Recommendations for a camera & lens for birds

Neilmack

Neilmack

Messages
657
Edit My Images
No
Looking for something specifically and well adapted to taking stills of birds and wildlife. I have been looking at the Sony A6400 and Sony E 70-350mm f/4.5-6.3 G OSS. Can such a set up be bettered by anything else on the market within my budget? I would prefer to avoid full frame (or rather, its attendant bulk and weight). Most important are image quality and autofocus accuracy, and performance in low light. Maximum spend £1600 new, though I'll probably buy second hand.

Any thoughts? Thanks.

​

 
For a starter 350mm will not give you enough reach , if your going down the used path then look at Olympus , last years top models have dropped in price due to new models so look for a omd-1mkiii or a omd-E- M1X both available at circa £700 or less from dealers with warranty . Lenses either the Panasonic 100-400 or Olympus 100-400 can be found used for under a grand .
The cameras benefit from a 2x crop factor and the M1X has bird I.d in the firmware , most other available lenses are often smaller and cheaper than other brands to
 
Sigma (or Tamron) 150-600mm are well used by many. A lot of the local group use them with a variety of Nikon D7000 series bodies or canon options
 
A lot depends if you are using it mobile ( Walking about ) or in a fixed location ( Tripod ) ?
 
Don't know if it'll be long enough for birds but I've had good results from the Canon 400mm f/5.6, I think it works with a teleconverter, not 100% on that though
 
the black fox said:
For a starter 350mm will not give you enough reach , if your going down the used path then look at Olympus , last years top models have dropped in price due to new models so look for a omd-1mkiii or a omd-E- M1X both available at circa £700 or less from dealers with warranty . Lenses either the Panasonic 100-400 or Olympus 100-400 can be found used for under a grand .
The cameras benefit from a 2x crop factor and the M1X has bird I.d in the firmware , most other available lenses are often smaller and cheaper than other brands to
Click to expand...
Thanks. Looks potentially interesting.
 
Not used a tripod or monopod in over 3 years olympus I.b.I.s and I.s means hand holding is possible for every shot
 
Panasonic G9 and the Panasonic Leica 100-400 lens.
Not too heavy or large, Dual Stabilisation so don't really need a tripod, and great results.

There was a pair sold last week both for £1050, though that is lower than usual
 
If you go down the Olympus route particularly , allow also for noise reduction software. I use DXO Photolab, which is superb, but DXO PureRAW would be an alternative if you are happy with your current software, or Topaz De-noise.

DXO only works on RAW files so you use it at the beginning of the process, while Topaz works at any stage.
 
The heading made me smile " Recommendations for a camera & lens for birds".

I suppose it all depends on the size of bird as to which camera and lens it can fly with :headbang::ROFLMAO:
 
I have a Sony A6600 and Sony 70-350mm lens and use it for birds and sport among other things. The focussing is excellent for tracking birds. There are a few differences between the A6600 and A6400 and in particular the 6600 has larger battery capacity. The 6400 has a built in flash but I have never used a built in flash as it is in exactly the wrong place. The weight of this camera and lens is less than 1/3 the weight of my Canon 5D4 and 700-200m with 1.4X. I am well pleased with the Sony though I have kept the heavy Canon for studio photography.

Dave
 
jerry12953 said:
If you go down the Olympus route particularly , allow also for noise reduction software. I use DXO Photolab, which is superb, but DXO PureRAW would be an alternative if you are happy with your current software, or Topaz De-noise.

DXO only works on RAW files so you use it at the beginning of the process, while Topaz works at any stage.
Click to expand...
Something I have no experience of. Do they do evaluation downloads?
 
jerry12953 said:
If you go down the Olympus route particularly , allow also for noise reduction software. I use DXO Photolab, which is superb, but DXO PureRAW would be an alternative if you are happy with your current software, or Topaz De-noise.

DXO only works on RAW files so you use it at the beginning of the process, while Topaz works at any stage.
Click to expand...
FWIW DxO will also process JPEG images but when you shoot raw the NR tool in DxO PhotoLab is much more powerful.

However, PhotoLab is a very good raw convertor and that basic function combined with all the other tools in it, including the NR, make it IMO a good choice of editing software.

FWIW it was its NR that was instrumental in my decision to switch from Canon full frame to Olympus......because the noise needed taming.


Neilmack said:
Something I have no experience of. Do they do evaluation downloads?
Click to expand...
Yes, there is a trial period......I did a trial in 2016 with a much earlier version and within 30 minutes of testing it on online available Olympus raw files I bought the software.

I also have Topaz AI programs and would never use them with my raw files (because IMO they are very poor raw convertor(s). I now tend to export from PhotoLab as TIFF's for importing into Topaz and depending on what I wish to do next in my workflow I will save as Tiff or jpeg.

PS unless I am taking a purely record shot, I use raw exclusively.
 
Box Brownie said:
I also have Topaz AI programs and would never use them with my raw files (because IMO they are very poor raw convertor(s). I now tend to export from PhotoLab as TIFF's for importing into Topaz and depending on what I wish to do next in my workflow I will save as Tiff or jpeg.

PS unless I am taking a purely record shot, I use raw exclusively.
Click to expand...
I believe that if I invoke a Topaz AI product to process a Raw file from Lightroom, the conversion to TIFF is done by LR; do you know different? As it happens I tend to open the file in PS so it is converted to a 16 bit TIFF by LR then apply the Topaz filter from PS. I do this because the external software only works with bit mapped imaged so no advantage in continuing in Raw and there is the question you have raised as to where does the Raw rendering take place.

Dave
 
Dave Canon said:
I believe that if I invoke a Topaz AI product to process a Raw file from Lightroom, the conversion to TIFF is done by LR; do you know different? As it happens I tend to open the file in PS so it is converted to a 16 bit TIFF by LR then apply the Topaz filter from PS. I do this because the external software only works with bit mapped imaged so no advantage in continuing in Raw and there is the question you have raised as to where does the Raw rendering take place.

Dave
Click to expand...
I am no longer a LR user so cannot comment on that workflow now, however I can perceive that as LR is indeed a raw convertor it's default(?) process is (via settings/preferences) is to export i.e. it must convert to jpeg, tiff etc for the file to 'open in another application '.

As I only use Topaz for specific purposes I tend to do as I mentioned but not at this time 'open in another application' in PhotoLab..... thinking about this I may yet do so to smooth out my workflow :thinking:

I posted as I did, because IIRC I read on occasion of users putting the raw into Topaz before other steps and commenting/complaining that the results were poor. This being due to the raw conversion rather than the IMO intended use of the Topaz e.g. Gigapixel or Sharpen.
 
Last edited:
Out of interest I just tried using one of my recent Raw file and processed 3 ways:

a. LR to PS then apply Topaz Photo Ai as a filter
b. LR to edit in Topaz Photo AI
c. Drop Raw file directly onto Topaz Photo AI

It was much as I expected. For both a. and b. LR converts the image to my default export 16 bit TIFF but all LR edits are included.
For b. Topaz complains and recommends that I use process c as Topaz thinks their Raw conversion is better,

The images from a. and b. looked identical which I would expect. By using the Topaz conversion c the final image had a colour cast, was noisier and the process was about 3 times as long. When Raw files are rendered in LR my camera calibration profile is automatically applied whereas Topaz will not know about this. I think it would be impossible to claim that Topaz has an inferior Raw converter (or better as Topaz claim) without detailed scientific tests. It did produce a poorer output for me but this was mainly due to Topaz not using my calibration profile. I will obviously stick to my LR/PS combination.

Dave
 
Neilmack said:
Something I have no experience of. Do they do evaluation downloads?
Click to expand...
Yes, they do.

If you're used to a full time image processor (eg Photoshop? Lightroom?) and are happy with it I suggest using DXO PureRaw.

DXO Photolab is supposedly a fully fledged processor and I did give it a try, but it has features missing which are present in its main competitors. I really don't want to get into an x is better than y discussion but that was my opinion.

Having purchased Photolab but decided to go back to Lightroom as my main processor I have set Photolab up as if it were PureRaw. I would probably have gone straight to PureRaw if I knew then what I know now! The sharpening and noise reduction that Photolab is capable of really is spectacular sometimes. It is so good that you can then re-sharpen the image in Lightroom if you need to..
 
What’s your experience and are you happy to carry heavy gear around or do you want something a bit lighter?

Something like an Olympus EM1-II and 100-400mm lens (200-800mm equivalent) will weigh less than something like the Tamron 150-600mm alone.

I was always happy with the results I had with the EM1-II and Panasonic Leica 100-400mm.
 
Last edited:
FWIW
PhotoLab v6.3 update with soft proofing to compliment its 'wider colour gamut' workspace and other feature updates

www.dxo.com

DxO PhotoLab 7: Advanced, end-to-end, RAW photo editing software

The RAW photo conversion, retouching, and editing software with AI-powered noise reduction, leading optical corrections, and easy file management.
www.dxo.com www.dxo.com

www.dxo.com

DxO's new ultra-wide color space is unique - DxO

For DxO PhotoLab 6, we created our most versatile and flexible color space yet. Here’s how it works and why it’s better for your photos.
www.dxo.com www.dxo.com
 
snerkler said:
I was always happy with the results I had with the EM1-II and Panasonic Leica 100-400mm.
Click to expand...
That was my original combo and I seemed to have problems with focus/camera shake or was possibly using the wrong settings . I got a lot of "mushy" results and I just couldn't understand why. However since upgrading to the OM1 (with the same lens) I'm much happier with my files. So I'd recommend this as a combo as well. Others swear by the Olympus 100- 400 ; however it's a larger and heavier lens.
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
That was my original combo and I seemed to have problems with focus/camera shake or was possibly using the wrong settings . I got a lot of "mushy" results and I just couldn't understand why. However since upgrading to the OM1 (with the same lens) I'm much happier with my files. So I'd recommend this as a combo as well. Others swear by the Olympus 100- 400 ; however it's a larger and heavier lens.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you had issues tbh but seems like a gremlin as there’s no reason why the EM1-II should perform drastically different from the OM1.

The issue with the OM1 is that it’s over budget for the OP (y)
 
snerkler said:
What’s your experience and are you happy to carry heavy gear around or do you want something a bit lighter?

Something like an Olympus EM1-II and 100-400mm lens (200-800mm equivalent) will weigh less than something like the Tamron 150-600mm alone.

I was always happy with the results I had with the EM1-II and Panasonic Leica 100-400mm.
Click to expand...
It's not just weight - I would prefer something more compact. Equipping my Nikon FF camera for the job would demand demand I buy a big and expensive long lens, and carry a substantial tripod.

Studying the Olympus system suggests this is very much what I'm looking for. At one point I wondered about the Sony RX10 Mk IV with its 600mm equivalent lens, but I'm deterred by its very small sensor.
 
Box Brownie said:
FWIW
PhotoLab v6.3 update with soft proofing to compliment its 'wider colour gamut' workspace and other feature updates

www.dxo.com

DxO PhotoLab 7: Advanced, end-to-end, RAW photo editing software

The RAW photo conversion, retouching, and editing software with AI-powered noise reduction, leading optical corrections, and easy file management.
www.dxo.com www.dxo.com

www.dxo.com

DxO's new ultra-wide color space is unique - DxO

For DxO PhotoLab 6, we created our most versatile and flexible color space yet. Here’s how it works and why it’s better for your photos.
www.dxo.com www.dxo.com
Click to expand...

Thank you. I'm going to have a look at the evaluation version of the DXO software.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top