Dan Paris

@Greg OH : astrophotographers around the world would be interested to know this ! This is actually the opposite, for a given price point well-made telescopes are much better to shoot the moon and deep sky objects than telephoto lenses.

If you're willing to go to premium brands, for less than $4000 you get a 530mm f/3.3 equivalent with spot sizes smaller than 3µm across full frame, for all wavelengths :

https://www.takahashiamerica.com/tak-epsilon-e-160ed.html
Which telephoto lens can achieve this (at this price point or above) ?

@Magnar W: in terms of contrast an APO lens will beat a reflecting telescope but not in sharpness. My 8inch reflecting telescope will blow out of the water any 6inch APO triplet in terms of resolution, assuming the atmosphere is steady enough.

Some random example found on Youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZS2YSIBD9w
This is shot with a $350 achromatic refractor (1000mm f/8.3 lens equivalent).

Well, any decent $500 telescope can do the same....

Can't you understand that some people simply don't like shooting with an EVF, and don't need gadgets like live exposure preview, etc. ?

Thanks for your message !

Thanks Albert !

Thanks Sue Ann, much appreciated

thanks for your message !

By itself the number of cross-type point does not tell the true story. After all neither the Z7 nor the EOS R5 have cross-type AF points...

I don't understand why the Z-mount is spotlighted, I quote, for its "largest mount diameter for more light gathering ability".

Every test of Z-mount lens, compared to its F-mount counterpart, shows an increase of vignetting (see reviews on Lenstip for instance). To be precise, 20,24, 35 and 50 have significantly worse vignetting in their Z-mount version, while 85 are on par.

For that matter, it seems to be the same for RF-mount lenses vs. EF mount lenses.

I understand that short flange mounts have some advantages in terms of lens design, but it seems that vignetting control is not one of them.

This is not exactly how things work, you need to put sensor pitch into the equation.

Highest resolution M43 sensors have 3.32µm pixel pitch.
EOS R5 sensor has 4.38µm pixel pitch.

So a 540mm lens on the EOS R5 will give you the same resolution (hence reach) as an M43 400mm lens.

If you replace the EOS R5 by an A7RIV, you just need a 450mm lens to get the same resolution as an 400mm lens on M43.

So the lens size benefit is not as great as one may think.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#840.376,826.848,ha,t

And of course FF is more versatile since you don't have to crop to M43 size.

Well, maybe it's because of my European perspective but I feel rather uncomfortable with the theme "people from your race". Am I supposed to share more with people which just so happen to share common physical characteristics with me? Why should I be proud of people that I don't relate to in any other way ? Who should I consider as "people of my race" with family coming from several countries scattered on two continents ?

Thanks, this is what I was thinking. I shoot only with DSLRs which don't have this problem of course (along with most FF MILC's)

Sorry for the dumb question, but is a viewfinder on the left side only comfortable for half of the public ? (I personally shoot with the left eye that's why I'm wondering)

It would be interesting to compare with the outcome of a 400mm f/5.6 lens (which is actually shorter, not so heavy and rather cheap on the second hand market). For sure the 600mm has a bigger magnification but the 400mm has probably better optics (at least, it is not limited by diffraction) and the two-stop advantage translates into lower ISO and less noise... My bet is that the amount of recorded detail would not be significantly different, and of course a 400mm is more versatile.

wonderful shot ! well-deserved win

Compared to 24 Mpix sensors like inside the A7III, the difference in linear resolution is less than 10%... is it really a big deal?

Thanks a lot everyone for your messages, much appreciated ! Merci beaucoup !

regards,

Dan

According to the EXIFs, both are shot at f/5.6, so I don't see any disadvantage for the X100V ?