Options
How much camera is too much?
The stated question is too broad, I know. Let me narrow the parameters.
General and travel use, including landscape, wildlife and, especially, birds.
For on-screen (computer/Internet) viewing only, not for print.
Usually Shoot large jpeg's with minimal post processing.
Everybody wants "great' pictures, but my goals are more documentary in nature, rather than art.
I am not particularly price-sensitive and want an excellent camera. But, being realistic about my needs and the way I use digital photos, how much camera can I justify? Does my question come down primarily to sensor size? What are your thoughts on sensor size for my needs? What cameras would make your short list for my needs?
If your knowledgeable and thoughtful suggestions do not justify as much camera as I want, as opposed to what I need, please do not share your opinion with my wife!
General and travel use, including landscape, wildlife and, especially, birds.
For on-screen (computer/Internet) viewing only, not for print.
Usually Shoot large jpeg's with minimal post processing.
Everybody wants "great' pictures, but my goals are more documentary in nature, rather than art.
I am not particularly price-sensitive and want an excellent camera. But, being realistic about my needs and the way I use digital photos, how much camera can I justify? Does my question come down primarily to sensor size? What are your thoughts on sensor size for my needs? What cameras would make your short list for my needs?
If your knowledgeable and thoughtful suggestions do not justify as much camera as I want, as opposed to what I need, please do not share your opinion with my wife!
0
Comments
Not quite sure what answer to give without more information...............
I'm not into wildlife or birding, but from what I understand, you are not typically super close, so you need good, long lenses and high pixel density. For that, a crop sensor camera can help, and I think any of Nikon's or Canon's current "prosumer" cameras would be good. I'm thinking Nikon D7100 or Canon 70D right now. I've not used either, but they both seem to be getting good reviews. Both of those will put a lot of pixels on relatively small subjects. I think (again, not a birder) that a DSLR is still preferable over the (mostly excellent and getting better) mirrorless options due to focus speed and shutter lag still being a bit better, and that would seem important for birds and wildlife. OTOH, people are taking mirrorless kits on safari and returning with excellent results, so the gap is certainly narrowing if not gone entirely by now.
The Nikon D800 and Canon 5Dmk3 are both fantastic cameras, but might qualify as "too much" under your stated goals, plus they both have lower pixel density than the crop sensor bodies, meaning you need longer and more expensive glass for wildlife/birds.
Remember that the lens is at least as and probably more important for getting great photos, so keep that in mind when building your kit. Both the D7100 and 70D are ~$1200, then I'd imagine you'll want a good telephoto, something normal for general walkaround purposes, and something wide for your landscaping. The 70-200mm zoom is probably a good lens to start with for wildlife/birds. Canon has a few options ranging from f/4 non-IS (~$700) to f/2.8 IS II ($2500). Nikon has a f/4 VR ($1400) and f/2.8 VR ($2400). There are third party options mixed in that range as well, plus the used market can yield good deals. The f/4 lenses might be enough if you're birding in good light. For crop cameras, Tokina makes a nice 11-16mm f/2.8 in both Nikon and Canon mounts for around $500. For a normal lens, I love the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX (~$200) and I have the cheap 50mm f/1.8D (~$100), but if you prefer a zoom, I can also recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 for around $500. That also comes in Canon and Nikon mounts.
So there you go. D7100 + 35 f/1.8 + 11-16 f/2.8 + 70-200 f/2.8 VR = ~$4300. Done.
My site 365 Project
Let me preface everything following by saying, I understand great photographers make great photos with any camera; it is the Indian not arrow.
I recently sold a 40D I had not been using, mostly because of its size and weight. It was always just easier to pull out the little G10. Both of those are getting some age on them. My recent interest in "shooting" birds led me to buy an FZ200, thinking that would work for birds and be a good general purpose point-and-shoot. Since buying the FZ200, I have gotten bigger-sensor-envy. That is the "need" I am probably trying to validate!
The Fuji X-model retros with the APS-C sensors call to me and the Olympus E-M1 with the Micro Four Thirds sensor appeals in a different way. My interest in photographing birds being something of an issue, I have even considered going back to a DSLR such as a 7D or 70D. I am admittedly all over the board.
divamum, that is about the best I can do answering your question. The way I would like for my question to be answered is as objectively as possible, based to the uses I described, without regard to brand-bias or what you think I want. At what point, camera-wise, would more money be thrown away? I do not have to have a bazillion dollar Hasselblad or Leica because they are cool; I just want to be satisfied that I have as much camera as can be useful for my limited needs.
The new mirrorless cameras are seductive because of their size. That does somewhat matter to me. On the other hand, I agree about the DSLR's. The Nikon outfit you recommend would certainly do the job, but I would want a little more reach than the 70-200.
Having a slight Canon bias, I have been considering is the 70D with the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM for bird pix. The lens is not as fast as I would like, of course, but it is a widely favored lens among birders for its price/performance ratio.
When starting this thread, I was wondering if an APS-C or, even, Micro Four Thirds sensor camera was really justifiable considering that I do not print pictures and have done very little post processing of raw image files.
I can say, however, that in a dSLR a crop sensor will be beneficial for your birding by adding extra reach with the 1.6x crop factor. The 70d is getting rave reviews from everywhere, including several folks I know who personally own it and can't say enough good things about it; it's getting the reputation of being "the best crop sensor model currently on the market". While I realise a 7dII is in the works and no doubt has new tricks up its sleeve, the 70d seems to be as close to a "7dII" as is currently available right now; it's the best XXd model Canon has produced in some time, by all accounts.
If you stick with a dSLR, I'd go with a mid-range body such as the 70d, and some kicka** lenses. The 70-200 2.8 is II is spectacular (although possibly not long enough for birding; I'm sure othersr will chime in regarding the "biggie" telephotos). Pair that with something like the 17-55 2.8 IS and you have a wonderful kit that could cover just about every photographic need ever. Light? No - the 70-200 II weighs an absolute ton - but the image quality is phenomenal.
Have you considered a two-camera setup, eg a mirrorless or micro 4/3 for "runaround" and leaving the bigger gear to fulfil the wildlife need? I find I use my 5dII (portraits/low light) and 7d (kids, animals, things that move) combo in that way. Either camera could do both, but it's nice to have the choice. I also have a little s95 which I use for travelling or when I simply don't want to carry the bigger camera
You may try to explore the advanced superzoom digicams if you plan to shoot mostly in good light (full daylight). Wildlife photography, and birding in particular, is often accomplished with lenses of 500mm-1200mm or equivalent. Exceptions are where the wildlife is abundant and/or when you can use a combination of bait and shooting blind to get the quarry closer to your position (so that you don't need the longer focal length lenses).
A camera you might wish to explore is:
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200, 25–600 mm (equivalence), constant f2.8 aperture (amazing), RAW files.
If you plan to shoot in reduced light then a larger sensor camera and faster aperture lenses become invaluable. In this case plan on a large budget because, as a rule, large sensor bodies and fast, long lenses are very expensive.
While you mention shooting mostly to JPG files, feathers and fur are relatively difficult to capture well, with all of their detail and definition, unless you shoot RAW and do some post-processing to enhance the image somewhat. Proper exposure and proper post-processing can ensure that whites and blacks retain as much detail as possible without being crushed (blacks) and/or blown (highlights).
I should add that it's possible for you to rent dSLRs for testing and evaluation so that you can judge for yourself the advantages and improvements, and then you can make the decision whether a dSLR purchase is warranted or if a digicam is the best purchase with a dSLR rental an option for special and specific opportunities.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Wow, divamum, you have given me a lot to think about! Thank you.
The two-camera (or three-camera, really) setup is probably where I am headed. Immediately, the 70D with the 17-55 2.8 IS, a wide prime and the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM for the birds would meet my needs and be a lot of bang for the buck. The EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM would be more versatile than the 400 prime, but that is a whole different argument.
Thanks again!
I can't see why you would want a bigger sensor. You display only on the web, which removes one advantage of a large sensor. YOu don't mention shooting in low light, which is another advantage of a large sensor. You found the 40D big. Well, if you found the 40D big, you are going to find the 5D Mark III enormous. (I shoot with both a 50D and a 5DIII, so I know.) And that doesn't count the lenses, which are bigger and heavier (for a given amount of reach). You are interested in birds, and lesser reach is one of the principal disadvantages of a larger sensor. If you decide to go with a DSLR rather than one of the other types, you have given a pretty strong argument for sticking with a crop sensor. Feature for feature, a crop will also cost you perhaps 40% as much, maybe less.
I tried to be as specific about my use of a digital camera as I could and see what knowledgeable people think is the point of diminishing returns image-wise.
I generally understand about sensor size and crop factor, but I am not clear on what other variables affect image quality viewed on a computer screen. In a way, my question is more a digital image/computer question than a camera question. Let's decide what is the best image I can display and back into appropriate cameras.
Under most circumstances, I would be recommending a 70D or D7100 and a 70-300 or equivalent lens. That might not be a bad lens for the mirrorless camera as well.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
I've also used (and still own) various bits of kit that've previously been mentioned.
Started (digital bird snapping) with a 40D + 400 f5.6 just over 4 yrs ago and found that gave reasonable reach for a modest outlay. Lens is certainly sharp and light and because of the fairly small diameter of the lens (compared with super teles) will let user get very low.
Compared with the 100 - 400 (which I also have) there are 4 differences worthy of mention
Not as versatile as the zoom ... but you'd probably be using the long end anyway for birds
Minimum focus distance for the prime is nearly twice that of the zoom (3.5m v 1.8m)
No IS on the prime.
Sliding aperture on the zoom could be useful.
Problem with both of these lenses and Canon bodies that only AF to f5.6 is that you'd have to use MF if a teleconverter is added to the mix. (can sometimes get round this with various approaches)
I then went mad and bought a 1D3 and some months later a 500f4 (all bought used).
These days I rarely use any other kit (for birds) ... when I decide to use the 100 - 400, I'm continually muttering dark oaths into my beard because I can't get rid of the '5.6' in the vf display
I accept that newer cam bodies offer various advantages over my (old) technology from both the file size - both in absolute terms and cropping potential - and improved low light / high iso performance ... and whilst 10Mp these days is very 'old hat' for many people ... if you're not printing stuff, it's less relevant.
Whilst I've never used a 70D, I'm sure it's far better than a 40D ... but ignoring the difference in file size / pixel 'density' ... they're both 1.6 crop cams ... so they'd both produce the same pic - assuming all else the same.
Whilst I personally prefer the AF point layout of the 1D3 over the 'diamond' configuration used in most Canon bodies ... a 70D + 100 - 400 would give you a lot of 'bangs for bucks'
... or the Nikon equivalent (only mentioned Canon stuff 'cos use it and am familiar ... not because am canon fanboy ...)
<< Let me preface everything following by saying, I understand great photographers make great photos with any camera; it is the Indian not arrow. >>
Whilst this may well be correct in some circumstances, there are some scenarios where I'd disagree ... and w/life is one of them, imo.
Give two people identical kit, then yes, the better / more able / skilled etc snapper will invariably fare better ... but if he/she doesn't have the appropriate kit for the job ... then they might well end up with a 'great' pic ... but it'll be unlikely to be the one they actually wanted.
pp
Edit
Just wondered if you'd considered the 'digiscoping' route for the bird photography aspect?
Mentioning that your (bird) pics are likely to be of a 'documentary' nature make me think that a decent spotting scope would be useful ... and adaptors for a cam body of choice - yes there'd be limitations, but maybe they don't matter for your intended interest / use?
Flickr
In a post different from the original one you responded to, I mentioned having recently bought an FZ200 and, of course, I bought it for that lens.
You zoomed right in on my Achilles' heel, post processing. I may well buy a new camera because I want it, but I would undoubtedly get more return on dollars invested in a little software and training, both on the software and digital photography in general.
Thanks for making me dwell on reality!
Maybe the Olympus E-M1? Panasonic GH3?
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I have a GH3, and I have used it extensively in Africa, Florida, western US, and Equador for wildlife shooting, and I like it a great deal, but it is not - in my opinion - a good camera for birds, because birds in flight require autofocus that the GH3 does just does not accommodate, at least in my hands. My earlier Olympus OM-D EM5 was very similar. It created very nice files for images when I could take the time to carefully focus, but birds in flight were very hit or miss. Most of the long glass for m4/3s is still not really a match for Nikons or Canons best quality telephotos.
Good long glass is not cheap, and good FAST long glass is usually expensive indeed. But before sunrise, and after sunset back in the forest, slow lenses can make autofocus systems fail to perform.
For birds I think one wants at least 300-400mm, IS, and f4 at the very least…. The Canon 400 f4 DO IS was my first real lens that enabled me to reach and capture birds to my liking. For many birders, 500 f4 is their goto lens, along with a suitable tripod and Wimberly style tripod head. Canon makes a very nice 300 f4 IS L, that is relatively inexpensive, compared to most super telephotos. B&H currently offers it for ~$1500.00 It is razor sharp, not too heavy, and can accept a 1.4 TC and still autofocus in reasonable light. It can be shot hand held in good hands.
For birding, I think the 7D can still be a pretty good choice, or the newer 70D, one of the 1D ( non-fullframe AP-C ) series bodies from Canon. Nikon D7100 offers similar abilities in the Nikon lens lineup.
There are ways to shoot from blinds, such that some birds can be nicely captured by a point and shoot or a G12 or G15 style camera, but I have never had success with BIFs with anything lesser than a good DSLR. The most important tool after an adequate body is first rate glass, of course.
Some of my wildlife images can be seen in the link in my signature below. The exif data for each image is available so that the viewer can see for themselves what a GH3, an OM-D EM-5, a 7D, or a 1Dx is capable of rendering, and what lenses were used for the capture. Wildlife shooting without good tools will be more challenging. Good fast glass is a definite advantage. I do have some wildlife images captured with non-DSLRs too, so it pays to be ready with the tools you have at hand sometimes.
Perhaps the original poster can post an estimate of the budget they are willing to commit, since the range of costs of wildlife photography gear can be fairly stunning if one has an open ended budget.
I will say that the most cost effective long glass-camera body combination I have found is the GH-3 and the Lumix 100-300 lens, in cost, weight and size. This gives the reach of a 200-600mm lens at 1/10th the cost of similar lens for Nikon or Canon, and it does a creditable job as long as one is not focusing on birds in flight. Lumix also makes a nice 45-200 mm lens that is a Full Frame 90-400mm equivalent that is inexpensive also. But it is not a Birds in Flight lens.
Tamron has a nice 200-500 non IS lens that I have liked over the years for less than $1K, and they are offering a 150-600 sliding zoom with IS very soon this spring. Sigma offers a rather nice 120-300 f2.8 stabilized lens that I find useful, and significantly cheaper than the Canon or Nikon 300 f2.8 IS L lenses.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Yes to the first ... but I dunno if it's quite so relevant for 'documentary' type shots - where I'd have thought half decent (in a different way) light would be a prerequisite?
Presumably this term refers to the type of shot found in birding ID books?
Re second, yes (as previously stated) ... but without tripod / head ... if you want (really) low level shots - over water, say.
One comment re expensive big teles ... yes, they (can) cost the equivalent of arms / legs ... but the number of limbs equivalent can be reduced if you buy used.
There is generally a pretty good used market for this sort of kit too ... so getting rid of same is unlikely to incur the same level of financial 'hit' as with other gear, imo.
My main regret re the 500 was / is not buying it earlier ...
Main thing, whatever you get ... is to actually use it and not leave it stuck in a cupboard / drawer etc.
pp
Flickr
When I posted my question, I expected an answer like, "Any camera with this size sensor or resolution is all you need for your use." And, I thought those answers would fall in a narrow range of low-end cameras.
Well, the result reminded me of the quip about trying to get a sip from a fire hose! I have read all of your responses multiple times. Other threads here, notably rachelmedina's thread on DSLR versus mirrorless cameras, have also provided a lot of food for thought.
My conclusions, at least for the moment, are:
Any modern mid-level or above digital camera with interchangeable lenses is more than adequate for my modest needs. (Remember, I am looking to capture photos for documentary purposes to use on a personal travel blog and photos of birds for ID purposes, not art.)
The APS-C sensors of the intermediate dSLR's have a crop factor of 1.6 and the Micro Four Thirds sensors of the mirrorless cameras yield a crop factor of 2.
The greater crop factor allows smaller, lighter, less expensive lenses to achieve comparable lens speed and reach.
The main trade-off for the greater crop factor of the mirrorless cameras is some loss in focusing speed and continuous focusing ability.
Obviously, size and weight favor the mirrorless cameras.
Based on information here and elsewhere, If I decide to go back to a dSLR, I will be considering the Canon EOS 70D or Nikon D7100, with a slight Canon bias just because of familiarity. The mirrorless camera that most appeals to me is the Olympus E-M1.
Any of those three are serious over-kill for my ability, needs and expectations. They would all also be fun new toys! I am shameless!
Thanks again!
www.zblackwood.com
The Lumix 100-300 or the 45-200 will work superbly with the Oly EM1 body too.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
pathfinder, thanks for reading my question and replying.
The E-M1 is the camera I am most enthused about, but I have not actually had one in my hands. Almost everyone I have talked to, or read about, that has played with it, says it is a jewel. It may be irrational, but that is worth something to me. My little FZ200 is a technological and engineering marvel in terms of what is delivered for the price. Being honest, it suffices for my needs. But it feels and handles like the little plastic toy that it is. And, I've got the new-camera bug. I do not necessarily feel compelled to act rationally about toys... Hell, that might be the point, or even the definition, of toys!
I will check out the Lumix 100-300 lens. Just a quick glance, it looks like it is a half-stop faster than the M.Zuiko 75-300. Is that the reason you mentioned the Lumix? Is there any other plus? Does it give up anything as far a focusing speed or continuous focusing to the so-called native M.Zuiko?
pp
http://imagesfromtheedge.com/blog/?p=9721
Flickr
I have not used the EM-1 either, since I already have a GH-3, and my wife has an OM-D EM-5, but otherwise I would give it a whirl also. Marc Muench speaks highly of his, and he has a GH-3 to compare it with.
I bought the Lumix 100-300 for its reach, size, weight, and the fact that it is a stabilized lens. The extra 1/2 stop is not a deal breaker, but extra light matters a lot for autofocus when the light is falling after sunset. When I was buying lenses for my m4/3 system, I favored Lumix because of its in-lens stabilization. The current 5 way in-body stabilization of the EM-1 has some advantages today as well, especially for non-IS lenses like the Oly 75mm f1.8 or the Lumix 45mm f2.8 Leica designed macro lens.
There are some very good quality 4/3 system OLYMPUS Super High Grade telephotos ( not m4/3) that are excellent lenses, and they will AF with the EM-1, but they are quite expensive, right up there with Nikon or Canon . The Lumix 100-300, however, is "inexpensive" in comparison at $499.00 on Amazon.
I have been waiting to see if Sigma or Tamron will introduce some long telephotos for the m4/3 system
The m4/3 system's shallow camera body depth allows almost any lens to be used with an adapter, hence one can use Nikon or Canon or other brands of lenses, if one can give up autofocus and automatic aperture setting.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
If you want to do birds right, you need reach. If you want to do Birds In Flight, you need reach and good AF. To me that means bare minimum something like a Canon 70D with a Canon 100-400L, or a Nikon D7100 and Nikon 80-400 AF-S.
If the size of all that turns you off, and if birds aren't your top priority then I would look to an APS-C mirrorless like the Fuji XE-2 or Sony NEX. As someone who appreciates manual controls, I'd favor the XE-2. They make a 55-200mm lens for it, which effectively gets you 300mm of reach in FF terms, which still isn't ideal.
Or if your top priorities are birds AND small size, I would look no further than a Panasonic m4/3 camera and their 100-300mm lens, (200-600mm effective).
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Hello, jmphotocraft!
I agree, you have to pay to play. And, I also agree, the 70D with the 100-400 or 400 prime, which seems to be the birder's favorite, is the base line.
In reality, considering my expectations, a m4/3 camera would be more than adequate. Do you, or why do you, recommend the Panasonic m4/3's over the Olympus E-M1?
Thanks for reading my post and replying.
Oh, no major reason, just that the Pany 100-300 is a bit faster than the Oly 75-300, and is stabilized. Oly makes a 70-300 that is as fast as the Pany, but it is four thirds, not micro four thirds. So I think that means it is bigger and needs an adapter? Anyway, both are worth considering. I would hold and operate both the Oly and Pany before deciding.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
The Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 II is spec'd as a m4/3 lens. It appears to be a tad smaller and lighter, based on a dpreview.com comparison, but it remains a half-stop slower than the Panasonic.
In any case, I am stuck until I can get somewhere and fondle both of them.
Thanks, again!
Whilst Ziggy (#7) mentioned scenarios that could be advantageous re 'getting closer to wildlife' ... I can't help wondering about what exactly you're trying to achieve ... and whether pics taken of subjects in captive / controlled circumstances will be satisfactory for the intended purpose.
Can you point us to examples / sites depicting the sort of result you're after?
pp
Flickr