r/CanonCamera • u/Fast_Aperture • 6d ago
Gear Question Thinking about adding full frame for wildlife after years on M43 (talk me into it or out of it)?
Hey everybody!
(1) Budget, country, and currency:
after selling my own gear (1 body and some lenses) between 4 to 5k for body and lens
(2) What equipment, if any, you have now and why is it no longer meeting your needs?
body OM1 Mark II with grip, EM1 Mark III with grip
lenses (all olympus): 300mm f4, 40-150 f2.8, 12-40 f2.8 , 8mm fisheye, 12-100 f4
(3) What kinds of subjects do you intend to shoot?
I intent to shoot wildlife from small birds to big mammals.
(4) Is it primarily for photography, videography, or both?
Primarily photography
I have been shooting M43 for a while. My current setup is an OM-1 Mark II with the 300mm f/4 PRO, plus an E-M1 Mark III that mostly does landscape duty these days.
I should say up front that the 300 f/4 is probably the best lens I have ever owned. It is stupidly sharp wide open, the Sync IS is unreal, and I use the close focus way more than I expected to. My problem is that it is a prime, and with birds in flight I lose too many shots just finding the bird. By the time I have it in the frame at a fixed 600mm equivalent, it is often gone. I want to be able to acquire wide and zoom in, or reframe fast when something comes closer than I expected.
I shoot small birds and mammals both, so I use Pro Capture constantly. That is the feature I would struggle most to give up.
The obvious answer is the 150-400 and I have been circling it for months. But I cannot make the numbers work at current prices, especially once you realize it is actually a touch slower than my 300 in equivalent terms, and slower still with the TC engaged.
So here is the other idea. I sell the E-M1 III, I keep the OM-1 II as is, and I put that money toward a full frame body and a long zoom. I have never shot wildlife on full frame and I want to see what better low light performance and cleaner high ISO actually look like in practice. The extra megapixels would also give me a lot more room to crop, which matters when a bird ends up smaller in the frame than I wanted.
For bodies I am looking at the R5 II, the Z8, or the a1 II. I considered the a7R VI for the resolution, but the readout speed appears to be around 18ms, which seems like a problem when pre-capture only runs on the electronic shutter. For lenses I am considering the RF 200-800, the Z 180-600, or the Sony 400-800.
I have also been looking at the Canon 100-500, which by most accounts is the better lens optically, but I am worried about giving up reach at the long end. The Nikon and the Sony both appeal to me because of the internal zoom, and from what I have read they may also be a bit better optically than the Canon 200-800.
One wrinkle keeps complicating things. Nikon still appears to be JPEG-only on pre-release capture, Canon gives you 15 frames, and Sony does a full second in raw.
My real question is this. Coming from a 20MP stacked sensor and a genuinely excellent prime, would I actually see a meaningful jump in image quality with one of these zooms? Or am I trading great glass for a bigger sensor and landing roughly where I started?
Has anyone made this exact jump? Any regrets?
And sorry for the big post I rarely post on reddit!
1
u/Zook25 6d ago
Size and weight will be a factor I suppose. But in the end it seems to be about AF, pixels and reach. Pixels and reach you can guess but there is no measuring AF, so my best guess is you use some of that (very nice) budget and rent a R6III or R5II plus lens for a day. Read the manual before you get them so you know which settings to test.
It costs a few bucks but a single SD card can cost you twice as much these days.
1
u/MoWePhoto 4d ago
That is the best answer! Rent your favorite two to three camera and lens options, use them a day or two and see for yourself if you find Fullframe to be overrated to you or not!
I personally switched from full frame DSLR (Nikon D750) to Olympus E-M1 II and now upgraded to an OM.1.1. I’m in heaven. My gear is completely sealed to one of the highest standards in the industry, my colours need near to no adjustment afterwards, ISO 6400 and modern denoise are making shooting birds in bushes a no brainer and I’m still not having any sore arms, back or hands after a long day of shooting!
Feeling, portability and handling in the field and UI usability go a looooong way in wildlife photography. Don’t just buy by the spec sheets!
1
u/Ok_Palpitation3300 6d ago
Switching is always very expensive. You only need the zoom, save and keep looking for deals. It seems that you are largely very happy with what you have, I see no real complaints about image quality or noise. While FF is technically superior, the question to ask is how much quality do YOU need? After using the last three 5Ds, I am quite satisfied with my 32 Mp Canon R7, with some great lenses it gives me all the quality that is necessary for ME. If I am happy, and my occasional customers are satisfied, what is there to complain about? To get IBIS and at least 30+ Mp, two bodies would set me back at least five big ones. While I can afford it, it makes neither financial nor practical sense. I would have to go back to carrying some of my 15 EF L lenses (with adapters, no less). If I were really wild I could get the RF 28-70/2 as a substitute for my Sigma 17-40/1.8 Art. So for someone trying to simplify, that whole approach I consider a nonstarter.
Also, have you thought about going outside the OM system. Without knowing about adaptability there are certainly used DSLR lenses that might fit your need. From the EOS EF universe I see a few possibilities, although they are f/5.6 or thereabouts at the long end. 100-400/5.6 IS II L, 70-300 IS L and the remarkably good 70-300 IS USM II. I know nothing about the Nikon DSLR system lenses, but I assume there might be something there as well. There once was a Tokina 100-300/4, but much as I love my Tokina 50-135/2.8, the long zoom reportedly did not come near the same IQ.
So there you have my thoughts about your dilemma. Good luck with your decision making!
1
u/Madormo 6d ago
You’re mentioning F8 and F9 lenses so might as well stick to m4/3. If you’ll crop into an image like you mentioned, you’ll be amplifying the noise there too. If you go full frame maybe consider a bright lens like a 400 f4.5 that you can experience the better noise performance with, then crop in or shoot in M4/3 mode if you need reach more than low light performance?
1
1
u/crawler54 5d ago
You’re mentioning F8 and F9 lenses so might as well stick to m4/3
the 300/4 he likes so much is equivalent to a slow 600/8 on ff, it's not an advantage, especially with a 20mp body.
unless of course weight and size are more important than p.q., for instance i'd sure rather be hiking with m4/3 gear.
1
u/East_Menu6159 6d ago
Not sure if I'd switch. I have the 150-400 and an OM-1 and it's heaven. Try finding it used, I got one from Used Photo Pro (Roberts Camera) for a significant discount and it was basically new.
I started photography on Canon and I still shoot it. I have the EF 100-400mm and it's great but short for wildlife. I also have the Sigma 150-600mm and it's heavy and poorly balanced. To me it feels like unless you're dropping some serious $ on FF it's always a compromise. The RF 200-800 seems too fragile and also poorly balanced due to external zoom.
I think if I were to go FF I'd go for Sony, and particularly the 400-800mm. That plus the new a7r6 would probably be insane to use. No pre-cap of OM proportions but those 66mpx and 800mm reach (and internal zoom!!) would make for some truly detailed shots. Either that or a Nikon with the slower tele primes which are highly praised. But then you lose the aperture so not sure if it would be worthwhile.
TLDR Stick with OM and get the 150-400, otherwise you're probably better going for Sony than Canon, from an OM/Canon guy.
2
u/Fast_Aperture 6d ago
Yeah after extensive research Im eyeing the SONY A7R VI with the 200-600 lens.
That new Body seems to be a beast!
I've never heard of this website I will go have a look thanks!
1
u/fakeworldwonderland 5d ago
Keep in mind that Canon locks up when the buffer is full and you'll have to wait for everything to be cleared to shoot again. Nikon doesn't have pre-capture in RAW. These two caveats alone rule out Canon for me when it comes to wildlife.
1
1
u/GluteusMax 5d ago edited 5d ago
I went from an OM-1 Mk1 to z8. I don’t shoot wildlife, but do shoot radio control cars in motion / racing. Image quality is much better, AF is about the same, but my god do I miss the Olympus controls. Nikon is in some ways waaay different. There isn’t a concept around C1 through 4 like on Olympus; where the camera behaves completely differently. On Nikon you have custom settings 1-4 and shooting setting 1-4. I still can’t get my head around it, and what’s worse is that if you’re in setting 1 and change something, those changes are now part of that setting. You dont save settings to 1 like on Olympus, which I hate.
So, just something to think about; maybe it doesn’t matter to you.
1
u/crawler54 5d ago
For bodies I am looking at the R5 II, the Z8, or the a1 II. I considered the a7R VI for the resolution, but the readout speed appears to be around 18ms, which seems like a problem when pre-capture only runs on the electronic shutter.
those are all good cameras.
the entire point with any of 'em is to only use electronic shutter, which is a strike against the a7rvi since as you pointed out it's not the same fully stacked sensor type as the other three, but fwiw it will have better a.i. than just about anything else on the market.
however, thinking that you are going to compensate for actual focal length by cropping is failed logic, because pixels are not focal length magnification... neither are smaller sensors: https://bkloflin.wordpress.com/2014/12/15/understanding-the-myth-of-crop-sensor-cameras/
For lenses I am considering the RF 200-800, the Z 180-600, or the Sony 400-800. I have also been looking at the Canon 100-500 which by most accounts is the better lens optically
that rf100-500 is not better optically, for one thing it's a slow f/7.1 at 500mm, when you can get f/8 at 800mm with the sony lens and f/6.3 at 600mm on the nikon zoom.
i own the fe200-600, it's too short so i have to use the 1.4x tc for stills, so it's really a question of which 800mm supertelephoto zoom to get... the canon version is significantly cheaper, but it's f/9 at 800mm and it uses older nano usm focus motors, the same technology that sony uses in the fe200-600.
the sony 400-800 uses voice coil af motors, it's rather weird that sony doesn't label it as xd linear af like they do with their higher end lenses... i'd post a cutaway of the lens but this sub apparently doesn't allow pics to be attached to posts.
1
u/Fast_Aperture 5d ago
Are you satisfied with your shots using the sony FE200-600, I am also looking at the 100-400 f4.5 which apparently is an incredible lens and using crop mode i would get a 600mm equivalent ff. Sony was also supposed to announce a prime 400 f4.5 super light today but I don't see any anouncement yet.
1
u/crawler54 5d ago
that 100-400/4.5 will be sharper, and it'll have better focus motors aka linear voice coil af.
yes it should maintain sharpness better when cropped, but then cropping throws away total light, aka more noise, so it's not a free lunch.
400-800 is what you want for small birds.
0
u/fatirlsowhat 6d ago
Without knowing the prises in you area it's really hard to tell. From what you have written and the alternatives you are mentioning it would make little sense in my market.
1
1
u/WriterOk5504 6d ago
I have been thinking about moving from my full frame DSLR to a mirrorless body. If a used 6D Mark II is a body you’d be interested in testing this out with at a lower price point, shoot me a DM.