Currently using a Canon 7d ii. Just pondering over the Xmas hols about reducing the weight. Thanks for the links but unfortunately it would be the new year before I get round to reading all the posts [emoji3] Also they cover all genres so any summary points from nature shooters would be appreciatedWhat are you using just now?
Have a look in these threads....
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...ome-mega-thread.511885/page-1474#post-8587102
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/olympus-om-d-e-m5-e-m1-e-m10-mark-2-owners-thread.395080/
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/panasonic-g-series-owners-thread.262800/
Olympus EM1ii or EM1X seems to be popular with nature lovers, along with the Panasonic G9.Currently using a Canon 7d ii. Just pondering over the Xmas hols about reducing the weight. Thanks for the links but unfortunately it would be the new year before I get round to reading all the posts [emoji3] Also they cover all genres so any summary points from nature shooters would be appreciated
Have a look at photos posted by @the black fox and @RedRobin both using MFT for wildlife I believe
Maybe you should try FF mirrorless....I'm a "big" format fan, but recently at our club we had a speaker who demonstrated the in camera "focus stacking" ability of the Olympus system.
I was impressed enough to buy a Pen-F, and subsequently several lenses.
I remain unconvinced about the merits of the m4/3 system.
I don't really like the 4:3 aspect ratio, since a lot of my shots are either landscape or architecture, which I think are more suited to 3:2 or even greater AR.
I'm also a wide-angle fan, and the m4/3 system with it's 2x "multiplication factor" has a real problem with ultra-wide angle lenses. I have an Irix 11mm UWA that I use with my Canon 5D4 and there is nothing in the m4/3 world that can emulate this.
The low light performance of m4/3 also leaves a lot to be desired.
I have no problems using the 5D4 at 6400 ISO, but the Olympus runs out of reasonable noise levels at about 1600 ISO.
On a good day the results from the Olympus are surprisingly good, and I like many things about it, but I'm not about to make a full time switch to m4/3 any time soon.
For me, full frame with it's weight and bulk, still have the advantage over m4/3.
Currently using a Canon 7d ii. Just pondering over the Xmas hols about reducing the weight. [snip] ... any summary points from nature shooters would be appreciated
I'm a "big" format fan, but recently at our club we had a speaker who demonstrated the in camera "focus stacking" ability of the Olympus system.
I was impressed enough to buy a Pen-F, and subsequently several lenses.
I remain unconvinced about the merits of the m4/3 system.
I don't really like the 4:3 aspect ratio, since a lot of my shots are either landscape or architecture, which I think are more suited to 3:2 or even greater AR.
I'm also a wide-angle fan, and the m4/3 system with it's 2x "multiplication factor" has a real problem with ultra-wide angle lenses. I have an Irix 11mm UWA that I use with my Canon 5D4 and there is nothing in the m4/3 world that can emulate this.
The low light performance of m4/3 also leaves a lot to be desired.
I have no problems using the 5D4 at 6400 ISO, but the Olympus runs out of reasonable noise levels at about 1600 ISO.
On a good day the results from the Olympus are surprisingly good, and I like many things about it, but I'm not about to make a full time switch to m4/3 any time soon.
For me, full frame with it's weight and bulk, still have the advantage over m4/3.
I don't see any advantage to me in FF mirrorless, other than even more expense.Maybe you should try FF mirrorless....
M43 is great for nature/wildlife, where the 2x crop factor is a benefit.
Nature photography is the intended use for the OP.
.
I don't really like the 4:3 aspect ratio, since a lot of my shots are either landscape or architecture, which I think are more suited to 3:2 or even greater AR.
.
I really do - I crop a lot of my full frame D810 to 4:3 taking off the softer sides. I also find 4:3 or 3:4 suits portrait crop's a lot more. I like a lot of square images too. I shoot only landscape and architecture. 3:2 is too skinny for most portraits and not quite wide enough for those wide landscapes where 16:10, 16:9 and 2:1 and wider really work. For general landscapes I really dig 5:4, 4:3 or even 7:5
In terms of maximizing the image circle square sensors should rule the roost and it would also keep the softest part of the image circles away from the sensor - then the photographer can crop at will from there. Why don't they make camera's like that beats me.
Once you try live preview exposure its game over, you can never go back.
You can see the exposure needs a little tweak and adjust to get it just right.
It's when you can see the exposure live either on the screen or in evf..... What is "Live Preview Exposure"? If it applies any kind of highlight alerts I switch it off because it is enormously distracting when shooting anything other than something which doesn't move (architecture and still life etc which I don't shoot).
Also, I rarely shoot in Live View unless at ground level with the screen angled up and then invariably it has to be very quickly taken anyway. Such is wildlife photography.
It's when you can see the exposure live either on the screen or in evf.
Change a setting and the image changes so wysiwyg
.... Ah, I thought it might be a separate option. The wysiwyg is something I particularly like about mirrorless cameras. Include the histogram mountain range section in the EVF or LV and you are well on the way to nailing a good shot.
I use the histogram preview in LV on the DSLR all the time. For landscape it is the way.
I agree, particularly for portraits, 4:3 is a good AR, although your comments regarding landscapes seem to be rather contradictory.I really do - I crop a lot of my full frame D810 to 4:3 taking off the softer sides. I also find 4:3 or 3:4 suits portrait crop's a lot more. I like a lot of square images too. I shoot only landscape and architecture. 3:2 is too skinny for most portraits and not quite wide enough for those wide landscapes where 16:10, 16:9 and 2:1 and wider really work. For general landscapes I really dig 5:4, 4:3 or even 7:5
In terms of maximizing the image circle square sensors should rule the roost and it would also keep the softest part of the image circles away from the sensor - then the photographer can crop at will from there. Why don't they make camera's like that beats me.