Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

bridge camera for wildlife

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

bumbleb3
bumbleb3  8356 forum posts United Kingdom
12 Jan 2014 - 9:52 AM

I have been using a canon 7D with a canon 100-400mm lens for wildlife shots.
Unfortunately due to elbow problems I cannot lift to use anymore.
I know that I can use a tripod for most shots but not for moving objects.
Can anyone suggest a camera that would give me half decent wildlife shots without the weight of my DSLR
Any help would be appreciated
thankyou

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
12 Jan 2014 - 9:52 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

sherlob
sherlob e2 Member 82308 forum postssherlob vcard United Kingdom125 Constructive Critique Points
12 Jan 2014 - 10:03 AM

Have you considered a tripod with some kind of gimbal head. Keeps things rock steady, but allows you the flexibility to move and pan

Dave_Canon
12 Jan 2014 - 10:43 AM

I have a Panasonic Lumix FZ200 which has a "24-600mm" zoom at f2.8 which I have used for some wild life shots. However, on some of the occasions I have also had my Canon EOS 5D Mk ii with me and used the 70-200mm zoom with 1.4X extender. Taking a shot of a bird 250m away with the FZ200 looks good in the screen but obviously looks much smaller on the Canon screen. However, when back home processing, despite having to enlarge the Canon images, they are much better quality. It should not be too surprising given that the sensor is about 30 times larger. Of course it does depend on what you want to do with the images. I produce A3 prints for competitions but also images for projection which are much lower resolution. I have had success in a competition with one shot from my FZ200. This image was of a bird in good light and entered in a web competition.

I bought the Bridge Camera because I can no longer carry my DSLR kit far. One has to accept that this is a compromise and cannot expect the Bridge camera to have the same performance as a DSLR especially in low light. Having said that the bridge camera is easy to use and very light with an excellent range (including limited Macro). I find this small camera with articulated screen is ideal for street photography and you can take it into some professional sports events which do not allow SLR's. I have taken the view that on some occasions now, it will be the bridge camera or no camera and I prefer the former. I suggest you go for it but do accept that it is a compromise. Also a friend who is a keen photographer but waiting for a hip replacement tells me that he is prepared to go anywhere for a good shot provided it is within 100m of his car!

Dave

bumbleb3
bumbleb3  8356 forum posts United Kingdom
12 Jan 2014 - 10:56 AM

thanks for the help from both of you.
I must admit I have tried other heads but the canon lens are really heavy
I have looked at the Panasonic lumix . Also Olympus OM-D E-M1 and the Sony Alpha a7 And Alpha a7R

I know that the quality will be nowhere near the same but its better than missing the shot altogether because the arm won't work properly.

The largest I print out is A3 so nothing really big

MichaelMelb_AU
12 Jan 2014 - 11:37 AM

Panasonic FZ200 or Fujifilm HS50EXR. Panasonic has better lens, Fujifilm better zoom and DSLR- like handling with fully manual lens zoom ( not by-wire). Another very good camera - Nikon P520, very sharp lens but not as good in difficult light situations. I own Fujifilm HS30EXR as a second camera to my DSLRs - and very happy with it:
dscf0744.jpg

dscf5595.jpg

dscf5650.jpg





Last Modified By MichaelMelb_AU at 12 Jan 2014 - 11:39 AM
petebfrance
12 Jan 2014 - 4:08 PM

For bird photography look here:
http://www.birdforum.net/forumdisplay.php?f=111

I was going to chuck the Canon SX50 into the mix as it also has a good reputation (and is one of the ones I would consider over Panny because of the longer lens...) the mix, and then came across this little gem:
http://www.birdforum.net/forumdisplay.php?f=111
it seems that a recent batch of these has got a 'white rubber' problem, similar to that seen on the 650.....

Last Modified By petebfrance at 12 Jan 2014 - 4:10 PM
petebfrance
12 Jan 2014 - 4:24 PM


Quote: For bird photography look here:
http://www.birdforum.net/forumdisplay.php?f=111....
it seems that a recent batch of these has got a 'white rubber' problem, similar to that seen on the 650.....

sorry, 2nd link should be:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=273915

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315157 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
12 Jan 2014 - 10:51 PM


Quote: I have been using a canon 7D with a canon 100-400mm lens for wildlife shots.
Unfortunately due to elbow problems I cannot lift to use anymore.
I know that I can use a tripod for most shots but not for moving objects.
Can anyone suggest a camera that would give me half decent wildlife shots without the weight of my DSLR
Any help would be appreciated
thankyou

Have a look at the Olympus Stylus, its been getting rave reviews.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/olympus-stylus-1-review-23438

There is another review here.

http://robinwong.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/olympus-stylus-1-review.html

Last Modified By Paul Morgan at 12 Jan 2014 - 11:00 PM
StrayCat
StrayCat e2 Member 1014635 forum postsStrayCat vcard Canada2 Constructive Critique Points
12 Jan 2014 - 11:13 PM

[quote]I know that the quality will be nowhere near the same

The Olympus E-M1 or the E-M5, which I have, with the Panasonic 100-300mm, will give you close enough that you won't be able to see a difference, imo. I used the Canon 70-200mm f4, and absolutely no difference to be seen. Another plus is that both of those cameras have the best stabilisation systems in the world, bar none.

Last Modified By StrayCat at 12 Jan 2014 - 11:13 PM
Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315157 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
13 Jan 2014 - 1:20 AM

M4/3 is a very good option if your now struggling with a dslr system, today the difference in quality between M4/3 and APS-C is barely measurable.

And M4/3 has advantages for both wildlife and macro especially.

Last Modified By Paul Morgan at 13 Jan 2014 - 1:21 AM
Steppenwolf
13 Jan 2014 - 8:34 AM

I think you'll be disappointed with the picture quality of any of the bridge cameras after a 7D and Canon 100-400mm. But the Canon 100-400mm is indeed a big heavy lens. I'd suggest you look at m4/3 to save size and weight. To match the 400mm on the 7D (for angle of view) you only need a 300mm (approx.) in m4/3 terms and a similar zoom will be about a third of the weight of the Canon lens. You probably won't notice much difference in quality either and the kit will be considerably smaller. You might find that you don't need the Canon stuff any more.

StrayCat
StrayCat e2 Member 1014635 forum postsStrayCat vcard Canada2 Constructive Critique Points
13 Jan 2014 - 8:37 AM

Fyi, I was out for a walk in the park with my E-M5 and the Panasonic 100-300 attached one day, and I met a fellow with Canon kit the same as you mention above; my kit was like a tiny toy next to it, but it is built just as solid as a pro Canon, with weather sealing.

bumbleb3
bumbleb3  8356 forum posts United Kingdom
13 Jan 2014 - 12:11 PM


Quote: I have been using a canon 7D with a canon 100-400mm lens for wildlife shots.
Unfortunately due to elbow problems I cannot lift to use anymore.
I know that I can use a tripod for most shots but not for moving objects.
Can anyone suggest a camera that would give me half decent wildlife shots without the weight of my DSLR
Any help would be appreciated
thankyou

Have a look at the Olympus Stylus, its been getting rave reviews.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/olympus-stylus-1-review-23438

There is another review here.

http://robinwong.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/olympus-stylus-1-review.html

Thanks Paul.
I must admit I do not want to move away from my dslr but needs must
I will check these out but I have not heard of M4/3

Steppenwolf
13 Jan 2014 - 1:38 PM

Just to be clear, the Olympus Stylus is not m4/3 - and doesn't match the reach of the 100-400mm lens on a Canon APS-C (about 640mm). It's 300mm which is not a lot of use for most wildlife shots and has a fixed lens.

M4/3 is "Micro 4/3". When Olympus moved into the digital age with their range of DSLRs they built them round the 4/3 sensor. This sensor has an aspect ratio of 4:3 (rather than the normal SLR 3:2) and is smaller in area than APS-C DSLRs. It has a "crop ratio" of 2X when compared with FF cameras while APS-C has a ratio of 1.5X (or 1.6X in the case of Canon) relative to FF DSLRs. In other words a 300mm lens on 4/3 sensor has the AOV of a 600mm on FF camera or 400mm on an APS-C DSLR (or 375mm in the case of Canon's smaller APS-C sensor). That's where the size and weight saving comes in.

Olympus mothballed their 4/3 DSLR production and created a new open interchangeable lens standard called m4/3. There are various other camera manufacturers that have adopted this standard - Panasonic, Leica. So these are interchangeable lens cameras (unlike bridge cameras) that are available from several manufacturers - with all the lenses being compatible between manufacturers. The cameras come in various styles - with or without EVFs, pocket size or larger, etc.

For what you want I'd look at a Panasonic G6 and a 100-300 lens, but there are a lot of possibilities. You could possibly get a good m4/3 set up for the price you'd get for ebaying the 100-400mm alone - they fetch good prices.

Last Modified By Steppenwolf at 13 Jan 2014 - 1:42 PM
Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315157 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
13 Jan 2014 - 3:16 PM


Quote: Just to be clear, the Olympus Stylus is not m4/3 - and doesn't match the reach of the 100-400mm lens on a Canon APS-C (about 640mm). It's 300mm which is not a lot of use for most wildlife shots and has a fixed lens

I would have thought that this was pretty obvious Smile

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.