Switching back to R5... help needed

JConrad wrote:

A1 to replace your current Sony bodies.

On the used market the those bodies are worth about 1/2 what the A1 will cost. And let's be honest, while the A1 has some nice features, they won't help most people. But things like better IBIS will.

And as he said about Sony, "I don't trust it in 100%.".

So why pay almost $3000 more for a camera that in the long run won't help much? Think about what you can get extra for $3000. And how big of deal would it be if he drops a $6500 camera and it breaks? $3800 is bad enough.

If you shoot birds here is a respected Pro who switched from the A9ii to the R5. He has some great tips. Hs's a superb bird photographer.  His tips should help in your quest.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLtwRcH2ucwcROcEFwbg_wg

For a look at his work, check here

https://www.whistlingwingsphotography.com

Any of the Canon 300/2.8 lenses will work great with the 1.4x. I'm not sure how well the 2x works. I believe Canon has a chart (maybe in the camera manual) of the maximum fps with different EF lenses.

I keep hearing good things about the Sony 200-600, and Canon doesn't have anything similar. The closest would be the RF 100-500 or the EF 100-400 mk II with a 1.4x, but of course with a slower aperture with the Sony. Really, if this lens is important to you, it might be worth sticking with Sony.

Since the Associated Press switched all of their photographers from Canon to Sony, many other photojournalists are doing the same. This is somewhat increasing the price of used Sony gear, while reducing the price of used Canon gear, especially DSLRs and EF lenses. So this may work to your advantage if you decide to switch to Canon.

gcrimmins wrote:

Any of the Canon 300/2.8 lenses will work great with the 1.4x. I'm not sure how well the 2x works. I believe Canon has a chart (maybe in the camera manual) of the maximum fps with different EF lenses.

I keep hearing good things about the Sony 200-600, and Canon doesn't have anything similar. The closest would be the RF 100-500 or the EF 100-400 mk II with a 1.4x, but of course with a slower aperture with the Sony. Really, if this lens is important to you, it might be worth sticking with Sony.

Since the Associated Press switched all of their photographers from Canon to Sony, many other photojournalists are doing the same. This is somewhat increasing the price of used Sony gear, while reducing the price of used Canon gear, especially DSLRs and EF lenses. So this may work to your advantage if you decide to switch to Canon.

Canon doesn't look like they will be making a 200-600 for a while either.   Sigma is rumored to be getting ready to make some RF lenses and they will likely ty to fill in the holes.   But I would count on anything too soon.

As for the AP, most of their photographers do not shoot Sony.   They've moved away from staff photographers and rely almost exclusively on freelancers.  Freelancers are free to shoot what they want.   But it was a very smart idea for Sony to pay for that contract.   It makes for great marketing.   I do feel bad for the AP staff getting stuck with Sony phones too, but maybe they are not as bad as I've read.

JConrad wrote:

Ric 360 wrote:

JConrad wrote:

A1 to replace your current Sony bodies.

On the used market the those bodies are worth about 1/2 what the A1 will cost. And let's be honest, while the A1 has some nice features, they won't help most people. But things like better IBIS will.

Yes...but if he sells his cameras and pays around $3K for the camera, that's still going to be cheaper than a full switch to Canon with that replacement glass. Total cost of the lenses he's considering for Canon: $8,300. With tax, that's going to be around $9,000 total. Total he's likely to get for his Sony glass: $4,500.

A couple EF lenses could suit his needs while getting the RF versions for the one he uses most.

For example he could sell his used Sony 24-70/2.8 for near $2000 and pick up a used EF version for over $500 less.

If he does it right he might come out ahead on switching lenses.

If you can find one the RF-EF adapter with drop in filters will also save you some $ and make using filters a lot easier too.  

mKotar wrote:

Hi,

Currently I am a Sony shooter. Generally I shoot wildlife + live gigs so i have a pretty complete set of lenses:

- 16-35/2.8
- 24-70/2.8
- 70-200/2.8
- 200-600/2.8

OK

+ A7r3 and A73

Neither are the best...

Background:

To be honest Sony has its advantages (like general AF performace, fact i own all needed glass...) but is still missing some important things to me. And I wanted and upgrade byt a9 is no go as it doesn't have antiflicker and very slow mechanical shutter, a92 is ok, but no bird-eye-af, only 24 mpix sensor, crappy menu and is more expensive that r5.

Yes, the a9ii doesn't have bird eye af but it is a great camera for BIF and I've found to exhibit more accurate AF in situations where AED is not working.

There is alsos A7r4 but... 60+ mpix is little bit to much for me and I had some issues with 200-600 when checking couple of bodies in the camerashop - focusing was not accurate - even when using tripod. A1 is little too expensive for me.

No, 60 MP is never too much when shooting WL especially when cropping.  Yes, the a7riv doesn't play well with the 200-600.  It's one of the reasons I abandoned this camera though the major issue was the abysmal ES as well as AF performance for moving subjects.

There is also 2nd thing about Sony - I don't trust it in 100%. I had one of my body replaced by the service, 200-600 was fixed as it had some issues with consistent focusing, I am not telling about shutter and shutter button replacements - definitely way to much for such expensive gear. So in short words: good gear but i don't full trust it.

Likewise.  As a CPS member, I know and trust their service.  Sony isn't there.

And here comes the R5...

It's been here.

It has some great features like bird-eye-af, 12fps mechanical, 20 electronic shutter, anitflicker and 45mpix sensor. I think that i would like to start my switch from the wildlife end and have couple of questions

Yes, it has some great features though the lack of another ES FPS is a bummer.  Also it doesn't have a dual stacked sensor so there is some lag in ES mode though it isn't problematic.

- Is rolling shutter that bad on ES?

Not unless you are shooting sports, are horizontally panning against strong verticals (and vice a versa), or capturing hummingbirds.

First about 200-600 replacement

- doest it make sense to go with Sigma 150-600 Sport or maybe Sigma 60-600 Sport or even Sigma 150-600 Contemporary

Nope.

- can achieve 12fps on mechanical shutter with all these lenses (how is the sharpness) (and which version of 150-600 is better)

I guess that's fine.

I am also considering: 300/2.8 IS or 300/2.8 IS mk2
- can i shoot 12fps mechanical shutter (version 1)
- how well it performs with TC 1.4 and TC 2 (version 2)

The 300 f/2.8 IS I and II are extremely sharp lenses and do fine with the 1.4iii and the II does great with the 2x III.

RF 100-500 - is little to short in long range and to dark - usually shoot around 400 - 600)
Other lenses are easy to replace 1:1 with RF versions.
Or maybe i should visit some specialist - overcome my lack of trust to sony and just wait and or get A1 in the future or a93 etc

I have a 100-400 is ii so the 100-500 didn't interest me.  There are lot of people who like it natively or with a 1.4x.  Personally, I would look at a 400 DO IS II or 500 IS II as both are relatively cost effective, produce phenomenal results and are fast.

Expect EF lens prices to drop when the big white RF lenses appear.

The Sony system is pretty incredible and if the a1 delivers it will be phenomenal in numerous respects especially if it works with the 200-600.  At $6k for the a1 body and $13k for a 600 f/4,  unless one is a Biden it is a tough road to hoe.

gcrimmins wrote:

Any of the Canon 300/2.8 lenses will work great with the 1.4x. I'm not sure how well the 2x works. I believe Canon has a chart (maybe in the camera manual) of the maximum fps with different EF lenses.

I keep hearing good things about the Sony 200-600, and Canon doesn't have anything similar. The closest would be the RF 100-500 or the EF 100-400 mk II with a 1.4x, but of course with a slower aperture with the Sony. Really, if this lens is important to you, it might be worth sticking with Sony.

Since the Associated Press switched all of their photographers from Canon to Sony, many other photojournalists are doing the same. This is somewhat increasing the price of used Sony gear, while reducing the price of used Canon gear, especially DSLRs and EF lenses. So this may work to your advantage if you decide to switch to Canon.

i have the canon 300 f2.8 II and it takes the TC 2.0x III very well, hard to notice you are using a TC at all. in fact, i use TC 2x III all the because it gives me an instant high IQ 600mm--nothing to sneeze at

Adam2 wrote:

mKotar wrote:

Hi,

Currently I am a Sony shooter. Generally I shoot wildlife + live gigs so i have a pretty complete set of lenses:

- 16-35/2.8
- 24-70/2.8
- 70-200/2.8
- 200-600/2.8

OK

+ A7r3 and A73

Neither are the best...

Background:

To be honest Sony has its advantages (like general AF performace, fact i own all needed glass...) but is still missing some important things to me. And I wanted and upgrade byt a9 is no go as it doesn't have antiflicker and very slow mechanical shutter, a92 is ok, but no bird-eye-af, only 24 mpix sensor, crappy menu and is more expensive that r5.

Yes, the a9ii doesn't have bird eye af but it is a great camera for BIF and I've found to exhibit more accurate AF in situations where AED is not working.

There is alsos A7r4 but... 60+ mpix is little bit to much for me and I had some issues with 200-600 when checking couple of bodies in the camerashop - focusing was not accurate - even when using tripod. A1 is little too expensive for me.

No, 60 MP is never too much when shooting WL especially when cropping. Yes, the a7riv doesn't play well with the 200-600. It's one of the reasons I abandoned this camera though the major issue was the abysmal ES as well as AF performance for moving subjects.

There is also 2nd thing about Sony - I don't trust it in 100%. I had one of my body replaced by the service, 200-600 was fixed as it had some issues with consistent focusing, I am not telling about shutter and shutter button replacements - definitely way to much for such expensive gear. So in short words: good gear but i don't full trust it.

Likewise. As a CPS member, I know and trust their service. Sony isn't there.

And here comes the R5...

It's been here.

It has some great features like bird-eye-af, 12fps mechanical, 20 electronic shutter, anitflicker and 45mpix sensor. I think that i would like to start my switch from the wildlife end and have couple of questions

Yes, it has some great features though the lack of another ES FPS is a bummer. Also it doesn't have a dual stacked sensor so there is some lag in ES mode though it isn't problematic.

- Is rolling shutter that bad on ES?

Not unless you are shooting sports, are horizontally panning against strong verticals (and vice a versa), or capturing hummingbirds.

First about 200-600 replacement

- doest it make sense to go with Sigma 150-600 Sport or maybe Sigma 60-600 Sport or even Sigma 150-600 Contemporary

Nope.

- can achieve 12fps on mechanical shutter with all these lenses (how is the sharpness) (and which version of 150-600 is better)

I guess that's fine.

I am also considering: 300/2.8 IS or 300/2.8 IS mk2
- can i shoot 12fps mechanical shutter (version 1)
- how well it performs with TC 1.4 and TC 2 (version 2)

The 300 f/2.8 IS I and II are extremely sharp lenses and do fine with the 1.4iii and the II does great with the 2x III.

RF 100-500 - is little to short in long range and to dark - usually shoot around 400 - 600)
Other lenses are easy to replace 1:1 with RF versions.
Or maybe i should visit some specialist - overcome my lack of trust to sony and just wait and or get A1 in the future or a93 etc

I have a 100-400 is ii so the 100-500 didn't interest me. There are lot of people who like it natively or with a 1.4x. Personally, I would look at a 400 DO IS II or 500 IS II as both are relatively cost effective, produce phenomenal results and are fast.

Expect EF lens prices to drop when the big white RF lenses appear.

The Sony system is pretty incredible and if the a1 delivers it will be phenomenal in numerous respects especially if it works with the 200-600. At $6k for the a1 body and $13k for a 600 f/4, unless one is a Biden it is a tough road to hoe.

LOL, reminds me about 10 years ago i had an opportunity to purchase at full price a canon 600 f4.0 II/300 f2.8 II/1dmk4, all together--the total was so big that B&H felt bad for me and sent me a gift cert for $400 :-D. i still have and use all that stuff.

Ric 360 wrote:

JConrad wrote:

Ric 360 wrote:

JConrad wrote:

A1 to replace your current Sony bodies.

On the used market the those bodies are worth about 1/2 what the A1 will cost. And let's be honest, while the A1 has some nice features, they won't help most people. But things like better IBIS will.

Yes...but if he sells his cameras and pays around $3K for the camera, that's still going to be cheaper than a full switch to Canon with that replacement glass. Total cost of the lenses he's considering for Canon: $8,300. With tax, that's going to be around $9,000 total. Total he's likely to get for his Sony glass: $4,500.

A couple EF lenses could suit his needs while getting the RF versions for the one he uses most.

For example he could sell his used Sony 24-70/2.8 for near $2000 and pick up a used EF version for over $500 less.

If he does it right he might come out ahead on switching lenses.

If you can find one the RF-EF adapter with drop in filters will also save you some $ and make using filters a lot easier too.

i own about 13 canon EF "L" lenses that if i get a R5 tomorrow, i would not need any RF lenses--and that is coming from people who have both RF/EF lenses. i have not heard any R5 owner to say EF "L" lenses under perform when used with R cameras.