Should I change to Micro Four Thirds?
My current setup is a couple of Canon dSLRs, my main one being the 7D mark2 and my main lens is the 100-400L mark 1. I mostly take bird and wildlife photos so longer reach is what I’m after.I could add a 1.4x extender onto the current setup but to be honest if I was doing that I’d probably want to change to the mark2 version of the 100-400L.
The other option would be something like the Panasonic G9 with the Panasonic 100-400 which would be the equivalent of 800 at the long end. This setup would also give me better image stabilisation but I’m not sure how the image quality would compare to my Canon setup?
What do you think? Have any of you made the move to mft? Why not invest in a new lens with optical stabilisation? Something like the Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 DG OS HSM (Canon Fit) S Lens would seem to fit the bill. Given the weight and size of any long zoom lens the advantages of the micro four-thirds system may not be worth the cost of changing systems. Although with the G9 you would gain additional in-body stabilisation. I have friends who love Olympus M43 for this.Pictures are great in good lighting and for moderate size prints. Difficult to say as the lines are blurring between formats. For example there’s not a huge difference in IQ between full frame and m4/3, and even smaller difference between aps-c and m4/3.
I’m not sure how good the AF system is in the G9 for birds, but if it was me I would look at getting a 150-600mm for the Canon, giving you effectively 960mm reach. I’m a big fan of m43, and I do have 600mm equivalent. However I don’t think focus tracking is as good as my Nikon was.When stabilised and at single spot it is very good though. Lots of people shoot bird and wildlife shots with Olympus M4/3rd cameras that I'm aware of though I don't with mine so won't make much comment vs. your current kit.
If you're prepared to put a lot of money in then the Olympus E-M1 Mkii and the PRO 40-150mm (80-300eq) with or without the teleconvertor or PRO 300mm (600m eq) are well regarded.
The Pro capture function on the E-M1 Mkii which allows you to save a stream of images after AND before you fully press the shutter seems very popular with birding photographers.
There are rumours about a new longer range Olympus PRO zoom but nothing concrete.
You can try the kit for nothing on an extended test drive if there is a dealer near enough to work
Olympus TEST & WOW
You'll find some examples at the e-group forum though their gallery function is very limited so some of the pictures posted look bad because of file size limits.
Communal Bird Photography Thread - Page 114 - Olympus UK E-System User Group
You can also check the MU-43 Nature forum for both manufacturers.
Nature
Finally some people have reported real problems with out of warranty repairs on the high end Panasonic zooms.You might want to google the various forum threads on those before you stump up a lot of money esp. on a used example. IMHO it's usually best to stick with the gear you have - at least until TECH forces a change.
4/3 is not known to be "better" - just different & with the many variations and lens options that is possible.
( Something Sony forget when introducing the NEX range . . . . but many Mfrs fail to provide a range of lenses - it's very expensive! ).
I'm guessing it depends on the size/distance of the birds - and are they moving/still? The 4/5 has a factor of x2 but only because the sensor is smaller - you can enlarge what yr Canon gives you ( for free!) and achieve similar results.
As others have suggested alternative lenses - have you considered Sigma and Tamron?They are well-known for lenses and should be able to match your mount for electrical-connection.
Whilst I've no knowledge of... I have seen relatively cheap mirror lenses on offer ( Amazon), which would give you something that is lighter, ( easier? to balance),although the usual bugbear is aperture-changing.
Alternatively, quite Left of Field - Have you considered a drone - fly closer. Hope that helps.....
Pages:
[1]