Lauchlan Toal wrote:
That is true, though the new E version seems to be a noticeable step up from the G version based on reviews. And I'd be very disappointed if Brad was given the lens, since it means he lied when he said "Keep in mind that I am intentionally self-funding this field test (i.e., buying the gear!) and while I don't mind investing in the knowledge I will glean from it, I have no interest in burning money!". He doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would deceive other photographers though.
I see on his blog that he has decided to buy some of the Sigma lenses, after returning the copies that he was originally given to test. I don't recall any other photographers that were "sponsored" by Sigma actually doing this - I'll have to ask Brad about it.
Professionals keep telling amateurs gear doesn't matter but everyone keep lusting over the Sony A9 then Nikon D850. In a couple months, it's going to be someone else turn to one-up this D850. Eventually it's going to be Canon turn to leap over the competition. Nothing on the D850 make me want to trade my 5D Mark IV for wedding photography/portrait and deal with the hassle of switching. I still think photography education with adequate equipments is still better than the latest greatest camera.
Even if Canon did release the D850, I wouldn't switch until it's available on the used market for cheap price. Camera are like phone nowaday - very small incremental increases with high early adoption cost. I wish Canon/Nikon developed a mirrorless system compatible with EF lens. wysiwyg, IBIS, DPAF with eye focus would be very enticing to me not more MP, more FPS, 8K timelapse.
The big question is whether canon will (or even can?) leapfrog ahead in the iq department. I waited a few years for the 6dmk2 to match the iq of the d610 but it really doesn't look like it has improved over the original. Video codecs are the same situation. It doesn't look like canon care what the competition are doing, or at least, they're not reacting with any speed to it
level1photog wrote:
Professionals keep telling amateurs gear doesn't matter but everyone keep lusting over the Sony A9 then Nikon D850. In a couple months, it's going to be someone else turn to one-up this D850. Eventually it's going to be Canon turn to leap over the competition. Nothing on the D850 make me want to trade my 5D Mark IV for wedding photography/portrait and deal with the hassle of switching. I still think photography education with adequate equipments is still better than the latest greatest camera.
Even if Canon did release the D850, I wouldn't switch until it's available on the used market for cheap price. Camera are like phone nowaday - very small incremental increases with high early adoption cost. I wish Canon/Nikon developed a mirrorless system compatible with EF lens. wysiwyg, IBIS, DPAF with eye focus would be very enticing to me not more MP, more FPS, 8K timelapse....Show more →
Isaacheus wrote:
The big question is whether canon will (or even can?) leapfrog ahead in the iq department. I waited a few years for the 6dmk2 to match the iq of the d610 but it really doesn't look like it has improved over the original. Video codecs are the same situation. It doesn't look like canon care what the competition are doing, or at least, they're not reacting with any speed to it
You are absolutely right! They are absolutely oblivious & arrogant with their offerings. I really think they are playing with fire when they purposely gimped the 6D II when competitors are leap frogging them and more people aren't as brand loyal as before. Third party lens are also making L lens more brand agnostic. Maybe the Sony A7III will make more Canon to convert over.
As for me, I don't see the point of switching camera from my capable 5D IV to A9/D850. It won't improve my photography. My camera is just more capable than my skills and I need alot more education before I even consider upgrading my camera. Hopefully by then, the Sony/Canon will have a near perfect camera with eye focus, IBIS, EVF, good battery, good ergonomic, and more compatibility with EF lens.
I don't have any experience with the 300PF, but on spec it seems that you're real gain is in the weight reduction (and f/4), not the image magnification (MFD & FL)
Thanks for sharing your experience, good info. Did you try group area AF (better than D9 or similar for birds in flight), and did you adjust the focus tracking with lock-on delay? Nikon defaults to a delay of 3 I think, but I find that turning the delay off entirely is best when photographing incoming subjects.
Can't turn off the delay on D5 and D500, it's a 1 to 5 scale, 5 being longest delay. The dynamic modes are actually a bit broken on the D5 and D500. The assist points aren't doing there job like they used to on previous models, where they worked like Canon's assist points. Now if you lose focus with selected AF point sure it switches to the assist points, but then after a very quick delay immediately returns to the selected AF point no matter where it is and you can end up with focused background. This new approach believes you should be able to keep the selected AF over the subject very well and that the assist points only help for very brief period of time (controlled by the delay setting) before it attempts to go back to the selected point. Massive thread in Nikon forum.
There needs to be a fw update to at least offer the older approach. I use group AF at least for smaller to mid size targets, and use D25 for larger targets with delay set to 4 or 5.
For me, the draw of the D850, and the associated concept of switching to Nikon, is that it results in a one body upgrade from where I am (1DsMkIII). The downside is the associated glass.
I shoot landscape and wildlife pretty much exclusively. I just haven't found a compelling Canon one-body solution in the current offerings. I'll likely gravitate toward either a 1DxII or 5DMkIV plus a 5DsR. That's a lot of $$ and I don't find myself completely embracing of any of them whereby the D850, if it produces as advertised, really does start to look like a high quality one-body solution for wildlife and landscape shooters.
That said, there really isn't a competition with regard to lenses and TCs from what I can tell. I've got a modest but respectable collection of Canon glass that would be difficult if not impossible to duplicate in Nikon or after-market offerings and attempting such would be quite the commitment to trial/error and research.
I really loath Canon's lack of commitment to competition and excellence in their camera technology. Their feature crippling and associated market segmentation strategy is maddening. Their glass, however, is top notch and the reason they have little to worry about in terms of grumbling, dissatisfied, and disappointed Canon camera users like me defecting to Nikon.
Though I acknowledge that it all really is a matter of relativity. Most current camera offerings really are quite amazing. My frustration lies in knowing that Canon seems disinterested in excellence or being the best of the best.
level1photog wrote:
Professionals keep telling amateurs gear doesn't matter but everyone keep lusting over the Sony A9 then Nikon D850. In a couple months, it's going to be someone else turn to one-up this D850. Eventually it's going to be Canon turn to leap over the competition. Nothing on the D850 make me want to trade my 5D Mark IV for wedding photography/portrait and deal with the hassle of switching. I still think photography education with adequate equipments is still better than the latest greatest camera. .
You might like this video rant by Karl Taylor on the topic of gear obsession. Check out his imitation of one of the members from the Nikon forum at the 8:45 mark...
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Can't turn off the delay on D5 and D500, it's a 1 to 5 scale, 5 being longest delay. The dynamic modes are actually a bit broken on the D5 and D500. The assist points aren't doing there job like they used to on previous models, where they worked like Canon's assist points. Now if you lose focus with selected AF point sure it switches to the assist points, but then after a very quick delay immediately returns to the selected AF point no matter where it is and you can end up with focused background. This new approach believes you should be able to keep the selected AF over the subject very well and that the assist points only help for very brief period of time (controlled by the delay setting) before it attempts to go back to the selected point. Massive thread in Nikon forum.
There needs to be a fw update to at least offer the older approach. I use group AF at least for smaller to mid size targets, and use D25 for larger targets with delay set to 4 or 5....Show more →
Weird, good to know. Yeah, hopefully firmware can adjust that, and hopefully the D850 has that fixed. Wonder why they'd make that change, it was working great for previous bodies.
I don't have any experience with the 300PF, but on spec it seems that you're real gain is in the weight reduction (and f/4), not the image magnification (MFD & FL)
You are wrong about 100-400II in practice: the 100-400 is 400mm, but for the same magnification it needs to be a lot CLOSER to the subject than the Canon 4/300mm (and undoubtedly, the Nikon 4/300PF as well). With the 100-400II I have to get awfully close to the dragonfly compared to a 300mm prime, the better MFD spec is of little value. If I can get that close, I might as well use the 100L macro ;-)
Plus there is the problem that at least my 100-400II is WAY worse near MFD than the old 4/300IS lens (and I know some other 100-400II owners see the same problem, but maybe there is significant copy variation). Judging from dragonfly pictures with the 300PF used near full open, it is also better than the 100-400II optically when used near MFD (which doesn't surprise me for prime vs. zoom). Things may be different when you stop down to f/8-11 or so where the 100-400 improves, but that is a luxury that doesn't work for in-flight shots and even for seated dragonflies I would often not stop down that much (because of necessary background blur, mainly).
You are right that for me the main advantage of the 300PF would be weight reduction and not MFD spec (MFD is useless spec anyway for me, more important is distance to front lens and magnification). A lighter lens makes it much easier to track dragonflies, quickly point the lens at the action or hold the camera/lens in position for a prolonged time. The difference between a 4/300 prime and the 100-400II is huge there as well.
level1photog wrote:
As for me, I don't see the point of switching camera from my capable 5D IV to A9/D850. It won't improve my photography. My camera is just more capable than my skills and I need alot more education before I even consider upgrading my camera. Hopefully by then, the Sony/Canon will have a near perfect camera with eye focus, IBIS, EVF, good battery, good ergonomic, and more compatibility with EF lens.
That is about as good a summation as I have read that matches my bottom line.
So many people compare developments as if Canon will stagnate, but they are just developing different priorities (take Speedmaster's comments as an example). I also suspect that by the time SoNikon have given the wishlist you mentioned, Canon will also have advanced many areas to keep the gap relatively small (or may even overtake them) ad switching will remain nothing more than a possibility.
Eric Larsen wrote:
For me, the draw of the D850, and the associated concept of switching to Nikon, is that it results in a one body upgrade from where I am (1DsMkIII). The downside is the associated glass.
I shoot landscape and wildlife pretty much exclusively. I just haven't found a compelling Canon one-body solution in the current offerings. I'll likely gravitate toward either a 1DxII or 5DMkIV plus a 5DsR. That's a lot of $$ and I don't find myself completely embracing of any of them whereby the D850, if it produces as advertised, really does start to look like a high quality one-body solution for wildlife and landscape shooters.
That said, there really isn't a competition with regard to lenses and TCs from what I can tell. I've got a modest but respectable collection of Canon glass that would be difficult if not impossible to duplicate in Nikon or after-market offerings and attempting such would be quite the commitment to trial/error and research.
I really loath Canon's lack of commitment to competition and excellence in their camera technology. Their feature crippling and associated market segmentation strategy is maddening. Their glass, however, is top notch and the reason they have little to worry about in terms of grumbling, dissatisfied, and disappointed Canon camera users like me defecting to Nikon.
Though I acknowledge that it all really is a matter of relativity. Most current camera offerings really are quite amazing. My frustration lies in knowing that Canon seems disinterested in excellence or being the best of the best....Show more →
Agree, I think there are many who (want to) do both landscape and nature/wildlife photography, but Canon doesn't have a body that is great for both (regarding DR, pixel density, AF etc.). You have to compromise on quality or use separate bodies which in practice means one of them stays home, at least for those of us who have to travel light. As a hobby photographer I work with what is available which often depends on weather and I always regret not having the right gear with me. Plus there is the additional cost, and ergonomic differences etc. of keeping two bodies.
The D850 to me is the first body that can do it all, plus it has some very interesting improvements for macro photography (like focus stacking and more accurate Liveview focusing - assuming they work as advertised). I'm going to look for a small lens selection that saves weight, so it compensates for the weight of the camera. My Canon 80D with a 4/300mm weighs 1950 grams, a D850 with Nikon 4/300PF weighs about 100 grams less but I get double the sensor area, more DR, better high ISO and lots of interesting new features. Tempting ...
technic wrote:
You are wrong about 100-400II in practice: the 100-400 is 400mm, but for the same magnification it needs to be a lot CLOSER to the subject than the Canon 4/300mm (and undoubtedly, the Nikon 4/300PF as well). With the 100-400II I have to get awfully close to the dragonfly compared to a 300mm prime, the better MFD spec is of little value.
That doesn't make sense to me. You CAN get closer with the closer MFD (even if you choose not to) than the 300 PF, and 400mm DOES provide more magnification than 300mm. The magnification of the Canon 300/4 is only .24X, while the 100-400 II achieves .31X.
Am I missing something (with regard to magnification)?
The size difference of the lens, though ... is notable.
The 100-400L II being a zoom will have a lot more focus breathing than the 300 prime. Don't forget the 100-400 focuses 0.3m closer and has a 33% more FL nominally. If it stayed at 400mm at mfd, then it should by all rights have a max magnification compared to the 300mm prime of 0.24 x 1.5/1.2 x 400/300 = 0.4x yet only has 0.31x, so it's actual FL is more like 310mm assuming the 300mm prime has no focus breathing.
Still @ 1.5m the 100-400 II should have magnification of 0.31x 1.2/1.5 = 0.248x so very close to the prime. So it's never worse other than the extra weight and possible optical issues.
