Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Nikon v Canon 500mm?
Re: Nikon v Canon 500mm?
Richard wrote:
> What I would really like to know is if anyone has been able to compare
> both camera/lens systems, i.e. Canon 500mm. v Nikon 500mm. as regards
> tracking birds in flight?
The AF on the AF-S II Nikkor is much faster than Canon's 500. I'm also
amazed that Canon's $5,500 500/4L costs so much less than the $7,200 500/4
Nikkor. The Nikkor doesn't even have VR. It seems B&H can't keep either on
in stock for very long.
< http :// www .bhphotovideo,com /c/product/234175-USA/Nikon 2131 Telephoto AF S Nikkor 500mm.html>
< http :// www .bhphotovideo,com /c/product/183203-USA/Canon 2532A002 Telephoto EF 500mm f 4 0L.html>
> Certainly more and more sports photographers seem to be changing over
> to Canon.
Cheaper glass?
Rita
Richard wrote:
> What I would really like to know is if anyone has been able to compare
> both camera/lens systems, i.e. Canon 500mm. v Nikon 500mm. as regards
> tracking birds in flight?
The AF on the AF-S II Nikkor is much faster than Canon's 500. I'm also
amazed that Canon's $5,500 500/4L costs so much less than the $7,200 500/4
Nikkor. The Nikkor doesn't even have VR. It seems B&H can't keep either on
in stock for very long.
< http :// www .bhphotovideo,com /c/product/234175-USA/Nikon 2131 Telephoto AF S Nikkor 500mm.html>
< http :// www .bhphotovideo,com /c/product/183203-USA/Canon 2532A002 Telephoto EF 500mm f 4 0L.html>
> Certainly more and more sports photographers seem to be changing over
> to Canon.
Cheaper glass?
Rita
Re: Nikon v Canon 500mm? AF and fps
I suspect you aren't just limited by autofocus, but by frame rate. A high
frame rate is essential to get the peak of the action, whether for sports or
wildlife. I use a Canon 600 f/4 L IS on a Canon EOS 1v, sometimes with a
1.4x or even 2x (AF is maintained). (BTW, this camera uses a bit of
celluloid inside it, which reacts to the light. It is then sloshed through
some nasty chemicals, revealing a picture. Some of you old-timers may
remember it: It's called "film").
I've been watching the digital revolution from afar, waiting for the time
when a camera (I only consider Canon, because I have all the lenses) would
actually be good enough. I think that time has finally come, with the Canon
Mark III. It's the first digital that has a frame rate that I consider
sufficient for wildlife: 9-10 frames per second (depending on focus
setting), just like my 1v. The peak of action may only last 0.1 sec., so
shooting at 3-4 fps will likely miss it. You still might get a nice shot,
but, for example, the eagle's mouth will only be open a sliver, as opposed
to all the way in a dramatic moment.
Of course, AF tracking isn't always perfect, especially with teleconverters.
That's where technique comes in, being able to maintain view of the subject.
I use a Wimberly head, which is needed for a 13-bound lens. I also use a
Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS, but images are not as sharp as with the 600.
--
- Alan Justice
<Richard> wrote in message
news:ugjo7350f7ruqqik6mq4k3tjh2000a87k6@4ax,com ...
> I use a Nikon 500mm F4 ED-EF II lens in conjunction with either a D2Hs
> or D2H body and find it absolutely useless for any wildlife
> photography in motion. It is barely adequate for sports.
>
> It is quite incapable of tracking any bird in flight and is constantly
> jumping in and out of focus. And it will not autofocus with any
> teleconverter.
>
> The same applies to my Nikon 80-200mm F2.8 zoom (converters are OK but
> slow)
>
> I am seriously considering changing to a Canon system, i.e. EOS 1d II
> or III and a 500mm IS lens, despite the crazy white colour (for
> wildlife photography anyway)
>
> Can anyone tell me if Canon lenses are any better at autofocus
> tracking, faster, and do work with teleconverters?
>
> I'm a professional press photographer using Nikon gear for over 40
> years so I have a fair idea of camera equipment. But this lot is
> driving me crazy, with so many missed shots. I would be better off
> with my ancient 600mm F5.6 manual focus lens.
>
> I have sent the 500 lens away for checking and even through the repair
> man couldn't find anything wrong, he did suggest that I might need a
> new motor!
I suspect you aren't just limited by autofocus, but by frame rate. A high
frame rate is essential to get the peak of the action, whether for sports or
wildlife. I use a Canon 600 f/4 L IS on a Canon EOS 1v, sometimes with a
1.4x or even 2x (AF is maintained). (BTW, this camera uses a bit of
celluloid inside it, which reacts to the light. It is then sloshed through
some nasty chemicals, revealing a picture. Some of you old-timers may
remember it: It's called "film").
I've been watching the digital revolution from afar, waiting for the time
when a camera (I only consider Canon, because I have all the lenses) would
actually be good enough. I think that time has finally come, with the Canon
Mark III. It's the first digital that has a frame rate that I consider
sufficient for wildlife: 9-10 frames per second (depending on focus
setting), just like my 1v. The peak of action may only last 0.1 sec., so
shooting at 3-4 fps will likely miss it. You still might get a nice shot,
but, for example, the eagle's mouth will only be open a sliver, as opposed
to all the way in a dramatic moment.
Of course, AF tracking isn't always perfect, especially with teleconverters.
That's where technique comes in, being able to maintain view of the subject.
I use a Wimberly head, which is needed for a 13-bound lens. I also use a
Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS, but images are not as sharp as with the 600.
--
- Alan Justice
<Richard> wrote in message
news:ugjo7350f7ruqqik6mq4k3tjh2000a87k6@4ax,com ...
> I use a Nikon 500mm F4 ED-EF II lens in conjunction with either a D2Hs
> or D2H body and find it absolutely useless for any wildlife
> photography in motion. It is barely adequate for sports.
>
> It is quite incapable of tracking any bird in flight and is constantly
> jumping in and out of focus. And it will not autofocus with any
> teleconverter.
>
> The same applies to my Nikon 80-200mm F2.8 zoom (converters are OK but
> slow)
>
> I am seriously considering changing to a Canon system, i.e. EOS 1d II
> or III and a 500mm IS lens, despite the crazy white colour (for
> wildlife photography anyway)
>
> Can anyone tell me if Canon lenses are any better at autofocus
> tracking, faster, and do work with teleconverters?
>
> I'm a professional press photographer using Nikon gear for over 40
> years so I have a fair idea of camera equipment. But this lot is
> driving me crazy, with so many missed shots. I would be better off
> with my ancient 600mm F5.6 manual focus lens.
>
> I have sent the 500 lens away for checking and even through the repair
> man couldn't find anything wrong, he did suggest that I might need a
> new motor!
Re: Nikon v Canon 500mm? AF and fps
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Alan Justice <spam@spamspamspam.spam> wrote:
> I suspect you aren't just limited by autofocus, but by frame rate. A high
> frame rate is essential to get the peak of the action, whether for sports or
> wildlife.
The machinegun approach to duck hunting. If you fire enough
bullets, aeh, frames, something's gonna get hit.
I was under the mistaken belief that the critical moment was
mostly captured by anticipating it. But now that you mention it,
why don't we all take up film cameras with 24 images/second?
Or even better, high speed cameras with 5000 images/second?
That way, we'd be sure not to miss anything ...
I'll not say that a high frame rate and a deep buffer won't
help, but it's not the end of all troubles.
-Wolfgang
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Alan Justice <spam@spamspamspam.spam> wrote:
> I suspect you aren't just limited by autofocus, but by frame rate. A high
> frame rate is essential to get the peak of the action, whether for sports or
> wildlife.
The machinegun approach to duck hunting. If you fire enough
bullets, aeh, frames, something's gonna get hit.
I was under the mistaken belief that the critical moment was
mostly captured by anticipating it. But now that you mention it,
why don't we all take up film cameras with 24 images/second?
Or even better, high speed cameras with 5000 images/second?
That way, we'd be sure not to miss anything ...
I'll not say that a high frame rate and a deep buffer won't
help, but it's not the end of all troubles.
-Wolfgang
