Focal Length for Micro Fourthirds Birders

A question for current m4/3 birders,

What is the shortest hypothetical focal length lens you would want for everyday birding - the one you’d use most often

It could be a zoom or a prime. If it’s a zoom I just want to know about the long end.

This question has come up when I was participating in a thread where it was suggested that a 100-500mm lens on FF camera would be ideal for birding. That got me thinking about the equivalent 50-250mm length with a m4/3 camera and whether that would be considered ideal with a m/43 camera.

I see lots of bird images posted here taken with the 300mm f/4 (with and without teleconverters), the various 100-400mm lenses, the big white 150-400 and the 150-600mm but few with less than 300mm focal length.

what say you m/43 birders, what raw (without TC) focal length do you want.

jj

That's because 100-500 on a high MP FF can crop, whilst retaining high image quality.

You try doing the same with a much lower megapixel and much smaller sensor on a 50-250 lens, you're not going to have a good time.

By "Micro Fourthirds Birders" I assume you mean micro 4/3 bird photographers? "Birders" refers, and has referred for more than a century, to those who engage in the activity of birding, which involves going to an area and seeing how many birds you can observe and identify (either visually or aurally). It has no necessary connection with photography; the only thing close to an essential tool for true birding is a set of binoculars.

Mephistopheles* said:

By "Micro Fourthirds Birders" I assume you mean micro 4/3 bird photographers? "Birders" refers, and has referred for more than a century, to those who engage in the activity of birding, which involves going to an area and seeing how many birds you can observe and identify (either visually or aurally). It has no necessary connection with photography; the only thing close to an essential tool for true birding is a set of binoculars.

Click to expand...

I think there are many clues here pointing to the fact that I’m referring to avian photography using Micro Fourthirds cameras.

The most obvious one being that this is a photography related website and this forum relates to Micro Fourthirds photographic equipment specifically.

So I’m left wondering why you are troubled interpreting what I wrote.

And BTW I was birding without binoculars for many years and I bought a camera before I ever owned binoculars.

jj

Bit of a piece of string - but certainly, I'd like more than the 200 I currently have with my PL 50-200.

It works great for closer creatures, and larger creatures, and it tolerates cropping pretty well - but it can be a struggle to get sufficient pixels on a bird, particularly small/flighty ones.

80-90% of my shooting is on the long end. @700mm. (400x1.25x1.4)

jjbinx said:

Mephistopheles* said:

By "Micro Fourthirds Birders" I assume you mean micro 4/3 bird photographers? "Birders" refers, and has referred for more than a century, to those who engage in the activity of birding, which involves going to an area and seeing how many birds you can observe and identify (either visually or aurally). It has no necessary connection with photography; the only thing close to an essential tool for true birding is a set of binoculars.

Click to expand...

I think there are many clues here pointing to the fact that I’m referring to avian photography using Micro Fourthirds cameras.

The most obvious one being that this is a photography related website and this forum relates to Micro Fourthirds photographic equipment specifically.

So I’m left wondering why you are troubled interpreting what I wrote.

And BTW I was birding without binoculars for many years and I bought a camera before I ever owned binoculars.

jj

Click to expand...

He is a "devil " for the details

When I shoot birds I use my 100-300mm. I usually shoot small birds, bluejays, cardinals, mockingbirds, sparrows and the like. A lot visit a mulberry tree in front of my house about 100ft. away, that is where I shoot the most. I use the long end (600mm) and I still wish for more length. I would say get as much focal length as you can afford. If I was to get more into taking pictures of birds I think I would trade in my 100-300 for a100-400mm.

My G9 has a built in teleconverter, I use it for video, it really zooms in a lot more (1.7x for med. and 2.4x for small picture format). I use the med picture size setting (that give me over 1000mm) and it still looks good.

James Stirling said:

jjbinx said:

Mephistopheles* said:

By "Micro Fourthirds Birders" I assume you mean micro 4/3 bird photographers? "Birders" refers, and has referred for more than a century, to those who engage in the activity of birding, which involves going to an area and seeing how many birds you can observe and identify (either visually or aurally). It has no necessary connection with photography; the only thing close to an essential tool for true birding is a set of binoculars.

Click to expand...

I think there are many clues here pointing to the fact that I’m referring to avian photography using Micro Fourthirds cameras.

The most obvious one being that this is a photography related website and this forum relates to Micro Fourthirds photographic equipment specifically.

So I’m left wondering why you are troubled interpreting what I wrote.

And BTW I was birding without binoculars for many years and I bought a camera before I ever owned binoculars.

jj

Click to expand...

He is a "devil " for the details

Click to expand...

And yet he wrote “micro 4/3” instead of “Micro Fourthirds”

Also, the original meaning of “birding” was the hunting of birds, not the observation and identification of birds.

So that devil is loose with his details.

jj

HicHic said:

That's because 100-500 on a high MP FF can crop, whilst retaining high image quality.

You try doing the same with a much lower megapixel and much smaller sensor on a 50-250 lens, you're not going to have a good time.

Click to expand...

So far in this poll it seems that most m4/3 birders want 400mm, suggesting that they’d want 800mm if they moved to FF.

500mm on a FF would, for those users, mean that they’d be wanting to use at least a 1.4x or they’d be using their FF in APS-C crop mode which would put them at around 20MP with a 50MP FF sensor (17MP with a Canon 45MP FF camera) - hardly ideal

jj

jjbinx said:

HicHic said:

That's because 100-500 on a high MP FF can crop, whilst retaining high image quality.

You try doing the same with a much lower megapixel and much smaller sensor on a 50-250 lens, you're not going to have a good time.

Click to expand...

So far in this poll it seems that most m4/3 birders want 400mm, suggesting that they’d want 800mm if they moved to FF.

500mm on a FF would, for those users, mean that they’d be wanting to use at least a 1.4x or they’d be using their FF in APS-C crop mode which would put them at around 20MP with a 50MP FF sensor (17MP with a Canon 45MP FF camera) - hardly ideal

jj

Click to expand...

For what it is worth, I shoot a Sony A7rV and Sigma 500 5.6 for birding, and have no troubles getting warblers cropped in tight and looking excellent.

jjbinx said:

HicHic said:

That's because 100-500 on a high MP FF can crop, whilst retaining high image quality.

You try doing the same with a much lower megapixel and much smaller sensor on a 50-250 lens, you're not going to have a good time.

Click to expand...

So far in this poll it seems that most m4/3 birders want 400mm, suggesting that they’d want 800mm if they moved to FF.

Click to expand...

You can crop a 400mm FF photo to get 800mm FoV. You can crop anything to get the FoV you want. You actually have megapixels in FF to crop with, it's not like M43. Quality megapixels. M43 you are forced to fill the frame with the bird if you want high image quality. What you're saying is only true if you're shooting with a 20MP FF sensor. But even then, a 20MP on FF is much better than 20MP on M43.

Mike Arledge said:

For what it is worth, I shoot a Sony A7rV and Sigma 500 5.6 for birding, and have no troubles getting warblers cropped in tight and looking excellent.

Click to expand...

I'm very familiar with that specific combo. The image quality is excellent, especially for its size. The results are better than OM-1 + 300/4 + 2x. Great example of how FF cameras can get away with "only" 500mm, while M43 cameras are forced to use crazy tight FoVs just to get remotely similar detail.

HicHic said:

Mike Arledge said:

For what it is worth, I shoot a Sony A7rV and Sigma 500 5.6 for birding, and have no troubles getting warblers cropped in tight and looking excellent.

Click to expand...

I'm very familiar with that specific combo. The image quality is excellent, especially for its size. The results are better than OM-1 + 300/4 + 2x. Great example of how FF cameras can get away with "only" 500mm, while M43 cameras are forced to use crazy tight FoVs just to get remotely similar detail.

Click to expand...

Yeah, until I can afford the big white, this is my bird rig for now, maybe in future will go back to M43 for wildlife, but it just was not the right cost benefit for me compared to the FF rig for less money than Big White alone. Alas, I wanted to reap the benefits of the OM-1ii, and I am still questing after a more action centered body for BIF and panning.

Mike Arledge said:

HicHic said:

Mike Arledge said:

For what it is worth, I shoot a Sony A7rV and Sigma 500 5.6 for birding, and have no troubles getting warblers cropped in tight and looking excellent.

Click to expand...

I'm very familiar with that specific combo. The image quality is excellent, especially for its size. The results are better than OM-1 + 300/4 + 2x. Great example of how FF cameras can get away with "only" 500mm, while M43 cameras are forced to use crazy tight FoVs just to get remotely similar detail.

Click to expand...

Yeah, until I can afford the big white, this is my bird rig for now, maybe in future will go back to M43 for wildlife, but it just was not the right cost benefit for me compared to the FF rig for less money than Big White alone. Alas, I wanted to reap the benefits of the OM-1ii, and I am still questing after a more action centered body for BIF and panning.

Click to expand...

If you're expecting better image quality from OM-1 + 150-400 vs what you have, you're going to be disappointed.

It depends on where you photograph birds and how many megapixels do you want on the target. When I lived in S. Florida, a 300mm lens on a 2X crop was sufficient to fill the frame with the target as in the first image below. Where I live now, even 600mm with the 2X crop is rarely enough to fill the frame with the target. With even larger birds I may have to be satisfied with 2-3 MP on the target. That either means a 600mm lens on my 20MP 2X crop sensor (or a 600-800mm lens on a FF with 45-60MP).







--
drj3

I shoot out at 400mm with the PL 100-400mm all the time, for birds. Sometimes longer than that when using the 1.4X TC, but rarely longer than 500mm (which would be 1000mm FF eq field of view).

For the FF? I had a Sigma 150-600mm, and I was always out at 600mm with that lens, for birds, and it was sometimes a little short. With their 1.4 TC it was ok (bringing it to max 840mm). I also have the Lumix 70-300mm, and for birding? That's WAY short. (FOV at the long end is equivalent to 150mm in M43). But, most importantly, this was on an uncropped 25MP FF body, at full resolution.

If people are saying that 100-500mm in FF is fine, you need to look at whether they are talking about, say, a 45MP resolution sensor that is cropped to 20MP (which would give an effective FOV of 750mm on that 20MP crop area), or that basic 25MP, uncropped FF image.

If they are using the 100-500mm in FF on the 25MP sensor, with no cropping, no, it's not long enough. On the 45MP, with cropping? Sure, it's fine.

So, you need some clarification about the other shooting parameters when you are doing this evaluation...

The long and short of it (ha) is that an effective 800mm focal length, whether achieved directly or with some form of cropping, on a 20MP resolution sensor, is going to be a very versatile focal length for birding. And, much shorter than that? No, not quite long enough.

-J

jjbinx said:

James Stirling said:

jjbinx said:

Mephistopheles* said:

By "Micro Fourthirds Birders" I assume you mean micro 4/3 bird photographers? "Birders" refers, and has referred for more than a century, to those who engage in the activity of birding, which involves going to an area and seeing how many birds you can observe and identify (either visually or aurally). It has no necessary connection with photography; the only thing close to an essential tool for true birding is a set of binoculars.

Click to expand...

I think there are many clues here pointing to the fact that I’m referring to avian photography using Micro Fourthirds cameras.

The most obvious one being that this is a photography related website and this forum relates to Micro Fourthirds photographic equipment specifically.

So I’m left wondering why you are troubled interpreting what I wrote.

And BTW I was birding without binoculars for many years and I bought a camera before I ever owned binoculars.

jj

Click to expand...

He is a "devil " for the details

Click to expand...

And yet he wrote “micro 4/3” instead of “Micro Fourthirds”

Also, the original meaning of “birding” was the hunting of birds, not the observation and identification of birds.

So that devil is loose with his details.

jj

Click to expand...

I was making a poor pun on his user name either way for anyone who has spent any time in the forum it was crystal clear what you meant

HicHic said:

Mike Arledge said:

HicHic said:

Mike Arledge said:

For what it is worth, I shoot a Sony A7rV and Sigma 500 5.6 for birding, and have no troubles getting warblers cropped in tight and looking excellent.

Click to expand...

I'm very familiar with that specific combo. The image quality is excellent, especially for its size. The results are better than OM-1 + 300/4 + 2x. Great example of how FF cameras can get away with "only" 500mm, while M43 cameras are forced to use crazy tight FoVs just to get remotely similar detail.

Click to expand...

Yeah, until I can afford the big white, this is my bird rig for now, maybe in future will go back to M43 for wildlife, but it just was not the right cost benefit for me compared to the FF rig for less money than Big White alone. Alas, I wanted to reap the benefits of the OM-1ii, and I am still questing after a more action centered body for BIF and panning.

Click to expand...

If you're expecting better image quality from OM-1 + 150-400 vs what you have, you're going to be disappointed.

Click to expand...

No doubt, but sometimes the M43 gear is just more fun and a zoom more versatile, more to augment, not improve or replace.

HicHic said:

Mike Arledge said:

HicHic said:

Mike Arledge said:

For what it is worth, I shoot a Sony A7rV and Sigma 500 5.6 for birding, and have no troubles getting warblers cropped in tight and looking excellent.

Click to expand...

I'm very familiar with that specific combo. The image quality is excellent, especially for its size. The results are better than OM-1 + 300/4 + 2x. Great example of how FF cameras can get away with "only" 500mm, while M43 cameras are forced to use crazy tight FoVs just to get remotely similar detail.

Click to expand...

Yeah, until I can afford the big white, this is my bird rig for now, maybe in future will go back to M43 for wildlife, but it just was not the right cost benefit for me compared to the FF rig for less money than Big White alone. Alas, I wanted to reap the benefits of the OM-1ii, and I am still questing after a more action centered body for BIF and panning.

Click to expand...

If you're expecting better image quality from OM-1 + 150-400 vs what you have, you're going to be disappointed.

Click to expand...

If the OM user is at 500mm to fill the frame then the FF 500mm user would be doing a 2x crop and even with a 50MP sensor they are down to 12MP, or they are using a 2x with lost IQ.

Yes those FF images here are excellent by the user is shooting within the comfortable range of that lens on that camera.

Posting great pictures taken with a FF or with a m4/3 camera prove only that both systems can take excellent photos. The real test would be shooting side by side the same subject in challenging situations - and that’s when the respective system advantages become obvious.

jj