Guys,
Though we are still waiting for EM1.2 here in Bombay, its nice to read the talk and see pictures.
I know few things about general photography but when it comes to wildlife and long lenses. I am a dud. Have been planning to get into it because i love animals and birds...and only problem till now have been my insistence on finding smaller gear with equal quality for this. If i must carry it, it has to be small.
Sony has launched their 100-400 which is bulky by my standards, but combined weight with the camera will be atleast 500 grams less than 5D4 and 100-400ii.
Even then, Olympus options are lighter. 300/4 is bulky, but again with the camera the whole thing is 1870 grams.
Option 1) Keep my 5D4 and add EM1.2+300
Option 2) sell Canon and buy Sony 100-400 plus the camera (they have my general photography small lenses so no problem there)
Just don't want to give up FF in some form as it is better for my general photography.
John,
Maybe Mitesh, Dan or some others will chime in too.
I'm looking forward to comparing how adapted lenses to the Oly do compared to adapted
to Sony e-mount which I have a fair bit of experience with. Will Oly do better? Time will tell
for me but I bet some have already compared the two.
It appears that the Canon 400/5.6 does well with the adapter, based on what Dan is regularly producing with that combo. Tony (Imagemaster) tried it with the 100-400 II and wasn't thrilled. I had asked him about it in a thread a while back. The two lenses I had, the 800/5.6 and 200-400/4, did not work well either.
400/5.6 will be fine.
Bonus would be the EOS 70-300L.
I've been enjoying both of those on the EOS M5 but the M1ii is vastly more capable, for a lightweight wildlife rig that's the scheme.
Thanks for commenting Mitesh.
1. 500 grams can be significant if carrying all day, especially in hot/humid areas.
2. Pixel density. Maybe compare this between 5Div and the new Sony. Why? Well at least for
me I crop and often crop a lot....just hard to get close to birds/wildlife sometimes.
3. Read Glenn Bartleys (sp??) review on 5Div. I think he too agrees with pixel density and cropping
and still leans toward the 7dii for birds.
4. Know before a plunge into mFT that even with all the advances of the sensor in the Oly M1 ii, it loves
light, the more the better. Most animals/birds I know don't like to sit in a brightly lit area for long
100-400 II vs. 400/5.6 on the Mark II: Both work well, but in the end, the 400/5.6 is able to use more of the camera's features, namely the focus limiting. That is a big help with any long lens, especially one that is relatively slow. Future firmware updates will no doubt fix that. For a while I was considering switching to the zoom, but no longer. It would be stuck at 400mm all the time anyway.
Pardon me if I repeat myself.... getting on...
C-AF is not really an option, though Metabones has incorporated it in the newer firmware updates. It does "work", but too slowly to be of any real use. I quote Metabones:
"AF-C and video autofocus may have unsatisfactory AF performance and/or accuracy. This is a limitation inherent in DSLR lenses, which lack the low latency required for making many fine movements in rapid succession during AF-C and video focusing."
I find the trusted tap tap method best, short bursts with the camera set to S-AF.
With either lens, the MarkII/Metabones setup is not what I would call a fast action rig, but it more than makes up for it in reach, AF accuracy, and sharpness. Naturally, there is no "ideal" setup, but for me and what I like to do, the MkII/Matabones/400/5.6 is awfully close. Learning to live with the limitations of ANY system is the name of the game.
mitesh wrote:
It appears that the Canon 400/5.6 does well with the adapter, based on what Dan is regularly producing with that combo. Tony (Imagemaster) tried it with the 100-400 II and wasn't thrilled. I had asked him about it in a thread a while back. The two lenses I had, the 800/5.6 and 200-400/4, did not work well either.
Thanks. I have that 100-400mm and the 500mm II. Too bad about the 100-400. Anyone have experience with the 500mm?
DanC.Licks wrote:
100-400 II vs. 400/5.6 on the Mark II: Both work well, but in the end, the 400/5.6 is able to use more of the camera's features, namely the focus limiting. That is a big help with any long lens, especially one that is relatively slow. Future firmware updates will no doubt fix that. For a while I was considering switching to the zoom, but no longer. It would be stuck at 400mm all the time anyway.
Pardon me if I repeat myself.... getting on...
C-AF is not really an option, though Metabones has incorporated it in the newer firmware updates. It does "work", but too slowly to be of any real use. I quote Metabones:
"AF-C and video autofocus may have unsatisfactory AF performance and/or accuracy. This is a limitation inherent in DSLR lenses, which lack the low latency required for making many fine movements in rapid succession during AF-C and video focusing."
I find the trusted tap tap method best, short bursts with the camera set to S-AF.
With either lens, the MarkII/Metabones setup is not what I would call a fast action rig, but it more than makes up for it in reach, AF accuracy, and sharpness. Naturally, there is no "ideal" setup, but for me and what I like to do, the MkII/Matabones/400/5.6 is awfully close. Learning to live with the limitations of ANY system is the name of the game....Show more →
nandadevieast wrote:
Guys,
Though we are still waiting for EM1.2 here in Bombay, its nice to read the talk and see pictures.
Anurag, it's good to hear some people still refer to it is as 'Bombay' instead 'Mumbai'. Having lived in India for 25 years, I still can't come to terms with new names for Indian cities
Canon/Sony 100-400 is too short for bird photography. You need a 500, 600 or 800. So either the PL 100-400 or Oly 300 would make more sense if size and weight matters to you.
nandadevieast wrote:
Option 1) Keep my 5D4 and add EM1.2+300
Option 2) sell Canon and buy Sony 100-400
maf27 wrote:
Anurag, it's good to hear some people still refer to it is as 'Bombay' instead 'Mumbai'. Having lived in India for 25 years, I still can't come to terms with new names for Indian cities
At least in Kolkatta, where I used to hang out, the name now is the normal Bengali pronunciation rather than the Calcutta the Brits used. Does the same apply to Mumbai?
maf27 wrote:
Anurag, it's good to hear some people still refer to it is as 'Bombay' instead 'Mumbai'. Having lived in India for 25 years, I still can't come to terms with new names for Indian cities
Great portfolio, BTW.
Haha, good to know I'm not alone in that regard! I think I've come to terms with Mumbai, Chennai, and Kolkata, but I just can't call Bangalore "Bengaluru" .
DanC.Licks wrote:
At least in Kolkatta, where I used to hang out, the name now is the normal Bengali pronunciation rather than the Calcutta the Brits used. Does the same apply to Mumbai?
It's funny you mention it. I grew up not from Calcutta and the Bengalis always referred to Calcutta as Kolkata when speaking in Bengali even before the official name change. I also lived in Madras, Bangalore and Bombay and I have never ever heard the locals refer to their city by these new names.
mitesh wrote:
Haha, good to know I'm not alone in that regard! I think I've come to terms with Mumbai, Chennai, and Kolkata, but I just can't call Bangalore "Bengaluru" .
When we spoke Bengali, the Bengalis always said Kolkata but would switch to Calcutta when we spoke English. Now they seem to stick with Kolkata even in English.
Achha, tumi Kolkatar chele?
.