
There are two big drawbacks with the X-T3 and 100-400. Firstly, the controls of the camera are not really set-up for action photography. There are no dedicated custom setting buttons so I am forever madly tweaking the front and rear control dials - where with the G9 I would just switch the control knob from C1, C2, C3 etc which I could do by touch very easily.
Secondly, the 100-400 is a great optic but it is slow (f5.6) and is a tad weak at the long end. It lacks the kind of sharpness you can only get with a prime lens. In bright summer sunlight it is absolutely super because I can easily stop down to f7.1 or above but as soon as you enter the dog days of winter here in the UK, it is a constant fight to get below iso3200 at max aperture. Actually, iso3200 on the X-T3 is pretty damn good (far better than on my G9) and usable but even so, I'd love to shoot at iso1600 or even less.
The X-T3 also lacks IBIS although the 100-400 does have OIS. Here is the funny thing, though. If you engage OIS at high shutter speeds it actually causes blur in the photos, something I never recall happening with the G9 and 200/2.8. Sure, the AF would miss but locked on the photos were sharp. I never even thought to turn off the IBIS/OIS whereas I have ruined a few photos with the X-T3+100-300 at high shutter speeds by forgetting to turn the OIS off.
I know this is long winded but if you stick with me I'll get to the point. So my criteria for a bird photography kit is:
1. Bright prime lens, maximum f4 (e.g. Nikkor/Canon 500 f4 prime).
2. Rugged, weather sealed camera which can be set up with 3 or more custom modes at the turn of a wheel/control button.
3. Weight as low as possible - I cannot lift a D850+Nikkor 500/f4 - just not realistic and I definitely would not be able to cart that rig plus a tripod any long distance (unlike carrying my X-T3 rig which I can sometimes rack up 10K when hiking).
4. IBIS which is less temperamental than the X-T3 which really does seem to cause problems above 1/500th in my experience.
Now, I have been evaluating several systems:
1. Canon 7dMkIII plus 300 L IS f4 (plus 1.4x TC when necessary) - a great rig by all accounts BUT I am not sure I can go back to an OVF. Lots of second hand kit at ridiculously low prices - probably cost me about GBP1500 all in. Well established IQ but how does it compare to modern mirrorless offerings?
2. Nikon D500 pus 300 PF f4 (plus 1.4x TC etc) - lightest of all possibilities but - again - I have to sacrifice the EVF for an OVF. Lots of second hand kit at good prices - probably cost me about GBP2,500 all in. Also, well established IQ but again a bit long in the tooth.
3. Nikon Z6+adapter+pf500/5.6 - a prime lens but not as bright as 1 and 2, up to date sensor, very portable but probably about GBP 5,000 all-in as there is no second hand market at present for the 500 pf.
4. Sony A9+200-600 - agreed to be about the best there is - priced it up today at my local camera store and it will come in at about GBP 4,000 - although I can probably shave GBP 500 by finding a used A9. Not a bright lens at all. Actually, thinking about it, probably not that much better than I have at present with the X-T3 (sorry Sony fans) so why make the change?
5. Olympus OMD E-M1X + Olympus Pro 300 f4. A bright lens, a great camera body in terms of ergos, lighter than the A9+200-600 but not as light as the D500+300pf. However, incredibly compact for what it is - easily hikeable across 10K. Biggest question mark: sacrificing image quality for body ergos and f4 aperture above iso 2000?
Now, someone, somewhere following my logic is going to say "what about the Fuji XF 200 f2 with the 1.4tc?" Well, there are two problems. In the UK the asking price is about GBP 5,000. Secondly, the analysis above shows there are entire systems with cameras and lenses and way, way more reach for less than that. It just does not make economic or commercial sense.
So, I just cannot see moving away from mirror less and that means 1 & 2, no matter how obvious it is that this makes the most common sense, are ruled out.
Casting common sense aside - the Z6+FTZ+500pf, really is a bit of a kludge, no matter what anyone says. And it is the largest investment of all (even if you can get hold of the lens which appears to be as rare as hens teeth). Risky, but might be the best IQ of all.
The decision in my mind comes down to the A9+200-600 or the EM1X+Pro300.
The problem with the Sony is that I don't think I will achieve anything more than I already have with the X-T3+100-400 and indeed I'll be losing a stop (or is it half stop?) at the long end where I'll probably spend most of the time. Sure, the AF is fantastic, the IQ is fantastic but will noise defeat all these advantages if I am constrained to the lowest aperture being f6.3?
The EM1X is the best body I have played with in a long time. Easily as good as the G9 which was the best body I owned before that. (For all its wonderful features the X-T3 is a good, not great, body). The ergonomics of the Pro 300 (with its AF/MF clutch) is also very good. Together they feel great in the hand compared to the A9+200-600 I tried. The A9+200-600 feels a bit like the lens 'tail' wagging the camera body 'dog'. Whereas with the EM1X the body is clearly capable of handling the lens even one handed.
I handled both systems at my local camera store today and came away with mixed feelings. Looking back, there is something about the Sony ergonomics and handling I just did not like. The Olympus was much, much better. But my head keeps on saying "Sony - no risk. Olympus - risky, especially in terms of IQ which may completely negate the bright aperture and ergonomics".
Not too sure what to do and in fact I'm inclined to do nothing as I am not satisfied that the kit I want exists at present. This down in part to Fuji's failure to give us well priced prime with reach, e.g. a 300 f4. The 200 f2 may be a technical masterpiece but I bet you wont see many of them at the Olympics in 2020.
I don't know if anyone has had the energy to read all this but your comments would be valuable.
LouisB