RetroBlader wrote:
lokatz wrote:
Initial focus testing
If you are anything like me, how well the G9II focuses will be what interests you most in this new body. (“Don’t give me all that crap about noise and colors, just tell me how well it focuses”. )
Hahaha, although I don't shoot birds (not yet, anyway), I am also most interested in the AF performance of G9II, so I hope you don't mind that I read your Part II first (then went to your ThisBeautifulPlanet comparison report, and again reading the "AF Impressions" section first).
https://thisbeautifulplanet.de/five-body-lens-combinations-for-mobile-bird-shooters-part-ii
Glad someone is reading it.
This is why I bought the G9II: I’m hoping it’ll get me closer to the R5’s performance, ideally both in focusing speed and accuracy, without requiring excessive sacrifices in other areas. Well, that, plus resolution: while the 25 vs 20 MP difference is pretty small, it matters to me. This is because the subjects I love shooting most are small birds. Some of them are minute and quite shy, so they rarely let me get close. As a result, even with lens plus TC at 500mm they won’t fill the frame. When you crop a lot, even a few more pixels matter, which adds to my interest in the Panasonic.
Believe or not, your report addressed (or at least started to -- I am sure there will be even more insight shared in Part III) what I have been looking all over the internet for:
How does the PDAF in the G9II compare to the best cameras on the market (at least those at similar price points)?
Working on it. Still need a week or so. (Spoiler alert! I can already safely say that with perched birds (ok, let's say "relatively static subjects"), the G9II clearly beats the OM-1 and does not feel much different from my R5 if the light is good. In low light, it is noticeably slower. All further inquiries will be referred to Part III.)
Since I already have quite a few MFT lenses, comparison between the G9II and the OM-1 is naturally of interest to me.
However, after the heartbreak I suffered with the G9's firmware 2.4 update, you can understand why a small voice inside me keeps asking if I should take another look at Canon again (I used to shoot with a Canon 7D, and still have several L EF lenses, including the 70-200/4 L IS and the 100-400 L IS).
While there have already been a million reports by photography pundits/influencers/YouTubers on the G9II's AF, very few of them compared the G9II to other brands, and even fewer to non-MFT brands like Canon and Sony.
You obviously have lots of experience with the R5, and also experience with the OM-1 and now G9II, so I consider you a context expert when it comes to the relative performance of different AF systems, at least in the setting of photographing birds (in flight or not). If I read your Part II correctly, OM-1 and G9II are very close to each other in terms of AF performance, but still NEITHER AS GOOD as the Canon R5.
I'm sure you are aware of the BIF comparison article by Mirrorless Comparison, also ranking the R5 above the OM-1 (albeit only very slightly):
https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-birds-in-flight/#cameras
Because somebody else wielded it as if it were solid proof, I have recently been tempted to write a critique of this particular comparison (but don't know if and when I'll get around to it). Mathieu Gasquet is a good guy and I like some of his work, but what he does here IMO is highly misleading. I suggest taking this comparison with a BIG grain of salt. As good as the OM-1 is, there is still a substantial difference in AF performance between it and the R5, for example, which is not at all reflected in his 'data'. I can see why, but it's complex to explain.
So my question for you: Have you ever considered the Canon R7 for bird photography (especially when the pixel density should make it even more suitable for small birds than the R5)?
I have, carefully checked specs and reviews, checked it out myself in a store, and decided against it. This had nothing to do with AF, where the R7 is at least R5 grade, maybe even a little higher.
To me, the R7 is a perfect example of an excellent concept spoiled by some rotten ideas. Its AF is VERY good, clearly the best for the price. Its higher resolution allows for more cropping, again just what birders need every so often. Yet, its control elements, especially but not only that quirky rotating dial placed near the EVF (another one of Canons "in the field" experiments it never repeated, and never should), take a level of getting used to that anyone coming from a well designed body doesn't want to get near to. I know several R5 users who won't even buy it as a backup body because of this. There's quite a list of other irritations, starting with but not limited to the needlessly small buffer and the ProCap implementation you mention further below. With a few modifications, this body could build a rep similar to the Nikon D500, but Canon must have feared that this would cannibalize their higher-end models too much. Which, at the prices they are asking for those, is probably true.
If not, was it because of its AF being inferior to the R5? Or because of Canon lenses not matching your Olympus 150-400/4.5 TC?
Earlier in this thread someone asked if you would consider switching back to Nikon, and you said no, because of how perfect the Olympus 150-400 is for your needs. But I wonder if the new Canon 100-300/2.8 (plus TC) would finally give your Olympus 150-400 some competition?
No. That's a 2,650 gram lens. I don't care how good it is, that's too heavy for extended hand-holding. Been there, done that, won't do it again. My limit for body plus lens, obtained from plenty of experience with different rigs, is about 2.5kg, less than what that lens weighs alone. On top of that, 600mm (with a 2x TC) is still short.
With a 1.4 TC, the Canon 100-300 would become a 140-420/4.0, so covering the entire zoom range of the Olympus 150-400, but with a slightly faster aperture.
You ARE familiar with the MFT system's crop factor of 2.0, aren't you? That 420mm compares to an FF equivalent Field of View of 1,000mm with my Oly 150-400, with its internal TC engaged but without adding an external one.
A R7 will get even more pixel density out of that lens due to its crop sensor.
Even when putting the lens on an R7 with its 1.6 crop factor, that Canon lens would only give you an FoV equivalent of 672mm. Yes, the R7's 33MP resolution vs. the OM-1's 20MP would narrow that gap some, but the G9II widens it again.
While not quite as exotic as the Olympus 150-400 or the Canon 100-300/2.8, the Canon 200-800 would give more reach (but with slower apertures).
If you're willing to live with the quirks, the R7 with the RF 200-800 is a "low budget birder's dream team". I am not, plus my Big White Oly is the much better lens anyway (at a steep price of admission).
But I suspect the answer is that the R7's AF performance is simply not as good as the R5's. (Certainly, the Mirrorless Comparison ranks the R7 significantly lower than the OM-1....)
Maybe Canon will add pre-burst to the R5 with a future firmware update (but I hope they improve upon the not-so-perfect implementation in the R7).
Agree on both parts. The R5 II will have it for sure.
Anyway, sorry about the rambling -- it's past midnight here.
I just want to thank you again for putting together such a detailed and insightful comparison. I can't wait to read Part III when it comes out!
