AlphaPhotography
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
My biggest issue with Canon currently is the video animal eye AF, video AF in general, and lack of better codecs and log profiles (CLOG2). I have several of their best lenses including the 28-70 f2, 100-500, 70-200mm f2.8, 85mm f1.2, 100mm macro, etc. and two R5's so I'm heavily invested. I've also had two separate R5 shutter failures and am currently experiencing a third (error 20 and error 30).
I shot some 8k log video the other day and my nearly maxed out MacBook Pro M3 Max 14 core CPU, 30 core GPU, with 36GB memory can't play it back in FCP or DaVinci without heavy stuttering. The files are also ridiculously huge even in 4k compared to Sony (not sure about Nikon).
In video shooting CLOG3 you need to overexpose the image as it's a very noisy log profile (ISO 800 base). This leads to a washed out image while filming/metering and the AF struggles tracking people and animals even with the correct AF settings. I've tried a variety of settings and find it nearly unusable. It is unreliable. I don't know if the R5II will resolve this. In video Canon also locks you out of all tools while recording, no histogram, etc. Based on videos I've seen taken with the Nikon Z8/Z9 with the latest firmware the animal eye AF looks far better and the stabilization too. Unless Canon makes drastic improvements with this in the very near future on the R5II then I'll likely be switching, at least for my wildlife photography for now. I do love Canon for portraits and the ergonomics are excellent. But Nikon is appealing for wildlife/video and Sony for lenses/video/travel.
armd wrote:
As others have opined, it is best to know what applications, conditions, and FL's you shoot. For example, a 600 PF could be a great lens for birding in some locations, though it wouldn't be my first choice here in the Midwest or down in the Galapagos. At Conowingo, my 800 PF was shooting all day while the 180-600 sat in the bag. At a recent shoot in FL, the 800 PF was way too long and I was grateful for the 180-600 which at times was shouldered while I was clicking away on the 70-180 attached to a second body. If 600mm was my preferred, long FL, I would probably consider pairing it with a 100-400, or a 400 f/4.5 + 70-180/200 etc.
Having all of these choices of high quality lenses at relatively competitive prices is really a nice problem to have. What attracted me back to Nikon (having been a Canon shooter since the late 1980's, and brief Sony dabbler) was the release of the 800 f/6.3 PF and their lens roadmap. I was toting around big Canon glass, namely a 600 f/4 and 500 f/4 with TC's and at the time the only reasonable RF zoom was the relatively expensive, telescoping 100-500 (It is still one of my favorites for its size and sharpness though it suffers from flare/CA more than the 186). I genuinely dislike TC's for many reasons and was grateful for a lightweight, relatively affordable lens, which was hand holdable, and provided great IQ. Sorry Cannon and Sony, you have nothing like this lens in your arsenal.
I still prefer some aspects of my Canon bodies though with the recent FW updates, the Z8 has now sufficiently surpassed the R5 that I no longer regret switching. Since moving to Nikon, Canon has released some incrementally improved bodies, high end (100-300 f/2.8 comes to mind) and lower end lenses (200-800) and the R5II and R1 are on the foreseeable horizon. If I were still invested in Canon gear and happy with my equipment, I wouldn't be in such a rush to switch right now, though it is unlikely that they will target the mid-range value glass that Nikon uniquely offers....Show more →
|
