Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

FM Forum Rules
Nature & Wildlife Posting Guidelines

FM Forums | Nature & Wildlife | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

Archive 2017 · Mirrorless for wildlife

beretta
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Mirrorless for wildlife

Is any one using a mirrorless system for wildlife and landscape.
I have been looking at the Fuji XT-2. It is getting good reviews and being compared as being close to Nikon D500.
Is there any other cameras worth considering Sony or Olympus maybe.
Really looking to reduce size and weight for travel and hiking.

Jun 13, 2017 at 02:52 AM

Danny Young
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Mirrorless for wildlife

Mirrorless with Oly and Sony along with manual focus Canon FD tele lenses

https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/

But I don't use their lenses. What lenses would you need? All formats offer different benefits, m4/3 is getting some interesting native tele lenses and the crop factor can help depending on what you take.

Danny.

Jun 13, 2017 at 03:42 AM

beretta
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Mirrorless for wildlife

I am currently using a Canon 5dMK4 16-35 f4 Sigma art 24-105 f4 100-400 Mk2.
I would be looking at replacing this lense range with native lenses.

Jun 13, 2017 at 03:53 AM

Danny Young
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Mirrorless for wildlife

beretta wrote:
I am currently using a Canon 5dMK4 16-35 f4 Sigma art 24-105 f4 100-400 Mk2.
I would be looking at replacing this lense range with native lenses.

Not sure on Fuji, but they do have a 100-400. M4/3 has a 100-300 version 2 which seems fairly good. Oly has the 300 F/4 and a 1.4x TC to suit, superb lens, but expensive. Panasonic has a 100-400 and we are seeing excellent shots from it with BIF's, same with the Oly.

The only issue could be that with the lenses, you might not be saving a lot of weight or size if you go with the tele lenses. The body size would be smaller for sure. If you want fast AF then even with m4/3 its not exactly low in cost, same with Fuji I would expect.

Sony is releasing a 100-400 and if that was added to a Sony A6500 it would be very interesting. Mirrorless is certainly capable for what you want, it's just a matter of doing a lot of homework on what you need.

All the best and it's never easy

Danny.

Jun 13, 2017 at 04:09 AM

rxgolf
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Mirrorless for wildlife

beretta wrote:
Is any one using a mirrorless system for wildlife and landscape.
I have been looking at the Fuji XT-2. It is getting good reviews and being compared as being close to Nikon D500.
Is there any other cameras worth considering Sony or Olympus maybe.
Really looking to reduce size and weight for travel and hiking.

I shot the Olympus E-M1 Mk2 with the Panasonic 100-400 giving me the reach of 800mm. To me that compares well with the D500 and the Nikon 200-500 with reach to 750mm.
I will post a few shots which will not be representative of the worst or best each can do. I need to be getting ready for work

so no time to look for better examples. What I found:
1. Both rigs are capable of heavy crops and great detail and great colors.
2. The size of both are very manageable with the Oly having the edge.
3. The Nikon lens produces better bokeh.
4. The Nikon tracks better
5. I flat out did not take the time to learn the Oly operations to the extent of things becoming second nature so I missed and messed up shots I would have gotten with the Nikon.
6. The Nikon sensor is better at high ISO

Lastly, look at what Tony(Imagemaster) is posting with the Oly/Pany combo and you can throw all my points out the window. He is much better with that rig than I am with the Nikon so YMMV.
Best to all!
Greg

Jun 13, 2017 at 05:06 AM

morris
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Mirrorless for wildlife

I've been watching this closely and these are my thoughts:

- APS-C (Crop Body) SLRs have well perfected focus systems with the D500 leading the pack. The down side is the combination of lens and body are heavy

- Olympus OM1 Mark II is a photographer's camera when it comes to controls and is small and light as are the long lenses. The downside of this body is high ISO noise. Focus tracking is reported to be very good

- Fuji has conquered the noise issue. Focus tracking is good yet not as good as the D500.

Today I shoot with a D300s, a rather old body and am looking to upgrade. My long lens is a Sigma 150-600 Sport, rather heavy so I shoot it mostly from a tripod. Shooting from a tripod has a lot of advantages yet limits spontaneity. A quick release and carrying the lens from a sling helps with this limitation. There are a few lighter lenses that are good options.

I'm about to upgrade the end of this month and my choice is a D500 as I want:
- Better High ISO noise immunity
- Improved focus tracking (what I have is already very good)
- The joystick for moving the selected focus point(s)

The mirrorless bodies have improved quickly and in MHO have equaled my D300s. I'm looking for and upgrade. Lighter would be nice yet an upgrade is what I want.

Morris

Jun 13, 2017 at 06:54 AM

bobbytan
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Mirrorless for wildlife

The key words here are travel and hiking. Size/bulk/weight are therefore major considerations. In that regard, you will not find a more compact system than m43 - plus the 2x crop factor gives you some extra reach. The Olympus 12-100 and Panasonic-Leica 100-400 are, by far, the smallest and lightest lenses in that focal range, and they are both professional-grade lenses. Fuji or Sony options do not even come close in terms of size and weight. And the 5.5-stop IBIS (6.5 stops with Sync-IS) of the E-M1.2 is the best in the business and it will help to offset the slight noise advantage from either Fuji or Sony.

You can see a lot of sample images on Flickr.

You can compare the results and noise performance between any 2 different cameras here:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Also check out this comparison/review between the Fuji and Olympus:

http://mirrorlesscomparison.com/fujifilm-vs-olympus/omd-em1-mark-ii-vs-fuji-xt2/

beretta wrote:
Is any one using a mirrorless system for wildlife and landscape.
I have been looking at the Fuji XT-2. It is getting good reviews and being compared as being close to Nikon D500.
Is there any other cameras worth considering Sony or Olympus maybe.
Really looking to reduce size and weight for travel and hiking.

Edited on Jun 13, 2017 at 10:53 AM · View previous versions

Jun 13, 2017 at 09:43 AM

kentvinyard
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Mirrorless for wildlife

Interesting that I can see no one has noted the actual weights of the camera. Oly EM 1 ll is 1.26# and the Panasonic 100-400 is 2.17#. The Nikon D500 is 1.89# and the Nikon 200-500 is 4.60 #. Fuji XT2 is 1.9# and the Fuji 100-400 lens is 3.03#
Olympus w/ 100-400 3.43#
Nikon D500 w/ 200-500 6.09#
Fuji XT 2 w/ 100-400 5.02#

Jun 13, 2017 at 10:53 AM

Mikehit
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Mirrorless for wildlife

How will you use the images? Facebook and social media - any camera will do. Full screen 21" computer? Pretty much equal. Heavy cropping? I would take the X-T2 any time because you cannot override the laws of physics.

Landscape - any model will do and the better the glass the better the image. But if you want control over narrow DOF, again the Fuji. Low light/night without tripod then it is hard to go against Olympus/Panasonic/Sony with their dual IBIS/in-lens IS.

Wildlife - is this largely stationary (perched birds) or large mammals? Either will do. For fast moving critters (birds in flight or cheetahs hunting) then Olympus/Panasonic/Fuji are getting better but not quite at the level of the DSLRs.

I have the Panasonic Gx7 and the Olympus E-M5 as partner to my DSLR rig, and will happily take the MFTs travelling if the main intention is to save space and weight (I took them to Peru after all); and although I would love to try a Fuji system, I don't see enough to tempt me to spend the money. Nor do I see enough to tempt me to upgrade to the E-M1.2 or the later Panasonics - I would upgrade the glass first.

Jun 13, 2017 at 10:55 AM

bobbytan
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Mirrorless for wildlife

If you do very heavy cropping or print very big (larger than 40") ... go with the Sony A7R II. There is negligible difference in resolution and detail between the 24MP X-T2 and 20MP E-M1.2.

Mikehit wrote:
How will you use the images? Facebook and social media - any camera will do. Full screen 21" computer? Pretty much equal. Heavy cropping? I would take the X-T2 any time because you cannot override the laws of physics.

Jun 13, 2017 at 11:11 AM

CW100
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Mirrorless for wildlife

beretta wrote:
Is any one using a mirrorless system for wildlife and landscape.
I have been looking at the Fuji XT-2. It is getting good reviews and being compared as being close to Nikon D500.
Is there any other cameras worth considering Sony or Olympus maybe.
Really looking to reduce size and weight for travel and hiking.

I've been using a mirrorless for wildlife, sports, birds and 'BIF' and many other things
works great and you can easily use the big DSLR lens

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

shot just this morning ......... with the old original 100-400 !

Untitled by c w, on Flickr

Jun 13, 2017 at 12:04 PM

elkhornsun
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Mirrorless for wildlife

I shoot with the D500 with the 80-400mm, 200-500mm, 500mm, and 600mm lenses for wildlife and my wife uses the Olympus E-M1 Mark II and E-M5 Mark II cameras with the Olympus 40-150mm f.2.8 (FX 80-300mm f/2.8) and 300mm f/4 (FX 600mm f/4) and there is little if anything gained in IQ with the Nikon gear.

The 300mm f/4 with image stabilization is a remarkable lens. The two Olympus cameras have 5-axis image stabilization and can work in tandem with the stabilization of the lens which results in a 6 stop gain. I have seen razor sharp images taken with this lens and these cameras at 1/8s hand held.

Even more remarkable to me is that this is done with no need for autofocus fine tuning as there is not need for such an adjustment with a mirrorless camera. With a DSLR the focus is off the mirror and so is not as accurate as focusing off the sensor.

Olympus has a wide range of f/2.8 constant aperture lenses as well as a great 60mm f/2.8 (FX 120mm f/4) macro lens. And they cost a lot less and weigh a lot less than my Nikon lenses. I cannot fly with the 600mm f/4 for example but no such problems with the Olympus 300mm f/4 that is about the size and weight of a FX 70-200mm f/2.8 lens.

The autofocus of these two cameras is not as good as that of my D500 but it is better than that of my D750 camera.

Jun 13, 2017 at 03:09 PM

Mikehit
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Mirrorless for wildlife

bobbytan wrote:
If you do very heavy cropping or print very big (larger than 40") ... go with the Sony A7R II. There is negligible difference in resolution and detail between the 24MP X-T2 and 20MP E-M1.2.

Sorry, I can't let that go without comment. The X-T2 is APS-C and the E-M1.2 is 20MP MFT. A lot of wildlife is done at ISO 1600 and above and the quality of pixels overrides quantity. Add to that, if you are getting frame-filling compositions with both cameras, you also need to take into account the fact that the MFT image is being magnified more than the APS-C image. Even on fora such as this there is a clear difference in quality of detail in MFT compared to APS-C - when I say 'clear' it is there but whether it matters to someone is a different matter.

As another example, higher than ISO 1,000 the pixel quality of the 1Dx2 (20MP) overrides the pixel density of the 7D2 (24MP = equivalent to 50MP FF), even when cropped to the same FOV.

Jun 13, 2017 at 04:31 PM

Bobg657
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Mirrorless for wildlife

In comparing systems you'll obviously have to decide what compromises work for you.
Current system, negatives are size, weight and cost

Fuji you'll have slightly worse high ISO, smaller but not significantly smaller lenses for similar field of view.

Micro Four Thirds (Olympus and Panasonic) much smaller and lighter systems both bodies and lenses, slightly worse high ISO.

With the crop factors of 2x on Olympus you should compare something like the new Panasonic Leica 8-18, 12-60, and perhaps the pending 50-200 (100-400 field of view) or the Olympus 7-14 (14-28 fov), 12-40 or 12-100 (24-200 fov), and perhaps the 40-150 2.8 (80-300 fov but takes a 1.4 teleconverter well). Most of the other comments are providing much longer lenses than you currently use.

I use the Oly EM 1 Mark 2 and in my biased opinion I don't know of a better system for my needs. FWIW there was a comparison done of mirrorless for wildlife (Mirrorlessons?) that chose the Oly compared with Fuji.

Most important is to find a system that feels comfortable and has a wide lens selection, for me that is m4/3.

Good luck with your search!
Bob

Jun 13, 2017 at 04:38 PM

bobbytan
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Mirrorless for wildlife

The difference in IQ may be there but IMO it's not significant. If I want better IQ or more resolution I would skip APS-C and go to a FF sensor. I have a Sony A7R II for my landscape work. For everything else, and especially for wildlife and bird photography, my E-M1.2 works great and the images are actually really good below ISO 6400 ... as long as they are not under-exposed.

Mikehit wrote:
Sorry, I can't let that go without comment. The X-T2 is APS-C and the E-M1.2 is 20MP MFT. A lot of wildlife is done at ISO 1600 and above and the quality of pixels overrides quantity. Add to that, if you are getting frame-filling compositions with both cameras, you also need to take into account the fact that the MFT image is being magnified more than the APS-C image. Even on fora such as this there is a clear difference in quality of detail in MFT compared to APS-C - when I say 'clear' it is there but whether it...Show more →

Jun 13, 2017 at 05:08 PM

Mikehit
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Mirrorless for wildlife

You bring up some good points bobby. The MFTs are great and I have 2 of them. But it does limit you on cropping and shadow recovery. If you are shooting birds (for example) where you are focal length limited then it is more tricky to assess which is better without actually using them.
For the OP, the demands for 'landscape' is relatively easy to cover. 'Wildlife' on the other hand covers a multitude of scenarios.

Jun 13, 2017 at 05:19 PM

bobbytan
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Mirrorless for wildlife

OP does "wildlife and landscape" and is "Really looking to reduce size and weight for travel and hiking". To me, m43 fits the bill perfectly and the E-M1.2 and 12-100 PRO and PL 100-400 lenses are as light as you can possibly get with a focal range of 24-800mm and a ton of useful features like Pro Capture for bird photography, focus stacking and focus bracketing for closeup/macro work, and a built-in intervalometer and live view for night sky photography, etc. It's a great all-round system that does most things well.

Jun 13, 2017 at 05:40 PM

rw11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Mirrorless for wildlife

Mikehit re "For fast moving critters (birds in flight or cheetahs hunting) then Olympus/Panasonic/Fuji are getting better but not quite at the level of the DSLRs. "

Is this an issue with focus tracking of the body itself? Or the ability of a human eye to use the EVF vs. an optical finder?

Jun 13, 2017 at 06:03 PM

arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Mirrorless for wildlife

If you can deal with EVFs then I'd look at the Olympus OM1Mk2 and either 100-400 Pany or 300/4 Pro lenses. I used that camera for a short time and it produced good quality files and AF was decent. I probably needed to learn the camera a bit more as it has lots of confusing menu options but I didn't have the time.

The Fuji-XT2 was touted at first as a possible wildlife camera but the more I read about it after the initial buzz was over was not the most enthusiastic about its tracking for fast moving wildlife.

Sony A9 would be the best with the new 100-400GM but that combo is so expensive that not sure it is worth it.

My biggest issue with these mirrorless is still the EVF but I bet only the A9 would satisfy me. The Olympus was not useable for me to quickly pick up and track an incoming bird and the blackout or refresh made continuous tracking difficult. Looking back into my FF DSLR OVF was like a breathe of fresh air after those EVFs.

Jun 13, 2017 at 06:29 PM

Bobg657
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Mirrorless for wildlife

A few clarifications - with the Olympus body and Panasonic lens you don't get some of the extra features like dual IS and Pro Capture. Many people are quite happy with this combo so it may or may not matter to you.

RE: Fast moving critters", on the EM1 Mark 2 the EVF refresh rate is so good I don't notice any lag and regularly shoot BIF. As far as the statement about "not quite at the level of DSLR's" that is no longer true, this body is certainly as good as something like the Nikon 7200 or Canon 7D Mark 2, just not quite as good as the D500. The hope is Oly will continue to improve through firmware updates, they have a history of making very significant changes and feature additions to the prior EM1.

Here are some from another post:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1495112

Jun 13, 2017 at 06:30 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Nature & Wildlife \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.