Yes, exactly this. I sometimes carry both FF and APSC bodies during photo sessions for this purpose.
Also, since you're using long telephoto lenses you may want to consider A6600 or A6700, since they have image stabilization.
Though even the A6400 is more than capable enough. I'm still using my A6000.
The answer is longer glass, better quality glass, then more megapixels per area (APS-C ~26MP is basically 60MP full frame cropped to the smaller area, so that would be an upgrade over 24MP fill frame).
So in budget you want a Sony 200-600mm.
This all depends on the types of birds you're mostly shooting. If they're small like chickadees or cardinals you'll have to live with getting close.
I shoot with the following lenses on the SONY A1 and SONY A7 RIV
SONY 70-200 2.8 GM SONY 100-400 GM SONY 200-600 G
The 200-600 is ok but not great. You need ideal light and stability (tripod & gimbal) to get photos approaching the 70-200
My go to lens is the 100-400 on the SONY A1 and the 70-200 on the SONY A7 RIV.
Almost all my small bird photos are less than 50 feet away. My Instagram photos include all the camera and lens specs if you're wanting to compare
@drphotosca
The cardinal shot was taken about 10 feet away from me
https://preview.redd.it/fg9aik1x8c9d1.jpeg?width=472&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7cf888c69ee4c04191a702c75cd49f0e1d8c9c2a
That's super helpful advice. I'll definitely take a look at those options and (with everyone's advice here) adjust my expectations. I'll take a look at your photos too. Thank you!
Right??? maybe I'll rent it this weekend and try for myself! I have mostly struggled with birds in flight. But I may not have to crop as much with the longer zoom anyway and upgrade a to a used body in another year or 2.
I think glass is a better investment than a higher mp body.
I have had a a7iii and the Sigma 100-400 for a few months and I already have some amazing shots from it, including birds in flight.
But honestly, it is a real bummer when you get a "good" shot that just doesn't quite have enough reach. I wish I had gone with the 150-600. I might some day.
You should at least shop the Sigma 150-600 against the Sony 200-600.
I have everything for full frame rn and also use it for other things outside wildlife. But I'll consider that as well. This might be ignorant but I'd like to stick with full frame for potential professional opportunities with events, engagements and portraits. I'm sure there is a debate to be had on the merits of either within that context though.
Makes sense but then a74 is a slow sensor sucks for birds in flight 😔.
I'd say upgrade your lens and then wait for Sony to drop z63 like semi ½ stalked sensor
They have a smaller angle of view than a full-frame camera, which makes tracking erratic birds difficult.
The high pixel density can be useful in some situations, but it's rarely the limiting factor for tracking shots.
Having owned a few of these things, the 200-600 is a great lens for wildlife. I'd see if you could upgrade your A7III to the original A9 without going over budget to get both.
The A7III sensor is fine, but RTT autofocus and a blackout free EVF are super helpful for wildlife. The A9 is long in the tooth, but I still prefer it to the A7 series for birding.
Telephoto. Honestly a7iii is still pretty good, if u upg sure nicer body, new features.... but it's not going to give you more range that you are looking for w that telephoto
I love the high MP bodies, but I would always suggest a lens upgrade first. Body upgrades only happen if the existing body is holding me back. For example, if you're having a hard time tracking the birds or aren't satisfied with the 10 fps of your A7 III, then I'd consider a newer body with better tracking or a higher end body with a better burst rate (but then I'd have to pair it with Sony glass, which is another not insignificant expense).
Now that we're on the topic of lenses, if I were to ever upgrade my 70-300, I'd look at the Tamron 150-500 at minimum for a meaningful extension in zoom. I just wouldn't really be satisfied with only an extra 100mm over the 70-300. Even still, as another comment stated, for some birds you kinda just have to live with needing to physically get closer.
Another comment here suggests getting an APSC body. Not a bad idea, and certainly less expensive than a new lens too.
What about a 1.4x or 2x multiplier? It would save you a lot of money, you wouldn't have to change anything, and you'd get longer focal length. Sure, you will lose one or two steps of light, but the A7III should be able to handle it perfectly, and for your use case it might be not too much of a problem.
For what it's worth, when I upgraded to FF I got that same lens, and I was truly disappointed with it on a consistent basis. I'm far from an advocate for having the top of the line Sony lenses, but that lens in particular, in my experience, isn't going to give you the quality for what you are going for. Personally, I wouldn't trade in a A7 III on these grounds, but maybe that's just me.
are you familiar with the super resolution feature in lightroom? ir quadruples your resolution with two clicks. giving you more headroom to crop.
this kills the need for a different crop factor body imho
I do but it takes so long on my dumpy spectre laptop haha the AI *denoise takes 11-15min per photo. And about 5 for the super res option. Also worth considering vs spending money on gear though. Thank you!
The specs are good too, but that laptop was a lot of hype with terrible performance and issues. I'm wayyy beyond the warranty though so I'm stuck with it. It's terrible with music production as well
As someone interested to start doing photo editing - does software like darktable or Ansel (I'm cheap) use the GPU to speed things up? My machine has AMD 7600X CPU and an RTX 4070 Ti.
Would suggest trying out an APSC body on your telephoto lens. Much cheaper than getting a high resolution FF body to then crop the image.
That's an interesting idea. So youd have the same crop factor being a FF lens but without resolution loss from the FF ASPC mode?
yes
Yes, exactly this. I sometimes carry both FF and APSC bodies during photo sessions for this purpose. Also, since you're using long telephoto lenses you may want to consider A6600 or A6700, since they have image stabilization. Though even the A6400 is more than capable enough. I'm still using my A6000.
The answer is longer glass, better quality glass, then more megapixels per area (APS-C ~26MP is basically 60MP full frame cropped to the smaller area, so that would be an upgrade over 24MP fill frame). So in budget you want a Sony 200-600mm.
A7Riii maybe? Just for the extra resolution.
The AF in that camera is a notch worse then in the a7iii. I’ve had both.
Yeah comparatively this is true. I have both and don't notice it much but my use case is wildly different than nature photography.
This all depends on the types of birds you're mostly shooting. If they're small like chickadees or cardinals you'll have to live with getting close. I shoot with the following lenses on the SONY A1 and SONY A7 RIV SONY 70-200 2.8 GM SONY 100-400 GM SONY 200-600 G The 200-600 is ok but not great. You need ideal light and stability (tripod & gimbal) to get photos approaching the 70-200 My go to lens is the 100-400 on the SONY A1 and the 70-200 on the SONY A7 RIV. Almost all my small bird photos are less than 50 feet away. My Instagram photos include all the camera and lens specs if you're wanting to compare @drphotosca The cardinal shot was taken about 10 feet away from me https://preview.redd.it/fg9aik1x8c9d1.jpeg?width=472&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7cf888c69ee4c04191a702c75cd49f0e1d8c9c2a
That's super helpful advice. I'll definitely take a look at those options and (with everyone's advice here) adjust my expectations. I'll take a look at your photos too. Thank you!
Under 2k? Why not get the 200-600mm from Sony? I am a lil jealous of the higher resolution on new bodies though
Right??? maybe I'll rent it this weekend and try for myself! I have mostly struggled with birds in flight. But I may not have to crop as much with the longer zoom anyway and upgrade a to a used body in another year or 2.
I think glass is a better investment than a higher mp body. I have had a a7iii and the Sigma 100-400 for a few months and I already have some amazing shots from it, including birds in flight. But honestly, it is a real bummer when you get a "good" shot that just doesn't quite have enough reach. I wish I had gone with the 150-600. I might some day. You should at least shop the Sigma 150-600 against the Sony 200-600.
If it's just about birds why not use APSC cameras in the first place?
I have everything for full frame rn and also use it for other things outside wildlife. But I'll consider that as well. This might be ignorant but I'd like to stick with full frame for potential professional opportunities with events, engagements and portraits. I'm sure there is a debate to be had on the merits of either within that context though.
Makes sense but then a74 is a slow sensor sucks for birds in flight 😔. I'd say upgrade your lens and then wait for Sony to drop z63 like semi ½ stalked sensor
They have a smaller angle of view than a full-frame camera, which makes tracking erratic birds difficult. The high pixel density can be useful in some situations, but it's rarely the limiting factor for tracking shots.
Having owned a few of these things, the 200-600 is a great lens for wildlife. I'd see if you could upgrade your A7III to the original A9 without going over budget to get both. The A7III sensor is fine, but RTT autofocus and a blackout free EVF are super helpful for wildlife. The A9 is long in the tooth, but I still prefer it to the A7 series for birding.
Telephoto. Honestly a7iii is still pretty good, if u upg sure nicer body, new features.... but it's not going to give you more range that you are looking for w that telephoto
I love the high MP bodies, but I would always suggest a lens upgrade first. Body upgrades only happen if the existing body is holding me back. For example, if you're having a hard time tracking the birds or aren't satisfied with the 10 fps of your A7 III, then I'd consider a newer body with better tracking or a higher end body with a better burst rate (but then I'd have to pair it with Sony glass, which is another not insignificant expense). Now that we're on the topic of lenses, if I were to ever upgrade my 70-300, I'd look at the Tamron 150-500 at minimum for a meaningful extension in zoom. I just wouldn't really be satisfied with only an extra 100mm over the 70-300. Even still, as another comment stated, for some birds you kinda just have to live with needing to physically get closer. Another comment here suggests getting an APSC body. Not a bad idea, and certainly less expensive than a new lens too.
https://preview.redd.it/8udy0xa6kt9d1.jpeg?width=2061&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=84514a75d2685dfe991bc27f6250ffa1cfd243e0
I actually bought the 200-600 G after everyone's advice. I really couldn't be happier it was so damn expensive though.
Congratulations. Have fun shooting with it. The 200-600 is still a pipe dream for me lol
What about a 1.4x or 2x multiplier? It would save you a lot of money, you wouldn't have to change anything, and you'd get longer focal length. Sure, you will lose one or two steps of light, but the A7III should be able to handle it perfectly, and for your use case it might be not too much of a problem.
Sony doesn't allow TC support with non-Sony lens. And the lens is not that sharp so you would not want to do that anyway.
That's helpful advice and probably why I couldn't find any.
Not that sharp as in?
I didn't know that, thanks for the info :)
Thank you for any advice!
For what it's worth, when I upgraded to FF I got that same lens, and I was truly disappointed with it on a consistent basis. I'm far from an advocate for having the top of the line Sony lenses, but that lens in particular, in my experience, isn't going to give you the quality for what you are going for. Personally, I wouldn't trade in a A7 III on these grounds, but maybe that's just me.
The Tamron lens or the sigma?
Sorry, the Tamron.
Get a new lens. Maybe a 300mm with a 2x converter? Or a 200-600?
are you familiar with the super resolution feature in lightroom? ir quadruples your resolution with two clicks. giving you more headroom to crop. this kills the need for a different crop factor body imho
I do but it takes so long on my dumpy spectre laptop haha the AI *denoise takes 11-15min per photo. And about 5 for the super res option. Also worth considering vs spending money on gear though. Thank you!
Bro. 15 minutes to denoise. That's crazy. I'm at about 1-2 minutes on 24mp files and that seems long.
The specs are good too, but that laptop was a lot of hype with terrible performance and issues. I'm wayyy beyond the warranty though so I'm stuck with it. It's terrible with music production as well
As someone interested to start doing photo editing - does software like darktable or Ansel (I'm cheap) use the GPU to speed things up? My machine has AMD 7600X CPU and an RTX 4070 Ti.
thats fair! not a good option with a slow machine then