Gears for birding [Sony vs M43 vs NIkon DSLR?]
p.1 #1Gears for birding [Sony vs M43 vs NIkon DSLR?]
I've recently gotten really into bird and wildlife photography, and I'm thinking about changing my setup. Since Fred Miranda has some of the most experienced wildlife photographers around, I thought this would be the best place to ask for advice.
Right now I have two systems:
* Sony A7C II + 100-400 GM
* Panasonic G9 II + Leica 100-400 II + 1.4× TC
I'm very happy with the Sony's autofocus, but I often find 400mm just isn't enough reach. On the other hand, the Micro Four Thirds setup gives me roughly a 1000mm full-frame equivalent field of view, but the G9 II's autofocus and the overall sharpness of that combination leave something to be desired.
So what I'm really looking for is more reach than 400mm, while maintaining reasonably good autofocus and better image quality. One important constraint is portability—I don't want a huge lens. That's why I'm not considering the Sony 200-600 or the new 400-800. They're simply too large and heavy for the way I shoot. I'd like the entire kit to fit comfortably in my backpack.
After doing quite a bit of research, I've narrowed it down to two options:
* Option 1: Sigma 500mm f/5.6 DG DN Sports for Sony E-mount. I could use it on my A7C II, or even pick up an A6600 or A6700 to pair with it.
* Option 2: Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF. I already own a D810 and D750, although I realize they're probably not ideal wildlife bodies, so I'd likely add either a D500 or D7500. One advantage is that the 500 PF also works well with Nikon teleconverters if I ever need even more reach.
The Sony/Sigma route is obviously more expensive, but I assume it would give me noticeably better autofocus. The Nikon route would save me quite a bit of money, and the 500 PF has an excellent reputation.
My biggest uncertainty is autofocus. I've never shot birds with a DSLR before, so I have no idea how a D500 or D7500 + 500 PF compares with modern mirrorless systems. Would it still be competitive, or would it feel like a significant step backward compared with my A7C II—or even my current G9 II setup?
Has anyone here used any of these combinations, or even better, compared two or more of them side by side for bird photography? I'd really appreciate hearing your experiences and any advice.
Thanks in advance!
Right now I have two systems:
* Sony A7C II + 100-400 GM
* Panasonic G9 II + Leica 100-400 II + 1.4× TC
I'm very happy with the Sony's autofocus, but I often find 400mm just isn't enough reach. On the other hand, the Micro Four Thirds setup gives me roughly a 1000mm full-frame equivalent field of view, but the G9 II's autofocus and the overall sharpness of that combination leave something to be desired.
So what I'm really looking for is more reach than 400mm, while maintaining reasonably good autofocus and better image quality. One important constraint is portability—I don't want a huge lens. That's why I'm not considering the Sony 200-600 or the new 400-800. They're simply too large and heavy for the way I shoot. I'd like the entire kit to fit comfortably in my backpack.
After doing quite a bit of research, I've narrowed it down to two options:
* Option 1: Sigma 500mm f/5.6 DG DN Sports for Sony E-mount. I could use it on my A7C II, or even pick up an A6600 or A6700 to pair with it.
* Option 2: Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF. I already own a D810 and D750, although I realize they're probably not ideal wildlife bodies, so I'd likely add either a D500 or D7500. One advantage is that the 500 PF also works well with Nikon teleconverters if I ever need even more reach.
The Sony/Sigma route is obviously more expensive, but I assume it would give me noticeably better autofocus. The Nikon route would save me quite a bit of money, and the 500 PF has an excellent reputation.
My biggest uncertainty is autofocus. I've never shot birds with a DSLR before, so I have no idea how a D500 or D7500 + 500 PF compares with modern mirrorless systems. Would it still be competitive, or would it feel like a significant step backward compared with my A7C II—or even my current G9 II setup?
Has anyone here used any of these combinations, or even better, compared two or more of them side by side for bird photography? I'd really appreciate hearing your experiences and any advice.
Thanks in advance!
Jul 21, 2026 at 10:51 AM
p.1 #2Gears for birding [Sony vs M43 vs NIkon DSLR?]
jinkun wrote:
Right now I have two systems:
* Sony A7C II + 100-400 GM
* Panasonic G9 II + Leica 100-400 II + 1.4× TC
I'm very happy with the Sony's autofocus, but I often find 400mm just isn't enough reach. On the other hand, the Micro Four Thirds setup gives me roughly a 1000mm full-frame equivalent field of view, but the G9 II's autofocus and the overall sharpness of that combination leave something to be desired.
So what I'm really looking for is more reach than 400mm, while maintaining reasonably good autofocus and better image quality. One important constraint is portability—I don't want a...Show more →
Since you've already got the lens, I'd recommend you get the Sony 1.4x TC and try it on the 100-400mm. That combo is quite capable and not too large. (and if it doesn't work for you, they are easy to resell.)
I'm very much an amateur when it comes to birds, but I've been happy with it. Any deficiencies in these samples are due to my lack of skill; not any weakness of the tools.
Right now I have two systems:
* Sony A7C II + 100-400 GM
* Panasonic G9 II + Leica 100-400 II + 1.4× TC
I'm very happy with the Sony's autofocus, but I often find 400mm just isn't enough reach. On the other hand, the Micro Four Thirds setup gives me roughly a 1000mm full-frame equivalent field of view, but the G9 II's autofocus and the overall sharpness of that combination leave something to be desired.
So what I'm really looking for is more reach than 400mm, while maintaining reasonably good autofocus and better image quality. One important constraint is portability—I don't want a...Show more →
Since you've already got the lens, I'd recommend you get the Sony 1.4x TC and try it on the 100-400mm. That combo is quite capable and not too large. (and if it doesn't work for you, they are easy to resell.)
I'm very much an amateur when it comes to birds, but I've been happy with it. Any deficiencies in these samples are due to my lack of skill; not any weakness of the tools.
ILCE-7RM6 FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS + 1.4X Teleconverter lens 560mm f/10.0 1/2000s 2000 ISO -0.7 EV
ILCE-7RM6 FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS + 1.4X Teleconverter lens 560mm f/10.0 1/2000s 2000 ISO -0.7 EV
ILCE-7RM6 FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS + 1.4X Teleconverter lens 560mm f/8.0 1/1000s 4000 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM6 FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS + 1.4X Teleconverter lens 560mm f/8.0 1/1000s 2000 ISO 0.0 EV
Jul 21, 2026 at 11:19 AM
p.1 #3Gears for birding [Sony vs M43 vs NIkon DSLR?]
I'm not a serious wildlife photographer but over the last few months have been to various birding hotshots - Bempton, Skomer Island, Helmsley etc and have been surprised by the number of people using m4/3 gear - the 150-400tc seems a well regarded option for serious bird photographers along with the 300 f2.8 and TCs
Not sure if those would be worth considering but would tick the size, quality, reach and weight boxes if you were open to other options
On the options you list, can only comment on the 6700, my other half has one and ive tried it with a few different lens options, personally it isnt a viable option for wildlife, the size, weight, button placement and overall ergonomics just make it a frustrating experience despite the appeal of the crop sensor, from memory there are also issues with the readout speed that would compromise its use for bif, definitely try the sigma lens on that body if you can before going down that road
Not sure if those would be worth considering but would tick the size, quality, reach and weight boxes if you were open to other options
On the options you list, can only comment on the 6700, my other half has one and ive tried it with a few different lens options, personally it isnt a viable option for wildlife, the size, weight, button placement and overall ergonomics just make it a frustrating experience despite the appeal of the crop sensor, from memory there are also issues with the readout speed that would compromise its use for bif, definitely try the sigma lens on that body if you can before going down that road
Jul 21, 2026 at 11:29 AM
p.1 #4Gears for birding [Sony vs M43 vs NIkon DSLR?]
I wouldn't discard m43 for wildlife based on the G9ii. If you can try either the OM-1 or OM-1ii with your 100-400, you are likely to get better results. Take a look at the m43 Forum to see what this gear is capable of.
I have found the OM-1 pretty straightforward to set up for birds/BiF.
I have found the OM-1 pretty straightforward to set up for birds/BiF.
Jul 21, 2026 at 12:55 PM
p.1 #5Gears for birding [Sony vs M43 vs NIkon DSLR?]
This might help if you better state your needs and priorities. Getting "into bird and wildlife photography" may mean very different things for different people. Are you looking at birds in your backyard or a nearby park, or maybe you are chasing some fast action? When considering a camera system, it makes a big difference whether one is shooting a bird on a stick, or trying to capture a rapidly and unpredictably moving subject.
In my experience, I used the 100-400mm GM lens on A1 with and without teleconverters. It was o.k. for static subjects but I sold the lens after adding the 200-600 zoom that turned out to be sharper. I still have the 200-600 but no longer actively use it as it is too big and heavy for my needs.
I also have the OM-1 II and G9 II cameras and the Olympus 300mm F4 lens. I like this lens on the OM-1 II, whereas I didn't like it on the G9 II at all. The 300mm lens is useful in its way, however, it is a bit limited: sometimes it is too long for close subjects, and other times it is not long enough while the 20MP sensor allows limited cropping.
My current telephoto system that I like a lot is the GFX100S II with the GF500mm F5.6 lens. The lens, by the way, is very similar in terms of size and weight to the Sigma 500mm that you are considering. The GF500 feels unbelievably light and well-balanced on the GFX body - easy to use handheld and carry while hiking. The 102 MP sensor of the GFX allows cropping by as much as 2x (from 102 to 25MP); thus the lens is effectively a 400 - 800mm digital zoom on the GFX100S II. The AF of this system is not fast for rapid action and birds in flight, but I am not pursuing such subjects. In general, my interests in wildlife photography are secondary to city, street, and landscapes. Nevertheless, I like having a long telephoto for those occasional situations when there is something interesting at a distance, including people.
In my experience, I used the 100-400mm GM lens on A1 with and without teleconverters. It was o.k. for static subjects but I sold the lens after adding the 200-600 zoom that turned out to be sharper. I still have the 200-600 but no longer actively use it as it is too big and heavy for my needs.
I also have the OM-1 II and G9 II cameras and the Olympus 300mm F4 lens. I like this lens on the OM-1 II, whereas I didn't like it on the G9 II at all. The 300mm lens is useful in its way, however, it is a bit limited: sometimes it is too long for close subjects, and other times it is not long enough while the 20MP sensor allows limited cropping.
My current telephoto system that I like a lot is the GFX100S II with the GF500mm F5.6 lens. The lens, by the way, is very similar in terms of size and weight to the Sigma 500mm that you are considering. The GF500 feels unbelievably light and well-balanced on the GFX body - easy to use handheld and carry while hiking. The 102 MP sensor of the GFX allows cropping by as much as 2x (from 102 to 25MP); thus the lens is effectively a 400 - 800mm digital zoom on the GFX100S II. The AF of this system is not fast for rapid action and birds in flight, but I am not pursuing such subjects. In general, my interests in wildlife photography are secondary to city, street, and landscapes. Nevertheless, I like having a long telephoto for those occasional situations when there is something interesting at a distance, including people.
Jul 21, 2026 at 03:39 PM
p.1 #6Gears for birding [Sony vs M43 vs NIkon DSLR?]
MikeEvangelist wrote:
I'd recommend you get the Sony 1.4x TC and try it on the 100-400mm. That combo is quite capable and not too large. (and if it doesn't work for you, they are easy to resell.)
Really nice photos! I also thought about this combo so that I only need to buy a TC so it is really the most accessible solution for me. But I have seen some complaints about the sharpness loss from using TC. also through my experience, the 1.4TC + 100-400 II on G9ii also hurts the sharpness. I might need more study!
I'd recommend you get the Sony 1.4x TC and try it on the 100-400mm. That combo is quite capable and not too large. (and if it doesn't work for you, they are easy to resell.)
Really nice photos! I also thought about this combo so that I only need to buy a TC so it is really the most accessible solution for me. But I have seen some complaints about the sharpness loss from using TC. also through my experience, the 1.4TC + 100-400 II on G9ii also hurts the sharpness. I might need more study!
Jul 21, 2026 at 04:51 PM
|
p.1 #7Gears for birding [Sony vs M43 vs NIkon DSLR?]
Andyuk109 wrote:
the 150-400tc seems a well regarded option for serious bird photographers along with the 300 f2.8 and TCs
On the options you list, can only comment on the 6700, my other half has one and ive tried it with a few different lens options, personally it isnt a viable option for wildlife, the size, weight, button placement and overall ergonomics just make it a frustrating experience despite the appeal of the crop sensor, from memory there are also issues with the readout speed that would compromise its use for bif, definitely try the sigma lens on that body if you can...Show more →
Both the 150-400 and the 300mm f/2.8 are unfortunately out of my budget. If I stay with Micro Four Thirds, I think the 300mm f/4 is probably the most realistic option. I'm just not sure how well it performs on a Panasonic body, or whether, as some people have suggested here, it would make more sense to switch to an OM-1 or OM-1 II.
Thanks for your comments on the A6700. I completely agree with your points. One thing that makes it attractive to me is that it shares batteries and E-mount lenses with my A7C II, so I can keep my kit simpler instead of maintaining multiple systems. I also had a chance to try the A6700's autofocus, and I was genuinely impressed. The bird tracking is noticeably better than on my G9 II, although the relatively slow sensor readout is still a limitation for both cameras.
the 150-400tc seems a well regarded option for serious bird photographers along with the 300 f2.8 and TCs
On the options you list, can only comment on the 6700, my other half has one and ive tried it with a few different lens options, personally it isnt a viable option for wildlife, the size, weight, button placement and overall ergonomics just make it a frustrating experience despite the appeal of the crop sensor, from memory there are also issues with the readout speed that would compromise its use for bif, definitely try the sigma lens on that body if you can...Show more →
Both the 150-400 and the 300mm f/2.8 are unfortunately out of my budget. If I stay with Micro Four Thirds, I think the 300mm f/4 is probably the most realistic option. I'm just not sure how well it performs on a Panasonic body, or whether, as some people have suggested here, it would make more sense to switch to an OM-1 or OM-1 II.
Thanks for your comments on the A6700. I completely agree with your points. One thing that makes it attractive to me is that it shares batteries and E-mount lenses with my A7C II, so I can keep my kit simpler instead of maintaining multiple systems. I also had a chance to try the A6700's autofocus, and I was genuinely impressed. The bird tracking is noticeably better than on my G9 II, although the relatively slow sensor readout is still a limitation for both cameras.
Jul 21, 2026 at 04:54 PM
p.1 #8Gears for birding [Sony vs M43 vs NIkon DSLR?]
Re "I'm just not sure how well it performs on a Panasonic body" - surprisingly poorly on the G9II vs. OM-1 II. The immediate alarming feeling after putting the lens on the Panasonic body is that something happened to the IBIS. The viewfinder is shaky and focusing becomes challenging as a result. The whole experience was rather unpleasant.
Jul 21, 2026 at 09:15 PM
p.1 #9Gears for birding [Sony vs M43 vs NIkon DSLR?]
As suggested, add the 1.4x TC to the 100-400 (I have the old 100-400 and find no loss in optical quality of any significance) then change out the A7C II for a 60-67MP body to allow you to crop down to APSC or a little more. That will give you 840mm FOV.
For very long reach I have the all Olympus versions(s) of your setup (Olympus System OM 1 (1), 100-400 and 1.4 TC) and don't find any issues with sharpness. AF is also good for stills but useless for video. In fact I had been thinking about getting a G9 II.
For very long reach I have the all Olympus versions(s) of your setup (Olympus System OM 1 (1), 100-400 and 1.4 TC) and don't find any issues with sharpness. AF is also good for stills but useless for video. In fact I had been thinking about getting a G9 II.
Jul 22, 2026 at 02:33 AM
p.1 #10Gears for birding [Sony vs M43 vs NIkon DSLR?]
mcbroomf wrote:
As suggested, add the 1.4x TC to the 100-400 (I have the old 100-400 and find no loss in optical quality of any significance) then change out the A7C II for a 60-67MP body to allow you to crop down to APSC or a little more.
If you didn't see a degradation with the TC, then you didn't look closely and/or shot on a low resolution body. On a 50MP body the old 100-400 with the 1.4x TC is still usable, but soft.
As suggested, add the 1.4x TC to the 100-400 (I have the old 100-400 and find no loss in optical quality of any significance) then change out the A7C II for a 60-67MP body to allow you to crop down to APSC or a little more.
If you didn't see a degradation with the TC, then you didn't look closely and/or shot on a low resolution body. On a 50MP body the old 100-400 with the 1.4x TC is still usable, but soft.
Jul 22, 2026 at 05:41 AM
p.1 #11Gears for birding [Sony vs M43 vs NIkon DSLR?]
There is certainly variation out there with the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM as I have had two copies over the years and one is better than the other. With my current better copy it does really well with the 1.4TC. The only downside is the f/8 aperture and needing good light if wanting to shoot BIF.
But IQ is really good. It is equal to the few copies of the 200-600 I've had.
I don't have access to my full RAW library right now but here are a few examples. It would be a very good option without spending much.
But IQ is really good. It is equal to the few copies of the 200-600 I've had.
I don't have access to my full RAW library right now but here are a few examples. It would be a very good option without spending much.
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS + 1.4X Teleconverter lens 560mm f/8.0 1/4000s 3200 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS + 1.4X Teleconverter lens 560mm f/8.0 1/400s 640 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS + 1.4X Teleconverter lens 560mm f/8.0 1/500s 2500 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2 FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS + 1.4X Teleconverter lens 560mm f/8.0 1/2000s 6400 ISO 0.0 EV
Jul 22, 2026 at 05:54 AM
p.1 #12Gears for birding [Sony vs M43 vs NIkon DSLR?]
Daran wrote:
If you didn't see a degradation with the TC, then you didn't look closely and/or shot on a low resolution body. On a 50MP body the old 100-400 with the 1.4x TC is still usable, but soft.
Well I did say it's not of significance, and of course I can only speak to my preferences though lens and TC variation may influence things.
560mm A1 F8 1/2000 ISO 8000. Denoised and resharpened (sorry, no native 400mm to compare)
_A119254 by Mike Broomfield, on Flickr
200% crop (I usually only check at 50% for printing)
200pc crop by Mike Broomfield, on Flickr
mcbroomf wrote
As suggested, add the 1.4x TC to the 100-400 (I have the old 100-400 and find no loss in optical quality of any significance) then change out the A7C II for a 60-67MP body to allow you to crop down to APSC or a little more.Well I did say it's not of significance, and of course I can only speak to my preferences though lens and TC variation may influence things.
560mm A1 F8 1/2000 ISO 8000. Denoised and resharpened (sorry, no native 400mm to compare)
_A119254 by Mike Broomfield, on Flickr200% crop (I usually only check at 50% for printing)
200pc crop by Mike Broomfield, on FlickrJul 22, 2026 at 06:25 AM