Am i excepting to much from m4/3?

Your combination of used G7 + 100-300Mk2 for telephoto application (airshow) is hard to beat.

Going up in quality will cost you a lot (e.g. G9 + 100-400PL),

Going sideways to Nikon will get you into a DSLR from a manufacturer that seems to swing to mirrorless now (Z6, Z7). You will sure miss the EVF with its focus loupe, zebra, level, etc. Not to forget the iA mode which will get most shots just right. And the fantastic video, just in case.

I think it will be very hard to find something better than your system (for your application) at a comparable price.
 
Hello evrevery,

A few weeks back i posted some of my photos of a recent airwhow and shared some of my thoughts about tge gear i was using. I'm not satisfied with the response i got. Not exatlye thth it was wrong just that i probebly could have worded it better. So bacically i was using the panasonic g7 and the 100-300 mk2. I was happy with the results i manged to get but i want to get even better shots next time. My problem is is that i would love to stay with m4/3 systems but I'M not sure that it would be able to get me the results i want. This is becouse i have a very small budget. So it is not possible for me to go and buy a em1 mk2 with the p100-400mm as much as i would like to. So my question is would si.ething like the gx9 em5 2 gh4 or any other m4/3 camera or lens system that will be able to get me better results than my current setup? Or am i better moving on to something better like a nikon d5500 with sigma 150-600? I might mention that i i will always buy used. I might also mention that i really really like m4)3for there exelent all in one capability and versatility. I have also looked at other cameras like fuji xt2 but fuji only do one super telephoto but it's very expensive.

Any of your help would be greatly appreciated.

In life, as in chess, forethought wins.
You had good response last time and a lot of that still applies, notably use the 100-300 on the best aperture probably F7.1 and F8 and expect to do some editing. You said last time that the final set of pictures had had no editing yet those pictures were pretty good if you had maximised their quality with a bit of editing.

The G7 is perfectly capable of taking decent airshow pics as is the 100-300 Mk 2 which you sort of proved with the pictures you posted. You may get a little better with the Nikon and sigma although it isn't going to jump out at you as such and you still have things such as atmospheric conditions to deal with and that combination is going to cost you as well as losing you some of the benefits of m4/3s.

I think you should stay with what you have got and as said so many times here, practice, practice, practice. You are much closer to getting it right than some correspondents and the time to be looking to upgrade will be when you have got it as good as possible with your existing kit and at the moment you still have a little way to go.
I have practiced assidulously with lots of gear since digital cameras were born, before that I practiced with film cameras as far as I could afford the film to put in them.

Digital film is cheap and I think that I still need to keep practicing as I have given up on simply buying gear hoping that it will make me a better photographer.

Great gear can make good images better but great gear cannot overcome poor technique.
 
Very good points all around, especially about having a fully weather-sealed kit, which seems hard to achieve at this price point with other brands.
But that only matters if you want/need weather sealing. Me personally, wouldn't buy a wildlife lens that wasn't weather sealed...……..spend way to much time shooting from a kayak to do otherwise. I have used non-sealed gear in my kayak and it is just straight up a pain in the A$$.
The prices for the teleconverter and the adapter were quite a bit higher on the UK used market when I checked yesterday, but I'm sure with a bit of patience, one can find a better price.
Didn't realize you are in the U.K., prices are probably a lot different over there than here in the states.
About IQ. Well, not to flatter you too much, but you are by far one of the most skilled photographers around here.
thanks, really appreciate the comment.
I'm sure you'd produce fantastic images with a point-and-shoot.
Maybe but having amazing telephoto lenses sure does help.
You also get really close to your subjects and from what I can see from your pictures, you get a ton of lovely Australian light.
Light is not something I have a hard time with here in Texas. The summers are rough because it's hot and the light is super harsh, leaving only a few hours a day to shoot (unless you get up under the canopy of the swamp). The winters (which I am entering now) have some of the most amazing light ever. I love shooting fall thru spring here.
I'm not in a position to say what the SWD would achieve in the hands of a less-skilled photographer in worse light and at greater distances.
Not much a person can do about the light but distances are easily overcome. Honestly that is the biggest mistake people make with wildlife. Getting longer and longer reach hoping that will make their photos better but it does nothing. That is why I get close enough to shoot full body with my 150/2 and then use the 300/4 (with or without the TC) to shoot close up detail images. Here is a perfect example of that.


Close enough to shoot full body with the 150/2


while doing tight head shots with the 300/4

I don't use my super telephoto lens to capture a subject from a distance. I use it to get close and capture the amazing detail of the subject and the 300/4 is the best lens I have ever used, even better than my Canon 500/4 that had.
That also applies to more expensive gear, of course. What would you say, how does the SWD perform at greater distances? I find the 75-300 rather lacking in this regard.
All lenses are lacking when you shoot something from a distance. What makes some better than others is their resolution. While the sensor (lets say in the m4/3 world going from 16mp to 20mp) does play into how far you can shoot and crop the lens has a much larger impact. Sure using lets say the 75-300 you can crop a bit more and retain good detail going from a 16mp to 20mp. You may even extract a little bit more detail in the more mp camera. But going up to a better lens will provide an even greater improvement because the better lenses resolve more detail (that is one of the things you are paying the big bucks for).

The 75-300 is in my opinion seriously lacking if you shoot from a distance, just like all the other consumer zooms on the market. The SWD (w/ or w/out EC-14) does a better job and the 300/4 does an amazing job. I am amazed with how much detail the 300/4 can retain even when cropping 1/2 the photo away. If you want to shoot from way to far away, crop over 1/2 away and still have a chance of some detail the 300/4 is the only lens in the m4/3 that I have used that can do it (the new Panny 200/2.8 probably can as well based on it's resolution but I have no personal experience with it). But that is only if you are going to print small or only display on the internet. If you want to print large you just can't crop much with m4/3 since the sensor is a lot smaller than say full frame.

regards,

Phocal
 
Ah, you're a Texan! I always thought you were an Aussie.

Speaking of getting closer: how in the world do you do it? I know you're using a Kayak most of the time, but even then I find it completely incomprehensible how you get that close to your herons, for example. I am not the stealthiest person in the world, but I never managed to get closer to one than, say, 8m (~30ft I think).


And I can't even imagine how you got to that critter there. Did you hide out and got lucky?
 
Ah, you're a Texan! I always thought you were an Aussie.
nope, sorry to disappoint you :-)
Speaking of getting closer: how in the world do you do it? I know you're using a Kayak most of the time, but even then I find it completely incomprehensible how you get that close to your herons, for example. I am not the stealthiest person in the world, but I never managed to get closer to one than, say, 8m (~30ft I think).
It is part moving toward my subject and part letting it come to me. If I see a bird hunting along the edge of the water they are typically concentrating on the hunt and if you move slowly while belly crawling you can get pretty close. Sometimes a bird will move along the edge of the water while it hunts. When they do that I just get myself in front of them and lay there and wait. Typically they will pass right by getting to close for even the close focusing 300/4 to focus.

It takes time, sometimes an hour or so just to get into position. The kayak does help, but it is not the golden goose for getting close. Even in the kayak it takes time and skill to get close. But when on the river you can let the river move you towards a subject and if you still and everything goes your way you can get very close as they may just think you are a log drifting by.

Another way is spending time with the same animal. I found a pair of young Great Blue Herons hanging out in this one section of the river. I spent a month on that section mostly to photograph the Green Herons but the two young GBH's became accustomed to me. I would occasionally see others on the water and noticed if they spoke the GBH's would take off, or if it was a power boat coming by with the engine running (with trolling motor they seemed ok unless someone on the boat spoke.) But over that month they came to regard me as not a threat and it allowed me to drift by them so close that I was able to fill the frame with ones head. I had to use PS to expand the canvas and Content Aware to fill in the new canvas so I could get a good composition (a trick I like to use when I can get that close). The resulting image



I am actually working on a wildlife photography book. Going to be a bit different than anything out there currently. Each chapter is going to be a story about a day shooting and it will be up to the reader to pick out the lessons and techniques I used to get the images. It's not going to be a book written in an instructional way, more using stories to get the point across. Sure it will be filled with great images and there will be some technical information (kind of have to do that), but I want it to be enjoyable to read.
And I can't even imagine how you got to that critter there. Did you hide out and got lucky?
That photo is a Prairie Dog. They live in large colonies called Towns and can cover miles of territory with hundreds to thousands of holes going down into their burrow. I would look for a spot where I could watch 3-4 holes from a close distance and just lay there waiting. Eventually one would pop up and after awhile they stopped paying attention to me and would go about their daily activities. I think I laid there for 4 or 5 hours taking photos and just watching them.

I think that because I love to just watch wildlife it really helps me in my photography. To do what I do to get some of my photos comes from a love of just being out there observing. If you don't truly love just being out there you will never be an amazing wildlife photographer, especially dealing with all the nasty stuff out there. By that I mean the fire ants that I get bit by on a regular basis, the mosquitos, the gnats, the chiggers, the fungus infections, the spider bites (last one laid me up for almost 3 monts), the very real threat of venomous snakes or getting attacked by a gator. I can come home looking very rough after a day of shooting.

I also watch and learn the behavior and habits of my subjects and figure out ways to use it to my advantage to not only find the subject I am looking for but also how to get close or get them to come close to me. For example. I prefer to shoot at my subjects eye level and for gators that means laying on the ground. I have learned that when you lay on the ground around baby gators it peeks their interest. If you walk up to some water where they are they will take off and hide. But if you lay at the edge of the water they will get curious and swim right up to you.

YES...…………...doing this is dangerous because of mama gator and I don't advise anyone to do this.

I only attempt this when I know where mama gator is and can keep an eye on her. Because this trick will also get larger gators to swim up because they don't typically see people in that position. But it is one technique I use to capture my baby gator photos.

it worked to get this guy to move from 40ish feet away (way to far away to photograph a baby gator) to capture this image.


about a 2 foot baby gator, taken from 22 feet. has about a 400px crop, so almost full resolution

Regards,

Phocal
 
Thank you for that very thorough account. Something to ponder!

And to think that I abandoned my favourite heron watching spot because that damn dog there just won't leave me alone... Gators are definitely another calibre.

Let us know when you publish your book. I for one would be interested.
 
So bacically i was using the panasonic g7 and the 100-300 mk2. I was happy with the results i manged to get but i want to get even better shots next time. My problem is is that i would love to stay with m4/3 systems but I'M not sure that it would be able to get me the results i want. This is becouse i have a very small budget.
It is tough to get cheap telephoto zooms for m43

I have the olympus four thirds telephotos, but still have not had the cash to grab for something over 150mm in just m43.

the cheap ones are the 75-300 and the 100 -300 series. and these are not cheap
So it is not possible for me to go and buy a em1 mk2 with the p100-400mm as much as i would like to. So my question is would si.ething like the gx9 em5 2 gh4 or any other m4/3 camera or lens system that will be able to get me better results than my current setup?
you could try another body to see if you get better results with af with your g7, my g85 is better with my 17mm for example. you could rent to try if that may work.
 
Thank you for that very thorough account. Something to ponder!
you are welcome and I am glad it made you ponder ideas.
And to think that I abandoned my favourite heron watching spot because that damn dog there just won't leave me alone... Gators are definitely another calibre.
LOL, just a little bit. Honestly a spot with a dog would probably get me to abandon it, will take my gators and snakes any day.
Let us know when you publish your book. I for one would be interested.
I will make sure to do that.
 
Rent or borrow the Nikon system you are considering.

Take both systems to an air show and shoot comparable subjects.

Go home, download, and compare.

You will either notice a difference, and have a preference ( and an answer to your question), or you will notice no difference, and discover that the issues you are having are related to technique, not the gear you are using . Either way, you will be able to figure out where the problems lie after this, and do what you need to address them.

-J
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top