johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
dorian wrote:
Well put, thanks. And here’s the rub (which seems forgotten by some); bird photography demands a lot from the gear. Acquiring and tracking a small, erratic subject in flight, for example, might be the hardest technological ask we make of consumer cameras. Having incredible AF and high density sensors will maximize the number of images we can create against otherwise daunting circumstances. And long, light (and hopefully fast) lenses to aid the tracking of speedy birds? Yep, bring those on, too. Hell, I spend a lot of my of time flat on my stomach, army crawling through mud and water, so any weight reduction is welcome as I wait an hour or two, lens propped on bent arms, for a shy shorebird to give me what I want. Bird photography is a niche interest, so it’s understandable - as others have correctly argued - that camera companies don’t spend the majority of their time developing products for that market. But when new products are released, bird shooters tend to be among the most excited because technology upgrades help us more than they help other sorts of shooters. That’s not a knock on other types of photography; many sorts - street, portrait, event, etc - rely on creativity and vision that I don’t (and will never) possess!
Also, as I mentioned in a previous post, I’m all over the world in any month. If I miss a shot of Marbled Godwit at home in California, it’s not the end of the world since I’m likely to have another chance at some point. But miss Drakensberg Rockjumper in Lesotho, Bengal Florican in Cambodia, or Araripe Manakin in Brazil and who knows when the opportunity will repeat? I am very, very fortunate to have cracks at these and other incredible birds through my work, and I want to make the most of every opportunity which presents. So yeah, I want the best gear in my hands when I encounter my subjects, particularly the rare or lesser known examples. If people wanna hate on me for that, it's their time and effort.
I doubt I'll be dumping my Canon immediately. More likely, I'll use it for another year while I save up some funds. It works great, but, for reasons I and others have articulated on this thread, I'm very wary of investing additional money into a brand which I don't think will suit my future needs as well as others will. If Canon introduces some sweet/light/re-engineered lenses in the next few months, I might stick with them. But I'm not expecting that to happen. And I think the R5II will probably be pretty sweet; I'm just looking at this from a more global perspective when other companies are introducing more complete systems (lighter lenses and high MP flagships) for my needs.
And lastly, here are some sample shot since I always think it helps to know from where a person is coming: https://www.doriananderson.com/photography
...Show more →
With your background, I’d ask the big brands for loaners so you can test them. I’d go for Nikon based on lenses, but I see people complaining about AF compared to Canon and Sony, so you’d have to try it first.
Personally, I’m happy with MFT, since it’s lighter and often the number of pixels per bird are the same as with FF. Your background separation would be harder, but Peter Bambousek can do it.
I don’t know anything about you, other than that you make great images and are highly regarded in your field. Seems to me there are ways you can capitalize on that and make some serious dough.
|
. While the true photographers community that should be served are the hard working content creators that use the equipment to make a living, and in doing so Canon satisfies the shareholders at the same time. You never know, it might just be the case.