bernardl wrote:
...
You realize that some of the best bird photographers in the world keep reporting wonderful results with that very combo. How could you conclude that the one case you report about can be representative of its abilities?
...
An n=1 is actually pretty good considering that whole countries have been bombed back to stone age based on a sample size of zero. Furthermore that 1 is a fact, not an alternate fact!
bernardl wrote:
Yet. Steve Perry thinks that as of fm5.0 the Z9 is the best focusing camera for birding.
Cheers,
Bernard
It may be the best camera in his hands for the subjects he shoots. Personally, I found the R3, R5, A1 etc. were better for diving eagles/Osprey and other subjects near water. Even when I was shooting some slow moving, spoonbills landing nearby the Z8 inexplicably mis-focused in ways that the other cameras did not.
Z250SA wrote:
An n=1 is actually pretty good considering that whole countries have been bombed back to stone age based on a sample size of zero. Furthermore that 1 is a fact, not an alternate fact!
armd wrote:
It may be the best camera in his hands for the subjects he shoots. Personally, I found the R3, R5, A1 etc. were better for diving eagles/Osprey and other subjects near water. Even when I was shooting some slow moving, spoonbills landing nearby the Z8 inexplicably mis-focused in ways that the other cameras did not.
That’s exactly my point. There simply isn’t one best camera for birding. Then all have strengths and weaknesses and knowing a camera perfectly is usually the better approach and delivers better results.
Which is why lens selection is the key aspect IMHO.
molson wrote:
I find it interesting that many people here think Canon has ignored or abandoned wildlife shooters.
I know it's an extremely small sample size, but my wife and I took several whale and wildlife watching boat trips earlier this year, and out of the 8-10 participants on each trip, almost every one was using Canon gear. On the first two trips, only me and the pro photographer host were using Nikon, and by the last trip, he was the only Nikon user on the boat. He teased me about the "slow" Canon lenses, until I started sharing some photos with the new gear. He messaged me a few days ago to tell me he had sold off his 800mm PF lens and his Tamrikon 180-600 as well; now literally everyone I personally know who owned those two lenses has sold them....Show more →
There’s a difference between what people are using and what may be desired. Canon has produced long entry level high f teles 600/800 f/11, a mid range, high quality affordable tele 100 500, and now the telescope 200-800. As I articulated, they have nothing like the lenses I listed which are the core of my WL shooting and are appreciated by many WL photographers.
molson wrote:
I find it interesting that many people here think Canon has ignored or abandoned wildlife shooters.
I know it's an extremely small sample size, but my wife and I took several whale and wildlife watching boat trips earlier this year, and out of the 8-10 participants on each trip, almost every one was using Canon gear. On the first two trips, only me and the pro photographer host were using Nikon, and by the last trip, he was the only Nikon user on the boat. He teased me about the "slow" Canon lenses, until I started sharing some photos with the new gear. He messaged me a few days ago to tell me he had sold off his 800mm PF lens and his Tamrikon 180-600 as well; now literally everyone I personally know who owned those two lenses has sold them....Show more →
The more you write Tanrikon 180-600 the less credible you become… This isn’t a Tamron lens and Tamron lenses are brilliant. I understand the pain of those not being available in RF mount at the moment though.
And on your story, yes there are bubbles of people who influence each others into thinking they are absolutely and beyond any possible doubt right about something. We see that in politics all the time. Most humans can’t resist group pressure and “authority” very long, even though they swear they are totally free thinkers.
bernardl wrote:
The more you write Tanrikon 180-600 the less credible you become… This isn’t a Tamron lens and Tamron lenses are brilliant. I understand the pain of those not being available in RF mount at the moment though.
And on your story, yes there are bubbles of people who influence each others into thinking they are absolutely and beyond any possible doubt right about something. We see that in politics all the time. Most humans can’t resist group pressure and “authority” very long, even though they swear they are totally free thinkers.
Cheers,
Bernard
You mean like the bubbles of people saying Canon has no superteles, and never innovates?
molson wrote:
I find it interesting that many people here think Canon has ignored or abandoned wildlife shooters...
I don't think it's that binary. Yes, I'm sure there is a hint or possibly a significant amount of that in the community, but I feel it's more nuanced. Personally, I don't think Canon has abandoned the wildlife shooters, simply because they created the R5. The portrait photogs weren't clamoring for 45MP at high speeds. Landscapers couldn't care less for the speed and AF capabilities. It is way more camera than any videographer needs. However, it sits very cleanly, and some might say ideally, for wildlife photogs. IMO, the initial camera was only short on the readout speeds. Everything else was literally ideal for what we do. So... no, I would never claim they are ignoring us.
However, I do believe they are not reading the room correctly. They are pigeonholing the wildlife shooters in box that many of us don't like. However, we just need to come to grips with Canon's decisions. I hate that they think the form factor of the R5 is what I want, but there's no amount of complaining that will change their minds. Unfortunately, for me, there is no real upgrade by switching brands. I'm either back in the same position with Sony, but out of thousands more dollars, or in Nikon's system with a slightly difficult to use AF system and a brick for a body. But at least with Nikon, the gear is priced better, and the lens selection is second to none, for now. Either way... no, the thought that I think Canon isn't thinking of the wildlife shooter couldn't be further from the truth.
molson wrote:
...my wife and I took several whale and wildlife watching boat trips earlier this year, and out of the 8-10 participants on each trip, almost every one was using Canon gear.
A probable explanation is that whale-watching isn’t the only photography those people do, and they just took equipment they already owned, or had with them for a trip whale-watching was one part of.
The nearest reliable* whale-watching from where I live is the Shipwreck Coast (along the Great Ocean Road). Who, exactly, is going to take heavy camera equipment there and not take a landscape lens? In my case, I’d take the RF 100–500, my EF 24–70mm f/4 + adapter and my R3 on that trip, and the 100–500 would be good for landscapes as well. Canon made the RF 100–500 for exactly this kind of scenario, expecting to sell a lot of them.
(* Whales do come into the bay here in Melbourne, and can sometimes be seen off the far southern suburbs.)
It sounds like user error from what you’re describing. I personally don’t shoot BIF, but I have a few friends that do using Nikon Z kits, and they are extremely successful BIF photographers.
Dragonfire wrote:
He shoots a Z9/800PF and his wife shoots a Z8/600 and he usually leaves with 3k to 4k shots.
His success ratio is far, far below my 1D IV with a single focus point and 10fps.
Odds are your "best" bird photographers success ratio is equally low.
melcat wrote:
A probable explanation is that whale-watching isn’t the only photography those people do, and they just took equipment they already owned, or had with them for a trip whale-watching was one part of.
All of us were locals (not tourists) out on day trips, to see whales, bears, seals, sea lions, and lots of birds. Everyone was using gear they already owned - what else would we be using?
There's a rumor going round, that the number of Bird Photographers now outnumber the entire world’s Bird population, so there's a proposal underway to provide birds with attached mini camera’s, enabling them to capture myriad images of Bird Photographers, to display on mega computer screens in wildlife preserves for all the birds to view and admire, and the Cardinal's can argue in bird talk, that the Bluebird's attached camera brand is inferior to theirs.
molson wrote:
All of us were locals (not tourists) out on day trips, to see whales, bears, seals, sea lions, and lots of birds. Everyone was using gear they already owned - what else would we be using?
And you guys know each others and are used to comparing your results while taking wonderful photographs and having a great time out on the water in contact with nature at its best, right?
Sy Sez wrote:
There's a rumor going round, that the number of Bird Photographers now outnumber the entire world’s Bird population, so there's a proposal underway to provide birds with attached mini camera’s, enabling them to capture myriad images of Bird Photographers, to display on mega computer screens in wildlife preserves for all the birds to view and admire, and the Cardinal's can argue in bird talk, that the Bluebird's attached camera brand is inferior to theirs.
And another one that Canon, Sony and Nikon CEOs had a good laugh last week playing golf together that their strategy to release line ups carefully designed to have different strengths is doing an amazing job at making guys buy super télés costing 15,000 US$ a piece from more than one brand! 🤣
rscheffler wrote:
--> I think this sums it up nicely. This thread caught my eye because while my main system has always been Canon, I added Olympus to lighten the load, and more recently I explored a move to Nikon.
I primarily photograph people (and do some work in other genres, for which a "Toyota" of a camera is more than adequate) and spent six months trying to make a home in the Z system. There was a lot to like, and I made a good-faith effort (bought Thom Hogan's guide and read it cover to cover, scoured the internet for advice, etc.), , but after six months I gave up and picked up an R6II, and I couldn't be happier. The 50 and the 85 1.2 are two of the best lenses I've ever used, focus is fast and accurate (and EyeAF actually works), my old EF glass such as the 100 macro, 125/2, and 200/2.8 work fine, and the colors and overall look of my images are much more pleasing than anything I was able to get out of the Nikon (several long-suffering test subjects agree!).
But if I were primarily a wildlife photographer, and didn't have large investment in lenses, I might look at alternatives, depending on my timeline and my sense of whether my gear was holding me back....Show more →
What was the Nikon camera and lenses combination that generated this much suffering and when did this happen if I may ask?
For what it’s worth, I shoot among other things people with Z8/Z9/a9III/GFX-100II. Leaving the Fuji aside since it’s a couple of generations behind, I find the Nikon and Sony to have similar level of keepers. A keeper being an image with a tack sharp pupil. Lens used for comparison is respective 50mm f1.2 (S and GM). And this rate is high.
Overall the Nikon finds faces earlier and rarely misses completely, the Sony is a bit more consistent with focus accuracy but sometimes fails to focus completely. It’s better stopped down but not as good as the Nikon at f1.2.
So I find the gap quite puzzling with this testimony claiming that “Nikon” eye AF doesn’t work and my own experience of utter excellence. Hence the question, what exact camera and lens are we talking about?
