AlanF said:

Never used the Nikon mirrorless system - used their latest DSLRs with the 500/5.6 PF and absolutely great AF. You are very fortunate, as I am, to have a wife who shares your interest in bird photography. I am paranoid about having back-ups for everything except wives. So, it's a good idea for your wife to have the same make gear as you to have a back up body and telephoto, share batteries, chargers etc. May I recommend that a Canon body with the RF 100-500mm? It's of similar weight and, although shorter, far more versatile than the 600/6.3.

Click to expand...

Thanks Alan, for your nice reply. Yes, I am a lucky man, obviously like you (not only because my wife shares my love for photography). In fact, she "infected" me with photography many years ago (not birds back then, more people, street, landscape). She got her first camera as a young child, I always say, she was born with a camera in her hands. When we were a young couple, she was mostly the photographer and I was the draughtsman at her side, with a pencil and a sketchbook, who sometimes took out his already very vintage Kodak Retina IIIc to make a few images.

Regarding Nikon, she was several times close to changing to Canon, because she noticed that my gear often performed better and was much more rugged (I only once needed a service with my 7D, she several times, broken mirror boxes, dead AF drives, dead buttons), but she also has an extended film gear from Nikon and still loves these cameras, in particular her FM-2 bodies. That keeps her in the system (she made me a gift with an FM-2 many years ago that turned me into a Nikonian for a while).

The RF 100-500 would be too short for her, and I made her the 600mm prime as a gift because we nearly always are shooting at the longest focal distance, typical for birders. In fact, she can shoot her old Sigma 500mm f/4.5, a 3 kg lens, + TC hand-held with her D500, and she is petite with delicate arms and hands (half Chinese). I am always stunned but she uses a technique she learned from ballet dancing, when dancers have to hold their arms straight away from the body for extended moments. It is a special way to use the shoulder joint, I learned. But I thought, since we aren't that young anymore, that the Z 600 f/6.3 would be a good investment in the future when she doesn't want to carry up to 10 kg of glass, cameras, and mono/tripod in/on a backpack anymore. The alternative would be Nikons popular and much cheaper Z 180-600mm Zoom, but that lens isn't as sharp @ 600mm as the prime, and in particular adding a TC erodes the image quality visibly, as I've seen in reviews.

Generally, sharing Canon gear wouldn't help us much, since we both use comparable gear when we are shooting wildlife, macro or street etc. side by side. So we would need a double gear anyway, maybe except some special lenses like my EF 85mm f/1.2 (II). Sharing batteries and chargers wouldn't help us, too, because we need a lot of batteries anyway during a day trip (switching to ML cameras boosted that need, as you know), and in the night we need more than one charger per person anyway to get all of our batteries loaded for the next day, when we are on an extended photo trip.

Excellent sequence. Well done, Alan.

Beautiful shots, Antonn.

Yesterday, we got the whole mating sequence of Eurasian Kingfishers. The male caught a fish and held it head forward to tempt the female. She flew in, he flew over, passed the fish, which she gulped it down in seconds. He then flew round and jumped upon her, sometimes biting the back of her head, and after his efforts flew off. My wife got got the photo of the female accepting the fish (R7+100-500), which I missed (R5ii + 200-800). (We have lots more in the sequence but these are the key events).

neuroanatomist said:

Just to pick one common example, many times someone will comment that a crop sensor is better for macro photography because it gives a deeper DoF. Of course, the deeper DoF is occurring only because the camera is further from the subject, which is fine if that's what you want. But if you want maximum optical magnification (e.g. 1:1), then the camera will be at the same distance from the subject regardless of the sensor size, and the FF camera will deliver a wider FoV at that 1:1 magnification, and the crop sensor will actually have a shallower DoF. Plus, if you're light limited (often the case if you're stopping down to gain DoF), then the crop image will have more noise at the high(ish) ISO you may be using. What all of that means is that 'I use a crop sensor for macro to get deeper DoF' is at best an oversimplification (and note that I haven't even touched on pixel density, diffraction, and other relevant concepts).

Click to expand...

It's always been a pet peeve of mine, but I could never articulate why, so thanks for this!

R52 + RF600/4, Vulpes vulpes

justaCanonuser said:

The symptoms with the Z8 and the Z 600/6.3 are: the camera focuses fast (with no TC attached) and gets in particular very close to in-focus images with the first frame(s), but then starts to struggle with following frames, and the AF sort of micro-pumps around the precise focus position. First we thought it's a problem with object detection but switching off "birds" or switching it completely off doesn't really help (3D tracking activated). So the problem might be sitting deeper in the system, maybe I have to wipe dust off my old lenscal tool and check the system with it. Nikon's menus of the Z cameras allow for AF calibration, I have briefly seen at least for the Z6 III and 7 on the internet. I always thought that AFMA isn't needed anymore with modern ML cameras, but with Nikon you never know...

Click to expand...

Never used the Nikon mirrorless system - used their latest DSLRs with the 500/5.6 PF and absolutely great AF. You are very fortunate, as I am, to have a wife who shares your interest in bird photography. I am paranoid about having back-ups for everything except wives. So, it's a good idea for your wife to have the same make gear as you to have a back up body and telephoto, share batteries, chargers etc. May I recommend that a Canon body with the RF 100-500mm? It's of similar weight and, although shorter, far more versatile than the 600/6.3.

Maximilian said:

I am not pleased yet. I don't get it to work reliably.

At longer distances, I lose detail and the image becomes blurry. I try to never go below 1/2000 so that I’m not the cause (camera shake).
This shot shows that it’s not the extender’s fault. This close-up, for example, shows a lot of detail. So it's not a lemon.
I know that atmospheric disturbances play a role here, but it's not only far away.

Maybe you can give me some additional advice what I have to take care of ...

Click to expand...

They may need more sharpening. DxO's module for the RF100-500mm + 2xTC doesn't work that well and I sometimes export them unsharpened and sharpen in Topaz - nothing strong, just standard settings. I've tested it extensively here on charts etc, and it outresolves on the RF 100-500mm at 1000mm the RF 200-800mm at 800mm. So, I am happy using the RF 100-500mm for travel with the 2xTC as an accessory. Here are some typical shots taken at random from the R5 and R5ii. They are all crops where 1 pixel = 1 pixel of original so no downsizing etc. You may need to send your extender back.

Dragon said:

Not sure that even reducing optics would solve the problem. A friend of mine who worked for Canon for many years once pointed out to me that the reason no one made the equivalent of a Metabones Speed Booster for EF-to EF is that focal reducers do not extend the focal plane like extenders do so they can only be made to fit inside the existing back focus distance of a lens. Hence, we have focal reducers that replace the EF to M and EF to R adapters, but no focal reducers for EF to EF or R to R.

Click to expand...

Maybe the solution would be to shift the whole tele lens unit in front of the TCs backwards or forwards within the body of the lens, depending on which TC is switched in or which sort of zoom in a magical 1.0x-2.0x TC is selected. I think that would be feasible with a 30-40 k$ lens...

Dragon said:

DPAF offers a great deal more focus information than Nikon or Sony have to work with. So long as Canon has that advantage, they are only limited by processing power to stay in the lead with AF. The price, of course, is continually processing twice as many pixels, so the processors are power hungry.

Click to expand...

You nailed it. In fact, when I am out a whole day for birding, in particular my R5 II consumes 3 full batteries minimum - okay, when nothing happens I use the waiting time to pre-select images I want to keep, and the nearly 6 Million dots EVF drains the battery quite fast, too.

neuroanatomist said:

And they also have DO (PF in Nikon parlance) elements.

But apparently those don’t count as ‘innovative’ lenses…at least, not in the minds of those who think Canon must make the lens(es) they personally want, or else. Or else, what? Yeah.

Click to expand...

Right, in fact, when I am getting in the age where I can't lift and carry any heavier tele lens anymore, such not-so-fancy lenses will gain a lot of attraction at least for me. Btw I met quite a lot of users, in particular young birders with a small budget, who are quite happy in particular with the 800mm f/11. If there is enough light available, these DO lenses seem to be better than what nerds like us would expect from the underwhelming specs of such lenses. Kudos to Canon that they came up with such tele gear.

neuroanatomist said:

So we’re playing ‘mine is bigger than yours’?

Ok, I’ll see your Zeiss 1700mm f/4 and raise you a Canon 5200mm f/14.

View attachment 228818

It’s a great lens, as long as your subject is further away than the minimum focus distance…

Click to expand...

Yepp, I know, there is also a youtube video about this crazy catadioptric lens Canon once made - but for 35mm format, if I remember correctly, not for medium format like the Zeiss monster. I guess you really run into trouble with such a huge focal length in many settings because of atmospheric blur. If Canon ever will come up with a modern version I'd highly recommend them to include an adaptive optics system to compensate for the distortion of incoming light wave fronts, like in astronomical telescopes (I edit a German physics magazine so I deal frequently with in-depth reviews of such technologies). That, of course, would only get haze caused by temperature gradients in the air better controlled, not dusty and/or misty or smog conditions.

AlanF said:

Canon recognises and locks on to birds faster than Sony or even more so than Nikon. However, they are meant to have stickier tracking. (Faster AF acquisition is more important for me). Recently, I was shooting Peregrines and Kestrels side-by-side with my R5ii +RF 200-800mm and someone with the Sony A1ii and the 300mm f/2.8 + 2xTC against a tricky background. I was much more successful at catching them. It's probably a software thing and they should be able to catch up.

Click to expand...

The symptoms with the Z8 and the Z 600/6.3 are: the camera focuses fast (with no TC attached) and gets in particular very close to in-focus images with the first frame(s), but then starts to struggle with following frames, and the AF sort of micro-pumps around the precise focus position. First we thought it's a problem with object detection but switching off "birds" or switching it completely off doesn't really help (3D tracking activated). So the problem might be sitting deeper in the system, maybe I have to wipe dust off my old lenscal tool and check the system with it. Nikon's menus of the Z cameras allow for AF calibration, I have briefly seen at least for the Z6 III and 7 on the internet. I always thought that AFMA isn't needed anymore with modern ML cameras, but with Nikon you never know...

As expected from the observed moon flare, sun flare is pretty noticeable with RF 14/1.4. If the sun is in the sky, with the 14mm FoV there's a good chance it will be in the frame.

"Mount Auburn Sphinx"

EOS R1, RF 14mm f/1.4L VCM, 1/3200 s, f/1.4, ISO 100

Another advantage to the wide FoV, as long as you're willing to crop away half your image, is that you can avoid the keystone effect in architecture shots by keeping the camera level and still get the whole building in the (top half of the) frame.

"Mount Auburn Cemetery Chapel"

EOS R1, RF 14mm f/1.4L VCM, 1/800 s, f/4.5, ISO 100

Bob Howland said:

Neuro, once again you prove that you're an obnoxious bully.

Click to expand...

You might want to try learning something, instead of just resorting to personal attacks when your blatantly false statements are challenged with facts.

Or keep making foolish statements…it’s really your choice.

neuroanatomist said:

So the circle of confusion is another concept that you find useless? Lol. You are welcome to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. The fact is that the size of the sensor affects the circle of confusion, and the circle of confusion is one of the factors that determines DoF*.

Next, I suppose you’ll attempt some ridiculous reply about your how your personal definition of DoF doesn’t depend on the circle of confusion, or how you mean the ‘lens DoF’ as if DoF were an intrinsic property of a lens (it isn’t), or some other nonsense.

You really should avoid engaging in discussion of the technical aspects of photography. Frankly, your attempts at it are embarrassing.

Spoiler: *There is more than one ‘DoF’

Depth of field requires an image to exist, and thus requires a sensor (or other imaging medium), and the size of the sensor matters. However, the other ‘DoF’ —depth of focus— is independent of sensor size. Depth of focus is the image space counterpart to depth of field, and it’s measured in μm at the image plane. It has little relevance to general photography discussions…at least, little relevance for current cameras.

For DSLRs with dedicated phase detect AF sensors, depth of focus was the underlying basis for the specification of some AF points as ‘high precision’, requiring wider lens apertures (typically f/2.8) to achieve focus accuracy within 1/3 of the depth of focus, instead of one depth of focus for ‘standard’ (typically f/5.6) AF points.

Click to expand...

Neuro, once again you prove that you're an obnoxious bully.

GirlsAreBeautiful said:

Pretty clearly. Lenses prices are outrageous and building a camera seems like hell in comparison.

Click to expand...

To be fair they are pretty different processes: cameras are mostly an assembly of electronic parts, while lenses, especially high end ones, require a lot of time and effort to mold / polish the glass elements

scyrene said:

Canon has light and affordable tele primes, the 600 and 800 f/11.

Click to expand...

And they also have DO (PF in Nikon parlance) elements.

But apparently those don’t count as ‘innovative’ lenses…at least, not in the minds of those who think Canon must make the lens(es) they personally want, or else. Or else, what? Yeah.

justaCanonuser said:

Well, Canon's 1200mm f/5.6 was still pocketable compared to the medium format 1700mm f/4.0 tele lens that Zeiss designed especially for a rich Sheikh and his Hasselblad(s). I guess this guy hasn't to carry that lens by himself .

Massive 1700mm Carl Zeiss Lens

If you thought Nikon's 6mm Fisheye lens from a week ago was crazy, get a load of this Carl Zeiss telephoto lens announced at Photokina back in 2006. The

petapixel.com

View attachment 228817

Click to expand...

So we’re playing ‘mine is bigger than yours’?

Ok, I’ll see your Zeiss 1700mm f/4 and raise you a Canon 5200mm f/14.



It’s a great lens, as long as your subject is further away than the minimum focus distance…

Bob Howland said:

Update: My point is that the DOF of a lens is entirely independent of the size of the sensor which receives its image.

Click to expand...

So the circle of confusion is another concept that you find useless? Lol. You are welcome to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. The fact is that the size of the sensor affects the circle of confusion, and the circle of confusion is one of the factors that determines DoF*.

Next, I suppose you’ll attempt some ridiculous reply about your how your personal definition of DoF doesn’t depend on the circle of confusion, or how you mean the ‘lens DoF’ as if DoF were an intrinsic property of a lens (it isn’t), or some other nonsense.

You really should avoid engaging in discussion of the technical aspects of photography. Frankly, your attempts at it are embarrassing.

blackcoffee17 said:

Nikon [...] made a whole series of light and affordable tele primes.

Click to expand...

Canon has light and affordable tele primes, the 600 and 800 f/11.

It says in the linked Petapixel article: They will be testing the camera, as the Z9 will be the backbone of the next-generation Handheld Universal Lunar Camera (HULC) used on future Artemis missions, including Artemis III, when humans will step foot on the Moon for the first time since 1972.

Thanks for the additional information on the background.

AlanF said:

The crew is using the D5 as proven technology and introducing the Z9 for future standard use.

Click to expand...

Not so much "introducing the Nikon Z 9 for future standard use" but testing it for deep space use. It's already certified for Low Earth Orbit use and is the standard camera for use on the International Space Station. Additionally, last year Nikon and NASA entered into an agreement for Nikon to produce modified Nikon Z 9 bodies for lunar surface use including glove-friendly controls and dust shielding. That program is called Handheld Universal Lunar Camera (HULC).

roby17269 said:

Better than nothing! But we've been told many times that for manufacturers there is more money in the lenses than in the cameras

Click to expand...

Pretty clearly. Lenses prices are outrageous and building a camera seems like hell in comparison.

AlanF said:

Canon recognises and locks on to birds faster than Sony or even more so than Nikon. However, they are meant to have stickier tracking. (Faster AF acquisition is more important for me). Recently, I was shooting Peregrines and Kestrels side-by-side with my R5ii +RF 200-800mm and someone with the Sony A1ii and the 300mm f/2.8 + 2xTC against a tricky background. I was much more successful at catching them. It's probably a software thing and they should be able to catch up.

Click to expand...

DPAF offers a great deal more focus information than Nikon or Sony have to work with. So long as Canon has that advantage, they are only limited by processing power to stay in the lead with AF. The price, of course, is continually processing twice as many pixels, so the processors are power hungry.