Camera and lens combo for birds in flight (1 Viewer)

[Bavariaboy]

Over the past 10+ years I first used a Canon Powershot SX50HS and later the SX70HS for birding. I liked the light weight and long focal length. Typically, I'll go out in the morning for a few hours and walk an area slowly looking at birds and photographing those of interest. I typically photograph at the maximum equivalent focal length of 1365mm and will still find myself cropping to get an acceptable image size. I sometimes find myself too close to subjects and will have to reduce my focal length. In addition to the lower quality photos that I'm taking, my current set-up is very weak with birds in flight. So, I'm looking for a camera that is very good for BIF and wanting to match it to a zoom lens with a long focal length while keeping it from getting too heavy. Budget is not set, but I'm hoping around $4000 but realize I may need to go higher.

Below are 2 options I'm considering and wondering how they compare. Specifically, if I take a photo of a distant bird with these 2 cameras and need to crop the canon photo to arrive at the same bird size. which will have the better image quality?

1. OM-1 Mark II with a M. Zuike 150-600mm f5-6.3 IS. MFT at $4,000 with an equivalent 300-1200mm. (6 pounds)
2. Canon EOS R-5 Mark II with a RF 200-800mm f6.3-9 IS USM. FF at $5,900. (6 pounds)

I have to admit I'm a little concerned about the 6 pound weight of the above 2 options. But considering that I currently use a 1365mm equivalent focal length and crop that, how much can I crop an image from the below setup and still have a pleasing image?

OM-1 Mark II with a M. Zuike 100-400mm f5-6.3 IS II. A MFT at $3,500 with an equivalent 200-800mm. (4.2 pounds)

Any other cameras that would be better for birds in flight?

Thanks,
Doug

 

[njlarsen]

I am biased, but I think that you would be doing OK with your last mentioned setup (OM1-ii with 100-400). You will never get great photos with distances that demand higher reach than that, because air disturbance does add up. I am currently using an OM1-ii with a 100-400, even though I kept the PanaLeica I already had rather than switch to the OM model. It works great, as you will see with some of my recent images in the gallery here:

Media added by njlarsen

www.birdforum.net

Others of those images are more in the range of ID proof images, in other words at considerable distance.
Niels

 

[samnew]

If you like the lightweight of the SX50/70 I think you'll be disappointed with a set up that weighs 6lbs. That's quite the weigh to carry and walk around with and use for birds in flight compared to 1.5lbs of the SX50/70.

The OM-1 (the original or version 2) plus 100-400 lens would come in at a weight of 1.7kg (3.7lbs). This would give you an equivalent view of 200-800 (still a lot) and weigh significantly less.

If you want to go with Canon then the R7 is another option, this has a crop factor of 1.6x due to the APSC sensor. Again, to keep it light, the RF100-400 would give a combined weight of 1.3kg (2.8lbs). This would give an effective reach of 160-640. There's also the RF100-500 which would give a little more reach but is a higher quality lens (but also heavier at nearly 2kg). With the 200-800 on an R7 it would be 2.6kg (5.7lbs) - quite a bit heavier but give a reach of 320 - 1,280 equivalent.

There's also the option of teleconverters (1.4x or even 2x). The 1.4x generally get much better reviews than the 2x generally as the 2x causes a greater loss in image quality (and focusing speed - which for birds in flight may be an issue).

 

[Bavariaboy]

If you like the lightweight of the SX50/70 I think you'll be disappointed with a set up that weighs 6lbs. That's quite the weigh to carry and walk around with and use for birds in flight compared to 1.5lbs of the SX50/70.

The OM-1 (the original or version 2) plus 100-400 lens would come in at a weight of 1.7kg (3.7lbs). This would give you an equivalent view of 200-800 (still a lot) and weigh significantly less.

If you want to go with Canon then the R7 is another option, this has a crop factor of 1.6x due to the APSC sensor. Again, to keep it light, the RF100-400 would give a combined weight of 1.3kg (2.8lbs). This would give an effective reach of 160-640. There's also the RF100-500 which would give a little more reach but is a higher quality lens (but also heavier at nearly 2kg). With the 200-800 on an R7 it would be 2.6kg (5.7lbs) - quite a bit heavier but give a reach of 320 - 1,280 equivalent.

There's also the option of teleconverters (1.4x or even 2x). The 1.4x generally get much better reviews than the 2x generally as the 2x causes a greater loss in image quality (and focusing speed - which for birds in flight may be an issue).

Thanks for the posts. I've since been kicking it around and reading way too many reviews and forum posts.

APS-C sensors are larger than the MFT's and smaller than FF. It seems like it could be a good compromise for birds in flight photography. I see many people recommending the R7 for bird in flight photography. But then others have rolling shutter issues with the R7, which I could see being a problem for me when using burst mode for birds. I've seen mention of an R7 Mark II possibly coming out in the coming months. Assuming the Mark II addresses the rolling shutter, it would be a good match for me as I like getting a 1.6 crop factor.

The RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 L IS USM gets great reviews! Using with the R7 would give an equivalent 160-800mm but might be a little short compared to my current. If so, adding the RF 1.4x extender would give me 1120mm at the long end, but due to some interference the zoom would be limited to 672mm on the short end. That's troubling.

The RF 200-800 f6.3-9 IS USM using with the R7 would give an equivalent 320-1280. The range sounds great, but I've heard that it is not as sharp as the above 100-500. It's also heavier and longer which I'm hoping to avoid

So, I'm stuck on which way to go on the lens and/or extender.

Maybe I'm asking for too much focal length? Using my Canon SX70 bridge camera, I typically will use the full 1365 mm and still crop most bird photos. It is a small 1/2.3" type sensor. Cropping a close bird with good light can give me a pleasing result. Cropping a distant bird falls apart pretty quickly. So, for a distant bird photo with the R7 and 800mm equivalent zoom, I would need to crop more to make up for the difference in focal length. Would this still give me a noticeably better photo?

Thanks,
Doug

 

[Earnest lad]

I used to use a bridge camera for my birding. The motorized zoom was, I found, taking a few seconds to zoom out (and likewise a few seconds to zoom back in). Frequently the bird would have moved on by the time one was ready to take the photo. When I moved on to a camera with an interchangeable lens (Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary) five years ago, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the manual zooming ring facilitates speedy zooming in and out.
Also, when one turned the bridge camera on, it took a few seconds to boot up. By that time, the bird was often long gone. With an upgrade from bridge camera, I was pleased to see that switching the power on, enabled instantaneous taking of pictures. That too was a big positive for me.
Finally, I find a zoom camera great for BIF as opposed to a fixed focal length prime lens. This is because one's zooming back to 150mm facilitates locating the bird in the sky. Once the bird is in the frame one can zoom out to longer reach, all the while keeping the bird in focus.. In contrast, with a fixed-focal length prime lens, it can be difficult to spot the bird through the viewfinder as one is already at high magnification and the area of sky seen is small.
In conclusion: I concur that zoom is better than prime for a lens in your case. Also, with weight being a factor, the format of Micro four thirds might suit. M43 format is providing a larger sensor than a bridge camera so the image quality should be higher.