Morning all,
I live in Yorkshire, and am retiring in 2 weeks time, and have spent some time looking at various setups for getting into bird photography. I've a wide variety of birds in my local area from Kingfishers to Red Kites and also foxes and badgers which I'd be keen to try and photograph. I'm working on the assumption I'll not have good light, so low light image quality is important to me.
I do also enjoy walking in the lake district and yorkshire dales, if I'm being honest with myself, I don't think I'd take any of the equipment I'm looking at unless I was walking on my own or just with my wife and the expectation was to be stopping for bird photography in appropriate areas.
Having said that I can see myself walking out from my house for a number of hours around the local forests, lakes etc with just the camera equipment and food/water and clothing layers so weight is a consideration.
I've a shortlist of 2 (maybe 3), as follows:
Canon EOS R7 + RF 100-400
OM-1 Mark II + M.Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm II
OM-1 Mark II + M.Zuiko Digital EED 100-400mm II
From all the reading and comparision charts it seems that the EOS R7 would give me the best performance in low light, at a total system weight of 1375g and also be the best bang for my buck at £1500 from Cotswold cameras (which seems cheaper or on a par with 2nd hand prices). On paper it's weaknesses compared to the others are a weaker EVF, less sophisticated stabilization and slower burst capabilities.
The OM and 75-300mm seems to be the most portable option at 1082g and has the best stabilization and would have very fast wildlife shooting experience with excellent bird AF integration but has the weakest optics, lower AF performance from the lens itself and the weakest low-light capability. This would come in at £1,388 and from what I can see would still give me potentially great shots but perhaps not so good in lower light (unless modern software can de-noise nowadays)? Major advantage is the decent body would allow lens upgrades
The OM + 100-400mm seems to be the best dedicated bird photography setup with a true 800mm equivalent reach, superb stabilization an excellent bird AF integration and an all weather sealed system. At 1697g its the heaviest and most expensive option at £1,988. So the weight, price and weaker high ISO vs the Canon seem to be the main negatives.
However all this is "on paper", I'm keen to hear from others who have any of the above 3 and how they are in the real world? I'm not going to be entering any pro contests any time soon and maybe I'd print one or two "amazing" shots if I got them, but I doubt I'd print bigger than A4 if I did manage, say, to capture a great kingfisher shot.
The lightness and portability of the OM and 75-300 does appeal but I also don't want to get grainy evening shots and buyers remorse!
10+ Years ago I was shooting my daughters gymnastics indoor with a EOS 7D and a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 but haven't used anything bar a camera phone since I sold up in 2020.
regards,
Greg
I live in Yorkshire, and am retiring in 2 weeks time, and have spent some time looking at various setups for getting into bird photography. I've a wide variety of birds in my local area from Kingfishers to Red Kites and also foxes and badgers which I'd be keen to try and photograph. I'm working on the assumption I'll not have good light, so low light image quality is important to me.
I do also enjoy walking in the lake district and yorkshire dales, if I'm being honest with myself, I don't think I'd take any of the equipment I'm looking at unless I was walking on my own or just with my wife and the expectation was to be stopping for bird photography in appropriate areas.
Having said that I can see myself walking out from my house for a number of hours around the local forests, lakes etc with just the camera equipment and food/water and clothing layers so weight is a consideration.
I've a shortlist of 2 (maybe 3), as follows:
Canon EOS R7 + RF 100-400
OM-1 Mark II + M.Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm II
OM-1 Mark II + M.Zuiko Digital EED 100-400mm II
From all the reading and comparision charts it seems that the EOS R7 would give me the best performance in low light, at a total system weight of 1375g and also be the best bang for my buck at £1500 from Cotswold cameras (which seems cheaper or on a par with 2nd hand prices). On paper it's weaknesses compared to the others are a weaker EVF, less sophisticated stabilization and slower burst capabilities.
The OM and 75-300mm seems to be the most portable option at 1082g and has the best stabilization and would have very fast wildlife shooting experience with excellent bird AF integration but has the weakest optics, lower AF performance from the lens itself and the weakest low-light capability. This would come in at £1,388 and from what I can see would still give me potentially great shots but perhaps not so good in lower light (unless modern software can de-noise nowadays)? Major advantage is the decent body would allow lens upgrades
The OM + 100-400mm seems to be the best dedicated bird photography setup with a true 800mm equivalent reach, superb stabilization an excellent bird AF integration and an all weather sealed system. At 1697g its the heaviest and most expensive option at £1,988. So the weight, price and weaker high ISO vs the Canon seem to be the main negatives.
However all this is "on paper", I'm keen to hear from others who have any of the above 3 and how they are in the real world? I'm not going to be entering any pro contests any time soon and maybe I'd print one or two "amazing" shots if I got them, but I doubt I'd print bigger than A4 if I did manage, say, to capture a great kingfisher shot.
The lightness and portability of the OM and 75-300 does appeal but I also don't want to get grainy evening shots and buyers remorse!
10+ Years ago I was shooting my daughters gymnastics indoor with a EOS 7D and a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 but haven't used anything bar a camera phone since I sold up in 2020.
regards,
Greg
