Wildlife - Canon 80D/Sigma 150-600mm vs Lumix G9/Leica 100-400mm

[Crotal Bell]

Ok I'm racking my brains over this one, so I need your help.

Currently using Lumix G80 with 100-300mm for wildlife, also have the 12-60mm and hoping to retain this gear for other uses.

The set ups in the title are what I see as affordable (just!!) and after much research my best options.

A few of points I should mention

1. I am looking at used items not new
2. Video capability is not important to me.
3. BIF and image quality is important to me.
4. The 90D pushes the budget too high so it's not in the frame.

Generally speaking the 80D costs a little more than the G9 right now, however this is balanced by the Sigma lens being slightly cheaper, than the Leica, in both cases at similar shutter counts and condition.

My gut feeling is to carry the extra weight and go 80D, as I have a wee bit more zoom and the APSC will give me better image quality, and 24MP gives more crop ability than 20MP on the G9. Also the focus system on the 80D is good with the OVF.

But I may be missing other key aspects as I am not experienced.

I welcome all comments and hope you can all help me, wildlife has become a real passion, and I want to take it a bit further on my ,limited funds.

 

[the black fox]

Having had that rig before I can answer truthfully , yes the 80D and sigma will give you the reach and AF you require . It’s a good rig if you can handle the weight , the other problem being that if your used to the high burst and buffer speeds of mirrorless ( often used in wildlife / birding) then the 80D will feel prehistoric in use ..
And if your on a tight budget I would also factor in a decent tripod and gimbal as hand holding can be tiring due to the weight .
It’s really a personal choice but I also used that rig alongside my first mirrorless set up a G80 and PL 100-300 and often preferred it .

P.s having used that exact rig Keith try this go on Flickr and either search in my stream or put in a general search using camera and lens you will get a good set of sample images to judge from .if I get a chance later I’ll add some shots on here

 

[the black fox]

heres one Keith . my camera roll states dec 2016 so if you search around that date some more will come up
the two of us by jeff cohen, on Flickr

flight of the predator by jeff cohen, on Flickr

 

[the black fox]

and another ,hopefully thats enough to sway your decision ..
p.s I would also factor in the sigma dock so you can fine tune the lens .. I would class that as essential TBH
slow and low by jeff cohen, on Flickr

 

[Dale.]

I can vouch for the 150-600, I have the C and it's a superb lens, so much so that I've seen no need to 'update' my 100-400Mk1 to the Mk2, as I always reach for the Sigma. Also, you'll be getting 960mm (FF equiv) on the crop sensor 80D.

The 80D was a decent camera back in the day and it's still decent now. That won't change becasue there are more advanced and up to date cameras than the 80D around now, it will always be a good camera.

Either camera will come with caveats but also, advantges over the other. It's swings and roundabouts in that respect.

Me? I'd go 80D and the Sigma.

 

[Crotal Bell]

and another ,hopefully thats enough to sway your decision ..
p.s I would also factor in the sigma dock so you can fine tune the lens .. I would class that as essential TBH
slow and low by jeff cohen, on Flickr

Extremely helpful Jeff, thank you. The 80D images on your Flickr page are a testament to how well the combo can perform (in the right hands of course).
In regards the weight of the 80D/Sigma rig, this is something I am worried I may be underestimating at my peril, however, I see you had the Sport version which is considerably heavier than the Contemporary?

 

[Crotal Bell]

I can vouch for the 150-600, I have the C and it's a superb lens, so much so that I've seen no need to 'update' my 100-400Mk1 to the Mk2, as I always reach for the Sigma. Also, you'll be getting 960mm (FF equiv) on the crop sensor 80D.

The 80D was a decent camera back in the day and it's still decent now. That won't change becasue there are more advanced and up to date cameras than the 80D around now, it will always be a good camera.

Either camera will come with caveats but also, advantges over the other. It's swings and roundabouts in that respect.

Me? I'd go 80D and the Sigma.

Thanks Dale, TBH I was set on this (more or less) then I saw how much the G9 was falling in price, and as a MFT user was tempted to shift, hence me racking my brains !

@the black fox Jeff makes another valid point in regards the shot burst and buffer, but that's probably a sacrifice I can live with for the other benefits.

 

[the black fox]

Had both Keith sport in canon contemporary in Nikon , would possibly still be using if my ticker was ok , it’s a big rig to use for walkabout though maybe a canon 100-400 with tc might help or the 400 f5.6 is superb , there all mega slow compared MFT rigs though 7 or 8 FPS have you looked at the 1Dmk4 bodies heavier but pro level might be cheaper to

 

[Crotal Bell]

Had both Keith sport in canon contemporary in Nikon , would possibly still be using if my ticker was ok , it’s a big rig to use for walkabout though maybe a canon 100-400 with tc might help or the 400 f5.6 is superb , there all mega slow compared MFT rigs though 7 or 8 FPS have you looked at the 1Dmk4 bodies heavier but pro level might be cheaper to

1Dmk4 - I think my minds made up on 80D mate, so many pros and cons with all of them, 1Dmk4 bigger and heavier and 17MP. Most examples are very well used, I guess because these were purchased at high cost with serious long term intent, whereas many 80Ds bought as a solid starter but the hobby not taken up (or back up camera)

So here's the predicament, you're saying even the C is a heavy rig if you're roving around for 2-3 hours? I'm 55 and unfit, a few aching joints from my youthful sports years, bad knee/shoulder. This is my biggest concern. I want the freedom to walk the local fields and shoot the opportunities that come along, which will be ruined if the 80D/Sigma C is dragging me down a bit after the first hour.

 

[the black fox]

not sure of the actual weight Keith but I was using a nikon D7200 + sigma C 150-600 and after my heart failure found it simply to heavy for walkabout , I would have given up entirely by now if I was forced into to keeping it . you will also find the lens is front heavy and the i.s is not up to olympus/panasonic standards
you can check out the weights yourself but as I said you will likely need a tripod and gimbal to carry about to .. ??? where as my om1-mkiii + 100-400 +1.4 t.c weighs in at 2 kg exactly and is hand holdable . pick up a bag of sugar and walk around the room with that to see the difference

 

[RichardC27]

I can't vouch for the Sigma 150-600 but I used a Canon EOS 80D for several years and was always very happy with it. Really good AF, nice build quality and good image quality too.

 

[tijuana taxi]

How about the 7D mk2, I had the mk1 and it handled very nicely.
Disappointed with its higher iso capability, low too if i'm being honest.
I know the Mk2 was much improved, but I had moved on to full frame by then.
,

 

[Crotal Bell]

I can't vouch for the Sigma 150-600 but I used a Canon EOS 80D for several years and was always very happy with it. Really good AF, nice build quality and good image quality too.

Thank you

 

[Crotal Bell]

How about the 7D mk2, I had the mk1 and it handled very nicely.
Disappointed with its higher iso capability, low too if i'm being honest.
I know the Mk2 was much improved, but I had moved on to full frame by then.
,

Yes even the MkII was criticised for poor low light performance, the sensor in the 80D was a step up.

 

[Crotal Bell]

not sure of the actual weight Keith but I was using a nikon D7200 + sigma C 150-600 and after my heart failure found it simply to heavy for walkabout , I would have given up entirely by now if I was forced into to keeping it . you will also find the lens is front heavy and the i.s is not up to olympus/panasonic standards
you can check out the weights yourself but as I said you will likely need a tripod and gimbal to carry about to .. ??? where as my om1-mkiii + 100-400 +1.4 t.c weighs in at 2 kg exactly and is hand holdable . pick up a bag of sugar and walk around the room with that to see the difference

Sounds like it's a toss up really, I never realised that an APSC and the Sigma would be a struggle and I don't want that to spoil my fun.

I saw some good deals on the Pana G9 earlier at Park Cameras, but when I called they said all the prices were wrong and the best deal camera should not be on there as it was sold ! And that's the second time I have phoned Park Cameras and that's been the case !

 

[tijuana taxi]

Yes even the MkII was criticised for poor low light performance, the sensor in the 80D was a step up.

Was it, fair enough although I have seen some decent photos from it along with the 100-400 mkii

I had a dabble with the Mk1 and a 400/5.6 before I realised I couldn't get the results I wanted from it.
Gave up on wildlife, not really my thing and at the time didn't have the five grand or so to get what I needed

 

[Dale.]

Was it, fair enough although I have seen some decent photos from it along with a 100-400 mkii

The 7DMK2 was an improvement over the 7DMK1. I had the mark 1, it was pretty awful in low light, even at low ISO numbers and ETTR. It was better if you gave it the light but in my experience, there was always a weird grain and sometimes banding to images from it. Maybe I just had a bad copy. The 7Dii was (is) much better, even though I never owned one but by all accounts, it was significantly better than the Mk1. A friend of mine had one and loved it.

I've just had a thought. I have an M5 and that has the same sensor as the 80D and it has impressed me. It is much better (or should I say, more forgiving?) than the 7DMk1 sensor was.

The M5 is a bit more basic than the G9 or 80D but it served me well with wildlife whilst I waited on my R7.

The M5 isn't my main camera but it is a lovely thing and might be worth considering (I say might) if weight becomes an issue with the 80D or other DSLRs.

 

[mav]

I would have a look at the sony a6400 i used it with the sigma and the mc 11 adaptor and it worked really well , i upgraded from a 70d and it was miles better,
heres a shot from that combo

What is your budjet there may be other outfits tolook at

 

[Crotal Bell]

The 7DMK2 was an improvement over the 7DMK1. I had the mark 1, it was pretty awful in low light, even at low ISO numbers and ETTR. It was better if you gave it the light but in my experience, there was always a weird grain and sometimes banding to images from it. Maybe I just had a bad copy. The 7Dii was (is) much better, even though I never owned one but by all accounts, it was significantly better than the Mk1. A friend of mine had one and loved it.

I've just had a thought. I have an M5 and that has the same sensor as the 80D and it has impressed me. It is much better (or should I say, more forgiving?) than the 7DMk1 sensor was.

The M5 is a bit more basic than the G9 or 80D but it served me well with wildlife whilst I waited on my R7.

The M5 isn't my main camera but it is a lovely thing and might be worth considering (I say might) if weight becomes an issue with the 80D or other DSLRs.

Thanks Dale

 

[Crotal Bell]

I would have a look at the sony a6400 i used it with the sigma and the mc 11 adaptor and it worked really well , i upgraded from a 70d and it was miles better,
heres a shot from that combo

What is your budjet there may be other outfits tolook at


View attachment 377339

That's impressive.
Can't go far over a grand maybe 1100 tops.
I like to walk and take photos, so I rarely get the subjects as close as those who hide and wait under cover, so I'm looking for good zoom capability.

 

[the black fox]

For interest Keith I would say 75% of my shots are from wandering , the other 25% are split between hides on reserves and shooting from the car, I have not got the patience to sit around waiting on stuff

 

[Crotal Bell]

For interest Keith I would say 75% of my shots are from wandering , the other 25% are split between hides on reserves and shooting from the car, I have not got the patience to sit around waiting on stuff

Yes that's me too Jeff, I love to wander, basically I'm a walker who loves to take photos.
I do want to revisit the local Marina and spend an hour or so in the hide soon though, but usually I'll choose places I'm likely to see wildlife and then go walking with my eyes peeled.

Been thinking, if the 80D and Sigma are over the shoulder on a strap, would that help with the weight (and just swing it round when I see something),

 

[Crotal Bell]

For interest Keith I would say 75% of my shots are from wandering , the other 25% are split between hides on reserves and shooting from the car, I have not got the patience to sit around waiting on stuff

Just seen a Sigma 150-500mm on fleabay at a good price, still works out 800mm equiv and lighter so that may be another option.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Sigma 150-600mm contemporary 1,830 grams Canon 80D 730 grams = 2,560 grams
Panasonic Leica 100-400mm 985 grams Lumix G9 558 grams = 1,543 grams

I guess a kilo is very significant if your out walking for 2-3 hours, or more.

 

[the black fox]

Sigma 150-600mm contemporary 1,830 grams Canon 80D 730 grams = 2,560 grams
Panasonic Leica 100-400mm 985 grams Lumix G9 558 grams = 1,543 grams

I guess a kilo is very significant if your out walking for 2-3 hours, or more.

Shoulder strap/ harness yes ideal .. you will find though it’s not just the weight it’s the balance and C of G , the length and glass make it front heavy

 

[Sangoma]

It was mentioned, but seems not noticed. OIS

Much much better on the Panasonic, and worth quite a few stops. And means you can usually manage without a tripod.

I had Canon before I changed to M43, and honestly wouldn't go back to it. I still have on back pack with a 650 and a few lenses, and I have to remember how heavy it is when I take it off the shelf.
Not only the weight, the extra length of the lens when walking seems to get longer and longer as I walk.

It was mentioned that the Canon will seem ancient (or similar) and they do, it like going back to a Zenit E compared to the G80 or G9.


When it is cold and dark. I prefer the 100-300 than the 100-400, no matter which camera I use. Fits into an ordinary dSLR bag as well, with a couple of spare batteries and cards in the side pockets, very small and light to carry around.

I think If I was in your situation, I would add another alternative, get a G9 first to use with the 100-300, then a 100-400 later.

 

[RichardC27]

Just seen a Sigma 150-500mm on fleabay at a good price, still works out 800mm equiv and lighter so that may be another option.

The 150-500mm is a much older lens and doesn't have anything like the image quality of the 150-600mm lenses. I think you'd be quite disappointed if you bought the older lens.

Have you considered other brands? You could get a Fuji X-T2 or 3 and the 70-300mm lens within your budget. A more modern camera and lens that will be much smaller and lighter than a Canon DSLR and still give you good reach

 

[delb0y]

I think If I was in your situation, I would add another alternative, get a G9 first to use with the 100-300, then a 100-400 later.

This is precisely the route I've gone down. I'm no hard-core wildlife photographer, but carrying a camera is a nice reason for going for long walks on my own in out of the way places. I wouldn't want to spoil that by having to carry too much weight. One day I'd love the 100-400, but I'm sure the 100-300 will more than suffice for the time being. And - as you'll have seen from my post elsewhere - the G9 is now edging down into affordable territory. If it wasn't raining very big cats and dogs I'd be out there now with this combo!

 

[Crotal Bell]

The 150-500mm is a much older lens and doesn't have anything like the image quality of the 150-600mm lenses. I think you'd be quite disappointed if you bought the older lens.

Have you considered other brands? You could get a Fuji X-T2 or 3 and the 70-300mm lens within your budget. A more modern camera and lens that will be much smaller and lighter than a Canon DSLR and still give you good reach

Thanks buddy, I'll ditch the 150-500mm idea.

I'm looking at all options but really want a rig with FF 800mm equiv (if I can carry it)

 

[Crotal Bell]

It was mentioned, but seems not noticed. OIS

Much much better on the Panasonic, and worth quite a few stops. And means you can usually manage without a tripod.

I had Canon before I changed to M43, and honestly wouldn't go back to it. I still have on back pack with a 650 and a few lenses, and I have to remember how heavy it is when I take it off the shelf.
Not only the weight, the extra length of the lens when walking seems to get longer and longer as I walk.

It was mentioned that the Canon will seem ancient (or similar) and they do, it like going back to a Zenit E compared to the G80 or G9.


When it is cold and dark. I prefer the 100-300 than the 100-400, no matter which camera I use. Fits into an ordinary dSLR bag as well, with a couple of spare batteries and cards in the side pockets, very small and light to carry around.

I think If I was in your situation, I would add another alternative, get a G9 first to use with the 100-300, then a 100-400 later.

Thanks Steve, some goods points made and things I'll think about.

 

[RichardC27]

Thanks buddy, I'll ditch the 150-500mm idea.

I'm looking at all options but really want a rig with FF 800mm equiv (if I can carry it)

Sounds like MFT is what you're looking for, the smaller sensor gives you that reach with a 400mm lens.

 

[Crotal Bell]

It was mentioned, but seems not noticed. OIS

Much much better on the Panasonic, and worth quite a few stops. And means you can usually manage without a tripod.

I had Canon before I changed to M43, and honestly wouldn't go back to it. I still have on back pack with a 650 and a few lenses, and I have to remember how heavy it is when I take it off the shelf.
Not only the weight, the extra length of the lens when walking seems to get longer and longer as I walk.

It was mentioned that the Canon will seem ancient (or similar) and they do, it like going back to a Zenit E compared to the G80 or G9.


When it is cold and dark. I prefer the 100-300 than the 100-400, no matter which camera I use. Fits into an ordinary dSLR bag as well, with a couple of spare batteries and cards in the side pockets, very small and light to carry around.

I think If I was in your situation, I would add another alternative, get a G9 first to use with the 100-300, then a 100-400 later.

This is where my lack of experience lets me down somewhat, you and @delb0y plus others have high regard for the G9 but I am led to believe by the blurb and sales assistants on the phone that the 80D rig will take superior quality wildlife photos over the G9.

The other thing is the difference between Pana 100-300 and the 100-400. I used my FZ82 to zoom between 600 and 800, and it's not a massive leap in zoom so I thought the move to 950mm on the Canon would be more of an advantage - a jump of effective range by 350mm rather than 200mm.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Sounds like MFT is what you're looking for, the smaller sensor gives you that reach with a 400mm lens.

Does the smaller sensor really make a great difference? I'm led to believe it does (fine detail on birds etc being cleaner/sharper on APSC)

 

[Sangoma]

This is where my lack of experience lets me down somewhat, you and @delb0y plus others have high regard for the G9 but I am led to believe by the blurb and sales assistants on the phone that the 80D rig will take superior quality wildlife photos over the G9.

The other thing is the difference between Pana 100-300 and the 100-400. I used my FZ82 to zoom between 600 and 800, and it's not a massive leap in zoom so I thought the move to 950mm on the Canon would be more of an advantage - a jump of effective range by 350mm rather than 200mm.

Well, you have to go with what you feel
I don't know what experience those assistants have, I remember some one here having a problem with that before

Under ideal situations, it may well take better photos, but I never find myself in the ideal situation, or the patience needed. Most of what I have taken and turned out to be a shot I like has been when I am walking or similar, not when I have set up in a particular spot to wait for somethin

Have you searched for G9 and wildlife?

 

[Sangoma]

Does the smaller sensor really make a great difference? I'm led to believe it does (fine detail on birds etc being cleaner/sharper on APSC)

That would make sense, but first you have to get that fine shot onto the camera

 

[Deleted member 95743]

What's wrong with your current camera? What are you wanting to do that you can't do already?

 

[RichardC27]

Does the smaller sensor really make a great difference? I'm led to believe it does (fine detail on birds etc being cleaner/sharper on APSC)

Well yes, bigger sensor generally equals better image quality, all things being equal. But everything is a compromise, and given that weight and effective reach are also considerations for you then an MFT system would probably be the best combination of reach and portability. Only you know where on that scale you land. Personally for me I don't see much of a benefit going from APS-C to FF for the type of photography I do. APS-C gives me a bit more reach and slightly more portability than an FF system for a minimal IQ penalty. Would I get better images from a FF system with associated lenses? Yes, but the cost, size and weight would be drawbacks.

If I was a wedding or portrait photographer then I wouldn't consider APS-C, I'd be FF all the way. It all depends what you want and what compromises you're willing to make.

 

[woof woof]

This is where my lack of experience lets me down somewhat, you and @delb0y plus others have high regard for the G9 but I am led to believe by the blurb and sales assistants on the phone that the 80D rig will take superior quality wildlife photos over the G9.

The other thing is the difference between Pana 100-300 and the 100-400. I used my FZ82 to zoom between 600 and 800, and it's not a massive leap in zoom so I thought the move to 950mm on the Canon would be more of an advantage - a jump of effective range by 350mm rather than 200mm.

Converting things to FF makes them make sense me.

So, 100-400mm on MTF = 200-800mm on FF.
150-600mm on APS-C = 240-960mm on FF.
(Canon APS-C is smaller than Nikon or Sony or Fuji with a x1.6 crop rather than the more usual x1.5.)

I don't know if there'll be any improvement in file quality going from MFT to an older Canon APS-C but I know I'd miss the advantages that mirrorless brings if going back to a DSLR, in fact it's something I wont do.

 

[Sangoma]

I don't know if there'll be any improvement in file quality going from MFT to an older Canon APS-C but I know I'd miss the advantages that mirrorless brings if going back to a DSLR, in fact it's something I wont do.

There is a slight quality advantage looking at numbers, but it is those mirrorless advantages you speak of that means I have much more success.
Faster focus, focus tracking, faster burst speed and pre-burst, 1.2kg and shorter to try and keep the bird in the frame and to carry to where ever I am going, near/far focus when the bird is in a tree with branches close by, electronic shutter.

The two set ups are very close in price looking at ebays completed listings, but many of the Canons have high shutter counts.

I can't say which way the OP should go, can only say what my experience has been, what I like, and what helps me to get the results I want.
Not trying to convince him to go the same way, or any other way, just saying what I like in case that can be related to and helps him build opinions leading to a good decision.

The OP has produced some nice photos, would they be better had he have used the Canon set-up? Who can say

 

[Crotal Bell]

What's wrong with your current camera? What are you wanting to do that you can't do already?

The G80 and 100-300mm do a good job and I feel lucky to have it, however, wildlife is becoming the main passion and I feel I want to "bump up" my equipment capability, with more reach in the lens and more pixels for cropping and keeping detail.