Dear fellow pursuers of fine photography,
I am a longtime user of Minolta/Sony (D)SLR equipment and I would still be happy if I wouldn't have taken up wildlife photography. My current combination is a trusty Alpha 700 with the 70-400 G SSM. The latter is a very sharp lens yielding beautiful results in combination with the A700 - provided the AF was fast enough to capture the elusive subjects - especially birds. My camera definitly has no AF issues, but the system shows its age and the 70-400 has the fatal tendency to defocus and refocus slooooowly, especially in difficult lighting, because the A700's fast and precise cross sensor only works at 1:2,8 and higher. The base line: I'm missing too many good shots in the field. I know that Nikon and Canon have both better AF systems. If I bought, say, a Canon 7D with a 100-400 - I read the recent test and IMHO it should offer a similarly high image quality as the 70-400 G - would this system be significantly better suited to wildlife photography? The other (and cheaper) option would be to wait for autumn and Sonys mirrorless A77, but I am not sure whether an electronic viewfinder would be helpful in wildlife photography and it is not sure whether the A77 will have a better AF system. I shoot the A700 up to ISO 800, sometimes up to 1600.
Thanks in advance for your valuable input!
What do you miss at current setup?
- Focal range
- Speed
- AF -speed
- AF accuracy.
- IS performance.
What type of photography do you do?
Moving from one brand to another costs time and $$.
If you are long time Minolta/Sony user did you look at third party lenses?
E.g Sigma 100-300/4.0 Sigma 300/2,8 .Personally I'm canon shooter I hope that sigma will release new 300/2,8
[quote name='outofrangefinder' timestamp='1304366892' post='8006']
Dear fellow pursuers of fine photography,
I am a longtime user of Minolta/Sony (D)SLR equipment and I would still be happy if I wouldn't have taken up wildlife photography. My current combination is a trusty Alpha 700 with the 70-400 G SSM. The latter is a very sharp lens yielding beautiful results in combination with the A700 - provided the AF was fast enough to capture the elusive subjects - especially birds. My camera definitly has no AF issues, but the system shows its age and the 70-400 has the fatal tendency to defocus and refocus slooooowly, especially in difficult lighting, because the A700's fast and precise cross sensor only works at 1:2,8 and higher. The base line: I'm missing too many good shots in the field. I know that Nikon and Canon have both better AF systems. If I bought, say, a Canon 7D with a 100-400 - I read the recent test and IMHO it should offer a similarly high image quality as the 70-400 G - would this system be significantly better suited to wildlife photography? The other (and cheaper) option would be to wait for autumn and Sonys mirrorless A77, but I am not sure whether an electronic viewfinder would be helpful in wildlife photography and it is not sure whether the A77 will have a better AF system. I shoot the A700 up to ISO 800, sometimes up to 1600.
Thanks in advance for your valuable input!
[/quote]
It is mostly the lens that makes the Canon 100-400mm faster focussing, not so much the A700 being slower. The f2.8 "precision" AF sensors are not faster, just try to be more accurate. So it is not that either, and it is the same for every manufacturer.
The A700 has a very accurate AF system, but as you noticed, Sony is not the preferred choice when AF speed is needed, especially AF tracking speed. How much the A77 will improve on that, no one can tell yet. The A55v is not very impressive in that department.
So.. yes, the switch from Sony 70-400 to Canon 100-400mm will make a big difference in AF tracking speed. But will you be able to get used to push-pull zoom? Maybe, try it out. The 7D probably will not quite match the A700 AF accuracy every shot, but it will AF faster, so you will have less missed shots for sure.
The 7D is very usable at higher ISO's too, so that should not be a concern.
Oh, by the way, the bit smaller and bit cheaper EOS 60D also will be faster in AF tracking, so it also might be an option.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1304410238' post='8012']
The 7D is very usable at higher ISO's too, so that should not be a concern.
[/quote]
No, it's not.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1304411645' post='8014']
No, it's not.
[/quote]
Yes it is!
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1304416279' post='8018']
Yes it is!
[/quote]
No It isn't. The RAW file file processed with the SAME VERSION of 3-th party RAW converter gives similar results.
[quote name='miro' timestamp='1304420922' post='8020']
No It isn't. The RAW file file processed with the SAME VERSION of 3-th party RAW converter gives similar results.
[/quote]
No it isn't what, miro?
I can't make sense of your post.
I said: "The 7D is very usable at higher ISO's too, so that should not be a concern."
Which is true, it is a very capable camera, also at higher ISO's (OP mentions ISO 800 and 1600 being used regularly).
So what are you talking about regarding "similar results" and "3-th <sic> party RAW converters"?
Puzzling.
[quote name='outofrangefinder' timestamp='1304366892' post='8006']
If I bought, say, a Canon 7D with a 100-400 - I read the recent test and IMHO it should offer a similarly high image quality as the 70-400 G - would this system be significantly better suited to wildlife photography?
[/quote]
The 7D + 100-400L is my primary wildlife setup and I like it. The camera and lens also suffers at times from hesitant refocus if it drifts out too far and can't decide what to lock onto. My feeling is the lens is the limiting factor here, as while the AF isn't slow, it isn't super fast either. How much better or not it is from the Sony combination I can't say not having used that specific combination, but I can say it is faster than the A350+70-300G. The increased AF points of the 7D can help with tracking moving subjects in some situations.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1304410238' post='8012']
The 7D is very usable at higher ISO's too, so that should not be a concern.
[/quote]
Not aimed specifically at BC but everyone replying to the above comment, we might want to define how high an ISO, and what's considered usable.
Personally, I'm generally happy with the output in normal use up to ISO3200, although of course the resolution is impacted by then compared to lower ISO. Another issue to watch out for is the reduced dynamic range at higher ISO, which makes it too easy to blow highlights. I rarely use ISO6400, as I see that as nature's way of telling me I should be going home when light drops that low.
@all: Thank you very much for your valuable input! I like the idea of getting a 60D instead of a 7D. I understand they share the same sensor and imaging pipeline.
@popo: The 70-400s AF is about as slow as the one of the 70-300 G. Both are very fine lenses but somehow under-motorized. With the 24-70 CZ, the A700's AF is extremely fast and accurate. My first generation black Minolta 80-200 1:2,8 focuses also _much_ faster than the newer zooms, but it is also much louder, because it still relies on the camera's built-in AF motor.