A Weighty Matter-long zooms and comparisons

We are talking about long lenses in this thread.  That's a very different dynamic then a short lens.  The closer you can put the actual IS unit to the center of gravity of the rig, the more effective the IS is going to be since you don't need as much displacement of the IS element.  With a short lens, having it in the body isn't that far from the Cog, but with a long heavy telephoto, having the IS unit out in the lens will have an advantage. Systems that combine they two would be the most effective.

E.J. Peiker wrote:We are talking about long lenses in this thread.  That's a very different dynamic then a short lens.  The closer you can put the actual IS unit to the center of gravity of the rig, the more effective the IS is going to be since you don't need as much displacement of the IS element.  With a short lens, having it in the body isn't that far from the Cog, but with a long heavy telephoto, having the IS unit out in the lens will have an advantage. Systems that combine they two would be the most effective.

Long lenses, short lenses, most Olympus lenses rely on the IBIS. A better image stablization system should allow one to handhold shoot for a longer duration regardless of the focal lengths of the lenses. Since you mentioned "systems that combine the two would be the most effective", I think that's exactly what the Olympus m zuiko 300 f4 pro and the Pan-Leica 100-400 are for (or a least the Panasonic users can now have a tele lens that comes with IS system). That seems to suggest that at present, the m4/3 system seems to have the advantage in that aspect. IS lenses also are bulkier and cost more to make. And then one lens could have better IS than the other.

So, I guess the bottom line for now is: one cannot shoot successfully handheld for 4 sec with either the Nikon or Canon system even with short focal length lenses

The weights listed by Nikon USA for the lenses are without hood, tripod mount or lens cover unless the tripod mount is not removable. The Nikon 300 PF is 1.8 lbs with the hood and without the tripod mount.  

I agree with EJ about not dismissing the newest 80-400 G VR for the Nikon. The site says it weighs 3.5 lbs with the tripod mount. That mount is removable but you still need to add the hood weight so I'll use the 3.5 lbs for comparison.

So you end up with approximately these weights:

D500+300 PF              - 3.7 lbs  Effective Focal length 450mm (F4.0)
D500+300 PF+TC1.4   - 4.1 lbs  Effective Focal Length 630mm (F5.6)
D500+80-400 G VR     - 5.4 lbs  Effective Focal Length 120mm-600mm (F5.6)
D500+200-500 VR      - 6.5 lbs  Effective Focal Length 300mm-750mm (F5.6)

7DII+100-400 II         - 5.5 lbs  Effective Focal Length 160mm-640mm (F5.6)

To lighten up on the 7DII, you'd need to use the 300PF with/without the TC. Your two focal lengths are either about the same as on the Canon (640mm/630mm) or about 450mm. Note that none of the weights above include arcs swiss mounts or straps...

So the questions are simply, "what focal length can you live with?", "Is 1.3 to 1.7 lbs lighter good enough?" and "Can you live without the zoom?"

I think the D500 with the 80-400 is a wash compared with the 7DII with the 100-400. Same weight, slightly less focal length on the long end, more flexibility on the short end for the Nikon. Both cameras are 20mp. The D7200 mentioned is 24mp. (subtract .4 lbs if you use the D7200 instead of the D500.)

If you are worried about weight why not look at the Nikon Coolpix P900? Its a 16MP camera with a 83x zoom . cmos and VR. It could weight a fraction of all the above combos.

Larry

Anthony Medici wrote:The weights listed by Nikon USA for the lenses are without hood, tripod mount or lens cover unless the tripod mount is not removable. The Nikon 300 PF is 1.8 lbs with the hood and without the tripod mount.  

I agree with EJ about not dismissing the newest 80-400 G VR for the Nikon. The site says it weighs 3.5 lbs with the tripod mount. That mount is removable but you still need to add the hood weight so I'll use the 3.5 lbs for comparison.

So you end up with approximately these weights:

D500+300 PF              - 3.7 lbs  Effective Focal length 450mm (F4.0)
D500+300 PF+TC1.4   - 4.1 lbs  Effective Focal Length 630mm (F5.6)
D500+80-400 G VR     - 5.4 lbs  Effective Focal Length 120mm-600mm (F5.6)
D500+200-500 VR      - 6.5 lbs  Effective Focal Length 300mm-750mm (F5.6)

7DII+100-400 II         - 5.5 lbs  Effective Focal Length 160mm-640mm (F5.6)

To lighten up on the 7DII, you'd need to use the 300PF with/without the TC. Your two focal lengths are either about the same as on the Canon (640mm/630mm) or about 450mm. Note that none of the weights above include arcs swiss mounts or straps...

So the questions are simply, "what focal length can you live with?", "Is 1.3 to 1.7 lbs lighter good enough?" and "Can you live without the zoom?"

I think the D500 with the 80-400 is a wash compared with the 7DII with the 100-400. Same weight, slightly less focal length on the long end, more flexibility on the short end for the Nikon. Both cameras are 20mp. The D7200 mentioned is 24mp. (subtract .4 lbs if you use the D7200 instead of the D500.)

Well- at this point I've invested on the D500 + 300/4, so the cheapest , lightest thing I can do is try the 1.4 TC to get more reach.  Quite honestly, I don't know anymore what I can handle weight-wise-I'm just trying to continue to enjoy bird photography for as long as possible, not really knowing where it will go in a few years. No point, for me, in going with the 80-400, as you say- it gets me close to what I already have (7D+100-400). Yes, the zoom factor would be nice, but I rarely used it for birds. I'd love to have the reach of a Sigma (contemporary) 150-600, but that's adding 4.3 lbs and counting.

By the way , my husband has the newer Canon 300. Great lens. Too short. Can't use a Canon TC with it . Weird how it's limited that way.

Thanks for your thoughts! 

Larry Shuman wrote:If you are worried about weight why not look at the Nikon Coolpix P900? Its a 16MP camera with a 83x zoom . cmos and VR. It could weight a fraction of all the above combos.

Larry

Hi Larry

It seems like there are a lot of really nice long zoom cameras out there - reasonable prices (compared to DSLR). Same for M43. But none have the image quality, fast zoom, FPS, etc that I've come to expect from my current cameras.  Been there, done that. It's where I started with a little Panasonic FZ1, way back when. And got some very decent pictures from it to boot. But.... it's a bit of a let-down to backslide. I had the Panasonic FZ1000 for a few days...great camera, but I sent it back.  Funny how easy it is to strive for more and better-it creates a certain discontent that's hard to mitigate. Maybe some day when I can't carry much more than a feather, I'll reconsider! . Technology has come such a long ways- who knows what will be out there next, that REALLY competes with Nikon/Canon, etc. As E.J. keeps saying- Sony is just about there, but not quite in the long lens for birding dept. (I think that's what I'm hearing, anyway. If not, I sit corrected).  .

Well it's all a great adventure...and an expensive one.  I'm always drawing a line and then playing jump-rope with it. I suspect I have lots of company.

Happy New Year!

I really don't know why everyone is worried about monster FPS. For the last year I've been shooting at 4 FPS at  ducks, eagles, Ospreys, Cormorants and all were flying and or fighting. I'm of the opinion that if you don't have  big FPS don't worry about it. Its much better to use multiple sensors which Nikon's have. I set to 21 or 9 when I'm shooting flying images. They rest of the time I'm set to 9. With the P900 I saw  the camera in use at Magee Marsh this year. The fellow stood next to me and we were shooting a blackburnian warbler. His shot is as good as mine, I was using my d600/300mm F:4 AFS.

Even though the D600 and 300mmF:4 AFS is light weight and adding my SB900 with power pack it becomes to heavy to hand hold. So I put it on a large Gitzo monopod. I have no problem carrying this all day, in excess of 8 hours. With this setup I got very excellent results this year at Magee.

So research the Nikon P900. Read as much about it as possible. I've never shot Sony but I've heard their lens are a drain on the wallet. If I didn't have the investment into Nikon body's and lense's I would have a P900 tomorrow.

Cheers
Larry

Larry Shuman wrote:I really don't know why everyone is worried about monster FPS. For the last year I've been shooting at 4 FPS at  ducks, eagles, Ospreys, Cormorants and all were flying and or fighting. I'm of the opinion that if you don't have  big FPS don't worry about it. Its much better to use multiple sensors which Nikon's have. I set to 21 or 9 when I'm shooting flying images. They rest of the time I'm set to 9. With the P900 I saw  the camera in use at Magee Marsh this year. The fellow stood next to me and we were shooting a blackburnian warbler. His shot is as good as mine, I was using my d600/300mm F:4 AFS.

Even though the D600 and 300mmF:4 AFS is light weight and adding my SB900 with power pack it becomes to heavy to hand hold. So I put it on a large Gitzo monopod. I have no problem carrying this all day, in excess of 8 hours. With this setup I got very excellent results this year at Magee.

So research the Nikon P900. Read as much about it as possible. I've never shot Sony but I've heard their lens are a drain on the wallet. If I didn't have the investment into Nikon body's and lense's I would have a P900 tomorrow.

Cheers
Larry

Hey, Larry. I read the reviews on B&H...enough to tell me what I want to know-it's not really what I'm looking for. Unfortunately I've got "Naturescapes Syndrome". It's a sort of condition where you go looking at the "Birds" gallery, and then you crawl under your chair. But that high standard is always in the back of my mind. The P900 looks like it might be a lot of fun-especially for distant bird i.d.  But my money (about the same amount) is going for the 1.4 Nikon TC instead since I've already made the investment in a new D500 and 300/4. Appreciate you enthusiasm- each to his/her own.

Cynthia Crawford wrote: It seems like there are a lot of really nice long zoom cameras out there - reasonable prices (compared to DSLR). Same for M43. But none have the image quality, fast zoom, FPS, etc that I've come to expect from my current cameras. 

Image quality, the two words that trap some here for life. What is image quality? Image quality for what?? Could you describe how the image quality of your current cameras are better than the other brands?

Just so you know, if image quality is your concern, you should have chosen the D7200 instead of the D500 not to mention the former is also smaller, lighter, and is totally capable of shooting BIF.

DChan wrote:

Cynthia Crawford wrote: It seems like there are a lot of really nice long zoom cameras out there - reasonable prices (compared to DSLR). Same for M43. But none have the image quality, fast zoom, FPS, etc that I've come to expect from my current cameras. 

Image quality, the two words that trap some here for life. What is image quality? Image quality for what?? Could you describe how the image quality of your current cameras are better than the other brands?

Just so you know, if image quality is your concern, you should have chosen the D7200 instead of the D500 not to mention the former is also smaller, lighter, and is totally capable of shooting BIF.

Oh, well. No offense to anyone. Image quality is SO subjective.  What does it mean to me?  I'll give it a little try...reasonably sharp, low noise.... and then that other quality that has nothing to do with what camera I'm using. A capture that says something besides "that's a sharp, low noise picture", i.e.  something that's "artfully done".  And it could be from any camera. I can't make ANY claims that my camera(s) are better than any other. Only that I happen to prefer them at the moment. There's no perfect camera out there. Yes the D7200 may be "better", depending on which combination of factors one might be looking for. Compromise is always there with any choice, as far as I can tell. I think someone far more accomplished than I can probably get far better pictures out of almost any camera, so again, these choices are very subjective. The important thing for me is to be happy with my decision and then work really hard to get the most out of what I have. If I sound like I'm judging your choices or other people's choices, I'm not- it is purely a judgement I am making for myself. I respect all choices and appreciate all ideas and suggestions. That's the wonderful thing about learning from these discussions. We all benefit.

Well my only (additional) comment at this point is that if reach+performance+WEIGHT is the main concern, nothing on the market is going to beat the D500+300PF+TC14EIII in combo in a wide-range of field conditions right now.

I don't own it yet, but the Fujifilm X-T2 has been getting great reviews for it's AF and image quality.  It has a high frame rate and when paired with a XF 100-400, the weight is 4.15 pounds.

Charlie Woodrich wrote:I don't own it yet, but the Fujifilm X-T2 has been getting great reviews for it's AF and image quality.  It has a high frame rate and when paired with a XF 100-400, the weight is 4.15 pounds.

It's my favorite new camera of 2016 but it still isn't anywhere near even a mid-level DSLR like a D7200 or 80D for tracking erratically moving subjects like birds in flight.

Charlie Woodrich wrote:I don't own it yet, but the Fujifilm X-T2 has been getting great reviews for it's AF and image quality.  It has a high frame rate and when paired with a XF 100-400, the weight is 4.15 pounds.

Many cameras have great AF but not the kind of AF that most here require for their nature photography. It seems to me that most who review cameras don't shoot bird and wild-life action photos. So when you read that it has great AF, check to see if there're folks who have been using successfully shooting BIF with it. If not, then I'd say it's likely not good enough for many here.

A different camera but maybe this will bring Fuji closer to the needs of wildlife photographers.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/177225443 ... eo-capture

Larry Shuman wrote:I really don't know why everyone is worried about monster FPS. For the last year I've been shooting at 4 FPS at  ducks, eagles, Ospreys, Cormorants and all were flying and or fighting. I'm of the opinion that if you don't have  big FPS don't worry about it. Its much better to use multiple sensors which Nikon's have. I set to 21 or 9 when I'm shooting flying images. They rest of the time I'm set to 9. With the P900 I saw  the camera in use at Magee Marsh this year. The fellow stood next to me and we were shooting a blackburnian warbler. His shot is as good as mine, I was using my d600/300mm F:4 AFS.

Even though the D600 and 300mmF:4 AFS is light weight and adding my SB900 with power pack it becomes to heavy to hand hold. So I put it on a large Gitzo monopod. I have no problem carrying this all day, in excess of 8 hours. With this setup I got very excellent results this year at Magee.

So research the Nikon P900. Read as much about it as possible. I've never shot Sony but I've heard their lens are a drain on the wallet. If I didn't have the investment into Nikon body's and lense's I would have a P900 tomorrow.

Cheers
Larry

Yes, 4, 5 or 6 fps are capable of capturing action, no argument there. 10 fps offers you respectively, 6, 5 and 4 more chances every second to get the exact wing or head position you are looking for.