Moving from N1 to M4/3s for birding??

[DaveyB]

I posted this in the M4/3s Forum, wanting to pick Trevor Carpenter's brains about his experiences with M4/3s bodies and the Pana/Leica 100-400 mm lens for birding and wondered if anyone else here had experience of both systems. Clearly there would be a significant cost involved in switching systems and I'm wondering whether the results would be worth it.

"Hi Trevor, just a quick couple of slightly rambling, questions, though I know there are no quick answers! I currently use a Nikon V2 and 70-300 cx lens (189-810 mm equivalent) for birding and have a particular love of BIF. I moved away from M4/3s because of frustrations with the AF in the early versions of the Panasonic G series cameras - after moving from a DSLR I couldn't get used to the level of hunting and the number of shots I missed through failure to grab focus. Now the V2 has solved that problem - the AF is lightning quick and reliable - but the sensor is very much the limiting factor, once you get over ISO 400 (800 at a stretch). As far as the Nikon lens and the Panny 100-400 are concerned, the Nikon (from reading lens tests) is slightly sharper wide open and at full zoom and is also slightly faster. If I knew Nikon were going to put the Sony 1" sensor in a new "Nikon V4" I wouldn't hesitate to stay with and further invest in the Nikon 1 system but this is seeming increasingly unlikely.

So, I'm pondering whether now is the time to move back to M4/3s. I couldn't justify stretching to a G5 or the new Oly flagship camera but the Pany bodies you use and the 100-400 would just about be possible if I sold my Nikon gear. Could I ask how you've found the bodies you use, in combination with the 100-400, as far as AF and use at full zoom are concerned? Clearly, you are producing some brilliant results - even allowing for the quality of the light in Costa Rica - but how was the experience of getting those shots?

 

[Stefan BW]

That's a topic I am strongly interested in myself. From what I've read, however, only the newest Olympus flagship Olympus OM-D E-M1 II combined with the Pana/Leica 100-400 can possibly beat the V2+cx70-300 for birds in flight. Older M4/3 models, even if paired with the 100-400, are not playing in the same league.

Personally I couldn't afford to buy this top-notch M4/3 setup anyway, for ca. Euro 4000, so I am very inclined to listen to my "better angels", like Thomas Stirr who lately praised the V3 + cx-70-300 for birds in flight. That would at least be within my means.

By the way, I had asked a similar question in the Micro Four Thirds Talk forum, namely how the OM-D E-M1 ii at 800mm compared to the V2 at 810mm for BIF, and received a reply from Brian Wadie who had firsthand experience with both setups:

that V2 combination is an excellent tool for BIF and sport work, I used it for some time and got great results from it (as have others who post here from memory) but found the body was too small for my slightly arthritic hands
I would agree, no need to rush to change things, see how others do and maybe see if you can borrow the mk2 + 100-400 at some point. (I'm not sure that you will necessarily see an enormous increase in output to justify the big outlay, unless printing or viewing large images is important to you)

 

[QVee]

I have both lenses in use, not with latest M43 bodies, however :-(

I use Nikon J5 +70-300mm Cx and Lumix 100-400mm + EM5

I would say the nikon 1 lens combo is a little sharper at 810mm than the Pany @ 800mm

AF on Nikon is faster and more accurate than my set up (my combo suffers from shutter shock (but I hear E-shutter cures this) and back focus issue often, this is the cause of my unsharp photos)

I too can not afford the price of the new EM1MII, to test the AF speed claimed by OLY.

My BIF combo now is the sony A6300 +70-300mm G, with super fast and accurate AF (equivalent to DSLR, I think) light and hand-held-able) with lots of croping power from 24MP sensor, but I digressed )

I agree that no need to change from Nikon1 at this time for M43, since AF speed is not proven superior to Nikon1 yet.

Happy shooting!!!

 

[DaveyB]

Thanks, Stefan, that's really helpful. I just suppose I'm hoping the day will come when M4/3s will match the DSLR-like C-AF of the N1 cameras. I would like a bit better sensor performance, particularly at higher ISOs for poor light, but would be more than happy to see the Sony 1" sensor in an N1 body with built in EVF but that's seeming less and less likely. It may be that the G5 and Em-1 mk 2 are closer to getting there but if I was going to pay £2K for a camera body and £1K _+ for a lens I'd want the AF performance of a Nikon D500, probably with the Nikon 300 f4 PP lens and 1.4 TC as my "lightweight" birding rig! (Never gonna happen!)

 

[DaveyB]

Thanks for that, again much food for thought. How do you find your Sony outfit for both reach and weight/size compared with the N1. I love the reach of the N1 + 100-300 cx and assumed that cropping from an APSC sensor with a shorter zoom would not give equivalent results. Also, does it track focus as well as the N1 outfit?

 

[QVee]

Thanks for that, again much food for thought. How do you find your Sony outfit for both reach and weight/size compared with the N1. I love the reach of the N1 + 100-300 cx and assumed that cropping from an APSC sensor with a shorter zoom would not give equivalent results. Also, does it track focus as well as the N1 outfit?

 

[manhattanboy]

Thank you for your comments.

I was also wondering if besides the Sony Crop sensor setup, whether anyone has used the Fuji XT2 with the 100-400 for bif?

My thinking is that if you are going to change from the N1 then it probably should be a double size jump to APS-C to get much better IQ as the 1inch vs m43 is not substantially different.

 

[tomhongkong]

David

I don't do much BIF, but I do a lot of yachting photos. My maximum photo length is usually somewhere around 500equivalent....more than that gets hard to stabilize, and suffers from atmospheric degradation.

I have a GX8 with 100-300, a V2 and a V3 with 10-100 and 70-300cx

The question of which is better has exercised me a lot over the last few months. Finally I have decided that both systems have strengths, but neither wins out over all.

There is surprisingly little in the IQ at up to iso800. Pushing the N1 with prime NR probably means there is little in it up to 1600. I have posted several sets of comparison shots and quite often folks prefer the N1.

The N1 is much more compact, which is a big thing for me. Perhaps if you are static with a tripod it is not a consideration.

The GX8 is water resistant and I can soon get WR 100-300 and 50(or45) to 200, but at the expense of size.

The focus of the V2/3 is definitely more reliable in terms of keepers. I don't use tracking, I am just talking of S shots.

So on balance I will take my V3, unless it is raining or I am going to get splashed a lot.

I also used to have an a6000 as a long term Minolta/Sony DSLR user with lots of lenses.

The body is nice, but somehow I don't feel it is as involving as either the GX8 or V3 (nicer than V2, though, in my view)

The Sony lenses get very big as soon as you go long. (I used not to think so, when I had long SLR lenses)

Although Sony gets a bad press for lenses, there are some good primes if they do the FL you need. Personally I did not like the original 70-300G but the new one may be better.

Cropping the Sony image is not going to give you much benefit. The Sony sensor is 24Mp, the V3, 18Mp. The effective image magnification you can get for the same pixel density is sq. root 24/18 i.e 15% more ( the sony 70-300 after cropping has an equivalent FL of 517, a long way short of 70-300cz. Of course the Tamron 150-600 gives great magnification, but what a beast to hold!

I think we are all seeking the Holy Grail of cameras, but they are all very evenly matched these days.

(I could not find your post on the M4/3 forum. They are full of themselves over there about how 4/3 is just as good as FF, for exactly the same reasons that we can say that 1" is just as good as 4/3. I have a good laugh at them when they denigrate 1")

Good luck choosing, anyway

tom

 

[myotisone]

I posted this in the M4/3s Forum, wanting to pick Trevor Carpenter's brains about his experiences with M4/3s bodies and the Pana/Leica 100-400 mm lens for birding and wondered if anyone else here had experience of both systems. Clearly there would be a significant cost involved in switching systems and I'm wondering whether the results would be worth it.

I went through a similar but different process last year, and ended up buying the Nikon 300mm f4e-PF with the 1.4TC.

My tests with the lenses and bodies I had available suggested very little quality benefit from M43 (this is with a GX7, so not latest sensor), indeed as the nikon lenses seemed sharper than the panasonic lenses the nikon usually "won". ( I also had a Fuji X100s and Nikon D7000 in the mix)

The big leap in quality for me was jumping to FF (D600).

N1, M43 and APS, were much more similar than I had expected.

There are a few posts here comparing M43 and 1" and I thought this review was interesting comparing M43 with APS

Olympus OM-D E-M1 II vs. Fujifilm X-T2 - The complete comparison - Mirrorless Comparison

Updated on: July 3rd, 2019 The Olympus OM-D E-M1 II and the Fujifilm X-T2 are two of the most advanced performers you can find on the market today, not only in terms of pure image quality, but also autofocus, video and many other aspects. An important upgrade to their respective systems, they...

mirrorlesscomparison.com

I also looked at the weights (and sizes, but not listed here) just to get some idea of the differences.

Panasonic G7/GX8(100-400) 1.4/5kg

Nikon DX (5500)(300mm) 1.4kg

Nikon DX (5500(80-400mm) 1.99kg

Nikon DX (D500) (300mm) 1.8kg

Nikon DX (D500) (80-400mm) 2.17kg

Nikon DX (D500) (200-500) 3.16kg

Nikon 1 (V3) (70-300mm) 1kg

Fuji XT1 (100-400mm) 1.8kg

My conclusions were that the 300 +1.4 (although obviously not a zoom) that I could mix and match with Nikon DSLRs and the Nikon 1 cameras gave me the most versatile and best size/weight/quality compromise.

I haven't ruled out still building on my M43 kit, but I decided against the large scale replacement of my existing kit with a better M43 body and the 100-400 zoom. I am just not convinced I would get the quality advantage I was looking for.

Quality apart, there are still reasons to look at M43 of course, better choice of bodies and in addition to the zoom the 300mm f4 and the 40-150 f2.8. A potentially very nice, if expensive, set of birding lenses.

As an aside, I still think we will get a V4. Nikon have consistently said they have a long term commitment to the N1 system, and they consistently said good things about how well the V3, J5 and 70-300mm have done. The delays that have affected the DLs will have almost certainly impacted on the Nikon 1, so while it would have been nice to have seen a new lens or two, the apparent inactivity from Nikon on the Nikon 1s, doesn't necessarily mean we won't see a V4.

At least that is what I am convincing myself at the moment, I may need to rethink at the end of 2017, if nothing has happened by then!

Cheers,

Graham

 

[DaveyB]

Great eagle shots and some other beauties, too. You've definitely given me food for thought!

 

[opiecat]

i have a V2 but not the 70-300 cx. i've used the 70-200 f4 with FT1.

it's a good combination with a limited AF (center only) and high-iso past 800 is pretty dismal.

i've tried out the GX85 with the oly 75-300 II (no panny 100-400) and for the most part, learning how to use this pair makes BIF possible.

Not the sharpest lens for sure, but it can work. the panny 100-400 should get better results.

V2's AF in good light is definitely faster, but not necessarily more accurate. GX85's while not as fast seems to lock on just fine for BIF, but it's not perfect either. sometimes a false positive lock happens.

i posted my GX85 and 70-300 results here. most of them were taken through window glass from inside a building.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

HTH

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

Thanks, Stefan, that's really helpful. I just suppose I'm hoping the day will come when M4/3s will match the DSLR-like C-AF of the N1 cameras. I would like a bit better sensor performance, particularly at higher ISOs for poor light, but would be more than happy to see the Sony 1" sensor in an N1 body with built in EVF but that's seeming less and less likely. It may be that the G5 and Em-1 mk 2 are closer to getting there but if I was going to pay £2K for a camera body and £1K _+ for a lens I'd want the AF performance of a Nikon D500, probably with the Nikon 300 f4 PP lens and 1.4 TC as my "lightweight" birding rig! (Never gonna happen!)

My wife bought her PL 100-400 last weekend, and she uses it mainly with her GX8.

As yet, no opportunity for BIF, but it will come, no doubt!

Nicely balanced kit though.

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

Thanks for that, again much food for thought. How do you find your Sony outfit for both reach and weight/size compared with the N1. I love the reach of the N1 + 100-300 cx and assumed that cropping from an APSC sensor with a shorter zoom would not give equivalent results. Also, does it track focus as well as the N1 outfit?

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

Thank you for your comments.

I was also wondering if besides the Sony Crop sensor setup, whether anyone has used the Fuji XT2 with the 100-400 for bif?

That lens is not (supposedly) as sharp as the competition, never getting top ranking!:

Loading…

www.imaging-resource.com

The Panasonic:

Loading…

www.imaging-resource.com

My thinking is that if you are going to change from the N1 then it probably should be a double size jump to APS-C to get much better IQ as the 1inch vs m43 is not substantially different.

Only if the lens is better as well.

I shoot with my D3300 (which has a very nice sensor, and a powerful processor, but few AF thrills, just fast AF) with my Sigma 150-600 Sports, a very good lens (really fast focusing, very sharp, all the way, even beyond 500mm, but a front-heavy beast).

That is only marginally better, IQ-wise, than the J5 + my 70-300 CX, if the light is good enough. When the light is worse than ideal I think the D3300 has an upper hand, but with the slimmest of margins.

The basic problem with the N 1 cameras is the noise, which the D3300 (and its brethern, that shares the same sensor, like the D5xxx series), has a little less of. Not a huge difference, but some. At the same time, the D3300 suffers from mirror slap, and shutter shock, even when used on sturdy tripods, so the difference is small.

The best BIF setup is said to be the A99 II (fixed mirror, so no mirror slap problems) and a good lens, with the D500 and a suitable lens coming in second. This is just what I've heard, but I kind of believe it can be true!

 

[Stefan BW]

The best BIF setup is said to be the A99 II (fixed mirror, so no mirror slap problems) and a good lens, with the D500 and a suitable lens coming in second. This is just what I've heard, but I kind of believe it can be true!

In the various threads where cameras for BIF are discussed, the Canon 7d mkii is also often mentioned. In particular the model is recommended for its excellent AF system.

I've long searched for direct comparisons of the 7d mkii and the N1 system for BIF, but it seems to be two different worlds. I tend to believe that the 7d mkii, in most situations, is superior for shooting BIF. On the other side I've read comments reporting how even the Canon 7d mkii regularly fails when a smallish bird flies towards the camera.

My takeaway was that the perfect BIF camera doesn't exist. If there is an occasion to shoot swallows in flight (say, a rainy week during migration with up to ~500 swallows over the river), I feel pretty confident to get some nice photos with my Nikon V2. What more could I expect from a 7d mkii?

 

[DaveyB]

Thanks for that - I really appreciate people taking the time to share their experiences of taking BIF shots with different outfits. It's clear that, at the moment, the "ideal", lightweight kit of my dreams (small body with good manual controls, fast reliable CAF, good sensor to at least 1600 ISO, compact tele-zoom to 800 mm, realistic price - maybe under £2,000 for both body and lens) is still some distance away. The irony is that the technology is already here. If Nikon would just put the Sony 1" sensor in a V2 type body, or Oly would put their phase detection AF in their mid-priced bodies, or Panasonic would get on with developing PD AF for thier bodies, then I'd be sorted :-O

 

[opiecat]

Thanks for that - I really appreciate people taking the time to share their experiences of taking BIF shots with different outfits. It's clear that, at the moment, the "ideal", lightweight kit of my dreams (small body with good manual controls, fast reliable CAF, good sensor to at least 1600 ISO, compact tele-zoom to 800 mm, realistic price - maybe under £2,000 for both body and lens) is still some distance away. The irony is that the technology is already here. If Nikon would just put the Sony 1" sensor in a V2 type body, or Oly would put their phase detection AF in their mid-priced bodies, or Panasonic would get on with developing PD AF for thier bodies, then I'd be sorted :-O

 

[manhattanboy]

The best BIF setup is said to be the A99 II (fixed mirror, so no mirror slap problems) and a good lens, with the D500 and a suitable lens coming in second. This is just what I've heard, but I kind of believe it can be true!

In the various threads where cameras for BIF are discussed, the Canon 7d mkii is also often mentioned. In particular the model is recommended for its excellent AF system.

I've long searched for direct comparisons of the 7d mkii and the N1 system for BIF, but it seems to be two different worlds. I tend to believe that the 7d mkii, in most situations, is superior for shooting BIF. On the other side I've read comments reporting how even the Canon 7d mkii regularly fails when a smallish bird flies towards the camera.

My takeaway was that the perfect BIF camera doesn't exist. If there is an occasion to shoot swallows in flight (say, a rainy week during migration with up to ~500 swallows over the river), I feel pretty confident to get some nice photos with my Nikon V2. What more could I expect from a 7d mkii?

The D500 is better than the 7Dm2 for BIF in regards to AF and buffer. Nikon's D5/500 AF module is really impressive in tracking and in the D500 covers edge to edge of the APS-C view. I can point you to someone who switched from the 7Dm2 to the D500 just for improvements in BIF shooting.

If I truly need a shot, I too will use the D500, but I like the portability and silent operation of the N1 series as it is better in some circumstances. I think many folks here would love a V2 style body that had an updated Sony sensor that increased DR while simultaneously reducing noise. Personally, I want something that is lower in MP count say 10 or 12MP, if it were able to give me the same DR, base ISO, and noise performance of much bigger sensors (cough D810) while shooting off the e-shutter.

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

The best BIF setup is said to be the A99 II (fixed mirror, so no mirror slap problems) and a good lens, with the D500 and a suitable lens coming in second. This is just what I've heard, but I kind of believe it can be true!

In the various threads where cameras for BIF are discussed, the Canon 7d mkii is also often mentioned. In particular the model is recommended for its excellent AF system.

I've long searched for direct comparisons of the 7d mkii and the N1 system for BIF, but it seems to be two different worlds. I tend to believe that the 7d mkii, in most situations, is superior for shooting BIF. On the other side I've read comments reporting how even the Canon 7d mkii regularly fails when a smallish bird flies towards the camera.

My takeaway was that the perfect BIF camera doesn't exist. If there is an occasion to shoot swallows in flight (say, a rainy week during migration with up to ~500 swallows over the river), I feel pretty confident to get some nice photos with my Nikon V2. What more could I expect from a 7d mkii?

The D500 is better than the 7Dm2 for BIF in regards to AF and buffer. Nikon's D5/500 AF module is really impressive in tracking and in the D500 covers edge to edge of the APS-C view. I can point you to someone who switched from the 7Dm2 to the D500 just for improvements in BIF shooting.

If I truly need a shot, I too will use the D500, but I like the portability and silent operation of the N1 series as it is better in some circumstances. I think many folks here would love a V2 style body that had an updated Sony sensor that increased DR while simultaneously reducing noise. Personally, I want something that is lower in MP count say 10 or 12MP, if it were able to give me the same DR, base ISO, and noise performance of much bigger sensors (cough D810) while shooting off the e-shutter.

Let's hope that the coming (?!) V4 will have that splendid focusing unit!

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

Thanks for that - I really appreciate people taking the time to share their experiences of taking BIF shots with different outfits. It's clear that, at the moment, the "ideal", lightweight kit of my dreams (small body with good manual controls, fast reliable CAF, good sensor to at least 1600 ISO, compact tele-zoom to 800 mm, realistic price - maybe under £2,000 for both body and lens) is still some distance away. The irony is that the technology is already here. If Nikon would just put the Sony 1" sensor in a V2 type body, or Oly would put their phase detection AF in their mid-priced bodies, or Panasonic would get on with developing PD AF for thier bodies, then I'd be sorted :-O

Nikon should be able to do such a beast, as are the other two!

And I think $2,000 would suffice ;-) !