More thoughts and questions on lighter weight equipment

A few weeks ago I started a thread on reducing weight of equipment. Many folks replied with some good ideas.

My focus is on birds. Thinking back to the different lenses I have had since changing over to digital in 2002, and even to my film days before that, I think I need something with an effective focal length of at least 840 mm (years ago I used a 600 f4 with a 1.4X TC on a full frame film camera) at a minimum for my "big lens" setup. I now shoot with a 7DII and 500 f4 MkII with both 1.4 and 2X TC's. With the 1.4X TC I have an effective focal length of 1,120 mm (500 x 1.4X TC x 1.6 crop factor).

I would like to find something smaller than my 7DII body and 500 lens to use, especially on long trips or trips involving airline flights.

I have looked at a couple of options to replace my present "big lens" setup. A Nikon 1 V3 with the 70-300 zoom lens will have an effective focal length of about 830 mm. There is even an adapter available where Nikon f mount lenses can be used with the V3 body. One could conceivably use a 400 or 500 mm lens and get effective focal lengths of up to 1,300 mm. The downside to all of this is that the V3 has an extremely small sensor and IQ is not nearly as good as with a DSLR.

I have looked at everything I could find about the M4/3 system. Panasonic, Olympus, and others make many really good camera bodies. The M4/3 system has a crop factor of 2. Both Olympus and Panasonic make zoom lenses with maximum focal lengths of 300 mm, which would give an effective focal length of 600 mm, not quite long enough for my needs. Olympus has announced a 300 mm f4 prime, which if and when it is available could be used with their 1.4X TC to give an effective focal length of 840 mm (300 x 1.4X TC x 2X crop factor). This combo would have a weight of about 3 or 4 pounds.

I presently have a Canon 300 mm f4 lens in addition to my 500. With a 1.4X TC and the 7DII, this lens produces an effective focal length of 672 mm (300 x 1.4 x 1.6 crop factor). I could use this lens with a 2X TC and get an effective focal length of 960 mm, but focusing is very slow and IQ seems to suffer a little bit.

I have also thought about getting a Canon 400 DO II if they ever are available. Another option would be the Sigma 150-600 C lens (not the sports model, it is too heavy).

I have no doubt that the Canon 400 DO II would be a great combo for my use, but I would probably have to sell my 500 in order to buy it.

So finally, here are my questions:
Of the following three options, which would give IQ closest to what I now get with my 7DII and 500 f4 lens?
1. Olympus m4/3 body with 300 f4 lens and1.4X TC
2. My 7DII body with the Sigma 150-600 C lens
3. My 7DII body with my 300 f4 and 1.4X TC, with the image cropped to the equivalent of 840 mm effective focal length

Thanks in advance for any help, suggestions, ideas, etc.

Number 2 would be the best but you aren't saving any weight with that option, just a bit of size.

E.J. Peiker wrote:Number 2 would be the best but you aren't saving any weight with that option, just a bit of size.

Thanks, EJ. I am talking about the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary lens. It weighs in at 4.3 lbs. vs. 6.3 lbs. for the sport model. Do you still think it would be the best choice?

Image quality comes with weight.

Question is: do you really need that image quality?

On crop bodies the Contemporary model seems to be pretty good. The build quality isn't tank like like the Sport model though.

I really don't think you'd be happy with the relatively crappy zooms after using the 500. And mirrorless cameras aren't for the birds. Order the 400 DO II, test it for a week, and send it back for a refund if you don't like it. Be very careful in your testing though, in case you want to return it. But I would bet a lot of money that you won't return it!

Ed Lusby

Ed Lusby wrote:And mirrorless cameras aren't for the birds.

Perhaps you want to be a little bit more specific next time


Some photos of birds (click on "Open Photo Viewer" to see larger size):

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=738585042919091&set=o.154271467964575&type=3&theater


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152791721861890&set=o.154271467964575&type=3&theater


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152666073871222&set=o.154271467964575&type=3&theater


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1592353300978476&set=o.154271467964575&type=3&theater


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152505709596222&set=o.154271467964575&type=3&theater


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10101737918678946&set=o.154271467964575&type=3&theater


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=667677933281933&set=o.154271467964575&type=3&theater


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203681907274939&set=o.154271467964575&type=3&theater


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=846756335374091&set=o.154271467964575&type=3&theater


Then of course the persons behind the cameras played a role, too.

Some photos of birds (click on "Open Photo Viewer" to see larger size):

Those photos pretty much prove Ed's point.

My 7DII body with my 300 f4 and 1.4X TC, with the image cropped to the equivalent of 840 mm effective focal length

Bruce, if you consider as an option the 300 f/4 plus 1.4X TC (total of 420mm), then why not also consider the 400 f/5.6? That lens is extremely light, very sharp (even wide-open), fast to focus, and inexpensive. The main disadvantage is that it lacks IS. I don't know how good the IQ would be with an extender - most likely not as good as the 400 f/4 DO with extender.

John

John Guastella wrote:

Some photos of birds (click on "Open Photo Viewer" to see larger size):

Those photos pretty much prove Ed's point.

Care to explain ?


Those are bird photos, are they not?


I'd say those photos prove that you and Ed are totally wrong.

I could be wrong but at least I've submitted evidence to support my argument that Ed's statement about mirrorless cameras for bird photography is darn wrong. What about yours??

Let me get this right. A crop factor camera does simply that, crops the central part of the image from an equivalent FF sensor. The smaller sensor does NOT magnify or 'bring the subject closer' in any way (I know, this gets very confusing very fast if you go in to all the nitty-gritty stuff).

Thus,  a 20MP 1.6X crop sensor i.e. 7D2 would give an 'equivalent' reach of 800mm on a 500mm lens

a 50MP FF sensor (5DR/S) would give a reach of 400mm with a 400mm lens. However, if you crop it to the same dimensions as the 7D2, you get a reach of 640mm with 31.2MPx of resolution. Going further, if you crop it to get the same FOV as the 7D2 and a 500mm lens, you still have 25MPX of resolution albeit at a smaller sensor size (2X crop).

The 5DS with the 400 DO MkII or for an even lighter combo, the 100-400L MkII would be, IMHO the lightest rig with the maximum 'reach' and maximun IQ especially considering that you can always add a 1.4X for even greater magnification. The fps and AF would also be much better than any mirror-less camera could provide.

Pradeep

Primus wrote:Let me get this right. A crop factor camera does simply that, crops the central part of the image from an equivalent FF sensor. The smaller sensor does NOT magnify or 'bring the subject closer' in any way (I know, this gets very confusing very fast if you go in to all the nitty-gritty stuff).

Thus,  a 20MP 1.6X crop sensor i.e. 7D2 would give an 'equivalent' reach of 800mm on a 500mm lens

a 50MP FF sensor (5DR/S) would give a reach of 400mm with a 400mm lens. However, if you crop it to the same dimensions as the 7D2, you get a reach of 640mm with 31.2MPx of resolution. Going further, if you crop it to get the same FOV as the 7D2 and a 500mm lens, you still have 25MPX of resolution albeit at a smaller sensor size (2X crop).

The 5DS with the 400 DO MkII or for an even lighter combo, the 100-400L MkII would be, IMHO the lightest rig with the maximum 'reach' and maximun IQ especially considering that you can always add a 1.4X for even greater magnification. The fps and AF would also be much better than any mirror-less camera could provide.

Pradeep

You may want to compare the Sony A6000 to the 5ds for fps and AF

Mike in O wrote:

Primus wrote:Let me get this right. A crop factor camera does simply that, crops the central part of the image from an equivalent FF sensor. The smaller sensor does NOT magnify or 'bring the subject closer' in any way (I know, this gets very confusing very fast if you go in to all the nitty-gritty stuff).

Thus,  a 20MP 1.6X crop sensor i.e. 7D2 would give an 'equivalent' reach of 800mm on a 500mm lens

a 50MP FF sensor (5DR/S) would give a reach of 400mm with a 400mm lens. However, if you crop it to the same dimensions as the 7D2, you get a reach of 640mm with 31.2MPx of resolution. Going further, if you crop it to get the same FOV as the 7D2 and a 500mm lens, you still have 25MPX of resolution albeit at a smaller sensor size (2X crop).

The 5DS with the 400 DO MkII or for an even lighter combo, the 100-400L MkII would be, IMHO the lightest rig with the maximum 'reach' and maximun IQ especially considering that you can always add a 1.4X for even greater magnification. The fps and AF would also be much better than any mirror-less camera could provide.

Pradeep

You may want to compare the Sony A6000 to the 5ds for fps and AF

Mike, I don't know the A6000 but I hear it is 'only' 24MPx and APS-C. Plus, I am not sure you can put a Canon 100-400 lens on it and get the same AF as on a native Canon body. The fps works, yes, but not terribly sure about the AF speed and accuracy. If you could put the Canon or other big lenses on it,  you then have to take into account the weight of the adapter. In total I am not sure there is huge saving there. Compared to a 1 series yes, but I am not sure a 5DS with 100-400 is going to be so much heavier than the A6000 plus adapter plus 100-400. 

Pradeep

7D Mark II with 300 f2.8 L IS +1.4x could be a good choice. (Excellent choice for BIF and also places like Florida where you can approach birds more than elsewhere.)
You can also use a 2.0x extender but it would slow the focusing speed down.
The new 500 f4.0 L IS Mark II is 1.5 LBS lighter than the old model, that could be a good choice.

DChan wrote:

Ed Lusby wrote:And mirrorless cameras aren't for the birds.

Perhaps you want to be a little bit more specific next time

I bet you could find photos taken of birds with an iPhone, too. It doesn't mean it is a good tool to use.

Care to explain ?

Ed explained it more concisely than I could.

John

Ed Lusby wrote:

DChan wrote:

Ed Lusby wrote:And mirrorless cameras aren't for the birds.

Perhaps you want to be a little bit more specific next time

I bet you could find photos taken of birds with an iPhone, too. It doesn't mean it is a good tool to use.

You said: "And mirrorless cameras aren't for the birds." Photographs out there prove that statement is wrong. A photograph of bird is still a photograph of bird. Good tool or not is debatable and could be subjective. Certainly those photographs show that at least some mirrorless cameras these days are certainly capable of doing the job. Things have changed.

DChan wrote:

Ed Lusby wrote:

DChan wrote:

Ed Lusby wrote:And mirrorless cameras aren't for the birds.

Perhaps you want to be a little bit more specific next time

I bet you could find photos taken of birds with an iPhone, too. It doesn't mean it is a good tool to use.

You said: "And mirrorless cameras aren't for the birds." Photographs out there prove that statement is wrong. A photograph of bird is still a photograph of bird. Good tool or not is debatable and could be subjective. Certainly those photographs show that at least some mirrorless cameras these days are certainly capable of doing the job. Things have changed.

Ok I looked at several of those bird photos and those would NOT satisfy me from a quality standpoint. 

One of the big issues with MFT cameras with smallish apertures is the DOF you get when zoomed out. I have not used the 2.8 lenses but on a f/6.3 on MFT too much of the bg is in focus and therefore the subject is difficult to isolate. The first shot of the swallows you posted would've been much better had it been with 7D2 + 600/4 in this regard. 

My experimentation with Olympus MFT was short lived and there are problems in more departments than I care to elucidate when it comes to photographing birds. After a lot of research (and money that I spent on Oly) I think that EJ nails it. The Sigma 150-600 Contemporary is quite good (I've seen and handled the sports version)

YMMV but I stand by my opinion above

My latest work: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nubirdshooter/

I agree with ED, John and Vivek. Those sample bird photos do nothing at all to demonstrate that a MFT camera is good for bird photography. In fact, for me they are so bad that it would turn me away from that idea. I have a friend who has a MFT system and while it does an "okay" job for macro subjects, his bird photos are always very sub-par. As Ed stated, you can take bird photos with any camera (even a smartphone) but suggesting that it would be a good bird photography system is totally wrong and misleading IMHO.

I think Tim's "...suggesting that it would be a good bird photography system..." sums up the problem with both Vivek and Tim's arguments. Again, Ed said "...mirrorless cameras aren't for the birds". I have presented photos to show that the statement is wrong as one can use a mirrorless camera to photo birds. I also said: "Good tool or not is debatable and could be subjective." I'm not suggesting that they're the best system out there. Hey, I use a m4/ but I also use a D3 and a 500. Since I have used and still am using both systems to photo birds, I would like to think that I know what I'm talking about

Also, as m4/3 is an option listed by the original poster Bruce, I was simply showing him something to think about

pretty good read
...And mirrorless cameras aren't for the birds.


This will sure help clean up all my hard drives and backups as I can now delete all my Bird images taken with my mirrorless cameras (Panasonic and Olympus) and m4/3 lenses since 2012.    
 
Too bad cause this one has been sold and printed numerous times 
And I will miss reviewing and editing images of these cute ones
 
 
as per the original question regarding a lighter weight system ... I personally do like the smaller form factor of the mirrorless cameras and lens for my type of travel and hiking. The newer developments like the Olympus 40-150 F2.8 cw 1.4 x and cameras such as the Sony  AR72 are making the mirrorless styled systems advance. Yes the long lens - 600 mm equivalent, is an issue to date but as long as the Olympus road map plays out by Jan 2016 we should have the 300 F4 in hand. The older 4/3 lens like the 50-250 F 2.8 on OMD EM1 has shown great results in pretty well all types if imagery.  

In other parts of the world the m4/3 and mirroroless cameras are being used much more than in the Americas.
 
We could stand around and discuss this for ever....
 
but it’s Friday, sunny, and am headed for the cabin to take more images between the fly fishing sessions.
 
Have a good weekend all.
 
Doug

PS not to offend anyone as we all have our own needs and wants... just thought some real samples of my results could be part of the discussion.
d