I am being pulled towards wildlife esp birds

[snerkler]

Option 1 looks possible. After my last foray I am a little concerned with weight still and so likely will need a trip back to a place where I can actually try it. Option 2 is a non starter. I think that the only other viable option is Sony and the budget will not go that far.

It's a very good option. If you're interested here's an album of mine with my favourite shots I've taken with the Olympus gear (I'm no great tog but hopefully it will give you some idea). Some of the wildlife ones are with the Leica 100-400mm and some with the Olympus 300mm f4

Favourite Olympus Photos

Explore this photo album by TDG-77 on Flickr!

flic.kr

If you want to see how good Olympus gear really is then check out this guy

500px

500px.com

 

[the black fox]

So unhappy that wildlife seems out of my grasp - thought that I'd ask as you have all been most helpful on this thread already - so you have a fresh start. Realistically you need a long reach, you have concerns over weight but accept that most of the time you'll be using hand held so need to figure that in. You live in UK so you need to think about low light. Birds in flight pictures would be nice to have. You don't have an unlimited budget. What system do I need to buy into? I have other interests so will need to balance that also but that can be flexible.

A used olympus omd 1-mkiii selling for around £700-£800 and a used olympus 100-400 ( mines on here for £850 o.n.o) would give more than enough reach for wildlife plus b.I.f .. there’s hundreds of examples of it on my Flickr stream to show the i.q it gives
Olympus cameras have a 2x crop factor so = to 200-800 reach in FF terms , ultra fast a,f and I.s in both lens and body the bonus being that the rig mentioned above weighs camera and lens 2 kg exactly and with the i.s no tripods or monopods are needed

one of mine click on link to go to my flickr stream
sunbathing by jeff cohen, on Flickr

 

[tijuana taxi]

I think the Olympus 100-400 is too restrictive given the often poor light we get.
Guessing that is the reason I have seen two or three for sale lately when the seller has opted for the 300/4.
Sony cameras are good, my daughter has the A7 iiir, but the long lenses will still be big and heavy.
I'll do my best to get out next week so you can see what the G9 and 200 with 1.4 t/c is like size and weight wise
They also do a 100-400 that is lighter and slightly faster than the Olympus.
Also factor in the post production, most of the bird photos on here have had a good degree of editing and NR applied. Those large files require quite a bit of processing power and could mean the extra cost of computer upgrades.

 

[Tulipone]

I'll do my best to get out next week so you can see what the G9 and 200 with 1.4 t/c is like size and weight wise

No rush. I intend to do it righter this time!

 

[Mike.P]

No rush. I intend to do it right this time!

There is no right, it's just what you are most comfortable with. There is no perfect system because it's all about making compromises.

 

[the black fox]

I think the Olympus 100-400 is too restrictive given the often poor light we get.
Guessing that is the reason I have seen two or three for sale lately when the seller has opted for the 300/4.
Sony cameras are good, my daughter has the A7 iiir, but the long lenses will still be big and heavy.
I'll do my best to get out next week so you can see what the G9 and 200 with 1.4 t/c is like size and weight wise
They also do a 100-400 that is lighter and slightly faster than the Olympus.
Also factor in the post production, most of the bird photos on here have had a good degree of editing and NR applied. Those large files require quite a bit of processing power and could mean the extra cost of computer upgrades.

rich I think your statement is utter bull*hit , theres around 4000 photos from both the brands of 100-400 on my flickr which really goes against your comment , and yes my lens is up for sale and yes I have purchased a 300 f4 ,but thats more a case of having the funds to do it rather needing to sell . and ALL bird photos will require cropping to a degree , MFT files in general are around 20mp or smaller so don't need massive computer power .
either of the 100-400 lenses is a good buy especially when compared to the prices from rival companies

 

[snerkler]

rich I think your statement is utter bull*hit , theres around 4000 photos from both the brands of 100-400 on my flickr which really goes against your comment , and yes my lens is up for sale and yes I have purchased a 300 f4 ,but thats more a case of having the funds to do it rather needing to sell . and ALL bird photos will require cropping to a degree , MFT files in general are around 20mp or smaller so don't need massive computer power .
either of the 100-400 lenses is a good buy especially when compared to the prices from rival companies

I'm somewhere in the middle of both of you. Yes I was able to shoot with the 100-400mm in the UK many times, however you do have to be selective and it often required slower shutter speeds than I'd have ideally liked to keep the ISO down. So I think Tijuana has a point, but I wouldn't say it's "too restrictive" just that it can be more restrictive than FF at times. We all have our own levels of what's acceptable for noise though of course, and software like Topaz Denoise certainly widen the scope of obtaining usable shots

 

[Tulipone]

rich I think your statement is utter bull*hit , theres around 4000 photos from both the brands of 100-400 on my flickr which really goes against your comment , and yes my lens is up for sale and yes I have purchased a 300 f4 ,but thats more a case of having the funds to do it rather needing to sell . and ALL bird photos will require cropping to a degree , MFT files in general are around 20mp or smaller so don't need massive computer power .
either of the 100-400 lenses is a good buy especially when compared to the prices from rival companies

I remain grateful for all the time folk have spent with their advice on here and understand that there is no one solution. I bought the last lens without actually feeling the weight and will go have a look at options prior to deciding next time - and understand that there are always compromises. It is understanding where that sweet spot is for me and good to hear what others think are the pros and cons.

 

[tijuana taxi]

rich I think your statement is utter bull*hit , theres around 4000 photos from both the brands of 100-400 on my flickr which really goes against your comment , and yes my lens is up for sale and yes I have purchased a 300 f4 ,but thats more a case of having the funds to do it rather needing to sell . and ALL bird photos will require cropping to a degree , MFT files in general are around 20mp or smaller so don't need massive computer power .
either of the 100-400 lenses is a good buy especially when compared to the prices from rival companies

To use the latest NR software requires a lot of processing power and powerful GPU.
Most people will use the 100-400 at max so yes I think 6.3 is too slow on mft. Add a tc and you are at f8, just not feasible.
I stand by my comments, but we are all entitled to our view of things

 

[the black fox]

To use the latest NR software requires a lot of processing power and powerful GPU.
Most people will use the 100-400 at max so yes I think 6.3 is too slow on mft. Add a tc and you are at f8, just not feasible.
I stand by my comments, but we are all entitled to our view of things

your totally wrong in that assumption and its F9 not 8 as for processing power my i.mac is a 2013 model and handles the files with ease takes me around 3 minutes from a raw file to a finished j.peg for the interwebby

 

[the black fox]

err olympus 100-400 +1.4 tc very fast wader (godwits ) in flight .taken in sept in north Wales. full exif on flickr .. milord I rest my case

flight of the godwit copy by jeff cohen, on Flickr

 

[tijuana taxi]

err olympus 100-400 +1.4 tc very fast wader (godwits ) in flight .taken in sept in north Wales. full exif on flickr .. milord I rest my case

flight of the godwit copy by jeff cohen, on Flickr

One swallow or Godwit doesn't make a summer.
1.4 tc gives f/8 and to process a file using the latest Deep Prime on your machine would take upwards of five minutes and closer to ten.
You are becoming increasingly unpleasant, adults should be able to discuss things in a calm manner.
It's more about overall success rate, we all have a one or two photos that are exceptions to the rule.
I could find examples of you mentioning needing a faster lens, more computing power and how many non keepers you get. Yes you have millions of likes on flickr, but so do photos of cats doing wonderous things. So please don't quote that as some sort of quality approval.
The jury is still out and I suspect will remain hung on this discussion

 

[snerkler]

err olympus 100-400 +1.4 tc very fast wader (godwits ) in flight .taken in sept in north Wales. full exif on flickr .. milord I rest my case

flight of the godwit copy by jeff cohen, on Flickr

To be fair I'd class 1/1250 f9 1250 iso pretty decent light still

I took this as a test of my Olly gear a while ago, 1/500 f6.1 ISO 6400 and whilst it took a long time to clean up in post (this was before I'd heard of Topaz denoise) it turned out 'usable' for internet sharing imo.


P2201220-Edit-2 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

 

[tijuana taxi]

To be fair I'd class 1/1250 f9 1250 iso pretty decent light still

I took this as a test of my Olly gear a while ago, 1/500 f6.1 ISO 6400 and whilst it took a long time to clean up in post (this was before I'd heard of Topaz denoise) it turned out 'usable' for internet sharing imo.


P2201220-Edit-2 by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

I think useable is a fair description, that aperture is still marginally faster than the best you can get from the Olympus 100-400 at 400mm.
My aim is to get acceptable quality without excessive PP from using very high iso and being fairly confident of something ok even in less than good light.

 

[snerkler]

I think useable is a fair description, that aperture is still marginally faster than the best you can get from the Olympus 100-400 at 400mm.
My aim is to get acceptable quality without excessive PP from using very high iso and being fairly confident of something ok even in less than good light.

Yep all very true, I was just trying to give a balanced view as it will be down to the user if m4/3 (or any format) is too restrictive. Some might only go out when the weather's perfect in which case m4/3 can be more than good enough.

I ultimately chose FF over Olympus for several reasons, one of which is the noise handling as I do shoot in all sorts of weather. The shot I posted above I deem only acceptable really at the phone level, it's not a shot I'd put in a portfolio or anything. However, I reckon I could get it looking quite a bit better now with Topaz Denoise which for the processing part doesn't take long, it's the saving back into lightroom that takes time even on my computer which is pretty highly specced (M1 Pro Max 64GB RAM . It's OK for the odd shots here and there but I wouldn't want to use it a lot.

 

[the black fox]

I think useable is a fair description, that aperture is still marginally faster than the best you can get from the Olympus 100-400 at 400mm.
My aim is to get acceptable quality without excessive PP from using very high iso and being fairly confident of something ok even in less than good light.

sorry to have come over sounding unpleasant not intended . each to there own I'll butt out now and let the OP make his own mind up .

 

[Tulipone]

I meant to update this before now. I have an update.

I went to WEX again to see and feel some of their options - nothing that they had seemed to fit and I couldn’t see anything that was sufficiently worthy of trading in and taking a decent hit on the value of my current set up.

No idea where, but I read somewhere about Sigma Select - you can borrow a lens for the cost of delivery, with a refundable deposit. I borrowed the 150-600 just to properly try it, it seemed a bargain for £24 with prognosis of cure or forget.

So in between rain showers and wind yesterday and today I have been out and rural looking for deer and hares and managed to get some awful shots in less than ideal circumstances. I wanted to properly see how I would get on traipsing over a muddy field with that amount of weight and found it to be far less fun than it is with binos. Usually I'll jump over a ditch holding on but that wasn’t going to happen. Usually when we see something it takes a second to bring the binos to your eyes whereas the lens needs unlocking, the camera possibly turning on and checking for shutter etc and focussing. The weight was a significant issue but have now found out that wildlife photography is not for me. I will continue to admire the images on here and will carry on the way we were.

I guess the main push for this is that the Sigma service is great. Easy, quick and the lens I wanted to borrow available next day. Better and fairer than buying and returning. I will borrow a 24-70 2.8 art next and looking forward to it.

Sigma Select

www.sigma-select-uk.com

 

[nandbytes]

I wonder if you'd have a much better time if you had a smaller setup?
If I may give it one more try, I can suggest trying a Sony A6100/A6600 with Sony 70-350mm.

I have used Sony 70-350mm on my A7IV as my travel whildlife lens and I have really enjoyed using it (so much so I am not liking my massive 200-600mm now lol).
I get "only" 14mp in APS-C mode on A7IV but even that's been plenty to get some keepers. With a dedicated APS-C body which is lot smaller you can get 24mp and possibly more when Sony updates their bodies.

 

[Tulipone]

A smaller set up would be better but not ideal. At this time my aspirations for wildlife photography is done - but will continue to enjoy being out and watching it.

 

[Craikeybaby]

Maybe I need to do something similar - Fuji do a loan system, so I will probably get a 100-400 for a weekend later in the year.

 

[Nod]

See if you can wangle a 1.4x telecon with it.

 

[Tulipone]

It was really helpful to excise this from me. Doesn’t stop me from doing anything else - or trying again another time. These loan systems are great for the purpose they are set up for - if I could have loaned from anywhere before purchase, I would have done. Just happened to fall on Sigma Select and went ahead. £24 a bargain.

 

[Mintchocs]

A bit late to the party, but how about a Canon R7 with the RF 100-400mm. Weight of both combined is about 1250grams. You have all the good stuff like bird tracking AF as well. If the R7 is over budget get the R10 which still has a lot of the good stuff.

 

[Mike.P]

Think I am going to "borrow" a Sigma 60-600mm for my Sony A9, I have the 200-600mm and 1.4x but the close focus ability of the Sigma looks pretty impressive.

I used to have the Sigma 50-500mm OS for my Pentax kit and that was a great lens.

 

[nandbytes]

Think I am going to "borrow" a Sigma 60-600mm for my Sony A9, I have the 200-600mm and 1.4x but the close focus ability of the Sigma looks pretty impressive.

I used to have the Sigma 50-500mm OS for my Pentax kit and that was a great lens.

Was thinking of the same lens
Then I saw EF 500mm f4 on the list.... Now thinking I need to try that instead

 

[nandbytes]

A bit late to the party, but how about a Canon R7 with the RF 100-400mm. Weight of both combined is about 1250grams. You have all the good stuff like bird tracking AF as well. If the R7 is over budget get the R10 which still has a lot of the good stuff.

RF 100-400mm is f8 at long end and it reaches f8 around 200mm if I'm not mistaken which IMO is too dark for the UK

 

[Mike.P]

Was thinking of the same lens
Then I saw EF 500mm f4 on the list.... Now thinking I need to try that instead

Had the Sigma 500mm f/4 sport for a while on a Nikon D500, fab lens but again too heavy to lug around. Sold it to MBP in the end because no-one here was interested and I didn't want to get into Ebay selling a lens that expensive. Sort of wish I had kept it and had the mount converted.


Long Tailed Tit by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr


Robin by Mike.Pursey, on Flickr

 

[Mintchocs]

RF 100-400mm is f8 at long end and it reaches f8 around 200mm if I'm not mistaken which IMO is too dark for the UK

It depends on what quality you want, with all the improvements in noise reduction in reasonably average lighting you should get okay photos and it’s better than not having any gear to shoot with. Canon might have a secret sensor hiding in the wings for their next model that can shoot in the dark!

 

[Tulipone]

I thought that I'd finish this thread off with some of the snaps from the 150-600 - none of them particularly great. I found the bulk difficult to deal with and by the time I had the camera in the right position I usually just saw the backside of something heading for the wide blue yonder. I have a bunch of excuses other than rain, mud, etc!!! My Lumix S5 has an animal detect but the range was so significant on all of these that didn't work - else it didn't acquire in time - so most were manually focused. It was great to try it for a few days and all those who recommended that I hire one before buying were bang on. It was only late on did I find that Sigma themselves provide that service for that lens. Ironically the only birds I found were far too fast.

20230422 - Farm Visit - 241 by Chris Mead, on Flickr

20230422 - Farm Visit - 240 by Chris Mead, on Flickr

20230422 - Farm Visit - 120 by Chris Mead, on Flickr

20230422 - Farm Visit - 135 by Chris Mead, on Flickr

 

[TimHughes]

I thought that I'd finish this thread off with some of the snaps from the 150-600 - none of them particularly great. I found the bulk difficult to deal with and by the time I had the camera in the right position I usually just saw the backside of something heading for the wide blue yonder. I have a bunch of excuses other than rain, mud, etc!!! My Lumix S5 has an animal detect but the range was so significant on all of these that didn't work - else it didn't acquire in time - so most were manually focused. It was great to try it for a few days and all those who recommended that I hire one before buying were bang on. It was only late on did I find that Sigma themselves provide that service for that lens. Ironically the only birds I found were far too fast.

Yes, it certainly takes practice aiming and tracking on the long end. In the summer I train with the swallows, yet to get a great shot of those in flight. Probably someone somewhere is working on a motorized tracker haha. As others have said there is no perfect solution.