08-02-2021, 05:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-02-2021, 05:52 PM by wim.)
(08-01-2021, 07:51 PM)davidmanze Wrote: (08-01-2021, 03:37 PM)wim Wrote: Yeah, well, a bird's eye tends to be small, and if it is far away, it becomes difficult, for any camera system. However, the camera does pick up the bird itself as well, effectively like no other camera out there.
As to your other reply: of course it depends a lot on the photographer. Having said that, I have been following a bunch of photographers who do birding on POTN over the years, and they are all convinced the R5 helps them a lot.
Actually, looking at the images, most of them have well improved their game as a result, even though they were top notch already.
Specifically, check out member 'robamy' in the R5 image thread over on POTN.
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=19266844
Kind regards, Wim
Some very good and detailed images for sure !! ......... especially like the oyster-catcher ..... he's clearly a good bird photographer first and foremost ....... hence the good low POVs ....... and he knows where to find them and to get close .......... maybe a lot of shooting from his 4X4?.... hides etc. ......... of course great lenses ...... 600mm F4 ........ 400mm F? ....... and of course the R5 does great !!
....... but that wasn't the point of Macs thread ....... it is about crop vs FF ....
.... he is looking to fill the frame with the birds as often as possible .... which is a common problem ..... he has the 90D already ........ a great high resolution crop sensor!
.... to me this is thread is not about which is the best camera ....... it's about what suits the users needs best ...... affordably !
..... I think Mac has already realized FF is not going help him ...... hence the conversation about a crop sensor ML sports camera ......
....... until then most birders will be shooting crop sensor DSLRs ...... for that reach! Rob actually crops most of the time. But he also uses long lenses even with the 2x extender to great effect.
With 45 MP, you have quite a bit of leeway to crop, that was my whole point. No need for APS-C anymore.
Do yourself a favor, and look a bit more through that thread. It contains enough bird shoots good enough to fill a century worth of bird-calendars.
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
(08-02-2021, 05:50 PM)wim Wrote: (08-01-2021, 07:51 PM)davidmanze Wrote: (08-01-2021, 03:37 PM)wim Wrote: Yeah, well, a bird's eye tends to be small, and if it is far away, it becomes difficult, for any camera system. However, the camera does pick up the bird itself as well, effectively like no other camera out there.
As to your other reply: of course it depends a lot on the photographer. Having said that, I have been following a bunch of photographers who do birding on POTN over the years, and they are all convinced the R5 helps them a lot.
Actually, looking at the images, most of them have well improved their game as a result, even though they were top notch already.
Specifically, check out member 'robamy' in the R5 image thread over on POTN.
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=19266844
Kind regards, Wim
Some very good and detailed images for sure !! ......... especially like the oyster-catcher ..... he's clearly a good bird photographer first and foremost ....... hence the good low POVs ....... and he knows where to find them and to get close .......... maybe a lot of shooting from his 4X4?.... hides etc. ......... of course great lenses ...... 600mm F4 ........ 400mm F? ....... and of course the R5 does great !!
....... but that wasn't the point of Macs thread ....... it is about crop vs FF ....
.... he is looking to fill the frame with the birds as often as possible .... which is a common problem ..... he has the 90D already ........ a great high resolution crop sensor!
.... to me this is thread is not about which is the best camera ....... it's about what suits the users needs best ...... affordably !
..... I think Mac has already realized FF is not going help him ...... hence the conversation about a crop sensor ML sports camera ......
....... until then most birders will be shooting crop sensor DSLRs ...... for that reach! Rob actually crops most of the time. But he also uses long lenses even with the 2x extender to great effect.
With 45 MP, you have quite a bit of leeway to crop, that was my whole point. No need for APS-C anymore.
Do yourself a favor, and look a bit more through that thread. It contains enough bird shoots good enough to fill a century worth of bird-calendars.
......... he must have spent what $28 grand ?? ........ I suppose that's reasonable for a hundred years of calendars ...........
........ let's all go out and spend that ......... though personally I wonder how many calendars I'll be needing!!
(08-02-2021, 11:41 PM)davidmanze Wrote: ......... he must have spent what $28 grand ?? ........ I suppose that's reasonable for a hundred years of calendars ...........
........ let's all go out and spend that ......... though personally I wonder how many calendars I'll be needing!! Are you trying to rile me up?
Basically it appears you only looked at the one photograph based on your comment.
Rob is not the only poster there, and the calendar reference basically was for the collection of posts there. The reason I mentioned Rob is not only because he is an excellent birder, but also because his compositions and PP are second to none composing, framing and PP skills.
There are plenty of people in that topic which shoot with the EF 100-500L and the EF 100--400L, with excellent results as well.
Regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
(08-03-2021, 10:46 AM)wim Wrote: (08-02-2021, 11:41 PM)davidmanze Wrote: ......... he must have spent what $28 grand ?? ........ I suppose that's reasonable for a hundred years of calendars ...........
........ let's all go out and spend that ......... though personally I wonder how many calendars I'll be needing!! Are you trying to rile me up?
Basically it appears you only looked at the one photograph based on your comment.
Rob is not the only poster there, and the calendar reference basically was for the collection of posts there. The reason I mentioned Rob is not only because he is an excellent birder, but also because his compositions and PP are second to none composing, framing and PP skills.
There are plenty of people in that topic which shoot with the EF 100-500L and the EF 100--400L, with excellent results as well.
Regards, Wim
I've looked at his photos ...... they're very good ...... what else is there to say? ........ I'm happy for him !
....... for the rest, it is clear that we have a tour de force of dyed in the wool Canon users here, or at least two .... who can't see any other point of view ......... they are right and they have "other peoples photos" to prove it ........
........ so for whatever the reasons for my thinking, right or wrong, or shooters of other brands that don't think in the same way as others ....... (and there are very many of them including Mac) .............. I ask you politely to accept them for what they are .......... even if they are not your's !........
...... so carry on and good shooting !!
Bye bye!!
I hope this doesn't sound to cynical, but sometimes I wonder if it isn't just easier to convince the sports and wildlife crowd to by full frame cameras, and full frame pro lenses because it is seriously much easier to make a lens sharp enough for a 45mp full frame camera than it is to make one sharp enough for a 32, or even 24mp APS-C camera. The challenge with making Long telephoto lenses is the size of the elements, and the sturdy construction and powerfull AF motors, and OIS groups.
One APS-C lens did catch my eye the other day. It is a 200mm F/2 prime that ships with a matched 1.4x extender. It is a Fujinon lens, and could be paired with their 26mp Fujifilm X cameras. This is not quite where we want to be as birders but compared to a FF equivalent this becomes a 300mm FOV with light gathering capablility of F/2. Reviews suggest that the extender, designed for this specific lens only would now get you a FOV of 420mm and light gathering equivalent of F/2.8. The sensor would have a pixel density of close to a 60mm FF.
The benefit of the Fuji setup it that it was designed ground up for the format it shoots. I don't know what direction they are moving, but they have a competitive edge if they keep doing more with less!
-Mac
Allow me to disagree ![Wink Wink](https://forum.opticallimits.com/images/smilies/wink.png) Most sports shooters do indeed use full-frame cameras already, the lower resolution kind, though (Canon 1Dx, Nikon D5/D6), because they don't need the high resolution but want the cameras to be as tough as possible.
For wildlife, there are slightly different needs, depending on what you're shooting. If you're sitting in a tent for a whole day with the long lens mounted on a tripod, aiming at and prefocused on a given spot where you hope your 'prey' will show up, you don't care about AF at all. If, however, your favorite subject has wings and you prefer to capture when using those, you certainly do (talking about real birds here, not war-birds... airshow photographers have lower requirements ![Wink Wink](https://forum.opticallimits.com/images/smilies/wink.png) ). The D500 is so popular among bird shooters because it combines the fast AF of the bigger bodies with wide AF coverage in the frame and high frame rates. Plus, it adds some extra reach due to the crop factor.
One thing all those use cases have in common: if you have the funds for one (or maybe even more) of the 'big guns', resolution power of the lens will not be the limiting factor, regardless of what camera you use.
The XF 200/2 you mention is a really nice lens, indeed. Well designed, fast, sturdy... the only things that Fuji ignored or missed is that drop-in filters are standard in this lens class.
One remark though: you can't look at the 'light gathering capability' of the lens alone, but you need to look at the whole system. Recommended read (haven't discussed that one for a while ![Wink Wink](https://forum.opticallimits.com/images/smilies/wink.png) ):
https://www.opticallimits.com/Reviews/986-equivalence
In the general image, you'd likely get an equivalent full-frame 300/2.8 from most other brands for less money than what you'd have to pay for a XF 200/2, no matter if you buy the latter new or used... to buy it used, you'd actually have to find one, though.
The biggest issue of the lens is, however: it's sort of an exotic item in the Fuji portfolio, a solitary island disconnected from the rest of the system. First of all, for birding the lens is likely too short, even with the provided TC. And on any of the current Fuji cameras, it will be very front heavy. The best match for it would be a X-H1, which is discontinued, or one of the upcoming X-H2 cameras (if they are similar in size and weight.
There is one more issue: Fuji is not necessarily known for providing the best AF tracking performance in the market...
Editor
opticallimits.com
(09-09-2021, 08:41 AM)mst Wrote: Allow me to disagree Most sports shooters do indeed use full-frame cameras already, the lower resolution kind, though (Canon 1Dx, Nikon D5/D6), because they don't need the high resolution but want the cameras to be as tough as possible.
The D500 is so popular among bird shooters because it combines the fast AF of the bigger bodies with wide AF coverage in the frame and high frame rates. Plus, it adds some extra reach due to the crop factor.
One thing all those use cases have in common: if you have the funds for one (or maybe even more) of the 'big guns', resolution power of the lens will not be the limiting factor, regardless of what camera you use.
Not to forget that 200 RAW image buffer btw
........ given your optical knowledge Markus ....... how many Mps can these big gun 600mm F4 (latest models) be expected to resolve on a FF format ??
With long lenses in tele use you usually get the atmosphere to soften the results too.
(09-09-2021, 09:54 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: With long lenses in tele use you usually get the atmosphere to soften the results too.
I'm talking about the theoretical resolution in a vacuum
You're overestimating my knowledge, David. And so far I haven't had the chance to shoot with a future, non-existing high resolution camera in vacuum either
BC has a very valid point, though. At these focal lengths, the shooting distance becomes an issue for the lab tests already, and that's probably less than what you'd use such a lens for in the wild.
Editor
opticallimits.com
|