- Messages
- 3,287
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
I’m considering getting into wildlife photography, and have a gear question. I’ve had really good experience with the micro-four-thirds system, and have (amongst some other kit) an Olympus EM1 mk1.
I have been looking at lens options with significant reach, and the Panasonic 150-400 seems to get very good reviews, and is relatively light and compact. There’s also the Olympus 300 F4 which could be interesting with a teleconverter as well. A key consideration for me is portability. I’ve done the whole full frame thing (Canon 1DX with 400 2.8, 70-200 2.8 etc) which I’ve use for sport photography (football and rugby up to world cup level for UK newspapers) so I know I don’t want to go down that cumbersome route again.
Subject matter - I’m moving to the Isle of Skye. I mainly photograph landscapes these days and will keep doing so, therefore I need flexibility,. But...I am fortunate enough to have a bay in front of the house that otters frequent, and is visited by many seabirds, as well as a whole bunch of songbirds in the marshland and crofts along the shore, plus deer, owls here and there, the odd sparrowhawk, buzzards, bla bla. And there’s plenty of other stunning places around and about that I’ll be walking to, often overnighting in a tent, or mountain biking to. It seems a shame not to take full advantage of the opportunity - a hide down by the water would be sweet too. Unlikely I’ll be doing birds in flight (seems too hard!).
So...I’m keen on opinions from this experienced body of nature photographers. Would I be missing a lot going down the micro-four-thirds route? Can a 150-400 compete with a big beast like a Canon 600 f/4? Anyone else done the same thing? Thanks.
I have been looking at lens options with significant reach, and the Panasonic 150-400 seems to get very good reviews, and is relatively light and compact. There’s also the Olympus 300 F4 which could be interesting with a teleconverter as well. A key consideration for me is portability. I’ve done the whole full frame thing (Canon 1DX with 400 2.8, 70-200 2.8 etc) which I’ve use for sport photography (football and rugby up to world cup level for UK newspapers) so I know I don’t want to go down that cumbersome route again.
Subject matter - I’m moving to the Isle of Skye. I mainly photograph landscapes these days and will keep doing so, therefore I need flexibility,. But...I am fortunate enough to have a bay in front of the house that otters frequent, and is visited by many seabirds, as well as a whole bunch of songbirds in the marshland and crofts along the shore, plus deer, owls here and there, the odd sparrowhawk, buzzards, bla bla. And there’s plenty of other stunning places around and about that I’ll be walking to, often overnighting in a tent, or mountain biking to. It seems a shame not to take full advantage of the opportunity - a hide down by the water would be sweet too. Unlikely I’ll be doing birds in flight (seems too hard!).
So...I’m keen on opinions from this experienced body of nature photographers. Would I be missing a lot going down the micro-four-thirds route? Can a 150-400 compete with a big beast like a Canon 600 f/4? Anyone else done the same thing? Thanks.
Last edited: