06-07-2021, 10:42 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-07-2021, 10:53 PM by Arthur Macmillan.)
To Dave, Klaus, and everyone: Thanks for your help. I have to apologize for jumping all over, changing brands and requirements. What has happened, really, is that as I read the reviews on various systems, I begin to loose sight of the original premise. Which early on I thing you guys were on target with. Namely, Cindy needs a camera that will perform as well as the 5D Mark IV, but not cost more. Reach is a necessity, Low light performance is a necessity.
But I can help getting sidetracked, sorry.
One thing I found interesting was Sony's BSI (back side illumination) That sounds like a good low light enhancement. I have mixed fillings about elimination of the anti-aliasing filter. It does seem like it would also improve low light performance.
I really only know Canon cameras, so a lot of these innovations sound good...but are they.
Something I am familiar with is Canon's habit of only producing high end lenses in the FF format, and then you are free to use them on crop sensors. But what happened to the idea of smaller lenses.
That is perhaps an area some of these makers. Certainly Panasonic, and Olympus have delivered the goods. I don't mind the weight of my 100-400 Mk II, I am a little less happy about the prospect of carrying a larger prime lens that could be a lot smaller if it were scaled to the sensor.
On the other hand Sigma has made much smaller, and cheaper versions of lenses for APS-C. So far as I know no one is offering a fast Telephoto prime at a lower price for the smaller formats.
So I guess Super Zoom on APS-C or MFT is where this is headed.
Am I correct that Sony is the low light king?
+++++++++++++++++++
@ Dave M., "....is the 500D really any better?...Well finally something I have experience with. I owned the 500D for 4 years in the Santa Cruz mountains where it is extremely wet! I never had even the hint of a problem! I also had the 350D, and the 400D in much wetter conditions. They were fine. The battery door doesn't bother me, it is not likely to get wet and there is nothing to really short there anyway. The battery contacts are on top of the battery. Compare that to TWO recent xxD cameras that had a few tiny droplets land on the camera and they power down. I cant really accuse Canon of lowering the build quality of their cameras, other than to say my own experience is that the rebels, in more ways than on out preformed my more recent. 70D and 90D. I may have take 500,000 photos with the 500D. Standing in creeks, on the banks of creeks, and muddy, rainy, windy weather. If I think it is better quality than a two camera's that did not even make it one year before acting up before one year is up, can you blame me. There. I've said it. The build quality does not compare as far as I am concerned. Sorry, but you did ask.
I really didn't want to end up in Sony's camp, but there do seem to be a lot to recommend them. Their APSC Models may just be the dark horse here! Take care,
-Mac
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi, Wim-
You are the ultimate perfectionist! You may know that I have the 1.4 Mark III teleconverter, and that auto focus remains functional, at least for the center point and Canon's better, and more recent models. I believe 7D MkII, the 80 and 90D, and the high end FF models. I mention this because multiply the native magnification x 1.4 and you get somewhere around 0.42 magnification. That is really good combined with a discrete distance between you and your subject, so really, that was on of my first tests. I admit I was not overly impressed. But it does sort of grow on you, in terms of you are just walking around shooting pics of birds, and you see a row of barnacles on a log that are the size of baseballs! Or a crab, or jellyfish, or a shell. It might not be what we consider macro, but it still a size that would be a lot less well handled by most lenses. I think it does pretty well if not at it's stated limit, but just a little backed off. But the optical IS it really the big thing for me!
Take care, Wim,
-Mac
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks everyone! I really do think I know were to look now! I think I am getting close!
-Mac
Fujifilm cameras have promise.
Sorry Dave, you said D500, not 500D! But still, the D500 is considered a professional camera, is it not. I expect that it pretty well sealed, although I am just guessing.
The D500 and Nikon's 200-500 are really widely used in birding. But you favored the 150-600mm G2. That actually tells me a lot! I've seen your photos, as you know. I guess following your lead would not be the worst thing to do!
And reasonable to predict that the same thing would apply to the APS-C Canon's. But that's another story.
-Mac
But I can help getting sidetracked, sorry.
One thing I found interesting was Sony's BSI (back side illumination) That sounds like a good low light enhancement. I have mixed fillings about elimination of the anti-aliasing filter. It does seem like it would also improve low light performance.
I really only know Canon cameras, so a lot of these innovations sound good...but are they.
Something I am familiar with is Canon's habit of only producing high end lenses in the FF format, and then you are free to use them on crop sensors. But what happened to the idea of smaller lenses.
That is perhaps an area some of these makers. Certainly Panasonic, and Olympus have delivered the goods. I don't mind the weight of my 100-400 Mk II, I am a little less happy about the prospect of carrying a larger prime lens that could be a lot smaller if it were scaled to the sensor.
On the other hand Sigma has made much smaller, and cheaper versions of lenses for APS-C. So far as I know no one is offering a fast Telephoto prime at a lower price for the smaller formats.
So I guess Super Zoom on APS-C or MFT is where this is headed.
Am I correct that Sony is the low light king?
+++++++++++++++++++
@ Dave M., "....is the 500D really any better?...Well finally something I have experience with. I owned the 500D for 4 years in the Santa Cruz mountains where it is extremely wet! I never had even the hint of a problem! I also had the 350D, and the 400D in much wetter conditions. They were fine. The battery door doesn't bother me, it is not likely to get wet and there is nothing to really short there anyway. The battery contacts are on top of the battery. Compare that to TWO recent xxD cameras that had a few tiny droplets land on the camera and they power down. I cant really accuse Canon of lowering the build quality of their cameras, other than to say my own experience is that the rebels, in more ways than on out preformed my more recent. 70D and 90D. I may have take 500,000 photos with the 500D. Standing in creeks, on the banks of creeks, and muddy, rainy, windy weather. If I think it is better quality than a two camera's that did not even make it one year before acting up before one year is up, can you blame me. There. I've said it. The build quality does not compare as far as I am concerned. Sorry, but you did ask.
I really didn't want to end up in Sony's camp, but there do seem to be a lot to recommend them. Their APSC Models may just be the dark horse here! Take care,
-Mac
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi, Wim-
You are the ultimate perfectionist! You may know that I have the 1.4 Mark III teleconverter, and that auto focus remains functional, at least for the center point and Canon's better, and more recent models. I believe 7D MkII, the 80 and 90D, and the high end FF models. I mention this because multiply the native magnification x 1.4 and you get somewhere around 0.42 magnification. That is really good combined with a discrete distance between you and your subject, so really, that was on of my first tests. I admit I was not overly impressed. But it does sort of grow on you, in terms of you are just walking around shooting pics of birds, and you see a row of barnacles on a log that are the size of baseballs! Or a crab, or jellyfish, or a shell. It might not be what we consider macro, but it still a size that would be a lot less well handled by most lenses. I think it does pretty well if not at it's stated limit, but just a little backed off. But the optical IS it really the big thing for me!
Take care, Wim,
-Mac
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks everyone! I really do think I know were to look now! I think I am getting close!
-Mac
Fujifilm cameras have promise.
Sorry Dave, you said D500, not 500D! But still, the D500 is considered a professional camera, is it not. I expect that it pretty well sealed, although I am just guessing.
The D500 and Nikon's 200-500 are really widely used in birding. But you favored the 150-600mm G2. That actually tells me a lot! I've seen your photos, as you know. I guess following your lead would not be the worst thing to do!
And reasonable to predict that the same thing would apply to the APS-C Canon's. But that's another story.
-Mac