Magnar is correct: the joy is in the challenge and the hard work of getting the shot yourself. The joy is in the journey and the experience.

One could say the same thing about any pursuit: why do it because others have already mastered it to such a high level? But we as humans can do better than that and aspire to elevate ourselves in whatever endeavor we desire.

You're making assumptions based on your own viewpoints.

The joy is to many people just finding and seeing wildlife, getting a good picture of said wildlife is a bonus, not the reason for being there in the first place - look at all the birders who don't even have a camera (or they have a P900 type bridge camera), just a telescope. Constantly trying to get the best shot can actually spoil the experience.

Funny, that is the exact camera and lens combination I am using, usually with the 1.4 TC attached, but I do not shoot in crop mode, I crop afterwards if necessary, it is easier to keep the flying birds in the frame.
Over the years I managed to get hundreds of really nice shots of hummingbirds and eagles, but I am still excited to take another stab at the "PERFECT SHOT" of these birds. Never gets boring.

The G9 is here because of the price.

Actually, very few photographers can afford the Focal Length needed. Sorry Fred, without the right Focal Length most times, it really won't matter what camera you have.

@ BackToNature1: You don't need the longest and brightest lenses for wildlife photography. Some armchair photographers might think so, though.

Sorry guys, prep and subject knowledge are far more important than size.

That applies to several domain in life, by the way 🤓🤭.

@ Notwitholding: Excactly! Skills makes us better photographers, and with lots of training we can take benefit of the features on more expensive cameras - if we need those cameras at all. ;-)

http://nickbrandtphotography.blogspot.com/2014/06/3-lion-before-storm-sitting-profile.html

17 days

"After all these days spent in each other’s company, he was oblivious to me taking photos so close to him."

If you want to heavily crop and stare at your own images on your wall, then by all means prep and plan all you want, grab your 70-300 lens and have at it. If you want to work for a living taking wildlife photos, get a big lens.

Fuji's 70-300 is actually a pretty decent lens. Works well with the 1.4X TC.

Sony A1 is far superior to the Sony A7R series for wildlife/birding. The stacked sensor and higher burst rate does make a difference. And there is very little resolution difference: the A1 has 50 MP while the A7R5 and A7R4 have 61 MP.

To me there is a more meaningful difference in AF speed and performance than in MP.

So the guy using a 14-year old DSLR who isn't into photo gear doesn't get the appeal of high fps or mFT...

A 300 f4 has a different frame of view on mFT, so it is not the same as a 300mm lens on FF. Try looking through the VF on an Olympus and Sony with a 300mm attached and tell me they are the same. The Olympus is the value/budget option because to get a comparable camera/lens is a LOT more expensive in FF land and doesn't exist in APS-C land (Sony apsc doesn't measure up in a variety of ways, and Fuji doesn't have the lenses).

A high frame rate allows you to capture a series of photos in an action sequence and then pick the best one; e.g., a bird taking off, landing, animals hunting, leaping, etc. Instead of getting only 4 fps with your ancient 5Dii and missing the perfect moment, with the Olympus, e.g., you get 50fps of a series and are much less likely to get the moment you want. Don't even get me started on pre-capture

The benefits of MFT on the long end, is not lost on those that shoot MFT (along side FF in my case)

Where the benefits lie for those shooting wildlife in particular is the reach on can get handheld due to far smaller lenses giving equivalent reach. A 300mm is 300
But it gives a 600mm FOV on MFT. To get the same FOV on FF isn’t always a simple matter of cropping the FF image to match the FOV.

Whislt limited to 20mp. MFT has a far greater pixel density, that is very beneficial when cropping. 5mp cropped from a 20mp MFT sensor will be more detailed than 5mp from 24mp or even 50mp FF. A 20mp MFT sensor has the equivalent pixel density of a FF 76mp sensor.

Cropping a FF to match MFT is simply undoing any benefit the format offers to begin with. To exceed the performance of MFT. There is a huge cost and weight gap to gain the true benefits of the FF sensor. For many it’s not worth it. There are many many examples of wild life shooters switching to MFT for these reasons.

I agree with @PAntunes...there are more and better options at all price points these days than ever before. And that includes some good quality FF lebses,

And that is not even taking into account the used market, which expands options even more. Photographers have it better than ever before wrt choice, capability and price options.

@ szhorvat: Simply use the same physical focal length on full frame, and crop to aps-c format. About same size, weight and price.

Do this, and you will get the same image quality as from any aps-c cameras. Also, with FF you have plenty of sensor area available when you want higher technical image quality.

I am thinking of Nikon D7xxx series. Where can one move on to, while staying on a reasonable budget, with nature photography in mind (i.e. telephoto/birds, macro and landscapes)? All options involve giving up something, or increasing the budget significantly.

I'm not sure why people keep saying to get full frame and crop. FF is considerably more expensive. Sure, there are entry-level FF bodies at similar prices, but then you lose a significant amount of resolution, which translates to reach for telephoto and magnification for macro, two major use cases. As for wide angle, if you already decided to go FF, you won't be getting APS-C wide angle lenses just because they're more affordable. It makes no sense. So we're coming back to the cost increase.

I expect that people who were doing nature photography with a D7xxx and moved to mirrorless either had a lot of cash to burn or they moved on to different types of photography.

I'm not sure I agree.

A D7500 was selling body only for $1200 and doing 8fps with 51 af points.
A A6400 is now $898 shooting 11fps with 425 Phase-Detect Points.

A Tamron 70-300 for sony is $499.00
A Nikon 70-300 is $346.00

And I'm sure you'll see similar offers from olympus, panasonic, canon, fuji and nikon.

@szhorvat: yes, prices seem to have skyrocketed especially for the bodys. I am looking for good wildlife equipment for quite some time, wanted to get an APS-C body first but prices seem to be very stable even on the used market.

I now got myself a used 300mm f/2.8 IS which can be gotten for less than a current EOS R body and that gives me much more of advantage than a new body would do. One day I will replace my 5DII with something newer but I am not there yet.

" choices were much better a few years ago,"

The good ol' days weren't as good as they might seem....

What is ironic is that today one can get those same choices from an unspecified "few years ago" either new or used at a bargain, plus all sorts of new choices with fantastic capabilities.

A good distance is a must specially when shooting insects. Also weather sealing, lens stabilization, and bokeh all of which the Canon 100mm stands out. Here a good article in choosing a macro lens. https://www.tropicalherping.com/articles/best_lenses_macro_photography.html

That’s on a full frame body. A 70mm on an aps camera will give you a 105 equivalent.

And if you want a 100mm, tokina 100 2.8 macro still cheaper than the canon 85.

And the canon 100L is more expensive than the 85.

Unfortunately the Tokina does not have lens stabilization or weather sealing both of which I find very important to me. Do you own the Tokina and are speaking from experience?

What you're saying is that the 85 f2 from canon wouldn't work for you because it has no weather sealing.

The 85 f2 was used as a key point because of it's price, £599.00.
If you need weather seal and IS, you could get the Sony 90 2.8 for £639.00.
That's £40 more for a true macro with 1:1, IS and fast AF.

The RF 100L is £1,349.00 and the old EF version is £899.00, much more than the 85 f2.

The Sony 50 2.8 1:1 is £449.00 and the Tokina 100 2.8 1:1 is £479.99

If you're doing macro on a budget, I wouldn't say canon has the best options.

I own RF 100mm which has : 1.4x Magnification f/2.8 to f/32, Minimum Focusing Distance: 10.2", Super Spectra Coating, Smooth and Super Quiet Auto Focus, Optical Image Stabilization; Hybrid IS that works jointly to the R5 stabilization, Control Ring for Direct Setting Changes & Weather-Sealed Construction. I know there more affordable options but I want the best.

If you want the best, why did you get that?

And I don't get why you reply to a topic about affordable options for macro just to say you want the most expensive...

That's exactly why i gave this link earlier in order show other options... https://www.tropicalherping.com/articles/best_lenses_macro_photography.html
An affordable price is relative to the buyer.

The article is DSLR only lenses... Doesn't include the original 85 RF, doesn't take price into consideration. Can't see the relevance...

BTW, just to clarify, in the US that Sony 90 f2.8 Macro lens is selling for 998.00 and the Canon 100 f2.8 Macro is selling for 999.00. So no price difference but while both are excellent lenses, the Canon is arguably a bit better.

I realize the pricing matters depending on country, but the US is probably the single largest market by country and surely a larger market than Britain, where the price was quoted in British pounds.

PAntunes which Macro lens do you own?? And if you DON'T, why do even bother to discuss on something you have no hands experience??

Thoughts R Us the price in europe is also similar to UK.

@PAntunes: If Canon can consistently price higher than Sony in Europe then that means Canon must have higher demand than Sony in Europe.

Both Canon and Sony are run as for-profit corporations, not as charities. They both have teams of experts that set pricing in their many markets. The price is not set arbitrarily or on a whim by someone who just chooses a price.

So if there exist markets where Canon is priced significantly higher than Sony then that is because the demand for their product is higher and thus they have that sort of market pricing power. If Sony could command a higher price they surely would not hesitate and they would ask for it. They certainly have not been shy on raising the prices on their camera bodies.

@Thoughts R Us - "If Canon can consistently price higher than Sony in Europe then that means Canon must have higher demand than Sony in Europe"

that's an illogical and totally unsubstantiated claim, but i guess you must think that because canon has blocked 3rd-party manufacturers from using rf-mount.

next you'll tell us that "higher demand" is the reason why canon keeps raising prices in the u.s. :-0

sony hasn't raised u.s. prices this year.

"For the second time in five months, Canon has increased the prices of its EF and RF-mount lenses. Most of them have seen a $100 or $200 price increase, but it goes up to $1,000." https://www.diyphotography.net/canon-quietly-increases-lens-prices-by-up-to-1000-again/

Thoughts R Us, and how is that a good thing for canon users?

I can see how that can be good for the brand owners, but from a user perspective, you're just paying more for similar items. Surly even you can understand that is not a good thing.

And if they sell that much more, wouldn't it make it even cheaper to produce?

I can see how in your head canon having more users sounds cool. But the reality is it just sucks for anyone wanting to buy canon equipment.

There is less choice and what's available is more expensive. And you try to spin that as a good thing?

You must be paid by canon. That's the only way that story makes sense.

Well as a Canon user for over 20 years I don't mind paying more for reliability. Something of which spec sheets don't tell you much if not at all. Now for folks who just want to compare specs all day (while the camera gathers dust) this won't mean much.

It's simple economics. If Canon can consistently charge higher prices for their gear than Sony in a certain market then that means they have the power to do so, which means they have the higher demand.

Neither Canon nor Sony are run by dumb people. They price to maximize profits. If Sony could ask higher prices they would do so. And if Canon were priced too high so that it impacted sales they would lower their prices. You cannot refute that. That's just basic economics and it assumes that the people at two large corporations know what they are doing when setting prices and react to market signals.

You may not like it but that's the conclusion from the data you tell me about the European markets.

BTW, just to correct this: "And if they sell that much more, wouldn't it make it even cheaper to produce?" LOL. That's not how corporations price. Pricing has little to do with cost to produce.They price on what maximizes their profits based on demand.

Thoughts R Us, again, how is that good for consumers?

@Pantunes: It's not for me to judge what is good for consumers in Europe, only to realize that consumers in Europe apparently have made their choices. Presumably they have their reasons why. Maybe like someone else noted one reason is that they respect Canon's reputation for durability.

Sure everybody likes lower prices. But prices are but one factor in consumer decision making. If consumers in Europe are willing to consistently pay more for Canon gear then perhaps the relevant question to ask is why?

You know who is almost assuredly is asking that question? Some clever minds at Sony. Because they would love to have that pricing power and would use it in a heartbeat if they could.

It's like with flagship pricing. Remember when the Sony flagship was the A9/A9II at $4500? People at Sony asked how can we get our flagship pricing up to the level of Canon/Nikon? So they create the A1 at $6500.

@Thoughts R Us - "It's simple economics"

no, you made a specific claim that canon is "in higher demand" in europe, and as usual you failed to prove it.

you have a long post history of making similarly absurd claims, lol

@Thoughts R Us - "In the meantime, Sony is trapped with a too small lens mount and will feel the hurt as time goes by. Canon plays the long ball, and will crush them. https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/7427320569/what-does-the-eos-r-tell-us-about-canon-and-the-rf-mount-s-future?comment=6358335632

@Thoughts R Us - "Yes it's sad that Sony may be driven from the camera market due to intense competition from Canon, Nikon, and even Panasonic." https://www.dpreview.com/news/8428210001/rumors-point-to-imminent-canon-full-frame-mirrorless-system-launch?comment=4261853988

@PAntunes: "According to you, sony must be doing something amazing in the US, where lens prices are much closer."

Yes, that is exactly what that means...that in the US market that Sony and Canon are very competitive with each other and probably have about equal demand. So Sony is probably doing better in the US market than in Europe on relative scale vs Canon.

Now again the relevant question to ask is why? And again I would say that Sony has already asked themselves this question, and may very well know the answer.

DavitorR5, the only "experience" we can infer from you comments is that you have no critical thinking skills and assume the most expensive is the best...

DavitorR5 what do you know about who I'd rather rely on? Maybe, and hear me out on this, some people think for themselves? All I know is that I see you invent something about me and then attack me over the thing you made up. Classic straw man, and mighty rich coming from someone who unquestioningly regurgitates Canon marketing at every opportunity.

I use Canon lenses myself because some of them hit the price performance ratio I enjoy. I might even buy a body from them again one day. Though it won't be based on blind assumptions like you are evidently making about me, nor will it be based on the endorsements made by loud mouth brand ambassadors like yourself.

What good is equivalency when your images look like they were taken with a holga toy plastic effect lens?

Ok whatever

What a patronising, totally inaccurate comment indicative of a lack of knowledge of the G9.

I sold the R7, because the shutternoise empties the woods..... :-)

Good way to get bif……

@Kandid

Finally somebody tells a great Joke. 👌👍

Canon missed the boat by not having a current flagship.
This so called R1 that has been rumored since before Sony released the A1 (and Nikon announced the Z9) is hopefully coming soon.

What boat ? - a new boat leaves every day….

It's the "SS Pretend".

It keeps leaving the www port and hitting the reality iceberg every single time, in an ever-repeated, wishful thinking, hilarious voyage.

@ PhotoKhan: Fact is that most brands could (or should) be on this list! Today's camera systems are all capable of doing great wildlife photography. Highest frames per second or largest buffer doesn't make great photographs.

The key to good results, wildlife as well as other genres, is knowledge about the subject, lightning, etc. Knowing how to use your gear is basic skills that is expected - this is the easy part of photography.

It doesn't really matter who "wins". Cameras are so good now even one that doesn't get mentioned is likely brilliant.

How are Canons 600mm and 800mm more unique than the ones by Nikon? Nikons 600mm does have an integrated teleconverter and the 800mm is the lightest and most compact on the market. Canons options are just the DSLR lenses with an EF to RF adapter and a teleconverter welded to it.

The R6II won the under $3000 category....

PS:
Oh, you're talking about the money no object? R3 would never win a wildlife competition. 24mp vs 50mp for wildlife, when long lenses and cropping is quite often needed? No way.

And if money is no object, who cares about cheap f11 lenses?

First, Canon's R3 has been very well received. If you follow any Canon R3 forum you see many many sports and wildlife/bird shooters loving that camera. Only on forums where people argue spec sheets can the R3 be so criticized.

Yes more MP would be nice and presumably the R1 will have it...but keep in mind that Canon users have been happy with the 1D series for years and never had 24 MP.

I do agree with Photokhan that the eye control AF is a winner of a feature and that it's hard to pronounce it as "50/50" based on the very small sample size. Again, many R3 users are using that feature and want it on any future Canon R1 or other flagship camera. And if it doesn't work for someone's eyes then no worries..you still have all of the other ways of selecting AF placement. But if you use the eye control AF and it works...and that is many users...you really appreciate it and it feels like something out of a sci-fi novel.

Those lenses are not too long. They are too slow. F11? What were they thinking? That is slow for a mirror lens.

Using lenses this slow is hard work. I know I have a 500mm F8 and despite fast focusing unless the light is very bright you can forget it.

Yes those lenses are f11 and autofocus only works in the center of the frame. (Even if your camera has DPAF to the edges.) So if you have any trouble keeping a BIF in the center of the frame always at 800mm you will lose tracking and focus. An exercise in frustration. Perhaps great for perched birds and other kids of wildlife but not good for BIF for multiple reasons.

The 600 and 800 f11 lenses, given their cost and specs, are by definition for someone on a budget who wants to take photos of maybe some perched birds in their backyard or something similar. Maybe a trip to a zoo in the daytime. I have seen where people get some good results.

They are not for serious and challenging BIF out in the field, and those who do that type of photography will know that.

Thoughts R Us, I'm sure the R3 as been very well received by people that have a lot invested in canon glass, but it's still a 24mp camera.

It's like saying the new OM system camera was very well received by OM System wildlife shooters. That's fine, but if money is not a problem and you don't have any other lenses, it's a hard pass for the best wildlife camera.

I do not see the problem with G9, from my point of view it looks great:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/hrpictures/50196648336/in/dateposted/

Even with BIF, there are techniques when using manual lenses, I've seen people using short lenses, pre focus and triggers. There's also people who put in effort in their field work to get real close, some wildlife are near impossible to get with cookie cutter builds and you'd have to get somewhat creative, like bats in flight.

@Mlumiere - there were about 9 million digital cameras sold last year. There are 10's of millions older than that in use. How is your minuscule sample representative of anything?

The AF of the Z9 is far ahead of that of the R5, not even close. But keep dreaming...

@ TheRealYeats I took this picture with a Canon 40D and a Sigma 50-500 in manual focus, https://pbase.com/yves_fortin/image/101405233, and I took this picture, https://pbase.com/yves_fortin/image/159476560 with a Canon 7D and Sigma 150-500 in autofocus mode. How can a camera with a bad autofocus be able to take a picture of an eagle coming towards you?

If you take 10,000 images randomly one of them will end up being tack sharp.

The relevant measure for AF is success ratio or number of keepers per minute of action shooting.

Rest assured that you camera will be extremely far behind the best with those real world metrics.

You not knowing this demonstrates how little experience you have about this discipline.

@Mlumiere - Nice pics!

I think the mistake you are making about the G9 is stating that it has "bad autofocus". It's AF is actually quite good, but not as good as some other models.

Note that in DPR's review of the G9 - and this was prior to the firmware update that improved AF significantly - the reviewer stated about C-AF:

"In our first demonstration, we see how fast the Panasonic G9 can assess depth and refocus on a subject well-separated from the background, moving toward the camera. This test was done using a single point at 20 fps... The results are very positive: The G9 essentially aces this scenario, with almost all images tack sharp or acceptably sharp. We also ran this same test using the 9 fps mode and had equally impressive results."

@Mlumiere
Nice shot!
The 7D was a great camera in its day and my personal favourite camera that I have owned. The af in the new mirrorless cameras like the R10 / R7, etc is just worlds away, making getting these photos easier, but nothing beats skill & perseverance.

and:

"In our next text we examine how the G9 handles a subject moving toward the camera in an irregular pattern. For this test we turn to the camera's 'Tracking AF' mode which attempts to recognize and follow a subject, whose movement is somewhat unpredictable... Again, the results of this test are really quite impressive, with the vast majority of frames in focus and the camera easily able to stay on our subject for the majority of the runs we shot (Note: the above roll-over shows every other frame to better demonstrate the camera following our subject from one side of the frame to the other).

Again, our experience subject tracking in 9 fps was similar, with most of the photos sharp or acceptably sharp."

Here is a photo (not mine) taken with the G9 and 200/2.8: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/stories/panasonic-g9-firmware-2-4-birds/

Oops, sorry I provided the incorrect link. Here is the correct one: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Panasonic-G9-firmware-2.4-birds-in-flight-sample-9.jpg

@photo lover
Any independent unbiased reviewers back up your claim that the Z9 has significantly better af than the R5❓ Most reviews I have read put the R5 and A1 ahead of the Z9 in this regard. I think Thom Hogan has it right that if you really learn how each system works they are all excellent….👍

Well I only looked at one and Jared Polin put the R3 well ahead of the Z9 - go figure……

Let me guess… the Northups also? :-)

Right - so who exactly says the Z9 is better…❓(apart from you that is…..)

In the absence of any independent proof I think we can conclude that the R5 has af at least as good as the Z9 - thanks 😊

You remind me of my 10 years old daughter... :-)

Intelligent and skilled photographer is she❓😁. Look I’m happy to accept that the Z9 has better af than the R5 if independent tests verify this…

Feel free to think whatever that makes you happy

Thanks and ditto. I try and base my understanding on evidence rather than ‘beliefs’. Clearly not a universal thought process…..

Sure... and I see you have no tendency to fall for confirmation bias... :-)

Exactly - present any relevant evidence and I happily acknowledge it - the Z9 is an excellent camera and I would rather have one than an R5 as it would give me access to Nikon’s superior lenses. The only thing holding me back is cost. I can use my ef lenses on the R5 and R7 and they are still excellent lenses (not as good as the Zs…🙁). I have just not seen any evidence that the Z9 has better af than the R5. You are the one I fear in the grip of blind support for one brand - a disciple doesn’t even need confirmation bias as they already BELIEVE……perhaps try being objective…👍

Photolover wrote

"I am a Canon hater.

But that has zero impact of my views considering the AF of the R5 vs that of the Z9."

Really, Not even a little?

@TheRealYeats: on a tangential note, the total number of photographers does not necessarily imply that the precision of the proportion estimated from a smaller sample can’t be high, as long as the sampling is not biased – that is likely to be the much larger problem. Of course, without asking everyone, it is not possible to prove that it is literally zero, but a number of samples much lower than the several million of photographers may still be enough to imply that the proportion has a high probability of being low.

For example, if I am not mistaken, if we sampled 500 wildlife photographers at random and none of them used a G9, that would be enough to be 99% sure that the proportion within the entire population is less than 1%, even if there were millions of them. (But of course, even <1% of several million may still be a lot in absolute numbers.)

See this excerpt from E. T. Jaynes’ book on probability theory:
https://i.imgur.com/L8xCFZO.png

The only difference btw you and me is that I admit my bias and you don’t.

My bias is caused by the long standing mediocrity of Canon, by the arrogance of the Canon higher mgt I have actually met in Japan, by theit abuse of market position and support policies in Japan,…

It has zero impact on my ability to assess the performance of their equipment.

The R5 is IMHO their first appealing camera since the 1Ds and its AF is very good and a total game changer for Canon users compared to equivalently positionned bodies in the line up (the 5dmkIV) that was far behind the D850.

I am just saying it is overall behind the Z9.

@photolover
Lets assume that your self proffesed "blind dislike' & hatred towards Canon has not clouded your opinion & for arguments sake, the you tubers cited by Kandid are somehow biased against Nikon. You still have not provided any supporting evidence for your claim about the Z9 having better af than the R5.
Is this going to be like your claims about the Z9 selling in multiples more than the R3 and claims that "people in the know'" say that Canon can't make a stacked sensor, then when challenged on those statements also not providing any supporting evidence?
Opinions are one thing, we all have those. Stating something as fact is another thing entirely and requires a different level of burden of proof. And a self professed blind dislike & hatred towards a company kind of puts an asterix beside any comment made about them.

In regards to AF. In all of the reviews that I have read & seen the concensus has been, for DSLR's, Nikon has the best af, the D850, D5, D500 all being better than the Canon equivalents. For mirrorless, Sony is still the benchmark & Canon, after a slow start with the R & RP are now basically level pegging with Sony. Nikon were a few steps behind in af until the release of the Z9 and are now very close to the other 2.
In reality the af of all of these systems is astonishingly good.

@Myles
Nice to see balanced views rather than ‘hatred’. How can you ‘hate’ a commercial enterprise unless they have directly done you personal harm……even then it would more likely be individuals at fault❓❓

Photolover
The only link you ever sent me on the Z9 v R3 sales was to one of your own posts giving numbers which you had no support for. I did not see your acknowledgment on the Canon sensor. Thank you for clarifying.

@photo lover
Yes - where is this dpreview AF comparison….❓

Well thanks for that and you are right - autofocus win for the Z9. Can’t help but note that overall it was a tie for first place between the R3 and the Z9. I would never buy an R3 as insufficient pixels for wildlife in my view - as I said the Z9 would be my first choice. I just don’t think that it’s sufficiently better than the R5 with my ef lenses to spend the £10-15k MORE to buy into the Nikon system….and it is HEAVY…..

Photolover
The thread you linked to is from the Nikon Z forums. It focus's solely on the Z9 serial numbers people have been recieving with a link to photothesis.co.nz which has a list of Nikon serial numbers for different bodies, colatted by the looks of it from info sent to them by users (not sure of that as I haven't read it in detail).
I can find no mention of R3 serial numbers (or any other info on the R3) in that thread or its preceeding one.
So a count of Nikon serial numbers, tick. Nada on Canon serial numbers. How are you comparing the relative sales?

Photolover
"There was a similar analysis done for the R3. I was not able to locate it."
Thats is my point. You've written about this on numerous occasions but never been able to show the data to support it.

For af. Yes DPRTV gives a slight edge to the A1 & Z9 over the R3, primarily because the R3 requires more configuration of its use cases for optimum accuracy / tracking (something other reviewers have also commented on). From the video on af "just know if you have any of these cameras they're just going to be so good" (see my previous post which said basically the same thing).
Other reviewers (some mentioned by Kandid) put them in a different order as to which is best but all agree its very close. WRT the R5, its not far off the flagships in af. I don't think "The AF of the Z9 is far ahead of that of the R5, not even close". The info in the video link doesn't really change that.

BTW
I do think the Z9 is the best FF camera on the market at the moment. The fact that it is also significantly cheaper than the R3 & A1 is a other bonus as well as the stellar glass that Nikon has been putting out.
Is it worth the difference in price to the R5, that's a much tougher question and will come down more to personal preference and what glass you have.
The fact is, there are so many good choices out there it's hard to go wrong.

Myles is completely correct here - we are all in furious agreement 😊

I agree, my wording of the gap between Z9 and R5 was exaggerated.

Blimey - we should be running the UN......

“My files are too big! Waaaah!”
“My computer is too wimpy! Waaah!”
Seriously. Get a couple of big memory cards.

Shoot as much as you want. Select the keepers in a tool like photo mechanic (I use an iPad actually) and delete every thing else.

@Mikeran
If you delete ‘everything else’ how do you repeatedly and obsessively go through your rejects to see if you’ve missed something epic….🤓😵‍💫😴 - which reminds me…..💨

I did events, i did this i did that, you can buy this, buy that it's cheap lalala.....
dude with today's crazy frame rate storage is nightmare if you pull the best out of your equipment
Canon R3 24 mpix can produce 4 GB file per second with 195fps feature
That's 10 GB per second if it was 50mpix, and both a1 and Z9 can't reach that speed since too much data to move on sensor

1 TB of card will be filled at let's say if you're doing sport and full action, can only store 250 burst at 24 mpix 195 fps

If you already have one of those lenses you can adapt it of course (which is also true of other mounts) but I would be surprised if many people are going to consider buying an R6 and and EF lens plus adapter as the logical or sensible approach to putting a wildlife kit together. The fact remains Canon’s native offerings are slow or mega expensive.

I don’t really understand their logic. Most manufacturers sell fast expensive lenses while having slower more affordable offerings but not that slow.

The 600 & 800 are slower than old F8 mirror lenses.

Canon also offers a superlative 400 f2.8 L lens. In the EF mount, which works great on their mirrorless offerings with adaptor, they have the 200-400 w/TC which has been used a lot at the Olympics, the 300 f2.8, and the 400 f4 DO II.

And that's not even getting into all of the earlier EF glass, many of which can be had for a bargain these days on the used market.

So actually Canon users have more to choose from than anyone except Nikon users.

canon has stated that many of those canon lenses can't even do 12fps on the r5, and canon japan has already stopped repairing quite a few of 'em, with deadlines for a bunch more.

old dslr lenses do not perform nearly as well as new milc designs.

canon is actively blocking 3rd-party lens support on rf-mount, so there won't be any lenses coming from there... at least nikon has the foresight to order older lens designs from tamron, ported over to z-mount, unfortunately they don't have a true 30fps camera to put 'em on.

Canon R5 manual lists 38 EF/ EFS lenses capable of at least 12fps.

FYI Canon Asia has a list of EF, EFS & RF lenses as well as combinations of those lenses with extenders that are capable of 20fps with the R5. That list (excluding combinations with extenders) is 50 lenses.

Oh no - I can only shoot at 20 fps…….the horror….😱😱😱

nothing like re-popping a lens from way back in 2010 :-0

"Well, as Canon stated, there is no difference between the Mk II and Mk III versions. If you think there’s an optical or performance difference, please contact me about some Tennessee Beach-front property I have for sale. If you’re in the market for one of these in the near future, I’d snap up a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II at discount price if you can find it."
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/08/lens-teardowns-and-comparisons-of-the-canon-70-200mm-f2-8-is-ii-and-iii/

@Kandid MILC man draws things, gets proven wrong and then puts the next thing just to be anti canon. Like he wrote most lenses can't do 12 fps which is true for very old already a few times replaced by newer version lenses, he fails to give an example or even go into that over 50 lenses support it. The canon chart also isn't in detail, I get 12/20 fps with the previous version of some lenses as well but they don't list the predecessor even if it is capable of. The list actually is much longer.

For the 70-200 sure, but it's price stayed where the old was and it was just an internal redesign which makes it easier for maintenance as it can also be read in the linked blog. It's funny when companies change internals and user learn about it it's bad behavior but when communicated with a new version it's also bad. People always will complain but I prefer a new version for internal changes. Like with SSDs some perform worse than early produced ones due to changed NAND in newer produced ones.

Actually its AF is very good at long distances. So much hate coming from people who do not use the hated camera...
is it great at tracking objects? people, yes, animals, sometimes.
I use other systems in parallel and i see no large differences (a7r3, em3.2, both pd)

Panasonic contributes the most in advertising?

Unless you somehow have access to the DPReview books and you’re sharing that private information here then making any sort of statement about who pays for advertising is a guess at best.

There was a comment down the line in another thread that applies here: ""Maybe reviews you don't like just reflect areas of focus for reviewers instead of being a grand conspiracy."

We live in a strange time when too many people take areas of honest disagreement and explain it away as a conspiracy. It's kind of an arrogant view in that it basically assumes that you can't possibly have an honest or good reason for disagreeing with me, therefore there must be some hidden and sinister motive.

Treat all reviews as opinions not statements of scientific fact. They are informed opinions but still reflect the unique experience and biases of the reviewers....which is normal. We are all humans.

Think for yourself, read several reviews and if possible try any gear you are interested in before buying. Renting can be a viable option before spending a lot of money.

A crop body (APS-C or m43) can make a lot of sense for wildlife on a budget simply because of the crop to get some longer reach out of your lenses but not, in my opinion, of you are sticking a lens on it that is F8 at long end.

A lens like the Tamron 150-500 is not much different in price to the Canon and is F6.3 @ 400mm but you also get an additional 100mm of reach @F6.7.

Of course because of Canon's stupid policy to keep the lens mount closed you won't see this or any other faster 3rd party lens available for Canon so in my onion there are better choices for wildlife on a budget because with Canon that zoom or one of the even slower long telephotos are your only choices.

Yes, actually a lot of experience with that as well. It is fairly close to the A1 for locking and staying on small/eratic birds, but I would give the A1, the nod. All 3 cams do well with slower birds and wildlife.

@Toni Genes

And which lenses you will use on R7? 3000 priced 100-500? I mean... it's not about spending 50% more, it's about 225% more

And you sound like it's not possible to just move focus point on birds eyes yourself without super puper AI autofocus of latest bodies? Well..

R7 with the 100-500L seems like a hell of a wildlife option to me….

As long as the OP is happy with what they have, that's what counts. They have found their solution and it works for them. If it's not broke then don't fix it.

Also there is something to be said for staying with the gear that you know...the one you know how to operate via muscle memory and you understand its strengths and weaknesses. Often times that can mean more than just higher specs when getting the shot.

Of course there is a lot of great new gear out there too, but it's not for everyone. Some will prefer to stay with DSLRs.

@nameless0ne

For R7 on a budget, I would really consider getting EF 100-400L II with a permanently attached adapter. The lens seems to have been developed already with the future RF mount in the mind, or at least it behaves like that on my R5.

Also me...

I mean, half of the couple was shooting with an R5 after "dumping" Sony; was that praise of the R5 also paid Sony content?

Maybe reviews you don't like just reflect areas of focus for reviewers instead of being a grand conspiracy.

Ok, I Think the hit rate is with todays camera an overrated discussion because frankly speaking they are more then good enough for any type of nature / wildlife now.

The discussion is far more lens relevant. And in this context Canon and Sony are simply behind the best now. Nikon has simply done an outstanding/ fantastic job. The only other wildlife lens I know of that can from a practically point stand up to Nikon is the Olympus 150-400 F4.5.

And Wildlife from my point is really a joy with todays Pro glass. It always give you smile when using.

B

It is all about the lenses though ,camera bodies between the nikon sony and canon are really not doing a lot different ,the nikon has stolen the show with the latest line up but i bet you have to wait months for them or years, with the big ones ,the 400mm f4.5 is a stand out lens ,i looked at a review against the pf lenses and although no sharper to me the colour or contrast looked deeper .If i was a z9 owner i would at least have it on order 400mm is quite nice for hide work the 800mm would be perfect for field work and reserves ,the 400mm f2.8 with t/c is the perfect wildlife lens and 600mm with t/c is the perfect birding lens but they are out of most peoples reach the 800mm also to some degree .i have the full set of bpoty books and it is best to not get to caught up in gear as not every participating image is taken with flagship full frame cameras and big primes at wide open apertures .

not just northrups but jared also ,if your nikon camp your best bet is the z9 ,but the lens line up more than makes up for the short commings .although nothing really that budget conscious for wildlife lenses.

> "Maybe reviews you don't like just reflect areas of focus for reviewers instead of being a grand conspiracy."

I could have written the exact same reply in response to your first comment and it would have been even more relevant there than in your reply to me. Perhaps ponder about that.

Sure, and the Northrups are published wildlife photographers, so it's a key area of focus. So at the end of the day hit rate is more important than getting excited about cool new technology.

All reviewers are different and all are human. It's fine to disagree with them but it's not some great conspiracy if they disagree with you. They too have their strengths and weaknesses as photographers, and their biases, and that's normal.

Take every review not as some scientific fact but as an opinion...an informed opinion...but an opinion nevertheless. Just like you would with a movie review for instance.

IMHO, the best strategy is to read a wide variety of reviews and if possible try out gear before buying. But always reserve the right to think for yourself.

The same applies with the comments you may read in online discussions.

Agreed with T-R-U. The best way to go is to read a variety of reviews until you hit the downsides of gear you want to like, because then you're getting into more honesty. If you're just hearing gushing positive comments, you're insulating yourself.

The Northrups are generalists, not wildlife specialists. Wildlife specialists get the shots they want whether they use a R5, Z9, OM-1, a1, or whatever camera they choose.

BrentSchumer: People think the 200-600mm is great, and it is quite good, but the Tamron is grossly undervalued. I did a lot of careful eval earlier this year to pick a long lens for a trip to Alaska, and the Tamron 150-500mm was the winner largely because it's a completely new design tuned for Sony FE (and, unlike Sigma, Tamron really gets native performance on E/FE bodies). Look at the resolution charts and at the actual images from the Tamron; this Tamron out-resolves the 200-600mm at the long end by enough to beat it at 600mm by cropping. It's also much smaller, lighter, 2/3 the price, and even has an Arca tripod foot (dumb omission on the Sony). The only downsides are that Sony limits burst rate with it on their top-of-the-line cameras and there are no teleconverters for it.

no question that tamron is making some stellar lenses, including that 150-500, but it's not in the 200-600 league for a number of reasons, most notably because sony limited the af-c frame rate to half what the 200-600 can do.

many comparisons here: https://dustinabbott.net/2021/06/tamron-150-500mm-f5-6-7-vc-vxd-a057-review/

the sony is slightly sharper at 500mm, albeit that's at closer focus distances... it also has a slightly higher keeper rate on demanding af subject matter, and of course the manual zoom function is better.

the sony lens has repeatedly been on sale for $1900; both lenses are bargains in my book, e-mount owns the supertelezoom segment by a huge margin.

MILC man: I mostly agree with Abbot's review, except if you actually look at the lens resolution charts, the Tamron is markedly better at 500mm -- and none of my tests suggest the charts are wrong. That extra resolution on the Tamron is perfect for a little additional zoom by cropping, and definitely paid off using it on my A6500. I should also note that none of my Sony bodies can top 15FPS anyway, so Sony's artificially-imposed limit on the Tamron doesn't come into play. For that matter, 150-200mm is generally more useful to me than 500-600mm (which cropping can still do), and the Tamron is actually faster at most focal lengths.

In sum, I agree that the 200-600mm and 150-500mm are both top-quality lenses, but I think the Tamron is a lot more practical without a real down side... and it's $1200 vs. $1900. I'd only go for the 200-600mm if I didn't have to hike with the lens+tripod and either my body could do over 15FPS or I needed the teleconverter. ;-)

You should really learn how to use your OM1

You must do something wrong.
OM-1 + 300mm it is an amazing combo which can match the best systems in this budget.

@PhotoMac503 Maybe you can share some comparisons of your shots? I would love to see them. I have shot with pretty much every system with good lenses. I find it pretty hard to believe that the OM-1 with the 300mm f4 does not produce good image quality compared to even newer systems.

I stand corrected. It's included in the video.
However, it's not included in the "gear mentioned in this video" links, on which I based my comments. I didn't watch this video because I'm not a fan.

Thanks for the suggestions but I know how to use my gear. Oh yes, after post the OM-1 images look fine.

If you want to spend time at a keyboard use OM-1.

If you want to spend time outdoors taking quality images, do some research..