W
Wu Jiaqiu
Guest
totally agree and don't mind taking flak for thinking that way
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
"Mobile" bird shooting: Nikon vs Canon vs MFT
- Thread starter lokatz
- Start date
-
- Tags
- OM System / Olympus
lokatz
Veteran Member
If looking beyond the marketing clutter, we're getting into a very philosophical question here: is it the required effort or the end result that gives you pleasure? Many folks may say 'both', but then the question becomes "How much weight does each of them have for you?"
Some people still enjoy shooting film. The end result is rarely better than what you could get digitally, so that points at the effort mattering more to them than the end result. "I really enjoy working to get a good photo not just pressing a button" does the same.
I don't see that as inferior and definitely do not believe it should draw any flak. For my part, however, I am in the opposite camp: the end result gives me (much) greater pleasure than the thought of how hard it was to get the shot.
From that perspective, I LOVE the fast frame rates and better AF tracking systems the latest bodies give me, as they allow me to get shots that were previously rendered to sheer luck in spite of having the needed skill. They also allow me to concentrate more on the artistic value of the image, but that is again an argument from the "end result" perspective that not everyone will view the same way.
Last edited:
Brandon birder
Veteran Member
I’m curious too.I’m curious how you might respond if Nikon released a mirrorless D500 successor.I'm a bit like you in that I have a D500 and 500 PF (and 300PF) and also a 300f4 pro nut also the OM1. I want camera and lens system that will do all I need. I think the OM1 300 pro, 60mm f2.8 macro and the 12-100 are that system but II'm still working at getting the OM system to beat the ease and sharpness of the D500 and 500PF. I know how to track manually and the dynamic AF with group focus gets me a very high keeper rate usually in one or two shots. But it doesn't do all the other stuff and weighs just a bit more than I am happy to carry all day. So I really want to get the OM system to get me birds in flight as easily and sharply. I do expect that the technique involved for mirrorless i different and I'm still learning.Thank you for elaborating this topics in a very god manner.
I have a been a little on the same route. Started with Canon 7d then oly mark ii, and now Nikon 500 as my main birding machine. I had the Oly mii with pl100-400, and changed for the oly 300 f4, which in my opinion was a better choice. Very sharp etc.. But now I am sitting with the d500 and a 500pf newly achieved. I still have the Oly gear, and my choice was: either go for the om-1 to complement my Oly 300 f4 or get the 500pf for my d500 (I also have the 300pf, prefer lightweight gear)
Why did I bought myself into ”older” gear and not the om-1? It was a hard decision, but something about picture quality was the turning point. I think the oly mii and now the om-1 are very fast and sharp together with oly 300f4. It is something with the oly thats too sharp.. . It is going surgical, almost painted. It is so sharp that it is looking a little bit unnaturally. That’s why I went for the 500pf, and I’m very pleased with it.
I don’t want to start a sensor discussion here, it might be, that I’m better to postprocess Nikon than Oly. And if there no Z6lll or similar dx substitute in the near future I might go for the om-1 also, because of its technical superiority.
And about the ”big white machine”, not for my budget
Thanks
/b
To the OP, thanks for a really useful and thought provoking article. A lot of work. Well done.
Peter
.If a Nikon Apsc pro mirrorless camera is produced and works as well as the Z9 for autofocus and has in built handheld focus stacking, handheld ND and is 200g lighter than the D500, I may bite.
For now I am exploring still whether I can achieve near the same image quality with the OM1 300 pro and mc14 for birds in flight that I get with the D500 500PF. I would really prefer one system only and weight wise that is the OM system for now.
Messier Object
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 13,909
- Solutions
- 15
- Reaction score
- 14,947
hmm,
aren't those shots you're getting with fast frame rates really down to luck. Sure you still have to put yourself in the right place at the right time, but searching through a hundred frames to find a money shot still seems like a game of luck to me. All the high frame rate and deep buffers do is increase the chances of there being some good frames
how is that different to recording a video and then selecting the frames you like.
The bottom line for me is that the OM-1, α9, α1, R3, R5, R6, Z7, Z9 . . . all do well enough for them to be good for bird photography and so do the top DSLRs from Nikon and Canon
Peter
Messier Object
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 13,909
- Solutions
- 15
- Reaction score
- 14,947
thanks for the reply.I’m curious too.I’m curious how you might respond if Nikon released a mirrorless D500 successor.I'm a bit like you in that I have a D500 and 500 PF (and 300PF) and also a 300f4 pro nut also the OM1. I want camera and lens system that will do all I need. I think the OM1 300 pro, 60mm f2.8 macro and the 12-100 are that system but II'm still working at getting the OM system to beat the ease and sharpness of the D500 and 500PF. I know how to track manually and the dynamic AF with group focus gets me a very high keeper rate usually in one or two shots. But it doesn't do all the other stuff and weighs just a bit more than I am happy to carry all day. So I really want to get the OM system to get me birds in flight as easily and sharply. I do expect that the technique involved for mirrorless i different and I'm still learning.Thank you for elaborating this topics in a very god manner.
I have a been a little on the same route. Started with Canon 7d then oly mark ii, and now Nikon 500 as my main birding machine. I had the Oly mii with pl100-400, and changed for the oly 300 f4, which in my opinion was a better choice. Very sharp etc.. But now I am sitting with the d500 and a 500pf newly achieved. I still have the Oly gear, and my choice was: either go for the om-1 to complement my Oly 300 f4 or get the 500pf for my d500 (I also have the 300pf, prefer lightweight gear)
Why did I bought myself into ”older” gear and not the om-1? It was a hard decision, but something about picture quality was the turning point. I think the oly mii and now the om-1 are very fast and sharp together with oly 300f4. It is something with the oly thats too sharp.. . It is going surgical, almost painted. It is so sharp that it is looking a little bit unnaturally. That’s why I went for the 500pf, and I’m very pleased with it.
I don’t want to start a sensor discussion here, it might be, that I’m better to postprocess Nikon than Oly. And if there no Z6lll or similar dx substitute in the near future I might go for the om-1 also, because of its technical superiority.
And about the ”big white machine”, not for my budget
Thanks
/b
To the OP, thanks for a really useful and thought provoking article. A lot of work. Well done.
Peter
If a Nikon Apsc pro mirrorless camera is produced and works as well as the Z9 for autofocus and has in built handheld focus stacking, handheld ND and is 200g lighter than the D500, I may bite.
For now I am exploring still whether I can achieve near the same image quality with the OM1 300 pro and mc14 for birds in flight that I get with the D500 500PF. I would really prefer one system only and weight wise that is the OM system for now.
Peter
W
Wu Jiaqiu
Guest
don't get me wrong i think the tech is marvellous, but sometimes taking the back roads and enjoying the journey is better than getting there asap, i look at Danny with the shots he has achieved with manual focus and truly believe he is what i'd call a real photographer
lokatz
Veteran Member
No, they are not "down to luck". Before, whether you used single shot or a low continuous frame rate, you needed good timing and framing to get the shot(s), but whether the result showed the bird in a good pose was a matter of sheer luck. You had absolutely no influence over that. Now, you get to pick the shot that shows the best pose, and that is a matter of technology evolution, not luck.
My second example leverages the Olympus ProCapture feature, ie, recording images into the camera buffer continuously and storing the last set of them once the shutter button is pressed. When trying to get a shot of a bird lifting off, this feature makes a world of difference.
With an eagle or heron, it was down to skill and quick reaction whether or not you could capture a good image even without this feature. With a small bird, however, it was only a matter of luck, no matter how skilled you were. The time it takes for a tit or warbler to take off and be somewhere up in the air is shorter than the human reaction time combined with the shutter release delay of even the best bodies. Now, ProCapture, combined with the right skill, makes it MUCH easier to get such a shot. Again, no sheer luck but a good use of better technology.
Your mention of 'recording a video' has some validity. We are only a few years away from video cameras giving us the exact same performance as still shooting: they can record RAWs at full speed. Whether we like that or not, this changes the field of action photography substantially: it becomes a lot easier.
However, that's not unlike the trend we see with the gazillion of smartphone pics that are all over the web: the fact that there are more of them does not make them any better. Having an eye for the scene, getting the framing right and telling a compelling story with the image all take skills that do not boil down to the camera but to the thing that's four inches behind it.
Putting a Z7 into the same league as an OM-1, a1 or R5 to me says that you are either unaware of or do not care about such differences. However, there are folks that do care about them, my OP certainly reflects that, and it seems that the many other photographers who gave it a thumbs-up do, too.
Messier Object
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 13,909
- Solutions
- 15
- Reaction score
- 14,947
At what frame rate does luck become technology ?
lokatz
Veteran Member
At the exact frame rate at which you find that you are now generally keeping images because they are really good, not just because they are the best ones you managed to get.
Last edited:
Messier Object
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 13,909
- Solutions
- 15
- Reaction score
- 14,947
Frontier Photo
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 254
- Reaction score
- 1,219
10 FPS!! That seems excessive, even gimmicky! I mean, you only need one frame, manually focused, calculating your own exposure values, with a fully mechanical (film) camera. Anything else is just plain cheating. ;-)
8 - 10 here Pete, although it can go a lot higher. Everybody is different for sure, but I don't like going through hundreds of shots every time I go out.
Even with pro capture I keep it at 18 FPS and I don't use it that often.
All the best over there Pete.
Danny.
W
Wu Jiaqiu
Guest
single shot here lol, when i got the Nikon V2 i overdosed on high FPS and got it out my system once and for all
lokatz
Veteran Member
As you can tell from my previous posts, this depends completely on the type of bird. Eagle? 5-8 fps is plenty. Magpie? 15-20. Tit or sparrow? 25-50. Hummingbird? 800, maybe? ;-)
Last edited:
The only thing lucky here is waking up in the morning ;-) Personally for me it's always been about the challenge. Basically the harder it is, the more I enjoy it. Don't really want easy and right out of the box here and if it becomes that easy, I would take up a different hobby that offers more of a challenge. AF tracking and eye AF I see as my job, not the cameras.
Thank goodness we are all different, it would be so darn boring otherwise
You are right, the technology these days is just amazing in a camera. The issue becomes that people expect it to be perfect shots all the time. Like it's expected to be perfect and human proof all the time.
Frame rates, well I'm mainly a BIF shooter of around 90% of the time and I still like 8-10 FPS and quite often when I'm after larger birds, Hawks, cormorants, heron's, etc, I'll go to 5 FPS. Kingfisher, swallows, fantails, finches, etc, always between 8-10 FPS. So FPS is just a preference.
All the best and still darn nice work you did in the article. Love stuff like that.
Danny.
Ha love it. Trouble is you want 800 FPS at F/32, 1/25,000th and very close to the sun ;-)--
http://www.birdsinaction.com
------------
I can always justify a need, but I can never justify a want.
Last edited:
Doxa750
Senior Member
Terrific works and love everything bit of reading on it. Images are beautiful and there are lots of very useful information. Many thanks for sharing your hard works and experiences.
faunagraphy
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,585
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 5,728
The SWD lens definitely focuses more quickly and accurately - by how much, I haven't tested yet precisely. I'm sure it's because the AF algorithm in the OM-1 is more efficient than that used in older PDAF models. Certainly the motors haven't gotten any faster.
Perhaps I should make a small video of the difference in focusing speeds between the E-M1ii and OM-1 with the 50-200 SWD. Meanwhile, here's a thread that someone created on Mu-43.com:
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/olympus-50-200-swd-mark-ii.116295/
--
Central India --> Pacific Northwest. Favorite lenses: Olympus 300mm Pro, 8mm Pro. Favorite subjects: leopards, swallows, ospreys.
Last edited:
Messier Object
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 13,909
- Solutions
- 15
- Reaction score
- 14,947
Some easy seagull shots and one swallow in flight - I have lots of those even with my E-5 and 300mm f/2.8, and even more with my E-M1 II so I remain sceptical
Regardless, the minor AF improvement I might see from the OM-1 with my 50-200 SWD, a lens I rarely use now, and the restricted feature set I get with 4/3 lenses isn’t worth the AU$4,000 for an OM-1 plus HLD-10 plus a new set of batteries.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum