rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
dorian wrote:
As a long-time bird photographer and professional birding guide, I think the R1 announcement is likely to end my tenure as a Canon shooter (13 years). Sure, there are some sweet features in this body, but I cannot fathom what Canon expects me to do with 24MP when Sony and Nikon are offering me twice that for the equivalent price in the a1 and z9, respectively. Reach is premium for bird shooters, and I often do not have enough even with my R5/600/1.4. And sure, the R5 II will be a solid upgrade to my R5, but does anyone honestly believe the AF is going to be as good as the soon-to-be-updated a1, a camera which was, until the recent release of the Sony a9III, the industry leader in AF? Canon seems to be playing a perpetual game of catch-up while Sony plows ahead on the AF front. When Sony merges the a9III AF and the a1 45MP sensor, it'll be game over.
And that’s not the worst part as far as bird photography is concerned. It’s the long lenses category in which Canon seems to be particularly impotent.
First, The 100-500 is a great lens, but it’s 1/3 stop slower, 100mm shorter, and nearly $1,000 more expensive that the Sony 200-600. And on top of those comparative shortcomings, the engineers didn’t make the the full zoom range available when the TC is attached (the Sony functions as a 280-840mm f/9 with the 1.4 TC). This sort of oversight or corner cutting by Canon is exhausting. Pay more for less? No thanks.
Second, the Canon RF 600 is more hat than it is rabbit. It’s the same motor and optics as is in my 600 EF II. Not a significant thing has changed on those fronts since Feb 2011, when the lens was released. At that time, the fastest bodies shot 10 or 12 FPS, so the older motors were fine, but 20, 30, 60, or 120 FPS require better motors if one is to take advantage of that higher frame rate. Yes, you can use the RF TCs with the RF 600, but the lens core, the motor, is undeniably dated. Sony developed all their long lenses in conjunction with their mirrorless system, so it’s unsurprising that Sony tracks and captures much better than Canon. Canon is hellbent on bending EF lens technology to fit RF applications, and it doesn’t seem like its working as well as the targeted designs/builds of Sony and Nikon as far a bird photography is concerned.
Third, and against that lack of long lens innovation, it seems unsurprising that there isn’t a plan to produce new and exciting lenses as Nikon has done. Where are the lightweight options like the 800/6.3 and 600/6.3? Where is the 600 with the integrated TC? ***crickets***
While either the R1 or the R5II would be an upgrade on my R5, I don’t think the incremental gains mean much for bird shooters unless the company also addresses their long lens line-up. And I don’t see plans to do that. My 600 EF II is feeling heavier each year, and I’m not going to invest more money into a sagging brand just to save weight. If I’m gonna drop the big bucks to get a lighter lens, then I may as well pony up a few thousand more and get into brands which, at present, seem to be catering more to my photographic goals. I’m confident in my ability to make good images with any kit, but I’m tired of waiting for Canon to give me what I want. First World problem, I know……
Summary:
- Sony has the best AF and two amazing lenses in the 200-600 and 600/4.
- Nikon has a fantastic body in the z9 and the most interesting/exciting long lens line up.
- And Canon has……? Someone tell me, please.
PS - I don’t care about ISO and/or dynamic range. If the light sucks so bad that I need ISO 6400 or higher, then I leave the rig at home and go birding instead.
And since I haven’t posted here or in Nature/Wildlife in years, this is me: https://www.doriananderson.com/
Cheers!...Show more →
Have you actually used all three brands on which to base an informed decision, or just basing this all on what others claim (which may or may not be biased)?
All I can say to this is that there is feedback that the ancient R5's AF keeps up or exceeds that of the competition. This would suggest to me that the R5II (and R1) are not merely catching up to the competition. Without actually using the options that you might be considering, you might be jumping into other areas of performance deficiencies that aren't immediately clear on paper, or that others may not have experienced because they don't use the equipment the same way you do.
My experience with EF on the R is that the newer lenses that maintain peak fps rates don't appear to have difficulty with maintaining focus tracking at 40fps on my R6II. In my case it's the fairly old 200-400 shooting field and arena sports. Yes, I do think the RF lenses like the 100-300 are faster (the 200-400 was never as fast AF as the EF primes I used before it). You'd have to ask someone here who had v3 EF super teles if the RF versions perform any faster, or are for some reason lacking in speed at peak fps (which I doubt).
The middle ground long lens price point is probably the greatest hurdle with remaining a Canon user in your market segment precisely because of Nikon's offerings. IMO, Sony hasn't really produced anything innovative other than mirrorless versions build ground up in the 400 and 600. No built-in TCs there either.
To summarize - you probably want to trial all three systems to make an informed decision. This will likely require some costs with rentals, etc. But considering the cost of changing systems, might be worthwhile.
|
