Birding camera system (DSLR vs m4/3), significance of DxOMark, and best lens brand

[billshearer]

Hello,

This may end up being a moderate epistle for assistance in choosing a camera system, so please bare with me.


I have had some interest in photography for several years now. In 2003, I had purchased a Olympus C-5050 and used it extensively while living overseas, in Micronesia. I had purchased an underwater housing from Ikelite and fell in love underwater photography. After I returned to the States, I returned to college and then professional school, which took most of my time. Now that I have been out of school for several years, I have found myself wanting to start photography again. Unfortunately, my underwater housing leaked last year and ruined my C-5050, so no more camera (I don't miss the camera). My wife lets me barrow her old Canon PowerShot SD630 and, if I am lucky, I use her new PowerShot Sx220 HS. I have handled a Nikon D7000, D3200, 1 J1, Panasonic DMC-GH2, Canon 5d MkII, T3i, and Sony SLT-A55?, NEX-3, and at my work we have a Canon Rebel Xti with the battery extension.


One big frustration I had with the C-5050 was the delay in the live view between shots. I remember having some great opportunities diving with manta rays and taking a shot, then the manta was gone by the time I could take the next one. Not only that, the delay between depressing the button and the lag between the shutter, often times caused the moment to be lost. Well, that was nearly ten years ago, so I assume most anything would be better now. Two reason's I went with the C-5050 instead of a DSLR was the size/weight and the video capabilities. I, unfortunately, never really took the time to try and figure out all the buttons on the camera, which may have affected my shots.


I was on Safari in South Africa last year, and was really kicking myself for not just buying a DSLR or m4/3 for the trip. The wildlife and birding was amazing. A friend had some model of the NEX, and it seemed rather slow between shots and I hated the idea of the live view, however, he seemed to really like it. The SD 630 I had was mostly a disappointment in ergonomics, picture quality, reach, and enjoyment, the Sx220 was an improvement, but not by much, better reach and picture quality. My in-laws had the 5dMkII, and I loved shooting with this camera. However, the lens was not satisfactory for reaching some of the wildlife, especially birds, and I used it briefly, while we were in the car, so I am not sure on the portability, layout, and menus. The ergonomics, the image quality, and overall enjoyment were high. There is something about holding the DSLR and shooting it that made it pleasurable for me, there seems to by an inner boy that thinks he is on a shooting range or something. Anyway, I liked it, especially hearing and seeing the shutter go so quickly, no logic behind this.


As for the Nikons, I handled them briefly and liked the D7000's sturdiness, but didn't like either of the DSLR button layouts, same for the A55?. Since I could spend more time with the Xti, I grew fond of the button layout, and most everything on it, the battery extension and hand strap made it more comfortable for me, and all the buttons seemed easily accessed by my right hand, so my left could zoom in and out/focus. I have large hands so I found this to by my favorite, most recently. I barrowed it and set up a bird feeding station in my back yard a few weeks ago, the only lens I had was a 60mm macro, so it couldn't reach the shy birds, I ended up using the Sx220. On the Sc220, I used a cheap tripod, and I fiddled with the ISO and shutter speeds to see if I could get some shots, but they didn't turn out very well, due to low light in the jungle and slow shooting speed.

So, where to go from here. I have looked over multiple websites for the last few weeks and, from my understanding, for birding, I need greater then 5 fps, over 1000 ISO, moderate-high pixels, and full frame if possible. Most importantly, I need a system that has great glass, with stabilization, and reach. This seems to be the hardest thing to find good comparisons on. I understand for birding I need over 300mm lenses, zoom or prime, w/ as large as financially feasible aperture.


At one point I was planning on going with the Canon DSLR system, due to my experience with the Xti. I was debating getting a new/used/refurbished 7d or used/refurbished 1d#, and putting most of my budget (around $3-3.5k USD) into lenses. Then I was reading reviews and noticed that the button layout on the mid/high end Canon's is like the Nikon and Sony, not like the Xti, so no free left hand. This was one wrench in the gears, then came along building a excel spreadsheet with all the specs that mattered to me on most Nikon, Canon, and qualifying m4/3rds, which was ok, until I found DxOMark, which has currently thrown me for a curve. I see that the 7, 5, and 1d's are lower on sports and low light, and the overall rating, compared to the Nikon midlevels. Well, I would like to say I fully understand their rating system, but I don't. One Amazon forum commentator tried comparing it to cars and said that it is like rating the stroke volume of an engine and not including whole system for overall performance... kind of helped... but still having some issues grasping it all, cause I kind of want there to be a problem with the ratings. Moreover, I read some comments on a forum by R.N. Clark, in regards to some of the things that DxoMark overlooked, and read some of his articles at http://www.clarkvision.com, but it was somewhat over my head. It has been sometime since college physics, and so I feel like I need to re-read some of them to fully comprehend them. Now, I am at a quandary. I was hoping to have an idea before November so I could take advantage of November sales, but I may have to wait. Part of me is sold on Canon, but, specs are specs, and I am sure I can get used to the Nikon system, but I am not as familiar with it as the Canon, due to the time I have spent looking into it. Plus, Canon seems more intuitive then the Nikon, from first glance. Also, I am considering waiting for the 7d, if I go canon, cause the price should go down with the 7dMkII in Early 2013, but I may be going on a birding trip in late November, so I may need to get one before then.


Another issue is, I am concerned about having to much gear and to much weight. I have no way to handle any of these products until December, due to me living overseas, and I remember not taking my c-5050 on hikes cause I thought it was to much weight, partially due to the poor results/effort ratio. I have looked into the lighter micro 4/3 (m4/3) systems and am impressed with Olympus OM-D E-M5 and the Panasonic DMC-GH2. I have handled the 1 J1, NEX-3, and GF3. The GF3 is way to small, and I could deal with the NEX-3 and the 1 J1, if needed. I am impressed with the GH2's handling and most everything about it. My friend that uses it gets really great photographs underwater and with most everything else. However, he admits there are some AF-tracking issues, which is an issue on the E-M5 also, from what I understand (For overall looks, which don't matter, I like the E-M5 with the silver). Now since I will be needing this for bird photography, the m4/3 AF-tracking issue may be a critical hit, also I am afraid that the shooting lag, might cause me to loose my bird/subject (fear from my experience with the c-5050) and I don't like live view either. It is just really hard to make a decision without actually using the items for some period of time, but my location makes it impossible. Even when I am in the states in December, I will only get to handle them at the store, most likely, without and birds or proper lenses. I almost feel like getting a few options and flipping a coin, but I really don't want to do this.


So in summary, I would like to focus on birding, but would like it if I could have some versatility for wildlife, butterflies, nature, scenery, micro... and most everything else in photography, with adequate video. In addition, I need weather sealing due to the tropical climate I live in. However, I know I can't have it all, especially with my budget. If there was no birding, I would seriously consider a m4/3s, for the size, weight, and versatility, especially the GH2 or the new GH3. If I go with the DSLR, I would really like a full frame, for better light gathering and less noise, and feel willing to get a used/refurbished camera (I found some extended warranties on B&H from Mack) and sacrifice video if needed. The older 1d#'s were looking nice on the specs. I think the 5d mk II will be to slow, leaving the 7d or 5dmkIII as the main new Canon contender. I am still not fully familiar with the Nikon, but, as I recall, the D7000 was the main contender for my budget, although the D800 seems nice on the DxoMark. I briefly considered the Sony DSLR and m4/3 due to the Konica/Minolta glass history and the Zeiss, but am hesitant, due to it not being the top camera leaders, as Nikon and Canon are. I don't want to invest into a system and have to change over. I anticipate being able to invest about $1k per year into the system, unless I get good at it and people want to buy my work, then I could invest more.

I would appreciate any insight into the following: regarding some published side by side brand comparisons between similar DSLR telephoto (zoom and prime) lenses (so I don't have to go and enter all the various ratings on my own, in hopes this will help me decide between brands from the available glass), whether I should buy into DxOMark ratings, disregard, or just consider them, can and will the m4/3 get to the point of being able to bird well and have adequate AF and response, is anyone successful with birding and m4/3rds (if so, what system), are the Mack used warranties safe, should I consider other brands besides Nikon and Canon DSLRs (even though they seem to be the most recommended due to availability of telephoto glass and are market leaders)?


Well, thanks for your time. If I am asking something that has been repeated extensively before, my apologies. If you would be kind enough to share a link, I will be glad to read it, but appreciate any comments, guidance, experience, and suggestions.


Cheers,
billshearer

 

[David Stephens]

For bird photography you'll need a prosumer level dslr with a top quality lens. Flip a coin and pick either Canon or Nikon for their complete systems and wide range of lens options. Sony has great sensors, but their lens selection is limited in the super-tele range.

Forget about DxO if you're going to shoot birds and not charts and make graphs. Also, don't worry about control layout so much. Once you've purchased your Canon or Nikon, you'll learn the control layout with a little practice. I can control my 7D or my 5D MkIII with my right hand without taking my eye away from the viewfinder. That's something you'll need to learn and I doubt that you already have that skill with the non-dslr cameras that you've mentioned.

BTW, I think that EVIL cameras will make it into birding in another generation or two. They'll need an electronic viewfinder and take advantage of the speed possible when there' no mirror to control. Right now, they're not there yet, but it's coming.

Look at the pix hear on BPN and take note of the equipment. Among the millions of crappy pix on Flickr, there are many wonderful images. Use the search function to find "Interesting" pix of species that you're interested in and then note what equipment was used. You can also search by camera body and lens and then narrow the search to species that you'll be shooting.

Focus on the AF system (no pun intended). You want speed and accuracy and good following ability. The best sensor in the world is useless for BIF if only 2 in 10 sharp are critically sharp.

Consider used equipment if $3000 is getting near the top of your range. As you look at top lenses at 300mm and above, you'll note that new equipment will eat up your budget quickly.

 

[Don Railton]

Bill

With your budget and if birds are the main focus I would look closely at 7d & 400 F5.6 prime or the 100 to 400...

DON

 

[Roger Clark]

Hi Bill,

I agree with Dave and Don (although I would choose a 300 f/4 L IS and 1.4x TC as I think the IS is important and the 400 f/5.6 does not have IS).

Regarding DXO, your quote "it is like rating the stroke volume of an engine and not including whole system for overall performance" is really right on. Photographers have gotten hung up on sensors, when it is the sensor+lens that delivers the performance, so rating a sensor as best to do one thing is not looking at the whole picture. I would bet some cameras low in the DXO ratings would beat the pants off of other cameras, given certain camera+lens combinations. One major factor I tried to show is that the pixel capacity to gather light is only capacity. Large pixels will hold more light, just like a larger bucket holds more water. But the lens delivers the light, like a faucet delivers the water. The lens is the critical factor, not the bucket (pixel). One can have a large bucket and a tiny faucet that takes forever to fill the bucket.

Regarding micro 4/3 or other cameras, all one needs to ask, is does it have phase detect AF. If so, then look at it further. If not and you want to photograph action, cross it off your list. DSLRs have phase detect AF. Some of the new no mirror cameras have some form of on sensor phase detect/contrast detect AF. I'm skeptical that such systems will ever compete with the phase detect AF in DSLRs due to some basic optics and physics: an on sensor package can not be out of focus enough to have accurate phase detection. One review on Goldbraith's site seemed to confirm that.

The key for action is fast AF camera, fast focusing lens (a fast camera is of little use if the lens can't be moved to focus fast). Key to reach is a combination of focal length and pixel size. With larger pixels, one needs more focal length to get the same pixels on subject as a camera with smaller pixels. So for reach, and moderate focal lengths, I would choose a camera with pixels smaller than about 5 microns and definitely under 6 microns. That limits your choices.

In my opinion, key to carrying your equipment is a good backpack. And I look at it as exercise. I'll throw in another lens just for the added weight, even if I know I probably will not use the lens.

Roger

 

[billshearer]

In regards to the TC, I have read that some higher end cameras work with f/8 on a TC. So are there some DSLRs that TCs cause the AF to stop working? I am working on getting a 7d, at what aperture setting does its AF stop working? The reasoning is, if I do get your recommendation of a 300 f/4 and add TC of 2x, then won't that make the aperture f/8? If this causes the AF to stop working, I would think this would cause a problem. I do see that you recommend the TC of 1.4x, giving a f/5.6, is this the reason?

 

[Roger Clark]

In regards to the TC, I have read that some higher end cameras work with f/8 on a TC. So are there some DSLRs that TCs cause the AF to stop working? I am working on getting a 7d, at what aperture setting does its AF stop working? The reasoning is, if I do get your recommendation of a 300 f/4 and add TC of 2x, then won't that make the aperture f/8? If this causes the AF to stop working, I would think this would cause a problem. I do see that you recommend the TC of 1.4x, giving a f/5.6, is this the reason?

Hi Bill,

Before I get into the details, there are two factors in getting pixels on subject at a give distance: 1) focal length and 2) pixel size. One can trade one for the other with no detriment. So in comparing cameras one needs to consider pixel size as well as focal length for pixels on subject. The 7D, being an advanced consumer camera, will not focus at f/8. Neither will the 5D Mark III. You would need to step up to the 1DX or 1DIV for f/8 focusing. But given a 300 mm lens and TCs, which gives more pixels on subject? Let's say a bird is 500 pixels tall in the frame of the 7D with a 300 mm lens and 1.4x TC. Here is what various cameras+TC combinations give:

7D + 300mm +1.4x = 500 pixels
1DX +300mm +1.4x= 312
1DX +300mm + 2x = 436
5D3 +300mm +1.4x= 344
1D4 +300mm + 1.4x= 377
1D4 +300mm + 2x = 528

The above computed from the pixel spacing: 7D=4.3 microns, 1DX=6.9 microns, 5D3=6.25 microns, 1D4=5.7 microns.

In the same exposure time, the 7D + 300mm +1.4x will give very close to the same image quality as the 1D4 +300mm + 2x, and because of imperfect lenses, the 7D with 1.4x might actually edge out the 1D4 with the 2x.

So, while f/8 focusing would be nice to have, the only alternative (the 1DIV) will give similar image quality regarding reach. This means that for the same exposure, you will see the same signal-to-noise ratio and the same effects from diffraction. There are other factors for choosing a 1DIV, including the 1D4 AF is about twice as fast as the 7D and more accurate, but those are different metrics.

Finally, you can still focus at f/8 with the 7D using live view contrast focus or live view manual focus. You will not be able to focus track action though.

Roger

 

[billshearer]

Hi Roger,

Thanks for your reply. I do have another question if you have a moment. Are zoom lenses a bad consideration? Canon has the 100-400, and several that zoom to 300, and sigma has the 150-500. I have some concerns about a prime lens at such a great magnification because the only zoom is your legs, and movement might cause the bird to fly away. I could see the primes use in a hideout or stationary shoot, however, I was anticipating using it while hiking, which can have random subjects at different distances, hence the zoom might prove useful. From what I understand, the zooms often have vignetting at the greatest magnification, yet they seem like they would still be useful, initially. Any suggestions would be useful. I don't think I can get both a zoom and prime at this point, and since there isn't an opportunity to try them out, I have to go off of suggestions.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Roger Clark]

Hi Roger,

Thanks for your reply. I do have another question if you have a moment. Are zoom lenses a bad consideration? Canon has the 100-400, and several that zoom to 300, and sigma has the 150-500. I have some concerns about a prime lens at such a great magnification because the only zoom is your legs, and movement might cause the bird to fly away. I could see the primes use in a hideout or stationary shoot, however, I was anticipating using it while hiking, which can have random subjects at different distances, hence the zoom might prove useful. From what I understand, the zooms often have vignetting at the greatest magnification, yet they seem like they would still be useful, initially. Any suggestions would be useful. I don't think I can get both a zoom and prime at this point, and since there isn't an opportunity to try them out, I have to go off of suggestions.

Thanks
Bill

Hi Bill,
In my opinion, near and above 300 mm focal length, fixed focal length lenses are significantly better than zooms: better image quality, and faster autofocus. I also have a 100-400 L IS, and will sell it at a reasonable price if made an offer, but I will also try and talk you out of it: I get better performance out of the 300 f/4 than the 100-400 at 400, and even better detail on subject with the 300 f/4 + 1.4x TC, with faster AF, less weight and less bulk. The Nikon 200-400 and new canon 200-400 may be exceptions, but are very expensive.

The difference in image quality is also shown by Canon's MTF charts. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup
For fine detail, only look at the thin black (gray) lines, both solid and dashed: that is the fine detail wide open. The dashed and solid are for detail parallel and perpendicular to the lens axis. If the lines are far apart, that is bad, as is lower on the graph. The horizontal axis is distance from the center of the sensor in mm.

Compare:
100-400: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consu...ef_lens_lineup/ef_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6l_is_usm
300 f/4: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_4l_is_usm
and for the top performing telephoto:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_500mm_f_4l_is_ii_usm
(no other canon lens has that high of MTF curves wide open).

Roger

 

[David Stephens]

I agree with Roger, but many love their 100-400mm zooms. I can see the difference between the Sigma zoom 500s and my EF 500mm f/4L IS, BUT the 500mm is a lot for many to lug around. I do it, but I've got a line-backer build and hand hold it when I shoot. A fast zoom with a lot of reach will be large and heavy. So, most of the super tele zooms have major compromises in speed.

For hiking, Roger's recommendation of a 300mm f/4L with a 1.4x TC is going to be really hard to beat. If you could manage the 300/2.8 financially, then that gives great flexibility and a reasonable compromise in bulk and weight.

 

[billshearer]

I see there are multiple Canon 1.4 TCs, should I just get the newest I can afford?

 

[Roger Clark]

I see there are multiple Canon 1.4 TCs, should I just get the newest I can afford?

Hi Bill,
For the 1.4x TCs (version II and III) people are reporting little difference in image quality.

Roger

 

[billshearer]

Hi Roger,

In regards to the AF speed, I really enjoy the results from BIF photos, some threads have recommended the 400 f5.6 for BIF, over the 300 f4 w 1.4 TC for that specific purpose. I noted on one thread that someone said there were some settings that could be made on the camera to speed up the AF, would this help to compensate for the 300 f4 w 1.4 TC slower AF? In addition, some threads say that for BIF, you don't nee IS and that it will slow down the shot. Do you have any comments on that?

With the calculations for total pixel, lens combo, and body, you previously mentioned, would you mind elaborating how you came up with "7D + 300mm +1.4x = 500 pixels." This might be helpful when deciding on other lenses in the future, since I have purchased the 7d.

Lastly, do you think that the 70-200 f2.8 IS II could compete with the 300 f4 1.4xTC or 400 f5.6, as far as speed and image quality?

I appreciate the advice,
Bill

 

[Roger Clark]

Hi Roger,

In regards to the AF speed, I really enjoy the results from BIF photos, some threads have recommended the 400 f5.6 for BIF, over the 300 f4 w 1.4 TC for that specific purpose.

Hi Bill,
Yes, I too have read that the 400 f/5.6 has very fast AF. Artie has mentioned it in the past. I have not used one so can't comment. In my experience, IS helps stabilize the image in the viewfinder and for the AF system, so I prefer IS lenses and I always keep IS on for BIF and other action.

I noted on one thread that someone said there were some settings that could be made on the camera to speed up the AF, would this help to compensate for the 300 f4 w 1.4 TC slower AF?

AF speed is mainly a function of the lens and the body. But in theory using only one AF point would be faster than multiple points (including expansion), but in practice, it would depend on the body on how much the extra computations slow things down.

In addition, some threads say that for BIF, you don't nee IS and that it will slow down the shot. Do you have any comments on that?

See above. More likely, IS will speed AF as the image is stabilized and the AF system sees a stabilized image so may not have to shift back and forth as much as the AF point wanders around on the subject. Thus, AF will be more accurate too.

With the calculations for total pixel, lens combo, and body, you previously mentioned, would you mind elaborating how you came up with "7D + 300mm +1.4x = 500 pixels." This might be helpful when deciding on other lenses in the future, since I have purchased the 7d.

Some general computations: compute the plate scale:
angular resolution = 206265 * pixel pitch in mm / focal length in mm (result in arc-seconds per pixel)
The 206265 is the number of arc-seconds in one radian.

Example: D800 with 4.9 micron pixels (0.0049 mm) with a 600 mm lens: angular resolution = 206265 * 0.0049 / 600 = 1.7 arc-seconds per pixel.

Then for a given size of a subject, say 1/2 degree, compute the size of the subject in the image (1/2 degree = 1800 arc-seconds):
size = 1800/1.7 = 1059 pixels.

You can then do that for many lens+ body combinations and see which gives the most pixels on subject. Note this does not tell us anything about actual image quality.

Lastly, do you think that the 70-200 f2.8 IS II could compete with the 300 f4 1.4xTC or 400 f5.6, as far as speed and image quality?

I do not have a 70-200 f/2.8 II so I can't compare. Looking at Canon's MTF charts, it looks like the 70-200 at 200 +1.4x (280 mm) would be slightly lower MTF than the 300 f/4. Same with the 70-200+2x (=400mm) versus the 300+1.4x (420 mm).

Roger