blackcoffee17 said:

I don't know man, i did shoot 640mm on APS-C a lot and VERY often i had to crop to get what i wanted. But sure, in ideal conditions from a hide it's fine. Try to shoot small birds out in the wild with 400mm. And 500mm might be only 20% more than 400 but it's 50% more pixels on the subject.
And don't compare the 45MP R5, where you can drop away half of the image with a 24MP full frame.

Click to expand...

It's not the number of pixels on the subject that counts for resolution, it's the square root of the number. My speciality is shooting small birds in the wild, and I've posted thousands of images of them over the years on Canonrumors. And why shouldn't I compare it with the 45 Mpx R5/R5ii - it's what I shoot with. And for years before that the 50 Mpx 5DSR. I crop all the time, and it's the high resolution sensors that let me do so.

AlanF said:

That is a rather odd comment about f/8 being too dark on an APS-C. I regularly use the RF 100-400mm at f/8 on an R7. Similarly odd is the comment about focal length. The old EF 400mm and EF 100-400mm f/5.6 were used routinely on FF cameras for wild life before they were compatible with extenders and AF, and were very popular lenses. 400mm is only 20% shorter than 500mm, and the 100-500mm f/7.1 is considered a good wild-life lens on a 24 Mpx R6ii, and a 400mm on an R5 has the reach of a 550mm on an R6ii or a 490mm on an R6iii. Also f/7.1 is only 1/3rd stop faster than f/8. I use the RF 200-800mm f/9 a lot as it is longer but can still get a lot done with 400mm and 500mm on my R5ii.

Click to expand...

I don't know man, i did shoot 640mm on APS-C a lot and VERY often i had to crop to get what i wanted. But sure, in ideal conditions from a hide it's fine. Try to shoot small birds out in the wild with 400mm. And 500mm might be only 20% more than 400 but it's 50% more pixels on the subject.
And don't compare the 45MP R5, where you can drop away half of the image with a 24MP full frame.

sanj said:

How is 400 f8 too short for wildlife on full-frame?

Click to expand...

Have you every shoot birds or anything out in nature? 400mm is nothing, unless you doing it from a hide.

ISv said:

Windy, overcast with time to time light rain and sudden sun - just to derail my exposure... A lot of young birds (mostly Common Waxbill).

The "framed one" !

In love already from the nest...

Java Sparrow

Warbling White-eye

Juvenile and subadult Chestnut Munia

Click to expand...

I really like your series. Nicely done,ISv.

photographed this morning...

Del Paso said:

I'd suggest that you start comparing Canon, Sony and Nikon price lists.
Sorry, but similar products are usually priced similarly.

Click to expand...

The OM SYSTEM M. Zuiko 150-400mm f/4.5 TC 1.25 IS PRO Lens costs $8,600 from B&H! That gives Canon some scope.

​

LuckyOne said:

You are right. The bare Sony 100-400 f4.5 GM lens is priced at around USD 4,300.

A Canon 100-400 f4.5 L lens with a built in 1.4X converter would probably cost $5,000 for a bare lens because of Canon’s self defined superiority plus an additional $1,000 for the internal teleconverter.

My hoped for price point of $4,750 is more likely to be around $6,000.

It will be interesting to see what Canon brings to the market in the next 6 months and how it competes with Sony.

I love my Canon gear but there is a point of no return for wildlife photographers that is approaching rapidly.

The day after I potentially dump my Canon equipment, I am absolutely certain that Canon will offer an amazing 200-600 f4.5 to f5.6-f6.3 L lens.

Click to expand...

I'd suggest that you start comparing Canon, Sony and Nikon price lists.
Sorry, but similar products are usually priced similarly.

Trout Bum said:

The R50 offers a huge advantage in size and weight from my R5 II, which is why I own one for a second body, despite its many limitations, and my old arthritic hands appreciate the difference.

Click to expand...

But you've chosen a big FF camera as the comparator; the R8 is much smaller and lighter, for instance. If we're generalising it's best not to cherry pick.

scyrene said:

…Crop cameras offer a price advantage and not much else nowadays (if they ever did).

Click to expand...

The R50 offers a huge advantage in size and weight from my R5 II, which is why I own one for a second body, despite its many limitations, and my old arthritic hands appreciate the difference.

LuckyOne said:

It appears to me that Canon think that their lack of modern wildlife lenses and the cost of switching platforms means that users are more "captive" than they actually are.

Click to expand...

It appears to me that you believe you understand the interchangeable lens camera market better than the company that has led that market for 23 years and counting. You don't.

Painted Lady - Vanessa cardui

what about the camera hangs and restart when dpraw enabled and shooting brackets with self timer on 2 sec or 10 sec?

LuckyOne said:

I completely understand that we are getting into edge cases with these discussions and that Canon have to address the mainstream rather than the edge cases.

Click to expand...

Quite!

LuckyOne said:

their lack of modern wildlife lenses

Click to expand...

??

P-visie said:

My experience differs from yours: I took 2800+ bird pictures with the R5 Mk II with firmware 1.3 + RF 200-800 and did not notice any difference in AF performance compared with firmware 1.2.0.

Click to expand...

Same here. The AF is sublime even with the RF 200-800mm.

josephandrews222 said:

I am able to make a similar comment.

Specifically, from 'Far':

I too find the camera underperforming in autofocus after the last upgrade (with RF 200-800 attached)

Click to expand...

My experience differs from yours: I took 2800+ bird pictures with the R5 Mk II with firmware 1.3 + RF 200-800 and did not notice any difference in AF performance compared with firmware 1.2.0.

Hovercraft said:

There’s one factor that is missing here and actually the most important to me. You don’t crop for the distance only, with r7 and rf 100-500 or even rf 100-400 I don’t crop mostly for the distance, more often it’s for the composition. Especially when you have action, bif when you try to frame to tight, often you’re missing the action, so I need to frame wider and then crop to get the desired composition. 20mpx could be not enough. If I was able to make the perfect composition in camera and keep up with the action, I suppose the OM could be great. But it’s still 3-4 times more expensive with 150-400 compared to the RF lens you mentioned.

Click to expand...

I strongly agree about trying to capture erratically moving fast birds and dragonflies in flight. The twice-as-wide FF sensor is a huge advantage as many if not most of my captured images are close to the edges of the frame. Using M4/3 I would have to use a lens of half the focal length and be limited to 20 Mpx compared with 45 Mpx. For this reason, I also prefer FF to APS-C for BIF (so I zoom out more with APS-C for fast BIF).

There’s one factor that is missing here and actually the most important to me. You don’t crop for the distance only, with r7 and rf 100-500 or even rf 100-400 I don’t crop mostly for the distance, more often it’s for the composition. Especially when you have action, bif when you try to frame to tight, often you’re missing the action, so I need to frame wider and then crop to get the desired composition. 20mpx could be not enough. If I was able to make the perfect composition in camera and keep up with the action, I suppose the OM could be great. But it’s still 3-4 times more expensive with 150-400 compared to the RF lens you mentioned.

Czardoom said:

Clearly, the advantage of the MFT 2x crop factor comes into play if you crop all, or most of your images, as is the case with me. Obviously you understand that if you crop a FF image from the R5 II - or any FF camera - to the size of the MFT image or smaller, than the OM-1's 20 MP sensor totally out-resolves any and all Canon and Nikon FF cameras, and is about the same as the R7. If you have used both the OM 150-400 and the Canon 200-800, then any comparison is a joke. Basically a top-level pro lens with a very good consumer lens. The OM lens is definitely better, in my opinion, than the excellent Rf 100-500, too. The AF subject detection and tracking is definitely on par with the original Canon R5, R6 II, and better than the R7, all of which I have used. Pre-capture is better than any Canon, FPS options are higher, and the stacked sensor has a very fast read-out speed. OM's IBIS is still as good as anything on the market. It is true that OM Systems is basically a niche company now, which is unfortunate. It is difficult, in a world where the internet influencers essentially dominate the marketing opinion of consumers, for them to compete, since we all "know" how FF is the only way to go if you are a "real" photographer.

Click to expand...

Your arguments on cropping and resolution are misleading to say the least and absolutely wrong with the example I gave of a 200-800mm f/9 on the R5 vs 150-400mm on the OM because you ignored the point I spelled out in detail that the R5ii has more than twice the numbers of Mpx. Here it is given again with precise numbers allowing for the difference in formats. The 20.4 Mpx OM-1 II sensor has 3.34 µm pixels, the 45.0 Mpx R5ii has 4.39 µm pixels. That means with lenses of the same focal length, the OM-1 outresolves by 31% the R5ii. That means in focal length terms, a 400mm lens on the OM is equivalent to a 525mm on the FF. So the 150-400mm OM only marginally outresolves the much lighter 100-500mm on the R5ii. For the 150-400mm OM versus the equally heavy 200-800mm on the R5ii, the Canon outresolves the OM by 53% cropped to the same size.

You also have no interest in Nikon and Sony either. The Z8 with either its 150-600mm lens or its superb light Z 600mm f/6.3 is equivalent in resolution to a 460mm on an OM, and outresolving it cropped to the same size. Similarly with the Sony A1. The 61 Mpx Sony Ariv/v with its albeit heavy 400-800mm f/8 is equivalent to 700mm on the OM.

The image quality of the RF 200-800mm is not a joke from the many images posted on CR. I have never seen any image posted by you so obviously I can't tell whether they are more serious.

Thanks.
In my case I was using RF 28mm f2.8 STM.

ISv said:

Posting these for @zajicekpavel (old photos: 2023 from Bulgaria)!

View attachment 229988View attachment 229989

​

Mar 16,

Click to expand...

Well, thank you ... my colleague

Posting these for @zajicekpavel (old photos: 2023 from Bulgaria)!

​

Mar 16,

Same from my last trip to Bulgaria. Early morning in Rila Mts.

@zajicekpavel said:

Canon RF 100 - 400 + TK 1.4

Click to expand...

"Prosím, pište dál..."
Nebo "zverejnit fotku"...?

On Hawaii we have few "tree frogs" (actually semi-arboreal). This one is the most colorfully. Here it's not poisonous: they acquire the poison from the insects in their menu and we don't have here that insects.

And Green (Carolina) Anole from today - they use to change their color but it's a slow process, this one is still with the color it use for hunting in dark, under the vegetation.