re: Wildlife photography camera recs.( Ordered )

quote:

---

And just because you can identify the reason for the smaller lenses doesn't make them any less small, packable, very high quality, affordable and near perfect for all types of travel photography.

---

My only probelm with micro 4/3rds is the low light performance. With wildlife you gotta take the shots when the opportunity presents itself.

APS-C is the sweet spot IMO for price/performance. I upgraded to full frame for a few years (Canon and Sony) and didnt care for the lenses, which were expensive for the quality.

quote:

---

My decision to get an M43 camera was largely based on resolution

---

You've said this a couple of times, but have yet to define what you mean by it. That's important because as I said before, resolution has multiple meanings in photography and you need to be clear which one you are talking about.

1. Sensor resolution – The number of pixels a camera sensor can capture, usually measured in megapixels.
2. Image resolution – How many pixels an image contains, often described by width × height (e.g., 6000×4000). While this is similar to sensor resolution, many cameras have the ability to reduce the number of pixels in an image so it's not exactly the same thing.
3. Spatial resolution – The ability of a lens/sensor to separate fine details in a scene.
4. Optical resolution – The resolving power of a lens or optical system, independent of pixel count.
5. Print resolution – The level of detail in a printed photo, measured in dots per inch (DPI).
6. Perceptual resolution – The level of detail the human eye perceives, depending on viewing size and distance.

And outside of smaller lens size on M4/3 cameras that you've stated, bigger sensors have the advantage in almost all of the ones that matter.

Sensor resolution – Full frame and APS-C sensors are physically larger, so they typically have larger photosites giving higher overall resolving potential.
Spatial resolution – The bigger sensors on Full frame and apsc cameras allow larger individual pixels or higher pixel counts without crowding, so fine detail is more cleanly separated on the resolved images.
Optical resolution – Lenses designed for larger sensor can resolve more detail because they don’t need to bend light as steeply as lenses designed for smaller sensors. (this is one of the main disadvantages of M4/3 lenses).

So while it might not be an issue for you, there is still no arguing with the actual physics of the optical and electronic systems we are using. There is a distinct tradeoff of the small size of a M4/3 sensor and I'm just identifying those theoretical weaknesses. This isn't to say APS-C and Full frame (and 1" and MF) don't have their limitations as well. But that's why I keep saying that APS-C mirrorless is the middle ground.

quote:

---

Now I have identified the problem. You haven't been reading my responses.

---

Yes I have. Here are all your comments in this thread on "resolution". No where in these posts do you define what you mean by the word.

quote:

---

In most circumstances, you shoot wildlife with wide open apertures where pixel pitch (or pixel density) leads to higer resolution which is especially helpful in bird photography and distant subjects.

---

quote:

---

And yet it is weird how you are seeming to defend APS-C from an attack that was never levied against it. But to make one correction, higher pixel density does, automatically, lead to higher resolution. Yes, lenses matter. Yes, total pixels in the image is another measure of resolution, yes, diffraction occurs at larger apertures.

---

quote:

---

My decision to get an M43 camera was largely based on resolution, a factor that still applies. None of the rest has given me anything to worry about.

---

If there is a definition in there, I can't find it. I think you’re talking about pixel density (per-mm resolution) in these posts, but it’s not entirely clear. You could be taking about Pixel density (per-mm resolution) or Total image resolution (megapixels). Since you didn't implicitly say which one you're talking about, it's confusing. For someone for familiar with the Jargon, I know it's confusing.

If you're talking about pixel density, as we've mentioned previously, that isn’t always a positive.

Diffraction limits kick in sooner – the smaller the pixel pitch, the earlier fine detail gets softened at narrower apertures. On M4/3, that can happen at f/5.6–f/8, while APS-C and full frame have a little more headroom up to f/8 and beyond.
More noise at higher ISOs – smaller pixels gather less light individually, so while the overall image may average out, per-pixel signal-to-noise output suffers. That can matter in wildlife photography, where you’re often shooting in less-than-ideal light.
Lens demands increase – higher pixel density sensors are more unforgiving of lens softness, especially at the edges. Not every lens can keep up with the resolving power of tiny pixels. So at that point lens resolving power becomes the bottleneck. If the lens can’t deliver very fine detail (measured in line pairs per millimeter), the smaller pixels don’t get more detail, they just record lens imperfections more precisely. On a high-density sensor, lens weaknesses like corner softness, chromatic aberration, or slight focus errors show up more clearly. To over come those weaknesses, what increases here is the cost of those lenses because the optics have to be more precise.

As for defending formats, I’m not fanboying APS-C — it isn’t even my main system. I primarily shoot full frame DSLRs. My recommendation here wasn’t about validating my own choices, but about giving the OP an option that makes sense within their budget and goals, based on nearly 50 years of experience. And while M4/3 has its place, there are real reasons most pros gravitate toward larger formats. It's the trade-offs I mentioned above that are very real.

quote:

---

Ordered Canon EOS R7 W/ 100-400 zoom lens

---

Did you get a tripod or monopod? You're going to need one.

quote:

---

The Canon EOS R7 won out. Paid 2100 for a kit with the camera , Canon 100-400 lens,

---

I think you made an excellent decision.

ETA: I'd be interested in a couple of the youtube's you watched.

The kit included a tripod and 2 SD cards along with the extras.
Thanks

What type of laptop are you going to use. I'm interested in getting back into photography; it was a big hobby of mine during the 35mm days and was a photographer for "The Gumbo" when I was at LSU.

quote:

---

What type of laptop are you going to use. I'm interested in getting back into photography; it was a big hobby of mine during the 35mm days and was a photographer for "The Gumbo" when I was at LSU.

---

I've been using the macbook pro 16gb of ram.

All of my editing is done in Lightroom Classic, and I haven't had any issues. The only thing is lately its been a little slow when trying to sync settings for multiple photos at one time.

The macbook is a few years old now, and I want to start doing a little more video, so I'll probably upgrade soon.

quote:

---

Thanks JOJO, I have a MacBook Air.

---

I used to use the air, wasn’t bad, just after time got painfully slow when working with larger files

quote:

---

If you have any questions about wildlife settings or anything in general let me know, I'll be glad to help out.

---

For nature photography (landscapes and wildlife) the most important setting you can have is your alarm clock.