How much do I lose by going from DSLR to superzoom? (2 Viewers)

[LucaPCP]

I have an Olympus OM-D EM-II with 100-400 lens, which is equivalent to 800mm in 35mm format.
The images are fantastic, but the whole is large and as heavy as a brick (technically, 2 Kg).
How much would I lose for bird ID by going to Nikon P950 (1Kg)? Any other cameras that I should consider?

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

I have an Olympus OM-D EM-II with 100-400 lens, which is equivalent to 800mm in 35mm format.
The images are fantastic, but the whole is large and as heavy as a brick (technically, 2 Kg).
How much would I lose for bird ID by going to Nikon P950 (1Kg)? Any other cameras that I should consider?

There are a few things in your post: quality of image, weight, bird ID.

I suppose it depends on what is most important to you and when you're out with your camera what you do, e.g. how much you walk.

I think there are other important considerations such as: the amount of good light in your country, which types of birds you particularly like to photograph and so on. I'll assume you've considered these other factors.

If it helps, I have the Nikon P950 'round my neck, walk for miles all day, and I don't notice it's there. God only knows how many miles I do on a summer's day but it's from daybreak to sunset with the odd 15 minute break here and there. I've never considered the weight to be even a slight problem. In terms of nice photos, it's capable of doing that for you but you may want to consider exactly how you take your pictures because that will matter.

As for other superzoom/bridge camera options, when I was researching a new camera the reputable sites didn't agree on which was the best value. I went for the extra zoom because with my previous camera I felt I was just out of range and the extra zoom would make a difference.

I could talk a lot about the Nikon P950 but there's not a lot of use without knowing the details mentioned above.

 

[Richard D]

If you're main use is for bird id rather than producing great bird photos the P900/950 should be fine. The small sensor does limit the image quality compared with a 4/3 sensor but the extreme reach and surprisingly good stabilization will generally get you something useable. In good light the images are surprisingly decent but in poorer light it will struggle more. I don't regret buying one.

 

[LucaPCP]

I am only interested in bird ID, and not in getting high quality photos.

For quality photos, I use my DSLR with a heavy lens (Oly OM-1 E-MII + 100-400, which weighs over 2 Kg), which is a pain to bring around if I have other equipment.

So for a clearer description:
I hike 4-8 Km in a typical outing. I carry my 8x42 binoculars in a chest harness, possibly a camera, and possibly a scope mounted on a tripod (for the shorter hikes, not for 8Km ones). So the camera cannot be too heavy.

My comparison is a portable combination of Olympus OM-D E-MII, with good 20MP sensor, great image stabilization, and a 300mm lens which is equivalent to 600mm on 35mm format; the whole weighs 1 Kg more or less. Compared to this:

• I am wondering whether the Nikon P950, which also weighs about 1 Kg, would be superior for ID of far-away birds.
• I am wondering whether the Canon SX70, which weighs half a Kilo, would be as good as the Olympus OM-D E-MII for bird ID.

What I need to see is the bird characteristics: bill color, patterns, streaks, etc, even if the bird is a bit backlit (flare performance is important), etc.

Many thanks for all the advice!

 

[Owene]

I have the p950. Never had a dslr though. I tend to carry it in a case over my shoulder at my waist and get it out for record shots. It’s not especially cumbersome and gets good results in decent conditions and has a massive reach even in fairly poor ones if you just want to nail down what’s there.

 

[Jim M.]

Hi Luca.

A few clarifications so others reading will not be confused.

First, the Oly E-MII is not a DSLR – it is a mirrorless camera and lighter than many DSLR's.

Second, I assume you have the Olympus 100-400 mm lens (as opposed to the Panasonic-Leica100-400 mm lens which would also fit your camera). According to the weights listed at B&H photo, your camera and the Olympus lens should weigh under 2 kg –1694 g to be precise. The Panasonic-Leica would weigh 135 g less. Your camera, together with the panasonic lens, is one of the lightest birding setups with that amount of reach that you can get outside of a superzoom. Personally, I don't have any problem carrying the panasonic lens with the Olympus camera all day – though occasionally my shoulder becomes a little fatigued, and then I just switch shoulders. How are you carrying your camera? If you are carrying it around your neck along with your bins, then I can see that that would be too much. Have you considered switching to carrying it on your shoulder, or trying a sling strap, etc.?

Finally, yes, if you're only interested in bird ID rather than image quality, I believe one of the more powerful superzooms would get you what you need. Though you would have a much smaller sensor, so less ability to crop. But I should add I haven't used a superzoom for many years.

Hope this helps,
Jim

 

[delia todd]

I have the P900 and am delighted with it. Like you I'm not into top quality images for sale or publication, just want a record of my outings and getting ID's if necessary. Sometimes I can't make a bird out on my Leica APO77 and 20x60 zoom but many times I've then got the camera out, zoomed right in, taken a shot, then blown it up on screen and it becomes obvious what it is, though sometimes I need to get the image home and look at it on my computer.

I got it during my trip to Australia and fell in love with it almost straight away.

It's attached to a BlackRapid shoulder harness, the camera hanging down by my right hip. Only takes moments to swing it up to use.

You can see some of my Australian pictures (mostly taken in very strong sunlight) in the Down Under trip report in my signature and UK ones in my Gallery.

I'm not sure what the difference is between the P900 and the P950/1000 - think they have a bigger zoom but others will know.

I've never used a DSLR... as I mostly use automatic modes I really wouldn't make the best use of one, let alone not being able to afford the lenses and couldn't cope with the weight either.

 

[Stonefaction]

For ID purposes, I'd go with a DSLR everytime. I've recently switched to an OM-1 (also micro 4/3) and although it is great at a lot of things, getting useable detail on distant birds isn't really one of them (in Scottish winter light conditions at least). I bought a P900 a few years ago to do the 'travelling light' thing but in practice I rarely used it, preferring to go with a DSLR with either an older 50-500mm lens or sometimes a 70-300mm so I could crop in and still have some useable detail for IDs of distant birds (My usual kit was a Nikon D500 with a 200-500mm - pretty heavy). The P900 was decent for closer birds but the detail just wasn't really there for birds at a distance. If I was you, I'd stick with what I had and maybe find a way to lose a bit of weight elsewhere in your kit.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

I am only interested in bird ID, and not in getting high quality photos.

That being the case, I'd have thought this should be an easy answer for you.

You know what constitutes bird ID for you, you know what your current camera delivers and it's range, and you know the range of a Nikon P950. 'Should be an easy decision to make.

I think the Nikon P950 is a much better camera than being used solely for bird ID, and such a purchase would be a criminal waste of a good camera.

 

[LucaPCP]

What I do not know is if I get more useful range with Olympus + 600mm equivalent lens (but very sharp pixels), or Nikon P950, or Canon SX70.
In paricular:

• How much more range do I get with P950 vs Oly with 600mm equivalent lens?
• How much more range do I get with Canon SX70 vs Oly with 600mm equivalent lens?

Bird ID is very important to me. If I spend $$$ on a scope for that, I can certainly spend for a camera for that.

 

[LucaPCP]

Hi Luca.

A few clarifications so others reading will not be confused.

First, the Oly E-MII is not a DSLR – it is a mirrorless camera and lighter than many DSLR's.

Second, I assume you have the Olympus 100-400 mm lens (as opposed to the Panasonic-Leica100-400 mm lens which would also fit your camera). According to the weights listed at B&H photo, your camera and the Olympus lens should weigh under 2 kg –1694 g to be precise. The Panasonic-Leica would weigh 135 g less. Your camera, together with the panasonic lens, is one of the lightest birding setups with that amount of reach that you can get outside of a superzoom. Personally, I don't have any problem carrying the panasonic lens with the Olympus camera all day – though occasionally my shoulder becomes a little fatigued, and then I just switch shoulders. How are you carrying your camera? If you are carrying it around your neck along with your bins, then I can see that that would be too much. Have you considered switching to carrying it on your shoulder, or trying a sling strap, etc.?

Finally, yes, if you're only interested in bird ID rather than image quality, I believe one of the more powerful superzooms would get you what you need. Though you would have a much smaller sensor, so less ability to crop. But I should add I haven't used a superzoom for many years.

Hope this helps,
Jim

Many thanks! Yes, I have two lenses for my Olympus:

The Olympus 100-400 is fantastic, focuses very fast. Yes, the camera with the lens is less than 2Kg, but add 100g of strap, and you are very close to it.
The lens is big enough that it's cumbersome to hike with the camera bandolier style, even though I have one of those nice Peak Design straps. It would be tolerable if I had only the camera, but with also my 8x42 binoculars it's a bit much. So I generally carry the camera in a backpack, and when I need to take a photo for ID, I need to take the camera out and use it. This is not too bad, but sometimes I carry also a scope ... and it can get really difficult. Also, I like to go light sometimes; if I have to start fitting in the backpack food, water, the Oly with big lens, wind/rain jacket, etc, it gets a bit much.

I also have an Olympus 75-300 lens, which has great quality, it's just a bit shorter and a bit slower to focus than the 100-400, but much lighter. With that lens, it's not too much of a bother to carry both camera and binoculars out, and the camera fits much easier in a backpack that also contains other things.

But for when I want to go light, and just have a camera to disambiguate difficult IDs, the Canon SX70, at 500g, has real appeal.
More so likely than the P950, as the P950 is the same weight as the Oly + 75-300mm lens, and I am not sure which is best (I am also super used to the Oly, which I can use in a completely instinct-based way).
I bird enough that having a light camera for my walks would be a reasonable investment, if it worked as good or better than my Oly + 75-300 for ID.

Yes, Oly cameras for nature photography are simply fantastic due to their light weight, ruggedness, and quality, and when I am after top quality photos, rather than ID photos, I take the Oly + 100-400 and the results are simply outstanding.

 

[LucaPCP]

For ID purposes, I'd go with a DSLR everytime. I've recently switched to an OM-1 (also micro 4/3) and although it is great at a lot of things, getting useable detail on distant birds isn't really one of them (in Scottish winter light conditions at least). I bought a P900 a few years ago to do the 'travelling light' thing but in practice I rarely used it, preferring to go with a DSLR with either an older 50-500mm lens or sometimes a 70-300mm so I could crop in and still have some useable detail for IDs of distant birds (My usual kit was a Nikon D500 with a 200-500mm - pretty heavy). The P900 was decent for closer birds but the detail just wasn't really there for birds at a distance. If I was you, I'd stick with what I had and maybe find a way to lose a bit of weight elsewhere in your kit.

Thanks, this is very useful. I see. So these P950-type cameras promise super zoom but the pixels in the end are not sharp enough to make up, and the Oly still has an edge.
If you add to it the fact that I've been using the Oly for a long time, I know it inside out, I use it super instinctively... yes, I might as well continue with it.

 

[kimmik]

If i may simplify your question to a fundamental level, which combo captures more photons.

400mm f6.3 lens has maximum aperture of 63mm (400/6.3) with sensor area of 4x of the p950.

The P950 has maximum aperture of 56mm.

So max photon capture of p950 is 20% of your current olympus combo.

You may simulate the difference by stopping down the Olympus by 2 stops, ie f13.

Of course i am assuming same quantum efficiency, IS and processing.

The nikon will likely have slower zooming as it is motor driven not manual.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

What I do not know is if I get more useful range with Olympus + 600mm equivalent lens (but very sharp pixels), or Nikon P950, or Canon SX70.
In paricular:

• How much more range do I get with P950 vs Oly with 600mm equivalent lens?
• How much more range do I get with Canon SX70 vs Oly with 600mm equivalent lens?

Bird ID is very important to me. If I spend $$$ on a scope for that, I can certainly spend for a camera for that.

There are two aspects: 1) technical 2) human, i.e. how you use a camera.

You wouldn't buy a baseball bat or an American football or a basketball and assume you will be the worst or best player in your country. It depends on how you use the equipment.

In the event you receive only a technical answer then you're getting only part of the story. You cannot possibly form a reasonable conclusion on the posts you have received so far.

Were I you, I'd post a picture of one of your photos stating this is what constitutes acceptable bird ID for me and details on how you took that photo. From there, people can advise you on whether or not the Nikon P950 or any other bridge camera/superzoom can replicate that.

You may want to read, or watch on You Tube, people who work for well respected organisations such as the National Geographic, award winning photographers at that.

 

[Richard D]

The P900/950 at maximum optical zoom gives a field of view roughly equivalant to a 35mm SLR of 2000mm so you can fill the frame from a greater distance than with your current set up, although your current set up is likely to take cropping better.

 

[LucaPCP]

There are two aspects: 1) technical 2) human, i.e. how you use a camera.

You wouldn't buy a baseball bat or an American football or a basketball and assume you will be the worst or best player in your country. It depends on how you use the equipment.

In the event you receive only a technical answer then you're getting only part of the story. You cannot possibly form a reasonable conclusion on the posts you have received so far.

Were I you, I'd post a picture of one of your photos stating this is what constitutes acceptable bird ID for me and details on how you took that photo. From there, people can advise you on whether or not the Nikon P950 or any other bridge camera/superzoom can replicate that.

You may want to read, or watch on You Tube, people who work for well respected organisations such as the National Geographic, award winning photographers at that.

These are all acceptable for ID. Taken with my Oly and 75-300 lens. Can a Canon Z70 or a Nikon P950 do better? That's my fundamental question.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

These are all acceptable for ID. Taken with my Oly and 75-300 lens. Can a Canon Z70 or a Nikon P950 do better? That's my fundamental question.

Nice pictures, mate. No offence intended, but of course they can on the basis that it depends on the person holding the camera. The point I was making about the National Geographic is that when you listen to them, experienced people who love cameras and nature, they will tell you that it's a creative pursuit, as opposed to a science driven by the technical aspects, i.e. you will get more out of a camera in the event you're a bit creative rather than assume the science can deliver your answer for you. It comes down to you and how you use the camera. Nobody can answer your question without knowing how you take pictures: e.g. standing up, hand held, what sort of range and so on.

It's also not strictly true that the Nikon P950 can't perform in poor light, again camera technique will go a long way. Here is a picture of a woodpecker I took and from memory I think it's at 1/80 shutter speed. I've got various photos in my gallery in much better light.

Were I you, I'd re-evaluate my whole approach to cameras. You seem to be treating it as a science and expecting some sort of mathematical equation to determine the outcome.

It is true of course, that more expensive equipment will give you a better outcome, all other things being equal. Then again, all other things rarely are equal.

 

[kimmik]

By this kind of reasoning just use a camera phone, its all down to user skills anyway.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

By this kind of reasoning just use a camera phone, its all down to user skills anyway.

Your reasoning capacity is failing you.

You're talking about a phone.

We're talking about cameras.

 

[Richard D]

Your reasoning capacity is failing you.

You're talking about a phone.

We're talking about cameras.

I'm confused - a camera within a phone is just as much a camera as a separate camera - the P950, most comacts and camera phones share the same sensor size (some sharing the identical sensor no doubt).