Field Review of a9 on Birds

A new review:

https://fstoppers.com/animal/field-review-sony-a9-bird-photography-333924

Joe

Yup, the problem is not the camera, the camera may be the most capable bird photography camera once the new FW is released. The problem is that the longest lens is only 400mm

E.J. Peiker wrote:Yup, the problem is not the camera, the camera may be the most capable bird photography camera once the new FW is released.  The problem is that the longest lens is only 400mm

What is your opinion of using the 400f2.8 with the 2x for bird photography? 800mm gets the full frame into the range of decent bird photography, and if an A7000 comes out, they would have the reach. 
The 2x works remarkably well on the 100-400, so I would expect better performance on a prime.
Have you any experience with it, or know those that do?
thanks
Scott

Everyone just hold your horses...the lenses are coming and will be state of the art...question is? can you afford them. I hate using tc's because of loss of light, convenience, and varying degrees of acuity. Before 2020 Olympics, Sony will have a full stable of long halo lenses plus a new sports camera.

Mike in O wrote:Everyone just hold your horses...the lenses are coming and will be state of the art...question is? can you afford them.  I hate using tc's because of loss of light, convenience, and varying degrees of acuity.  Before 2020 Olympics, Sony will have a full stable of long halo lenses plus a new sports camera.

I'm hoping, but the only lens I've heard rumours of is a 200-600.

Scott Fairbairn wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:Yup, the problem is not the camera, the camera may be the most capable bird photography camera once the new FW is released.  The problem is that the longest lens is only 400mm

What is your opinion of using the 400f2.8 with the 2x for bird photography? 800mm gets the full frame into the range of decent bird photography, and if an A7000 comes out, they would have the reach. 
The 2x works remarkably well on the 100-400, so I would expect better performance on a prime.
Have you any experience with it, or know those that do?
thanks
Scott

I haven't tested it on this camera but 2x usually end up with a pretty significant drop in resolution and AF speed.

E.J. Peiker wrote:

Scott Fairbairn wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:Yup, the problem is not the camera, the camera may be the most capable bird photography camera once the new FW is released.  The problem is that the longest lens is only 400mm

What is your opinion of using the 400f2.8 with the 2x for bird photography? 800mm gets the full frame into the range of decent bird photography, and if an A7000 comes out, they would have the reach. 
The 2x works remarkably well on the 100-400, so I would expect better performance on a prime.
Have you any experience with it, or know those that do?
thanks
Scott

I haven't tested it on this camera but 2x usually end up with a pretty significant drop in resolution and AF speed.

I have only shot it with big birds here in Florida but I think you would be impressed with focus acquisition, tracking and image detail.  With the 2x it is only a 5.6 lens.
Mike

Looks like Arthur Morris , after 3 days of shooting birds with Sony a9, 1.4 TC (sometimes) and the Sony 100-400,has thrown over all his practically new Nikon gear for Sony. (He used to be strictly Canon, I believe, until fairly recently). Not thinking of spreading any rumors-it's all there in his blog. (Just happened to see his blog.....not much info there). I haven't seen any small birds -looks like mostly Pelicans. Some look OK, some don't to my eye. I guess time will tell if this works for him and others. For those of us who have recently invested in Nikon, this is a shocker!
I did watch Mark Smith's Fstoppers video that Joe cites at the beginning of this thread -pretty impressive, but he also says, I think, that he's not getting rid of his Nikon gear. Egad, who can afford both? Things are moving so fast in the mirrorless world.....

One thing I have not seen much, though, is Sony/Nikon comparisons in poor light/noise/high ISO performance. That's one thing I find quite disappointing with my Nikon D500. Not to mention (again) small birds in poor light.....

Cynthia Crawford wrote: One thing I have not seen much, though, is Sony/Nikon comparisons in poor light/noise/high ISO performance. That's one thing I find quite disappointing with my Nikon D500. Not to mention (again) small birds in poor light.....

Sony and Nikon use sensors made on the same manufacturing and process technology - all made by Sony or Sony owned subsidiaries so any difference in noise is primarily due to how the camera's image processor handles things like sensor gain, Nikon's image processor is made by Socionext (spin off from Panasonic and Fujitsu) and Sony makes their own, but the sensor data is very similar for cameras that use similar sensors.  In recent cameras, even the way Nikon is handling gain at higher ISO has become very similar to how Sony does it.  So, in the end, for the same given sensor size and pixel density and generation of camera, expect the noise to be very similar.

Cynthia Crawford wrote:Looks like Arthur Morris , after 3 days of shooting birds with Sony a9, 1.4 TC (sometimes) and the Sony 100-400,has  thrown over all his practically new Nikon gear for Sony.  (He used to be strictly Canon, I believe, until fairly recently). Not thinking of spreading any rumors-it's all there in his blog.  (Just happened to see his blog.....not much info there).  I haven't seen any small birds -looks like mostly Pelicans. Some look OK, some don't to my eye.  I guess time will tell if this works for him and others.  For those of us who have recently invested in Nikon, this is a shocker!  
I did watch Mark Smith's Fstoppers video that Joe cites at the beginning of this thread  -pretty impressive, but he also says, I think, that he's not getting rid of his Nikon gear. Egad, who can afford both? Things are moving so fast in the mirrorless world.....

One thing I have not seen much, though, is Sony/Nikon comparisons in poor light/noise/high ISO performance. That's one thing I find quite disappointing with my Nikon D500. Not to mention (again) small birds in poor light.....

No camera is the end all...iso varies with sensor size and focusing in low light is dependent on many factors.  T-stop of the lens, on site or off site (or hybrid) of the focusing system.  Many of the newer mirrorless cameras claim outlandish focusing ability in the dark but what at what f stop?  Not very many tele lenses at f1.2.  I think my 99II is probably the best at -4ev with a f2.8 lens.  Some of the Nikon FF dslr's are near that

To see Arthur Morris drop Canon in favor of Nikon or Sony is quite surprising but given Canon's now more than decade of being behind the sensor curve I guess he had to jump ship sometime. I wonder if they are lining up to sponsor him -- he's got to be getting up there in age now. Not that age should be a factor other than not being as able to go to some places a younger photog might.

I'm also not sure of what his income is these days, but back away's he had to have been one of the highest earners if only for the teaching and tours he provided. Still, dropping $100K or thereabouts for three bodies and the usual outfit of lenses and accessories can't be easy to swing.


Brian

Brian Stirling wrote:To see Arthur Morris drop Canon in favor of Nikon or Sony is quite surprising but given Canon's now more than decade of being behind the sensor curve I guess he had to jump ship sometime.  I wonder if they are lining up to sponsor him --

I would not rule out they paid him to use their gears. Having Artie on their side just good for business. You know, he does not have to show you any of his failed photos. Back then Photoshop guy Scott Kelby dropped Nikon for Canon was also a shocker to many, given that Nikon actually used better sensors with better dynamic range. Rumours had it that Canon had been after Scott Kelby for quite a while and so they finally got him.

DChan wrote:

Brian Stirling wrote:To see Arthur Morris drop Canon in favor of Nikon or Sony is quite surprising but given Canon's now more than decade of being behind the sensor curve I guess he had to jump ship sometime.  I wonder if they are lining up to sponsor him --

I would not rule out they paid him to use their gears. Having Artie on their side just good for business. You know, he does not have to show you any of his failed photos. Back then Photoshop guy Scott Kelby dropped Nikon for Canon was also a shocker to many, given that Nikon actually used better sensors with better dynamic range. Rumours had it that Canon had been after Scott Kelby for quite a while and so they finally got him.

What is that supposed to mean?  EJ is now connected with Sony, do you think that has any bearing with his reviews?

Cynthia Crawford wrote:One thing I have not seen much, though, is Sony/Nikon comparisons in poor light/noise/high ISO performance. That's one thing I find quite disappointing with my Nikon D500. Not to mention (again) small birds in poor light.....

Have you compared the D500 to the D750? It(D750) sounds pretty good according to this article, but I really don’t know.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-d750/5

The rest of the article is here but I don’t how recent it is.

Joe

Poor Artie, no 800mm Sony lens yet!

Joe

Mike in O wrote:

DChan wrote:

Brian Stirling wrote:To see Arthur Morris drop Canon in favor of Nikon or Sony is quite surprising but given Canon's now more than decade of being behind the sensor curve I guess he had to jump ship sometime.  I wonder if they are lining up to sponsor him --

I would not rule out they paid him to use their gears. Having Artie on their side just good for business. You know, he does not have to show you any of his failed photos. Back then Photoshop guy Scott Kelby dropped Nikon for Canon was also a shocker to many, given that Nikon actually used better sensors with better dynamic range. Rumours had it that Canon had been after Scott Kelby for quite a while and so they finally got him.

What is that supposed to mean?  EJ is now connected with Sony, do you think that has any bearing with his reviews?

I don't know what you are thinking, Mr Mike, about what I said above. But if you're asking if, in general, I will believe everything one of those associates say about the products of whatever manufacturer they are associated with, yes, I will not. I consider them one of the references. You know, just like what they teach you in school before you write your papers: read materials different sources and draw your own conclusions.

Mike in O wrote:

DChan wrote:

Brian Stirling wrote:To see Arthur Morris drop Canon in favor of Nikon or Sony is quite surprising but given Canon's now more than decade of being behind the sensor curve I guess he had to jump ship sometime.  I wonder if they are lining up to sponsor him --

I would not rule out they paid him to use their gears. Having Artie on their side just good for business. You know, he does not have to show you any of his failed photos. Back then Photoshop guy Scott Kelby dropped Nikon for Canon was also a shocker to many, given that Nikon actually used better sensors with better dynamic range. Rumours had it that Canon had been after Scott Kelby for quite a while and so they finally got him.

What is that supposed to mean?  EJ is now connected with Sony, do you think that has any bearing with his reviews?

I have no affiliation with Sony whatsoever other than being part of their Sony Imaging Pro Services which I pay them for to get expedited repairs and loaners in case of extended downtime - essentially the same thing as being a CPS member for Canon shooters.

SantaFeJoe wrote:

Cynthia Crawford wrote:One thing I have not seen much, though, is Sony/Nikon comparisons in poor light/noise/high ISO performance. That's one thing I find quite disappointing with my Nikon D500. Not to mention (again) small birds in poor light.....

Have you compared the D500 to the D750? It(D750) sounds pretty good according to this article, but I really don’t know.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-d750/5

The rest of the article is here but I don’t how recent it is.

Joe

The D750 doesn't hold a candle to a D500 for AF, especially for things like small fleeting subjects (D500, D850 and D5, all of share a similar AF system although there are some modes missing on the D850 and D500 but it's the same AF system from a hardware perspective). 

E.J. Peiker wrote:

Mike in O wrote:

DChan wrote:

Brian Stirling wrote:To see Arthur Morris drop Canon in favor of Nikon or Sony is quite surprising but given Canon's now more than decade of being behind the sensor curve I guess he had to jump ship sometime.  I wonder if they are lining up to sponsor him --

I would not rule out they paid him to use their gears. Having Artie on their side just good for business. You know, he does not have to show you any of his failed photos. Back then Photoshop guy Scott Kelby dropped Nikon for Canon was also a shocker to many, given that Nikon actually used better sensors with better dynamic range. Rumours had it that Canon had been after Scott Kelby for quite a while and so they finally got him.

What is that supposed to mean?  EJ is now connected with Sony, do you think that has any bearing with his reviews?

I have no affiliation with Sony whatsoever other than being part of their Sony Imaging Pro Services which I pay them for to get expedited repairs and loaners in case of extended downtime - essentially the same thing as being a CPS member for Canon shooters.

Sorry I thought you were an "Ambassador of Light"
edit:  mixed up w/ Canon, I think Sony is artisan

E.J. Peiker wrote:

SantaFeJoe wrote:

Cynthia Crawford wrote:One thing I have not seen much, though, is Sony/Nikon comparisons in poor light/noise/high ISO performance. That's one thing I find quite disappointing with my Nikon D500. Not to mention (again) small birds in poor light.....

Have you compared the D500 to the D750? It(D750) sounds pretty good according to this article, but I really don’t know.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-d750/5

The rest of the article is here but I don’t how recent it is.

Joe

The D750 doesn't hold a candle to a D500 for AF, especially for things like small fleeting subjects (D500, D850 and D5, all of share a similar AF system although there are some modes missing on the D850 and D500 but it's the same AF system from a hardware perspective). 

I was only referring to the poor light/noise/high ISO, not AF.

Joe