Talys said:ahsanford said:
The D500 has better AF coverage, and I'd argue the 7DIII needs to be competitive with that, because this is something that people look for.
No, it's not quite as complete as mirrorless (or DPAF liveview), but at least for birds in flight, this is where reality and youtube videos or spec sheets collide.
I have been using the Sony A7R3 almost exclusively for birding for the last 2.5 weeks, and taken at least 4,000 photos on it. Using their best birding lens (GMaster 100-400 with and without 1.4x), and in perfect conditions (blue sky shots where there's enough light for 1/2500 ISO 100-200) the reality is that a lot of times, you get green, in-focus lock, but the resulting photo is a blurry mess, for BIF.
The spec sheet awesomeness is that you can autofocus on the top right corner... but in reality, this is something that is not really useful, because those shots are never any good anyways.
Spot AF on a 5D/6D/7D or expanding points on the Canon models that support it simply yields MUCH higher keeper rates, as long as you follow the subject, and keep it near the center of the lens. On the A7R3, it's the same thing, except that the keeper rate for me is still significantly lower -- not for lack of trying. And I'm talking about a wimberly gimbal and slow flying birds like heron, or big birds in predictable patterns like circling eagles.
It is related to another reality with all that AF coverage -- the full screen coverage is only really helpful in action photography if you are tracking AI subject identification or tracking of some sort (because when do you purposely point the corner of a camera at a soccer player?). But when I gave it a go, I found that too often the AI would just pick a subject that I did not intend, so I went back to some single point or expanding single point mode. It's not bad, but it's not telepathic, and it's preferable for me to tell the camera what I want in focus, than it is to have it tell me what it thinks should be in focus.
Where the mirrorless AF really excels is in focus-magnified stills, because you can get that focus point EXACTLY where you want it (provided your camera is stabilized enough not to move much). I mean, right in the middle of the pupil, if you want, or a bird that's obscured by all sorts of branches. It's generally very good at that, but the thing is, it's not like I was getting a whole lot of OOF stills shots on my 6DII.
The other issue of reality vs spec sheet is that the super smart AF modes that make the 100% coverage really cool is not something I always want to be in (it's quite inferior for stills, for example). So, what ends up happening is that I'm constantly switching between that and single or expanding point AF, and I actually miss shots because I'm fidgeting.
Coming late to this (I assumed it would be another waste of time) I was pleasantly surprised to find intelligent commentary throughout the thread. My expertise is limited but I suspect my comments may still be relevant.
First DSLR was a D5100 based on a friend getting me involved. WOW Then he talked a lot about switching to Canon after years with Nikon. Since I now had half a clue, I investigated and determined the 6D was a great camera and not a brick and went for it. WOW I began to realize that lenses and cameras that were twice as expensive were not twice as good but they were better in subtile ways. For example the foot on the 300 2.8 II is so much better than on the 70-200 2.8 II. He didn't jump and it was more than a year later he entered with the 1DX.
Eventually, I became hooked on wildlife photography and wanted more reach and better AF but waited for the 1DX2 to arrive and also spent a lot more time getting informed than ever before. I now began to understand many more subtleties. Meanwhile I'd used a 1D4 and AF WOW. The illuminated AF point WOW. 10 FPS WOW.
The weight wasn't WOW and I had to beat myself into accepting that on the 1DX2 as my wife literally forced me into the camera (she's the competitive type and was well aware of my friends 1DX
)Finally, to the point. I sold the 6D to fund a 6D2. I wanted the screen and other nice features but the purchase hasn't happened because I'm now waiting for more of a travel camera and FF mirrorless may be a candidate. I don't want to carry the 1DX2 around Europe sight seeing etc., and will refrain from serious wildlife. The end of it all is that I'm now very conflicted about my needs/wants. I'm not sure anything out there would satisfy me for the rest of my days because it's always a compromise on various fronts. Sadly, I now know that some 1DX2 features that I love will not be on my second camera. I suspect that I'm not alone here!
One last point. My journey has, with the help of all the great CR support, educated me about many things. One is that AF points fall into classes from super in the center to less than perfect at the extreme periphery. I believe this is simply because light from a lens falls off into the corners. Even the 1DX2, as good as it is, leaves me sometimes choosing to stay more centered. I must say that the spot AF point is very small and accurate as far as a birdie in the tree with branches goes. High ISO is considerably better than my 6D and I'd hate to go backwards on that. I guess I'm becoming very fussy just like some of you guys!
Jack
Upvote
0
