Superzoom (Lumix DMC-FZ1000) versus Mirrorless (like Sony A6000) for landscapes + wildlife

[Ethan A.]

I'm looking into photo gear for backpacking and hiking for landscapes and wildlife photography, and have a primary decision to make – superzoom with good quality sensor and lens, or mirrorless camera with a good sensor size and a quality wildlife telephoto and wide lens. I'd sincerely appreciate your advice. I'd like to avoid serious weight and bulk, but don't mind carrying a little extra weight in photo gear given how much weight I've been able to cut throughout my kit. I have a mini and small tripod, and for certain trips I plan to carry a lightweight full-size tripod. I recognize that for wildlife photography especially birding nothing right now is going to fully replace the powerful telephoto, large image sensor and rich menus of a full frame DSLR with a high quality 400-600mm telephoto. But that's a lot of weight and bulk to carry and would be very expensive. And the Sony RX100 IV is an excellent point and shoot for landscapes, but it doesn't have enough zoom for wildlife. I find a superzoom like the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 with its high-quality lens offers much of what I want in a camera, and it can deploy to shoot quickly without having to worry about lens changes. In good light especially with a tripod it should be able to capture some pretty good wildlife shots. I have a friend who used a previous generation of this camera to take surprisingly good wildlife shots on safari for a notebook-size photo book. A next-generation version of the FZ1000, with an even longer focal-length telephoto which maintains its brightness through the full range of the telephoto, and an even larger sensor, would be fantastic and imho very popular in the market. But then you can't shoot photos today with a camera that's not even in the market yet. The A6000 has a nice compact body and is reasonably priced. I have a friend who has made beautiful images with it with a wide lens and a shorter focal length telephoto. Are there any quality reasonably-priced telephoto lenses for the A6000 with a long enough focal length for wildlife? How do you feel about the compromises involved with the choice between mirrorless + multiple lenses for wildlife and landscapes versus the FZ1000 superzoom? What kind of quality wildlife telephoto lenses might be available for the A6000?

[Tom D.]

Just my opinion, the Panasonic will give you a bigger bang for the buck for wildlife than the A6000. I use the NEX-5r (the A6000 is the improved version of the NEX-6, the next step up from the NEX-5) for still photos and video, and a Panasonic for video work. With the Lumix, you get 400mm equivalent (F/4 at 400mm) with a fast Leica lens at a reasonable cost. To get a 400mm equivalent lens at F/4 for the A6000 would cost thousands, and would not have image stabilization (there might be one out there that does), at least until they come out with a fast e mount 400mm lens. At an equivalent aperture, the A6000 should have a big advantage in low light with the larger sensor and you'd have the ability to add even faster lenses (at a cost, of course). You could go also the route of the A6000 with the 55-210mm + Olympus Tele-extender (gives a 535mm equivalent, discussed in the 210mm + T-Con for wildlife thread), but the low light performance of that setup isn't great and while I have been happy with it, it's likely just as heavy or more so than the Lumix, cannot be deployed as quickly (you don't want to walk around with the tele-extender attached) and the Leica lens is likely a bit sharper. Other lenses available have to be converted from the Sony A-Mount in order to get auto focus. Sigma and Tamron both make 150mm-600mm A-Mount zooms, but they are quite long and really should be used on a tripod. The Sony 70-200mm F/4 for the e mount is a very good lens with image stabilization, but not enough reach to be a good wildlife lens. At the 25mm short end of the Lumix's lens with a 1" sensor, you will not get as wide of shots for landscapes as is possible with the A6000. For me, I also like the 4k video capability, although ideally I'd want the largest sensor possible for that. If the next generation of the Lumix has a larger sensor, it will have to have a corresponding increase in the size of the lens (i.e. heavier) to get the reach that the current 400mm equivalent will give, or end up with a shorter zoom. For portrait stuff, low light photography, landscapes, etc., the A6000 would be my choice. But based on what you have mentioned, I would look seriously at the Panasonic. If you plan to hike with it, a fast 400mm on a DSLR or Mirrorless will be quite heavy and cumbersome. You will sacrifice some low light performance and possibly some image quality in some cases with the smaller sensor. But in good light, it sounds like a good setup for a UL hiker who shoots wildlife.

[Brendan Swihart]

I think the best size/weight/image quality compromise for what you're wanting to do is micro 4/3 with the lumix 100-300. GX7 body would be good with the eshutter for the longer lens. Even the higher end superzooms are a pretty big compromise when it comes to IQ, and it's not like the FZ1000 is compact. Going with an interchangeble system gives you lots of great lens choices and the m43 lenses are quite a bit more compact than those for the a6000. The GX7, 100-300 and lumix 12-32 (which is TINY and sharp) or one of the primes if you wish would be a really versatile landscape and wildlife setup, plus you could add other lenses that might be useful for non backpacking stuff or upgrade lenses later.

[Ian]

Standard disclaimer, the following is pure opinion and when balancing weight, cost, performance, and image quality, you'll need to make a compromise somewhere and I can't say what the right compromise will be for you. In my opinion, for wildlife and especially birds, mirrorless is not the way to go. None of the cameras including my A6000 focus as fast as a pro-ish level APSC DSLR, and the race to print larger "megapickles" numbers on the front of the camera results in hitting the buffer faster when shooting Raw. You can mitigate this by shooting jpeg but c'mon, we're not savages here. Depending on your commitment to the craft, I'd personally go one of two directions. Get a Nikon D7100 or Canon 7D and get the appropriate glass and if necessary, teleconverter, or carry a quality P&S that can cover the wide end of things such as the RX100 or Ricoh GR, and another one for tele shots like the Lumix DMC ZS 40s which reaches out to 720mm equivalent. EDIT A side note, a Canon 7d, Canon 400 f5.6 lens, and one or both of their teleconverters is a, relatively speaking, budget friendly option to get into wildlife photography. Some birders won't blink at spending $12K on a 600mm lens so again, emphasis on "relatively speaking." A caveat to all this is determining how important bird shots are to you as that typically requires a modest level of skill to find and keep the bird in your viewfinder (esp when zoomed out) and a camera that focuses quickly and can take a lot of shots before hitting the buffer. You'd have to be exceptionally lucky to get a decent bird shot with a P&S but it'd be fine for one sitting on a branch, and moose, bear, or other four legged critters. Of course with smaller sensor you lose some DOF, but the Lumix does a reasonably good job with IQ and the RX100 even more so. I do love my A6000 and think it excels in many areas, but until they start making serious native e mount tele glass and improve their buffer and focusing performance, it's going to have a hard time competing in the world of sports and wildlife with the previously mentioned DSLRS. I'm going to try Tom's suggested tele extender since I've already invested in this platform but there are days I wonder if I should've spent this money on more Nikon glass and a Ricoh GR.

[Brendan Swihart]

Ian I agree that the 400/5.6 with something like a 7d is a great choice to get into dedicated high-quality wildlife photography but it's not really a feasable option unless that's a primary reason for your trips. Those little superzooms like the ZS40 etc have pretty horrible IQ unless it's bright sunlight and you get lucky enough to actually nail focus on what you're trying for. If you're just wanting something to grab records of wildlife or birds you might see, they're a good option because they're tiny and light, but they're frustrating if you're wanting decent photographs. Of the small sensor superzooms the FZ200 is quite a bit better with the constant aperture 2.8 lens and has more reach than the fz1000. While m43 isn't as ideal as a dlsr, I think it's still the most legit of any mirrorless system for wildlife and the best option when size and weight area a concern. Lots of birders and wildlife photogs that need a lightweight setup use the 100-300 and there are two new pro long teles coming out soon (Oly 300/4 and Panaleica 100-400). I don't think they'd be releasing $2500 teles if if the system wasn't seen as a viable option for serious wildlife work. Buffer shouldn't be an issue; for example the em-1 shoots 10fps and has a 39 shot buffer compared to 8fps and only 15 shots in raw for the 7d. Size comparison of 7d with 100-400 (which is actually shorter but heavier than the 400/5.6, which they don't have), FZ1000, and gx7 with a 100-300 and 12mm prime here : I've tried most of these options (FZ200, Em-1 with 50-200 SWD+TC, ZS50, Sony hx300, and GX7, GM5, and EM-1 with 100-300) over last couple years looking for better quality pics for when I'm doing raptor nest surveys for work. I settled on just using the clear image zoom on rx100 for documentation when I don't care about IQ and until recently was using the 100-300/gx7 combo when I cared more.

[Ian]

"Buffer shouldn't be an issue; for example the em-1 shoots 10fps and has a 39 shot buffer compared to 8fps and only 15 shots in raw for the 7d." How many of those shots on the Osprey in flight will be in focus though? The A6000 has one of the best, if not the best, autofocusing systems in the mirrorless market right now and I can assure you that you'd be lucky to bat .500. This is certainly an incomplete picture as the quality and speed of the lens is a critical factor in this performance and as previously discussed, Sony's lens selection is lacking to being practically non existent beyond 200mm without using Tom's solution. RX100 and the Ricoh GR are great for what they are, the Lumix is not as great but in my experience, the predecessors to the DMC-ZS-40/50 are fine for its size and cost, but you're certainly relying on ideal conditions and it will eventually let you down. The largest issue I have with promoting a mirrorless system for wildlife photography is that there are endless opportunities to buy into glass and bodies, and still not be satisfied with the end results due to slower focusing speed among other things. I'll fully admit that a GX7 paired with a Pani 100-300 (200-600mm equivalent) is an enticing option for less than a $1000. I always come back to the GX7 when I ponder giving M4/3 a try but I'm just not willing to spread myself too thin over the Nikon, Sony E-mount, and M4/3 ecosystem at the same time, although the glass selection continues to tempt me. Sony may never catch up to the M4/3 ecosystem with its glass but they really need to slow down on the bodies and focus on getting more pro level G or Zeiss glass in the market, especially on the telephoto side of their house.

[Tom D.]

I agree with you Ian that for dedicated wildlife photography, mirrorless is not the way to go. I have a friend who dived fully into nature photography, buying a Canon 1DX, a large, fast lens that cost him more than my wife's car did, a sturdy tripod with a gimble, etc. He's gotten some of the best shots I've ever seen. But there's no way he could ever hike with it. So I'm also with you in that I agree (as you mentioned in another thread) that for UL backpacking, sometimes an imperfect solution is good enough. That's why I doubt that I will ever be carrying a full sized DSLR, especially not a full frame when hiking. If I can get some good shots, wonderful, and I often do, but I certainly don't count on getting much as far birds in flight (my early efforts have been less than stellar) and some other shots. Heck, my hiking tripod is a tiny ultrapod II. But as you said, it depends on your committment to the craft. Right now, my setup adds about 2-2.5 pounds of pack weight depending on what I bring. That's about as much as I will allow myself to carry, as I still need stay UL (or close to it) while hiking.

[Eri c]

I’ve been carrying a A7II around with me recently with the ultrawide zoom, but I also like the super telephoto zoom options. I’ve tried the little tiny sensor super zoom cameras but the IQ bothers me too much. For day hike / weekend trips I have just started taking the Tamron 150-600 with me and really like the images it produces (as a back yard example with the new A7II firmware https://flic.kr/s/aHskqyZfs8) even handheld things seem to work pretty well. That said I do not like the idea of taking a 4lb lens on tough multi-day trips :) so I’m in the same boat as many – where to compromise vs hauling the weight vs just enjoying being there. :)

[Brendan Swihart]

That Tamron looks good.  Just took delivery on a Leica Telyt 350/4.8 (about 12″ and 4.25lbs) so I’m with you on just abandoning hope of teles on multi day trips ;)

[d k]

Well, I succumbed to the FZ1000 and ordered one a couple of days ago, so we’ll see how I like it.  I am happy with my RX100 for backpacking but have been trying out other things for birdwatching day hikes.  I’ve decided I’m not happy with image quality on the Canon SX-50, so I’m hoping the FZ1000 will be better overall, even though it does not have the huge zoom.  My friend who is a serious photographer keeps trying to talk me into DSLR but I am lazy and don’t want to fuss with separate pieces, or in most cases a tripod.  Probably my ideal camera for dummies just hasn’t been made yet…

[Bruce Johnson]

For several years I used an Olympus SZ560, about a pound, tough, a long zoom, and OK IQ as long as it was daylight. I got decent jpegs when I was lucky. Weight and quality took me to a Canon S110, which is similar in size but not IQ or sensor size to the Sony RX. It is very delicate in damp environments. The Adirondack weather laid waste to it, and it quit; a few days of R & R at home dried it up and got it functional, but I do not consider it trustworthy. This season I am going to try Micro 4/3- an Olympus OM-5 with a 40-150, and either a short zoom or the Leica 25, which is lovely but heavy. Batteries, bag and all is a hair over 2 pounds. We shall see.

[Bruce Tolley]

To the original poster’s question, it is all about how much weight you want to carry and what your goals are. Personally I never print photos anymore and sold all my Canon L glass and invested in micro 4/3.  There are threads about bird photography complete with photos with micro 4/3 and the Pany 100-300 lens at B&H and other online forums. For wildlife while day hiking, I myself went with the Oly 20-150 route and am looking next to buy the teleconverter.  I would not carry that set up backpacking though. I carry the Oly 14-150.

[Author]

Posts