-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Bridge camera with rapid autofocus and stabilization (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Ted Y.
- Start date
Wishful thinking? Likely almost twice as much at this time. The closest would be Sony RX100 but comes with 200mm lens only.
A different answer: define rapid AF. Are you wanting to be able to take 5-8 photos per second of stationary birds and get a number of them in focus? Are you wanting to take 12-15 shots per second of flying birds and have 90% in focus? Those two situations would demand AF of significantly different quality and as a result, price.
Niels
Niels
"5-8 photos per second of stationary birds and get a number of them in focus"
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
I own an RX100-III which has shorter zoom, but operationally pretty much same. They are small, fiddly, but do have 1" sensor. Retail is around $1200 IIRC for the latest models which do go to 200mm.
200mm did not seem like enough to I bought a Lumix DC-ZS200 which goes out to 350mm. It's ok, but barely so. At full zoom it's a little soft and f-stop gets smallish. What's nice is that it's very compact, shoots pretty fast (can do 4k burst mode), does RAW, has 1" sensor, includes ok EVF, and manages to produce images good enough for helping with ID. And it can be found for half the price of the RX100.
If you want calendar quality images you prob need to save up a little more $ and get into a more serious interchangeable lens camera. Somewhere in between those two extremes, there's some options like the RX10 which I'm told is excellent. I just didn't want to carry something like that around...
YMMV!
BTW, these were with the Lumix, and at least the Bluebird, was zoomed max and burst mode. They are both additionally cropped. Nothing great but nice record of birds seen.
200mm did not seem like enough to I bought a Lumix DC-ZS200 which goes out to 350mm. It's ok, but barely so. At full zoom it's a little soft and f-stop gets smallish. What's nice is that it's very compact, shoots pretty fast (can do 4k burst mode), does RAW, has 1" sensor, includes ok EVF, and manages to produce images good enough for helping with ID. And it can be found for half the price of the RX100.
If you want calendar quality images you prob need to save up a little more $ and get into a more serious interchangeable lens camera. Somewhere in between those two extremes, there's some options like the RX10 which I'm told is excellent. I just didn't want to carry something like that around...
YMMV!
BTW, these were with the Lumix, and at least the Bluebird, was zoomed max and burst mode. They are both additionally cropped. Nothing great but nice record of birds seen.
Last edited:
I am no longer using bridge type cameras but my impression is that for a camera with reasonable results in good light that might struggle a little in really poor light you will find that level of performance from several vendors including Panasonic (FZ 330 and what ever that level is called in different markets), nikon p600/900/950/1000 and canon SX70. Several threads in different sections of the camera part of Birdforum.
Now if you want that kind of behavior from a camera that functions really will in really low light then you likely need a different level of investment.
Niels
I believe this is for AF of flying birds. Stationary bird photography is a lot less demanding.
Niels
nkbj
Niels Kristian Bech Jensen
Few birds (at least smaller birds like warblers) are really stationary. They tend to move a lot between branches, which demands a lot of the autofocus system.
I think Niels has it right. I started with a superzoom. I moved to an slr for 2 use cases: fast moving birds (=anything small), and cluttered environments (=tropical forest). I don't really bother with birds in flight (much), but that's a third one. In all these cases the superzoom autofocus is insufficient. In others you can get good results.
I hate hulking my SLR around: it weighs a tonne. One day when you're feeling rich you might want to move on to a Sony. Meanwhile other models mentioned are good. I still use my superzoom for landscapes, macro photography
I hate hulking my SLR around: it weighs a tonne. One day when you're feeling rich you might want to move on to a Sony. Meanwhile other models mentioned are good. I still use my superzoom for landscapes, macro photography
leonardo_simon
Well-known member
I've recently bought myself a Fuji X-T4 with a 70-300mm lens (100-400mm equivalent at 35mm).
It's a lot lighter than the full frame cameras and the quality seems good. Autofocus fast, can do upto about 15 shots per second.
But a lot more than $1000 unfortunately.
Anyone else use Fuji here?
It's a lot lighter than the full frame cameras and the quality seems good. Autofocus fast, can do upto about 15 shots per second.
But a lot more than $1000 unfortunately.
Anyone else use Fuji here?
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
I’m a huge fan of the x100 series.
What lens did you get and reasons not to get XE series instead?
What lens did you get and reasons not to get XE series instead?
wonderview
Well-known member
I think the only bridge style camera capable of of any kind of success with birds in flight photography, and having the best combination of AF and reach, would be the Sony RX 10 mk iv. Unfortunately the price for that camera in Canada is something like $1700 Canadian. You get what you pay for, but for $1500 US you should be able to get one of those. Cheaper, less capable bridge cameras just lead to frustration as far as BIF goes, believe me I have tried. I have the Nikon B700 and it's almost impossible to get a good BIF photo even with large birds. Even with longer zoom cameras such as Nikon P900/950/1000, Canon SX50/60/70, etc, you rarely see good BIF photos on this or other sites.
Hi nkbj,
I had an FZ1000 (until it fried itself), and I'd definitely consider the autofocus as fast enough for birds in flight.
I managed to reliably get in-focus shots of swifts zipping past my balcony, so it's not a case of just working with slow birds far away under good conditions.
I have no idea how it compares modern DSLRs, but the FZ1000 autofocus was easily as good as that of my older DSLR, a Sony Alpha 700, for birds in flight.
Not to say I can whole-heartedly recommend the camera, as after I had it for a couple of years, the electronics simply died for no apparent reason, but I thought the autofocus was just fine for bird in flight.
The FZ1000 also is a bit short in terms of "reach", so if the thread opener is hoping for something like the Nikon P900/P1000, just with a fast autofocus, the FZ1000 is not the camera he is looking for.
Regards,
Henning
I had an FZ1000 (until it fried itself), and I'd definitely consider the autofocus as fast enough for birds in flight.
I managed to reliably get in-focus shots of swifts zipping past my balcony, so it's not a case of just working with slow birds far away under good conditions.
I have no idea how it compares modern DSLRs, but the FZ1000 autofocus was easily as good as that of my older DSLR, a Sony Alpha 700, for birds in flight.
Not to say I can whole-heartedly recommend the camera, as after I had it for a couple of years, the electronics simply died for no apparent reason, but I thought the autofocus was just fine for bird in flight.
The FZ1000 also is a bit short in terms of "reach", so if the thread opener is hoping for something like the Nikon P900/P1000, just with a fast autofocus, the FZ1000 is not the camera he is looking for.
Regards,
Henning
I started out with a bridge camera too. It was back when iso 400 was noisy and everything above was unusable. I moved to something more expensive due to getting frustrated with the low light in Costa Rican rainforest. Reading experience from other people, even the cheaper new models are much better than what I used to have, and I got a lot of somewhat decent shots with that bridge camera.
The answer from the OP indicated that he was not really looking for the best BIF camera but for one that works a little more generally. I therefore think that the cameras I mentioned in post 7 will do what he wants.
Niels
The answer from the OP indicated that he was not really looking for the best BIF camera but for one that works a little more generally. I therefore think that the cameras I mentioned in post 7 will do what he wants.
Niels
PaulCountyDurham
Well-known member
I think just about all of the bridge cameras will do that. I have the Nikon P950 and on a good day I come home with over 300 pictures, with just about all of them in focus. The biggest problem I have is trawling through them to find the best ones, and more often than not I lose commitment to it and just go with a few of the 200 without really comparing them that much. In my defence that's after being out all day and so I'm knackered and just don't have the will nor the time to analyse them all in detail.
I don't think you'll have a problem with focus on any of the recommended bridge cameras down to the best budget level entry (the FZ330). When I was looking for a new camera, focus was mentioned quite a bit by reviewers and I'm just not seeing what they're seeing. The only conclusion I could draw is that they are making a comparison with a few grand's worth of gear.
leonardo_simon
Well-known member
X-T4 has the fastest autofocus and in body stabilisation and is weather sealed.
None of the above in the XE series.
Previously I had X-E1 - which was excellent for landscapes etc
A large diversity of suggestions and relevant comments to consider. Thank you all.
This help me to separate the "what is needed" from the "what I want".
I agree the birds move a lot.
Also, I am searching more information concerning your suggestions from Digital Photography Review.
And I am watching the prices.
This help me to separate the "what is needed" from the "what I want".
I agree the birds move a lot.
Also, I am searching more information concerning your suggestions from Digital Photography Review.
And I am watching the prices.