Thom’s Safari with Only Mirrorless

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/2019-mirrorless-camera/july-september-2019-mirrorl/a-nikon-mirrorless-safari.html

Joe

Quite frankly, mirrorless has been safari ready for probably 5 years but now that Canon and Nikon have mirrorless offerings, more of the traditionally Canikon entrenched photographers are starting to come around.

As an interesting aside, I just got back from Greenland on a ship with 20 photographers, this was the equipment breakdown:

Sony - 6 (all a7R3 as primary camera)
Nikon - 6 (5 with D850 and one with Z6 as primary camera)
Canon - 4 (1 with 5DSR, 1 with 1DX2, 1 with 5D4 and one with EOS R as primary camera)
Olympus - 2 (both with EM1X as primary camera)
Leica - 2 (1 with M10 and one with a Leica/Panasonic superzoom compact as primary camera)

There were other backup cameras such as a7R2, D500, 5D3, and EM1 II

Of the primary cameras, out of 20, 12 were mirrorless.  Interestingly and surprisingly there were no Fuji cameras although i was on the fence about taking the GFX system but in the end decided that the need for the 400mm focal length overshadowed the higher image quality of the GFX-50 to the a7R3.

The one thing he mentions near the end of the article about focus implies that he feels that Nikon focuses more accurately when motion is involved, in his experience, than Sony. Probably a huge factor on safari, if correct. He also mentioned that he would have preferred the Sony 100-400 over the Nikon 500.

Joe

SantaFeJoe wrote:The one thing he mentions near the end of the article about focus implies that he feels that Nikon focuses more accurately when motion is involved, in his experience, than Sony. Probably a huge factor on safari, if correct. He also mentioned that he would have preferred the Sony 100-400 over the Nikon 500.

Joe

My bet would be that at least part of it is his lack of experience in getting the most out of the Sony AF system relative to his Nikon experience.  The Sony AF system and options are drastically more complex than Nikons and chosing the right options is crucial.  There are plenty of others, including Nikon to Sony converts that say the opposite.  In the end, either is capable of incredible imagery that is properly focused. 

E.J. Peiker wrote:My bet would be that at least part of it is his lack of experience in getting the most out of the Sony AF system relative to his Nikon experience. 

Your bet would be wrong, though I'm now starting to use the Nikon Z's more than the A7/A9.

I've been very consistent in how I write about the Sony AF. It's good, but it's not pinpoint accurate in AF-C bursts. It appears to drift around where the plane of focus should be. The Nikons don't do that. The Z's have a different problem than Sony: they will break to a bright, contrasty background unannounced if you manage to get a focus sensor will zilch contrast in a burst.

When released, many of the u tubers complained about the Z's focusing abilities. Interesting to see a Nikon man say the opposite.

SantaFeJoe wrote:The one thing he mentions near the end of the article about focus implies that he feels that Nikon focuses more accurately when motion is He also mentioned that he would have preferred the Sony 100-400 over the Nikon 500.

Joe

That's inaccurate. I mentioned that HAD I been shooting with the Sony, I would have likely used the 100-400mm. I do NOT prefer it over the 500mm. Moreover, that would be a strange apples-versus-oranges kind of comparison to start with (zoom versus prime, regular lens design versus PF).

Unfortunately, I have no experience yet with the Sony 200-600mm, nor does Sony have anything other than the 400mm as a serious wildlife prime. Thus the reason why I'd have picked the 100-400mm.

Just to be fair: Nikon's 80-400mm is quite weak these days. If it WERE a contest between picking it or the Sony 100-400mm, a more apples-to-apples comparison, I'd pick the Sony, and clearly so. Of course, if were to make it a contest between the Nikkor 180-400mm and the Sony 100-400mm, I'd probably pick the Nikkor, but again that's a bit of an apples-versus-oranges comparison. It's the quality at 400mm f/4 and instant TC that makes the Nikkor so desirable, but it's a bigger, heavier, more expensive lens than the Sony.

Mike in O wrote:When released, many of the u tubers complained about the Z's focusing abilities.  Interesting to see a Nikon man say the opposite.

Not sure I'd call myself a Nikon man. These days I shoot a wide variety of gear, and I'm not sure I have a brand preference. If you want to call me a Nikon expert, sure, I'll take that. Hard to deny that after having written so many books on Nikon cameras. However, note that I've started writing Sony books ;~).

thom wrote:

SantaFeJoe wrote:The one thing he mentions near the end of the article about focus implies that he feels that Nikon focuses more accurately when motion is He also mentioned that he would have preferred the Sony 100-400 over the Nikon 500.

Joe

That's inaccurate. I mentioned that HAD I been shooting with the Sony, I would have likely used the 100-400mm. I do NOT prefer it over the 500mm. Moreover, that would be a strange apples-versus-oranges kind of comparison to start with (zoom versus prime, regular lens design versus PF).

Unfortunately, I have no experience yet with the Sony 200-600mm, nor does Sony have anything other than the 400mm as a serious wildlife prime. Thus the reason why I'd have picked the 100-400mm.

Just to be fair: Nikon's 80-400mm is quite weak these days. If it WERE a contest between picking it or the Sony 100-400mm, a more apples-to-apples comparison, I'd pick the Sony, and clearly so. Of course, if were to make it a contest between the Nikkor 180-400mm and the Sony 100-400mm, I'd probably pick the Nikkor, but again that's a bit of an apples-versus-oranges comparison. It's the quality at 400mm f/4 and instant TC that makes the Nikkor so desirable, but it's a bigger, heavier, more expensive lens than the Sony.

I guess you don't consider the 600f4 to be a wildlife lens?

Mike in O wrote:I guess you don't consider the 600f4 to be a wildlife lens?

He never said one way or the other. However the Sony 600 F4 if he had access to one, like his Nikon 500 F4 and Nikon 400 F2.8, weren't considered for this trip. He states that he very much wanted to travel light for the trip in terms of equipment while staying full frame. None of these lenses would mean traveling light by any definition of the word light that you'd like to use.

Anthony Medici wrote:

Mike in O wrote:I guess you don't consider the 600f4 to be a wildlife lens?

He never said one way or the other. However the Sony 600 F4 if he had access to one, like his Nikon 500 F4 and Nikon 400 F2.8, weren't considered for this trip. He states that he very much wanted to travel light for the trip in terms of equipment while staying full frame. None of these lenses would mean traveling light by any definition of the word light that you'd like to use.

Compared to the Nikon boat anchor 600, the Sony is a full 2lbs. lighter and you don't need an adapter.

thom wrote:

SantaFeJoe wrote:The one thing he mentions near the end of the article about focus implies that he feels that Nikon focuses more accurately when motion is He also mentioned that he would have preferred the Sony 100-400 over the Nikon 500.

Joe

That's inaccurate. I mentioned that HAD I been shooting with the Sony, I would have likely used the 100-400mm. I do NOT prefer it over the 500mm. Moreover, that would be a strange apples-versus-oranges kind of comparison to start with (zoom versus prime, regular lens design versus PF.

What you wrote was:

“I probably would have picked the Sony 100-400mm lens instead of the Nikkor 500mm, giving up some reach for flexibility.”

That has nothing to do with apples vs. oranges(lens quality wise), but rather flexibility of a zoom vs. a fixed lens(and maybe that’s apples to oranges if you think of it that way). At least that’s the way I interpret it.

Joe

Mike in O wrote: Compared to the Nikon boat anchor 600, the Sony is a full 2lbs. lighter and you don't need an adapter.

Then the Sony 600mm F4 would have only weighed in as much as both lenses he ended up bringing on the trip. That’s certainly better than the Nikon version yet it is still quite large, bulky and twice the weight the Nikon 500 PF that he used instead.

Well now that we have Thom's attention  I love my 500PF and would never travel overseas a traditional 600/4 or even 500/4 again unless they figure out how to make them 3lbs and am wondering how it performs with the FTZ adapter in AF-C tracking a moving subject?

Anthony Medici wrote:

Mike in O wrote: Compared to the Nikon boat anchor 600, the Sony is a full 2lbs. lighter and you don't need an adapter.

Then the Sony 600mm F4 would have only weighed in as much as both lenses he ended up bringing on the trip. That’s certainly better than the Nikon version yet it is still quite large, bulky and twice the weight the Nikon 500 PF that he used instead.

That 500 PF is a sweet lens but being 5.6 can be limiting.

Mike in O wrote:

Anthony Medici wrote:

Mike in O wrote: Compared to the Nikon boat anchor 600, the Sony is a full 2lbs. lighter and you don't need an adapter.

Then the Sony 600mm F4 would have only weighed in as much as both lenses he ended up bringing on the trip. That’s certainly better than the Nikon version yet it is still quite large, bulky and twice the weight the Nikon 500 PF that he used instead.

That 500 PF is a sweet lens but being 5.6 can be limiting.

I always stopped down my 500/4 a bit as it was noticeably sharper at 5.6 than 4 but that isn't the case for the 500PF which is very sharp wide open.  The limiting thing for me with the 500PF is that the AF-C with a 1.4x is very much degraded where it was only slightly degraded with the 500/4+1.4x.

How well does the 500 PF take teleconverters? Here is a thread on FM using 2x with the 200/600. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1612951

Mike in O wrote:How well does the 500 PF take teleconverters?  Here is a thread on FM using 2x with the 200/600.  https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1612951

Optically it's fine, especially stopped down a third of a stop but as I said, the AF is compromised for lock-on and tracking a moving subject like a bird against a non-sky background compared to the 500/4+1.4x

Mike in O wrote:How well does the 500 PF take teleconverters?  Here is a thread on FM using 2x with the 200/600.  https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1612951

Above, you said f5.6 can be limiting, but if you look at the images on your link, most are at f16! How limiting is that?

Joe

SantaFeJoe wrote:

Mike in O wrote:How well does the 500 PF take teleconverters?  Here is a thread on FM using 2x with the 200/600.  https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1612951

Above, you said f5.6 can be limiting, but if you look at the images on your link, most are at f16! How limiting is that?

Joe

You don't have to shoot w/ TC's....the 200/600 is even slower than the 500 PF, it is 6.3 at 600 but that is the price of a slow zoom.  Give me my 500 & 600 f4's and the ability to shoot wide open if the circumstances demand it.  My 600 is a real boat anchor (12lbs.) but my 500 comes in at 7lbs.  Can the Z's AF at f16?  I know my A mounts can't (6.7 max unless it is the 500 reflex which will focus at f8).  Travelling in airplanes has really narrowed the lenses we can take.