rscheffler wrote: bernardl wrote:
They were way ahead of the Canon R for example that still relied on the 6D sensor and had terrible EVFs and very average AF as well.
garyvot wrote:
You are welcome to your opinion about the EOS R. However, it relied on the sensor from the 5D Mark IV, not the 6D.
R improved a fair amount with FW updates and was really just a stopgap solution since DSLRs in 2018 were still mostly outperforming mirrorless with respect to AF performance (perhaps a9 being an exception, but when I trialed one in 2017 I didn't feel it was a clear winner, at least not on FW 1.0).
It's really the massive performance improvements seen in the R5 and R6 compared to the R and RP that didn't happen over in Nikon-land with the Z6II an Z7II. Both still sluggish sensor readout speeds with the necessity to dole out for the Z8 or Z9 for best AF performance. I think it says something that the nearly four years old R5 is still considered competitive with newer high-end competitors.
Bernard, I've always enjoyed your photos and will only say there is a broad range of cameras that could have made those images in the hands of a talented photographer. For the galloping horse, I'd rather have a zoom than a prime with internal TC. 200-500/4, please!
Thanks, much appreciated.
I removed the first line above since I was not correct on the sensor and it was not relevant anyways.
Totally agree that Canon did much better with the R5/R6 generation than Nikon with the Z6II/Z7II, night and day really.
Funny you should mention the prime vs zoom. It's a totally valid discussion. The previous time I shot the event I used the 120-300mm f2.8 (which I then sold) on the Z9, this time the 400mm f2.8 TC. Both do work in fact. I guess to me a zoom with TC would be the ideal solution.
I guess to me a zoom with TC would be the ideal solution.