Best camera for birding and other wildlife photography - Canon R5 , R7, possibly others

B

briansy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
165
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi there, I posted in another thread which didn't get a huge amount of traction seeking advice on what lenses I should get for birding and wildlife. I sought advice on the basis that I had more or less decided on the Canon r5 mark 2. It just felt like it was a top of the range camera with all of the boxes ticked and with access to a better array of lenses (in terms of focal lengths for birding) than the Sony or Nikon. What I didn't anticipate was the actual practicalities of some of the longer telephoto lenses like the 200-800, lugging the stuff around etc. And then of the more compact lenses like the 100-500 there is a reach issue for birds. Sure I could get a teleconverter for the 100-500 meaning less weight etc, but that looks to be a faff and also sub-optimal as you are starting north of 300mm - meaning I'd be taking the lens on and off all day.

I then stumbled across threads suggesting the R7 is much better for birding due to the improved reach due to the crop sensor - and at a negligible cost quality wise for a novice like me? Something also to do with how the pixels are arranged rather than the actual pixel count? I'm in over my head on all of this stuff quite frankly and the idea of not having to use a teleconverter right now seems really appealing if I feel that 500mm is too short a reach for birds and 800 is where I want to get to. It would still be a huge improvement on my RX10 mark 4 and the R7 would, by many accounts, be only a marginal reduction in quality at my level of operation (i.e. a novice?)?

Your practical thoughts and advice would be much appreciated! I know this is a well worn topic but I wanted to ask any follow up questions based on my own circumstances so I thought it would be useful to start this thread for myself.
 
There are 3 options for birding and all work and do the same job in different ways ,
Option 1 full frame body + long reach lens good results and often heavy and expensive
Option 2 crop sensor body + long reach lens. Same good results but enlarged 1.5 times ,lenses often lighter and cheaper
Option 3 micro four thirds + long reach lens ,same results but enlarged 2 x times ..lenses lighter and cheaper again
All the above will give useable results due to the improved sensors over the years , the MFT option being the lightest with built in I.b.i.s allowing hand holding 99% of the time plus weather sealing so no need for covers . Or tripods ,gimbals etc
The latest Sony models take it to a new level with AF Ai your best bet is to visit a proper camera shop and try various options out to see what your comfortable holding .. or alternatively visit a nature reserve see what others are using and ask for there views . Making the wrong choice is often expensive .
Another good way to check is go on to juza .com sign up and you can input camera / lens/t.c combos and see what other people’s results look like
 
I can't help so much on the R7, but I ended up with the R8, and I have the 800 F11 and also the 100-500. I have been very happy with it, the AI AF is tremendous and very happy with the quality. It's not at the pro style of the R7 though, lacking a joy stick and a bigger battery. But for me - it's more than enough really.
 
What is your end target, because this will give you an idea on what you will need. If you're mainly going to be showing pictures on the web, and maybe printing up to 16x20 inches then you really don't have to consider the latest and greatest.

Yes, the latest Sony offerings are currently top of the tree, I'm lucky to use an A1, but I almost went the other way and got an Olympus 4/3rds. My main concern was the high ISO low light performance but I've now seen enough from Olympus to consider it a worthy contender with a little care in post processing.

You also need to give us an idea of budget. If my lottery numbers come up tonight I'm off to buy a Sony A1 mk2 and a 600 mm f4 lens. However, if your budget is a still healthy 5k then you have several other good options.

Most recent cameras will give you superb quality in good light, so for me, the 2 most important features in a new camera would be AF and high ISO as you're often photographing in less than ideal light conditions.

Give us an idea of budget, photo targets and end use and we can get more specific

Mike
 
Last edited:
I have a R7 and a Sigma 150-600 which with the crop factor is equivalent to 960mm at the long end. Although the AF is great, I am not that taken with the camera as it is quite noisy. With better technique, better light, better lens I’m sure the results could be better. See posts from others with some really good images.

For small birds no lens is long enough.

There is a lot of good advice above. If you are set on Canon I recommend their Test The Kit scheme where you can try for free.
 
Hi all, thanks for this. I am open minded on budget. I want the best possible image quality but am concerned about going "all in" on an A1 mark 2 and the really massive lenses be they telephoto or prime if the sheer inconvenience of that setup for bird photography renders the whole exercise a major chore. Hence why I was thinking the R7 which appears to have good autofocus and the ability to get a really good range with a minimum of additional contraptions. I guess I'm wondering are there drawbacks that render the R7 undesirable. But it seems the noise that comes with poorer low light performance would also be introduced by the Tele converter or the inferior aperture of the 200-800 lens? I don't think getting an expensive prime would be a good idea at this stage so maybe the R7 it is? And if I become comfortable with it and the 100-500, I could wait til a faster (and smaller / lighter) long telephoto than the 200-800 to be released and upgrade to the R5 mark 2 then in a year or two? I was all set to get the R5 until I kept running into a brick wall with the trade off between reach and aperture / noise / etc. So if most of my photography was going to be birding then the advantages of the R5 with the current offerings of telephoto lenses would not be enough to offset the disadvantages of lugging around all that glass for marginal gains?
 
An alternative suggestion would be the Sony A6700 with the Tamron 150-500mm or FF A7R V with Sony 200-600mm. For static birds most lenses above 400mm are good enough with 600mm better for small birds or larger birds further away. Most cameras are suitable for static birds with the new mirrorless being better for tracking. Full frame is better because you can get faster shutter speeds by being able to use higher iso so for birds in flight, with my f6.3 lens and crop sensor, I often have to limit my fastest shutter speed to 1/1250th for bif unless it is a bright sunny day. I would recommend you rent some equipment for a week to try out or just get a basic set up for you to learn as you said you are using a bridge camera RX10.
 
If you look at the MFT thread you'll be amazed how many of the photos are of wildlife, birds particularly. That tells me that people find it particularly suitable for wildlife. I imagine the light weight and the doubling of focal length are very useful.
 
this could be the thin end of an expensive wedge - you still have time to back away. it's all about compromise of one kind or another. there is good advice here already. I would rent or borrow to try out the option and see what suits at an acceptable budget.
 
There is very little point in using the crop mode on the R5 - all you do is risk clipping a body part for no gain if your framing is off.

If you get into it seriously, and can afford it, then you will end up sooner or later wanting a supertele.

So, my recommendations would be to look at the following options -

Micro 4/3rds, get either OM-1 or OM-1 mk2 with either 100-400 or better still 150-400mm lens. If Andy Rouse could get high quality pictures then its not the camera that would hold you back

Crop sensor - I'd only realistically go with the Canon R7. I don't think the Nikon or Sony camera are up to the job yet. One day they will but not yet. A anon 500mm F4 would be superb with it, As an alternative the 200-400f4 would be great for animals,

Full frame - Canon R6 / R5 / R3 / R1 are all brilliant. Nikon have the Z8 / Z9. Sony don't have the best handling but you get used to it. They do however have the class leading AF (the gap is closing though) but have a brilliant feature called zebras for the exposure. You're going to need a lens that gets to 600mm and takes a 1.4 converter as well

Mike
 
Let’s put it in real time terms , I currently use an Olympus OM1 + 300mm f4 with a 1.4 tc virtually permanent on it . That gives an equivalent 840 mm reach with 7 stops of image stability, ,no need for tripods,gimbals etc all my shots are hand held .plenty of examples in the Olympus thread . . It has bird I.d built in to .
I have also in the last few days bought a Sony a6700 ,lovely lightweight crop sensor body that also has I.b.i.s and super fast A.F which it shares with the Sony A1ii and A9ii .. just waiting on getting a long reach lens to assess it properly .
There’s also far far more to bird photography than the latest camera and big lens ,you will have to learn good field craft and bird habits also best places and times to go ,usually spoiled by either weather or wife’s demands .
 
Hello all, I am so grateful to everyone who has taken the time to post and help. Thank you so much.

I have poured over the decision and decided that going full frame (canon r5 mark 2) with a 200-800 is the way to go for me. I considered Sony, crop sensor cameras and different lenses and solutions but there was no silver bullet as such. I am happy to make the compromise on size of lens as the price to pay for a "one size fits most" solution for birds. Especially as it's v light and the bulk is not that much more than the 100-500. Both are still big old lenses. I also intend to get a 50mm prime and a 70-200. Both with the best range of aperture options. A pricey purchase it shall be!
 
Having spent a week in hides in Poland photographing flighty things, I learnt a couple of things (I took Z8, D500, 80-400G and 500E), birds varied from white tailed Eagle through to coal tits. If your subjects are in relative close proximity - 500mm is more than long enough, most of my images were taken with the Z8 and 80-400G combination. Any longer (ie narrower field of view) leaves you spending time trying to find the birds through the viewfinder. And with wildlife it's amazing what an F4 or F5.6 brings in terms of brightness, even with the F4 I was hitting 5 figure ISOs....
 
Thanks Welsh and therein lies the dilemma for me. I have several credible sources with differing sets of priorities and so favouring different setups. Is one willing to forego absolutely optimal image quality in favour of reach? Some say it's an easy tradeoff, reach is king. Others don't consider reach to trump additional flexibility at the bottom end of the range and image quality. I honestly don't know where I'm at but as I am moving up from the RX10 mark 4, I think it will already be a major step up quality wise and it feels like starting big and getting used to trickier handling with no other frame of reference and going from there is more sensible than starting with the 100-500 and going up from there if I am frustrated with lack of reach. As I do a lot of hiking, and golfing when I am in the mood, I can't see myself going out shooting come what may weather wise and If light is v poor. If it's a rubbish day / time of the day for photography, I can leave it off and choose a different activity? I'm happy for that last sentence to be torn apart I but I trust you get what I mean
 
briansy said:
Thanks Welsh and therein lies the dilemma for me. I have several credible sources with differing sets of priorities and so favouring different setups. Is one willing to forego absolutely optimal image quality in favour of reach? Some say it's an easy tradeoff, reach is king. Others don't consider reach to trump additional flexibility at the bottom end of the range and image quality. I honestly don't know where I'm at but as I am moving up from the RX10 mark 4, I think it will already be a major step up quality wise and it feels like starting big and getting used to trickier handling with no other frame of reference and going from there is more sensible than starting with the 100-500 and going up from there if I am frustrated with lack of reach. As I do a lot of hiking, and golfing when I am in the mood, I can't see myself going out shooting come what may weather wise and If light is v poor. If it's a rubbish day / time of the day for photography, I can leave it off and choose a different activity? I'm happy for that last sentence to be torn apart I but I trust you get what I mean
Click to expand...
You should seriously take a loan of an R7 and 100-500. Because if you really think that’s not big after a weekends use, then you’re not typical.
 
Try this https://www.canon.co.uk/testdrive/

But be aware you only get to have 2 free days hire for each piece of equipment once, although you can add more days to the free hire period

I just sent back a 200-800 and am now saving my pennies :)

D
 
Brentor said:
I take it that you liked it? No issues with the aperture range?
Click to expand...
Well of course F9 is not ideal, especially as the country was enveloped under grey cloud for most of my hire period BUT the advent of de noise type software and very effective image stabilisation means I was much more impressed than I thought I would be coupled with my R7.

Apart from the RF 800mm F11 the other alternatives for 800mm are almost 10X as much as the 200-800 and they don't zoom - I shall have one, even if it also leads me to a FF RF body at some point :cool:

HTH

David
 
Willid1 said:
Well of course F9 is not ideal, especially as the country was enveloped under grey cloud for most of my hire period BUT the advent of de noise type software and very effective image stabilisation means I was much more impressed than I thought I would be coupled with my R7.

Apart from the RF 800mm F11 the other alternatives for 800mm are almost 10X as much as the 200-800 and they don't zoom - I shall have one, even if it also leads me to a FF RF body at some point :cool:

HTH

David
Click to expand...

Many thanks.

I have a hire of the lens booked for May when hopefully the weather is better. I have a feeling it will be very tempting.
 
briansy said:
Hi there, I posted in another thread which didn't get a huge amount of traction seeking advice on what lenses I should get for birding and wildlife. I sought advice on the basis that I had more or less decided on the Canon r5 mark 2. It just felt like it was a top of the range camera with all of the boxes ticked and with access to a better array of lenses (in terms of focal lengths for birding) than the Sony or Nikon. What I didn't anticipate was the actual practicalities of some of the longer telephoto lenses like the 200-800, lugging the stuff around etc. And then of the more compact lenses like the 100-500 there is a reach issue for birds. Sure I could get a teleconverter for the 100-500 meaning less weight etc, but that looks to be a faff and also sub-optimal as you are starting north of 300mm - meaning I'd be taking the lens on and off all day.

I then stumbled across threads suggesting the R7 is much better for birding due to the improved reach due to the crop sensor - and at a negligible cost quality wise for a novice like me? Something also to do with how the pixels are arranged rather than the actual pixel count? I'm in over my head on all of this stuff quite frankly and the idea of not having to use a teleconverter right now seems really appealing if I feel that 500mm is too short a reach for birds and 800 is where I want to get to. It would still be a huge improvement on my RX10 mark 4 and the R7 would, by many accounts, be only a marginal reduction in quality at my level of operation (i.e. a novice?)?

Your practical thoughts and advice would be much appreciated! I know this is a well worn topic but I wanted to ask any follow up questions based on my own circumstances so I thought it would be useful to start this thread for myself.
Click to expand...
Sorry a bit late to the party but you say you had more or less decided on the R7 as Canon had more lenses etc, however Sony have a much more mature system with more native lenses (lenses that don’t need adapters). Also, because Sony opened up their mount to third party, third party lenses work pretty much as well as Sony lenses barring being limited to 15fps and not being able to use TC’s, this means that you can get a really nice setup for less money.
 
Hi snerkler, the thing that sold me on Canon was actually the 200-800mm lens which is pretty light for what it is. The Sony didn't appear to have a corresponding option with that range for birds. I ended up getting the R5 mark ii. I'm not sure it's as good as the Sony A1 ii in terms of the buffer and it looks like there are a couple of small areas where the A1 ii is a bit better but it's way more expensive and for a novice like me, it doesn't look like there's anything in it at all. I just need to learn the settings and how to use the bloody thing now!
 
briansy said:
Hi snerkler, the thing that sold me on Canon was actually the 200-800mm lens which is pretty light for what it is. The Sony didn't appear to have a corresponding option with that range for birds. I ended up getting the R5 mark ii. I'm not sure it's as good as the Sony A1 ii in terms of the buffer and it looks like there are a couple of small areas where the A1 ii is a bit better but it's way more expensive and for a novice like me, it doesn't look like there's anything in it at all. I just need to learn the settings and how to use the bloody thing now!
Click to expand...
Yeah, telephotos is one area where Sony have been lacking compared to their competitors however the are gradually improving that. They have just released the 400-800mm but it's 400g heavier than the Canon 200-800mm, plus you obviously lose 200mm at the wide end. Yes it's only f8 vs f9 at the long end for the sake of 1/3 stop I've rather have 200mm more at the wide and have it 400g lighter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top