NatureScapes.net Forums

(Note-original was unreadable. Now fixed)


So this is an answer to a suggestion that Tim Z and E.J. made to me on this topic. I thought I'd start a new thread....
Tim Zurowski wrote:

If I understand what you are trying to achieve regarding size and weight, I do not believe the Sigma is an option for you.

E.J. says:

The 200-500 might be though...

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=266458

So here's my take on the weight matter, given I am trying to "go light" , and I have both Canon 7DII with 100-400 II, and got the  Nikon500 with 300 f/4 to "lighten up:

Sigma Contemporary 150-600       4.25 lbs
Sigma Sports  "                            6.31 lbs
Nikon 200-400                             7.4 lbs
Nikon 200-500                             4.6 lbs
Nikon 300 f/4                               1.66 lbs
Nikon TC1.4                                 0 .41 lb
Canon 100-400 II                         3.5 lbs
canon tc 1.4                                 0.75 lb

Canon 7DII                                  2 lbs
Nikon d500                                  1.89. lbs

Nikon + sigma 150-600 contemp   6.14 lbs
Nikon + 200-500                          6.49 lbs
Nikon +300+1.4                           3.96 lbs

canon 7DII + 100-400II                5.5 lbs
Canon 7D+100-400+1.4TC           6.25 lbs

Tamron 150-600                          4.3 lbs
Nikon + Tamron                           6.19 lbs


Unless I give in to using a tripod with Nikon plus some sort of zoom, I'm back in the Canon boat!

Maybe others will find this comparison useful...or not!

I like D Chans comment on that thread too:

Many people start shooting birds with a 300 f4 (or 70-200) plus TC. Later on they realize they need longer lenses and move on to something bigger, heavier. As light as many agree that the D500 + 300 f4 is, it's not that light and small anymore once you get longer lenses. If portability is a concern, I don't think there's any other option but to get cameras of smaller sensor sizes. Perhaps at a certain point image quality could be hazardous to your health.

You might check this out:

viewtopic.php?f=37&t=246639

Joe

This is completely unreadable as posted. you need to strip off the other sites tags if you are cutting and pasting.

E.J. Peiker wrote:This is completely unreadable as posted.  you need to strip off the other sites tags if you are cutting and pasting.

Fixed.

Much better

If you are going to include the Canon 100-400 you also need to include the Nikon 80-400

Personally, an f/8 lens, which is what you have when you add a 1.4x to the 100-400 is not the way to go.  AF is slow and TC's just don't give you that great image quality with zooms.

Olympus EM1 Mk II + Olympus m zuiko 300 f4 = 4.25 lbs.

Olympus EM1 Mk II + Panasonic Leica 100-400 = 3.46 lbs.

DChan has a point, remember that it's an effective doubling of focal length to full frame 35mm on the m43 format....
But then again, there's this: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... gital.html

600mm at 2.4lb

E.J. Peiker wrote:DChan has a point, remember that it's an effective doubling of focal length to full frame 35mm on the m43 format....
But then again, there's this:  https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... gital.html

600mm at 2.4lb

Yeah- I think we discussed this camera when I was looking for something for my daughter. Um...takes several seconds to zoom, according to DP Review? Kinda slow for birds....Can it be locked at 600?

I just invested in Nikon...don't think I'll go anywhere else at present.  I have a Panny GH3-could always throw $$$ at their new 100-400 too. But I ain't gonna.  Crazy! 

E.J. Peiker wrote:Much better

If you are going to include the Canon 100-400 you also need to include the Nikon 80-400

Personally, an f/8 lens, which is what you have when you add a 1.4x to the 100-400 is not the way to go.  AF is slow and TC's just don't give you that great image quality with zooms.

Oh, OK.
Nikon 80-400  =  3.45 lb
Nikon 80-400 + D500  = 5.34 lbs

Is it a good lens???? Expensive, compared to the others. Someone called it a "dust hog"    It telescopes.



[font="Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,sans-serif]Save[/font]

Don't forget the D7200 + 300 VR + TC = 3.41 lbs

Tim Zurowski wrote:Don't forget the D7200 + 300 VR + TC = 3.41 lbs

Yup- going full circle.....! Have to get that TC and see, I guess. (Except I'll be using D500).



[font="Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,sans-serif]Save[/font]

E.J. Peiker wrote:Much better

If you are going to include the Canon 100-400 you also need to include the Nikon 80-400

Personally, an f/8 lens, which is what you have when you add a 1.4x to the 100-400 is not the way to go.  AF is slow and TC's just don't give you that great image quality with zooms.

With the 7d2 AF is OKish with TC, but limited on AF points. The 5D4 is suprisingly fast, and covers the whole AF module. IQ is passable, but I prefer not to use it. The only current Canon crop body to offer multiple AF points at f8 is the 80D.

Not so cut and dried as it all seems my vote would be the D500 and 300 f4 PF, D500 gets great reviews and beats any current Canon crop and takes QXD cards so no buffer limitiations.

On its own I love my new Canon 100-400.  Not so much with the 1.4 extender attached.

Cynthia Crawford wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:DChan has a point, remember that it's an effective doubling of focal length to full frame 35mm on the m43 format....
But then again, there's this:  https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... gital.html

600mm at 2.4lb

Yeah- I think we discussed this camera when I was looking for something for my daughter. Um...takes several seconds to zoom, according to DP Review? Kinda slow for birds....Can it be locked at 600?

I have the Sony RX10 m3 because it is light and portable but with a good enough reach for wildlife. It's a compromise camera, of course, but it's better than "good enough" for many purposes and if most of your images are going to be shared on a website rather than printed large then it is remarkable.

You cannot "lock" the zoom but it stays zoomed to wherever you set it until you power off.

AF is not bad but could be faster (not brilliant for flying birds) but it offers focus peaking and I find you can manually focus using this very rapidly indeed after only a little practice. Nothing is perfect, but if weight is an issue this is pretty damned good.

baldsparrow wrote:

Cynthia Crawford wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:DChan has a point, remember that it's an effective doubling of focal length to full frame 35mm on the m43 format....
But then again, there's this:  https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... gital.html

600mm at 2.4lb

Yeah- I think we discussed this camera when I was looking for something for my daughter. Um...takes several seconds to zoom, according to DP Review? Kinda slow for birds....Can it be locked at 600?

I have the Sony RX10 m3 because it is light and portable but with a good enough reach for wildlife. It's a compromise camera, of course, but it's better than "good enough" for many purposes and if most of your images are going to be shared on a website rather than printed large then it is remarkable.

You cannot "lock" the zoom but it stays zoomed to wherever you set it until you power off.

AF is not bad but could be faster (not brilliant for flying birds) but it offers focus peaking and I find you can manually focus using this very rapidly indeed after only a little practice. Nothing is perfect, but if weight is an issue this is pretty damned good.

Interesting!  Maybe a sort of pocket-like camera that can always be with you. I am a birder-sometimes I just want to identify /record what I've seen-doesn't have to be printable.

But...I'm going to continue with my Nikon 300/4 and get a TC in hopes of getting some decent shots that are not just web-worthy.

Thanks for your thoughts!



[font="Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,sans-serif]Save[/font]

Cynthia, are you really into the lightest set up?  You got the heaviest crop camera.  The rx10III is not pocket able with its 600 equivalent lens, but will give you the same size prints as your 500 (both 20 mpixels).  The 500 will be outstanding for action.

Mike in O wrote:Cynthia, are you really into the lightest set up?  You got the heaviest crop camera.  The rx10III is not pocket able with its 600 equivalent lens, but will give you the same size prints as your 500 (both 20 mpixels).  The 500 will be outstanding for action.

Hi Mike

No- not the absolute lightest. But the feather-weight 300/4 lens makes up for the difference between Canon 7D+100-400 and Nikon500+300.  It is the lightest high quality DSLR I can find. Some day I will likely have to give up even that, but not for a good while, I hope...and perhaps by then there will be an even more amazing very light something-or-other! . (By the way, I didn't mean to imply the RX10 was actually pocketable- just manage-ably small, and of course, light.) If I had an extra $1600 kicking around I'd try the Sony....Maybe if I see one in a store I can play with it a bit. But the slow zoom is kinda a spoiler for me. 

DChan wrote:Olympus EM1 Mk II + Olympus m zuiko 300 f4 = 4.25 lbs.

As Tim pointed out, the D7200 (plus Nikon 300mm f/4) would shift this weight comparison in favor of the Nikon DSLR plus that would be $1500 less that the Olympus pair.  Plus if one shot the D7200 in the crop mode, the field of view would match the Olympus.  Not sure you or EJ could answer, but for me important considerations would be how long the battery would last on the Olympus versus the D7200 plus how do the low light focusing and ISO performance compare with either the D500 or D7200?  Clearly one would have a higher fps with the Olympus and better image stabilization.  Other advantages?

A DSLR like the D500 or D7200 will toast any mirrorless for battery life and low light AF. ISO performance and dynamic range is also vastly superior on any current APS-C camera compared to any m43. I don't think that the Olympus would clearly have better stabilization. In most cases, a lens that is stabilized is every bit as good and in some cases better than a body that is stabilized.

While the field of view would be similar if you shot the Nikon in crop mode, the number of remaining pixels would be a lot lower on the Nikon shot in crop mode compared to the OM-D E-M1 Mk II

E.J. Peiker wrote: I don't think that the Olympus would clearly have better stabilization.

Have you taken a 4 sec handheld shot with your D500 or D810?


http://petapixel.com/2016/11/07/olympus ... hand-held/

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/o ... m1-iiA.HTM

You can click on the imaging-resource shot and look at it at full-size.

In his review, Ming Thien described how he took advantage of the IBIS and took a 1/6sec shot handheld on the street with ND filter.

https://blog.mingthein.com/2016/11/02/r ... 1-mark-ii/


I don't have the camera but I have been reading about it and other people's findings so far in addition to looking at their BIF shots.