Wildlife - Canon 80D/Sigma 150-600mm vs Lumix G9/Leica 100-400mm

Sangoma said:
There is a slight quality advantage looking at numbers, but it is those mirrorless advantages you speak of that means I have much more success.
Faster focus, focus tracking, faster burst speed and pre-burst, 1.2kg and shorter to try and keep the bird in the frame and to carry to where ever I am going, near/far focus when the bird is in a tree with branches close by, electronic shutter.

The two set ups are very close in price looking at ebays completed listings, but many of the Canons have high shutter counts.

I can't say which way the OP should go, can only say what my experience has been, what I like, and what helps me to get the results I want.
Not trying to convince him to go the same way, or any other way, just saying what I like in case that can be related to and helps him build opinions leading to a good decision.

The OP has produced some nice photos, would they be better had he have used the Canon set-up? Who can say :)
Click to expand...

Off and on I have spent time looking at the various differences between MFT, APS-C and FF. My own HO is that there isn't enough in it between MFT and APS-C and that only FF shows any real step forward worth bothering with. In good or just ok-ish light and if we can avoid cropping and pixel peeping I suppose there's an argument for saying that MFT, APS-C, FF... it doesn't matter all that much. So I think the first thing for Keith to decide is do the image quality differences between the various options matter at all?

Mirrorless v DSLR is another question and I'm just not going back :D
 
Just wanted add to what Jeff Black fox has given as feedback

I shoot m4/3 done full frame, APSC M4/3 gives me reach and portability in a really good package I am more mobile when out on photo trips can stay out longer as the gear no longer feels weighty after a few hours I have had the Oly 100-400 the 300mm Pro fortunate to own the 150-400mm which I use with both tc the 1.4 and x2 given me reach I could only dream of in full frame terms I am able to shoot 300-800 or 1000 with the inbuilt
1 .25 tc Maxing out at 2000mm with the x2 TC attached very little loss in IQ which I recover in Topaz

No such thing as a perfect camera system but given the fantastic image stabilisation and reach from Olympus M4/3 I have found it to be excellent for wildlife photography shooting at 50FPs and Pro Capture are tools that a wildlife photographer will use

Had the 80D and the Sigma 150-600C it was a great combo once I sorted out the lens which was awful out of the box had to sort out front focus No such problems with my Olympus lenses everyone spot on and CA as software corrects in camera

Good luck with your choice either system is great but Olympus for me is street's ahead of what the 80D can offer
 
mazdaman said:
Just wanted add to what Jeff Black fox has given as feedback

I shoot m4/3 done full frame, APSC M4/3 gives me reach and portability in a really good package I am more mobile when out on photo trips can stay out longer as the gear no longer feels weighty after a few hours I have had the Oly 100-400 the 300mm Pro fortunate to own the 150-400mm which I use with both tc the 1.4 and x2 given me reach I could only dream of in full frame terms I am able to shoot 300-800 or 1000 with the inbuilt
1 .25 tc Maxing out at 2000mm with the x2 TC attached very little loss in IQ which I recover in Topaz

No such thing as a perfect camera system but given the fantastic image stabilisation and reach from Olympus M4/3 I have found it to be excellent for wildlife photography shooting at 50FPs and Pro Capture are tools that a wildlife photographer will use

Had the 80D and the Sigma 150-600C it was a great combo once I sorted out the lens which was awful out of the box had to sort out front focus No such problems with my Olympus lenses everyone spot on and CA as software corrects in camera

Good luck with your choice either system is great but Olympus for me is street's ahead of what the 80D can offer
Click to expand...
Thank you this is very interesting feedback and food for thought.

It's interesting to hear from people who clearly have a passion for quality photography, and who choose MFT over bigger sensors that they have also used.

I've been very tempted by the Oly EM1 MkII in the past, and I assume it works well with the Leica 100-400mm

Also interesting what you say about Topaz, do minimal differences in camera photos really matter these days when we have such good software to adjust them?

Finally the teleconverters, I have read very mixed reports on these gadgets, but you are the second person to extol the virtues of the ones for MFT.
 
Crotal Bell said:
Thank you this is very interesting feedback and food for thought.

It's interesting to hear from people who clearly have a passion for quality photography, and who choose MFT over bigger sensors that they have also used.

I've been very tempted by the Oly EM1 MkII in the past, and I assume it works well with the Leica 100-400mm

Also interesting what you say about Topaz, do minimal differences in camera photos really matter these days when we have such good software to adjust them?

Finally the teleconverters, I have read very mixed reports on these gadgets, but you are the second person to extol the virtues of the ones for MFT.
Click to expand...
The olympus tele converters are head and shoulders than my canon ones I had
The olympus 100-400 with the 1 4tc is about the limit given loss of light particularly at this of time of year F6.3 is the only downfall of long lenses Sigma 150-600C was the same however when the light is good you get 1120mm of full frame equivalent or 1600mm with the X2 TC

Had the panasonic 100-400 but sold it as the IQ wasn't great despite micro adjustment whereas the Oly 100-400 tack sharp out of the box

Have a look on you tube for a guy called Mike Lane who did a print test 4/3 vs full frame took the prints to a couple of photo judges who couldn't tell the difference in most of the prints

I was sceptic when I moved over to micro 4/3 about IQ but was and have been pleasantly surprised by the quality of some my "wall hangers"

Your dilemma is one that many toggers have faced over the years I wish you well in your decision I was going to recommend the test and wow programme which OMDS used to run but it appears at rhe moment it looks like it's not available


I
 
I keep a spreadsheet of my expenditure on cameras and lenses, and to date my total expenditure (since getting my first digital camera) on 17 lenses and 12 cameras is less than the cost of just one Olympus 150-400 lens. Admittedly, I'm not quite comparing apples to apples, here, as I'm looking at the new cost of the 150-400, and 99% of my gear is second-hand and several years behind the times but it does illustrate how we all have different needs, wishes, wallets, and no doubt time, skill, and dedication. And vastly different income generated from this kit, too.

Also, this thread reminded me of seeing this video many years ago:

Moose Peterson on the Nikon 70-300

back when I had a Nikon D7100. I bought a 70-300 on the strength of that video and still use it on my D700. I'm not sure whether any of Moose's wildlife shots from that era are still available, but if they were I know I'd be amazed at what he was getting at 300mm (or maybe 450 if he was using a crop sensor). My point being, there's a lot of good wildlife shots to be had, and a lot of learning to be done, without worrying about massive reach.

Also also there's another thread occurring right now (Why I Don't Need Full Frame) in which it again becomes clear that one man's meat is another man's poison. We're all individual. We all want something different from our set-up. I like to travel light(*), others are prepared to travel heavy but get "better" shots. But then what is "better"? I can almost guarantee that my favourite photographs in all of photographic history would have many a pixel-peeper weeping in frustration. Hell, many of my favourite historic shots are out of focus, grainy, have motion blur, poor composition, and imperfect exposure. Yet they've all stood the test of time (in my opinion, anyway). It all depends on what you want from your photography and photographs, not what someone else wants from theirs.

It's a good discussion. Only up until last week I was considering that maybe a D500 was the way to go, but they're still way too expensive. So the G9 and the 100-300 works for me (or hopefully it will - not tried it in anger yet).

Derek

(*) It's like angling. I love fishing. But I travel light - I like to go on the pushbike whenever possible. I like to keep moving. I love spinning for this very reason. Yet, many anglers prefer a style of fishing where they need a van to get them to the bank, and a wheel-barrow to move their kit once there. They set up bivvies and multiple rod stations, have gallons of bait, beds, tables, cookers... etc. Once set up it's almost impossible for them to move. I'd hate that style of fishing, but I can guarantee those guys love it. They also catch more fish than me, bigger fish than me, win more prizes, get their pictures in more magazines... etc again. As I said, horses for courses. Work out what you enjoy and go and do it, and don't try and follow someone else's path,
 
Last edited:
delb0y said:
I keep a spreadsheet of my expenditure on cameras and lenses, and to date my total expenditure (since getting my first digital camera) on 17 lenses and 12 cameras is less than the cost of just one Olympus 150-400 lens. Admittedly, I'm not quite comparing apples to apples, here, as I'm looking at the new cost of the 150-400, and 99% of my gear is second-hand and several years behind the times but it does illustrate how we all have different needs, wishes, wallets, and no doubt time, skill, and dedication. And vastly different income generated from this kit, too.

Also, this thread reminded me of seeing this video many years ago:

Moose Peterson on the Nikon 70-300

back when I had a Nikon D7100. I bought a 70-300 on the strength of that video and still use it on my D700. I'm not sure whether any of Moose's wildlife shots from that era are still available, but if they were I know I'd be amazed at what he was getting at 300mm (or maybe 450 if he was using a crop sensor). My point being, there's a lot of good wildlife shots to be had, and a lot of learning to be done, without worrying about massive reach.

Also also there's another thread occurring right now (Why I Don't Need Full Frame) in which it again becomes clear that one man's meat is another man's poison. We're all individual. We all want something different from our set-up. I like to travel light(*), others are prepared to travel heavy but get "better" shots. But then what is "better"? I can almost guarantee that my favourite photographs in all of photographic history would have many a pixel-peeper weeping in frustration. Hell, many of my favourite historic shots are out of focus, grainy, have motion blur, poor composition, and imperfect exposure. Yet they've all stood the test of time (in my opinion, anyway). It all depends on what you want from your photography and photographs, not what someone else wants from theirs.

It's a good discussion. Only up until last week I was considering that maybe a D500 was the way to go, but they're still way too expensive. So the G9 and the 100-300 works for me (or hopefully it will - not tried it in anger yet).

Derek

(*) It's like angling. I love fishing. But I travel light - I like to go on the pushbike whenever possible. I like to keep moving. I love spinning for this very reason. Yet, many anglers prefer a style of fishing where they need a van to get them to the bank, and a wheel-barrow to move their kit once there. They set up bivvies and multiple rod stations, have gallons of bait, beds, tables, cookers... etc. Once set up it's almost impossible for them to move. I'd hate that style of fishing, but I can guarantee those guys love it. They also catch more fish than me, bigger fish than me, win more prizes, get their pictures in more magazines... etc again. As I said, horses for courses. Work out what you enjoy and go and do it, and don't try and follow someone else's path,
Click to expand...
An enjoyable read. Maybe my issue is, the more I go out togging, the more I strive for higher quality results, and maybe that can be a ,bit of a bad thing.

Here is an image taken with my Pana FZ82 out of the bedroom window. Whatever anyone else thinks of it, it's still a favourite of mine and I suppose that's all that matters.

Forum Tit.jpg
 
That's a perfect example, Keith. Lovely photo. Interestingly there are many wonderful wildlife shots elsewhere in this site taken on bridge cameras. (Don't discount those cameras as an option)

As for striving for higher quality results - great. It's far from being a bad thing. We should all do that, and I'm sure we all do. But as others have said, don't discount the improvement in quality that you can make with what you've got now. Go out when the light is good. Find more interesting and/or productive locations. Sit and wait. Take a bean-bag so you can rest the G80. Lie down for interesting angles. Did I mention the light? Read the right books or look at the right web sites and get inspired. Try the remote app, get a tripod, and take photos on the G80 via a mobile phone. Think about how wider views can give wildlife more context, use the environment. And a hundred other things. Try some macros or slow moving creatures that really give you time to compose a shot and fine tune the composition and light.

Yes there's excellent advice on gear in this thread. Yet I've no doubt that whatever you plump for you'll initially be taking very similar shots to those you're taking now. You'll experience the same frustrations, possibly with an aching back and a hurting bank account. So maybe consider sticking with what you've got and spend the money on a few courses or days at wildlife centres.

On a site like this most of the posts are about gear and it's easy to get caught up in believing you need something else. I know I've just bought a new camera, but I've been looking and waiting for about three years. There's no rush. Just enjoy what you have whilst you consider the next steps.

Sorry, that was another wordy post!
 
Last edited:
delb0y said:
That's a perfect example, Keith. Lovely photo. Interestingly there are many wonderful wildlife shots elsewhere in this site taken on bridge cameras. (Don't discount those cameras as an option)

As for striving for higher quality results - great. It's far from being a bad thing. We should all do that, and I'm sure we all do. But as others have said, don't discount the improvement in quality that you can make with what you've got now. Go out when the light is good. Find more interesting and/or productive locations. Sit and wait. Take a bean-bag so you can rest the G80. Lie down for interesting angles. Did I mention the light? Read the right books or look at the right web sites and get inspired. Try the remote app, get a tripod, and take photos on the G80 via a mobile phone. Think about how wider views can give wildlife more context, use the environment. And a hundred other things. Try some macros or slow moving creatures that really give you time to compose a shot and fine tune the composition and light.

Yes there's excellent advice on gear in this thread. Yet I've no doubt that whatever you plump for you'll initially be taking very similar shots to those you're taking now. You'll experience the same frustrations, possibly with an aching back and a hurting bank account. So maybe consider sticking with what you've got and spend the money on a few courses or days at wildlife centres.

On a site like this most of the posts are about gear and it's easy to get caught up in believing you need something else. I know I've just bought a new camera, but I've been looking and waiting for about three years. There's no rush. Just enjoy what you have whilst you consider the next steps.

Sorry, that was another wordy post!
Click to expand...
Please don't apologise for the wordy post, I love the feedback and it's how I will learn (and have done so already thanks to people like you taking the time to help me)

I do think about the light a lot these days, and there's an ironic twist to that, I used to just go out regardless but now cloudy days make me grumpy :) The Panasonic FZ82 is where I started, and it still comes out with me often, although these days more-so when there is good sunshine, I suppose it's mostly to blame for me wanting more zoom on a single lens for a bigger sensor. I started to realise the potential of that combination. Here's a couple more from the FZ82 taken in the local park during this years heatwave, and I took the FZ82 knowing the sunshine would aid the camera (I waited for the Crow to walk out of the shadows, I knew what was possible so I was patient)
Addison 006.jpg
Addison 8.jpg
 
Crotal Bell said:
Please don't apologise for the wordy post, I love the feedback and it's how I will learn (and have done so already thanks to people like you taking the time to help me)

I do think about the light a lot these days, and there's an ironic twist to that, I used to just go out regardless but now cloudy days make me grumpy :) The Panasonic FZ82 is where I started, and it still comes out with me often, although these days more-so when there is good sunshine, I suppose it's mostly to blame for me wanting more zoom on a single lens for a bigger sensor. I started to realise the potential of that combination. Here's a couple more from the FZ82 taken in the local park during this years heatwave, and I took the FZ82 knowing the sunshine would aid the camera (I waited for the Crow to walk out of the shadows, I knew what was possible so I was patient)
View attachment 377420
View attachment 377421
Click to expand...
I really like the squirrel shot. That is great and certainly put a smile on my face. Well caught.
 
delb0y said:
That's a perfect example, Keith. Lovely photo. Interestingly there are many wonderful wildlife shots elsewhere in this site taken on bridge cameras. (Don't discount those cameras as an option)

As for striving for higher quality results - great. It's far from being a bad thing. We should all do that, and I'm sure we all do. But as others have said, don't discount the improvement in quality that you can make with what you've got now. Go out when the light is good. Find more interesting and/or productive locations. Sit and wait. Take a bean-bag so you can rest the G80. Lie down for interesting angles. Did I mention the light? Read the right books or look at the right web sites and get inspired. Try the remote app, get a tripod, and take photos on the G80 via a mobile phone. Think about how wider views can give wildlife more context, use the environment. And a hundred other things. Try some macros or slow moving creatures that really give you time to compose a shot and fine tune the composition and light.

Yes there's excellent advice on gear in this thread. Yet I've no doubt that whatever you plump for you'll initially be taking very similar shots to those you're taking now. You'll experience the same frustrations, possibly with an aching back and a hurting bank account. So maybe consider sticking with what you've got and spend the money on a few courses or days at wildlife centres.

On a site like this most of the posts are about gear and it's easy to get caught up in believing you need something else. I know I've just bought a new camera, but I've been looking and waiting for about three years. There's no rush. Just enjoy what you have whilst you consider the next steps.

Sorry, that was another wordy post!
Click to expand...
Great post. Nice one.
 
Have you been to a Shop and tried these combos, you may find the Sigma is managble, my mate uses one with a 80d and hes 70 and is out all day, get a decent sling for it. i think i would go for a 7dmk11 over a 80d, it was used by lots of people for wildlife and still is , thier is a decent looking one in the Classifieds
 
mav said:
Have you been to a Shop and tried these combos, you may find the Sigma is managble, my mate uses one with a 80d and hes 70 and is out all day, get a decent sling for it. i think i would go for a 7dmk11 over a 80d, it was used by lots of people for wildlife and still is , thier is a decent looking one in the Classifieds
Click to expand...
Yeah I think I need to do some physical testing, then it would come down to zoom and sensor size s mirroless tech adantages.
 
Keith desparately trying to keep this managable I fell asleep while writing my own( essay) post to you last night.'erm wot I write is that boring.

1 Mate this has to be fun.if the weight takes fun out of this you need different tools full stop....finally someone has said go get tools in your grubby mits well done Mav !!

2 Buddy you should obsess about IQ it should never be to the detrement of the joy of making frames of wildlife the fun of it ...... but yes obsess about it.why.simply part of the joy of having a camera in ones hand is learning to use the tools better. Be hard on you but at the same time that harshness with self is never a negative.it's just a tool one uses to make a better image tomorrow.

3 If the tools in one's hand are not the latest and greatest off set what they can't do with your hard won skills...or put another way don't do massive crops use field craft to get you in a position where you frame the image you want to make.

Keith talented togs make fantastic images with old gear new gear anything...........................while I'll always be in awe of what they do it doesn't mean we can't try to emulate them. They do it because they earn a skillset mate. and they earn it hard Sso that's my take I have to try and learn a skillset not sell my gear short with massive crops try to milk everything it can do try in me own little way to be worthy of the tools in my hand.


4 Mate fun ( yes a repeat it is that important)this is everything wildlife can be walking for miles in the pouring rain waiting for hours half frozen of half baked to death for one chance at something that happens in the splits of a second...........................If this isn't fun to you me or anyone .then one does NOT keep doing it. Our subjects run rings around us when they show the light is not there or they are a dot on the horizon. You have to enjoy this one just has to have a mindset where the joy of failing is part of the gig .

5 Keith if you are going to show me a great tit then why not give me a sexy perch preddy as hell to look at not a wire feeder....buddy you make images for you.that's it for you !!

. Look wildlife toggin is not a competition it's your adoration of nature, your take but if you share it , then it needs to speak to me your viewer. You are painting a picture Keith that only has to please you by the same token it's a piccy dude it paints a thousand words an all that stuff...it needs to speak to me if you are going to share it it needs to speak to another.

Buddy I'm going to stop there other wise we'll end up on 180 ( and Dale will shoot me an I'll be asleep AGAIN :LOL: )

.What I'm trying to get to is this is your passion, use tools that don't make you miserable by the same token really try to be the best you can be push at the tools in your hand .It will be more rewarding for you. you will fail you will scream at yourself, but long tern it will be more rewarding

That said a degree of pain is probably part of wildlife image making. you need to laugh at that and turn it into something that makes you want to go back. We all do this for different reasons if a good walk and some air is enough there is nowt wrong in that but if you want to make images of wildlife to intoxicate another then that's ok too

have a wicked new year bro go get 'em(y)

stu
 
Stuart Philpott said:
Keith desparately trying to keep this managable I fell asleep while writing my own( essay) post to you last night.'erm wot I write is that boring.

1 Mate this has to be fun.if the weight takes fun out of this you need different tools full stop....finally someone has said go get tools in your grubby mits well done Mav !!

2 Buddy you should obsess about IQ it should never be to the detrement of the joy of making frames of wildlife the fun of it ...... but yes obsess about it.why.simply part of the joy of having a camera in ones hand is learning to use the tools better. Be hard on you but at the same time that harshness with self is never a negative.it's just a tool one uses to make a better image tomorrow.

3 If the tools in one's hand are not the latest and greatest off set what they can't do with your hard won skills...or put another way don't do massive crops use field craft to get you in a position where you frame the image you want to make.

Keith talented togs make fantastic images with old gear new gear anything...........................while I'll always be in awe of what they do it doesn't mean we can't try to emulate them. They do it because they earn a skillset mate. and they earn it hard Sso that's my take I have to try and learn a skillset not sell my gear short with massive crops try to milk everything it can do try in me own little way to be worthy of the tools in my hand.


4 Mate fun ( yes a repeat it is that important)this is everything wildlife can be walking for miles in the pouring rain waiting for hours half frozen of half baked to death for one chance at something that happens in the splits of a second...........................If this isn't fun to you me or anyone .then one does NOT keep doing it. Our subjects run rings around us when they show the light is not there or they are a dot on the horizon. You have to enjoy this one just has to have a mindset where the joy of failing is part of the gig .

5 Keith if you are going to show me a great tit then why not give me a sexy perch preddy as hell to look at not a wire feeder....buddy you make images for you.that's it for you !!

. Look wildlife toggin is not a competition it's your adoration of nature, your take but if you share it , then it needs to speak to me your viewer. You are painting a picture Keith that only has to please you by the same token it's a piccy dude it paints a thousand words an all that stuff...it needs to speak to me if you are going to share it it needs to speak to another.

Buddy I'm going to stop there other wise we'll end up on 180 ( and Dale will shoot me an I'll be asleep AGAIN :LOL: )

.What I'm trying to get to is this is your passion, use tools that don't make you miserable by the same token really try to be the best you can be push at the tools in your hand .It will be more rewarding for you. you will fail you will scream at yourself, but long tern it will be more rewarding

That said a degree of pain is probably part of wildlife image making. you need to laugh at that and turn it into something that makes you want to go back. We all do this for different reasons if a good walk and some air is enough there is nowt wrong in that but if you want to make images of wildlife to intoxicate another then that's ok too

have a wicked new year bro go get 'em(y)

stu
Click to expand...
Thanks Stu, I had a good read and that all makes sense.
Ultimately though it still comes down to which rig I want to choose for the foreseeable future.
 
FWIW, as a dedicated FF user, if I were going for wildlife like you then I'd definitely be using M43 for the reach and lower weight. The 'problem' with APS-C is it uses all the same lenses as FF, and although you get better reach and sharper corners from cheaper lenses, they're still the full weight. Sure you can't really crop hard and things suffer a bit at high ISO, but for portability and decent image quality M43 is hard to beat.
 
ancient_mariner said:
FWIW, as a dedicated FF user, if I were going for wildlife like you then I'd definitely be using M43 for the reach and lower weight. The 'problem' with APS-C is it uses all the same lenses as FF, and although you get better reach and sharper corners from cheaper lenses, they're still the full weight. Sure you can't really crop hard and things suffer a bit at high ISO, but for portability and decent image quality M43 is hard to beat.
Click to expand...
Interesting as the Sigma 150-600mm + 80d doesn't look too heavy on paper, but that's on paper.

I've seen many vids stating it's ok for mobile wildlife work, but it's still a gamble that could backfire, hardly likely to be too heavy with the mft option so I completely see your point.
 
Crotal Bell said:
Interesting as the Sigma 150-600mm + 80d doesn't look too heavy on paper, but that's on paper.

I've seen many vids stating it's ok for mobile wildlife work, but it's still a gamble that could backfire, hardly likely to be too heavy with the mft option so I completely see your point.
Click to expand...

For *me* the problem with APS-C is that it's not larger enough than M43 to offer a big advantage, plus we're looking at older design DSLRs to go with that big lens. As pointed out, while it was a good camera then, a modern M43 camera may actually be better in the areas that count. And it's also so affordable as a way into the most equipment-intensive area of photography.

I've probably said before, my wife has an E-M10 Mk1, and it's a good camera - for holiday snaps in strong light it's hard to tell the dfference between that and the Nikon D610 I used to use.

But also - since I know you've just looked at the 2 pictures I posted - it's hard to get that look I like without heavily processing a picture shot on M43, which is why I use what I do.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
For *me* the problem with APS-C is that it's not larger enough than M43 to offer a big advantage, plus we're looking at older design DSLRs to go with that big lens. As pointed out, while it was a good camera then, a modern M43 camera may actually be better in the areas that count. And it's also so affordable as a way into the most equipment-intensive area of photography.

I've probably said before, my wife has an E-M10 Mk1, and it's a good camera - for holiday snaps in strong light it's hard to tell the dfference between that and the Nikon D610 I used to use.

But also - since I know you've just looked at the 2 pictures I posted - it's hard to get that look I like without heavily processing a picture shot on M43, which is why I use what I do.
Click to expand...
Only those who have used different formats know these things, I'm grateful for the experienced comments.

I do have this niggling feeling that APSC may disappoint me, not the low light "magic wand" I could be imagining.
 
Crotal Bell said:
I do have this niggling feeling that APSC may disappoint me, not the low light "magic wand" I could be imagining.
Click to expand...

That's very possible. Moving from APS-C to FF felt disappointing at the time, particularly because the lenses I had for FF weren't especially great while the lenses on crop (including my old Minolta FILM lenses!) were actually better, and it took me time to discover how to get the most from the bigger format, even though I knew exactly why I'd made the jump. In some ways the move to Sony from Nikon was a bigger jump because the lenses were much better and the A7III has an outrageous dynamic range. I suspect/hope that if I DID have to go to M43 the sensor tech would have caught up a long way.

Re low light. My old Sony A58 SLT would really struggle with noise above 400ISO. As Blackfox/Jeff suggested, check out pictures taken with the cameras you're considering to see if the noise is going to be a problem for you.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
That's very possible. Moving from APS-C to FF felt disappointing at the time, particularly because the lenses I had for FF weren't especially great while the lenses on crop (including my old Minolta FILM lenses!) were actually better, and it took me time to discover how to get the most from the bigger format, even though I knew exactly why I'd made the jump. In some ways the move to Sony from Nikon was a bigger jump because the lenses were much better and the A7III has an outrageous dynamic range. I suspect/hope that if I DID have to go to M43 the sensor tech would have caught up a long way.

Re low light. My old Sony A58 SLT would really struggle with noise above 400ISO. As Blackfox/Jeff suggested, check out pictures taken with the cameras you're considering to see if the noise is going to be a problem for you.
Click to expand...
Maybe I overthink things, and worry too much. TBH when I went to the local marina in the summer I was overjoyed with the results on the G80 with 100-300mm, albeit the Cormorant on the lake would have benefitted greatly from another 200mm zoom and extra MP for cropping close.

The problem with comparison photos is they are usually taken in good light, showing the best of any system, and you don't know what has been done in editing.
There's a couple of guys using G9 and 100-400mm on You Tube with great results, but in Australia you get rather more good light than we do.
 
Crotal Bell said:
Maybe I overthink things, and worry too much. TBH when I went to the local marina in the summer I was overjoyed with the results on the G80 with 100-300mm, albeit the Cormorant on the lake would have benefitted greatly from another 200mm zoom and extra MP for cropping close.

The problem with comparison photos is they are usually taken in good light, showing the best of any system, and you don't know what has been done in editing.
There's a couple of guys using G9 and 100-400mm on You Tube with great results, but in Australia you get rather more good light than we do.
Click to expand...
The light issue is one I have mentioned many times, having lived in three countries (and still visit one) where good light is the daily norm, not the odd occasion.
I have mentioned it talking of only taking a compact with me (not for light reasons, but it makes it easier)

Having said that, I have been very pleasantly surprised with the results from the G9 using higher ISO than I would like.
Also the Panasonic stabilisation is far better than anything I had used on a Canon, though the Tamron was (is, I still have it) was very good and that allows a lower ISO.
Turning the sharpening and noise reduction right down for JPEGs helps too, of course RAW is better.

The "best" Canon still in the house id a 70D, and the G9 is much better in low light and noise levels .
A 300 lens with 2X converter is the longest lens I have tried on it, and in low light autofocus struggles (to be expected)

There will always be time when you would like a longer lens, doesn't matter what you have. I got used to that in 1965 with a fixed lens rangefinder, and it doesn't worry me now, even if I take the 100-300 with me, I don't get to wishing I had used the 100-400 that is sitting at home, there's probably another shot just round the corner.

I have a couple of things I use for test shots, a house that is about 650m away, a lamp post about 130m away, and another lamp post about 40m away (the posts have dog fouling notices on). If I want to compare, I don't use photos taken with one camera previously, I take them all at the same time, though the previous photos can be useful for a quick comparison.
I'm sure there are better subjects, but those are visible from the end of the drive, so convenience wins.
Testing like that is not very scientific, but nor are trips to the park or town, and they are useful to see what results can be had in a normal situation, and comparing tripod to hand held etc.

I wouldn't say you were overthinking, it's good to get your thoughts straight :)
 
Sangoma said:
The light issue is one I have mentioned many times, having lived in three countries (and still visit one) where good light is the daily norm, not the odd occasion.
I have mentioned it talking of only taking a compact with me (not for light reasons, but it makes it easier)

Having said that, I have been very pleasantly surprised with the results from the G9 using higher ISO than I would like.
Also the Panasonic stabilisation is far better than anything I had used on a Canon, though the Tamron was (is, I still have it) was very good and that allows a lower ISO.
Turning the sharpening and noise reduction right down for JPEGs helps too, of course RAW is better.

The "best" Canon still in the house id a 70D, and the G9 is much better in low light and noise levels .
A 300 lens with 2X converter is the longest lens I have tried on it, and in low light autofocus struggles (to be expected)

There will always be time when you would like a longer lens, doesn't matter what you have. I got used to that in 1965 with a fixed lens rangefinder, and it doesn't worry me now, even if I take the 100-300 with me, I don't get to wishing I had used the 100-400 that is sitting at home, there's probably another shot just round the corner.

I have a couple of things I use for test shots, a house that is about 650m away, a lamp post about 130m away, and another lamp post about 40m away (the posts have dog fouling notices on). If I want to compare, I don't use photos taken with one camera previously, I take them all at the same time, though the previous photos can be useful for a quick comparison.
I'm sure there are better subjects, but those are visible from the end of the drive, so convenience wins.
Testing like that is not very scientific, but nor are trips to the park or town, and they are useful to see what results can be had in a normal situation, and comparing tripod to hand held etc.

I wouldn't say you were overthinking, it's good to get your thoughts straight :)
Click to expand...
Interesting that G9 beats the 70D in low light, I realise the sensor on the 80D was a big step up, but possibly put it on a par then with G0

1965, 2 years before I was born, you've seen a lot of changes, I guess the SLR and digital were the big ones.

I'm glad you approve of my strategy to get things straight, just trying to get the best bang for my buck.
 
I tried the 80D with the 150-600mm Sport and it was a pretty good system for wildlife but in the end I went for a 7D MKII (which is now in the classifieds as I recently purchased the R7)

The 80D had all the bells and whistles at the time but the autofocus wasn't a patch on the 7D II and if you are mainly shooting wildlife then the last thing you want is mediocre af speed. Personally I still rate the 7D MKII, yes the high ISO performance isn't as good as the newer cameras but with a little care (and some NR software) ISO 3200 is fine and tbh I never shoot at 6400 even with full frame.
 
Mike.P said:
I tried the 80D with the 150-600mm Sport and it was a pretty good system for wildlife but in the end I went for a 7D MKII (which is now in the classifieds as I recently purchased the R7)

The 80D had all the bells and whistles at the time but the autofocus wasn't a patch on the 7D II and if you are mainly shooting wildlife then the last thing you want is mediocre af speed. Personally I still rate the 7D MKII, yes the high ISO performance isn't as good as the newer cameras but with a little care (and some NR software) ISO 3200 is fine and tbh I never shoot at 6400 even with full frame.
Click to expand...
Thanks Mike, used 7D MkII seem a tad higher priced than the 80Ds which probably reflects their ability, also many more of them have high shutter counts, again reflecting that people liked to hang on to them.
 
Crotal Bell said:
Thanks Mike, used 7D MkII seem a tad higher priced than the 80Ds which probably reflects their ability, also many more of them have high shutter counts, again reflecting that people liked to hang on to them.
Click to expand...
Prices on MPB are very similar for these models. I have a 7Dii and a Sigma 150-600 and it is a good combo. I have only briefly used a 80D but I found it to be a lower build quality and an inferior AF system to the 7Dii, but that is just my opinion.
 
Brentor said:
Prices on MPB are very similar for these models. I have a 7Dii and a Sigma 150-600 and it is a good combo. I have only briefly used a 80D but I found it to be a lower build quality and an inferior AF system to the 7Dii, but that is just my opinion.
Click to expand...
The only thing that bugs me about MPB is not giving you the shutter count.
Most 7D MkIIs I've seen on other sites do have hefty shutter counts, I guess a testament to their ability.
 
Crotal Bell said:
The only thing that bugs me about MPB is not giving you the shutter count.
Most 7D MkIIs I've seen on other sites do have hefty shutter counts, I guess a testament to their ability.
Click to expand...
We must be looking at different sites. On my browser MPB give shutter counts.
 
Last edited:
Have you seen these Keith...

www.apotelyt.com

Canon 7D II vs Panasonic G80 Comparison Review

Detailed comparison of the Canon 7D II and the Panasonic G80. Click through to find out about their relative size and key specifications.
www.apotelyt.com www.apotelyt.com

www.apotelyt.com

Canon 80D vs Panasonic G80 Comparison Review

Detailed comparison of the Canon 80D and the Panasonic G80. Click through to find out about their relative size and key specifications.
www.apotelyt.com www.apotelyt.com

It's your choice and I'm sure you know my opinion on DSLR's :D but your opinion may be very different.

One benefit of mirrorless you lose with a DSLR is that DSLR focus isn't taken off the sensor unless you're using live view and DSLR live view is on the back screen only and may be clunkier than a more modern mirrorless cameras live view. When not taking focus off the sensor you run the risk of camera and lens misalignments and that gets you into micro adjusting lenses.

Good luck choosing.
 
Crotal Bell said:
The only thing that bugs me about MPB is not giving you the shutter count.
Most 7D MkIIs I've seen on other sites do have hefty shutter counts, I guess a testament to their ability.
Click to expand...
Hi, I am often on mpb having a browse of their cameras and always found that the shutter count never seemed to be shown but I have had a quick look at the 7d mkii just now and they have all got the shutter count shown.
This one looks decent.
 
Yeah it’s fine being steered this way , but going back reading your own estimate of your health,age, general fitness etc I would having used all the systems apsc, full frame ,and MFT advise against taking to much notice .
For wildlife walkabout , you need / want lightness , AF speed ,I.s that works fast . And photos that are in focus at the end .. I don’t just spout on Keith there’s around 9000 photos on my Flickr stream from virtually every combo that’s been talked about on here . Look and judge for yourself ..
Every one of us is a fan boy of the gear we use but only you can make the choice .. but remember buy in haste regret at leisure
 
Last edited:
the black fox said:
. I don’t just spout on Keith there’s around 9000 photos on my Flickr stream from virtually every combo that’s been talked about on here . Look and judge for yourself ..
Click to expand...
You have mentioned your Flickr before, but I still can't find it (search for Black Fox and it seems that half the members have that in their name, but didn't see any with that many photos)

Where do we look :)
 
Sangoma said:
You have mentioned your Flickr before, but I still can't find it (search for Black Fox and it seems that half the members have that in their name, but didn't see any with that many photos)

Where do we look :)
Click to expand...
Will put a link up when I get on puter
 
the black fox said:
Yeah it’s fine being steered this way , but going back reading your own estimate of your health,age, general fitness etc I would having used all the systems apsc, full frame ,and MFT advise against taking to much notice .
For wildlife walkabout , you need / want lightness , AF speed ,I.s that works fast . And photos that are in focus at the end .. I don’t just spout on Keith there’s around 9000 photos on my Flickr stream from virtually every combo that’s been talked about on here . Look and judge for yourself ..
Every one of us is a fan boy of the gear we use but only you can make the choice .. but remember buy in haste regret at leisure
Click to expand...
I'm still giving this careful consideration.
I've heard the zoom ring on the 100-400mm is tight, is it an issue in use?
 
Crotal Bell said:
I'm still giving this careful consideration.
I've heard the zoom ring on the 100-400mm is tight, is it an issue in use?
Click to expand...
The focus on my one 100-300 is tight too, but I think that is because it is newish.

I haven't noticed the 100-400 being tight, so either it is not, or it is not tight enough to notice :)
 
Crotal Bell said:
I'm still giving this careful consideration.
I've heard the zoom ring on the 100-400mm is tight, is it an issue in use?
Click to expand...
no its not in the least .. take into consideration a lot of people post on something they heard from a mate of a mate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top