Technical Question 4/3 long Zoom system for birding and more for Fuji GFX and Sony A7RIII Photographers

I have been taken with the Fuji GFX MF camera and my son with the Sony A7RIII. He would like to take pictures of ships in the San Francisco Bay and I would love to capture birds up in distant trees. But both these cameras lack zoom lenses suitable for long telephoto photography!



One can addapt Canon mount lenses to both the Fuji GFX and the Sony E mount but this means lugging around very heavy and expensive lenses, well at least to reach to 600mm!

I gave my son a 70-200 f4.0 L lens with a Metabones III adapter, but this was no enough reach.

So what of getting a 4/3 sensor camera with a 100-300 lens, (or the new Leica bespoke expensive zoom.

A 4/3 mount Panasonic or Olympus would allow for the following relatively lightweight optics. Any opinions?





Thanks,

Asher

Then which 4/3 body would do the job and why would you recommend that?

Thanks,

Asher

What about simply using your A7RIII in aps-c mode?

Tell me about that, Jerome?

Does that put in a lens to make use the entire sensor and have it behave like an APS-C sensor or does it only use the central 1/1.6 portion of the lens?

....and which lens would you suggest?

Asher

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

Tell me about that, Jerome?

Does that put in a lens to make use the entire sensor and have it behave like an APS-C sensor or does it only use the central 1/1.6 portion of the lens?

Click to expand...

I believe that in that mode the camera uses only the portion of the sensor that is about the size the size of a larger APS-C sensor ("1.5x", I think) and develops the image from that.

So the field of view of a 200 mm lens becomes the same as that of a 300 mm lens when using the full sensor.

And the number of pixels in the image is about 44% of what it would be with the full sensor in use (about 19 Mpx, I think).

And that means that only the central portion of the lens' image circle is used. Of course the entire lens is used (well, the entire lens at the aperture that is used).

Whether this is any better than cropping the image in post I have no idea.

I think.

Best regards,

Doug

Hi, Asher,

As to Micro Four Thirds bodies, I have no experience at all.

But when I was contemplating going to an MFT system, I was very attracted to the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 (now superseded by the GH5), largely because the controls were set up very much like those of my Panasonic FZ1000 (a fixed lens, "one inch" sensor camera).

But the GH4/GH5 is quite a large body for an MFT camera (the FZ1000 is the same size and "really large" for a "one inch" sensor camera).

I do note that there have apparently been some autofocus misbehavior issues with the GH5.

But my MFT body "window shopping" has been brought to a halt by the discovery that I don't want to carry even something as large as an MFT rig, so I have moved to a pocketable "one inch" sensor camera (a Panasonic ZS100). It has the same sensor and processing chain as my FZ1000 (I don't want to carry it anymore, either). I am just today off to what will be its first job (Carla's 80th birthday party, in North Texas, really somewhat a family reunion).

Best regards,

Doug

Jerome,

I checked out your suggestion of using the APS-C mode of the A7R III and unfortunately it’s just digitally cropping the full frame image.

So if one would crop a full frame image to do wildlife, for example with a 400 mm lens, it would give that identical central field crop in a smaller file, so one can save space, throwing away at the outset the part of the frame that would anyway be discarded in a cropped field in Lightroom or PS.

It actually gives no further reach nor change in perspective as it uses the same area of the sensor and the image is shot from the same distance!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Jerome,

I checked out your suggestion of using the APS-C mode of the A7R III and unfortunately it’s just digitally cropping the full frame image.

Click to expand...

Yes, indeed, that is just what it is.

Asher Kelman said:

So if one would crop a full frame image to do wildlife, for example with a 400 mm lens, it would give that identical central field crop in a smaller file, so one can save space, throwing away at the outset the part of the frame that would anyway be discarded in a cropped field in Lightroom or PS.

It actually gives no further reach nor change in perspective as it uses the same area of the sensor and the image is shot from the same distance!

Asher

Click to expand...

Well... You already have an A7R and thought about a µ4/3 camera for its smaller sensor. The smaller sensor on the µ4/3 is about the same size as the APS-C crop on the A7RIII. Now: how many pixels do you have on the A7RIII in APS-C mode and how many pixels do you have on the µ4/3 camera you were contemplating to buy?

First we do not as yet have a lens more than a 70-200. It’s a Canon but with a metabones adapter it works.

The APS C will reduce the pixels in X and Y arises so that is diving by 1.5 or 1.6 twice. I am not sure which it is, but that gives 17-19 MP.

...and test you are correct that’s Close to a 4/3 sensor these days. However, a 300 mm f4.0 for an Olympus is just $2,500 giving a 600mm equivalent in 35mm terms.

If one would use the zoom lenses that reach 300 mm, then on has that 600 mm equivalent for about $500.

If one gets the Panasonic/Leica zoom, one reaches the equivalent of 800 mm for merely about $1597.99.

A 600 mm lens for a Sony A7RIII could be a manual 600 2.8 FD for about $600-1200 or else a Tamron or such for something like $900 or a Canon Eos 600L for some $11,400!

So that $2,500 Olympus 300 mm f4.0 lens seems like a relative bargain!

Asher

I would like especially like to hear about is folk who used an A7R series and wanted that long reach or an Olympus or Panasonic user who knows what their system can do!

Also any ideas on this are welcome. Getting the wildlife in focus also requirescenough light! I’d be concerned about some of the options have very limited apertures and with birds and wildlife, they are often in shade!

That is why I would appreciate any experience with taking pictures at f 6.5 an F8 and not using such high ISO that tgecshot is ruined by noise!


Asher

I think the Zuiko lenses offer great value for your money. My wife shoots Olympus camera and uses Zuiko lenses, they draw beautiful in my opinion. I don't have experience with the other lenses mentioned?

The Sony AR 7 111 is a camera that I am interested in and have been seriously considering purchasing this system. The high dynamic range,focus capabilities, appeal to me as well as the full frame sensor but do I need 42 megapixels?

I am told that the ultimate camera for hard-core birding is the Nikon COOLPIX P1000 Digital Camera. Zoom range (full frame equivalent) is 24mm to 3000mm and digital zoom extends this to 6000mm. Image quality is supposed to be more than good enough to capture plumage colours and patterns for positive identifications.

So I have only photographed with the Four Thirds Olympus 70-300 lens. In fact in my Lightroom library that contains all of my travel and street photography - there are well over 20,000 images taken between the 2 copies that I had. I quite liked it and miss not having that focal length any longer.

I was going to purchase the micro 4/3 75-300 when I got rid of all my four thirds gear - but it was around $900 and I didn’t want to spend that. Apparently the second version not only looks better, but the price dropped significantly. Still at $700 CDN ($550 on sale) plus 13% tax, I haven’t been able to justify buying one.

I did check reviews on the Olympus lens and the main thing mentioned is that at the 300mm setting, sharpness is not excellent. That doesn’t mean it is bad though. However checking the Panasonic 100-300, it exhibits the same weakness at that focal length. It looks like both lenses are somewhat similar in pros and cons.

I personally appreciate the extra mm on the short end. 150mm equiv gives more breathing room that starting at 200mm equivalent. Sometimes 150mm is even a nice long portrait focal length.

As for cameras, I use the bottom end Olympus E-M10 for all of my daily shooting - and it would easily handle this lens. One consideration against using the Olympus on anything other than an Olympus camera, is that it does not have image stabilization built in as the Panasonic does. Of course it doesn’t need stabilization on the Olympus body, because stabilization is on the sensor.

I’m sure the Olympus pro 300 f4 is an amazing lens. But it is expensive - although not when compared with 600mm f4 lenses from other brands - and being it is fixed at 300mm, That does restrict its use and versatility. There often are times when 150 to 200mm equiv are more practical and so would require changing lenses without the zoom.

Something to consider with any micro 4/3 body whether from Olympus or Panasonic - these cameras are not so useful for action or if you will be trying to track birds in flight. If the birds are stationary and you just st need reach, they provide blazing auto focus speed and accuracy.

———

Thanks guys!

Does anyone know whether the Panasonic bodies can readily track birds in flight?

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Thanks guys!

Does anyone know whether the Panasonic bodies can readily track birds in flight?

Asher

Click to expand...

None of the micro 4/3 are as effective at tracking birds as dslr’s. The pro level Olympus E-M1 II has made improvements in tracking. Here is a piece you can check out related to the Panasonic gear http://naturalexposures.com/birds-in-flight-settings-for-lumix-cameras/

——-

Robert Watcher said:

None of the micro 4/3 are as effective at tracking birds as dslr’s. The pro level Olympus E-M1 II has made improvements in tracking. Here is a piece you can check out related to the Panasonic gear http://naturalexposures.com/birds-in-flight-settings-for-lumix-cameras/

——-

Click to expand...

That’s a fabulous reference and essential crowns the Pano/Leica zoom lens as a king of Bird In Flight lenses!

The pictures are breathtaking! His technique must be flawless!

Thanks so much!

Asher

It occurs to me that the Sony A6300 which is APS-C and 24MP might be a candidate for BIF with this
Sony SEL 70 mm - 300 mm F/4.5-5.6 FE G OSS lens,available on eBay for under $700!

My son has an A6300 that he doesn’t use! This would give a reach up to 420mm and with 24MP could be an excellent starting choice!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

First we do not as yet have a lens more than a 70-200. It’s a Canon but with a metabones adapter it works.

The APS C will reduce the pixels in X and Y arises so that is diving by 1.5 or 1.6 twice. I am not sure which it is, but that gives 17-19 MP.

...and test you are correct that’s Close to a 4/3 sensor these days. However, a 300 mm f4.0 for an Olympus is just $2,500 giving a 600mm equivalent in 35mm terms.

Click to expand...

As you noticed in a later message, Sony has a 75-300 zoom for under 700$. You can use it on your A7RIII in APS-C mode and get about 16 mpix or you can use it A6300 and get 24 mpix. See which camera has the best AF.

Alternatively, you can use one of the Sony adapter to the previous Sony/Minolta mount and get used lenses for cheap. There was even a 500mm f/8 mirror lens, the only one of its kind with AF.

Thanks Jerome!

That unused 24MP A6300 seems like a great bet now. I will research those Minolta lenses too. Great ideas and encouragement.

Thanks!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Thanks Jerome!

That unused 24MP A6300 seems like a great bet now. I will research those Minolta lenses too. Great ideas and encouragement.

Thanks!

Asher

Click to expand...

You should also consider that the A6300 does not have sensor based stabilization, which the A7RIII has. No Minolta lens has optical stabilization.

Jerome Marot said:

You should also consider that the A6300 does not have sensor based stabilization, which the A7RIII has. No Minolta lens has optical stabilization.

Click to expand...

You make an important point Jerome. I wonder how good those mirror lenses might be?

For the slow vessels and sailboats in San Francisco Bay, the A6300 suffices.

For wildlife and longer reach, I would then pick them the A6500 as that also has 5-axis image stabilization.l that you rightly point out is the downside of the A6300.

Stabilisation is essential with long lenses, even with sailboats and the A6300 lacks it. But you already have a camera with stabilisation which is also a quite competent camera in APS-C mode, why not at least try it?

My point has always been that you use the camera you already have. Sure, you can buy something else, the industry will love your spending (and may actually need it as camera sales are down). But you already have a quite competent camera for the intended purpose, why not just use what you have?

Jerome Marot said:

Stabilisation is essential with long lenses, even with sailboats and the A6300 lacks it. But you already have a camera with stabilisation which is also a quite competent camera in APS-C mode, why not at least try it?

My point has always been that you use the camera you already have. Sure, you can buy something else, the industry will love your spending (and may actually need it as camera sales are down). But you already have a quite competent camera for the intended purpose, why not just use what you have?

Click to expand...

Well, Jerome, there are two photographers needing that longer reach!

1. For my son, as you point out, any long lens suggested added to his A7RIII would work and his A6300 is sitting in a drawer, unused! He even can take his time for manual focus as boats go by very slowly looking out over the San Francisco Bay. So a $650 used 600mm Canon FD prime would work. Still, I would love to see him trade up to the A6500 and have even more reach!

2. For my needs, however, the Fuji GFX MF camera is wonderful for street, landscape and portraits but falls short for action and wildlife. Worse it has an ~ 0.8 reduction factor for equaivalent focal length based on 35mm “full frame” cameras. So that 200 mm only reaches to ~184 cm!

I do have an original Canon 7D and great 70-200L IS lenses but that is it. That’s why a second, much lighter camera for longer reach is desirable.

I think, for myself, I need to visit a camera store and have the Olympus and Panosonic cameras with a suitable lens in my hands to see how they behave.

Humming Bird Photographer

?

What lens?

Asher Kelman said:

?

What lens?

Click to expand...

I have no idea but he makes good use of the tripod.

Best, regards
James

James Lemon said:

I have no idea but he makes good use of the tripod.

Best, regards
James

Click to expand...

James,

I have such respect for genuine birders. They know that the best images are taken with the optics that let in the most light, (and that means until recently, at least), generally full frame heavy DSLR's and even heavy large aperture monster lenses.

Often a tripod is needed, a backpack for all the stuff to be schlepped and perhaps a Better Beamer system on one's flash to project light to the bird in shade. The more conscientious might have a gimbal to track B.I.F. and some may use a portable blind.

I am just a "pretend" birder! So I rely on at least 4 stops of image stabilization and need the lightest system for my comfort and survival long enough to get pictures and come home alive!

So that's why I look to the amazingly lightweight systems the micro 4/3 design offers today.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

I do have an original Canon 7D and great 70-200L IS lenses but that is it. That’s why a second, much lighter camera for longer reach is desirable.

Click to expand...

What about getting a longer lens for that 7D, then? Canon has a 400mm F/4.0 DO IS which is comparatively compact and can be had second hand for not too much money.

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

So that's why I look to the amazingly lightweight systems the micro 4/3 design offers today.

Click to expand...

Although I have no personal experience with it, I applaud your considering the Micro Four Thirds system.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug Kerr said:

Hi, Asher,
Although I have no personal experience with it, I applaud your considering the Micro Four Thirds system.
Best regards, Doug

Click to expand...

I told you, I told you...
Asher, what I know about m43 and lens is as follows
I now have an Olympus 5 Mark II which is selling at good prices in the US as a new model will probably be released in a near future. It is not 21Mp but "only" 16 which is - for me - perfectly enough for A3+ prints (as far as I go).

The camera came with an Oly 12-40 f/2.8 which is good. Later, I bought a couple more: Panasonic Leica 17mm + Olympus 7-14 f/2.8 PRO + Olympus 70-150 f/2.8 PRO + Panasonic Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 (great lens) + Metabones m43-Nikon adaptor (bout in US when I visited my son and after having been with you) and I have read about them.

Them are both Panasonic cameras versus Olympus and came to the conclusion that they are cousins, both share the same lenses and divide the market at their advantages. Olympus has a nice and beautiful design. Captivating. People love PEN F for example, indeed a very nice and attractive camera.

My 5 Mark II has a nice feature: you can save your presets to the computer. Great !
Olympus has very complex but simple - ? LOL - menus. Panasonic is simpler but with similar attributes. Remember I still have the Panasonic GX7 but Luisa is stealing it from me quite often.
Lenses: Later I will drop some lines about them, OK ?
There is an issue with stabilisation. Oly uses in camera and lenses and Panny in camera only but I do not much about this.

Anyway, for birds you will be working with tripod.
I just remembered: Sigma has great lenses. I read they design Panasonic and Oly's lenses. Don't know if it is true. But it look like a plausible hypothesis.

Useful link

You can view more images like this here
Gary's image:



with Panasonic-Leica-100-400mm-f-4-6-3-dg-Vario-Elmar and I suppose, Oly MkI II (last model 21Mb) Click on link to see the original post, please




Some more beautiful shots from Phil Gartner ! AMAZING !