In the last 18 months, I found myself doing more bird photography than I ever intended, due to injuries which meant I could not undertake my planned travel or usual hiking. I happen to live right beside several renowned birding sites, so I could get my photography fix from that with little physical exertion needed.
But I didn’t buy specialised birding equipment. I used my R3 and initially my EF 100–400mm II + EF 1.4×, later replaced, as always planned, with the RF 100–500 (restoring the reach I’d previously had with a 1.3 crop body). This was equipment already owned or purchased for my normal activities. The only thing I really added for birding was an RF 1.4× teleconverter, which gets me to 700mm, albeit without Capture One lens profile support.
I found this yielded enough nice shots that I was still enjoying the photography. I also found there were situations where I did want a more suitable lens, but not enough to go out and buy the Sony 200–600. The equipment I have is indeed more suitable for most of the things I will be doing than specialised birding gear would be. Canon is catering for the majority, where they see the money. That 100–500 is ideal for safari, polar trips etc., and the R3 no doubt excellent for sports.
Can I be blunt
I get the impression here that those who just have to have the latest greatest is nothing more than Willy dangling - it’s just so pathetic!!
All these models mentioned on this thread regardless of brand are top drawer, the fact you still can’t achieve the pictures says far more about you than the gear.
I have so much respect for those guys who back in the days before even AF was a thing, who learnt their craft and created stunning pictures. Yet now it’s as if the camera should do EVERYTHING….. once you’ve switched it on!! 😂
The blunt truth is non of you are photographers, just mere operators… like the time served craftsmen of old who honed their skills as opposed to the new low paid low skilled employee who just presses the button and still manages to screw it up.
AmbientMike wrote:
Amazing watching people turn Canon's industry leading supertele lens lineup and R5 II into a negative. And a reason for leaving. Pretty amazing thread
R5II should be a reason to celebrate! 1st Canon high resolution stacked sensor. Of course, it's FM, so Canon is bad, even if they're the best
You can't think about this stuff. People will always complain about something. This has always happened ever since I started in photography back in 2008. I do great with Canon stuff and have several of their Supertele lenses. I don't care about the grass on the other side, just continue fertilizing the grass on this side. I am looking forward to getting the R5II someday to go with my great R5.
If people can't make great images with Canon lenses and gear, it's not Canon's fault. They need to take a peak in the mirror.
trippalhealick wrote:
Ok. Then I guess we'll all just stick with what we bought, and never ever explore buying any other item again except that which we absolutely need. Enjoy that. You can be the counter to my returning if I don't like something. lol
You explore before you buy and then buy what you need. In rare cases something may be the wrong choice, but if you’re using the return process as a trial exercise, you’re abusing the system. Simple as that. And in the US, there’s no excuse because renting is so easy.
thedutt wrote:
The best birding setup right now is Nikon z8 + 800 6.3 - if you like the Nikon Z8 ergonomics. The setup is cheaper than super tele RF lenses used. Anyone focused on just birding, should seriously consider it. Plus the Nikon 400mm w/ TC is indelible for mammals.
I can afford to switch, but haven’t considered it. My primary subjects are bears, and then birds oppertunisiticly.
Why?
2xR5s work incredibly well even by today’s standards. The AF & ISO of R5II look very promising. If the rumored 1x-2x extender becomes real, all of a sudden, 100-300mm F2.8 lens would become worth its value in gold for me me for travel photography. Similarly 200-500mm F4 that has been rumored, looks very intriguing for wildlife work.
No system is perfect. They all take the lead at one point on another. But, the gear is plenty good for all systems where it is not a limiting factor for me. Switching is simply a hassle, its just a tool end of the day.
The best birding setup over here right now is the Canon R5, RF4002.8 and 2x. Light, fast and sharp. Oh and three lenses in one 400 f2.8, 560 f4 and 800 f5.6. All light, fast and sharp.
Apart from the high price, there’s nothing industry leading about canon superteles.
AmbientMike wrote:
Amazing watching people turn Canon's industry leading supertele lens lineup and R5 II into a negative. And a reason for leaving. Pretty amazing thread
R5II should be a reason to celebrate! 1st Canon high resolution stacked sensor. Of course, it's FM, so Canon is bad, even if they're the best
crisdesign wrote:
Apart from the high price, there’s nothing industry leading about canon superteles.
That may well be. I don’t know. But my cars aren’t industry leading either, but they both do their jobs very well and to my satisfaction. If I could and would buy a Ferrari, it may be industry-leading in some aspects, but suck in others. Same for the Range Rover or any other car.
johnvanr wrote:
That may well be. I don’t know. But my cars aren’t industry leading either, but they both do their jobs very well and to my satisfaction. If I could and would buy a Ferrari, it may be industry-leading in some aspects, but suck in others. Same for the Range Rover or any other car.
Yes, It really depends on how demanding one is relative to a wide set of priorities and experiences.
When I started airplane photography 35 years ago with an
East German Praktika and screw type Asahi 200mm manual focus f4 and Kodak Gold I was just amazed to see a vaguely sharp F16 with afterburner on occupying about 1cm on a 10x15cm print. That really made my day.
I don’t do much plane photography anymore these days but the last time I tried a few months ago on Japanese F15s. I was in a much better location thanks to a Japanese friend of worldclass plane photographer Benoit Denet. I was shooting with the Z9 and 400mm f2.8 S TC and I was disappointed when all the rivets were not 100% sharp. And they were in 80+% of images even with the x2 TC. 🤣
I am of course not saying that the RF 400mm f2.8 is a poor lens, it’s most definitely within the top 1%, but the decision to stop pursuing further improvements is indeed just that, a highly constrained personal decision.
Buy whatever makes you happy. I own and shoot with both Canon (R6II) and Sony (A7c). Even the AF tracking on my "old" Sony A7c is light years better than on my newer R6II. I use my R6II for people shots, my A7c for travel, and my OM System OM-5 for macro. Speaking of which, have you considered Olympus/OM System for wildlife? As a primarily FF shooter, I am blown away at how amazing my files are from my OM-5. Micro four thirds has come a long way since the the old, smeary Panasonic cameras of yesteryear.
bernardl wrote:
It really depends on how demanding one is.
When I started airplane photography 35 years ago with an
East German Praktika and screw type Asahi 200mm manual focus f4 and Kodak Gold I was just amazed to see a vaguely sharp F16 with afterburner on occupying about 1cm on a 10x15cm print. That really made my day.
I don’t do much plane photography anymore these days but the last time I tried a few months ago on Japanese F15s. I was in a much better location thanks to a Japanese friend of world top air plane photographer Benoit Denet. I was shooting with the Z9 and 400mm f2.8 S TC and I was disappointed when all the rivets were not 100% sharp. And they were in 80+% of images even with the x2 TC. 🤣
Exactly, except that people now are not comparing 35-year-old cameras with modern ones, but one modern one with another and expecting perfection that in reality has more to do with their own skills than with the camera, except in very specialized circumstances.
And, btw, one of my cars is a Mazda Miata MX-5, which doesn’t beat anything on specs but just beats about everything on driving pleasure on public roads at an affordable price point.
Fine, pick 2 cars: one white and the other black. Apart from the paint they pretty much have the same design.
The black one is a bit cheaper and has 1.4x the range of the white one, all the rest is the same, the door handles might be a bit different as well as some switches.
There's your explanation in context of what we are talking.
Pixelpuffin wrote:
Can I be blunt
I get the impression here that those who just have to have the latest greatest is nothing more than Willy dangling - it’s just so pathetic!!
All these models mentioned on this thread regardless of brand are top drawer, the fact you still can’t achieve the pictures says far more about you than the gear.
I have so much respect for those guys who back in the days before even AF was a thing, who learnt their craft and created stunning pictures. Yet now it’s as if the camera should do EVERYTHING….. once you’ve switched it on!! 😂
The blunt truth is non of you are photographers, just mere operators… like the time served craftsmen of old who honed their skills as opposed to the new low paid low skilled employee who just presses the button and still manages to screw it up.
Has anyone said they can't achieve the shots without the latest and greatest? This is a long and fast moving thread so I may have missed it but I don't recall anyone saying that.
I don't agree that by one having more features and technology at their disposal that therefore they can't hone their craft and create stunning pictures. You can give a person that has very little experience with a camera an A9III or an R1 etc and they will produce crap.
By your definition there are almost no "photographers" out there these days because for the most part everyone is using cameras made in the past 5 years give or take.
At what point in the technology/feature race do your definitions of Photographer and Operator diverge? Introduction of AF? Introduction of digital? Introduction of AI detection modes?
johnvanr wrote:
Exactly, except that people now are not comparing 35-year-old cameras with modern ones, but one modern one with another and expecting perfection that in reality has more to do with their own skills than with the camera, except in very specialized circumstances.
And, btw, one of my cars is a Mazda Miata MX-5, which doesn’t beat anything on specs but just beats about everything on driving pleasure on public roads at an affordable price point.
Agreed totally yes. I did amend my post that was initial not reflecting accurately enough my thoughts.
arbitrage wrote:
Has anyone said they can't achieve the shots without the latest and greatest? This is a long and fast moving thread so I may have missed it but I don't recall anyone saying that.
I don't agree that by one having more features and technology at their disposal that therefore they can't hone their craft and create stunning pictures. You can give a person that has very little experience with a camera an A9III or an R1 etc and they will produce crap.
By your definition there are almost no "photographers" out there these days because for the most part everyone is using cameras made in the past 5 years give or take.
At what point in the technology/feature race do your definitions of Photographer and Operator diverge? Introduction of AF? Introduction of digital? Introduction of AI detection modes?
I equate camera gear the same way I look at automobiles. If it gets you to where you are going then why change. When it leaves you stranded then change.
And never buy new. It is a fools game.
I'm hoping R5 II is so good I can mount it on a tripod, aim it at some birds then sit in my truck and drink coffee. When I get home I'll plug the card in and see what we got.
Pixelpuffin wrote:
Can I be blunt
I get the impression here that those who just have to have the latest greatest is nothing more than Willy dangling - it’s just so pathetic!!
All these models mentioned on this thread regardless of brand are top drawer, the fact you still can’t achieve the pictures says far more about you than the gear.
I have so much respect for those guys who back in the days before even AF was a thing, who learnt their craft and created stunning pictures. Yet now it’s as if the camera should do EVERYTHING….. once you’ve switched it on!! 😂
The blunt truth is non of you are photographers, just mere operators… like the time served craftsmen of old who honed their skills as opposed to the new low paid low skilled employee who just presses the button and still manages to screw it up. ...Show more →
