Upgrading from TZ60/ZS40 to FZ80/82 for birding?

[Owlsfan]

I'm a big fan of Panasonic cameras but I would lean towards the Nikon P950 for wildlife.

The FZ80/82 has got the reach but like with my Nikon B700 the jpegs just don't do it for me. All small sensors benefit from shooting raw and noise reduction software like DXO. But the FZ80/82 especially.

FZ330 is nice but only 600mm and 12mp can be frustrating for birds unless you are sitting in a hide or in the garden.And again I find the jpegs a bit blotchy at times.

The FZ2000 seems to have the best straight out of camera jpegs but it's a bit shorter than I'd like. But better IQ than the others for general photography.

The FZ1000/2000 sold for more than $1,000, the FZ300 at launch sold for $400, not a very valid comparison in any respect. If price is not a major factor, the Sony RX10iv is significantly better than any Panasonic zoom camera by miles.

Den

Yeah I was going to say the Sony but for me it's just that bit too much. But I have no idea what the op's budget is.

Obviously the FZ2000 is more than the 330/300 but its still in what I call affordable territory and not $600 more these days.

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

I'm a big fan of Panasonic cameras but I would lean towards the Nikon P950 for wildlife.

The FZ80/82 has got the reach but like with my Nikon B700 the jpegs just don't do it for me. All small sensors benefit from shooting raw and noise reduction software like DXO. But the FZ80/82 especially.

FZ330 is nice but only 600mm and 12mp can be frustrating for birds unless you are sitting in a hide or in the garden.And again I find the jpegs a bit blotchy at times.

The FZ2000 seems to have the best straight out of camera jpegs but it's a bit shorter than I'd like. But better IQ than the others for general photography.

The FZ1000/2000 sold for more than $1,000, the FZ300 at launch sold for $400, not a very valid comparison in any respect. If price is not a major factor, the Sony RX10iv is significantly better than any Panasonic zoom camera by miles.

Den

It just matters what they can be got for now.... FZ300 $500, FZ1000.2 $800 FZ80D $400

The price of the Sony is unreasonably high, at that price you can get a good full frame camera.

The 600mm efl does not matter, you have many more MPs to crop with on a full frame. Or you could get the OM-1 and get a much more technologically capable camera and get the 600mm efl lens at a fraction of the price.

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

I'm a big fan of Panasonic cameras but I would lean towards the Nikon P950 for wildlife.

The FZ80/82 has got the reach but like with my Nikon B700 the jpegs just don't do it for me. All small sensors benefit from shooting raw and noise reduction software like DXO. But the FZ80/82 especially.

FZ330 is nice but only 600mm and 12mp can be frustrating for birds unless you are sitting in a hide or in the garden.And again I find the jpegs a bit blotchy at times.

The FZ2000 seems to have the best straight out of camera jpegs but it's a bit shorter than I'd like. But better IQ than the others for general photography.

The FZ1000/2000 sold for more than $1,000, the FZ300 at launch sold for $400, not a very valid comparison in any respect. If price is not a major factor, the Sony RX10iv is significantly better than any Panasonic zoom camera by miles.

Den

Yeah I was going to say the Sony but for me it's just that bit too much. But I have no idea what the op's budget is.

Obviously the FZ2000 is more than the 330/300 but its still in what I call affordable territory and not $600 more these days.

If you can spent 2 grand on that Sony camera, you'd be far better off spending 2 grand on the OM-1 or a full frame camera.

 

[travelfoodphoto]

I'm a big fan of Panasonic cameras but I would lean towards the Nikon P950 for wildlife.

The FZ80/82 has got the reach but like with my Nikon B700 the jpegs just don't do it for me. All small sensors benefit from shooting raw and noise reduction software like DXO. But the FZ80/82 especially.

FZ330 is nice but only 600mm and 12mp can be frustrating for birds unless you are sitting in a hide or in the garden.And again I find the jpegs a bit blotchy at times.

The FZ2000 seems to have the best straight out of camera jpegs but it's a bit shorter than I'd like. But better IQ than the others for general photography.

The FZ1000/2000 sold for more than $1,000, the FZ300 at launch sold for $400, not a very valid comparison in any respect. If price is not a major factor, the Sony RX10iv is significantly better than any Panasonic zoom camera by miles.

Den

Yeah I was going to say the Sony but for me it's just that bit too much. But I have no idea what the op's budget is.

Obviously the FZ2000 is more than the 330/300 but its still in what I call affordable territory and not $600 more these days.

If you can spent 2 grand on that Sony camera, you'd be far better off spending 2 grand on the OM-1 or a full frame camera.

Totally incorrect. For 2 grand you could get the lowest priced Nikon fulll frame camera and one short lens. You would have to spend twice or 3 times as much as the Sony RX10iv costs to get close to its lens' range.

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

I'm a big fan of Panasonic cameras but I would lean towards the Nikon P950 for wildlife.

The FZ80/82 has got the reach but like with my Nikon B700 the jpegs just don't do it for me. All small sensors benefit from shooting raw and noise reduction software like DXO. But the FZ80/82 especially.

FZ330 is nice but only 600mm and 12mp can be frustrating for birds unless you are sitting in a hide or in the garden.And again I find the jpegs a bit blotchy at times.

The FZ2000 seems to have the best straight out of camera jpegs but it's a bit shorter than I'd like. But better IQ than the others for general photography.

The FZ1000/2000 sold for more than $1,000, the FZ300 at launch sold for $400, not a very valid comparison in any respect. If price is not a major factor, the Sony RX10iv is significantly better than any Panasonic zoom camera by miles.

Den

Yeah I was going to say the Sony but for me it's just that bit too much. But I have no idea what the op's budget is.

Obviously the FZ2000 is more than the 330/300 but its still in what I call affordable territory and not $600 more these days.

If you can spent 2 grand on that Sony camera, you'd be far better off spending 2 grand on the OM-1 or a full frame camera.

Totally incorrect. For 2 grand you could get the lowest priced Nikon fulll frame camera and one short lens. You would have to spend twice or 3 times as much as the Sony RX10iv costs to get close to its lens' range.

You do not need to get a 600mm focal length lens for the full frame since full frame cameras are more open to cropping especially with their higher resolution.

Main point being no 1 inch sensor camera is worth 2,000 dollars. I would rather have the OM-1 at that price or get a full frame camera and a decent lens.

 

[sherman_levine]

I'm a big fan of Panasonic cameras but I would lean towards the Nikon P950 for wildlife.

The FZ80/82 has got the reach but like with my Nikon B700 the jpegs just don't do it for me. All small sensors benefit from shooting raw and noise reduction software like DXO. But the FZ80/82 especially.

FZ330 is nice but only 600mm and 12mp can be frustrating for birds unless you are sitting in a hide or in the garden.And again I find the jpegs a bit blotchy at times.

The FZ2000 seems to have the best straight out of camera jpegs but it's a bit shorter than I'd like. But better IQ than the others for general photography.

The FZ1000/2000 sold for more than $1,000, the FZ300 at launch sold for $400, not a very valid comparison in any respect. If price is not a major factor, the Sony RX10iv is significantly better than any Panasonic zoom camera by miles.

Den

Yeah I was going to say the Sony but for me it's just that bit too much. But I have no idea what the op's budget is.

Obviously the FZ2000 is more than the 330/300 but its still in what I call affordable territory and not $600 more these days.

If you can spent 2 grand on that Sony camera, you'd be far better off spending 2 grand on the OM-1 or a full frame camera.

Totally incorrect. For 2 grand you could get the lowest priced Nikon fulll frame camera and one short lens. You would have to spend twice or 3 times as much as the Sony RX10iv costs to get close to its lens' range.

You do not need to get a 600mm focal length lens for the full frame since full frame cameras are more open to cropping especially with their higher resolution.

Main point being no 1 inch sensor camera is worth 2,000 dollars. I would rather have the OM-1 at that price or get a full frame camera and a decent lens.

You're comparing apples and horses. The RX10iv is worth its price (approx USD 1800) because it covers 24-600mm full frame equivalent with a single extremely sharp lens, and there is no other product on the market which comes close, regardless of sensor size. (Yes, Tamron and Sigma offer lenses with comparable focal length range, and they're all soft at the long end)

The 1" Lumix cameras are about 1/2 the Sony price, and offer a good alternative on a price/performance basis.

The OM-1m2 + telephoto zoom lens are an excellent product, but about twice the price of the RX10iv (depending upon the lens and whether you can find an ongoing sale), and are limited to the long end of the zoom range, so they serve a very different purpose from the RX10/FZ2500.

--

Sherm
Sherms flickr page

P950 album

P900 album RX10iv album
OM1.2 150-600 album

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

I'm a big fan of Panasonic cameras but I would lean towards the Nikon P950 for wildlife.

The FZ80/82 has got the reach but like with my Nikon B700 the jpegs just don't do it for me. All small sensors benefit from shooting raw and noise reduction software like DXO. But the FZ80/82 especially.

FZ330 is nice but only 600mm and 12mp can be frustrating for birds unless you are sitting in a hide or in the garden.And again I find the jpegs a bit blotchy at times.

The FZ2000 seems to have the best straight out of camera jpegs but it's a bit shorter than I'd like. But better IQ than the others for general photography.

The FZ1000/2000 sold for more than $1,000, the FZ300 at launch sold for $400, not a very valid comparison in any respect. If price is not a major factor, the Sony RX10iv is significantly better than any Panasonic zoom camera by miles.

Den

Yeah I was going to say the Sony but for me it's just that bit too much. But I have no idea what the op's budget is.

Obviously the FZ2000 is more than the 330/300 but its still in what I call affordable territory and not $600 more these days.

If you can spent 2 grand on that Sony camera, you'd be far better off spending 2 grand on the OM-1 or a full frame camera.

Totally incorrect. For 2 grand you could get the lowest priced Nikon fulll frame camera and one short lens. You would have to spend twice or 3 times as much as the Sony RX10iv costs to get close to its lens' range.

You do not need to get a 600mm focal length lens for the full frame since full frame cameras are more open to cropping especially with their higher resolution.

Main point being no 1 inch sensor camera is worth 2,000 dollars. I would rather have the OM-1 at that price or get a full frame camera and a decent lens.

You're comparing apples and horses. The RX10iv is worth its price (approx USD 1800) because it covers 24-600mm full frame equivalent with a single extremely sharp lens, and there is no other product on the market which comes close, regardless of sensor size. (Yes, Tamron and Sigma offer lenses with comparable focal length range, and they're all soft at the long end)

The 1" Lumix cameras are about 1/2 the Sony price, and offer a good alternative on a price/performance basis.

The OM-1m2 + telephoto zoom lens are an excellent product, but about twice the price of the RX10iv (depending upon the lens and whether you can find an ongoing sale), and are limited to the long end of the zoom range, so they serve a very different purpose from the RX10/FZ2500.

The lens might be what makes the difference, Sherm do you think the Sony would be better than the OM-1 II + Olympus 75-300 II lens?

 

[sherman_levine]

I'm a big fan of Panasonic cameras but I would lean towards the Nikon P950 for wildlife.

The FZ80/82 has got the reach but like with my Nikon B700 the jpegs just don't do it for me. All small sensors benefit from shooting raw and noise reduction software like DXO. But the FZ80/82 especially.

FZ330 is nice but only 600mm and 12mp can be frustrating for birds unless you are sitting in a hide or in the garden.And again I find the jpegs a bit blotchy at times.

The FZ2000 seems to have the best straight out of camera jpegs but it's a bit shorter than I'd like. But better IQ than the others for general photography.

The FZ1000/2000 sold for more than $1,000, the FZ300 at launch sold for $400, not a very valid comparison in any respect. If price is not a major factor, the Sony RX10iv is significantly better than any Panasonic zoom camera by miles.

Den

Yeah I was going to say the Sony but for me it's just that bit too much. But I have no idea what the op's budget is.

Obviously the FZ2000 is more than the 330/300 but its still in what I call affordable territory and not $600 more these days.

If you can spent 2 grand on that Sony camera, you'd be far better off spending 2 grand on the OM-1 or a full frame camera.

Totally incorrect. For 2 grand you could get the lowest priced Nikon fulll frame camera and one short lens. You would have to spend twice or 3 times as much as the Sony RX10iv costs to get close to its lens' range.

You do not need to get a 600mm focal length lens for the full frame since full frame cameras are more open to cropping especially with their higher resolution.

Main point being no 1 inch sensor camera is worth 2,000 dollars. I would rather have the OM-1 at that price or get a full frame camera and a decent lens.

You're comparing apples and horses. The RX10iv is worth its price (approx USD 1800) because it covers 24-600mm full frame equivalent with a single extremely sharp lens, and there is no other product on the market which comes close, regardless of sensor size. (Yes, Tamron and Sigm a offer lenses with comparable focal length range, and they're all soft at the long end)

The 1" Lumix cameras are about 1/2 the Sony price, and offer a good alternative on a price/performance basis.

The OM-1m2 + telephoto zoom lens are an excellent product, but about twice the price of the RX10iv (depending upon the lens and whether you can find an ongoing sale), and are limited to the long end of the zoom range, so they serve a very different purpose from the RX10/FZ2500.

The lens might be what makes the difference, Sherm do you think the Sony would be better than the OM-1 II + Olympus 75-300 II lens?

The Oly 75-300 II is f/4. at the wide end and f/6.7 at the long end. 300/6.7=45mm

The Sony is F4 at all but the wide end, and takes 72mm filters. 220/4=55mm (220 is the physical focal length of the sony lens at full zoom)

So... the Sony admits more light at full zoom, and I can use it for w/a also.

Unless I specifically need one of the Olympus body features, the Sony wins going away.

--

Sherm

Sherms flickr page

P950 album

P900 album RX10iv album
OM1.2 150-600 album

 

[zm123]

I'm a big fan of Panasonic cameras but I would lean towards the Nikon P950 for wildlife.

The FZ80/82 has got the reach but like with my Nikon B700 the jpegs just don't do it for me. All small sensors benefit from shooting raw and noise reduction software like DXO. But the FZ80/82 especially.

FZ330 is nice but only 600mm and 12mp can be frustrating for birds unless you are sitting in a hide or in the garden.And again I find the jpegs a bit blotchy at times.

The FZ2000 seems to have the best straight out of camera jpegs but it's a bit shorter than I'd like. But better IQ than the others for general photography.

Oh? What's the issue with the Nikon B700? I thought that it is similar to the Nikon P900 and Nikon P950. I was considering the Nikon B700 due to its lighter weight (< 600 grams) compared to the P900 (about 900 grams) and P950 (> 1 kilogram).

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

I'm a big fan of Panasonic cameras but I would lean towards the Nikon P950 for wildlife.

The FZ80/82 has got the reach but like with my Nikon B700 the jpegs just don't do it for me. All small sensors benefit from shooting raw and noise reduction software like DXO. But the FZ80/82 especially.

FZ330 is nice but only 600mm and 12mp can be frustrating for birds unless you are sitting in a hide or in the garden.And again I find the jpegs a bit blotchy at times.

The FZ2000 seems to have the best straight out of camera jpegs but it's a bit shorter than I'd like. But better IQ than the others for general photography.

The FZ1000/2000 sold for more than $1,000, the FZ300 at launch sold for $400, not a very valid comparison in any respect. If price is not a major factor, the Sony RX10iv is significantly better than any Panasonic zoom camera by miles.

Den

Yeah I was going to say the Sony but for me it's just that bit too much. But I have no idea what the op's budget is.

Obviously the FZ2000 is more than the 330/300 but its still in what I call affordable territory and not $600 more these days.

If you can spent 2 grand on that Sony camera, you'd be far better off spending 2 grand on the OM-1 or a full frame camera.

Totally incorrect. For 2 grand you could get the lowest priced Nikon fulll frame camera and one short lens. You would have to spend twice or 3 times as much as the Sony RX10iv costs to get close to its lens' range.

You do not need to get a 600mm focal length lens for the full frame since full frame cameras are more open to cropping especially with their higher resolution.

Main point being no 1 inch sensor camera is worth 2,000 dollars. I would rather have the OM-1 at that price or get a full frame camera and a decent lens.

You're comparing apples and horses. The RX10iv is worth its price (approx USD 1800) because it covers 24-600mm full frame equivalent with a single extremely sharp lens, and there is no other product on the market which comes close, regardless of sensor size. (Yes, Tamron and Sigm a offer lenses with comparable focal length range, and they're all soft at the long end)

The 1" Lumix cameras are about 1/2 the Sony price, and offer a good alternative on a price/performance basis.

The OM-1m2 + telephoto zoom lens are an excellent product, but about twice the price of the RX10iv (depending upon the lens and whether you can find an ongoing sale), and are limited to the long end of the zoom range, so they serve a very different purpose from the RX10/FZ2500.

The lens might be what makes the difference, Sherm do you think the Sony would be better than the OM-1 II + Olympus 75-300 II lens?

The Oly 75-300 II is f/4. at the wide end and f/6.7 at the long end. 300/6.7=45mm

The Sony is F4 at all but the wide end, and takes 72mm filters. 220/4=55mm (220 is the physical focal length of the sony lens at full zoom)

So... the Sony admits more light at full zoom, and I can use it for w/a also.

Unless I specifically need one of the Olympus body features, the Sony wins going away.

So to get equal or better image quality from the M4/3 sensor the lens needs to have the same or larger aperture? I think the only zoom lens that fits the bill is Olympus's 150-400mm lens.

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

I'm a big fan of Panasonic cameras but I would lean towards the Nikon P950 for wildlife.

The FZ80/82 has got the reach but like with my Nikon B700 the jpegs just don't do it for me. All small sensors benefit from shooting raw and noise reduction software like DXO. But the FZ80/82 especially.

FZ330 is nice but only 600mm and 12mp can be frustrating for birds unless you are sitting in a hide or in the garden.And again I find the jpegs a bit blotchy at times.

The FZ2000 seems to have the best straight out of camera jpegs but it's a bit shorter than I'd like. But better IQ than the others for general photography.

Oh? What's the issue with the Nikon B700? I thought that it is similar to the Nikon P900 and Nikon P950. I was considering the Nikon B700 due to its lighter weight (< 600 grams) compared to the P900 (about 900 grams) and P950 (> 1 kilogram).

All of these cameras are a disappointment in jpeg mode. I would downsize my P900 images to 8 MP and even 4 MP sometimes to deal with the noise.

 

[travelfoodphoto]

Last comment for you from me. You're making this so much more difficult than it needs to be. Just buy an FZ300 and learn how to use it and learn how to compose good photos with it. Look at my challenge entries, for examples. I've used this camera and cheaper cameras to come in the top 10 - 20 percent on DPReview challenges against photos taken with $1000's of photo equipment.

The FZ300 is far more than adequate for your photography needs. If and when you outgrow it, you can buy a far more expensive camera, if you choose.

It's the photographer, not the camera.

Good luck,

Den

 

[Jon_T]

Jon, I simply don't have the time to process thousands of images or even the space to store raw files. ...

Not applicable to my reply. "YOU" are the one who consistently brings up the FZ80; once 'again' just reminding you that the majority FZ80 images posted here with good IQ are PP RAW images.

Are you using the "spray and pray" shooting?

As Sherman noted there's no reason to "... time to process thousands of images ...". Just need to cull and delete, and PP the images you really do not want to keep.

... Even my JPGs are a little large for my tastes (around 10 MB). I would rather get the right shot straight out of the camera ...

One needs to fully understand basic of photography to learn to use a camera within its limitations.

... rather than have to work on it later, ...

Reminds me of 'Maynard G. Krebs' on the 'The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis' TV Show. "WORK!!!?"

... I also don't care for things like feather detail too much, since that takes away from the beauty of the bird for me. I like seeing shiny, smooth texture and lots of color, which is how my eyes sees it (I can't see feather detail with my eyes, so when I see it in a camera image, it looks very unrealistic to me.) ...

You're quite alone in that thinking; based on the bird images posted on all the forums.

"... This is probably why I've been using the S1 a lot, it's images are a lot sharper than any image I have gotten from any other camera I've used and there are literally no settings to change since nothing can be changed aside from color mode. All I do is click the auto adjust feature in Irfanview (a lot of people seem to like this feature.) ...

I used Irfanview years ago mainly a image viewer/ organizer — did not use to PP images as to back then it only had simple image editing tools — no "Photo" editing tools.

... No reason to buy raw software or even use free raw software ...

That's your very limited subjective opinion. MANY others "know" better.

(I don't have the space to be doing any of this.) ...

Have no idea what your "space" problems; now days there are relatively inexpensive external drives and USB thumb drives available. Just take the time to find out how to reduce image's file size with little reduction to the IQ.

... And I love Fuji intelligent digital zoom, it's more usable then Panasonic's. ,,,

More of your subjective opinion that you continue to post without any examples to substantiate your statement.

Hence this morning I did some "quick" shots with my FZ80 using iZoom; I PP (I actually "PP" the images; did not use PSE's "AUTO") the OOC JPG's with PSE (PhotoShop Elements) and downsized the images to 24000x1800 to match the resolution of your images.

As the old saying "You get out what you put in".

... I did take your advice and I resize all my images down to 2400x1800 since everyone resizes their images regardless of whatever camera they are shooting with. ...

Actually recommended to downsized to 1920 x 1920, common 16:9 display resolution since due to the IQ of your typical images no benefit to posting larger resolution of your images.

... So I only have a two step post processing method 1) auto adjustment in Irfanview ...

Using the "Auto" in Irfanview not really PP the image. :-|

... 2) resize the image to 4 MP. All of these images use the full 2x IDZ of the camera.

Yep the 2x IDZ IQ well apparent; not what I would be satisfied with.

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

Last comment for you from me. You're making this so much more difficult than it needs to be. Just buy an FZ300 and learn how to use it and learn how to compose good photos with it. Look at my challenge entries, for examples. I've used this camera and cheaper cameras to come in the top 10 - 20 percent on DPReview challenges against photos taken with $1000's of photo equipment.

The FZ300 is far more than adequate for your photography needs. If and when you outgrow it, you can buy a far more expensive camera, if you choose.

It's the photographer, not the camera.

Good luck,

Den

But if you needed more than 600mm and specifically more than 1000mm (and wanted to do BIF with this camera) which camera would you get?

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

Jon you are right I do spray and pray but more recently, I have just been using single shot mode because the buffer slows everything down after 10 images. So the BIF were more the result of lucky imaging not spray and pray. I reduced them to 2400x1800, no auto processing used except for the cardinal that was flying away.

I think your images are great, but they are from a closer distance, I think? Mine are from 100 feet away or more. Last one is my favorite, do they all use 2x i-zoom (2400mm)?

The image with the single gull in flight is at 1200mm (no IDZ), the one with the two gulls is at 2400mm (2x IDZ) the one with the perched cardinal is at 2400mm (2x IDZ) and the one with the flying cardinal is at 1200mm (no IDZ) but auto processing used

.

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

 

[Jon_T]

OutsideTheMatrix wrote

... Coupled with the fact that Panasonic i-zoom isn't that good and not anywhere near as good as Fuji IDZ, it was an easy choice to pick the Fuji S1 over the Panasonic FZ80. ...

100% gossip.
• No sample images provided to substantiate your comment.
• You do not own the FZ80.

Unless one knows and uses the FZ80 within its limitations OOC JPG images can be poor; hence the "FZ80" images are poor with using iZoom — the old
"Garbage In, Garbage Out."

Lest see your some of your Fuji IDZ images can match the old FZ200 using iZoom:

Full size image, just cropped excess sky

 

[OutsideTheMatrix]

I just posted both with and without IDZ in my previous comment, downloaded to 2400x1800. I own the FZ300 and found the i-zoom not good for what I want (but this is at full 4000x3000 resolution, maybe downsizing would have fixed it? I wanted to image the moon at 1200mm on the FZ300 with 2x i-zoom and could detect any more crater detail than the 600mm image that did not use i-zoom.) Since you have both the FZ200 and the FZ80, do you find the 2x i-zoom better on the FZ80 than it is on the FZ200 (I don't think you have the FZ300.)

 

[Jon_T]

Jon you are right I do spray and pray but more recently, I have just been using single shot mode because the buffer slows everything down after 10 images. So the BIF were more the result of lucky imaging not spray and pray. I reduced them to 2400x1800, no auto processing used except for the cardinal that was flying away.

I think your images are great, but they are from a closer distance, I think? Mine are from 100 feet away or more. ...

No that much difference approximately 90 ft. Hence has little to do with differences in IQ. Has more to do with technique and PP.

The image with the single gull in flight is at 1200mm (no IDZ), the one with the two gulls is at 2400 (2x IDZ) the one with the perched cardinal is at 2400mm (2x IDZ) and the one with the flying cardinal is at 1200mm (no IDZ) but auto processing used...

The "Auto processing" did not appear help, images look washed out and OOF.

I did some "really quick" tweaks to couple of the images.

 

[sherman_levine]

I'm a big fan of Panasonic cameras but I would lean towards the Nikon P950 for wildlife.

The FZ80/82 has got the reach but like with my Nikon B700 the jpegs just don't do it for me. All small sensors benefit from shooting raw and noise reduction software like DXO. But the FZ80/82 especially.

FZ330 is nice but only 600mm and 12mp can be frustrating for birds unless you are sitting in a hide or in the garden.And again I find the jpegs a bit blotchy at times.

The FZ2000 seems to have the best straight out of camera jpegs but it's a bit shorter than I'd like. But better IQ than the others for general photography.

The FZ1000/2000 sold for more than $1,000, the FZ300 at launch sold for $400, not a very valid comparison in any respect. If price is not a major factor, the Sony RX10iv is significantly better than any Panasonic zoom camera by miles.

Den

Yeah I was going to say the Sony but for me it's just that bit too much. But I have no idea what the op's budget is.

Obviously the FZ2000 is more than the 330/300 but its still in what I call affordable territory and not $600 more these days.

If you can spent 2 grand on that Sony camera, you'd be far better off spending 2 grand on the OM-1 or a full frame camera.

Totally incorrect. For 2 grand you could get the lowest priced Nikon fulll frame camera and one short lens. You would have to spend twice or 3 times as much as the Sony RX10iv costs to get close to its lens' range.

You do not need to get a 600mm focal length lens for the full frame since full frame cameras are more open to cropping especially with their higher resolution.

Main point being no 1 inch sensor camera is worth 2,000 dollars. I would rather have the OM-1 at that price or get a full frame camera and a decent lens.

You're comparing apples and horses. The RX10iv is worth its price (approx USD 1800) because it covers 24-600mm full frame equivalent with a single extremely sharp lens, and there is no other product on the market which comes close, regardless of sensor size. (Yes, Tamron and Sigm a offer lenses with comparable focal length range, and they're all soft at the long end)

The 1" Lumix cameras are about 1/2 the Sony price, and offer a good alternative on a price/performance basis.

The OM-1m2 + telephoto zoom lens are an excellent product, but about twice the price of the RX10iv (depending upon the lens and whether you can find an ongoing sale), and are limited to the long end of the zoom range, so they serve a very different purpose from the RX10/FZ2500.

The lens might be what makes the difference, Sherm do you think the Sony would be better than the OM-1 II + Olympus 75-300 II lens?

The Oly 75-300 II is f/4. at the wide end and f/6.7 at the long end. 300/6.7=45mm

The Sony is F4 at all but the wide end, and takes 72mm filters. 220/4=55mm (220 is the physical focal length of the sony lens at full zoom)

So... the Sony admits more light at full zoom, and I can use it for w/a also.

Unless I specifically need one of the Olympus body features, the Sony wins going away.

So to get equal or better image quality from the M4/3 sensor the lens needs to have the same or larger aperture? I think the only zoom lens that fits the bill is Olympus's 150-400mm lens.

No, not at all. As far as I know, both lenses are excellent at full zoom, and I'd expect both to have comparable image quality. I was just saying that if you compared images at the same shutter speed, maximum zoom, and widest aperture, the RX10's would be somewhat less noisy.

Since the RX10 offers so much more flexibility, I would choose that one over the Oly - unless I specifically needed the Oly's improved bird identification, tracking, etc.

Personally, that means in addition to the RX10iv, I own the OM-1m2 and the MZ150-600, but not any of the shorter MZ tele-zoom lenses. The 150-400 f/4.5 PRO is a superb lens, but I far prefer the push-pull zoom of the 150-600

--

Sherm

Sherms flickr page

P950 album

P900 album RX10iv album
OM1.2 150-600 album

 

[Jon_T]

I just posted both with and without IDZ in my previous comment, ...

Provide link to post. You have far too many posts to click through. ;-)