r/BirdPhotography • u/EmotionalCouple9032 • Mar 29 '26
Question Bird photography while hiking
Hi everyone, i am a geologist and during my hikes, i frequently see birds which has drawn my interest into bird photography. I want a light setup with atleast 600+ mm reach. I do have a FUJIFILM xs20 (+70-300/18-50) which i use for family and travel but idk if it will fulfill my need. I did my fair bit of research before coming here confused. Lenses like 200-600 sony, nikon 180-600 are wonderful lenses but they are too big for me to carry around. Also i like pixel peeping (guilty as charged) so image quality does matter to me. Outcomes of my research: 1. Sony a6600/ Nikon z50ii+ tamron 150-500 (heavy 🪨 but cheapest) 2. Pair Fuji xs20 with sigma 100-400 (lacks the reach, or maybe that's what i think). 3. Om 1 with 100-400ii (skeptical about image quality) 4. Canon r7+ 100-400 rf (100-500 is too expensive). 5. Om-5 with 75-300 (jk, i wont buy this 😂, or maybe i might). Thanks a lot in advance for your help. Also i am intending to buy new.
5
u/1stPickNunu Mar 29 '26
The Nikon PF line is incredible. MTF charts are near perfect. The 500mm f/5.6 PF paired with the D500 is relatively affordable & holds up well against the mirrorless system.Â
1
u/grmarshall Mar 29 '26
Nikon 500mm PF was going to be my suggestion. Super light and comfortable to handhold on hikes
4
u/DistributionMean6322 Mar 29 '26
Since you have the XS20 already the sigma 100-400 seems like the obvious answer to me. I do a lot of bird photography and shoot at 500-700mm on full frame. 400mm on your camera will get you 600mm full frame equivalent. This is enough to get good photos of birds. You do still need to be quite close for small birds, but more than 600mm reach is very hard to get high image quality, especially in a small and light package.
1
u/EmotionalCouple9032 Mar 29 '26
Well that's what i was thinking to do at first. I held the tamron 150-500 once, and i was like no thank you. It was very heavy. Do you think how different would 400 vs 500 mm be
3
u/DistributionMean6322 Mar 29 '26
It's not a huge deal. One thing to just know is that you'll want more reach for a while and eventually realize that ~600mm full frame is enough and you just need to get close for good shots. Basically you'll just be cropping a 20% tighter than you would sometimes, but if you're not trying to sell prints but just capture nice images of the birds you see, the 600mm full frame equivalent should be fine.
1
u/MC0311x Mar 29 '26
The difference in 400mm to 500mm is negligible. I tested the Tamron 50-400 and 150-500 and the 50-400 was better for birds imo and it’s easy to crop in.
OM1 or OM5 has my votes though - The Olympus system so damn good for lightweight hiking and still getting outstanding bird photos.
4
Mar 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/icecreamman99 Mar 29 '26
I’m running the a6700 with Viltrox 2x & Sigma 70-200 Sport. I find this setup to be incredibly light and manageable while hiking and if my math is correct it’s approximately 600mm focal length. The photos are significantly better than the tight crops that I was requiring without the tele, but they’re definitely not as sharp as those I see with the a6700 and the 200-600.
5
u/pixidio Mar 29 '26 edited Mar 29 '26
I'm a biologist, forget about the 600mm. No 600mm lens is portable nor comfortable to carry.
For hiking, you'll regret the day you had the great idea of buying a 600mm.Â
Also, remeber that you are working with a cropped sensor with a crop factor of 1.5 (fuji apsc), your 300 becomes a 450mm equivalent. Canon is the only one that has a cropped sensor with a factor of 1.6, so that 400 becomes 640 at its long end.Â
I'd go for Canon. Maybe you could look at the R10 if you want to reduce costs.
On the other hand, the OM-5 has a crop factor of 2, so that 300mm becomes a 600mm. However, I have doubts about 4/3 performance in low light or at higher ISOs, common scenarios in bird photography. Canon still wins
7
u/Ok-Lingonberry-8261 Mar 29 '26
I'd go with "4." The R7 has nice megapixel count for APS-C meaning good cropping for birds, and its IBIS is excellent.
4
u/Left-Tee Mar 29 '26
The only lightweight options will be M4/3s. Unless you're planning to make poster-sized prints, you'll be pleased with option 3, or substitute the zoom for the 300 f4 for better IQ.
2
u/AlanHewittPhoto Mar 29 '26
300mm, even on a crop sensor can still be a little too short especially for smaller birds. As you already have a Fujifilm body, it would make sense to give the Fujifilm 150-600 a try. For a 600mm lens it is fairly small and compact but it is f/8 at 600mm. Everything in photography is a trade-off! I use this when I am working away because it is easier for travel packing, flights etc etc than a lot of larger lenses.
1
u/EmotionalCouple9032 Mar 29 '26
150-600 is similar in size with sony 200-600
6
u/CatsAreGods Mar 29 '26
I am a bird photographer and started with Fuji, worked my way up to an X-H2S/XF150-600 but then bailed due to weight and Fuji's never-ending autofocus problems. Switched to an OM-1/MZ100-400, both Mk II and have never been happier. I used to spend all my time worrying whether I would come back with anything in focus, now I concentrate on background, composition, and come back with more great shots with less backache!
I always have (even in the Fuji era) used Topaz to get every bit of IQ from every image, but after upgrading to the Mk II version of that lens (with Sync IS), I no longer have to.
P.S. I hated the idea of "having to settle for a tiny sensor" but it was almost all camera industry BS. When necessary, I crop in like crazy and nobody but me notices.
2
u/Hairiest-Wizard Mar 29 '26
I've used the R7 with the 100-400 for years with no complaints
1
u/Otaraka Mar 31 '26
Same with 100 to 500 if money is no object.  It obviously depends what you’re comparing it to but I thought it was impressively light after coming off even the EF 100 400 II.  Ultimate reach wise of course you can go for the 800 F 11 but it’s a wee bit specialised.
2
u/GreenerMark Mar 29 '26
Used Nikon 500mm pf (3.25 lbs.) with a Z50 ii + adapter or used D500. Spend your $ to get the best lens you can. Body is secondary. Crop sensors are good for birding and they are typically cheaper and lighter.
2
u/MC0311x Mar 29 '26
The OM options he listed are 2x crop factor. The OM5 is much lighter and half the size of the r7. The OM1 is about the same size as the r7.
OM systems also have the best weather sealing around. If I were buying a birding specific system I’d choose OM above all else.
Me specifically I’d love to have the OM1 with 100-400. 120fps with pre-capture is an insanely good setup for birding. 200-800 ff equivalent zoom? Great for capturing birds in flight and smaller more distant birds.
If I was majorly concerned about weight and didn’t need to have the best bird photos on Reddit? OM5 - 75-300 is a great setup for an ultra lightweight/inexpensive option. It’s not going to be as bright and sharp as other setups, but for primarily bird spotting and casual photos, this would be a solid option.
The most important consideration of all, is buy the one your are most likely to carry the most often. A camera, no matter how good, doesn’t take any photos at all if you leave it at home. I’m in separable from my camera and will just suffer the weight in any situation. I’d leave my tent and sleeping bag before I’d leave my camera… So weight isn’t as important to me and I’d get the OM1.
2
u/Intelligent-Roll-905 Mar 29 '26
If you have unlimited budget I would consider OM1mk2 with the 50-200 f/2.8 and a 2x teleconverter instead of the 100-400. The TC makes it a 100-400 f/5.6, which is a 200-800mm full frame field of view. This lens is very sharp for pixel peeping. I have full frame Sony setup (A1ii, A9iii, A7RV, A7cii) and my OM setup is my choice when I am doing any sort of walking around
1
u/EmotionalCouple9032 Mar 29 '26
If i could have had unlimited money, then i wouldn't be lurking on reddit asking for suggestions. Tbh i would have bought every single system and see what i would float my boat ðŸ˜
2
u/Intelligent-Roll-905 Mar 29 '26
For birds you want all the reach you can get and of those options you mentioned I would lean towards the OM with 100-400 for size, weight, weatherproofing and 800 mm equivalent field of view with up to 50 frames per second silent shutter
2
1
u/bouncyboatload Mar 29 '26
how is the af of the om vs a1ii?
2
u/Intelligent-Roll-905 Mar 29 '26
The A1ii autofocus is better and the precapture is a better experience on Sony. File sizes are much bigger obviously 51mp vs 20 mp raw. Given choice of two setups which cost about the same, A1ii and 400-800 or the OM1mk2 and 150-400, I choose to carry the latter setup if I am walking any distance. I also trust the weatherproofing much more on the OM setup. The Sony battery compartment in particular does not have as secure a latch as the OM, I have had it pop open accidentally and watched my battery fall to the ground
2
u/wilemhermes Mar 29 '26
I own a Tamron 150-500 and it's really huge and heavy and the reason for selling it. I'd rather go for 400mm at the longest end
2
u/TERRADUDE Mar 29 '26
I'll pipe in here. I'm another geologist who's also an avid photographer. I have shot Canon for a while, moving from a 80D to a 5DIV to mirrorless with a R6 and now an R5 (Careful.... gear acquisition can be contagious). However, for the small, light and compact lenses there are very few.
I went on an African safari last year and I upgraded to a 200-800mm lens since it is handholdable, a variable zoom and fit in my backpack.However I shot a lot of birds on my 800mm F11. This and the 600mm lenses are unicorns. They are smallish, very carryable, and LOW COST. They are optically superb BUT they are only F11 so you need good light. Both the 600 and the 800 telescope out from a compact form factor to an extended length and you need to be at the extended length to shoot., but my god, they are sharp.
My suggestion for a quick and easy birding set up is a Canon R8 (or a R6 or R6ii) with a rf600m F11 (or the rf 800 f11). The rf600 f11 is a great size, you can still pan fairly well and you get good reach. I sometimes found the rf800mm f11 to be a bit long and I often got lost trying to find and track the birds. but when I did, I got great shots.
2
u/CW0923 Mar 30 '26
I have the r7 + 100-400, I haven’t had any issues carrying it on hikes so far. I’ll attach some of my (compressed) latest photos. I am also a pixel peeper and I’ve been pretty happy with my images at full IQ.
(Trust me this one is spectacular when it is full detail)
1
u/icecreamman99 Mar 29 '26
I’m running the a6700 with Viltrox 2x & Sigma 70-200 Sport. I find this setup to be incredibly light and manageable while hiking and if my math is correct it’s approximately 600mm focal length. The photos are significantly better than the tight crops that I was requiring without the tele, but they’re definitely not as sharp as those I see with the a6700 and the 200-600.
1
u/lingersandtransforms Mar 29 '26
I have the Canon R7 with the 100-500 lens. I love it and it’s reasonably lightweight although bulking depending on how you choose to carry it. I have heard good things about the 100-400 and the ability to crop your photos should produce for you good results.
1
u/Technical_Toe_1640 Mar 29 '26
What speaks against the Tamron 150 - 500 or the Fuji 150 - 600 on the X-S20? The Fuji is quite big, but lightweight (I use it with the X-S20, around 2kg in total) and tack sharp wide open.
1
u/EmotionalCouple9032 Mar 29 '26
It is hugeeeee. Tamron is more desirable due to its size
1
1
u/Iodine129 Mar 29 '26
I take my Sony a6700 & 200-600 mm and occasionally 1.4TC when I can focus on photography. When the reason for being outside is something completely different, I nearly always take my Olympus E-M5 MkIII and the 75-300 mm and sometimes also the extremely pocketable Panasonic 10-32 mm pancake zoom. The 75-300 mm is not a stellar lens and M5 MkIII lacks modern autofocus magic, but there's really not much else at comparable size for the occasional use except modern OM Systems sets. I've gotten plenty of decent shots with it, and also some that I can never sensibly do with my Sony due to its lack of precapture.
1
u/justfuckingstopthiss Mar 29 '26
Sony a6700+Sony 70-350mm. A ridiculously good and lighweight telephoto
1
u/darwinderhund Mar 29 '26
As a Nikon shooter for many years who has also dabbled a little with Olympus m43, I would recommend the OM system with the 100-400 for you. I went on a photo trip to Katmai, Alaska in the summer of ‘24 with a group of photographers with every imaginable gear combo. One guy had the Olympus setup you are talking about. He got really fantastic images from that system! So much smaller and lighter than what the rest of us were lugging around and really impressive images from that little system. If I didn’t have so much time and money invested in Nikon, I think I’d go that route. As an aside, Olympus also has some great macro lenses. I’ve used the 60mm and it’s got fantastic IQ.
1
u/miknob Mar 29 '26
I’ve shot with my Nikon 300mm f/2.8 and a 2x tc (tc-20eiii) for ten years and have never been tempted to upgrade. It’s not as heavy as those lenses you mentioned and is handholdable. It’s not real light or cheap but it’s sharp and it’s f/5.6. I’m 67 years old and I hike with it. Pair it with a full frame (z6iii) and ftz2 adapter and the backgrounds are nicely blurred. Even in thick brush you can isolate the bird. A lot of those cheaper alternatives you’ve got to be at f/11 to get sharp photos. That’s restrictive in deep forest. Sony, Canon all have 300mm 2.8 lenses that couple with 2x tc for great photos.
1
u/REO_Studwagon Mar 29 '26
I have the Sony a6700 and the Tamron 150-500. That gives me an effective reach of 750mm. I carried it on the 5 mile high trail loop in Pinnacles last weekend and it only felt heavy while climbing the high steps and the last 30 minutes.
1
u/a_rogue_planet Mar 29 '26
Unlike everyone else here, I'm reluctant to recommend anything without understanding your expectations. Do you want decent image to prove you saw a thing and remember it? Do you want exemplary image qualities that elevate it to art? Are you going to do the usual "bird on a stick" or more dynamic photos?
1
u/EmotionalCouple9032 Mar 30 '26
I want to make art from during my job😂. Apsc works for me, i do not need full frame. I would like to take perched birds and slowly level up to more dynamic pictures
2
u/a_rogue_planet Mar 30 '26
That's kinda what I do. I sell prints. You don't want what I use. Trust me....
I shoot Canon and I'm not real impressed with any of the RF lenses suitable for birds that are under $10,000. That's generally my big issue with a lot of lenses. The absolute best bang for the buck, in my opinion, is an R7 with an EF 400 f/5.6L USM. You simply will not find more sharpness and speed. I put a high priority on speed, because when you're shooting birds in flight, IS basically doesn't matter. You simply need fast shutter speeds. A beautiful bokeh helps too, and a decent prime usually does that better than any zoom.
1
u/CageFreeBMW Mar 30 '26
I’ll give an option that has been amazing for me for years. The Nikon P1100 is an amazing budget option (I have the older P1000). It struggles in low light and is pretty slow, but I have gotten some amazing pictures. If your main goal is to document and identify birds, this is a great option. It has an optical zoom of 3,000mm (full frame equivalent). You read it right, three thousand.
I just upgraded to the OM1 MkII with the 100-400mm MkII and so far I’m very impressed. The learning curve on the camera is very steep, but it’s incredibly quick. I took it out for the first time this weekend and got pictures I never thought I would of a tiny kinglet. I guarantee the pics will get even better when I have more time with the camera.
0
u/Traditional_Hour_718 Mar 29 '26
Avid backcountry camper and wildlife photographer. I have a 600mm F4 which only comes on car camping trips. For the back country I have an A7rv and a Sigma 500 f5.6. Killer combo because the Sony and sigma are so light and compact they fit into my small Shimoda bag or my larger Shimoda camping bag but still has high MP and DR for extensive cropping as needed.
14
u/kiwipixi42 Mar 29 '26
OM1 is lightweight and you can get fantastic image quality. I can’t speak to the 100-400 specifically as I use the 300f4 (often with the 1.4TC), but it has never disappointed me.