Equipment Advice

[jaree2]

Looking for advice on some equipment upgrades - this forum has been incredibly helpful with great insight and information

I have been a Canon shooter for a long time, but have recently been looking to upgrade and change gear. I've been shooting the last few years with a Canon 70D and 100-400 IS II lens. I've been been very happy with my setup for many years, but would like to take the opportunity to upgrade as I feel there have been exciting developments in the mirrorless and full-frame worlds.

As a background, I mostly shoot birds, some BIF, but mostly portrait. I shoot other wildlife and occasional landscapes as well. My wife and I love to travel, and usually attempt to get off the beaten path at least a few times a year.

As a result, while we do shoot in open spaces, I often find myself in dimmer lighting (forests, dawn/dusk) hunting subjects. I've lost a lot of shots as a result of maxing out the capabilities of my current gear.

I realize a modern camera will not miraculously make up for poor lighting, long aperture lenses, or poor technique, but I'd love to take advantage of some of the newer technology. However, it often seems the more I research, the less I seem to know.

I feel like I've largely narrowed down to a few options and would love some advice:

Sony A9 w/ 100-400 GM +/- 1.4 teleconverter - The a9 offers some awesome wildlife perks with frame rate, low light performance seems to be good as well. I primarily worry about reach with full frame or mirrorless, but the 1.4 teleconverter would give me flexibility and seems to compare to the 200-600 from what I have read. I also feel like the price will be dropping if the a9ii releases in the next few months.

Nikon D850 w/ Nikkor 200-500 VR - Seems to get rave reviews for wildlife/bird photography. Low light performance seems very good - 42 MP would give me cropping flexibility, but my impression is this will increase noise at higher ISOs, which I find needing often with condition and lens choices.

Thank you in advance for all your help, I really appreciate the time, experience, and advice individuals on this forum have to offer.

A few examples where I feel an improved dynamic range or ISO performance would have helped me capture a better image after processing:

Colombia (157 of 1) by Jack Reese, on Flickr

Colombia (93 of 169) by Jack Reese, on Flickr

Colombia (83 of 169) by Jack Reese, on Flickr

 

[Jeff15]

Some very nice shots, you seem to be doing fine with the gear you have.............

 

[Soocom1]

I wouldn't change, and keep the money for a new lens like the 28-300 or even a 500mm F4L

 

[jaree2]

I love the versatility of the 100-400; as much as I drool over a big prime lens, it wouldn’t be quite as convenient for rough travel.

I really enjoy the posted pictures, but they don’t hold up beyond medium thumbnails. Being able to minimize noise at higher ISOs and save some detail in underexposed shots in post would be really valuable for most of the shooting conditions I experience. However, I’ll miss the reach of an aps-c.

 

[ebyelyakov]

I own the Sony R3 and love it. Some weeks ago I played with the A9 (including the venerable f4/600 bazooka) and I was truly blown away with the AF performance of A9. It is perfect with R3 but just magical with A9. And since then, they released the latest firmware offering animal-eye AF that sounds of a particular use to you, considering the things you shoot.

I wish I could play with the R-IV to compare its greatly improved everything, including the new sensor.. That appears to be of the same keen used in Fuji GFX100 and Phase One IQ150 -- all three have the same pixel pitch at 3.76um (if memory serves me right)

The 200-600 lens, is G only, so AF performance and overall light performance should be expected to be under, compared to the 100400GM. the 1.4 TF and 100400 is probably going to be a better option....

 

[Derrel]

I looked at your pictures and my feeling is that you need a camera with a significantly better-performing sensor. Your images are fine but upon closer examination, one can see too much noise and a lack of resolution. Your field craft appears to be decent, since I can tell that these were taken from not that far away. I do think that a more advanced camera than the current 70D that you have would help you.

 

[Designer]

Nikon D850 w/ Nikkor 200-500 VR - Seems to get rave reviews for wildlife/bird photography. Low light performance seems very good - 42 MP would give me cropping flexibility, but my impression is this will increase noise at higher ISOs, which I find needing often with condition and lens choices.

Taking Derrel's suggestion, and if you can afford the D850 and the excellent, and under-priced Nikkor 200-500 VR, then get that. You'll have a much better sensor and a superb birding lens. If I could afford it, that is what I would choose.

Also, quit fooling with the ISO setting.

 

[jaree2]

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate the advice - I was leaning toward the Nikon setup, this has been very helpful.

From everything I’ve found, low light performance of the D850 is quite good, but will the higher MP count significantly effect noise at higher ISO? Otherwise, I love the idea of cropping flexibility this would offer.

Thanks again for the guidance.

 

[Designer]

..will the higher MP count significantly effect noise at higher ISO?

A higher MP count will not, in and of itself affect noise. The signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) is what affects digital noise, and the technology is continually improving, so the newer sensor in the D850 will generate less noise than some older sensor.

There is, however, one more factor to consider with so many MP, and that is the file size. Be sure to have a fast, high-powered computer for editing.

 

[jaree2]

Great to know, thanks so much for the help.

 

[Derrel]

The idea that a higher megapixel count will necessarily or automatically lead to higher noise levels is perhaps an idea that is around 10 years behind the times. For example the Nikon D610 which uses a 24 megapixel sensor performs better at high ISO then did the Nikon D700 which was a 12 megapixel camera, and the Nikon D800 which uses a 36 megapixel sensor create files which are to my eye virtually indistinguishable( in terms of noise level at elevated ISO) from those created by the lower megapixel sensor of the D610.

We need to consider specific cameras and their generation of sensor.

 

[RVT1K]

Are you looking to buy new or used?
I'm a huge fan of my D4...very good low light performance, fast frame rate, and built like a tank. Granted, not the same pixel count but your focus needs to be spot-on to take advantage of the cropping flexibility you've mentioned.

 

[Terry L]

Very nice, Jack.

 

[Solarflare]

A higher MP count will not, in and of itself affect noise.

Oh yes it does.

The smaller the pixels, the less light per pixel, and thus the higher the shot noise of the light.

And if you fit more pixels into the same space, logically the pixels will have to shrink.

The signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) is what affects digital noise, and the technology is continually improving,

Efficiency can never raise above 100%.

 

[Designer]

A higher MP count will not, in and of itself affect noise.

Oh yes it does.

Given the same size sensor area,

more MP will not, in and of itself, affect noise.

Which is what his question was about.

Where did I intimate that sensor technology would eventually exceed 100%?