Printable View
I was wondering if anyone had any experience using the GH2 (or new G3) with the Pana 100-300 lens for bird photography.
Currently I have a 7D with 400mm 5.6L lens but I find it a pain to carry around all day - my photography is usually done walking around parks, where I enjoy the walk as much as the photography - hence I never carry my tripod though I know I should.
I'm willing to compromise image quality to some extent, but do you think it's a step down too far?
Thanks,
Graeme
Graeme,
The P&S superzoom cameras are quite a step down in 3 areas:
1) weight (good)
2) response time (bad)
3) image quality (bad)
If #1 outweighs #2 and #3, then OK.
So just how much IQ? See:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto_reach/
Figure 4 compares a DSLR and P&S image.
#2: the phase detect autofocus of a DSLR means faster and accurate focus.
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...and.autofocus/
Roger
Roger,
Nice articles, thanks.
My understanding now, though is that IQ should not be too big of a drop off since the G3 appears to have a pixel pich of 3.75 compared to the 7D's 4.15 (http://www.theatreofnoise.com/2011/0...-to-avoid.html).
That should mean reasonable detail on the birds.
I'll happily accept
1) weight (very good)
2) response time (bad)
3) image quality (a bit worse)
Thanks again.
Graeme
I think for what you want you'll probably be happy with the G3.
I think Roger was a little off since the G3 isn't a consumer level SuperZoom but rather a FourThirds system.
Still, there are definitely compromises being made, mostly in low light performance, but also in lens availability/performance. Give that some serious consideration before making the jump.
Graeme,
What carrying strategies have you tried for your current setup? There are lots of options out there and one may work well for you.
Two options that come to mind are Black Rapid and Cotton Carrier.
Doug,
Your comment made me think a little deeper, and in many ways it's not just the physical weight that is an issue, I guessvI'm more looking for greater portability.
That'll be why I've also considered the 70-300L lens that would reduce size a fair bit, length a bit, mass a little and give weather sealing.
I will have a look at some carrying strategies; you may well have hit the nail on the head that that, and IS, are what I really desire.
I feel silly for not considering that before, so a big thanks for your comment.
Graeme
Steven,
My whole train of thought actually started because of lenses and the fact that my beloved L lens stays permanently stuck on the body, limiting the range of shots I can get. I first thought I'd change to the 70-300L, then thought about the G3 for the portability and to regain that 600mm equivalent reach in a zoom lens.
Ideas are still bouncing round my head.
Graeme
Hi Graeme- I have the 70-300L and it's one of the best lenses I have. I didn't think a zoom could be better than my beloved 70-200/4 but it is, or at least equal to it- the IS is better!Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme Sheppard
I would recommend you look at some sample shots from that camera or even download some raw file samples and take a look at them yourself. Here's a link that may help a bit:Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme Sheppard
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pana...cg3/page18.asp
What is acceptable to me may not be acceptable to you. IMO, you are the only one who can say for certain if it is a step down too far to you. I've seen bird shots taken with micro four-third camera on flckr and they looked good to me for that purpose. But, you may be using your images differently and may not find it acceptable. I'd say for shooting perched shots, you don't pixel peep and the biggest prints you would make are 8x10, I'd say the the G3 should do the job.
My $0.02.
GraemeQuote:
Originally Posted by Graeme Sheppard
The article you reference is typical, giving "hard" numbers for limits on diffraction. It is not that simple. See Figure 8 at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto_reach/
Loss due to diffraction is a wide continuum and is first a loss in contrast in the fine details
One would think from the article you reference that a 1D Mark III with 7+ micron pixels would not be affected by diffraction with an f/4 telephoto wide open. Not so. Contrast at the pixel to pixel level is reduced by about 50% at f/4. For the G3, it would be down to about 25% with an f/4 lens, reducing to near zero at f/5.6.
You also said "regain that 600mm equivalent reach" but crop factor is only a field of view equivalent, not telephoto reach. What actual focal length lens would you use on the G3? Crop factor does not help telephoto reach. See:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/cropfactor/
If you want to reduce weight, consider a T2i and lighter lens.
Roger
Roger,
Cheers. By extra reach I was really just meaning the apparent reach (and hence ease of framing and point focusing) I believe I recieve from a cropped sensor. It may be an illusion but I feel more in control when I can frame the shot in-camera rather than through post processing (I often cannot get close enough!).
I'd use the zoom lens at 300mm a lot of the time, which of course would be the same reach as the canon at 300mm only with greater cropping on the G3.
So, the two lenses would have the same reach; the Canon L lens has better quality, the sensor is slightly better and the body is significantly better. However, to get the same "apparent zoom", I'd need to crop the 7D photo, which will counteract some of its benefits.
My summary for IQ: if I can fill the frame, the 7D is significantly better, if I can't it's slightly better.
Unless I can try out a G3, I think I'll stick with the 7D and a new 70-300L.
Thanks for pushing my level of understanding in this, and please correct me if you think I've got the wrong end of the stick somewhere.
Graeme
it's for the $0.02 I post these questions, comments like all the ones here help me challenge my thinking and explore what I really want out of my camera system :S3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Desmond Chan
Your idea that for perched shots the G3 is good has just about swung it for me in favour of the Canon set up! Despite the weight it would probably make the actual photography easier and I'd get better results most of the time, especially if the birds were uncooperative (as they tend to be). Weather sealing means I have less to worry about.
The 70-300L would give top results for almost everything I shoot so it can happily stay clamped to my 7D, with my cheapo 50mm for the rest. A good strap should ease the burden. I could then keep my 400mm with an extender fixed to my tripod in the car for longer reach shots as needed.
Graeme
Since you're reconsidering the 7D, think about a lighter lens with IS and then cropping further to get your end result. Maybe a 300mm f/4L IS with a 1.4x TC is what you're really wanting. The 400/5.6 is a really sharp lens, but with no IS you need to either pump up ISO and shutter speed or miss certain shots. You realize that you're making a compromise, so cropping the 7D images further is a small compromise in IQ, but very little savings in weight.
If big weight savings is the goal, then the Panasonic makes lots of sense.
All,
Thanks a lot for your help, it has helped me identify my main goals.
My main goal is to have a lens with IS; it must also be a zoom as I do not like to change lenses in the field.
My worry over weight was probably a red herring (for me; not to fool you) so I will buy the 70-300L and a better strap (if I can find one here in Thailand).
Thanks again,
Graeme
Oh, and weather sealing ices the cake to perfection!
I think things are being stretched in favor of the DSLR a bit much. At 16MP 4/3 compared to 18MP APS-c sensors (7d/T2i) you aren't loosing any MP/FOV. You are probably gaining a negligible few. Up to ISO 800 the G3 holds up quite well.
I've heard the Panasonic 100-300 f/4-5.6 i a very good lens (no experience) and I'm fairly confident the combo would give (nearly) equal results to the 7d/T2i with lighter (read slower/cheaper) lens.
Don't get me wrong. It's not the choice I would make for myself.....I've configured a "sling" device so I can carry a D3 with a 300-800mm f/5.6 lens for several miles (15+lbs) ready to shoot + the other stuff I might carry (monopod/tripod/flash/lens....)
The tool needs to fit the photographer and the subject....there are times where I believe my little G10 P&S is the better tool compared to my D3. (e.g. near macros).
The biggest drawback I see to the 4/3 panasonic is the autofocus system. It's phase-detection only and slow for moving subjects. (there are other lesser drawbacks, but that's the killer for me)
I can always "re-sell" you a strap of your choice (no markup).Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme Sheppard
I import and ship internationally regularly (side business).
BTW, good choice.
If you look at Dxomark you will see that the G3, even though it is micro 4/3, has better low-light performance than the 7D due to having a more technologically advanced sensor. Canon sensors' low light performance essentially stopped improving circa 2006.
I've used a 7D and 400 f/5.6 a lot. The main worry I'd have replacing this kit with a Panasonic G3 and 100-300 would be focusing speed and the ability to autofocus accurately on a small part of the bird, such as the eye. I also think you would lose BIF capability compared to the 7D. I say this without having actually used the G3.
Flavio,
Looking at the online samples (dpreview, I think), i'd rate the 7D better than the G3 still - I'd actually accept iso 1600 compared to only 800 on the G3.
A stop gained there, another stop through better IS and better autofocus sounds like a good reason to keep the 7D.
Cheers,
Graeme
Sorry, this is just plain inaccurate. The dxomark ratings are limited and do not consider conditions relevant in bird photography in focal length limited situations. I gave specifics in a recent BPN thread (a search should find it if interested). Figures 10, 11, and 12 show the technology improvement which has been steadily increasing generation to generation:Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavio Rose
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...mance.summary/
The canon sensors have some of the lowest noise of any measured. I have not seen data on the G3, but the pixels would have to be 30% more efficient just to equal the noise and signal-to-noise ratio performance of the 7D. This is basic physics.
Roger
Thanks for the offer, but I'd want to try it out before buying, really. I had a look today but didn't find anything - I might try making up my own RStrap with a spare tripod mount and holdall strap.....or go with a holster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Kersting
A permanent solution might have to wait a few months.
Graeme.
Last year at PhotoFair I saw a retailer called iPhoto carried Black Rapid straps. I believed iPhoto is an online store but last year they had a booth with straps for you to try. They might be there again this year, but that still months away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme Sheppard
