06-05-2021, 11:04 PM
This is purely opinion I know, but the concept is this: Much birding would be done in low light. The rig should be lighter than a Canon Mk IV with a 100-400 zoom, but also have better telephoto capability. It should not cost more than the Canon.
The only things that come to my mind are one of the better Olympus Bodies, and the Panasonic-Leica 100-400 IS,
and maybe a Sony A7 III with a third party telephoto? I'm not familiar with economical telephoto options for the Sony that do not require a mount adapter.
I also would consider the Nikon D500 and the 200-500mm zoom.
I would include my EOS 90D with 100-400 Mk II, though you might not think it has low light performance.
Everything except my 90D are cameras I've never used. This question was put to me, and I want to have an answer that is not just pure speculation on my part. Anything in the 500/600 F/4 category can't be used due to cost and size. I think the Nikon 200-500 might be pushing at the size limits, but let's face it, birders love the D500, 200-500 combo, so it might pass.
Any thoughts?
The only things that come to my mind are one of the better Olympus Bodies, and the Panasonic-Leica 100-400 IS,
and maybe a Sony A7 III with a third party telephoto? I'm not familiar with economical telephoto options for the Sony that do not require a mount adapter.
I also would consider the Nikon D500 and the 200-500mm zoom.
I would include my EOS 90D with 100-400 Mk II, though you might not think it has low light performance.
Everything except my 90D are cameras I've never used. This question was put to me, and I want to have an answer that is not just pure speculation on my part. Anything in the 500/600 F/4 category can't be used due to cost and size. I think the Nikon 200-500 might be pushing at the size limits, but let's face it, birders love the D500, 200-500 combo, so it might pass.
Any thoughts?