« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 10 posts | 
by akjackson1 on Wed Jan 18, 2017 1:18 pm
User avatar
akjackson1
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2
Joined: 3 Nov 2016
Location: Loma Linda, CA
In March I'm headed on a humanitarian trip to Zimbabwe and I'm thinking the group may not appreciate me lugging around my Nikon 200-500 everywhere to shoot birds when I have a spare moment. As a result, I need something inconspicuous that I can throw over my shoulder. Of course, I can bring binoculars, but I don't know my African birds well enough to be confident of my identification without some kind of photo ID.

So my question is, are there any sharp superzooms that would be adequate? I've looked briefly at the following, but seems like people say they're quite soft. Also, I've heard some have serious focus breathing.

Nikon 18-300
Nikon 28-300
Sigma 18-300
Tamron 16-300
Nikon 70-300 VR

I'll be using it on a D810, but I don't care about vignetting for identifying birds, so DX lenses should work fine.

Thoughts?
RawComposition.com
D810 + 200-500
 

by dissent on Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:39 pm
User avatar
dissent
Forum Contributor
Posts: 739
Joined: 20 Dec 2013
Location: Illinois
From what I've read (DX body user here) of the D8xx cameras, you'd probably have issues with sharpness at 300 for any of the lenses you've listed. If it's just birdies, consider the 300 PF with or without a 1.4 teleconverter for a lightweight kit that would perhaps make best use of your sensor. Will be interested to hear what other folks think.
 

by Tim Zurowski on Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:50 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
I agree, the Nikon 300 PF VR would be perfect. Very small, very light and very sharp ;)  Only downside is no zoom.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:25 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
The words sharp and super-zoom are largely incompatible. The complexity of making a lens that has that long of a zoom range and for them to be sharp puts constraints on designers that would require a huge, very heavy and incredibly expensive lens. So the superzooms, in order to stay compact, most definitely compromise on overall sharpness for the sake of convenience.
 

by Mike in O on Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:07 pm
Mike in O
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2673
Joined: 22 Dec 2013
I would get a super zoom bridge camera like the Nikon p900 small sensor, Sony rx10III, Canon or Panasonic equivalents w/ a 1" sensor if this just going to be for ID purposes. All will take nice shots and be lighter than anything you use with the 810.
 

by baldsparrow on Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:11 pm
User avatar
baldsparrow
Forum Contributor
Posts: 415
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Sony RX10 mark 3
 

by OntPhoto on Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:37 pm
User avatar
OntPhoto
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7039
Joined: 9 Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario. Canada.
I do not use Nikon but know a lot of people who do including one local photographer.  Let me tell you, his photos are second to no one.  What amazed me was the reach.  He uses a D7100 and a 300 lens.  With the crop thing (don't know what it's called actually...1.6 or close to 2x??) he gets very close up photos of even far away birds.  This is his walk around setup. I am consistently impressed with the images he gets with the D7100 and the 300mm.

As for the Nikon P900, I am tempted to get that super zoom.  I've seen the images and very impressive (from what I have seen anyway). I have not used it so am not aware how quickly it focuses, etc.  I have the older Panasonic FZ200 and I would not buy that again.  It is not a very good birding bridge camera (slow AF and sometimes hard to AF on a bird with a busy background).
 

by photoman4343 on Fri Jan 20, 2017 12:05 pm
photoman4343
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1952
Joined: 1 Feb 2004
Location: Houston, TX
You have many choices. This link might help you:

https://www.dpreview.com/buying-guides

You might want to start here:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2016-r ... om-cameras

Regardless of what ever you decide to use, I would take a bean bag to help stabilize the camera. 

If you are willing to buy another system consider a 4/3's body with a good zoom. 

I have friends who use and like the Sony model mentioned above. 

Joe
Joe Smith
 

by akjackson1 on Fri Jan 20, 2017 12:09 pm
User avatar
akjackson1
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2
Joined: 3 Nov 2016
Location: Loma Linda, CA
Thanks everyone for the feedback. Seems like the consensus is a 300 PF, which makes sense. If I can't pull it off I may just bring my 200-500 and hope nobody gets annoyed with me lugging it around to our events.
RawComposition.com
D810 + 200-500
 

by hullyjr on Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:27 pm
hullyjr
Forum Contributor
Posts: 507
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Location: Grayslake, IL, USA
You specify needing something to identify the birds so I would be tempted to shoot video rather than stills. It is easier to ID a bird with video with the added dimension of having sound. I'm not into video these days (Hi8 was my last venture) but most cameras offer decent quality often with a significant crop. And there are a few dedicated video cameras with long optical zooms. The still image quality may be rubbish. Just a different perspective.

There are no endemic birds but with a list ~750 species for Zimbabwe you should see plenty!

Cheers,

Jim

Grayslake, IL
Jim Hully
Grayslake, IL
Images now at https://www.flickr.com/photos/138068378@N06/
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
10 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group