The best Nikon prime combo for me -and lightweight- is the Nikon Z8 with Nikkor Z 600 f6.3. Not a slow lens but it is heavily compensated by the Z8. Just over 2,4kg (1,4 for the lens and 1kg for the Z8). But the image quality that you get out of this is just phenomenal ! Sharpness, portability, VR, autofocus...just perfect for me (birds and mammals photography)
I had, for many years, Canon gear. My last being the EOS7D MK2 with various Canon & Sigma / Tamron lenses. Then came the dawning of realisation that the one thing I couldn’t avoid was advancing age. A friend came the same conclusion and moved from Nikon to Olympus and continued to extol the virtues and benefits of the m4/3. I tried his copy a few times, saw his images, no guarantee that mine would be as good of course, and took the plunge with the OMD EM1 mk2 and then the OM1 with various lenses, 12-40 f2.8 pro, 40-150 f2.8 pro, 100-400 and finally the 300 f4 pro. The 100-400 is not as sharp as the 300 but does give some flexibility. As for the weight / reach I could not be happier that I made the change. I still have the Canon 7D MK2 but hardly use it these days. Thanks for the channel and unbiased information / content. I’m glad I found you on RUclips. Keep it up and stay healthy.
Ha! We're in similar places, but I feel I'm in a much lower budget space. Sold my 7D2 to get EM1 which I quickly traded to EM1.2 and couldn't be happier with performance. I was missing the reach of the 75-300mm lens though, so re-bought 7D2 and Sigma 150-500mm lens... which I ended up adapting onto my EM1.2 and couldn't be happier... for now😂
I have recently discovered the same.... I use a Z8 and a 180-600 which 40 years ago would have been a dream setup compared to the F3 and primes I used to lug around! Now it is just a little too heavy.
I have the EM1.3 and 100-400 very nice when you are well over 60 Hopefully they make a pro version of this 100-400 with sync IS one day as it is the best option for me.
As I have aged, I have gone from the Canon 80D with 400mm L lens to the Olympus OMD-E1 MK III with 100-400 f/4. It’s the right weight with some loss of depth of field, but negligible to my eyes. I have had medical problems and then needed surgery in the past five years and the stress on my ability to lift heavy lens or cameras decided my systems. I, however, do tentatively plan to see the updated R7 Mk II when it comes out to see if it might be as light as I can use.. My photography is nature and landscape photography, but I do dabble into bird photography too. Thank you Duane for all the inspiration of gear talk, ideas on bird photography, and a lot of great community of people who are passionate about this hobby and like to share. ❤
Moved from a Sony a7iv with 100-400 GM, often with the 1.4tc, to the OM 1 and the 300 f4, and again often with a 1.4 tc. I couldn’t be happier. Not only weight but many other benefits of the OM 1.
I had the same set up with the A74, I had to get the sensor cleaned repeatedly as dust was getting through the barrel. Loved the image quality apart from the dust specks.
Hi Duade, I owned a Camera House store and studio for 27 years so I had the opportunity to use MANY different camera systems. I love bird photography but I also do landscapes, macro and astro photography and I'm also retired (which means old!) so I wanted a capable system that suited me. I ditched all my full frame kits and chose the Olympus e_M1x when it was released and have absoloutley no regrets. The 300mm f4 and 1.4x converter is great for birds and light enough for me to travel and hand hold. You have to choose a system that is useable for you and also produces the images that YOU want. Love your videos.
Another factor to consider in the purchase of a lens is how close it focuses. Most nature photographers photograph a variety of subjects, personally I would not buy a lens that does not focus to less than 5 ft. If you are going to photograph flowers and insects, micro-habitats, intimate landscapes, textures, etc. you're going to want a lens that focuses to less than 5 ft. I do the vast majority of my photography using the Canon R6 Mark II coupled with the Canon 100 to 500 mm zoom lens.
I couldn’t agree more. The RF100-500 is so sharp and versatile. If the birds are sparse, you can shoot macro type photos with the .33 magnification and close mfd. There is always something to shoot with this lens. I use it for landscapes too at 100 mm. I own the 1.4 tc, and only use it infrequently due to weight and other limitations. This is how I really know I wouldn’t like the 200-800!
For wildlife I went with the OM-1. Mainly due to the smaller size and weight. I had the Sony a9 with the 200-600mm which is a nice setup but at the end of the day when I went out with the OM-1 with either the 40-150mm 2.8 or 300mm f4 plus the 1.4 tc if needed I came home with more keepers and in most cases I didn’t have to take a tripod or monopod with me saving me even more weight. The extra mobility to move that smaller gear around in your hands for BIF was the biggest difference for me. Plus the preburst shooing and high fps was a game changer in many scenarios. I won’t ever buy another body without preburst shooting on it. I also shoot macro and some Astro stuff so the in body focus stacking and live composite features were also icing on the cake. Never once regreted moving to m4/3 for my wildlife stuff. Plus my older body thanks me every time I return home without an aching back or sore muscles
Thank you for showing all the options. The best choice for me is the 100-400mm lens and adding a 1.4 teleconverter lens (I would use this teleconverter some of the time, I will try both ways, as you say without the 1.4 the image is likely going to be a bit sharper and bit more detailed, however the longer reach might be important if I need the 1.4). You have shown what can be done with this lighter-weight lower-tier lens, and as a hobbyist for just occasional hobby use, that lens is perfect for me. With the 1.4 converter, the lens extends to 560mm on full frame, and even longer on APS-C. Thanks again especially on how to frame the shot against the background so it is not cluttered or distracting.
As usual...thank you for an interesting and informative video.I just returned from a 42 day European trip (Ireland and Scotland). I purchased a Nikon Z-50 with a 50 to 250 lens and a smaller wide angle zoom. The entire kit was quite light weight and provided a great focal range, especially since it is a crop frame camera with a 1.5 full frame factor. I took nearly a thousand shots and was very satisfied with the quality. Being an 87 year hold photographer ... lighter is better! Thanks again for your truly wonderful videos....John
I’m in the minority for wildlife and use Fujifilm kit. I’m really pleased with it. I use Fujifilm X-H2s which gives 40fps and has pre-capture. I use two lenses - middle weight and heavy weight. The Fujifilm 150-600mm which gives up to 900mm equivalent. When I need more speed or low light I use Fujifilm 200mm f2 with purpose built 1.4x teleconverter (420mm equivalent). I can hand hold both but I prefer monopod or skimmer plate if I am spending time in a location.
I'm in the "hiker" category, not lugging a tri- or monopod most of the time, so Olympus E-M1.2 + 100-400 is my current lightweight kit for wildlife. Btw., I must say I *highly* appreciate your style of showing the unedited raw file as well in your videos. Makes it somehow more relatable 🙂
Recently got an R5 + 100-500 and size was such a big concern, while the 200-800 was tempting, I was lucky enough to see it in person before I pulled the trigger and I'm so glad I did!
I'm currently using the 100-500 with the R7. I was previously using the Tamron 150-600 with the R7. So far, I have not missed the Tamron. The 100-500 is very sharp, lighter, and most importantly, focuses faster and more accurately. The only downside was the price. However I got the 100-500 for ~$1300 by purchasing it used from KEH with a trade-in bonus and a birthday code. Not trying to market KEH, I just thought it was a great value for the price.
Hi Duade, I actually have 3 levels of gear. depending on what i am photographing on a given day. Big primes - R3 EF600, EF200-400, light weight -R5/R7 RF100-400 RF100-500, ultra lightweight - EOS-M 5 EF-M 55-200 EF 200. It all depends on where I'm going, the elevation and the distance. Its not uncommon however for me to take my R3/600 v3 on a monopod and walk between 8-10 miles in a morning. Got to get my steps in.
I have used Canon all my career with multiple EF lenses so I didn’t want to change brands. EF 100-400 on a 7D2 was my usual wildlife kit. Tried the Sigma 150-600C which gave terrific reach but bulky, heavy, not always that sharp. Eventually had to upgrade so went for R7 for wildlife and traded the EF and Sigma for an RF100-500 and the results are clearly better. Would love the detail of the big primes but too expensive and the ability to zoom and change composition is key for me. Very happy with this combo and I don’t think always chasing the latest and best gear makes you a better photographer anyway, although specs like eye-tracking certainly improves keeper rate.
I got back into photography 3 years ago after a 20 year break. Maybe I’m geeky, but I actually made a spreadsheet of the different camera and lens spec’s together as part of my evaluation process. What Duade calls working weight, I believe. Weight was a top consideration. Ultimately I went with the R5 and Rf100-500. It’s versatile, light, and sharp. I went to my local camera store and had them mount the Sony zoom and camera up and hand it to me. I honestly don’t remember which ones at this point,but I knew that would not be enjoyable for me to carry, even if I sold a kidney to afford it! It really helped me narrow down my choices. I’m more of a wandering photographer and like to pack light. There is always a trade off with gear. But what wonderful times these are to have so many choices!
The olympus em1/om1 and their 75-300 or panasonic g9/g9ii and their 100-300 both come in under/around 1kg btw! image quality is solid with editing and they’re unbelievably portable for 600mm ff equiv fov
Both the 75-300 and the 100-300 are incredibly soft, IQ is not good at all, they have zero cropping ability because the image quality is so bad, you need an insane amount of light for lower ISOs as you have to stop them down to f8 for acceptable sharpness. Really only an option if you have no other choice.
@@MarkusHorrer I can confirm what Markus is saying. Used the Panasonic G9+100-300 and even if it was super portable, the lens was limiting the kit. I replaced it with a Canon 400mm 5.6 L anf the difference is visible.
@@MarkusHorrer That's true, but they're also around 500g and can often be found around $300 for the Panasonic or $150 for the Olympus. I haven't sold my 100-300II yet because I'm usually travelling with a backpack and when I'm not sure I'll even need a tele, I'm taking that one. When I'm just out taking photos, I don't mind carrying more weight, but when I have to pack for a week, it makes a difference.
I use the R7 together with the RF100-500, a fine combo, 160-800mm with the R7. The crop sensor gives great detail, I use it beside birding also a lot for insects (Butterfly, Libel) in combination with focus stacking (handheld, 800mm and minimum focus distance of 1.2 meter). The weight of this combo is 1,53 Kg for the RF100-500 and 0,6 Kg for the R7, so 2.1 Kg easy to handheld. I know the R7 is not as good as the Full frame camera's in low light, but still I prefer the R7, if compared to the R6. Sometimes I use also the 1.4 extender, and that works good, but than mostly on a tripod.
Hi Duade, with my R3 and R5 my main go to lens is my Canon L 600mm F4 MK2 and normally use the MK3 1.4 Extender, this combo gives me superb sharpness and beautiful images, but as you say it is a lump and it's normally stuck on a tripod and gimbal head, and yes I have missed a few opportunities because of this. I also own the RF100-500 and RF 200-800 and both give great images in good light, since owning the 200-800 this is the one I use most when going for long walks, but when I am photographing owls in the last light there is no substitution for the big prime, I am still shooting while other people around me have packed up.
For years I carried and used the Sony Rx10iv with the 24-600mm equivalent ZEISS zoom. Great camera, but they never updated it for bird’s eye tracking. It spoiled me though for heavy gear. Next I tried the OM System OM-1 with their 100-400mm IS zoom…about twice as heavy and twice the size of the Rx10iv, but with great birds and animal eye tracking. I could not learn to love it though, and, in my opinion, based on my experience, to really get the performance out of the OM-1 you need to invest in the much more expensive, and much heavier Pro series telephotos or zooms. So I bought a Sony a6700 with the Tamron 50-400 Di iii VC VDX zoom. Same size and weight as the OM-1 and 100-400, and still way bigger and heavier than the Rx10iv, but manageable. I am very impressed with the quality of the lens and the sensor and the images the combination yields…and with the way the camera handles in the field. And, of course, the eye-tracking auto focus is remarkable. I think this is a camera and lens that I can love as much as I loved my Rx10iv. :)
For me the weight and weather sealing is the most important issues. I got a OM System OM-1 Mark II with the 300mm f4. This has just now been complemented with a Lumix 100-300 f4-5.6 which I bought second hand. And the reason I bought this instead of the Olympus 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 was for the weather sealing, the Lumix is also faster but it also weights more (about 100g more.)
Thanks for your thoughts very useful.👍 I personally use the Fuji XH2s & XH2 150-600mm + 200mm f2 gives me a little of both worlds for different scenarios. A little note on your summary on the cons for the lightweight gear: I think you meant to say less shallow depth of field rather than less depth of field, as a smaller aperture and smaller sensor would give you more depth of field. 👍 Ant
Personally i'd add the 800 F/11 and 600 F/11 as honourable mentions. With the R6II the setups weigth just below 2kg and around 1.5kg respectively and still give a huge reach. It's definitely very handholdable and the focal lengths can be really fun to use. I always keep my full gear with me (7kg) so i really appreciate the lenses to be light enough even for a hike. It's not only the weigth of a single lens that matters, but if you want multiple lenses and have them in a backpack, it really adds up there if they all are on the heavy side on their own.
Duade I’m new to bird photography so didn’t want initially to spend too much money and I wanted a lens that could work for landscape as well. So I bought the RF 100-400mm f6.3-8 which I’ve been mildly surprised for the price at how sharp it is in the middle of frame. I used it to begin with on my R5 but I bought a R10 as a vacation camera and the two together are so light and so easy to carry in a tiny back pack. It’s inspired me now to order the RF 200-800mm zoom and after that the RF 100-500mm. As a portrait / landscape photographer I’m now hooked on bird photography all due to the RF 100-400mm.
Thanks for sharing your experience, great to hear the lens has opened up a new genre of photography for you. Landscapes in the morning and evening and birding in between. Cheers, Duade
I have the OM1, the G9II, the 300 F4 Pro, both 1.4x and 2.0 TC, the 100-400 Leica II, the 40-150 Pro but.... 90% of the time I have my Sony RX10 IV 24-600 F2.4-F4 with me (on a sling for the instant grab). The best camera is simply the camera that you have on you and is easy to set up. That Sony camera with it's zoom range, sharpness and 24 fps stacked sensor amazes me every day. I bought it used. It is not the lightest 'bridge' camera but definitely the best.
Thanks Duade for another thoughtful subject! I find that heavier kits seriously afftect one's agility to get small, skittish birds. My companions with light weight gear are always quicker to setup and capture more birds than me with my middle tier gear. Eventhough I capture fewer species, but my images are superior in detail and sharpness.
Thanks mate, yes it is always that trade off isnt it, I find the same with my 500mm lens. I prefer using the zooms but if I want the best quality I reach for the prime. Cheers, Duade
Hi Duade, I use Olympus/OM System. I currently use an OM1(mk1) but I will never part with my EM1 mk2. The system offers a great lightwieght body with every feature one could ask for and more combined with image stabilisation. Olympus have always made high quality sharp lenses. Among a range of other lenses, I use the 300mm F4 prime with a 1.4 teleconverter or a 150-600mm zoom. I would never think to shoot full frame, even if you paid me to.
Thanks Duade, I am huge fan of yours, follow your youtube videos. I use a light tamron lens 18-400mm for both wildlife and landscape shots and recently bought a second hand tamron zoom lens 150-600mm for wildlife, I tried using it handheld with my canon 7D and it was heavy, I had to sit down and rest the lens on my flexed up knee to practise shots to see how the shot will look like with different modes and FL. thanks again, that was another excellent video! cheers
Wonderful information Dude. I was looking for a lighter setup when I started doing bird photography and chose an Olympus OMD E1 mark 3 mostly for travel. I purchased a 100 to 400 ml lens that I love as it's wonderfully sharp but not so good for low light . I wanted to upgrade and was looking to get the OM 1 but passed that by and purchased a Canon R7 for more megapixels so I can crop a bit. I mostly shoot now with the R7 and the Canon 100 to 500 lens along with the 1 1/4 converter for a little extra reach. I love this setup but there are many limitations.
My current combo is the R5 and RF 100-500mm. Amazing combo without nearly unparalleled versatility and portability. I think you might find the new Sigma 500mm f5.6 an interesting new player. It’s virtually the same size and weight as the old Canon EF 400mm f5.6. Only problem-only available on Sony E and L-mount.
Duade, you have a really great combination of presentation style and densely packed information that I love.👌 I started back into outdoors photography with the Olympus E-M1 when it came out. These days I'm mostly shooting motorsports in a situation where zoom is necessary for varying distances, but due to the heat ultra long shots are usually ruined by air shimmer. My new-ish OM-1 with the excellent Olympus 40-150 2.8Pro and the 1.4 converter give me equivalent range of 112-420mm. I'm envious of the 300mm F4 and the longer zooms but most of the time they would be limiting at the close end and unusable at longer distances as noted above. And the relative lightness plus weather sealing mean confident handling even in rainy and dusty conditions. The weight is nice as I often shoot a few thousand shots per weekend, in bursts of 3 to 5, so there are many many cycles of bringing camera up to eye. I think that the OM-1's focus tracking for motorsports improves my hit rate. And realistically with a good sized subject in frame 20MP is more than enough for web and most printing. Looking for time to do some wildlife shooting, which may force the longer lens issue, but for the time being the new processing programs for sharpness and resolution will have to do.
I use a 5DIII with 70-200mm f2.8L and 1.4TC and a LUMIX G9 with an Olympus 75-300mm. I’m not a dedicated wildlife photographer so the 75-300mm (150-600mm FF equiv) is adequate for my ad hoc shots. Plus I picked it up at an auction for AUD150 providing a lightweight, bargain combo. The weakness is that the lens is slow so not great in low light. I also have an Olympus 75mm (so 150mm equiv FF) f1.8 which is great for close proximity shots. Lovely bokeh (f3.6 FF DOF equiv).
My favorite kit for longest reach, impressive auto focus and being able to see in the dark with high ISO combines Canon R6 MKII with Canon RF 200-800 with or without a 1.4TX. Plus the shots are crystal clear. Don't let them tell you they aren't. The tradeoff is weight. I have COPD (hard to breath), so hand holding this for any longer than 30 seconds and I'm done. So, I use a monopod, the ifoote Cobra 3. Works great. Feels as good as large tripod gimbal mount. I have gone through many Canon bodies and will stand firm with the R6 MKII. It's the affordable R3. I'm not a pro, but they tell me it's as good as the R3 for all but the R3's advantages with less rolling shutter. I don't shoot sports so I could care less. I also have Canon lenses RF11 800mm and RF 100-400. The RF11 800 is easier to use hand held, lighter.
I used to use a Canon 1 series plus 500mm f4 with tripod. With advancing years and hiking it became to much bulk and weight and was a pain to travel by air with. I moved to Olympus OM1 plus 300mm f4. Recently I have bought the OM Sytem 150-400mm zoom with built in 1.25 converter. This is an awesome lens. Although heavier and more expensive than the 300mm f4 it is well balanced and feels lighter than you expect due to magnesium construction. The effective equivalent focal length with converter in is 1000mm and you can still add an external 1.4x for an equivalent 1400mm and very acceptable IQ. It also focuses down to 1.3m making it ideal for butterflies as well as birds. You should try one on your OM1 !
I've been lugging a 500 F4 and a 600 F4 on my R5s now for a couple years and average 3 miles a day 4 -5 days a week. I find it manageable with a MonoGimbal, monopod and harness. I even sometimes have a 2nd R5 with a 100 to 500 f7.1 on a strap and worked out a way to sling the big prime over my shoulder to use the zoom. I am 67 (and probably a little nuts) ... 😂
Thanks Dan, yes, you have a great setup that is for sure, it really just comes down to each individual and what they can handle and enjoy I guess. Cheers, Duade
I use a Z8 + 600mm PF. The combo is around 2.5kg, but I find it quite comfortable to hand hold for longer periods, especially since it's not front heavy.
I use the Canon R7 with the RF 100-400 lens. It’s ideal for traveling being such a compact and lightweight setup. It goes into a camera backpack along with all my other tech and I can take it as cabin baggage. Okay so the setup is a cheap one but it’s ideal for me as I cannot handle the heavy lenses very well (I have a Tamron 150-600C with EF to RF converter) weighs a ton. It’s a cheap kit but it produces excellent results for me.
In this last week I've moved away from Canon, for the first time since 1991. I had the rather glorious EOS 90D with Sigma 150-600C, 105 macro, 10-20, Canon 24-105L and a 1.4x convertor. The camera was a bit hit and miss, BiF photo's were a real challenge not helped by the weight of the kit. I've now got the Lumix G9 II with Leica 12-60 and 100-400. The image quality is pretty good, the focussing is a world apart from 90 with very few missed shots and 25MP is still respectable if you want to crop. The real winner is weight. I went out last night with the 100-400 and it was a pleasure, I could enjoy my surroundings without feeling the weight of the 150-600. For me this has been a game changer and apart from battery life, I don't miss anything else at the moment. The MFT lenses are significantly cheaper than the Canon RF's which was another reason to move over.
I didn't have lot of money to spend, but I bought the Tamron 150 to 600, and put it on my Canon 77D and upgraded body from my 40D. I'm pleased with the results.
I work with 2 combos. Rf with rf 100 400. Light weight, perfect for just a walk. Other one is the em1 mark ii with the 100 400. Has more reach then the r7. Weight is a bit more and it is water proof.
Canon R5 + 100-500mm 7.1L Pros: Light Sharp Easy to carry in bags Cons Over priced (the lens) I use this combo for hiking for avation shots (a place in Wales called Mach Loop) And use it for all my wildlife needs, as its just enough reach, sometimes not perfect but with 45mp R5 you've got room to crop.
I could not agree more that the R7 and the RF 100 to 400 is the best combination when it comes to lightweight camera Gear. I suppose it also has to do with your budget and what you can afford
Duade, I upgraded from Canon 90D with the Sigma 150-600C to the Canon R7 and RF100-500. Very happy with this combo, I generally wander looking for birds, always hand holding. The RF100-500 is lighter and much better of course than the Sigma. I have a 1.4TX but rarely if ever use it. I have never been happy with the results, unless using a tripod. I am more and more convinced I want a R7.2 with better AF, better EVF, and better rolling shutter. Also , with Topaz, I am often shooting to ISO12800. That has been a real game changer.
@@andrewkeir2282 you're getting good results with ISO12800 on the R7 (with denoise after, of course)? I usually don't go further than 3200 or 6400 in more extreme cases, that's why I'm asking. I have dxo pureraw 4, but haven't tested with those higher ISO
I have the same. I’ve tried it with the battery grip attached but for me that crossed the threshold of being too heavy and almost never use it. On occasion I add a 1.5 converter but like the R6+100-500 as my go to kit.
That's almost 5k still and you still need a converter that's 500$$ more to get to even 700mm of reach. And then you are stuck at 300mm on the short end AND can't go below F10 aperture in this scenario. VERY disappointing if you aren't shooting only large animals like bison, raptors, wading birds, elk, etc. If you are shooting songbirds or birds in flight, 700 is just not enough in most instances and the lack of aperture control is a joke when you are spending that much money. I get that it is more than capable at higher ISOs compared to old models, but that should not be a justification IMO. Canon is seriously lacking right now between the long lenses restrictiveness and the fact they they are not allowing 3rd party zooms.
I added the R7, for walk around this is my go to combo. The R6 I still use but mostly for low light and BIF. The R7 gives much more reach and detail, key is to keep the ISO as low as possible, than you get very nice results.
I completely agree about the weight issue. I am not a wildlife photographer but for general events and landscape I just purchased the Sony A1 w/70-200 f/2.8 GMII + 2x teleconverter (140-400mm f/5.6). The setup is just over 2kg. The lens and converter were more than twice the price of the Sony 200-600mm, but that is a 6 year old lens, while the new 70-200 is optically superior and for my purposes, the weight makes a big difference.
While I can see how weight seems to be a huge factor for so many people, I do think that a lot people would benefit strongly from doing a bit of training for their hobby. As a long time drummer who suffered from various issues like tennis elbow, tendinitis, back pain and other things, working my technique and training my core muscles, balance and also doing weight training has eliminated almost all of my problems. For photographers the same principles should apply as well: Training your core, doing mobility work, gaining a bit of muscle and strengthening the overall body really does a make a difference!
I totally agree! As a 62 year old woman, kit weight is a factor for me. It doesn’t help that I have a desk job. I do a variety of functional exercises to improve my physical strength specifically for my photography. I want to be able to get low…..and get back up! I also want the core and upper body strength to hold the camera to my eye. I’m not a super athlete by any means, but my photography hobby motivates me to exercise and to stay in shape to make it more enjoyable!
My ideal set-up is the R5 with the 100-500. Great compromise of weight and speed. In most cases the DOF/ background can be managed. For those few cases where DOF is really challenged I have a heavy 200-400 F4. Overall use 100-500 in 90% situations.
Awesome video Duade. Incredible options for all types of Nature photographers. Your info is always so well informed and practical to implement. As a 61 yr old retired paramedic with two injured shoulders and back I’m happy to be using an OM-5 and OM lenses. Saving up for an OM 1 Mark? Cheers 🙌
I'm using a R3 with RF600 F4 and also just got a Fuji GFX100 II and 500mm F5.6. Weight isn't an issue for me at all and I don't have problems hiking around with it. Going from the 1DX II and EF 600 F4 II to the RF setup it feels light weight.
Hi Duade, I use R7 with 100-400 for nature photography and I often walk up to 8 miles and have no problem with the weight As you pointed out the 1.4x converter is a useful addition however in the northern hemisphere it’s only useful on a sunny day. As an amateur I am more than satisfied with my results but you have to accept that you can only get good results if the birds are not too far away e.g a Linnet at 10 m will be okay but don’t bother if it’s more than 30m. Perhaps it’s me but I struggle sometime with BiF even with eye recognition and tracking on. Perhaps I am over ambitious I don’t know but at 73 I get great enjoyment using this combo which you reviewed previously and set me on this pathway. Sorry to be wordy, keep up the good work and stay healthy. BW. S
I have tried a few combos so far. A7riv with sigma sport 150-600 A9 with 200-600 Xh2s with tamron 150-500 Nikon z8 with 180-600 And finally Nikon z8 with 600pf 6.3 While having zoom is freeing and flexible. I have really loved using this 600mm prime, it’s so sharp and light with great VR the difference in weight between in it and the zoom listed before is staggering and the balance is perfect. Can’t recommend it more, might get a 70-200 2.8 one day on a crop body as a complimentary kit for my 600
@@stevesharkey3312 I did enjoy using the xh2s, maybe my favourite functional body design. It’s a really well made piece of kit as well as its vertical grip which is compatible with using up to 3 batteries at once! Which I could get the same for my z8.. What turned me over to the z8 finally was the night and day difference in autofocus. I imagine the autofocus speed and inaccuracies would be more exaggerated on adapted ef glass. I think allot of people have their fingers crossed for a stacked r7ii. I would be tempted by that or even a Nikon z90 stacked camera with the xh2s sensor
Most "mobile" shooting these days with Canon R5 or R7 coupled with 100-500 lens. Still have my EF 600 but don't lug it around as much as I used to. One thing I haven't seen mentioned so far is the importance of a good camera strap. I use Peak Design slide strap - this was one of the best accessory purchases I have made in a long time - comfortably carry the R5-100-500 combo without having to actually hold the weight except when shooting.
Hi Duade, thank you for another great video. Lovely to see you out in the field again! Hope that you're all healed up after the operation. I've chosen the middle weight tier. I started out with the Canon 7D and Sigma 150-600. I sold the 7D for an R7 but was actually more frustrated due to the communication issues with the lens. It still worked great on my 5D Mark iii but I wanted the reach, IQ and speed of the R7. I was recently in a position to be able to get the RF 100-500. So I've sold the Sigma and am now using the R7 with the 100-500. It's a brilliant combo! The RF lens almost feels like it should be in the lightweight category after coming from the Sigma. I was able to make these decisions due to your great videos. Thank you.
Using an R7 with a 100-400Lmk2, 150-600 'C' and 500 f/4L mk2 and 1.4x TC mk3 Both have ups and downs. Can't say which is better but weight surely is underestimated by a lot of people. I tend to use my 500 f/4 with the TC for birds of prey in the distance to get those habitat shots at about 250-350m distance. The 500 f/4 is handholdable for me but it does require a proper pose to hold on a while. I do use a tripod and gimbal head when stationary all the time though. I do still have to alter my DIY groundpod to make the gimbal head fit.
Duade, I think this is especially important when you are doing air travel and need to put all of them onto carry on luggage. Found that I have struggling to backpack carry my combo of 6d *2 and with 135mm F2, 200mm F2.8 and 400mm F5.6 everywhere. Cant imagine if I got myself those big prime lenses
I use exclusively the lightweight gear…usually the 100-400 on the R7 or the Sony RX10 IV. There’s too little incremental IQ benefit to the “better” gear to justify the weight and focal length restriction for me.
I use an RX10IV too! 2.2 lbs, carry it on my belt. Not sure I'll want to sell it when I upgrade. I love it for what it is, leaving me to ask, how much better is your combo? I'm currently saving for the r7+ a lens.
I have had my Canon 500 mm f4 for many years now. I bought it because at the time it was a good price. Nearly 20 years on, I do find it more difficult to use, especially after a hand injury at work. I don't use it as much as I did, but I'm not parting with it. If you can stretch to one, they are definitely worth it.
I use the Sony system and have tried varied combinations and own the 600 F4 and the 200-600 zoom. But with the release of the new 300 F2.8 GM that has become by far my favourite lens. I use on its own at F2.8 and with the 1.4x 420mm at F4 and 2x at F5.6 600mm - works great with and without teleconverters and it is so light, I believe about 1.4kg which with an A1 body is still only about 2kg and as a 65 year old I can carry all day. I have got the bigger prime and still use in hides and on tripod, but now I have the 300 GM would find any other lens for wildlife photography difficult to justify, as it does it all with wonderful image quality and makes shooting a pleasure
Hi Duade great video thanks - another pro/con of prime vs zoom is minimum focal distance.. i primarily shoot primes but sometime miss shots when targets are too close…. Whereas the zooms often have a very close relative focus :)
As you would know Duade, I use a R3 and EF 500mm f4 IS L (mark 1). 3.8kg for the lens and 1.1kg for the R3 (sans battery, memory card and of course, the hood for the lens). So, probably 5kg plus. Despite having shoulder and lower back problems, I have adapted remarkably well to this combo (I shoot handheld). If I can do it, so can others. It all comes down to attitude and motivation imho. I am now looking and saving for a EF 600f4 II (extra reach, 100% DPAF coverage, full 30fps on my R3, better AF acquisition, better optical quality and much better IS). It's nearly the same weight as my current lens, has the same minimum focus distance too. I am not a fan of zooms (sorry).
Thanks mate, yes, if you can handle the weight that is great, I handhold mine but do get fatigued if I have to do it for long term. There is no denying the IQ of the big primes that is for sure and if that is what you like then there is nothing better. I personally like to have a zoom and a prime just so I have options. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade yeah I get that (zoom + prime). Perhaps years down the track, when I have that EF 600f4 II, I'll save for a zoom (probably the RF200-800). After the 600f4 purchase, my goal will be to get a lightly used R5 (original). I do get fatigued with the big lens (I have named her the "BFG9000" LOL) but I make sure to put her down and take regular breaks between shots. This works well for me as I'm often scouting with my eyes or binoculars for birds, enjoying watching the birds or listening to them sing or just enjoying the landscape. FYI my R3 has been nicknamed "Big Bertha" LOL. I have a rather unique sense of humour that has been twisted by many years of loving the Gary Larson Farside cartoons. 🙂 I have a few recent images that I'll mail you to see what you think.
hi I really enjoy watching your videos, they are very professional and intelligent, you are a noble and nice person who gives of yourself to others Thank you very much for everything I learned a lot from you and now I bought a camera thanks to you Many thanks
For my R5, with weight in mind, I opted for the EF 400mm f4 DO IS II, with a 1.4x converter (combined weight around 3.2kg). Plus I also have an EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L II. I can handhold or alternatively use my lovely old Linhof Twinshank tripod with a Wimberley Head.
I love light-weight lenses! Thank you for this video on such an important topic. I also nearly ruined by back, but more and more options became available. For the people who are interested in light-weight (under 1.5kg) lenses, here is a list of more wildlife lenses I have tested for all kinds of brands and found to be really good (some are more affordable, some are more expensive): 1) Sigma 500mm F5.6 Sony E/L-Mount (superb), 2) Canon RF 600mm F11 or Canon RF 800mm F11 (below on 1kg or the second approximately 1kg), 3) Sony FE 100-400mm GM Zoom - very nice, 4) Tamron 50-400mm for Sony E - very versatile and nice background rendering, 5) Nikon Z 28-400 - a crazy superzoom range, but still allows for wildlife shots, needs to be stopped down to F11 for best results, 6) Panasonic Leica 200mm F2.8 (400mm full frame equivalent) - beautiful bokeh and great close focussing abilities, 7) Canon EF 400mm F5.6, was shown by Duade in other videos, my copy is from 1993 but it is still so great and par in terms of image quality with more modern lenses, 8) Nikon Z 600mm F6.3 PF - lightweight but a bit more expensive, not better than no 1) on this list, 9) Nikon Z 400mm F4.5 - great very quick and sharp, 10) Sigma 100-400mm DG DN easy to use, not the most outstanding but fine ----------- no more back pain, and still great images.
I’ve shot with Nikon, Sony and Canon. I currently shoot with a Canon R5, 100-500mm, 200-800mm and the OM Systems OM1-M2, 40-150mm, 300mm, 150-400mm. I switched mainly for reach, but weight was also and important factor in my decision to go with the OM system.
Recently upgraded from a Sony A6500 to a Sony A6700 - still APS-C but with much more advanced software and hardware. I used to use a Sony A-mount 70-400 /4-5.6 SSM 2 (with LA-EA5 converter) - wonderful lens but pretty heavy. When I recently dropped it on concrete and my insurance paid for a replacement, I decided to get the APS-C Sony 70-350 G lens instead of the full frame 100-400 GM, and use the substantial difference in price for other goodies. I haven't had a chance to use it in the field yet and I know there's a real (if subtle) difference in image quality, but I'm hoping that the dramatic drop in weight, from over 2kg to just a kg, will almost make up for the 75mm shorter focal length, I'm hoping that I have a potent 105- 525mm combination.
I have an R5 paired mainly with the 100-500 and the 500f4. I also have the OM1 with the 300f4. I find size and weight difference between the r5 with the 100-500 and the OM1 with the 300f4 to be negligable. For my wildlife photography, the R5 generally gets the nod but I grab the OM1 when pro-capture may be useful. The R5 mk2 will probably mean the OM1 gets less use than it does now with the addition of pre-capture. I love the close focussing distance on the 100-500 and some of the close ups are staggering in details. Generally for wildlife, I like to shoot widish and crop and the 45mp sensor excels at this. They are all great set-ups though. No-one has an excuse not to get a great shot!
Well, there is no one size fits all in the camera world but the R7 with the Canon RF-100-500, or the EF100-400 MK II comes close. More often than not, if you can walk 50-100 yards these combinations will be effective 95% of the time. This is especially true if you opt for the APSC camera. Some of my friends have purchased the larger tier lenses, but because they are considerably heavier and bulkier, they often only carry their lower tier lenses with them and leave their 600mm lens at home. Nice presentation, thank you. J
Thanks for another great video. I bought into micro 4/3 for the smaller size and weight. I have a neurological condition which makes the left side of my body weak and therefore not able to hold up a heavy lens. Price was also a factor in going m 4/3. I use an OM-1 with the M Zuiko 100-400mm. I find it's softer at 400mm so use it primarily at 300 for 90% of shots. I'm now considering the 300mm f/4 prime but will test it in a shop or renting to see how the additional weight is.
Currently I use two of older Sony cameras: A7III and a6600 with Sony 70-350 (an APS-C lens) and Sony 200-600 The second one is a full frame, but I can also place it on APS-C body for a better reach, and I actually prefer this to using a 1.4 TC which I also have. So, based on the gradation in this video I use both a middle weight and lightweight setup. Considering an APS-C camera behaves worse in low light I usually use it for video only nowadays, cause on the video you can take each frame with 1/100 or 1/200 exposure (for slowmo) instead of 1/1000 and less needed for sharp still images of wildlife. But I also like higher magnification ratio on 70-350, so for close up shots it serves better. What I also like 70-350 is so light that even the gimbal motors can handle it. So the only option I'm lacking is a heavy bright prime lens, but on Sony all of them are way out of my price range.
Thanks for another great video Duade. My heavy gear is a 1Ds Mark III or a 7D Mark II with grip, both around the 1.2kg and an EF 600 f/4L IS USM lens at 5.36kg, total 6.5kg (or 14.3lb). Can you hand hold it, yes but not for very long and if you should stumble backwards whilst tracking a Spitfire it will probably crush you! 😂 My favourite shot is a Spitfire doing a display taken hand held with the 600mm at 1/60th second to get good prop blur. 😮 Medium weight would be the 7DII or R5 with grip (replaces the 1DsIII) and the EF 100-400 LII at 1.6kg total 2.8kg. I don’t have any light weight long gear, my light gear is the same bodies with standard or wide zoom lenses. I use grips on the bodies because I like to turn the camera without having a strange grip on the camera, plus they are pretty much essential for counterbalancing the 600mm lens when they are on a gimbal head.
My preference these days is the Canon R5 with the 800mm f/11. I sold the 600/4 behemoth 10 years ago. It is only rarely missed. The 300/2.8 prime is still too heavy to tote about and, even with a 1.4X, is still too short 99% of the time in my world. I need the long reach but the bulk and weight of the big primes is just too much for me these days.
the R7 and the RF100-400 is an amazing option for the price. Of course for a bit more money the RF100-500mm is an even better option. A bit heavier though... I love both. 😃
Just wrapping up a photo trip to Costa Rica using R5 + 100-500 + 1.4 ext. I'm 49 and in decent shape. I didn't have any issues handholding except at high elevation (thinner air) on Cerro de la Muerte. The main issue was the small aperture. Shooting at 700mm/f10 in lowlight cloud forests is a struggle. I lived at 6400ISO or higher, often had to reduce focal length to bring in more light, and was forced to drop shutter speeds as low as 1/80. That said, it looks like I was still able to nail sharp images shooting in short bursts in electronic shutter mode. I will find out for sure once I start post processing. Fingers crossed!
I can't help but it always lifts my spirits when I see your videos, Duade. People really believe that you mean what you say and that it's not always about the best and most expensive equipment. I'm happy with my R5 and 100-500 combination, even with a 1.4 converter, but my dream is to add an RF 400 2.8 (or used EF 400 2.8 III) for its versatility as I don't just shoot birds.... Combined with a 2x converter it should have enough focal length when you need it, and fast and short enough, plus shorter minimum distance than the 600 f4 for example.
I sold all my heavy lenses after my shoulders started hurting. I walk a lot when birding. My favorite combination is R8 + RF 800mm F/11. Terrific combo, very sharp and very lightweight.
Hello Duade, glad to see you are getting out and about. I have the Canon R5 which I use the RF100-500 and 1.4 TC for birds etc. I am 71 years old and can no longer use my 500 f4 prime unless I drag out the tripod etc. the 100-500 is a little disappointing with the 1.4TC as you can’t zoom out to anything less than 300mm. Sometimes it would be nice to zoom out to 100mm with the TC. I think it is time to move the 500 prime along to a younger generation. Great content BTW.🇨🇦
I went from having the RF 200-800 on order to canceling and going with the Panasonic G9ii and 100-400 mkii because it is just so easy to walk around with and gives 800mm ffeq. So far I’ve been very happy after a few months
I started out with an Olympus EM1 mkii with the little 75-300mm ii lens. Great lightweight setup, and the lens is tiny for a 150-600 FF Equivalent. I then added the Olympus 100-400 to the collection, significantly larger and heavier lens that I find comfortably to hand hold for extended periods, but the weight is noticeable and not insignificant! I also now carry a backpack when I've got the 100-400 with me as it's to big and heavy for any of my shoulder bags.
Hey Duade, thanks for bringing M4/3 to the spotlight a litte bit! If anyone is interested the Panasonic Lumix 100-300 mk II is a great lens if you're on a tight budget (like me). Should be just a bit more expensive than the Olympus 100-300 mk II and has OIS (unlike the Olympus, I think). I got it and an Olympus omd em1 mk1 body second hand and it works great for a sub 800€ kit.
I have a copy of the Nikkor 800mm PF and the weight with hood, foot and camo protective sleeves is 2.733 kg. It's no lightweight but the optical quality is outstanding and it's as good in low light as a 500mm f/4.
If you want something in the Micro 4/3, the OM-1 MKII and the OM 150-600mm lens is an a amazing combo that I LOVE!! Try that and see what you think. Great video!!
Great topic and thank you for sharing your thoughts! Agreed that the OM1+300mm is a great fun system. Because of it's overall positive handling, I am able to get different angles without a tripod or monopod. Upgraded to the 150400pro and to me this is a perfect fun birding system. Used to have a canon 600mmf4 NON_IS 1st Gen lens 20 years ago.
After heaps of reviews 18mths ago and very much budget conscious I ended up with Canon 90D & battery grip & Tamron 100- 400 and a Canon 18- 75 all bought good 2nd hand for my trip to African as a 1st time SLR user, i definitely had moments of wanting more reach but they where definitely out weighted by the if this kit was any heavier to carry around all day can hand hold for shooting but just the shher weight of lugging 7-8 kg of gear on my back all day whilst walking was definitely noticed, But the quality of shots for a very rooky person determined to shoot majority in manual settings rather than auto I was pretty happy with
Thanks for sharing your experience and thoughts, it is a very important consideration that is for sure. Glad to hear you had a great time, Cheers, Duade
I'm not a professional, but I use MFT. I have the equiv. of 14-800 in my bag that fits in the overhead bin on the plane. It would drive me crazy to want to take an image and know I left the lens I'd prefer to use at home. I take the hit in image quality I s'pose, but it works for me. Nothing I do is for pixel peeping at 2x. Good images and discussion, thank you!
Decisions decisions. Moced from 7DII & Tamron 150-600 to the modern mirrorless age with A1 & 200-600. Made photography SO much easier and enjoyable. A bit much to carry around all day. Tried OM-1 & 150-400. Physically better to deal with, a pound lighter and better balanced. Longer reach (well sorta) and greater aperture, but really miss those sweet 1 files. Considering trying Nikon Z8 & 600/6.3, but it appears Z8 AF is a bit more tricky to deal with. Might try a R5II and 100-500 for birding tour photography. Other than the 100-500 Canon's "walking around lens" selection seems pretty poor in comparison to others. Haven't tried the 200-800 but it just seems rather cumbersome. Will likely stick with OM-1 ii and the 150-400, but it's difficult to ditch the A-1.
Sony RX10IV- 2.2lbs, really kicks ass for what it is. I carry it on my belt with a peak design clip. Now that my skills have improved I am saving for a new set-up, but not sure I'll want to sell this thing. It's so light and versatile! Tons of fun, great for record shots while birding and some keepers too!
I'm at heavyweight gear team. I'm only 1.5 years into photography. I started with very cheap used Canon 5Dmk2 + Canon 75-300. It costs me about 400 USD. After one year as it was planned, I understand how photography works and what exactly I want. I bought Canon 5Dmk4 + Sigma 60-600. Totally about 2700 USD used. I was really surprised by this gear and still love it. So many opportunities. Probably will not upgrade next couple years and then will go for non-DSLR camera.
Duade, haven't been paying attention lately and I apologized. Glad you touched on this topic. I am 84 and still enjoy photography. My setup is still the Canon R6 and the Canon 100-500 lens. It used to be a struggle but it works good for me and is my go to outfit. Weight is important and I am not as steady on my feet as I used to be so I usually look for something to rest against. Thanks again for your insights!
I had the Canon R6 and just upgraded to the Mark II. For reach, I chose the RF f11 600mm and the RF 100-400. I saw your video on how the Mark II vastly improved the focusing area on the 600mm so I am anxious to use that particular combo. I really appreciated your videos and hope you are doing well.
The best Nikon prime combo for me -and lightweight- is the Nikon Z8 with Nikkor Z 600 f6.3. Not a slow lens but it is heavily compensated by the Z8. Just over 2,4kg (1,4 for the lens and 1kg for the Z8). But the image quality that you get out of this is just phenomenal ! Sharpness, portability, VR, autofocus...just perfect for me (birds and mammals photography)
Thanks, totally agree, that is a super combo for sure. One of the sharpest and fun lenses I have ever used. Cheers, Duade
I had, for many years, Canon gear. My last being the EOS7D MK2 with various Canon & Sigma / Tamron lenses. Then came the dawning of realisation that the one thing I couldn’t avoid was advancing age. A friend came the same conclusion and moved from Nikon to Olympus and continued to extol the virtues and benefits of the m4/3. I tried his copy a few times, saw his images, no guarantee that mine would be as good of course, and took the plunge with the OMD EM1 mk2 and then the OM1 with various lenses, 12-40 f2.8 pro, 40-150 f2.8 pro, 100-400 and finally the 300 f4 pro. The 100-400 is not as sharp as the 300 but does give some flexibility. As for the weight / reach I could not be happier that I made the change. I still have the Canon 7D MK2 but hardly use it these days. Thanks for the channel and unbiased information / content. I’m glad I found you on RUclips. Keep it up and stay healthy.
Ha! We're in similar places, but I feel I'm in a much lower budget space. Sold my 7D2 to get EM1 which I quickly traded to EM1.2 and couldn't be happier with performance. I was missing the reach of the 75-300mm lens though, so re-bought 7D2 and Sigma 150-500mm lens... which I ended up adapting onto my EM1.2 and couldn't be happier... for now😂
I have recently discovered the same.... I use a Z8 and a 180-600 which 40 years ago would have been a dream setup compared to the F3 and primes I used to lug around! Now it is just a little too heavy.
I have the EM1.3 and 100-400 very nice when you are well over 60
Hopefully they make a pro version of this 100-400 with sync IS one day as it is the best option for me.
@@marklaurendet1861 "Hopefully they make a pro version of this 100-400 with sync IS", that's my dream also Mark.
Thanks for sharing Kevan and great to hear you have found a kit that suits your style. I agree the Olympus kit is great. Cheers, Duade
OM Systems OM-1 Mk 2 and 150-400mm is a great choice and shouldn't be over looked, great image quality and rugged weather sealed,
Thank Jim, I hope to try that in the future, Cheers, Duade
As I have aged, I have gone from the Canon 80D with 400mm L lens to the Olympus OMD-E1 MK III with 100-400 f/4. It’s the right weight with some loss of depth of field, but negligible to my eyes. I have had medical problems and then needed surgery in the past five years and the stress on my ability to lift heavy lens or cameras decided my systems. I, however, do tentatively plan to see the updated R7 Mk II when it comes out to see if it might be as light as I can use.. My photography is nature and landscape photography, but I do dabble into bird photography too.
Thank you Duane for all the inspiration of gear talk, ideas on bird photography, and a lot of great community of people who are passionate about this hobby and like to share. ❤
Thanks stuart and thanks for sharing your experience, yes the R7II will be interesting for sure. Cheers, Duade
Moved from a Sony a7iv with 100-400 GM, often with the 1.4tc, to the OM 1 and the 300 f4, and again often with a 1.4 tc. I couldn’t be happier. Not only weight but many other benefits of the OM 1.
No more zombie color? Also Sony’s menu is even more complicated than olys
I had the same set up with the A74, I had to get the sensor cleaned repeatedly as dust was getting through the barrel.
Loved the image quality apart from the dust specks.
Thanks Tony, glad you are enjoying your kit, I have a lot of fun with mine. Cheers, Duade
Hi Duade, I owned a Camera House store and studio for 27 years so I had the opportunity to use MANY different camera systems. I love bird photography but I also do landscapes, macro and astro photography and I'm also retired (which means old!) so I wanted a capable system that suited me. I ditched all my full frame kits and chose the Olympus e_M1x when it was released and have absoloutley no regrets. The 300mm f4 and 1.4x converter is great for birds and light enough for me to travel and hand hold. You have to choose a system that is useable for you and also produces the images that YOU want. Love your videos.
I love that you show the pictures as they looked in RAW and how the end result becomes.
I use the LUMIX G9 with the PL100-400mm lens. My overriding consideration was weight and this combo is a great walk around kit.
Does the autofocus work well for you?
Another factor to consider in the purchase of a lens is how close it focuses. Most nature photographers photograph a variety of subjects, personally I would not buy a lens that does not focus to less than 5 ft. If you are going to photograph flowers and insects, micro-habitats, intimate landscapes, textures, etc. you're going to want a lens that focuses to less than 5 ft. I do the vast majority of my photography using the Canon R6 Mark II coupled with the Canon 100 to 500 mm zoom lens.
Yes I went from 100-400 with 1m mfd to the 800pf with 5m mfd and it took me a while to get used to it.
I couldn’t agree more. The RF100-500 is so sharp and versatile. If the birds are sparse, you can shoot macro type photos with the .33 magnification and close mfd. There is always something to shoot with this lens. I use it for landscapes too at 100 mm. I own the 1.4 tc, and only use it infrequently due to weight and other limitations. This is how I really know I wouldn’t like the 200-800!
G'day, great point and one I should have mentioned, it is very true and makes the RF100-500 a fantastic option, Cheers, Duade
For wildlife I went with the OM-1. Mainly due to the smaller size and weight. I had the Sony a9 with the 200-600mm which is a nice setup but at the end of the day when I went out with the OM-1 with either the 40-150mm 2.8 or 300mm f4 plus the 1.4 tc if needed I came home with more keepers and in most cases I didn’t have to take a tripod or monopod with me saving me even more weight. The extra mobility to move that smaller gear around in your hands for BIF was the biggest difference for me. Plus the preburst shooing and high fps was a game changer in many scenarios. I won’t ever buy another body without preburst shooting on it. I also shoot macro and some Astro stuff so the in body focus stacking and live composite features were also icing on the cake. Never once regreted moving to m4/3 for my wildlife stuff. Plus my older body thanks me every time I return home without an aching back or sore muscles
Thanks for the amazing tips.Waiting for your review on the Fujifilm XH2S +XF 150-600 AND GFX 100SII +GF 500MM F5.6.
Thank you for showing all the options. The best choice for me is the 100-400mm lens and adding a 1.4 teleconverter lens (I would use this teleconverter some of the time, I will try both ways, as you say without the 1.4 the image is likely going to be a bit sharper and bit more detailed, however the longer reach might be important if I need the 1.4). You have shown what can be done with this lighter-weight lower-tier lens, and as a hobbyist for just occasional hobby use, that lens is perfect for me. With the 1.4 converter, the lens extends to 560mm on full frame, and even longer on APS-C. Thanks again especially on how to frame the shot against the background so it is not cluttered or distracting.
As usual...thank you for an interesting and informative video.I just returned from a 42 day European trip (Ireland and Scotland). I purchased a Nikon Z-50 with a 50 to 250 lens and a smaller wide angle zoom. The entire kit was quite light weight and provided a great focal range, especially since it is a crop frame camera with a 1.5 full frame factor. I took nearly a thousand shots and was very satisfied with the quality. Being an 87 year hold photographer ... lighter is better! Thanks again for your truly wonderful videos....John
Thanks for sharing John, great to hear you had a wonderful time, I would love to visit that part of the world. Have fun out there, Cheers, Duade
I’m in the minority for wildlife and use Fujifilm kit. I’m really pleased with it. I use Fujifilm X-H2s which gives 40fps and has pre-capture. I use two lenses - middle weight and heavy weight. The Fujifilm 150-600mm which gives up to 900mm equivalent. When I need more speed or low light I use Fujifilm 200mm f2 with purpose built 1.4x teleconverter (420mm equivalent). I can hand hold both but I prefer monopod or skimmer plate if I am spending time in a location.
I really appreciate how you show the raw and the crop.
I have a 60-600 ef.
My pleasure Brian, Cheers, Duade
I'm in the "hiker" category, not lugging a tri- or monopod most of the time, so Olympus E-M1.2 + 100-400 is my current lightweight kit for wildlife.
Btw., I must say I *highly* appreciate your style of showing the unedited raw file as well in your videos. Makes it somehow more relatable 🙂
Recently got an R5 + 100-500 and size was such a big concern, while the 200-800 was tempting, I was lucky enough to see it in person before I pulled the trigger and I'm so glad I did!
OM1 plus 300F4 as I hike rather than stay in hides
Congrats, a great combo, Cheers, DUade
I'm currently using the 100-500 with the R7. I was previously using the Tamron 150-600 with the R7. So far, I have not missed the Tamron. The 100-500 is very sharp, lighter, and most importantly, focuses faster and more accurately. The only downside was the price. However I got the 100-500 for ~$1300 by purchasing it used from KEH with a trade-in bonus and a birthday code. Not trying to market KEH, I just thought it was a great value for the price.
Thanks for sharing, yes, that is a good deal and the 100-500 is a beautiful lens for sure. Cheers, Duade
Hi Duade, I actually have 3 levels of gear. depending on what i am photographing on a given day. Big primes - R3 EF600, EF200-400, light weight -R5/R7 RF100-400 RF100-500, ultra lightweight - EOS-M 5 EF-M 55-200 EF 200. It all depends on where I'm going, the elevation and the distance. Its not uncommon however for me to take my R3/600 v3 on a monopod and walk between 8-10 miles in a morning. Got to get my steps in.
I have used Canon all my career with multiple EF lenses so I didn’t want to change brands. EF 100-400 on a 7D2 was my usual wildlife kit. Tried the Sigma 150-600C which gave terrific reach but bulky, heavy, not always that sharp. Eventually had to upgrade so went for R7 for wildlife and traded the EF and Sigma for an RF100-500 and the results are clearly better. Would love the detail of the big primes but too expensive and the ability to zoom and change composition is key for me. Very happy with this combo and I don’t think always chasing the latest and best gear makes you a better photographer anyway, although specs like eye-tracking certainly improves keeper rate.
Thanks Paul, great comment and totally agree, great to hear you are enjoying your kit, Cheers, Duade
I got back into photography 3 years ago after a 20 year break. Maybe I’m geeky, but I actually made a spreadsheet of the different camera and lens spec’s together as part of my evaluation process. What Duade calls working weight, I believe. Weight was a top consideration. Ultimately I went with the R5 and Rf100-500. It’s versatile, light, and sharp. I went to my local camera store and had them mount the Sony zoom and camera up and hand it to me. I honestly don’t remember which ones at this point,but I knew that would not be enjoyable for me to carry, even if I sold a kidney to afford it! It really helped me narrow down my choices. I’m more of a wandering photographer and like to pack light. There is always a trade off with gear. But what wonderful times these are to have so many choices!
I have a spreadsheet too :)
The olympus em1/om1 and their 75-300 or panasonic g9/g9ii and their 100-300 both come in under/around 1kg btw! image quality is solid with editing and they’re unbelievably portable for 600mm ff equiv fov
Both the 75-300 and the 100-300 are incredibly soft, IQ is not good at all, they have zero cropping ability because the image quality is so bad, you need an insane amount of light for lower ISOs as you have to stop them down to f8 for acceptable sharpness. Really only an option if you have no other choice.
@@MarkusHorrer I can confirm what Markus is saying. Used the Panasonic G9+100-300 and even if it was super portable, the lens was limiting the kit. I replaced it with a Canon 400mm 5.6 L anf the difference is visible.
@@MarkusHorrer That's true, but they're also around 500g and can often be found around $300 for the Panasonic or $150 for the Olympus. I haven't sold my 100-300II yet because I'm usually travelling with a backpack and when I'm not sure I'll even need a tele, I'm taking that one. When I'm just out taking photos, I don't mind carrying more weight, but when I have to pack for a week, it makes a difference.
@@MarkusHorrer I find the Oly 75-300mm is sharp up to about 250mm which is enough for me. I bought mine for AUD150 so I’m not complaining.
I use the R7 together with the RF100-500, a fine combo, 160-800mm with the R7. The crop sensor gives great detail, I use it beside birding also a lot for insects (Butterfly, Libel) in combination with focus stacking (handheld, 800mm and minimum focus distance of 1.2 meter). The weight of this combo is 1,53 Kg for the RF100-500 and 0,6 Kg for the R7, so 2.1 Kg easy to handheld. I know the R7 is not as good as the Full frame camera's in low light, but still I prefer the R7, if compared to the R6. Sometimes I use also the 1.4 extender, and that works good, but than mostly on a tripod.
Thanks for sharing your experience, Cheers, Duade
Can you please do a review of the Fujifilm XH2s with the XF 150-600mm lens?
Hi Duade, with my R3 and R5 my main go to lens is my Canon L 600mm F4 MK2 and normally use the MK3 1.4 Extender, this combo gives me superb sharpness and beautiful images, but as you say it is a lump and it's normally stuck on a tripod and gimbal head, and yes I have missed a few opportunities because of this.
I also own the RF100-500 and RF 200-800 and both give great images in good light, since owning the 200-800 this is the one I use most when going for long walks, but when I am photographing owls in the last light there is no substitution for the big prime, I am still shooting while other people around me have packed up.
For years I carried and used the Sony Rx10iv with the 24-600mm equivalent ZEISS zoom. Great camera, but they never updated it for bird’s eye tracking. It spoiled me though for heavy gear. Next I tried the OM System OM-1 with their 100-400mm IS zoom…about twice as heavy and twice the size of the Rx10iv, but with great birds and animal eye tracking. I could not learn to love it though, and, in my opinion, based on my experience, to really get the performance out of the OM-1 you need to invest in the much more expensive, and much heavier Pro series telephotos or zooms. So I bought a Sony a6700 with the Tamron 50-400 Di iii VC VDX zoom. Same size and weight as the OM-1 and 100-400, and still way bigger and heavier than the Rx10iv, but manageable. I am very impressed with the quality of the lens and the sensor and the images the combination yields…and with the way the camera handles in the field. And, of course, the eye-tracking auto focus is remarkable. I think this is a camera and lens that I can love as much as I loved my Rx10iv. :)
For me the weight and weather sealing is the most important issues. I got a OM System OM-1 Mark II with the 300mm f4. This has just now been complemented with a Lumix 100-300 f4-5.6 which I bought second hand. And the reason I bought this instead of the Olympus 75-300mm f4.8-6.7 was for the weather sealing, the Lumix is also faster but it also weights more (about 100g more.)
Thanks for your thoughts very useful.👍 I personally use the Fuji XH2s & XH2 150-600mm + 200mm f2 gives me a little of both worlds for different scenarios.
A little note on your summary on the cons for the lightweight gear: I think you meant to say less shallow depth of field rather than less depth of field, as a smaller aperture and smaller sensor would give you more depth of field. 👍 Ant
Personally i'd add the 800 F/11 and 600 F/11 as honourable mentions. With the R6II the setups weigth just below 2kg and around 1.5kg respectively and still give a huge reach. It's definitely very handholdable and the focal lengths can be really fun to use.
I always keep my full gear with me (7kg) so i really appreciate the lenses to be light enough even for a hike. It's not only the weigth of a single lens that matters, but if you want multiple lenses and have them in a backpack, it really adds up there if they all are on the heavy side on their own.
Duade I’m new to bird photography so didn’t want initially to spend too much money and I wanted a lens that could work for landscape as well.
So I bought the RF 100-400mm f6.3-8 which I’ve been mildly surprised for the price at how sharp it is in the middle of frame. I used it to begin with on my R5 but I bought a R10 as a vacation camera and the two together are so light and so easy to carry in a tiny back pack.
It’s inspired me now to order the RF 200-800mm zoom and after that the RF 100-500mm.
As a portrait / landscape photographer I’m now hooked on bird photography all due to the RF 100-400mm.
Thanks for sharing your experience, great to hear the lens has opened up a new genre of photography for you. Landscapes in the morning and evening and birding in between. Cheers, Duade
I have the OM1, the G9II, the 300 F4 Pro, both 1.4x and 2.0 TC, the 100-400 Leica II, the 40-150 Pro but.... 90% of the time I have my Sony RX10 IV 24-600 F2.4-F4 with me (on a sling for the instant grab). The best camera is simply the camera that you have on you and is easy to set up. That Sony camera with it's zoom range, sharpness and 24 fps stacked sensor amazes me every day. I bought it used. It is not the lightest 'bridge' camera but definitely the best.
Thanks Duade for another thoughtful subject! I find that heavier kits seriously afftect one's agility to get small, skittish birds. My companions with light weight gear are always quicker to setup and capture more birds than me with my middle tier gear. Eventhough I capture fewer species, but my images are superior in detail and sharpness.
Thanks mate, yes it is always that trade off isnt it, I find the same with my 500mm lens. I prefer using the zooms but if I want the best quality I reach for the prime. Cheers, Duade
Hi Duade, I use Olympus/OM System. I currently use an OM1(mk1) but I will never part with my EM1 mk2. The system offers a great lightwieght body with every feature one could ask for and more combined with image stabilisation. Olympus have always made high quality sharp lenses. Among a range of other lenses, I use the 300mm F4 prime with a 1.4 teleconverter or a 150-600mm zoom. I would never think to shoot full frame, even if you paid me to.
Thanks Duade, I am huge fan of yours, follow your youtube videos. I use a light tamron lens 18-400mm for both wildlife and landscape shots and recently bought a second hand tamron zoom lens 150-600mm for wildlife, I tried using it handheld with my canon 7D and it was heavy, I had to sit down and rest the lens on my flexed up knee to practise shots to see how the shot will look like with different modes and FL.
thanks again, that was another excellent video! cheers
Wonderful information Dude. I was looking for a lighter setup when I started doing bird photography and chose an Olympus OMD E1 mark 3 mostly for travel. I purchased a 100 to 400 ml lens that I love as it's wonderfully sharp but not so good for low light . I wanted to upgrade and was looking to get the OM 1 but passed that by and purchased a Canon R7 for more megapixels so I can crop a bit. I mostly shoot now with the R7 and the Canon 100 to 500 lens along with the 1 1/4 converter for a little extra reach. I love this setup but there are many limitations.
My current combo is the R5 and RF 100-500mm. Amazing combo without nearly unparalleled versatility and portability. I think you might find the new Sigma 500mm f5.6 an interesting new player. It’s virtually the same size and weight as the old Canon EF 400mm f5.6. Only problem-only available on Sony E and L-mount.
Duade, you have a really great combination of presentation style and densely packed information that I love.👌
I started back into outdoors photography with the Olympus E-M1 when it came out. These days I'm mostly shooting motorsports in a situation where zoom is necessary for varying distances, but due to the heat ultra long shots are usually ruined by air shimmer. My new-ish OM-1 with the excellent Olympus 40-150 2.8Pro and the 1.4 converter give me equivalent range of 112-420mm. I'm envious of the 300mm F4 and the longer zooms but most of the time they would be limiting at the close end and unusable at longer distances as noted above. And the relative lightness plus weather sealing mean confident handling even in rainy and dusty conditions. The weight is nice as I often shoot a few thousand shots per weekend, in bursts of 3 to 5, so there are many many cycles of bringing camera up to eye. I think that the OM-1's focus tracking for motorsports improves my hit rate. And realistically with a good sized subject in frame 20MP is more than enough for web and most printing.
Looking for time to do some wildlife shooting, which may force the longer lens issue, but for the time being the new processing programs for sharpness and resolution will have to do.
I use a 5DIII with 70-200mm f2.8L and 1.4TC and a LUMIX G9 with an Olympus 75-300mm. I’m not a dedicated wildlife photographer so the 75-300mm (150-600mm FF equiv) is adequate for my ad hoc shots. Plus I picked it up at an auction for AUD150 providing a lightweight, bargain combo. The weakness is that the lens is slow so not great in low light.
I also have an Olympus 75mm (so 150mm equiv FF) f1.8 which is great for close proximity shots. Lovely bokeh (f3.6 FF DOF equiv).
My favorite kit for longest reach, impressive auto focus and being able to see in the dark with high ISO combines Canon R6 MKII with Canon RF 200-800 with or without a 1.4TX. Plus the shots are crystal clear. Don't let them tell you they aren't. The tradeoff is weight. I have COPD (hard to breath), so hand holding this for any longer than 30 seconds and I'm done. So, I use a monopod, the ifoote Cobra 3. Works great. Feels as good as large tripod gimbal mount.
I have gone through many Canon bodies and will stand firm with the R6 MKII. It's the affordable R3. I'm not a pro, but they tell me it's as good as the R3 for all but the R3's advantages with less rolling shutter. I don't shoot sports so I could care less.
I also have Canon lenses RF11 800mm and RF 100-400. The RF11 800 is easier to use hand held, lighter.
I used to use a Canon 1 series plus 500mm f4 with tripod. With advancing years and hiking it became to much bulk and weight and was a pain to travel by air with. I moved to Olympus OM1 plus 300mm f4. Recently I have bought the OM Sytem 150-400mm zoom with built in 1.25 converter. This is an awesome lens. Although heavier and more expensive than the 300mm f4 it is well balanced and feels lighter than you expect due to magnesium construction. The effective equivalent focal length with converter in is 1000mm and you can still add an external 1.4x for an equivalent 1400mm and very acceptable IQ. It also focuses down to 1.3m making it ideal for butterflies as well as birds. You should try one on your OM1 !
I bumped into a fellow photography last Sunday with the OM-1 II and 150-400. What a lovely combo!
I've been lugging a 500 F4 and a 600 F4 on my R5s now for a couple years and average 3 miles a day 4 -5 days a week. I find it manageable with a MonoGimbal, monopod and harness. I even sometimes have a 2nd R5 with a 100 to 500 f7.1 on a strap and worked out a way to sling the big prime over my shoulder to use the zoom. I am 67 (and probably a little nuts) ... 😂
Thanks Dan, yes, you have a great setup that is for sure, it really just comes down to each individual and what they can handle and enjoy I guess. Cheers, Duade
I use a Z8 + 600mm PF. The combo is around 2.5kg, but I find it quite comfortable to hand hold for longer periods, especially since it's not front heavy.
Thanks for sharing, a wonderful kit, I loved using it, that lens is so sharp and as you say very handholdable. Cheers, DUade
I use the Canon R7 with the RF 100-400 lens. It’s ideal for traveling being such a compact and lightweight setup. It goes into a camera backpack along with all my other tech and I can take it as cabin baggage. Okay so the setup is a cheap one but it’s ideal for me as I cannot handle the heavy lenses very well (I have a Tamron 150-600C with EF to RF converter) weighs a ton. It’s a cheap kit but it produces excellent results for me.
In this last week I've moved away from Canon, for the first time since 1991. I had the rather glorious EOS 90D with Sigma 150-600C, 105 macro, 10-20, Canon 24-105L and a 1.4x convertor. The camera was a bit hit and miss, BiF photo's were a real challenge not helped by the weight of the kit.
I've now got the Lumix G9 II with Leica 12-60 and 100-400. The image quality is pretty good, the focussing is a world apart from 90 with very few missed shots and 25MP is still respectable if you want to crop. The real winner is weight. I went out last night with the 100-400 and it was a pleasure, I could enjoy my surroundings without feeling the weight of the 150-600. For me this has been a game changer and apart from battery life, I don't miss anything else at the moment. The MFT lenses are significantly cheaper than the Canon RF's which was another reason to move over.
I didn't have lot of money to spend, but I bought the Tamron 150 to 600, and put it on my Canon 77D and upgraded body from my 40D. I'm pleased with the results.
Great to hear, the Tamron and Sigma are great value that is for sure, Cheers, Duade
I’m currently on a Canon R6 and the rf 200-800 lens, it’s handholdable and works great 😊❤
I work with 2 combos. Rf with rf 100 400. Light weight, perfect for just a walk. Other one is the em1 mark ii with the 100 400. Has more reach then the r7. Weight is a bit more and it is water proof.
Canon R5 + 100-500mm 7.1L
Pros:
Light
Sharp
Easy to carry in bags
Cons
Over priced (the lens)
I use this combo for hiking for avation shots (a place in Wales called Mach Loop)
And use it for all my wildlife needs, as its just enough reach, sometimes not perfect but with 45mp R5 you've got room to crop.
I could not agree more that the R7 and the RF 100 to 400 is the best combination when it comes to lightweight camera Gear. I suppose it also has to do with your budget and what you can afford
Thanks, totally agree, a great light combo, Cheers, Duade
Duade, I upgraded from Canon 90D with the Sigma 150-600C to the Canon R7 and RF100-500.
Very happy with this combo, I generally wander looking for birds, always hand holding. The RF100-500 is lighter and much better of course than the Sigma. I have a 1.4TX but rarely if ever use it. I have never been happy with the results, unless using a tripod. I am more and more convinced I want a R7.2 with better AF, better EVF, and better rolling shutter.
Also , with Topaz, I am often shooting to ISO12800. That has been a real game changer.
Thanks for sharing mate, yes, a wonderful combo for sure, the weight makes it a joy to use in the field, Cheers, Duade
@@andrewkeir2282 you're getting good results with ISO12800 on the R7 (with denoise after, of course)?
I usually don't go further than 3200 or 6400 in more extreme cases, that's why I'm asking.
I have dxo pureraw 4, but haven't tested with those higher ISO
I have the R6 (MK 1) and 100-500. Great combination considering price, weight, versatility, full frame and reach. 👍
I have the same combo
I have the same. I’ve tried it with the battery grip attached but for me that crossed the threshold of being too heavy and almost never use it. On occasion I add a 1.5 converter but like the R6+100-500 as my go to kit.
That's almost 5k still and you still need a converter that's 500$$ more to get to even 700mm of reach. And then you are stuck at 300mm on the short end AND can't go below F10 aperture in this scenario.
VERY disappointing if you aren't shooting only large animals like bison, raptors, wading birds, elk, etc. If you are shooting songbirds or birds in flight, 700 is just not enough in most instances and the lack of aperture control is a joke when you are spending that much money. I get that it is more than capable at higher ISOs compared to old models, but that should not be a justification IMO. Canon is seriously lacking right now between the long lenses restrictiveness and the fact they they are not allowing 3rd party zooms.
I added the R7, for walk around this is my go to combo. The R6 I still use but mostly for low light and BIF. The R7 gives much more reach and detail, key is to keep the ISO as low as possible, than you get very nice results.
I completely agree about the weight issue. I am not a wildlife photographer but for general events and landscape I just purchased the Sony A1 w/70-200 f/2.8 GMII + 2x teleconverter (140-400mm f/5.6). The setup is just over 2kg. The lens and converter were more than twice the price of the Sony 200-600mm, but that is a 6 year old lens, while the new 70-200 is optically superior and for my purposes, the weight makes a big difference.
While I can see how weight seems to be a huge factor for so many people, I do think that a lot people would benefit strongly from doing a bit of training for their hobby. As a long time drummer who suffered from various issues like tennis elbow, tendinitis, back pain and other things, working my technique and training my core muscles, balance and also doing weight training has eliminated almost all of my problems. For photographers the same principles should apply as well: Training your core, doing mobility work, gaining a bit of muscle and strengthening the overall body really does a make a difference!
I totally agree! As a 62 year old woman, kit weight is a factor for me. It doesn’t help that I have a desk job. I do a variety of functional exercises to improve my physical strength specifically for my photography. I want to be able to get low…..and get back up! I also want the core and upper body strength to hold the camera to my eye. I’m not a super athlete by any means, but my photography hobby motivates me to exercise and to stay in shape to make it more enjoyable!
The issue is you can't train your wallet from not being stacked
My ideal set-up is the R5 with the 100-500. Great compromise of weight and speed. In most cases the DOF/ background can be managed. For those few cases where DOF is really challenged I have a heavy 200-400 F4. Overall use 100-500 in 90% situations.
Awesome video Duade. Incredible options for all types of Nature photographers. Your info is always so well informed and practical to implement. As a 61 yr old retired paramedic with two injured shoulders and back I’m happy to be using an OM-5 and OM lenses. Saving up for an OM 1 Mark? Cheers 🙌
I'm using a R3 with RF600 F4 and also just got a Fuji GFX100 II and 500mm F5.6. Weight isn't an issue for me at all and I don't have problems hiking around with it. Going from the 1DX II and EF 600 F4 II to the RF setup it feels light weight.
Hi Duade, I use R7 with 100-400 for nature photography and I often walk up to 8 miles and have no problem with the weight As you pointed out the 1.4x converter is a useful addition however in the northern hemisphere it’s only useful on a sunny day. As an amateur I am more than satisfied with my results but you have to accept that you can only get good results if the birds are not too far away e.g a Linnet at 10 m will be okay but don’t bother if it’s more than 30m. Perhaps it’s me but I struggle sometime with BiF even with eye recognition and tracking on.
Perhaps I am over ambitious I don’t know but at 73 I get great enjoyment using this combo which you reviewed previously and set me on this pathway. Sorry to be wordy, keep up the good work and stay healthy. BW. S
I have tried a few combos so far.
A7riv with sigma sport 150-600
A9 with 200-600
Xh2s with tamron 150-500
Nikon z8 with 180-600
And finally Nikon z8 with 600pf 6.3
While having zoom is freeing and flexible.
I have really loved using this 600mm prime, it’s so sharp and light with great VR
the difference in weight between in it and the zoom listed before is staggering and the balance is perfect.
Can’t recommend it more, might get a 70-200 2.8 one day on a crop body as a complimentary kit for my 600
R7 mk Ii doesn’t seem to be in the making. I have an investment in ef glass and am considering Fuji h2s and fringed ef-fx pro iii
@@stevesharkey3312
I did enjoy using the xh2s, maybe my favourite functional body design. It’s a really well made piece of kit as well as its vertical grip which is compatible with using up to 3 batteries at once! Which I could get the same for my z8..
What turned me over to the z8 finally was the night and day difference in autofocus.
I imagine the autofocus speed and inaccuracies would be more exaggerated on adapted ef glass.
I think allot of people have their fingers crossed for a stacked r7ii. I would be tempted by that or even a Nikon z90 stacked camera with the xh2s sensor
Most "mobile" shooting these days with Canon R5 or R7 coupled with 100-500 lens. Still have my EF 600 but don't lug it around as much as I used to. One thing I haven't seen mentioned so far is the importance of a good camera strap. I use Peak Design slide strap - this was one of the best accessory purchases I have made in a long time - comfortably carry the R5-100-500 combo without having to actually hold the weight except when shooting.
Hi Duade, thank you for another great video. Lovely to see you out in the field again! Hope that you're all healed up after the operation. I've chosen the middle weight tier. I started out with the Canon 7D and Sigma 150-600. I sold the 7D for an R7 but was actually more frustrated due to the communication issues with the lens. It still worked great on my 5D Mark iii but I wanted the reach, IQ and speed of the R7. I was recently in a position to be able to get the RF 100-500. So I've sold the Sigma and am now using the R7 with the 100-500. It's a brilliant combo! The RF lens almost feels like it should be in the lightweight category after coming from the Sigma. I was able to make these decisions due to your great videos. Thank you.
Thanks for sharing your experience, that is great to hear you are enjoying the RF100-500, it is a wonderful lens that is for sure. Cheers, Duade
Using an R7 with a 100-400Lmk2, 150-600 'C' and 500 f/4L mk2 and 1.4x TC mk3
Both have ups and downs. Can't say which is better but weight surely is underestimated by a lot of people.
I tend to use my 500 f/4 with the TC for birds of prey in the distance to get those habitat shots at about 250-350m distance.
The 500 f/4 is handholdable for me but it does require a proper pose to hold on a while. I do use a tripod and gimbal head when stationary all the time though. I do still have to alter my DIY groundpod to make the gimbal head fit.
Duade, I think this is especially important when you are doing air travel and need to put all of them onto carry on luggage. Found that I have struggling to backpack carry my combo of 6d *2 and with 135mm F2, 200mm F2.8 and 400mm F5.6 everywhere.
Cant imagine if I got myself those big prime lenses
I use exclusively the lightweight gear…usually the 100-400 on the R7 or the Sony RX10 IV. There’s too little incremental IQ benefit to the “better” gear to justify the weight and focal length restriction for me.
I use an RX10IV too! 2.2 lbs, carry it on my belt. Not sure I'll want to sell it when I upgrade. I love it for what it is, leaving me to ask, how much better is your combo? I'm currently saving for the r7+ a lens.
I have had my Canon 500 mm f4 for many years now. I bought it because at the time it was a good price. Nearly 20 years on, I do find it more difficult to use, especially after a hand injury at work. I don't use it as much as I did, but I'm not parting with it. If you can stretch to one, they are definitely worth it.
I use the Sony system and have tried varied combinations and own the 600 F4 and the 200-600 zoom. But with the release of the new 300 F2.8 GM that has become by far my favourite lens. I use on its own at F2.8 and with the 1.4x 420mm at F4 and 2x at F5.6 600mm - works great with and without teleconverters and it is so light, I believe about 1.4kg which with an A1 body is still only about 2kg and as a 65 year old I can carry all day. I have got the bigger prime and still use in hides and on tripod, but now I have the 300 GM would find any other lens for wildlife photography difficult to justify, as it does it all with wonderful image quality and makes shooting a pleasure
Hi Duade great video thanks - another pro/con of prime vs zoom is minimum focal distance.. i primarily shoot primes but sometime miss shots when targets are too close…. Whereas the zooms often have a very close relative focus :)
As you would know Duade, I use a R3 and EF 500mm f4 IS L (mark 1). 3.8kg for the lens and 1.1kg for the R3 (sans battery, memory card and of course, the hood for the lens). So, probably 5kg plus.
Despite having shoulder and lower back problems, I have adapted remarkably well to this combo (I shoot handheld). If I can do it, so can others. It all comes down to attitude and motivation imho.
I am now looking and saving for a EF 600f4 II (extra reach, 100% DPAF coverage, full 30fps on my R3, better AF acquisition, better optical quality and much better IS). It's nearly the same weight as my current lens, has the same minimum focus distance too.
I am not a fan of zooms (sorry).
Thanks mate, yes, if you can handle the weight that is great, I handhold mine but do get fatigued if I have to do it for long term. There is no denying the IQ of the big primes that is for sure and if that is what you like then there is nothing better. I personally like to have a zoom and a prime just so I have options. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade yeah I get that (zoom + prime). Perhaps years down the track, when I have that EF 600f4 II, I'll save for a zoom (probably the RF200-800). After the 600f4 purchase, my goal will be to get a lightly used R5 (original).
I do get fatigued with the big lens (I have named her the "BFG9000" LOL) but I make sure to put her down and take regular breaks between shots. This works well for me as I'm often scouting with my eyes or binoculars for birds, enjoying watching the birds or listening to them sing or just enjoying the landscape. FYI my R3 has been nicknamed "Big Bertha" LOL. I have a rather unique sense of humour that has been twisted by many years of loving the Gary Larson Farside cartoons. 🙂
I have a few recent images that I'll mail you to see what you think.
@@davepastern Sounds like a plan, I look forward to seeing them. Cheers, Duade
hi I really enjoy watching your videos, they are very professional and intelligent, you are a noble and nice person who gives of yourself to others Thank you very much for everything I learned a lot from you and now I bought a camera thanks to you Many thanks
For my R5, with weight in mind, I opted for the EF 400mm f4 DO IS II, with a 1.4x converter (combined weight around 3.2kg). Plus I also have an EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L II. I can handhold or alternatively use my lovely old Linhof Twinshank tripod with a Wimberley Head.
I love light-weight lenses! Thank you for this video on such an important topic. I also nearly ruined by back, but more and more options became available. For the people who are interested in light-weight (under 1.5kg) lenses, here is a list of more wildlife lenses I have tested for all kinds of brands and found to be really good (some are more affordable, some are more expensive): 1) Sigma 500mm F5.6 Sony E/L-Mount (superb), 2) Canon RF 600mm F11 or Canon RF 800mm F11 (below on 1kg or the second approximately 1kg), 3) Sony FE 100-400mm GM Zoom - very nice, 4) Tamron 50-400mm for Sony E - very versatile and nice background rendering, 5) Nikon Z 28-400 - a crazy superzoom range, but still allows for wildlife shots, needs to be stopped down to F11 for best results, 6) Panasonic Leica 200mm F2.8 (400mm full frame equivalent) - beautiful bokeh and great close focussing abilities, 7) Canon EF 400mm F5.6, was shown by Duade in other videos, my copy is from 1993 but it is still so great and par in terms of image quality with more modern lenses, 8) Nikon Z 600mm F6.3 PF - lightweight but a bit more expensive, not better than no 1) on this list, 9) Nikon Z 400mm F4.5 - great very quick and sharp, 10) Sigma 100-400mm DG DN easy to use, not the most outstanding but fine ----------- no more back pain, and still great images.
I’ve shot with Nikon, Sony and Canon. I currently shoot with a Canon R5, 100-500mm, 200-800mm and the OM Systems OM1-M2, 40-150mm, 300mm, 150-400mm. I switched mainly for reach, but weight was also and important factor in my decision to go with the OM system.
Recently upgraded from a Sony A6500 to a Sony A6700 - still APS-C but with much more advanced software and hardware. I used to use a Sony A-mount 70-400 /4-5.6 SSM 2 (with LA-EA5 converter) - wonderful lens but pretty heavy. When I recently dropped it on concrete and my insurance paid for a replacement, I decided to get the APS-C Sony 70-350 G lens instead of the full frame 100-400 GM, and use the substantial difference in price for other goodies. I haven't had a chance to use it in the field yet and I know there's a real (if subtle) difference in image quality, but I'm hoping that the dramatic drop in weight, from over 2kg to just a kg, will almost make up for the 75mm shorter focal length, I'm hoping that I have a potent 105- 525mm combination.
I have an R5 paired mainly with the 100-500 and the 500f4. I also have the OM1 with the 300f4. I find size and weight difference between the r5 with the 100-500 and the OM1 with the 300f4 to be negligable. For my wildlife photography, the R5 generally gets the nod but I grab the OM1 when pro-capture may be useful. The R5 mk2 will probably mean the OM1 gets less use than it does now with the addition of pre-capture. I love the close focussing distance on the 100-500 and some of the close ups are staggering in details. Generally for wildlife, I like to shoot widish and crop and the 45mp sensor excels at this. They are all great set-ups though. No-one has an excuse not to get a great shot!
I recently bought the 800 F/11 and while I love it I’m finding it really inflexible. I’m considering selling it to offset getting the 200-800
Well, there is no one size fits all in the camera world but the R7 with the Canon RF-100-500, or the EF100-400 MK II comes close. More often than not, if you can walk 50-100 yards these combinations will be effective 95% of the time. This is especially true if you opt for the APSC camera. Some of my friends have purchased the larger tier lenses, but because they are considerably heavier and bulkier, they often only carry their lower tier lenses with them and leave their 600mm lens at home. Nice presentation, thank you. J
Thanks for another great video. I bought into micro 4/3 for the smaller size and weight. I have a neurological condition which makes the left side of my body weak and therefore not able to hold up a heavy lens. Price was also a factor in going m 4/3. I use an OM-1 with the M Zuiko 100-400mm. I find it's softer at 400mm so use it primarily at 300 for 90% of shots. I'm now considering the 300mm f/4 prime but will test it in a shop or renting to see how the additional weight is.
Currently I use two of older Sony cameras: A7III and a6600 with Sony 70-350 (an APS-C lens) and Sony 200-600
The second one is a full frame, but I can also place it on APS-C body for a better reach, and I actually prefer this to using a 1.4 TC which I also have.
So, based on the gradation in this video I use both a middle weight and lightweight setup.
Considering an APS-C camera behaves worse in low light I usually use it for video only nowadays, cause on the video you can take each frame with 1/100 or 1/200 exposure (for slowmo) instead of 1/1000 and less needed for sharp still images of wildlife.
But I also like higher magnification ratio on 70-350, so for close up shots it serves better.
What I also like 70-350 is so light that even the gimbal motors can handle it.
So the only option I'm lacking is a heavy bright prime lens, but on Sony all of them are way out of my price range.
Thanks for another great video Duade.
My heavy gear is a 1Ds Mark III or a 7D Mark II with grip, both around the 1.2kg and an EF 600 f/4L IS USM lens at 5.36kg, total 6.5kg (or 14.3lb).
Can you hand hold it, yes but not for very long and if you should stumble backwards whilst tracking a Spitfire it will probably crush you! 😂
My favourite shot is a Spitfire doing a display taken hand held with the 600mm at 1/60th second to get good prop blur. 😮
Medium weight would be the 7DII or R5 with grip (replaces the 1DsIII) and the EF 100-400 LII at 1.6kg total 2.8kg.
I don’t have any light weight long gear, my light gear is the same bodies with standard or wide zoom lenses.
I use grips on the bodies because I like to turn the camera without having a strange grip on the camera, plus they are pretty much essential for counterbalancing the 600mm lens when they are on a gimbal head.
My preference these days is the Canon R5 with the 800mm f/11. I sold the 600/4 behemoth 10 years ago. It is only rarely missed. The 300/2.8 prime is still too heavy to tote about and, even with a 1.4X, is still too short 99% of the time in my world. I need the long reach but the bulk and weight of the big primes is just too much for me these days.
My man that pelican was gorgeous,you're good.
the R7 and the RF100-400 is an amazing option for the price. Of course for a bit more money the RF100-500mm is an even better option. A bit heavier though... I love both. 😃
Just wrapping up a photo trip to Costa Rica using R5 + 100-500 + 1.4 ext. I'm 49 and in decent shape. I didn't have any issues handholding except at high elevation (thinner air) on Cerro de la Muerte. The main issue was the small aperture. Shooting at 700mm/f10 in lowlight cloud forests is a struggle. I lived at 6400ISO or higher, often had to reduce focal length to bring in more light, and was forced to drop shutter speeds as low as 1/80. That said, it looks like I was still able to nail sharp images shooting in short bursts in electronic shutter mode. I will find out for sure once I start post processing. Fingers crossed!
I can't help but it always lifts my spirits when I see your videos, Duade.
People really believe that you mean what you say and that it's not always about the best and most expensive equipment. I'm happy with my R5 and 100-500 combination, even with a 1.4 converter, but my dream is to add an RF 400 2.8 (or used EF 400 2.8 III) for its versatility as I don't just shoot birds.... Combined with a 2x converter it should have enough focal length when you need it, and fast and short enough, plus shorter minimum distance than the 600 f4 for example.
I sold all my heavy lenses after my shoulders started hurting. I walk a lot when birding. My favorite combination is R8 + RF 800mm F/11. Terrific combo, very sharp and very lightweight.
The ending photo wow absolutely beautiful!
Hello Duade, glad to see you are getting out and about. I have the Canon R5 which I use the RF100-500 and 1.4 TC for birds etc. I am 71 years old and can no longer use my 500 f4 prime unless I drag out the tripod etc. the 100-500 is a little disappointing with the 1.4TC as you can’t zoom out to anything less than 300mm. Sometimes it would be nice to zoom out to 100mm with the TC. I think it is time to move the 500 prime along to a younger generation. Great content BTW.🇨🇦
not being able to use the TC with the 100-500 lower than 300mm is a real design flaw from Canon and they should be ashamed imho.
I went from having the RF 200-800 on order to canceling and going with the Panasonic G9ii and 100-400 mkii because it is just so easy to walk around with and gives 800mm ffeq. So far I’ve been very happy after a few months
I started out with an Olympus EM1 mkii with the little 75-300mm ii lens. Great lightweight setup, and the lens is tiny for a 150-600 FF Equivalent. I then added the Olympus 100-400 to the collection, significantly larger and heavier lens that I find comfortably to hand hold for extended periods, but the weight is noticeable and not insignificant! I also now carry a backpack when I've got the 100-400 with me as it's to big and heavy for any of my shoulder bags.
Hey Duade, thanks for bringing M4/3 to the spotlight a litte bit! If anyone is interested the Panasonic Lumix 100-300 mk II is a great lens if you're on a tight budget (like me). Should be just a bit more expensive than the Olympus 100-300 mk II and has OIS (unlike the Olympus, I think). I got it and an Olympus omd em1 mk1 body second hand and it works great for a sub 800€ kit.
I have a copy of the Nikkor 800mm PF and the weight with hood, foot and camo protective sleeves is 2.733 kg. It's no lightweight but the optical quality is outstanding and it's as good in low light as a 500mm f/4.
If you want something in the Micro 4/3, the OM-1 MKII and the OM 150-600mm lens is an a amazing combo that I LOVE!! Try that and see what you think. Great video!!
Great topic and thank you for sharing your thoughts!
Agreed that the OM1+300mm is a great fun system. Because of it's overall positive handling, I am able to get different angles without a tripod or monopod. Upgraded to the 150400pro and to me this is a perfect fun birding system. Used to have a canon 600mmf4 NON_IS 1st Gen lens 20 years ago.
For fun and bird watching there are the super tele bridge cameras. You should do a video on them for a bit of fun. They are pretty good these days
After heaps of reviews 18mths ago and very much budget conscious I ended up with Canon 90D & battery grip & Tamron 100- 400 and a Canon 18- 75 all bought good 2nd hand for my trip to African as a 1st time SLR user, i definitely had moments of wanting more reach but they where definitely out weighted by the if this kit was any heavier to carry around all day can hand hold for shooting but just the shher weight of lugging 7-8 kg of gear on my back all day whilst walking was definitely noticed,
But the quality of shots for a very rooky person determined to shoot majority in manual settings rather than auto I was pretty happy with
Thanks for sharing your experience and thoughts, it is a very important consideration that is for sure. Glad to hear you had a great time, Cheers, Duade
I'm not a professional, but I use MFT. I have the equiv. of 14-800 in my bag that fits in the overhead bin on the plane. It would drive me crazy to want to take an image and know I left the lens I'd prefer to use at home. I take the hit in image quality I s'pose, but it works for me. Nothing I do is for pixel peeping at 2x. Good images and discussion, thank you!
Decisions decisions. Moced from 7DII & Tamron 150-600 to the modern mirrorless age with A1 & 200-600. Made photography SO much easier and enjoyable. A bit much to carry around all day. Tried OM-1 & 150-400. Physically better to deal with, a pound lighter and better balanced. Longer reach (well sorta) and greater aperture, but really miss those sweet 1 files. Considering trying Nikon Z8 & 600/6.3, but it appears Z8 AF is a bit more tricky to deal with. Might try a R5II and 100-500 for birding tour photography. Other than the 100-500 Canon's "walking around lens" selection seems pretty poor in comparison to others. Haven't tried the 200-800 but it just seems rather cumbersome.
Will likely stick with OM-1 ii and the 150-400, but it's difficult to ditch the A-1.
Sony RX10IV- 2.2lbs, really kicks ass for what it is. I carry it on my belt with a peak design clip. Now that my skills have improved I am saving for a new set-up, but not sure I'll want to sell this thing. It's so light and versatile! Tons of fun, great for record shots while birding and some keepers too!
I'm at heavyweight gear team. I'm only 1.5 years into photography. I started with very cheap used Canon 5Dmk2 + Canon 75-300. It costs me about 400 USD. After one year as it was planned, I understand how photography works and what exactly I want. I bought Canon 5Dmk4 + Sigma 60-600. Totally about 2700 USD used. I was really surprised by this gear and still love it. So many opportunities. Probably will not upgrade next couple years and then will go for non-DSLR camera.
Duade, haven't been paying attention lately and I apologized. Glad you touched on this topic. I am 84 and still enjoy photography. My setup is still the Canon R6 and the Canon 100-500 lens. It used to be a struggle but it works good for me and is my go to outfit. Weight is important and I am not as steady on my feet as I used to be so I usually look for something to rest against. Thanks again for your insights!
I had the Canon R6 and just upgraded to the Mark II. For reach, I chose the RF f11 600mm and the RF 100-400. I saw your video on how the Mark II vastly improved the focusing area on the 600mm so I am anxious to use that particular combo. I really appreciated your videos and hope you are doing well.