My crotchety old opinion – wildlife photography for the rest of us

[davidzvi]

I think the God's honest truth is the answer is different for each photographer. Part of it has to do with how steady the camera operator's hand is and the other part of the equation has to do with one's personal image standards and expectations. But I've been shocked at what the latest Nikon and Panasonic superzooms (both bridge and travel versions) can do. In the past I would have put the limit at 600-700mm. Not anymore.

Which is just totally crazy to me. 600-700mm without a tripod:eek-54:. I use to use a tripod for 300-400mm when shooting birds at the feeders on the deck. The thought of anything longer than 500mm, let alone 1000-2000mm, without some massive gimbal setup just seem strange.

 

[dalethorn]

My biggest question about these superzooms is at what point are tripods a must?

Probably very few users will carry a tripod, which makes sense given that these are intended for convenience rather than National Geographic quality. I have used a tripod for night shots etc., but for quick response when walking through wildlife areas, tripods rarely work.

 

[dalethorn]

Which is just totally crazy to me. 600-700mm without a tripod:eek-54:. I use to use a tripod for 300-400mm when shooting birds at the feeders on the deck. The thought of anything longer than 500mm, let alone 1000-2000mm, without some massive gimbal setup just seem strange.

The image stabilizations today are far beyond what was available a few years ago.

 

[kyteflyer]

I guess you missed the Canon g3x, one lens (25x) camera solution It is not cheap, but has the 1" sensor with 25-600mm lens. I see that Canon pricing in Jp is much cheaper as the camera comes with free evf. Canon is moist/dust proof, but evf is external, so it beats the purpose esp at long range... A few reviews:
Canon PowerShot G3 X Review | Photography Blog
Google Translate
http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http://www.cyberphoto.se/info.php?article=g3x&sandbox=1
http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=hu&tl=en&u=http://technet.hir24.hu/tesztek/2015/06/29/canon-g3-x-teszt-baranyborbe-bujt-farkas/
I also read the rumor that Fuji is also bringing a 1" sensor camera...

I failed to be interested in that one. Price is a consideration. 600mm vs 1440mm. no EVF except at huge (optional) expense. I was going to get the Panasonic... I still might... but so far with only one outing under my belt... the P610 is good enough for now. The FZs are all 24x which is 600mm (eq) and I'm finding that too short.

I'll be interested to see what Fuji does, but given the size of the old X-S1, I'd expect any 1" from them to be a monster. Speaking of monsters, the P900 is bigger than my DSLRs.

 

[kyteflyer]

Which is just totally crazy to me. 600-700mm without a tripod:eek-54:. I use to use a tripod for 300-400mm when shooting birds at the feeders on the deck. The thought of anything longer than 500mm, let alone 1000-2000mm, without some massive gimbal setup just seem strange.

The shake reduction in the Nikons is *very* good. Much better than in my old Panasonic. You also have to remember that these are small cameras. If I had a lens that reached 600mm on my DSLR, I'd be using a tripod too. I carry two tripods in the car all the time, just in case, but like Dale, they are 99% night shot needed. Hand holding the new P610 is just fine. It was never an issue with the FZ100. I'm sure Jock wouldnt have any issues with his FZ200, either.

 

[Jock Elliott]

I am interested in the FZ300, I expect I will get one to replace my aging FZ100 which just isnt up to snuff these days. However, I lashed out this morning and bought a Nikon P610. I was tossing up about the P900, theres a lot to recommend it except for its size. Its bigger than my K5 with a lens and just about the same weight (with lens).

So the P610 has 24-1440 (equ) and for a little sensor its really not bad. Here's the first ... I discovered a nesting black swan the other day and failed to get a decent shot with the FZ100, hence the sudden *MUST have* longer lens.

The following review helped my decision a LOT
Nikon Coolpix P610 Review ~ A camera worthy of bird photographers consideration

View attachment 24175

Wow, verrrrrry nice!

Cheers, Jock

 

[Jock Elliott]

My biggest question about these superzooms is at what point are tripods a must?

I am able to shoot my Panasonic FZ200 handheld at full optical and digital zoom, which works out to 1200mm (e).

Here's an example at maximum reach:

For keeping steady handheld, this post might prove useful: Things I have learned from shooting sports that might prove useful to photographers

Cheers, Jock

 

[dalethorn]

I hope Jock doesn't mind - I brought the brightness down a little on the bird's head, but there's some leftover cleanup to do. Anyway, just an experiment to see more detail….

 

[Jock Elliott]

I hope Jock doesn't mind - I brought the brightness down a little on the bird's head, but there's some leftover cleanup to do. Anyway, just an experiment to see more detail….

View attachment 24187

No, I don't mind at all, and that definitely is an improvement. Bear in mind that is, because of digital zoom, basically a 6-mp picture.

Cheers, Jock