These days I like to carry both a backpack containing my P1000 (>1.5kg in total) and a shoulder bag containing a tripod, drinks and toilet paper (>1.2kg in total without drinks) under my right shoulder, totally more than 2.7kg, and I feel exhausted after several hours.
So if I'm gonna choose a large-sensor solution to shoot moving subjects like a kingfisher eating a fish, weight is a key issue. The P1000 is already 1.4kg, so I want a camera body + lens weighing
no more than 1.5kg.
- The 1.1kg RX10M4 is an option (provding 24-600mm).
- The 414g E-M5 III + 985g Panasonic 100-400 = 1399g (1.4kg) is an option (providing 200-800mm). (The Olympus 100-400 also makes a total weight rounding to 1.5kg.)
- The 612g R7 + 635g RF 100-400 = 1247g (1.2kg) is an option (providing 206-822mm if cropped to 20MP).
Which of the above do you think is the best?
The P1000 is undoubtedly king of stationary-subject photography from 24 to 3000mm.
What we want else is a moving-subject camera. For general purposes, the 24-600mm 20MP Sony RX10M4 is king in this domain.
But for BIF, you probably need to follow the recommendations here:
The Best Mirrorless Cameras for Birds in Flight Ranked - Mirrorless Comparison
Why is that? You'd think that the P1000 gives you the maximum focal range and quality but I always notice one trend, having tried a P1000 an owner will want something better like an ILC or even a Sony RX10 series.
I'm not here to belittle, I just want to understand the reason. Why?
You'd think maximum focal range is everything, but that doesn't seem the case here.
Note: the reason I'm asking this question is because I myself is considering a P1000/P950 purchase.
The Canon combo might be slightly better but they are pretty close. What is the price difference between the two combos?
Why did you say the Canon combo might be slightly better?
The larger sensor, although they are very close.
Did you look up both camera sensors on Photonstophotos.net, they show some graphs there where you can compare different sensors for noise, DR, etc. The Olympus sensors are very good (especially the new ones) but I think they are one stop behind the APS-C sensors.
The EM5.3 has a smaller sensor size (M4/3 vs. APS-C) but larger pixel size because it's only 20MP (in contrast to the R7's 33MP).
I can view those charts on PhotonsToPhotos.net but can't interpret them. Can you explain them and tell us which is better?
In China there is a saying: "A bigger sensor will beat everything." That's assuming all sensors have the same MP count. To be exact, shouldn't it be: "A bigger pixel will beat everything."?
I can tell you what to look at.
Higher PDR is better
PDR
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm
Read Noise
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm
Input inferred Read Noise
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm
From these three charts, I would say the EM5 III is better
The PDR of the two cameras is very similar so no better DR for the larger sensor on the Canon.
The Read Noise is actually better (lower) on the Olympus but even more importantly I see some hanky panky on the Input inferred read noise of the Canon! Do you see how the graph points are clustered in groups of three and then there are huge drops? That indicates that the 1/3 step ISO are "digital" (do not use them!)-- they are an underexposure of a higher ISO or an overexposure of a lower ISO (like ISO 125 would be ISO 100 overexposed by 1/3 stop and ISO 160 would be ISO 200 underexposed by 1/3 stop.)
Also have a look at the table at the bottom of the PDR shot, it shows better low light performance by the Olympus! Only by 1/3 stop but still better-- it means more DR at higher ISO.
!
