Check out the 200-800 and/or the 100-500. The 200-800 around $2000 new and the 100-500 around $2500. Who else has a zoom out to 800 in that price range? Check that, who else has a zoom out to 800?
Z9 v A1 Autofocus
- Thread starter Telscossie
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Check out the 200-800 and/or the 100-500. The 200-800 around $2000 new and the 100-500 around $2500. Who else has a zoom out to 800 in that price range? Check that, who else has a zoom out to 800?
ajrmd
Well-known member
Had the 100-500. Great lens. The last good, lightweight, reasonably affordable prime was the 400 DO II. Sorry, not interested in a f/9 periscope.
There are always compromises. The f9 is the compromise that makes it lighter, smaller, and cheaper and still a more flexible zoom than it would be if it were faster. What f number is the Nikon 800 zoom?
I don't get the periscope jab?
ajrmd
Well-known member
The last good, lightweight, reasonably affordable prime was the 400 DO II
Nikon: 400 f/4.5, 600 f/6.3, 800 f/6.3. Drop the mike.
arbitrage
Well-known member
Based on rumored/logical release timing, Canon may be the only frog that could possibly jump the 3 year old frog before that frog jumps again....but will it jump far enough to protect against the upcoming jump from the 3 year old frog??
arbitrage
Well-known member
I think I'd agree with that and I'll be interested to see how you find the A9III in that regards compared to the A1. In my experience I have found the A9III is even worse at this than the A1. The A1 (and prior A9 bodies) still seemed to try and ignore foreground if you kept the subject centred in the Wide or Zone. But the A9III I found to be less logical in this regards and is jumping to foreground distractions on perched birds unless it has a very clear, identifiable Bird ID lock. Both cameras set to 1 (locked on) if that even matters for this behaviour.
Alistair
Well-known member
I would say user familiarity is the main difference in AF performance between these systems, Canon and Oly included.
There are many greater differences to be considered, although frankly, all these systems are astonishingly good.
There are many greater differences to be considered, although frankly, all these systems are astonishingly good.
I think at this point the major reason to select something has to do with 1) whether the lens(es) you need are available for the system and 2) whether the ergonomics and human factors of the system work for you. I wouldn’t recommend chasing autofocus. I would only chase systems that are usable in my hands with lenses I am looking for.
kanonka
Active member
Hi all, long time reader here, but first time writer - may be my "review" will help somebody.
TLDR: Sony A1 is better on most accounts, but I recently switched from A1 to Z9
Short info: I'm not a pro (i.e. I'm not making money from photography), and I'm not "enthusiast" either (as I have other hobbies too). At most, I spend 2-3 hours couple times a month going out and shooting wildlife (mostly birds) just for fun of it. Yet, I value the image quality the most. My style is "gun-and-run", i.e. sitting for hours in the hide waiting for the bird is not my thing at all, so any heavy lens like 600/F4 are out of question due to the weight. For last 20 years I was shooting with all sorts of Canons (starting with D30, ending with 5DM3), and only recently (in 2021) caved for Sony.
I was eyeing Z9 for quite some time now because of the lens (800mm/6.3). So far I was somehow able to get away with A1/200-600+1.4TC, or, on occasion, A1+Nikon 500 PF (via adapter). Results were quite good, some just excellent, but getting small fast erratic BIF were always tough (big slow flying ones were much easier). I didn't plan to switch though, due to laziness, but couple weeks ago after another trip I found that on at least half of my images - even for static perched birds - focus point somehow started to go nowhere. I.e., during shooting I perfectly see the AF square right at the bird eye, but when later I check - bird is out of focus, as focus point is not even on a bird! No firmware changes, no settings changes, no nothing - all things were as usual. I tried to change the way I shoot, using all possible combinations of AF-S, AF-C, wide, small, etc - still same issue. Knowing Sony support (basically, the complete lack of it), I decided to give Z9 a try, because - why not? People were saying that after firmware 3.0 AF became somewhat acceptable. So here are my findings, and take them with a huge portion of salt:
Ergonomics: Sorry, but old Canon is still king of the hill in regards of how camera sits in hands. Second place goes to GFX 100S (my wife occasionally lets me to hold it for couple minutes ... when I can pry it from her hands). Gripped A1 and Z9 are on about same level, i.e. bad enough, but oh well. Ungripped A1 is a nightmare. (On a side note - Nikon, how people are supposed to press F1-F3 buttons while holding camera firmly? Not everybody has super long fingers of piano-player. You just have to move your wrist to press them, there is no other way. Oh, and yes, front wheel - horrible, just plain horrible.)
Image quality - about the same. By default, though, Nikon turns on noise reduction at any ISO, and when opening files in PS, it looked like no noise at all, but details were smudged. At first I thought "ops, it can't be that bad - I'm shooting RAW, after all". After turning NR off, setting image type to "flat", all started to look good with full details, just like Sony. Compared to Sony: yes, 10% more pixels is nothing to sneeze at (yeah, we all do cropping, right?). On another hand, Nikon got much less regular noise at the same ISO (and no, I didn't do any chart shooting, I did a live bird scene compare - heron was nice enough to stay in the same position for an hour). And yet on another hand, Nikon got way, way, way more color noise. Let me put it this way: with Sony I never saw color noise in any condition, and thought it was just a myth. With Nikon, it is absolutely visible even at ISO 800. But here is the outcome: suppressing color noise is super easy in Camera RAW and does not kill details at all, while suppressing regular noise does, so overall I would prefer Z9 over A1 noise wise, provided that you have tool like Photoshop (and who doesn't these days?)
AF performance: well, funny situation. A1 finds bird eye immediately (according to what I see in EVF), and basically at any distance. Problem is, it's not always focusing properly at that point. It could be the problem of 200-600+TC combo though - after all, minimum F9 doesn't help (but 200-600 without TC has very same issue, so I don't know why). On another hand, Z9 takes its time to find bird body, then head, then eye - sometimes it could take up to 2-3 seconds (although on close subjects it's also immediate). And at far distance it can't find eye at all. But once found, it focuses there precisely, in about 80-90% of cases, or at least in the same focal plane (the rest of the cases). And here is the big difference, at least in my experience: if Z9 can't find an eye, it falls back to finding head, then body, using either 3D or subject recognition. Another words, you still have a huge chance of having the shot in focus. But A1, if eye is not found, has no fallback, and focuses at random location - at least that's how it's been for me.
Glitches: both are guilty. A1 occasionally blacks out when sunlight bleeds to EVF from behind. Z9 sometimes (like in ~20% cases) refuses to go to the menu, and you have to turn camera off/on to resolve the issue. Also, changing battery on Z9 is the most ridiculous thing I ever saw on any camera. You'll get used to it, but it's just plain wrong.
The end result: in 3 days of trying Z9 I took more small erratic BIF images (mockingbirds, woodpeckers, grackles, etc), than I did in 3 years of using A1.
Yes, A1 is way more flexible, user friendly, never ever miscalculated exposure (unlike Z9, which did it twice already), etc. But, as you see by the end result, Z9 is better for me and my style (although, it still has too much quirks, but, oh well, no camera is perfect).
And, of course, 800/F6.3 - there is nothing like that in realms of Sony and Canon.
Overall: I don't like Z9, but I'm switching to it from A1 (few more tests are pending this weekend, just to make sure). If I used 600/F4, things could have been different, but again, too heavy for my style.
Now ready for your shouting at me
TLDR: Sony A1 is better on most accounts, but I recently switched from A1 to Z9
Short info: I'm not a pro (i.e. I'm not making money from photography), and I'm not "enthusiast" either (as I have other hobbies too). At most, I spend 2-3 hours couple times a month going out and shooting wildlife (mostly birds) just for fun of it. Yet, I value the image quality the most. My style is "gun-and-run", i.e. sitting for hours in the hide waiting for the bird is not my thing at all, so any heavy lens like 600/F4 are out of question due to the weight. For last 20 years I was shooting with all sorts of Canons (starting with D30, ending with 5DM3), and only recently (in 2021) caved for Sony.
I was eyeing Z9 for quite some time now because of the lens (800mm/6.3). So far I was somehow able to get away with A1/200-600+1.4TC, or, on occasion, A1+Nikon 500 PF (via adapter). Results were quite good, some just excellent, but getting small fast erratic BIF were always tough (big slow flying ones were much easier). I didn't plan to switch though, due to laziness, but couple weeks ago after another trip I found that on at least half of my images - even for static perched birds - focus point somehow started to go nowhere. I.e., during shooting I perfectly see the AF square right at the bird eye, but when later I check - bird is out of focus, as focus point is not even on a bird! No firmware changes, no settings changes, no nothing - all things were as usual. I tried to change the way I shoot, using all possible combinations of AF-S, AF-C, wide, small, etc - still same issue. Knowing Sony support (basically, the complete lack of it), I decided to give Z9 a try, because - why not? People were saying that after firmware 3.0 AF became somewhat acceptable. So here are my findings, and take them with a huge portion of salt:
Ergonomics: Sorry, but old Canon is still king of the hill in regards of how camera sits in hands. Second place goes to GFX 100S (my wife occasionally lets me to hold it for couple minutes ... when I can pry it from her hands
). Gripped A1 and Z9 are on about same level, i.e. bad enough, but oh well. Ungripped A1 is a nightmare. (On a side note - Nikon, how people are supposed to press F1-F3 buttons while holding camera firmly? Not everybody has super long fingers of piano-player. You just have to move your wrist to press them, there is no other way. Oh, and yes, front wheel - horrible, just plain horrible.)Image quality - about the same. By default, though, Nikon turns on noise reduction at any ISO, and when opening files in PS, it looked like no noise at all, but details were smudged. At first I thought "ops, it can't be that bad - I'm shooting RAW, after all". After turning NR off, setting image type to "flat", all started to look good with full details, just like Sony. Compared to Sony: yes, 10% more pixels is nothing to sneeze at (yeah, we all do cropping, right?). On another hand, Nikon got much less regular noise at the same ISO (and no, I didn't do any chart shooting, I did a live bird scene compare - heron was nice enough to stay in the same position for an hour). And yet on another hand, Nikon got way, way, way more color noise. Let me put it this way: with Sony I never saw color noise in any condition, and thought it was just a myth
. With Nikon, it is absolutely visible even at ISO 800. But here is the outcome: suppressing color noise is super easy in Camera RAW and does not kill details at all, while suppressing regular noise does, so overall I would prefer Z9 over A1 noise wise, provided that you have tool like Photoshop (and who doesn't these days?)AF performance: well, funny situation. A1 finds bird eye immediately (according to what I see in EVF), and basically at any distance. Problem is, it's not always focusing properly at that point. It could be the problem of 200-600+TC combo though - after all, minimum F9 doesn't help (but 200-600 without TC has very same issue, so I don't know why). On another hand, Z9 takes its time to find bird body, then head, then eye - sometimes it could take up to 2-3 seconds (although on close subjects it's also immediate). And at far distance it can't find eye at all. But once found, it focuses there precisely, in about 80-90% of cases, or at least in the same focal plane (the rest of the cases). And here is the big difference, at least in my experience: if Z9 can't find an eye, it falls back to finding head, then body, using either 3D or subject recognition. Another words, you still have a huge chance of having the shot in focus. But A1, if eye is not found, has no fallback, and focuses at random location - at least that's how it's been for me.
Glitches: both are guilty. A1 occasionally blacks out when sunlight bleeds to EVF from behind. Z9 sometimes (like in ~20% cases) refuses to go to the menu, and you have to turn camera off/on to resolve the issue. Also, changing battery on Z9 is the most ridiculous thing I ever saw on any camera. You'll get used to it, but it's just plain wrong.
The end result: in 3 days of trying Z9 I took more small erratic BIF images (mockingbirds, woodpeckers, grackles, etc), than I did in 3 years of using A1.
Yes, A1 is way more flexible, user friendly, never ever miscalculated exposure (unlike Z9, which did it twice already), etc. But, as you see by the end result, Z9 is better for me and my style (although, it still has too much quirks, but, oh well, no camera is perfect).
And, of course, 800/F6.3 - there is nothing like that in realms of Sony and Canon.
Overall: I don't like Z9, but I'm switching to it from A1 (few more tests are pending this weekend, just to make sure). If I used 600/F4, things could have been different, but again, too heavy for my style.
Now ready for your shouting at me
EricKlees
Well-known member
A tip if you are using Adobe Lightroom. On import you need to make sure you are using Camera Profiles and NOT Adobe Profiles. Your files will have significantly less noise and I have never noticed much color noise until cropping well over 100% and even then it's fairly minimal.Hi all, long time reader here, but first time writer - may be my "review" will help somebody.
TLDR: Sony A1 is better on most accounts, but I recently switched from A1 to Z9
Short info: I'm not a pro (i.e. I'm not making money from photography), and I'm not "enthusiast" either (as I have other hobbies too). At most, I spend 2-3 hours couple times a month going out and shooting wildlife (mostly birds) just for fun of it. Yet, I value the image quality the most. My style is "gun-and-run", i.e. sitting for hours in the hide waiting for the bird is not my thing at all, so any heavy lens like 600/F4 are out of question due to the weight. For last 20 years I was shooting with all sorts of Canons (starting with D30, ending with 5DM3), and only recently (in 2021) caved for Sony.
I was eyeing Z9 for quite some time now because of the lens (800mm/6.3). So far I was somehow able to get away with A1/200-600+1.4TC, or, on occasion, A1+Nikon 500 PF (via adapter). Results were quite good, some just excellent, but getting small fast erratic BIF were always tough (big slow flying ones were much easier). I didn't plan to switch though, due to laziness, but couple weeks ago after another trip I found that on at least half of my images - even for static perched birds - focus point somehow started to go nowhere. I.e., during shooting I perfectly see the AF square right at the bird eye, but when later I check - bird is out of focus, as focus point is not even on a bird! No firmware changes, no settings changes, no nothing - all things were as usual. I tried to change the way I shoot, using all possible combinations of AF-S, AF-C, wide, small, etc - still same issue. Knowing Sony support (basically, the complete lack of it), I decided to give Z9 a try, because - why not? People were saying that after firmware 3.0 AF became somewhat acceptable. So here are my findings, and take them with a huge portion of salt:
Ergonomics: Sorry, but old Canon is still king of the hill in regards of how camera sits in hands. Second place goes to GFX 100S (my wife occasionally lets me to hold it for couple minutes ... when I can pry it from her hands
Image quality - about the same. By default, though, Nikon turns on noise reduction at any ISO, and when opening files in PS, it looked like no noise at all, but details were smudged. At first I thought "ops, it can't be that bad - I'm shooting RAW, after all". After turning NR off, setting image type to "flat", all started to look good with full details, just like Sony. Compared to Sony: yes, 10% more pixels is nothing to sneeze at (yeah, we all do cropping, right?). On another hand, Nikon got much less regular noise at the same ISO (and no, I didn't do any chart shooting, I did a live bird scene compare - heron was nice enough to stay in the same position for an hour). And yet on another hand, Nikon got way, way, way more color noise. Let me put it this way: with Sony I never saw color noise in any condition, and thought it was just a myth
AF performance: well, funny situation. A1 finds bird eye immediately (according to what I see in EVF), and basically at any distance. Problem is, it's not always focusing properly at that point. It could be the problem of 200-600+TC combo though - after all, minimum F9 doesn't help (but 200-600 without TC has very same issue, so I don't know why). On another hand, Z9 takes its time to find bird body, then head, then eye - sometimes it could take up to 2-3 seconds (although on close subjects it's also immediate). And at far distance it can't find eye at all. But once found, it focuses there precisely, in about 80-90% of cases, or at least in the same focal plane (the rest of the cases). And here is the big difference, at least in my experience: if Z9 can't find an eye, it falls back to finding head, then body, using either 3D or subject recognition. Another words, you still have a huge chance of having the shot in focus. But A1, if eye is not found, has no fallback, and focuses at random location - at least that's how it's been for me.
Glitches: both are guilty. A1 occasionally blacks out when sunlight bleeds to EVF from behind. Z9 sometimes (like in ~20% cases) refuses to go to the menu, and you have to turn camera off/on to resolve the issue. Also, changing battery on Z9 is the most ridiculous thing I ever saw on any camera. You'll get used to it, but it's just plain wrong.
The end result: in 3 days of trying Z9 I took more small erratic BIF images (mockingbirds, woodpeckers, grackles, etc), than I did in 3 years of using A1.
Yes, A1 is way more flexible, user friendly, never ever miscalculated exposure (unlike Z9, which did it twice already), etc. But, as you see by the end result, Z9 is better for me and my style (although, it still has too much quirks, but, oh well, no camera is perfect).
And, of course, 800/F6.3 - there is nothing like that in realms of Sony and Canon.
Overall: I don't like Z9, but I'm switching to it from A1 (few more tests are pending this weekend, just to make sure). If I used 600/F4, things could have been different, but again, too heavy for my style.
Now ready for your shouting at me
Also, for the Bird Subject Detection, use the Auto Area AF mode if you haven't been. The Z9 grabs the eye instantly and have no issues acquiring small fast swallows at roughly 30-35 yards out with busy tree backgrounds. Wide area AF modes and 3D are good with Animal Subject Detection but for Bird, I use 3D less then 5% of the time. Only if a bird is in a bush or tree and Auto grabs the branches but that is even pretty rare these days.
Last edited:
Woody Meristem
Well-known member
If you're looking at the angle of view of a FF 800mm, both Olympus and Panasonic sell zoom lenses with the same angle of view as a FF 800mm and both can be had for less than $1,500 (new).
Doug Herr
Well-known member
You are of course welcome to your opinion, but I find the ungripped a1 quite the oppose of a nightmare.
The last time the VF blacked out with the sun behind me was with firmware 1.0
I have not seen any of the focus problems you have, I've been using the a1 since it first became available including BIF kinglets, warblers, hummingbirds, blackbirds, flycatchers, swallows, and phainopepla. If the a1 can't find the eye it focusses on the head, if it can't find the head it focusses on the body. The only time I've seen anything like missed focus with the green square on the eye is when atmospheric distortion makes focusing moot.
Last edited:
arbitrage
Well-known member
What FW is your A1 on? The EVF blackout issue was fixed back in 2021 via FW. Since the fix I can still tell when it would have done it before the fix as I sense just the slightest of delays when it comes on and it is always in the situations where the blackout issue happened on FW 1.0. But it is so slight that no one would notice if they weren't thinking about it and knew there used to be a problem.Hi all, long time reader here, but first time writer - may be my "review" will help somebody.
TLDR: Sony A1 is better on most accounts, but I recently switched from A1 to Z9
Short info: I'm not a pro (i.e. I'm not making money from photography), and I'm not "enthusiast" either (as I have other hobbies too). At most, I spend 2-3 hours couple times a month going out and shooting wildlife (mostly birds) just for fun of it. Yet, I value the image quality the most. My style is "gun-and-run", i.e. sitting for hours in the hide waiting for the bird is not my thing at all, so any heavy lens like 600/F4 are out of question due to the weight. For last 20 years I was shooting with all sorts of Canons (starting with D30, ending with 5DM3), and only recently (in 2021) caved for Sony.
I was eyeing Z9 for quite some time now because of the lens (800mm/6.3). So far I was somehow able to get away with A1/200-600+1.4TC, or, on occasion, A1+Nikon 500 PF (via adapter). Results were quite good, some just excellent, but getting small fast erratic BIF were always tough (big slow flying ones were much easier). I didn't plan to switch though, due to laziness, but couple weeks ago after another trip I found that on at least half of my images - even for static perched birds - focus point somehow started to go nowhere. I.e., during shooting I perfectly see the AF square right at the bird eye, but when later I check - bird is out of focus, as focus point is not even on a bird! No firmware changes, no settings changes, no nothing - all things were as usual. I tried to change the way I shoot, using all possible combinations of AF-S, AF-C, wide, small, etc - still same issue. Knowing Sony support (basically, the complete lack of it), I decided to give Z9 a try, because - why not? People were saying that after firmware 3.0 AF became somewhat acceptable. So here are my findings, and take them with a huge portion of salt:
Ergonomics: Sorry, but old Canon is still king of the hill in regards of how camera sits in hands. Second place goes to GFX 100S (my wife occasionally lets me to hold it for couple minutes ... when I can pry it from her hands
Image quality - about the same. By default, though, Nikon turns on noise reduction at any ISO, and when opening files in PS, it looked like no noise at all, but details were smudged. At first I thought "ops, it can't be that bad - I'm shooting RAW, after all". After turning NR off, setting image type to "flat", all started to look good with full details, just like Sony. Compared to Sony: yes, 10% more pixels is nothing to sneeze at (yeah, we all do cropping, right?). On another hand, Nikon got much less regular noise at the same ISO (and no, I didn't do any chart shooting, I did a live bird scene compare - heron was nice enough to stay in the same position for an hour). And yet on another hand, Nikon got way, way, way more color noise. Let me put it this way: with Sony I never saw color noise in any condition, and thought it was just a myth
AF performance: well, funny situation. A1 finds bird eye immediately (according to what I see in EVF), and basically at any distance. Problem is, it's not always focusing properly at that point. It could be the problem of 200-600+TC combo though - after all, minimum F9 doesn't help (but 200-600 without TC has very same issue, so I don't know why). On another hand, Z9 takes its time to find bird body, then head, then eye - sometimes it could take up to 2-3 seconds (although on close subjects it's also immediate). And at far distance it can't find eye at all. But once found, it focuses there precisely, in about 80-90% of cases, or at least in the same focal plane (the rest of the cases). And here is the big difference, at least in my experience: if Z9 can't find an eye, it falls back to finding head, then body, using either 3D or subject recognition. Another words, you still have a huge chance of having the shot in focus. But A1, if eye is not found, has no fallback, and focuses at random location - at least that's how it's been for me.
Glitches: both are guilty. A1 occasionally blacks out when sunlight bleeds to EVF from behind. Z9 sometimes (like in ~20% cases) refuses to go to the menu, and you have to turn camera off/on to resolve the issue. Also, changing battery on Z9 is the most ridiculous thing I ever saw on any camera. You'll get used to it, but it's just plain wrong.
The end result: in 3 days of trying Z9 I took more small erratic BIF images (mockingbirds, woodpeckers, grackles, etc), than I did in 3 years of using A1.
Yes, A1 is way more flexible, user friendly, never ever miscalculated exposure (unlike Z9, which did it twice already), etc. But, as you see by the end result, Z9 is better for me and my style (although, it still has too much quirks, but, oh well, no camera is perfect).
And, of course, 800/F6.3 - there is nothing like that in realms of Sony and Canon.
Overall: I don't like Z9, but I'm switching to it from A1 (few more tests are pending this weekend, just to make sure). If I used 600/F4, things could have been different, but again, too heavy for my style.
Now ready for your shouting at me
kanonka
Active member
Never updated since 1.0 till few days ago, when I noticed all this hiatus with focus. Last Friday I finally updated to the latest to see if that helps with this sudden focus problem. It didn't help, but to be fair, I didn't notice blackout either since then (yet).
BTW, it were your photos that influenced me to do with A1 in a first place
arbitrage
Well-known member
I was going to say if you were still on 1.0 you should look for a copy of the 1.2X FW as I (and many others) felt the AF was at its peak around then. But it might have been hard to find someone with a copy. If you are already on to 2.01 then no way to go back. But the EVF blackout will be fixed now.Never update since 1.0 till few days ago, when I noticed all this hiatus with focus. Last Friday I finally updated to the latest to see if that helps with this sudden focus problem. It didn't help, but to be fair, I didn't notice blackout either since then (yet).
BTW, it were your photos that influenced me to do with A1 in a first place
Glad my photos helped with your decision. Z9 is a nice camera and if the 800PF is the lens for you then worth going for it if you've been happy with your trial of it.
kanonka
Active member
Well, I didn't see these focus issues till couple weeks ago. Something happened to the camera. I see the green square exactly on the eye, but when I check later in A7Info, it shows that green box anywhere but the eye - in about half of the cases. Sunny day, no heat waves, everything as before, except bird is not in focus, and focus point is out of bird completely - like at totally different part of the image.
A1 AF wasn't bulletproof to begin with, at least in my experience, but this latest problem gave me a motivation to finally try Z9.
Doug Herr
Well-known member
You might do well to use the camera for a while with updated firmware before dismissing it entirely. Also check to see if there have been any firmware updates for the lens.
Personally, I'd hate to have only an 800mm lens for wildlife. I was looking for a lightweight high-performance hiking camera and the z8 + 600mm PF was on my short list, but I kept dragging my heels because I'd want shorter lenses as well. I've ended up with the Sony 300mm GM + both TCs which yields excellent performance, has my three most-used focal lengths, has a great 2 meter MFD and weighs less than the 200-600 (and the a1 + 300 GM + TCs also weighs less than the z8 + 600 PF).
Last edited:
kanonka
Active member
Well, I still have 500 pf, and used it with great results on A1 (although adapter slowed its' response). So mix of 500 pf + 800 pf will cover all my needs, as I don't usually shoot closer (but yeah, 5m MFD on 800 pf is not nice of Nikon). In a worst case I can always borrow my wife's GFX 100S + GF 250 (we go to locations together). Of course, no way to shoot BIF with GFX, but everything else comes out beautifully on it. Also, I hate changing lens on location - sand, dirt, rain, you name it - all goes onto sensor. So, switching TC on and off just drives me nuts. Nikon having built-in TC is the way to go, but, alas, it's available only of 600/4 (400/2.8 too, but that's too short for my taste), which is 3.2 kilo.
Doug Herr
Well-known member
If you're going to use the 500 PF along with the 800 PF I don't see how to do that without changing lenses. FWIW in the last three years using the a1 I haven't seen a spec of dust on the sensor.
kanonka
Active member
True, but the way I shoot 200-600 + TC stayed on basically all the time, all the way at 600mm (840 effective). Only on rare occasions (<5%) I either zoomed back, or used 500 PF. So, hauling 500 PF alongside is just in case, very rare case.
arbitrage
Well-known member
Yeah, if you are wanting to be at 800mm most (all?) of the time and the 600GM isn't in the cards because of weight then the 800PF would be perfect. I would say the other option since you have been used to shooting 840 f/9 would be the 600PF and 1.4TC. But if you really are always at 800 then having f/6.3 vs f/9 would be a big improvement so the 800PF makes the most sense. Only if you really wanted to shave off weight and size even compared to the 200-600 let alone the 800PF then the 600PF/1.4TC would make sense.
I will say though that you really haven't experienced the true speed and accuracy of the A1's AF if you've been using the 200-600/1.4TC all the time. Even the 200-600 without a TC is noticeably slower to AF and less consistent than the GM primes and the 100-400GM. But with the 1.4TC on the 200-600 AF was mediocre especially for any type of action. But other than the 600GM/1.4TC Sony doesn't have any other good option to get to 800mm. If you were a 600mm shooter than I'd highly recommend the 300GM/2xTC as it is very impressive how well the AF and IQ holds up to the 2xTC.
I'm surprised you had any success adapting the 500PF to the A1. When I adapted it via the MC-11 it could barely drive AF...I basically had to MF very close to the bird and then the AF would work and track the bird if it wasn't moving much. But it was impossible to drive the AF in on a bird from a different focus plane.
Anyways, keep us up to date with how you get on with the Nikon kit. I'm always interested in how others perceive the differences between the two systems. Enjoy the new gear.
ccyeung
Active member
macwalter
Well-known member
I remember Steve saying he liked the Sony bodies better in terms of more options to set and I have read the the Sony A1 is still the gold card standard for action. However the fly in the ointment for me is having good glass and a more affordable level and also lenses that allow good handheld experience. My sense is that Sony and Canon at the moment don’t offer as many options in the mid range of quality level on lenses. Also these new mirrorless models are pretty complex and you have to practice with them. I met a guy last week who had just gotten a z9 who said he couldn’t get sharp images so he went back to his d850. Personally I find this amazing as for me it is so much easier in most situations to get good shots with the z8-9. I have had the z8 for close to a year now and I’m still tweaking how I shoit and find myself making minor adjustments each time I go out depending on what I’m expecting to photograph. I’ll stay with Nikon as I know this system fairly well. I think any of the new systems can get you what you want.
hef19898
Well-known member
Camera gear became "good enough" decades ago, especially AF. Just remember, there was a time people shot action with manual focus lenses, film and without motors.
One thing I realized whem looking deep into my new Z6: there is AF (as good as it gets in any modern camera from Nikon Z over Sony to Canon) and there is subject identification. The latter is why the Z6 got so much bad press. Two different things, I don't need the latter at all. So, pick your poison I guess, because everything technology is a compromise and trade of im the end.
One thing I realized whem looking deep into my new Z6: there is AF (as good as it gets in any modern camera from Nikon Z over Sony to Canon) and there is subject identification. The latter is why the Z6 got so much bad press. Two different things, I don't need the latter at all. So, pick your poison I guess, because everything technology is a compromise and trade of im the end.
Doug Herr
Well-known member
I used to do BIF on film with manual focus and single frame thumb advance:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
For myself, AF became good enough when it was on the sensor and focussed on the bird's eye. AF before that was frustrating.
Last edited: