Is 300mm long enough for birds?: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (2024)

Looking at combining the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 with mc-20.

Of course there are better options but this is what fits my budget currently.

thx

10

300mm seems to be the beginning of the useful FL range for general birding, and short for small perched songbirds and such, which often demand 500mm and up for uncropped final images.

The 40-150+MC20 is a pretty good combination provided it's stopped down a bit, at which point you're somewhere between f:5.8 and 8. So good light is needed. The zoom itself is fantastic.

Good luck!

Rick

While not much of a bird person, I have the Panasonic 45-200mm and don't think it is long enough. I keep bouncing between upgrading to the 100-400 and the Leica 50-200 with a teleconverter.
I took this at 200mm off the Farrow Islands from a boat in slightly choppy sea. Not a great shot, but the puffin's were active.

4

Yes, but the weight is too heavy for them to hold it in their beaks.

FL is not as important as many think. Knowing your gear and your subject are most important.

300mm should be fine, based on what I've seen from others. I've had great results with the Oly 75-300.

Also, be mindful that Olympus has two telezooms on the horizon. That includes a 150-400 Pro. The cost is unknown for both.

1

sbu wrote:

Looking at combining the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 with mc-20.

Of course there are better options but this is what fits my budget currently.

thx

It is easily enough reach, especially if you have some field craft. I take about 1/2 of my wildlife images with the Olympus ZD 150mm f2.0 and the other have with the Olympus MZ 300mm f4.0. I have the MC-14 but seldom use it with the 300/4, rarely need that much reach.

13

"Is 300mm long enough for birds?"

It very much depend on the bird(s) and your distance to them and your expectation or intention of your photography. Some shoot big birds - herons, ducks goose and the like. 300 can be too much. Chikadees/tit* and smaller birds, then you have to get quite close with 300. One thing not often brought up, is the birds own - how you call it in english - "field of privacy" - in other word, how close you can get to a bird before they fly off. A longer focal lenght can help to get close, but not too close as to scare it off.

7

If you have to ask then no it isn't.

It's more than long enough with good field craft but no one wants to learn field craft nowadays. They just want to use the longest lens possible and then crop. That's why there's so many threads on photo forums asking why the posters photos aren't sharp.

3

The Grumpy Snapper wrote:

If you have to ask then no it isn't.

It's more than long enough with good field craft but no one wants to learn field craft nowadays. They just want to use the longest lens possible and then crop. That's why there's so many threads on photo forums asking why the posters photos aren't sharp.

So true.

But field craft is much cheaper than longer focal length lenses and leads to much better images in the end.

3

sbu wrote:

Looking at combining the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 with mc-20.

Of course there are better options but this is what fits my budget currently.

thx

300mm of 600mm FF equivalent is barely enough in my opinion. I have the 75-300 and I always find that I need more for birds. If you have the money for the 40-150 pro and the MC20, you should also consider the panasonic 100-400. If you're not in a hurry, just wait for the olympus 100-400 dual IS, or the 150-400 PRO if you have the money.

I once went back through my pictures, computing an equivalent focal length that takes into account any cropping applied in post.

There were two peaks: one at 800mm (larger birds or smaller ones observed from concealment such as observation post) and 1300mm.

For the former, I find that a 300mm on MFT is perfect: it leaves just enough room for the average bird to move without leaving the frame.

The latter is another challenge altogether - more into superzoom territory and/or just identification picture?

Didier

Wise wise words...
I remember shooting bee-eaters with the 12Mpx D300 and a 300mm f4 (450mm eq-FOV) and getting decent results.

I've encountered myriad situations where "field craft" step #1 would be "Break the rules."

It's a thing.

Rick

Phocal wrote:

The Grumpy Snapper wrote:

If you have to ask then no it isn't.

It's more than long enough with good field craft but no one wants to learn field craft nowadays. They just want to use the longest lens possible and then crop. That's why there's so many threads on photo forums asking why the posters photos aren't sharp.

So true.

But field craft is much cheaper than longer focal length lenses and leads to much better images in the end.

When I lived in S. Florida, 300mm on a 2X crop camera was sufficient.

Where I live now, 300mm will almost never be sufficient, no matter how good your craft.

The first two attached Northern Cardinals were photographed with a 600mm on my E-M1s from 39-40 feet. Even if the cardinals would have remained in the same location and I had been able to get to within 20 feet, I would have been photographing their bottoms since they are always above me. I could occasionally photograph the cardinals from 20 feet, but I would be far more limited in the types of images I could get.

Larger birds are not much better. I live in an area with lots of state parks and a federal wildlife area. However, people are restricted to trails, birds have learned to keep their distance from these and are rarely within range of a 300mm lens on a 2X crop. The third image is of one of the areas in the wildlife refuge and the best location for water birds. The white loop (2.6 miles) is the trail (and part of the Appalachian Trail) is for people, the inside area is for the wildlife. Craft will not help.

Skeeterbytes wrote:

I've encountered myriad situations where "field craft" step #1 would be "Break the rules."

It's a thing.

Rick

So don't go to those places. Have them where I live as well, I don't go to them.

8

I had the 75-300 for a few years. (After that I moved to the 40-150 + 1.4TC.)

My experience is that 300mm is about the limit of what I can handhold. For taking pictures I prefer a shorter focal length. For getting a bird to fill enough of the frame I would prefer a longer focal length. Either the bird is too small or the bird is too far away...

What you need for birds is the longest length you can comfortably take pictures with.

1

drj3 wrote:

Phocal wrote:

The Grumpy Snapper wrote:

If you have to ask then no it isn't.

It's more than long enough with good field craft but no one wants to learn field craft nowadays. They just want to use the longest lens possible and then crop. That's why there's so many threads on photo forums asking why the posters photos aren't sharp.

So true.

But field craft is much cheaper than longer focal length lenses and leads to much better images in the end.

When I lived in S. Florida, 300mm on a 2X crop camera was sufficient.

Where I live now, 300mm will almost never be sufficient, no matter how good your craft.

The first two attached Northern Cardinals were photographed with a 600mm on my E-M1s from 39-40 feet. Even if the cardinals would have remained in the same location and I had been able to get to within 20 feet, I would have been photographing their bottoms since they are always above me. I could occasionally photograph the cardinals from 20 feet, but I would be far more limited in the types of images I could get.

So you go out and don't get any photos, I do that all the time. People now just want everything handed to them on silver platter.

Larger birds are not much better. I live in an area with lots of state parks and a federal wildlife area. However, people are restricted to trails, birds have learned to keep their distance from these and are rarely within range of a 300mm lens on a 2X crop. The third image is of one of the areas in the wildlife refuge and the best location for water birds. The white loop (2.6 miles) is the trail (and part of the Appalachian Trail) is for people, the inside area is for the wildlife. Craft will not help.

we have those places around me, I don't go to them. using that as excuse is just pure laziness and wanting things the easy way. I know it can be a bit different in places like Europe but here in the states there are plenty of places you can go that allow much more freedom. Sure these places may not have much activity wildlife wise but you will not see anyone else, which is way more peaceful and makes up for less wildlife.

4

It depends on your subject species, where you will be photographing them, and how much time you have.

A 40-150mm lens with options for a 1.4x and 2x converters will bring lots of birds within range of a m.43 camera. The most important factor being to get enough pixels on the bird to render a nice image without needing to crop too much.

My favourite subjects are small and tiny birds and my most used lens is a 300mm with 1.4x.For larger birds such as parrots and water fowl, and more often for birds in flight, I’ll use the 300mm on its own. But for birds out on a lake or high in a tree where getting closer is not possible I’ll often use the 2x.

Regardless of what you photograph, getting closer will always result in better image quality than using a longer focal length.

But getting closer is not always practical. No matter what lens you have there will always be times when you just cannot get the shot.

If 300mm is your limit then photograph what you can. Seek out the subjects within range.

If you want to photograph truely wild birds which are not ’desensitised’ to humans then you will need patience and luck as well as the 300mm

Peter

drj3 wrote:

Phocal wrote:

The Grumpy Snapper wrote:

If you have to ask then no it isn't.

It's more than long enough with good field craft but no one wants to learn field craft nowadays. They just want to use the longest lens possible and then crop. That's why there's so many threads on photo forums asking why the posters photos aren't sharp.

So true.

But field craft is much cheaper than longer focal length lenses and leads to much better images in the end.

When I lived in S. Florida, 300mm on a 2X crop camera was sufficient.

Where I live now, 300mm will almost never be sufficient, no matter how good your craft.

The first two attached Northern Cardinals were photographed with a 600mm on my E-M1s from 39-40 feet. Even if the cardinals would have remained in the same location and I had been able to get to within 20 feet, I would have been photographing their bottoms since they are always above me. I could occasionally photograph the cardinals from 20 feet, but I would be far more limited in the types of images I could get.

Larger birds are not much better. I live in an area with lots of state parks and a federal wildlife area. However, people are restricted to trails, birds have learned to keep their distance from these and are rarely within range of a 300mm lens on a 2X crop. The third image is of one of the areas in the wildlife refuge and the best location for water birds. The white loop (2.6 miles) is the trail (and part of the Appalachian Trail) is for people, the inside area is for the wildlife. Craft will not help.

That's why I never go to such places. I find private land and get permission. Most of my recent published birds were taken in my own yard.

Yes. I have measured several birds and many are no longer than 300mm.

1

I agree. Sometimes there is no substitute for a longer lens.

Travelling far to find a place without restrictions, or crawling on your belly through a swamp, or waiting for hours in a hide are not practical options for everyone who wants to photograph wildlife.

Time, money, rules and fences are often the major obstacles

Peter

The fourth camera in Leica's SL series of full-frame mirrorless cameras sees the 60MP BSI sensor from the Q3 and M11 models arrive with a significant interface redesign.

The Fujifilm X100VI is the sixth iteration of Fujifilm's classically-styled large sensor compact. A 40MP X-Trans sensor, in-body stabilization and 6.2K video are among the updates.

The Nikon Zf is a 24MP full-frame mirrorless camera with classic looks that brings significant improvements to Nikon's mid-price cameras. We just shot a sample reel to get a better feel for its video features and have added our impressions to the review.

This $250 electronic lens adapter is perfect for Nikon Z-mount curious Sony shooters — shhh, we won’t tell anyone.

Sony updates the ZV-1, giving the vlog-centric compact camera a 18-50mm equivalent F1.8-4.0 lens that's now wide enough for less cramped selfie mode videos.

What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.

What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked.

Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.