[Arthur Macmillan]

Dave Manze,

I just wrote a reply to Klaus and did the same thing.  What I prefer to do is to write a response with my word processor, and then past it into reply.  OK, you said:

Hi Mac ....

(I just wrote long thread and accidentally clicked on a button and lost it all .... )

 So I'll ask simply what is the problem using the 90D ??
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like the 90D!  But really with the 100-400mm Mk.II.  I realize the Mk I version is a great lens in it own right, but with a long lens you want the better IS.  My concern with Cindy is that she generally has gotten used to shooting at higher shutter speeds with higher ISO's than I think is possible with a 90D.  It's sort of funny because all nature shooters develop their own styles.  I usually shoot at an ISO speed that is a bit low, and take my chance with a longer shutter speed.  I will post that Owl picture later when I read how.  But that was extreme even for me.  Shooting an Owl at 1/40sec and ISO 1250.  The result was good enough though.  The focal length was only 300mm.

But you question why not 90D has two answers.  I'm not I consider the 70D and 90D adequately water resistant.  I haven't had a camera broken from very light rain, but have had them stop temporarily.  That does not give me confidence to recommend them.  I normally stay indoors when it is wet out, but in Costa Rica you have to take what you get.  I would still purchase the 90D over the 7D Mark II, but honestly, I would like to own one.  I have really only owned one professional level camera and it is a confidence builder!

Keep in touch, brother!

-Mac

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry I lost my reply to you Klaus:  Good suggestions all, in short!

-Mac

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rover, you said:

FWIW I feel the input conditions are a bit contradictory: compact but with both long reach AND the good lowlight capability/quality. Correct me if I am mistaken tho.

No, you are not mistaken.  I think we can all agree photography is a game of compromises.  We start by wanting everything, and we end with what we can live with!

Cindy and I were just discussing what would be our next cameras.  She had believed that mirrorless would be lighter...Hah!  

She was looking at Sony.  I was thinking maybe R6/R5.  In both cases they sort of fail.

Weight/Expense/IQ/Reach/ISO noise/Ergonomics/Battery life/Viewfinder/Ease of use/Build Qaulity

If you want them all it is two expensive.  Rover, your and your wifes cameras are light with pretty good IQ.  The 80D is one I think is a sleeper in the Canon line-up.  For me, that would be capable enough I think.  I skipped it going 70D to 90D, but I have read it is a great camera!  It is 6:00pm here, I am forced to go looking for birds.

-Thanks for the input!  

-Mac


P.S. - Wim, I will read your post when I get back!

Ah, Wim, you were responding about the 100-400 Mk I. The names I have heard to describe the two different zoom systems are "one touch" for the combined ring as in the Mark I, and "two touch" for the two ring style that is as far as I know virtually all modern lenses now use. I still own at least three lenses that are of "one touch" design. They are all manual focus lenses, though.
 
I like shooting birds in flight (BIFs).
 
Usually I start with AI Servo focus, lens at 100mm, and if I can keep the focus point anywhere near the bird as I zoom ring, the lens stays in focus. The big problem: Getting from 100mm to 400mm and staying on the bird is no mean feat!
 
You've given me a big clue though! I have been keeping the zoom ring tension at maximum to prevent zoom creep. It never occurred to me to set the ring tension to minimum while I was shooting BIF, and then tighten it back up for travel.
 
You've done it again, Wim. I believe this will be a big improvement! Thank you!
 
-Mac
 
----------------------------------------------------------
Back to you, Klaus! Throughout my journey in photography I have found little pearls of wisdom that I believe to be eternal truths. Or if not that, then superstitions. Here is one now:
 
-No truly capable telephoto lens shall be less than 400mm, no matter what the imager size is. MFT, APS-C, FF, it just doesn't matter.
 
While it is true, I have no experience with Olympus 300mm F/4 (I think a surprisingly large lens, and expensive) I still believe it will not have the reach.
 
I like the Oly + 400 zoom on paper
 
I like the Fujifilm + Fujinon 400mm on paper
 
I have to look into the Sony. Do the use the same mount for Full frame and APS-C? I used to hear that their lenses were pricy. Is Sony still developing it's APS-C mirrorless cameras, or is it a dead end as far as moving into the future? Sony is a relative unknown for me. I like them, but I can't keep up with their new offerings. And their specifications that keep moving towards infinity...So the have an EVF now with 9 1/2 millon dots? So their FF sensor is now 63 MB? Or is that already obsolete?
 
Where would one jump in with Sony? (Can the Sigma 150-650 be purchased that natively has the Sony Mount? Adapters are sort of tiresome to me.
 
Thanks in advance!
 
-Mac