Nikon and Canon Photographers scooped up most of the wildlife awards.

Tommi K1 wrote:

nzmacro wrote:

Okapi001 wrote:

"Many photographers are very proud of their wide aperture lens without thought as to its use. An f3.5 lens of 300mm is certainly an expensive job, but this focal length working at maximum aperture gives such a tiny depth of field, particularly when working at short range, that it is to be discouraged in most circumstances. There are altogether too many photographs that have a narrow band of focus separating unsightly blurs at the top and bottom of the picture. ..."

That's one man's opinion. There are others that would disagree, but that's fair enough as well.

Yes, it is opinion based to his experience.

That's ISO's I can't use, I don't like going over ISO 400 for birds.

You can't or you don't like?

As for me, in my experience I can go to ISO 3200 without any problems with birds as I get feather and all visible well enough without such loss compared to FF.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos1dxii&attr13_1=canon_eos7dii&attr13_2=olympus_em1ii&attr13_3=sony_a9&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&attr126_2=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.778574036331485&y=-0.9800545105327303

The difference is negligent. Remember that you are looking about a 1.2m wide print when you are looking those DPR comparison shots. Images that are JPEG compressed heavily (even every single raw file they tell, that is just direct raw decoding without denoising etc) and without any other processing and preparation for printing.

Pixel peeping those samples, ANYONE should come to conclusion that Sony A9 is totally the best of all four.

Does that mean that no one can use a Canon 1D X Mk2 or 7D Mk2 for willife photography at ISO 3200 and below?

As I could almost make a small bet that majority of the Canon shooters would be using either of those or similar (older or similar performance).

But we are just pixel peeping like 3% of the whole photograph content!

Now lets go the whole process:

1) Choose the final image size and viewing medium type (specifications for digital, physical)

2) Choose the viewing distance.

3) Choose the cropping limits (when you need to get closer)

4) Choose your shutter speed and aperture ratio for DOF of above one requirements.

5) Choose your ISO based above ones.

In what situations the 4/3" system sensor hits the wall? Very rarely...

And we are still talking only about noise and resolution performance. Now add there like the change to get the moment by using a Pro-Capture in E-M1 Mk2 or 60 FPS raw shooting capability. Have a totally working AF in any aperture value (direct backlighting is often a case) or ways to magnify the viewfinder, tilt the screen up/down and use touch screen to release shutter (while hiding behind the tree etc).

And even more important, weight and size of the gear so you have will and strength to go for the extra few kilometers forward.

The body design so you can still keep operating camera without ever need to move your thumb and index finger away.

The technology that you don't need to move your sight from the subject and yet be 100% sure that every single frame you take is exactly correctly exposed. So no time to chimp screens and try to read a EV meter etc.

When a m4/3 camera like E-M1 Mk2 beat every single one camera out there offering multifold better changes. That tiny noise difference doesn't matter.

But the competition comes behind and slowly. 10 years later to so speak.

And the problem is not in the gear, it never was. It has been that the majority of the people working in that field are vendor locked to Canon and Nikon. They know only Canon and Nikon. They don't care about anyone else.

Sony is now sexy among young people who get fooled by the small technology differences in sensors being the only thing mattering. Yet you can't get the gear setup small and light as m4/3 can offer. The problem to get that gear up there is still a challenge for many. And yet these many professionals are so dedicated that they are carrying far more heavier and larger gear out there, even when their gear has inferior IQ compared to Sony.... And yet they come out with a superior photographs than Sony people?

Why? Because they know their gear, they know their subjects and they just go out instead worry about DXO scores. As nothing of that matters.

And that is the achilles heel in m4/3 system that it is so underscored by even most avid m4/3 users here. Constantly under attack by FF fanboys about equivalence and how the extreme IQ is the requirement...

Even this thread is about a books that are mainly produced by the Canon and Nikon users. And libraries and book stores are all full of those... How many even dares to talk about m4/3 when "it doesn't have a FF sensor" so "I can't use above ISO 400"....

Oh yeah, a studio scene from DPR. Congrats

Its very simple. I can jump over a cliff and I wouldn't like the result, so I can't and won't. Yes that is a personal choice. I can go over ISO 400, but don't like the results, so no, I can't and won't. Again, yes that's a personal choice, just like the cliff. Others can for what they take. Life is good with choices and I already made mine years ago.

I'm very pleased for you if you can for your bird's, BIF's and motorsports. Good on you. With FF I would push the ISO higher.

Danny.