p.2 #1 · My attempt to cure GAS with data + Advice requested
I have used Nikon Z9 and Z8 since their launch and sometimes even 20 FPS felt like a bit behind Sony offerings. It was a major upgrade for birding from my D6 which capped out at 14 FPS. For birding I wouldn’t like to be limited to 15 FPS.
LiveShots wrote:
My 2 cents; Although the A1 can shoot at 30fps, have you tried using just 15 fps ?
The reason I ask is that if you can get acceptable/consistent images at 15fps then it opens up the possibility of using 3rd party lenses such as the Sigma 300-600 f4.
Pair that with the 300m f2.8 from Sony if you want something lighter with more fps and it will still cost less than the 600mm f4 from Sony.
p.2 #2 · My attempt to cure GAS with data + Advice requested
For birding, forgoing half the fps is a mistake. It is all about poaes/catching the moments. You'll be severely hampering captures. Sharpness, etc matters little if you miss out on the best moments.
LiveShots wrote:
My 2 cents; Although the A1 can shoot at 30fps, have you tried using just 15 fps ?
The reason I ask is that if you can get acceptable/consistent images at 15fps then it opens up the possibility of using 3rd party lenses such as the Sigma 300-600 f4.
Pair that with the 300m f2.8 from Sony if you want something lighter with more fps and it will still cost less than the 600mm f4 from Sony.
p.2 #3 · My attempt to cure GAS with data + Advice requested
Like you, I am trying to find the best kit for my needs as business slows, and I focus more on travel. It's really frustrating trying to find the best solution to pair everything down. As much as I absolutely love my Z8 and 24-120, it's too big. Z primes are too big. I will probably sell them soon for an A1.
p.2 #4 · My attempt to cure GAS with data + Advice requested
sandy27000: I'm no expert when it comes to wildlife to I will focus on everything else (family, travel...) Your idea to think in terms of focal length only is interesting but IMHO incomplete.
I tend to choose lenses based on the situation, and not only by focal length.
If I want to make portraits but in an environment where I want to be quite discrete, I won't take a 50-150! A 50 or 85 modest prime (50 1.4 / 85 1.8...) would be so much better.
If I want to bring a camera to a birthday party where people would be somehow ok to be photographed but don't expect to be photographed, I would take a small 35 (2.8 or 1.8 depending on the available light).
If I want to travel with a kid in each hand and a map in the other, I will take a lens that could be as versatile an light as possible, for example a 20-70 f/4.0 so I could do everything with the last available hand
If I go to a sport event I know that I will have to choose a lens based on the indoor/outdoor situation, both because of the available light and the reach needed. A 50-400 could be more useful outdoors than a 50-150, the later one would probably be perfect indoor.
If I do multiday hikes and want to be as light as possible, I know that I want to bring back amazing landscapes, so I will take one lens suited for the job, for example a 16-35PZ if I want a little bit or versatility or a 20 1.8 or 14 2.8 if I expect night photography.
You get the idea.
I buy my lenses not to cover focal lengths, but to cover the situation I face most often.
