Legndz wrote:
I am considering a switch over to the R1 as well for its low light capabilities. Would love to hear some of your real life experiences with it in low light and your thoughts about how it performed. Looking for iso ranges from 8000-16000.
Thanks in advance!
If there's any concern about budget, I would be looking at an R3 + glass over an R1. Or, you can nearly get two used R3's for the cost of an R1. I don't think you will see much of a difference in low light if any difference at all, and R3 is actually cleaner at certain ISOs if you want to nit pick. R1 will give you better speed/AF, matching cards, EVF and precapture, but the R3 is no slouch, at all and can hold it's own. Only the budget determines if the R1 is worth an extra $2500-3k for you, but it's not worth it strictly for low light performance.
Budget isn't really a concern it's a work expense. Im currently a working professional sports photographer shooting Sony. I have multiple A1s and A9iiis. My current issue is the lack of a 100-300 and 24-105 F/2.8. Im considering buying the R1 and those two lenses as my only Canon products, maybe adding in the future if they come out with more useful lenses Sony doesnt make.
Im not a big brand guy, I have no issue shooting both if it helps me get my assignments done more efficiently.
Legndz wrote:
Budget isn't really a concern it's a work expense. Im currently a working professional sports photographer shooting Sony. I have multiple A1s and A9iiis. My current issue is the lack of a 100-300 and 24-105 F/2.8. Im considering buying the R1 and those two lenses as my only Canon products, maybe adding in the future if they come out with more useful lenses Sony doesnt make.
Im not a big brand guy, I have no issue shooting both if it helps me get my assignments done more efficiently.
Got it. The 100-300 is a special lens, you'll love it.
Legndz wrote:
Budget isn't really a concern it's a work expense. Im currently a working professional sports photographer shooting Sony. I have multiple A1s and A9iiis. My current issue is the lack of a 100-300 and 24-105 F/2.8. Im considering buying the R1 and those two lenses as my only Canon products, maybe adding in the future if they come out with more useful lenses Sony doesnt make.
Im not a big brand guy, I have no issue shooting both if it helps me get my assignments done more efficiently.
100% get the R1. I honestly have no idea how it compares to the a1II or a9III with respect to AF performance but I'm guessing those cameras are no slouches. IMO the R1 is definitely the best AF performance from the Canon system. You already have the best from Sony, so why change course with Canon?
The issue may be more related to muscle memory factors, such as zoom rings on Canon and Sony lenses turn in opposite directions. And unlike focusing ring direction, which is fly-by-wire and can be reversed via a menu setting, zoom rings are mechanically coupled to the optics. The exception might be the 24-105 and 70-200Z if you use the power zoom feature. I haven't checked this, but perhaps the rocker can be customized as to which direction is tele vs. wide. Or at the least, the zoom rocker is totally different than turning a zoom ring. Whether the power zoom is fast enough is another matter I haven't looked into.
Even if you don't get a straight answer about ISO 8000-16000, if you have use cases for those two lenses, there aren't any other options.
Thank you! I appreciate the feedback. I was hoping for a Sony version for the last few years and nothing. Tired of waiting, that lens brings so much versatility I cant believe I waited this long to get one.
Yeah, I agree. Sony did a great job releasing a super small and light 300/2.8 but IMO for sports applications where one is not so often reach limited (at least for arena and field sports), the versatility of a zoom is hard to give up after you've been using one for a while. I 'grew up' with lenses like 300/2.8, 400/2.8 as my sports staples, but I just can't go back to the inflexibility of a prime after first using the 200-400 and lately the 100-300.
The 100-300 is also great with the 1.4x TC on both 24 and 45MP. I can't say I can see a difference in image quality with the TC attached.
I don't have the Sony 300, I have the 400 2.8 and the 600 f4. I couldn't justify the 300. For me personally the ideal setup will be the 400 2.8, the 100-300 2.8, and the 28-70 f/2 on the 3rd body. Can always swap in my 14mm on the fly for any super wide scene setters I want to shoot.
