Help deciding

[Daddymem]

And there are question marks about the future of this sensor size. I’m not sure it would make much of a difference, we’d have lenses and used bodies available for many years to come if they decided to stop making them today. Can this system give us the dusk shots, the auditorium awards night photos, etc? We don’t have the ability now, but if we get something it would be a shame to still miss out on photo opportunities. How much better is this than the old point and shoot and camera phones?

A lot. You may recognize this gentleman, even at 2500 ISO in a poorly lit church:


3/1/2020 - Selma, AL, USA. 60mm f2.8 1/125 2500. Organ pipes exhibit pleasing bokeh

Nice shot. The 5M3 is one of the MFT ones we'd like to look at. And that's the $500 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8?

We’ve been on all the sites, Camerasize, Cameradecision, looked at the photo comparisons on dpreview, watched the youtube videos, asked friends who are professional or semi-professional, haunted the used section of B&H and Adorama, placed camera after camera in shopping carts, we have been all over the place so much that when I type in a camera search question into Google I usually have to go several pages in to find a site I haven’t already been to. Best camera for safari. Best travel camera. Best camera for beginners. Best camera under $2000. On and on.

You've lapsed back to marrying a camera. If you're serious about having good safari gear, look for a lens + camera combination - and the lens will likely cost more than the camera.

The problem would be easy to solve if there were only one or two choices. There are many systems capable of producing good results from a safari.

Yup, that's our situation. Too many choices. While it is nice to say go for the lens, the problem with that is you probably want more than 1 lens so it's really what lens system is your choice? Which is why MFT does have a strong running for us, it's a large system with many choices.

One big piece of information I think is missing in just about all of these are how the cameras do when you give them to someone like me. We hear over and over, “it’s not the camera, it’s the photographer.” But I think this is a little bit off. Sure, give a professional a bottom tier camera and they can get some amazing shots out of it, but could I? If so how often? How many throw-away vs keeper? Or give me a top of the line camera and I’ll probably get a lot more amazing photos out of it than I would a bottom tier camera, but probably nowhere near as many or as amazing as a professional or experienced photographer could. Also the photos I took mostly have a wide depth of field with little bokeh, but for what the pictures are that is more desirable. That is an elephant walking across the highveld. That is a water buffalo in a mud hole. I get it, that shallow depth of field can really bring focus to a subject and look amazing, but sometimes that background gives context, especially if you are taking vacation photos. In other words, I have an appreciation for the bokeh, but the majority of the photos for our combined use would likely not require it, am I correct in this thinking? Which seems to be one of the biggest arguments against smaller sensor size and the requirements to get the bokeh, right? Meaning get a FF, and it will be easier to get the bokeh but I can still get it with APSC and micro 4/3 with more selective lens choices. But is my use worth chasing the bokeh, if so what is the cost?

Thoughts on feature desires:

IBIS - I’m a bit shaky and kids would also use the camera. A video of the giraffe fight that didn’t make you seasick would have been good

Few would argue that M43, especially Olympus, have the industries' best IBIS.

However, some newbies expect IBIS to freeze subject motion. It does not. And IBIS does have physical limitations, so if the camera is moved around recklessly, it will not counter that.

I'm more looking at it for the slightly shaky hands I have and for short videos that won't make me seasick. I got a few good ones of giraffes fighting, a decent elephant brawl and other things on our last safari but they were a little topsy turvy, just tuning that down a little bit would be nice.

Weather sealing – not a deal breaker but we did get rained on some in SA and we live in a climate with all types of weather from snow to hazy hot and humid.

Few would argue that M43, especially Olympus, have the industries' best weather sealing. Weather sealing adds a bit of bulk and cost to bodies.

The Olys do sound pretty weather tight.

Attainable lens(es) with reach – both price wise and size. We have to be able to afford it and be able to pack it with us for travel. It would stink to have that great camera taking great pictures only to try to catch that lion sitting in the riverbed and not being able to capture it because it is too far.

The size and weight savings for M43 is in the lenses - on two fronts: a smaller image circle and the 2X crop factor. A prime example is the Olympus 45mm f1.8, giving a FF equivalent of 90mm:

• 2.2" x 1.81" (56 x 46 mm)
• 4.09 oz / 116 g
• $150 approximate price, used

No other system has as many lenses available as M43, especially used - and by top manufacturers: Olympus, Leica, Sigma, and Panasonic (ok, Panny is rather new to the game).

Which would you rather pay for and carry around, 250mm or 500mm?

Yes, we think we would be able to have more lenses due to the size and prices of the MFT system.

Have options for multiple bodies – ie a Sony FF and APSC sharing the same mount, Nikon FF and APSC, and micro 4/3 the same across the board. If we are affordable enough we may each have a camera.

GX85 $ + Olympus E-M5 III $$ or E-M1 III $$$

Room to grow in the system – thinking of this like marrying a system that we can have a harem of lenses to use on other bodies later and shallow learning curve when you keep in the system.

Is there a better approach to this decision? A resource we’ve missed? Something we’re missing? Is our thinking off? Is there a stellar group of lenses that would meet our needs and therefore point us to a system where the choice is now which body?

TLDNR, if you made it through the above, thanks, otherwise:

What would you do if you had nothing and got to start from scratch if you were not going to be selling your photos, vlogging or blogging, you were just going to be taking candids, family vacations, backyard birding, hiking with the Boy Scouts, and an occasional amazing travel opportunity, and would be used by all levels of experience, won’t break the bank, but also won’t cheap out?
Thank you for your time, I really appreciate it. It has taken a lot of time to get myself to post this, I like to come to conclusions on my own but this topic is one I cannot get a good grasp on.

With all that, why do you want to carry around all the extra weight of APSC or FF?

That is the question. And that is why we need to get our hands on some MFT cameras to feel and operate.

I should add my kids are 12, 16, and 20.

And mine are 12 (in two weeks) and 20 (we skipped the 16).

*** MISSING ***

You did not mention auto-focus. I suggest doing some research first on that, as it is of paramount importance! A far more sensible google search than "best camera for ...". I strongly recommend a camera with PDAF* rather than CDAF** for moving subjects. I've been to Africa and none of the wildlife will pose no matter how loudly or politely you ask them to.

*Phase Detect Auto Focus
**Contrast Detect Auto Focus

We did fairly well with the AF in that Rebel during our safari, but yeah some sharper eyes and heads would have been nice. Probably some more keeper shots too.

Thanks for taking the time and sharing your experience.

 

[Bassam Guy]

...

Nice shot. The 5M3 is one of the MFT ones we'd like to look at. And that's the $500 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8?

Thanks. That lens is $399 new (at least it was) but I got mine used for $280.

...

We did fairly well with the AF in that Rebel during our safari, but yeah some sharper eyes and heads would have been nice. Probably some more keeper shots too.

Thanks for taking the time and sharing your experience.

You're welcome.

 

[Craig Gillette]

Finally made it to a place (Best Buy) with some of these cameras to hold in my hands now that COVID restrictions are lightening. We got to hold: A5100, A6000, A6400, A7III, Z50, and Canon RP. Unfortunately no MFT cameras. They also had a point and shoot section with Sonys, Canons, and Nikons.

Impressions:

The A6400 with 18-135 was lighter and a little smaller than the A7III with the kit 28-70.

Yes. And a longer focal length range.

My larger hands may require a cage or bottom plate for my pinky fingers.

I have largish hands, and have the SmallRig L bracket on amy A6400. I still put my pinkie under the base, but both positions work. It's what works for you, not me, that counts. I would, however suggest an L bravket what ever you get for the ese of using an Arca Swiss release system in landscape and portrait. Some plates, brackets are deeper than others. something else to considerover time.

The hump on the A7III felt nicer to grip than the A6400, I imagine the A6600 would be more comfortable than the A6400 too. But it wasn't awful.

The A6600 is a larger and deeper grip, theA6400 L brcket from smallRig has an added grip piece in front of the grip ps is somewhat deeper front to back, too.

The 18-135 seems to be a good range, it could be a great all purpose lens, the one you grab to go for a hike with the Boy Scouts.

Essentially 28-200mm ff equivalent, like an 18-140 etc., for some of the dslrs.

The RP with the RF 24-240 was large and heavy.

The Sony EVFs were noticeably lower quality compared to the Canon, unfortunately the Z50 wasn't powered up to see that too.

The Z50s are well spoken of, but,lens availability may remain limited.

The autofocus was surprisingly quicker than I expected on the Sonys.

The point and shoot as a second camera seems like the way we'll go.

The Nikon bridge camera is quite large.

There are several bridge cameras out there. I was quite surprised by the size of one of the Nikons when I saw it the other day. A stunning huge overall size and zoom range. I would wonder seriously about how well one might do with it. That kind of long range would require a solid tripod or really, really good stabilization - and it was a small senso.

The point and shoots really remind you what it means to be "pocketable." Even the A5100 was large compared to them.

We really need to get our hands on a MFT camera and lens to feel the difference.

The Z50 was comfortable feeling, too bad it wasn't powered for us to operate, might be worth trying.

I would suggest so, it's ergonomics have been said to be better than the Aps-c Sonys.

There is no substitute to holding the camera in your hands, operating it, and operating the lens.

Is the difference in lens size between MFT and APSC as large as between the APSC and full frame?

I'd look to the specific lenses involved.

If our choice were based only what we had our hands on today, the A6400 with the 18-135 would be our choice.

I like mine but it's just a part of the whole "package" you would be considering.

 

[Bill Ferris]

Right now I am leaning towards:

A6600 or A6400 as a compromise between the low light of the full frame and the reach and size of the APSC body and lenses. I'm thinking of starting with the Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD and then add the 70-350 later, and maybe a Sigma prime. The other option is 18-135 first.

If this is to be your wildlife kit, it's not a good choice. This would be great for your family to share but just doesn't have the autofocus, burst, buffer, controls, and build quality be a good wildlife body. Also, you need a long focal length lens for wildlife, especially wildlife in wide open spaces. 350mm doesn't cut it; not for a once-in-a-lifetime Africa photo safari trip.

Then for a second camera something like Canon PowerShot SX740 HS or Panasonic Lumix DCZS80. But there is still potential for older MFT camera like GX85 or second Sony APSC like A6000 and share lenses, have one body with the close range lens and one with the long range lens.

I really like the thought of the A7III, but when we start looking at what lenses we would want, it's that reach that's the issue. To get out there the price and size take over.

The A7III with the 200-600 would be a fantastic wildlife kit. You'd have 200mm at the short end for nearby subjects and environmental photos of more distant subjects...think elephants in silhouette against a twilight sky. The 600mm end would give you plenty of reach for more distant subjects...think cheetahs relaxing on termite mounds.

We think that the desire for the long reach for our trip as well as all the times we try to capture the birds and wildlife around here outweighs the amount of times we wish we had the low light ability. And we think we can overcome at least partially the low light needs with a fast lens.

The way APS-C overcomes the enhanced light-capture potential of a full-frame system is by using the same - or similar - focal length and filling the frame with the final composition. A Nikon D500 with a 200-500 is one great option that's well-within your stated budget. Not only would this give you substantially more reach - much better at filling the frame - but it also captures more light than the Sony zoom. In the end between having to do more cropping to get a pleasing composition with the 70-350mm and the wider maximum aperture, the D500/200-500 offers a full-stop more light-gathering potential for noticeably improved image quality.

If you want something a bit more compact, pairing the D500 with a 300mm f/4 PF along with a 1.4x TC, or a Canon 7DII with a Canon 100-400, or a Fuji X-T4 with that brand's 100-400 would be better choices than the A6xxx with the 70-350.

We aren't talking about taking photos at night in the street, just dimly lit auditoriums for awards nights type shots. We see ourselves wanting the far away shots more often than the low light.

Does this sound like we are on the right path?

Your choice of consumer APS-C body with a zoom delivering a maximum focal length of 350mm is a real, ahem, shortcoming. I normally wouldn't be hammering this point so hard. However, you're choosing a kit for a bucket list wildlife photo opportunity and you've indicated a budget that can accommodate a really solid wildlife kit.

If size and weight for travel are a priority, build a kit around a 100-400 f/5.6 or a 300mm f/4 lens (with a TC) and a quality APS-C designed for fast action shooting. If you want enough reach to make wildlife photos that really stand out, a 500mm to 600mm consumer zoom paired, again, with a fast action APS-C or the A7III will serve you, well.

Good luck to you.

 

[Daddymem]

I have added photos from our South Africa trip in my gallery to show what kind of photos we would be taking and what we were able to do with the Rebel and WX80 which we had no experience with. We got access to them a week before we left and that week was too full of packing and preparation to practice with it.

Our goal is to be able to improve on these and get more keepers if we are able to go next year to Namibia and Botswana, get better family life and around the yard photos, and then eventually grow in ability.

We found the reach of that Canon 75-300 lens on the crop sensor just enough. The longest photo ops we had were the lion, leopard, and rhino, everything else there was much closer to us. Of course it would have been awesome to have something with a lot more reach to frame that lion better without having to crop the photo so much, but the convenience of the Rebel and those two lenses in a small camera bag and the pocketable WX80 while walking around as a tourist; climbing in and out of the rental SUV and Safari backie; being jostled in a market crowd in Joburg; stuffing into an overhead console on the plane; and hiking up the rainforest trail at God's Window worked for us. We would not like to go bigger with a lens and camera combination. Our host had a Canon and huge 600mm lens (he shoots for magazines occasionally) and it just didn't look like something we would want to deal with. We were on vacation and just wanted some great memories and a few to print out and hang on the wall. We would like the same reach, or a little more if possible without getting bigger.

I added some gear to the wish list too, but it is a very much work in progress, a place to keep models we are interested in even a little bit. We are approaching it from the lens system perspective in that when we look at a body the first thing we consider is what lenses are available for it. If I put up the lenses, the list would be too long.

Now we have to find a place we can get my hands on more cameras and lenses. We're going to check stock at nearby Best Buys to see if other stores have different models. There is also a camera store that is a little bit of a ride away but it may be worth it.

Thank you all for sharing your experience, knowledge, and opinions.

 

[Tara Tucker]

First, this is a fantastic conversation. I am in the same boat, trying to choose a camera with many of the criteria that you are searching for. I am so glad that KCook linked me to your thread.

Second, we went to South Africa, Zambia and Botswana 3+ years ago. After lots of research, I chose a Nikon P900 point and shoot with 83x zoom for that trip. I needed a camera that would do a great job when animals were at a distance, and didn't want to change lenses out in the dust of Africa.

I wasn't 100% in love with my P900. I have plenty of fuzzy/blurry pictures when I tried to force the camera to shoot something that was just too far. But I also got some amazing pictures.

I found there was never a situation where I used my binoculars to see what we were looking at because the P900 did a better job in every situation. Here is a perfect example, we were in Kruger National Park, which is a drive yourself park. We saw a gaggle of cars pulled over to the side of the road. We couldn't see any animals, so asked a couple other cars what they were looking at. People said "there are supposed to be some cheetahs under that little cluster of trees out there. I am not a great judge of distance, but it was at least 100 yards, probably more. Nobody we were with could see the cheetah's, even using their binoculars and zoom lenses. I used my P900 and kept zooming and searching, with a monopod for stability, and was able to find them and get a number of pictures. They are not photographer quality! They are blurry, but the cheetah's were recognizable, and the pictures were good enough to put in an album of the trip. And I was the only person in our group of 8 that actually saw any cheetah's, and it was thanks to the P900. The same thing happened with many animals. The P900 could take pictures of things that we didn't even know were there. I would use the P900 to figure out what was there. Often it was the P900 that would have me shout "she has 4 cubs!" because we could barely see that there was a lion, but couldn't tell she had cubs with her.

So, just a thought... what about buying your wife a P950 for your trip to Africa this year? I really think when we go back to visit Kenya and Tanzania that I will be taking the P900 again. Yes, I might also take my new camera and rent a fantastic zoom lens, but then my husband can use the P900 (or possibly the P950 or P1000 if we decide to upgrade it). Given how much the trips to Africa cost, to me it was worth the $600 I paid for my P900 even if I only used it for that one trip.

Here is an example of the zoom it did. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64979246

And my cheetah picture...


The cheetah's... so far from us that nobody could see them, even with binoculars, but the P900 could.

 

[Daddymem]

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond.

First, this is a fantastic conversation. I am in the same boat, trying to choose a camera with many of the criteria that you are searching for. I am so glad that KCook linked me to your thread.

It is more of a task than I anticipated. I don't think I am any closer to a decision, much more educated but not closer.

Second, we went to South Africa, Zambia and Botswana 3+ years ago. After lots of research, I chose a Nikon P900 point and shoot with 83x zoom for that trip. I needed a camera that would do a great job when animals were at a distance, and didn't want to change lenses out in the dust of Africa.

Our trip to SA was short notice so we didn't get to think about it at all the first time. I was offered to borrow the Rebel and the WX80. They served us well but there were some limitations we hit. I'm no pro, not even a prosumer, just slightly experienced beginner but my experience is from many moons ago. The thought is get some gear to use and learn this summer so we're better prepared for next spring when the trip to Namibia and Botswana is in the beginning stages of planning.

I wasn't 100% in love with my P900. I have plenty of fuzzy/blurry pictures when I tried to force the camera to shoot something that was just too far. But I also got some amazing pictures.

I found there was never a situation where I used my binoculars to see what we were looking at because the P900 did a better job in every situation. Here is a perfect example, we were in Kruger National Park, which is a drive yourself park. We saw a gaggle of cars pulled over to the side of the road. We couldn't see any animals, so asked a couple other cars what they were looking at. People said "there are supposed to be some cheetahs under that little cluster of trees out there. I am not a great judge of distance, but it was at least 100 yards, probably more. Nobody we were with could see the cheetah's, even using their binoculars and zoom lenses. I used my P900 and kept zooming and searching, with a monopod for stability, and was able to find them and get a number of pictures. They are not photographer quality! They are blurry, but the cheetah's were recognizable, and the pictures were good enough to put in an album of the trip. And I was the only person in our group of 8 that actually saw any cheetah's, and it was thanks to the P900. The same thing happened with many animals. The P900 could take pictures of things that we didn't even know were there. I would use the P900 to figure out what was there. Often it was the P900 that would have me shout "she has 4 cubs!" because we could barely see that there was a lion, but couldn't tell she had cubs with her.

We bought binoculars too and didn't end up using them a lot either. Most everything we saw was fairly close with only a few instances of very far away game: lion, leopard, rhino, and lots of birds. The lion shot is in my gallery. The reach of 480mm did well. I probably took more photos than I needed to at the 300mm lens length but more because I was using it as binoculars and since you see it in your frame why not snap a photo? I wouldn't want less but a little more would be nice. The size of the Rebel was, I feel at a limit, we wouldn't want bigger. Our host had his Canon dslr gear with a 600mm lens and it just seemed to be more than we wanted to deal with. Our stuff was always in a pocket or in a small bag around my neck. Cars, restaurants, crowded sidewalks in Joburg, shopping, we didn't worry a ton because it was easy to handle. So when I think about FF to get 480mm, the gear size does not check a box. But if that camera is not relied upon for the long shot and something with a crop factor is used for that instead...

I was surprised how big the Pseries was when we checked them out at Best Buy.

So, just a thought... what about buying your wife a P950 for your trip to Africa this year? I really think when we go back to visit Kenya and Tanzania that I will be taking the P900 again. Yes, I might also take my new camera and rent a fantastic zoom lens, but then my husband can use the P900 (or possibly the P950 or P1000 if we decide to upgrade it). Given how much the trips to Africa cost, to me it was worth the $600 I paid for my P900 even if I only used it for that one trip.

Here is an example of the zoom it did. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64979246

And my cheetah picture...

Cool photo and perfectly on the level of photo I'd be satisfied with. We are talking vacation photos, I'm sure you look at that, remember seeing it first hand, and it is valuable. We got a few shots shared with us from the pro photographer and they are stunning. But since we didn't see it with our own eyes, my slightly blurry lion means more. The only Cheetahs we saw were at De Wildt Cheetah and Wildlife Centre, some at Kruger would have been nice to see, but we got to see all of the Big 5 so no complaints. Well, one, a Pangolin is a bucket list item.

In the point and shoot realm, we're considering Panasonic Lumix DCZS80 (720mm), Canon PowerShot SX740 HS (960mm), Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX99 (720mm), and Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS70 (720mm) are on the check out list. But then we wonder if an older model MFT camera makes sense; bigger sensor and changeable lenses as a trade off for pocket-ability. But 3000mm on the P1000 is impressive, even if you are only using it at that length as a binocular.

We are wondering, with the trip going to the Skeleton Coast, should we be making sure we have something that is fairly capable at landscapes for the dune and coast shots?



Our budget may be changing too now, my car has indicated that it has a desire to move on from me in the near future. So camera is on hold, which may be ok if some of the new products slated for this year shakes some used gear loose and lowers the costs of current gear. You think I'm indecisive on cameras? Nothing compared to cars....

 

[photonut2008]

What would you do if you had nothing and got to start from scratch

Okay, I skipped over most of your post -- too long for me to take time to read it.

If I were starting out today I would probably get a Nikon or Sony mirrorless camera, either Nikon's DX kit or a Sony A6500. Knowing what I know now though, I would stick with a DSLR, since I'm a Nikon guy I would say a used D7200.

 

[photonut2008]

In the point and shoot realm, we're considering Panasonic Lumix DCZS80 (720mm), Canon PowerShot SX740 HS (960mm), Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX99 (720mm), and Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS70 (720mm)

Those are "equivalent" focal length numbers. My girlfriend has the ZS70 and its longest focal length is actually 129mm. As a practical matter I can match its longest focal length with my D800 and my NIKKOR AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR and TC-14eII (1.4x teleconverter), so that's an effective "reach" of 280mm with my D800; a quick back of the envelope calculation by me suggests my D500 can match the ZS70 at 240mm.

The biggest issue with these "equivalent" focal lengths is diffraction. The ZS70 or ZS80 used wide open at their longest focal length is the same as using a 280mm lens on my D800 at f/14. In point of fact, the ZS70 or ZS80 cannot theoretically resolve more than about 15 MP at their longest focal length due to diffraction; and as a practical matter due to noise, lens aberrations, etcetera (based on my comparisons with my D800) it's about 2.3 MP.

Don't get me wrong, I like the ZS70. I mostly use it to video my girlfriend's Border Collie doing Agility. Still, she found it unusable when we were out whale watching last fall and ended up just using her smartphone.

 

[Bill Ferris]

So, your most recent post reads much different than the top post. The top post reads as if written by a person who is excited by the prospect of getting into wildlife photography, buying a dedicated kit, learning the basics and taking those new skills to Africa in 2022. The newer post comes more from the perspective of a person who wants something compact, easy to travel with, and more intuitive than the Rebel T5 you used on the first trip to Africa. In short, the focus seems to have shifted from prioritizing improvement in the quality of the photography to improving the quality of the travel experience.

Don't get me wrong, I've no problem with any of that. The goal here is to offer recommendations based on your interests and needs. If those are evolving a bit as you go through the process of researching gear, that's perfectly normal & natural. So, let's take another stab at this based on your most recent post.

I'll suggest you stay with mirrorless and not consider a DSLR. One of the features I really like about my Fuji X-T20, is the electronic viewfinder (EVF). The image is a preview of what the photo is going to look like. You mentioned in another post that some of the photos taken with the Rebel T5 came out unexpectedly dark. That's an issue with optical viewfinders. The image in the viewfinder can look great but the photo can be too dark or too bright. A mirrorless camera with an EVF is going to present an image in the viewfinder that's a pretty good match for how the photo will look.

In the mirrorless world, I'd recommend one of the Fuji X-series cameras over Sony. Personally, I've never been a fan of the Sony menus. They are, IMO, labyrinthian. The X-T4 is the current top Fuji body, which means the X-T3 will be available at a more attractive price. You could also go with an X-T30 to get the same image quality at a savings. Though, you would be giving up weather resistance.

In addition to being more user-intuitive, Fuji offers an excellent collection of dedicated APS-C lenses from which to choose. The kit 18-55mm f/2.8-4 is excellent for most travel and very reasonably priced. The 100-400mm f/5.6 would be great for wildlife. The 10-24mm f/4 is an excellent, compact landscape lens. All can be found on the used or refurbished market.

Fuji makes it easy for you to shoot in any mode from full manual, to semi-auto, or full auto. The straight out of camera JPEGs are excellent. The biggest issue with Fuji (most mirrorless cameras) is battery life. Plan to buy a few spares. The Fuji app makes it pretty easy to transfer photos from the camera to your phone for sharing on social.

Any of the compact cameras you mention will be fine for the family. That's a choice where you could go to Best Buy with them and let them choose whichever camera they like within the set budget. Then, check that item off the "To Do" list.

Finding the right kit for you is the real challenge. I understand the reluctance to spend thousands on gear without really knowing if it will meet your needs. If you have the opportunity to hold Fuji and Sony cameras in your hands in a store, I'd suggest going with whichever feels more intuitive and has the easiest to navigate menus. After that, it's all about the glass. If there's one area I'd recommend splurging a bit, it would be with the lens you will use as your primary for the animals. You deserve it.

Good luck.

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ
http://www.billferris.photoshelter.com

 

[KCook]

And this is what it can look like after a trip through a photo editor -



Kelly

 

[PhotoTeach2]

If I was traveling to Africa ... I would take a RX10-IV (600mm-EFL and "Continuous"-AF @ 25fps.

But with your wife, I would ALSO take a Nikon P950 or 1000 and then have 2000/3000mm-EFL available for distant animals.

For weather/water, I would carry a couple of 1-gal Zip-Lock baggies for camera/gear if caught in rain.

 

[Daddymem]

Well, the car decision went easier than I was expecting. Wallet is lighter and car payments are coming but the hit wasn't too bad. I'll probably let off on the throttle a little bit on camera search and do some more thinking. My goals may have changed, and maybe they have not.

Still trying to figure out how one would go about marrying a lens, then picking a body. When I try to look at it that way my lens list is filled with lenses that fit different bodies. So instead, maybe look at each system and make a list of lenses for each then weigh the systems as a whole?

I think the primary camera decision will drive the secondary camera so that may be the first choice to make.

Thanks all who continue to offer their opinions, experience, and advice.

 

[photonut2008]

If I was traveling to Africa ... I would take a RX10-IV (600mm-EFL and "Continuous"-AF @ 25fps.

But with your wife, I would ALSO take a Nikon P950 or 1000 and then have 2000/3000mm-EFL available for distant animals.

For weather/water, I would carry a couple of 1-gal Zip-Lock baggies for camera/gear if caught in rain.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64988064

 

[Daddymem]

I think that if I understand what you are saying, this has been one of my concerns: understanding that crop factor isn't just magically making a lens longer, it is what the sensor is "seeing" and creating an image of at whatever size you are printing out. So if I understand it correctly, I took photos at 300mm on the Canon which is 480mm equivalent reach. If I had instead a full frame camera with a shorter lens, say 300mm, I could crop the image at home to give me the same "zoom" as the Canon had when both printed on a 5x7 photo. If I have this wrong, sorry, is there a good resource to read up and understand it better? What differences would there be in the photos?

Is anyone aware of a site where a comparison like below has been done?

Here is some kind of target some long distance away be it an detailed image, an animal, whatever but all cameras have equal chance of taking the exact same photo. I've searched but I may not be using the right terms.

First we're comparing 600mm equivalent reach with each camera.
Here is a photo taken on a 1/2.3" bridge camera so it is at 106mm.
Here is a photo taken on a 1" bridge camera so it is at 222mm.
Here is a photo taken on a MFT so it's a 300mm lens.
Here is a photo taken on a Canon APSC so it's 375mm so it's maybe a 400mm lens.
Here is a photo taken on a Sony APSC so it's a 400mm lens.
Here is a photo taken on a Nikon FF so it's a 600mm lens.

Then examples where you take a long distance photo with the 1/2.3" bridge camera and compare what you could get with larger sensors and shorter lens but cropping the image in LR or other to match the same shot when printed out say 8x10.

It would be hard to compare things apples to apples because you could have a 24.5mp Nikon FF, a 24.2mp Sony APSC, a 32.5mp Canon, a 20.3, a 20.4 MP Olympus, a 20mp Sony 1", and a 16mp Panasonic 1/2.3". But it would actually represent a real world question. There's that lion I can barely see with my binoculars, what camera and lens length do I need to get a photo of it and what would the different images look like when compared to each other.

I saw something similar in this forum, close but not the same.

Thanks in advance.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

But here is in unfortunate truth about cropping (to get equivalent tele).

Whatever tele-gain you get by cropping, (2X, 3X, 4X), you lose the SQUARE of that in pixel count/resolution, (which limits the extent of enlargement possible w/out visible pixels).

Thus 2X results in only 1/4 remaining pixels, (and 4X = 1/16).

It is best to never get below 8mpx (300ppi @ 8"x10"), so cropping even 1/2 (vert & horz) on a 24mpx sensor results in only 6mpx.

Also remember that the cropped area may not be the specific area the focus and/or exposure was optimized for, (as it would be w/ an original image from an actual "tele" lens), increasing the potential of being out-of-focus or too bright/dark.

Note this only applies to actual "cropping" an original image, NOT applicable to the "cropping-effect" of the equivalent-focal-length of any lens on a smaller sensor.

Thus it is imprecise to say that you can achieve the "same" image by cropping a FF/APS to an equivalent longer (aka 2000/3000mm-EFL on P900/1000) lens on a smaller sensor camera.

 

[Bill Ferris]

Here is some kind of target some long distance away be it an detailed image, an animal, whatever but all cameras have equal chance of taking the exact same photo. I've searched but I may not be using the right terms. First we're comparing 600mm equivalent reach with each camera. Here is a photo taken on a 1/2.3" bridge camera so it is at 106mm. Here is a photo taken on a 1" bridge camera so it is at 222mm. Here is a photo taken on a MFT so it's a 300mm lens.
Here is a photo taken on a Canon APSC so it's 375mm so it's maybe a 400mm lens. Here is a photo taken on a Sony APSC so it's a 400mm lens. Here is a photo taken on a Nikon FF so it's a 600mm lens.

It's a question that can be explored from several perspectives. One, would be to compare how much light is delivered to the sensors of the respective cameras by their various lenses.

If the 600mm lens on the full-frame camera is an f/4 prime and the photo is made at 600mm, f/4, 1/1000, ISO 400, that establishes some total volume of light, X, captured during the shutter actuation.

If the M43 camera is fitted with a 300mm f/4 prime and used at f/4,1/1000, ISO 400, then it would capture the same field of view and same exposure. However, due to its sensor being half as large in both width and height, and having 1/4 the surface area, the M43 image would be made with 1/4 the total volume of light and 4x as much shot noise.

One question is, to what extent will the additional noise affect overall image quality? There's no obvious or easy answer. "Is it too noisy," is in the eye of the beholder. A lot of folks might be perfectly happy with the image quality. Your guide (the guy who shoots with the 600mm f/4) may earn income licensing or selling his photos and may have a lower tolerance for noise. The answer really depends on the person.

And this is where equivalence can be simultaneously satisfying and frustrating. Equivalence tells us how different cameras built around different format sensors are able to make equivalent photos. That can be satisfying or at least informative. Equivalence doesn't tell us which system is better. It doesn't tell you where your noise tolerance threshold resides. It doesn't tell you if you'll so enjoy shooting with the more compact system that the additional noise will be an acceptable compromise for that convenience.

Sorry, but there's just no magic formula for that.

Then examples where you take a long distance photo with the 1/2.3" bridge camera and compare what you could get with larger sensors and shorter lens but cropping the image in LR or other to match the same shot when printed out say 8x10.

It would be hard to compare things apples to apples because you could have a 24.5mp Nikon FF, a 24.2mp Sony APSC, a 32.5mp Canon, a 20.3, a 20.4 MP Olympus, a 20mp Sony 1", and a 16mp Panasonic 1/2.3". But it would actually represent a real world question. There's that lion I can barely see with my binoculars, what camera and lens length do I need to get a photo of it and what would the different images look like when compared to each other.

I saw something similar in this forum, close but not the same.

Thanks in advance.

Truly, two questions you need to sort out for yourself are what's your budget and how do you prioritize compactness & low weight of equipment versus the potential for ultimate image quality. There's no wrong answer. It's all about establishing the criteria that matter to you.

Once you've sorted out those issues, that will narrow the field of contenders and make it easier to begin to identify the best option for you.

 

[photonut2008]

But here is in unfortunate truth about cropping (to get equivalent tele).

Whatever tele-gain you get by cropping, (2X, 3X, 4X), you lose the SQUARE of that in pixel count/resolution, (which limits the extent of enlargement possible w/out visible pixels).

Thus 2X results in only 1/4 remaining pixels, (and 4X = 1/16).

Joe, you should know better than to equate pixels with resolution. I already addressed this specifically here where I wrote, "In point of fact, the ZS70 or ZS80 cannot theoretically resolve more than about 15 MP at their longest focal length due to diffraction; and as a practical matter due to noise, lens aberrations, etcetera (based on my comparisons with my D800) it's about 2.3 MP."

Thus it is imprecise to say that you can achieve the "same" image by cropping a FF/APS to an equivalent longer (aka 2000/3000mm-EFL on P900/1000) lens on a smaller sensor camera.

I have done the comparison with the ZS70. The ZS70 punches above its weight considering it sports a 129mm lens, but the ZS70 doesn't equal using a D500 with a 720mm lens, it equals a D500 using a 240mm lens. Regarding all your talk about resolution, if I put a 400mm lens on my D500 than I would resolve substantially more than a ZS70 at any comparable FOV.

Regarding a P900 having an "equivalent" 2000mm lens on it, let's start with the fact that its lens is actually 375mm and f/6.5 at that focal length. If I were to use a lens "equivalent" to what's on the P900on a D500 it would be 1340mm and f/24 (no, that's not a typo, it's f/24 and not f/2.4), and that equivalent 1340mm f/24 lens on the D500 is limited by diffraction to about 4.4 MP (cropping to the same 4:5 aspect ratio of the P900).

I can't say definitively what actual "equivalent" focal length I would need on my D500 to match a P900 because different lenses will yield different results. I'm pretty sure I could match a P900 with a 700mm lens, though in practice a lot of bird photographers get by with 500-600mm on their DX cameras, and none of those that can afford a lens like that are opting instead for a D900. I expect that the 400mm maximum focal length lens due to arrive in a couple of days will be all I will want.

 

[photonut2008]

I think that if I understand what you are saying, this has been one of my concerns: understanding that crop factor isn't just magically making a lens longer, it is what the sensor is "seeing" and creating an image of at whatever size you are printing out. So if I understand it correctly, I took photos at 300mm on the Canon which is 480mm equivalent reach. If I had instead a full frame camera with a shorter lens, say 300mm, I could crop the image at home to give me the same "zoom" as the Canon had when both printed on a 5x7 photo.

Sure, if you are only printing 5x7 then resolution isn't going to be much of an issue. If you start printing larger though then pixel density and diffraction will become limiting factors. Also, different lenses will perform differently, so every comparison is of an entire system rather than a one-to-one comparison of the individual components -- so for instance, you can have a very high pixel density sensor but if the lens is poor it won't amount to as much as a higher quality lens used with a lower pixel density sensor.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

But here is in unfortunate truth about cropping (to get equivalent tele).

Whatever tele-gain you get by cropping, (2X, 3X, 4X), you lose the SQUARE of that in pixel count/resolution, (which limits the extent of enlargement possible w/out visible pixels).

Thus 2X results in only 1/4 remaining pixels, (and 4X = 1/16).

Joe, you should know better than to equate pixels with resolution.

If you enlarge an 8mpx image beyond 8"x10", you can begin to discern "pixels".

Yes you can "interpolate" to a higher mpx number, but the base resolution remains limited by the 8mpx. So there IS an "equate" between pixel-count and resolution.

I already addressed this specifically here where I wrote, "In point of fact, the ZS70 or ZS80 cannot theoretically resolve more than about 15 MP at their longest focal length due to diffraction; and as a practical matter due to noise, lens aberrations, etcetera (based on my comparisons with my D800) it's about 2.3 MP."

I am not talking about a ZS70/80 so not prepared to debate its final resolution, (which admittedly will diffraction-soften at max tele.

Thus it is imprecise to say that you can achieve the "same" image by cropping a FF/APS to an equivalent longer (aka 2000/3000mm-EFL on P900/1000) lens on a smaller sensor camera.

I have done the comparison with the ZS70. The ZS70 punches above its weight considering it sports a 129mm lens, but the ZS70 doesn't equal using a D500 with a 720mm lens, it equals a D500 using a 240mm lens. Regarding all your talk about resolution, if I put a 400mm lens on my D500 than I would resolve substantially more than a ZS70 at any comparable FOV.

You would actually need 500mm to equal FOV, but what would weight/size/COST difference be ??? And would it have the speed/convenience advantage ???

Regarding a P900 having an "equivalent" 2000mm lens on it, let's start with the fact that its lens is actually 375mm and f/6.5 at that focal length. If I were to use a lens "equivalent" to what's on the P900on a D500 it would be 1340mm and f/24 (no, that's not a typo, it's f/24 and not f/2.4),

Well ... NO ... it is f/6.5 for (most-important) exposure-setting purposes.

and that equivalent 1340mm f/24 lens on the D500 is limited by diffraction to about 4.4 MP (cropping to the same 4:5 aspect ratio of the P900).

I can't say definitively what actual "equivalent" focal length I would need on my D500 to match a P900 because different lenses will yield different results. I'm pretty sure I could match a P900 with a 700mm lens, though in practice a lot of bird photographers get by with 500-600mm on their DX cameras,

It of course would take a 1300-2000mm on DX to equal FOV of 2000/3000mm-EFL on P900/1000. What would the COST of that be ???

and none of those that can afford a lens like that are opting instead for a D900. I expect that the 400mm maximum focal length lens due to arrive in a couple of days will be all I will want.

OK, so your (new) 400mm will equal 600mm on FF, and require 5X cropping to equal the 3000mm-EFL on P1000. (resulting in 1/25 of original pixel count)

But again ... I suggest factoring in the size/weight/speed-convenience/COST factors.

I repeat that ALL cameras/sensors/lenses are COMPROMISES.

You are certainly CORRECT on several of your points, but you are ignoring offsetting disadvantages that may swing a practical choice for a "BEGINNER" (who may be on a budget or wants to factor cost of "replacement" when newer/greater later becomes available).

I am only saying I suggest a 1"-type sensor is a "perfect-COMPROMISE" and specifically the 600mm-EFL @ f/2.4-4 on Sony RX10-IV (w/ "C"-AF @ 25fps which can also be an advantage in many situations).