Видео

Yea I hear you. I ultimately ended up switching from Fuji. I didn’t think the autofocus was up to the task. Nice to see they released the 500mm prime though. Hopefully they keep developing.

I don’t think weight and quality is an argument anymore tbh. There are lots of full frame options giving the same reach for the same weight and aperture. The canon r8 with the 200-800 lens is a good example.

I love ai, I think there are lots of awesome usage. But yea, I think most people would prefer to see something real and will get tired of being duped.

Thanks man, I’m glad I got some photos but yea; losing him really made me look at photography more as a hobby capturing things and people I want to remember

Glad it’s helpful! Honestly I never really fiddled with it. I always found it was hitting enough that I didn’t have to change much. I’ve recently moved back to the s5ii full time and the g9ii definitely had a snappier autofocus.

I mean, it’s hard to beat a 400 2.8 I don’t think there’s a such thing as an upgrade from there. The new Nikon 400 with the built in teleconverter is super cool. If there’s one piece of advice I can give is that you can’t shoot things farther away effectively with a longer lens, it just makes them bigger. I do love shooting at 800mm for small songbirds but honestly you can probably just put a 2x teleconverter on your prime and be all set. The 400mm 4.5 is an amazing lens for when you want something lightweight. The 800 5.6 is still big, I wouldn’t ever pick that over a 400 2.8 personally.

Glad it was helpful!

Glad it was helpful! I’m no longer in the Fuji system and don’t really recommend it for wildlife if you’re choosing which way to go. But if you’re already a committed Fuji shooter, the newer cameras are a big improvement over the old ones.

@@heymikeriley I’m not committed yet, trying to for hire out what system to go with. I looked at Fuji and Sony as a starting point but I’d be super interested to hear your recommendation since I haven’t made a purchase yet ….

@@joec33 honestly depends what you’re looking for. The canon r8 is hard to beat. With either the 800f11 or 200-800 f9 if you’ve got a bigger budget. I’m currently shooting the Lumix g9ii which beats the heck out of most stuff I’ve shot. Pairing it with the 100-400 mkii, or the Olympus 300mm f4. The Lumix kit would be smaller and better video. The canon kit would have the full frame image benefits. Sony doesn’t make anything in those price and feature points to be competitive and neither does Nikon.

I didn’t own it for long, but it’s a really interesting lens when you find it cheap. Huge, heavy, slow, but definitely has the potential for some beautiful images if you can work with it.

Yea honestly I’ve been thinking about if I miss anything from other kits and the answer has been no. I’m more than happy with the image quality and the compact size has been a game changer for me. I did buy an s5ii for full frame portrait lenses, but even that was more of a luxury than a necessity. I sadly had to put one of my dogs to sleep this week, and my favourite photo of him from the last year was on the g9ii with the 75mm Olympus lens. I’ve got lots of apsc Fuji shots of him that I love too. Yes, the full frame lens tests I’ve got of his face over the years are nice, they’ve got more bokeh etc. but when I’m sitting here missing my buddy and looking at photos that move me, the last thing I care about is the bokeh.

Glad to hear!

I didn’t know they squabbled like this until I captured it haha

Always liked editing in C1 but the adobe ai tools always bring me back

Yea I never really saw it either. I’m shooting Lumix now at 25 megapixels give or take and I don’t really notice vs the 45 I had on the z9 directly before this. High megapixels are a weird thing. you need the right lens and right conditions. In wildlife, people mistake high megapixels for the ability to shoot farther away and crop in and that’s just not true. If you’re already close enough to get the detail then the high Rez cameras can let you crop more. But if you’re that close with the right lens, you don’t need to crop that much anyways.

If you’re going to rent a lens, get the 150-600 for sure. I’ve never been in safari but they say that you also want a shorter lens so you might want to track down something like the 16-55 etc.

It really is!

Yea, Sony/Nikon/Canon prices were a big factor in going to Lumix, even on the full frame side. The bodies and lenses are just wildly overpriced.

Well for one, you can’t really trust sharpness on RUclips compression. But yes, the 100-400ii is absolutely just as sharp as the rf200-800. And that was just as sharp as the Fuji 200-800. I don’t really care about lab tests, but it in the real world, they’re all sharp lenses. The Fuji lens is lighter than the canon which was a win. The Lumix is way smaller and lighter than both, cheaper than both and fits in a tiny bag as a daily carry. That’s why it’s easily my choice. I personally wouldn’t use an 800mm lens on an apsc body and while the r8 gives you a bit more leeway in low light, I sold the 200-809 because I thought it was too big and I didn’t like using it. Not to say there’s something wrong with it, but I wanted a very portable wildlife kit and m43 did that better. I still very much like the xh2s, but the video tracking autofocus wasn’t reliable for animals so that made wildlife filming pretty tough. The canon and Lumix kits have been way better. I’d say the Lumix is better video autofocus and the canon is better stills, but they both work fine. I’d only switch from m43 for wildlife purposes if I knew I’d be shooting on a tripod at a hide or something.

@@heymikeriley Thank you for this feedback and sharing your different experiences with these different brands! The weight argument is indeed a very important argument! I'm going to look into renting the 100-400ii to do a comparison test with my 200-800. The GH7 particularly appeals to me with access to the ARRI LOG C3! I wish you lots of fun photographing in nature. Best, Ludovic

Yea sadly my library management was bad and most of the 200-800 shots I took in the month I owned the lens got deleted lol. Nothing of note, but would have been handy for image quality tests. Honestly the lens results are very similar. So close that I don’t think it matters. Form and function is where they differ. If I still shot canon, the 200-800 is a great option. I’d much prefer a smaller, lighter, cheaper lens like the Lumix though. Today I had a snake outside my office and was shooting it at 800mm from 4’ away, that’s pretty cool to be able to do. And it really compresses the background nicely too. But then, you’ve got to be comfortable using micro four thirds to get away with a lens that small. But the options are nice to have at least!

@@heymikeriley Thank you for this additional information! Best, Ludovic

Glad you liked it! Working on lots more Lumix content!

Way ahead of every Fuji. Way ahead of old Nikons. Feels about the same as the r5. Probably a bit behind faster systems like the r6ii. It’s definitely very good!

Yea everyone definitely has to get gear that suits their needs. I love shooting my z9 and 500 f4 when it all lined up, but it was just too big and unwieldy most of the time. When I had an accident and damaged it, I really had to think about what I valued in a replacement kit. I think it also comes down to subject. If I were shooting mammals, I’d probably look to a full frame and 400-500mm lens. But I mainly shoot songbirds and need 800-1000mm. The canon 200-800 is a great lens, but I’d take the Lumix kit any day personally.

He has too many ticks. Not coming in this house.

Definitely a great kit, glad you’re loving the z8!

@heymikeriley I am glad that you are back in the wildlife game and was sad to hear about your Z9. I have until the end of the month to get insurance for drops and spills from B&H, so I think in retrospect to your mishap that I need to get this for peace of mind. I'll stay tuned for more because it's not just about the camera it's about the content.

If I ever come across someone with the OM lens I’ll definitely compare!

Hey now, take Canon’s corporate motto and get outta here

@@heymikeriley you did say only comment if you can back it up....

@@_mattparish send frog pics

@@heymikeriley saving that for my RUclips channel

I’ll be your first sub <3

I’d say so

@@heymikeriley thank you: the first version is stiff!

@stevenunez I’ve never used it but I’ve heard it can be pretty tight. Mkii isn’t loose or tight. I’ve had a lot of zooms over the years and this feels the same as any other one I’ve had no issues with. Light enough that it doesn’t creep, but still easy to turn.

Honestly a lot of lenses give you the light advantage right back too. Maybe not on portrait equivalents, but in shooting a zoom at 800 6.3 when the canon 800s are f9 or f11. Or the 400 equivalent zoom at 2.8. Price and weight wise, it really works out!

You’re talking at 300mm with a 2x teleconverter? I’m pretty confident saying that would stink. I know a very talented shooter who has the 2x and it’s totally unusable on the lens for any semblance of image quality. I do like the 1.4 for video usage but have yet to get a still image that felt decent with it. I would say you can comfortably crop the lens to 600mm in most cases. I definitely try not tk go farther than that.

@@heymikeriley Thanks! that saves me a lot of work. Just looking for these teleconverters on ebay is a pain haha. I’ll skip it then.

@@dasaenI’ve shot 2x teleconverters on many lenses, from low to mid to high end. I’ve only ever found them acceptable on a 300 2.8 prime. Most 1.4s have been solid but I’d definitely skip a 2x. Glad to help!

My tests of the 100-400 is that it loses sharpness when the subject falls outside of 50m at the far end (400mm). 2xTC only amplifies the softness and you are also getting into diffraction territory wide open. TC is not advisable.

My tests of the 100-400 is that it loses sharpness when the subject falls outside of 50m at the far end (400mm). 2xTC only amplifies the softness and you are also getting into diffraction territory wide open. TC is not advisable.

Definitely lots of similarities, but the Lumix has one big advantage. When you buy it, you don’t have to shoot a Sony 👀

Would def rather have some zoom potential than not, but I’d say the 60-600 sigma is the dream zoom range for usability

Ah sorry I don’t have anywhere to host at the moment. If there’s enough demand I’ll look into getting something for future gear comparisons though.

​@heymikeriley you can just create a Dropbox link to a folder for image viewing

@@_mattparish or Flickr

I’d say it’s both, the shallower depth of field helps a bit, the lens is sharper, it renders better. I’m finding that up to 100% crops the 200mm is still delivering a sharper image but sometimes with less compression. They’re definitely both very capable and very different lenses. My summary advice, someone should buy whatever one suits their needs better. If one broke and I only had the other, I’d be fine getting results, so that reassures me for sure!

Way harder than I anticipated haha

An insane amount lol. But when you’re used to buying and selling, it’s pretty easy. Usually when I decide to switch systems, I have all of my gear sold within a week.

It’s amazing how kids eat into your hobby time haha

Incorrect! The aperature is always the same no matter how big the sensor is.

​@@richardfink7666yes but the fov is absolutely comparable to f8-13.

@@Jay-sr8ge That`s true but that can also be an advantage!

The fov really doesn’t matter. That’s what I was getting at. Whether you’re shooting f9 or f6.3 with f13 dof equivalence, or f11 on the rf800. They’re all slow lenses. If you want smooth backgrounds with any of them, you have to compose a smooth background. If you do, f13 doesn’t matter. If you don’t, f9 won’t save ya.

@@heymikeriley Mike what you mean is that, indeed, f/4-f/5.6 is "faster" than Canon f/6.3-f/9 (by about 1.3 stops). In terms of EXPOSURE - all else equal, the Panasonic can run FASTER shutters than the Canon at a given ISO (reducing the ISO advantage of FF in that sense by an equal 1.3 stops). In terms of "equivalence", both lenses have a similar FOV and similar DOF. That is to say, they produce similar images. People confuse the fact that compression, and not just aperture, is what is "smashing" the background. Smaller sensors give up compression to match a given FOV, while larger sensors (like medium format), will have MORE compression for a given FOV. The benefit of MFT is, as you know, that lenses can generally be smaller. The wider aperture compensates for losing some compression. To make sure we don't hurt the feelings of those who spent more money, and carry more weight, we should say that, at the of the day, larger sensors and necessarily larger glass usually produces higher quality photos because surface area = more total light. But IMO that is more relevant to those that print large images, or those needing maximum quality out of a variety of crops that might be taken out of an image. I'm guessing 99% of people on the internet don't print. If they did, they'd know that iPhones make perfectly acceptable 4x6 images. But as you go larger, the benefits of the bigger sensors are more and more obvious.

Ya that’s interesting for sure, but 1.7 is a big deal. I’ve already been doing Astro with it, lots of indoor video etc. while they may have a similar dof, the 1.7 is really nice for shooting in low light for sure.

@@heymikeriley It's fast on a small image circle for Micro Four-thirds. the light-gathering ability is still equivalent to a f/3.4 full-frame.

@@Horrrrrrrrst sure, but exposure is exposure. Regardless of the sensor size, if your aperture is 1.7, you can offset your other exposure triangle components. This lens in particular is giving up depth of field for sure, but I’m able to shoot higher shutter speeds inside my house at low light vs the full frame lenses I’ve had.

Glad it’s helpful! The Fuji lens basically fits the description of the rf200-800 for me in the sense that I found it too big to carry around all the time. Granted, the Fuji lens is a much more comfortable lens to carry weight wise. I was and still am a big fan of that lens if someone is looking for a good Fuji option. The g9ii buffer is overblown. Yes, it does take forever to write the buffer to the card. But it also has a way, way bigger buffer than most cameras. If you hold down the shutter nonstop, it’s going to buffer out. But I’m about 10,000 shots into it so far and haven’t hit the buffer yet. I usually shoot 20fps raw and rattle off 5-10 frames every time I shoot. If I’m shooting action, I’ll do longer bursts but still take little breaks. Hasn’t caused me any problems yet. If I were specifically shooting action, I’d probably prefer the smaller jpg file sizes and shoot that instead of if I were having an issue.

​@@heymikeriley I get it - the Fuji is 100% a two-handed lens, even if it is relatively light and well balanced. With kids, you will not be shooting it one-handed. Mine is either in my hand, on a black-rapid strap, or in a backpack depending on what I'm doing. I've looking at cotton carriers or that peak design clip thing, but not pulled the trigger. If I knew I was going to nail the shot, I would shoot JPEG more often myself since it deepens the buffer and shortens workflow. But frankly it is impossible to know in advance if I'll be 100% happy with the exposure/noise reduction/sharpness/color/film sim/white balance that I've selected. That said, if I nail a shot in very good/high quality light, I am more than happy to just apply a film sim to the in-camera RAW with whatever tweaks and spit out a file, because the Fuji colors are often stunning. The main problem I have is with the resulting file size - a typical Large/Fine Fuji file is actually pretty darn big. So my option is to throw away megapixels (but what if I want a large print?). In C1 or LR I get excellent quality full resolution (after any crop anyway) JPEGs roughly 1/3rd or 1/4th the file size. Not to mention, I can STRAIGHTEN the image! Imagine that Fuji - a straight image! Can you hear me? I want to straighten in-camera! I also want compression algorithms built-in to manage file size/quality trade-off. You can't tell me they cannot do that - these beasts can already spit out "lossless" RAWs after all, at a million FPS.

Yea honestly I was in the same boat. I desperately wanted to shoot sigma mirrorless lenses but wasn’t gelling with the price of the Sony bodies that I liked so I looked at an s5ii but was worried about the autofocus. My research suggested it wouldn’t be up to the standard of the full frame flagships I’ve been used to. But someone suggested the g9ii and the af gives me no issues at all with their new system. And then after I bought it, the s5ii fit a big firmware update and apparently is way better lol. I love that the Lumix bodies are all the same battery and form factor regardless of ff or m43. I do hope to try one of the ff options out for some wider things. Stuff like the laowa probe lens etc that don’t have m43 comparable. But for long lens stuff, I’m very happy on m43.

@@heymikeriley Good luck my friend. It's all about the images. How you get there really shouldn't matter

I’m going to do some jpg vs raw testing soon, haven’t played around much with the Lumix jpgs but considering I’m typically running noise reduction on any m43 file anyways, the jpgs I’m seeing at first glance are really appealing. Honestly my first day with the 100-400ii was a mess and nothing was sharp. I took a breath and realized that I was shooting way too far away, cropping hard and the light was atrocious. No camera or lens I’ve owned would have been sharp there. I think it’s important to realize that a m43 sensor is already cropping for you. So if you are shooting at 100-400 for 800 equivalent, if you have to do major cropping then you’re just too far away. If you’re close, the lens should be very, very sharp. If it’s not, check your shutter settings etc and make sure you’re not doing something wrong. Shoot a teddy bear on a tripod and remove lens shake etc. if that’s not sharp, then you may indeed have a faulty copy. The 200 2.8 is definitely way sharper, I’ll be doing a comparison soon on them. I definitely prefer the images out of that lens, but only if I’m close enough to not crop significantly. The image quality is stunning, but 400mm isn’t long enough for a lot of stuff I shoot. So far I’ve only had success with birds at my feeder that tolerate me being very close. If I had a gun to my head, I’d probably take the zoom for the flexibility but I love that they’re both reasonably price and I typically bring both with me. I had dreams of shooting loons with the 200 and I started the early morning with that lens on but the birds just weren’t getting close enough and I was glad I had the other option with me.

​@@heymikeriley I don't like jpegs from the camera because they are unnaturally soft (on "standard"), they make human faces look washed out and bird feathers look like one big lump yes, I spent a whole week with the lens wondering what I'm doing wrong because it was terrible. I then recalibrated it and it was better to the point that the next time I went out I immediately noticed the difference and was like "woah so that's how it's supposed to be!" unfortunately though it was still a far cry from what I had hoped for, and as you said it must be the distance. I was happy with photos that were taken with a bird on a tree right above me (even in darker conditions), but I was terribly unhappy with whatever I'd get from shooting water birds or birds on much taller trees at 400mm. The only photos at 400mm I couldn't find fault with were those shot of still subjects (e.g. frogs) at 50ISO at high-res (lol). I didn't test it with a teddy bear - good call - but I did test with a cereal box and letters and it was very soft at anything but f6.3 - at some focal distances f7 so I returned it but now I'm wondering if it was just a bad copy or my high expectations or a combination of both, and whether 200mm/f2.8 is the solution I had hoped for or not. you're saying it's too short even when you use teleconverter? isn't it still better quality at 280 + crop vs 400 without the crop?

With the tc and a crop it’s probably close, prime is probably sharper but losing the zoom again. But yea distance is key. If you’re shooting a bird that’s close, the prime and a crop will look good, and the zoom should look good. I’ll try to do a comparison on them this weekend. I need to shoot them side by side to get similar comparisons but will give it a go!

@@heymikeriley thank you very much! Is there any way to determine a "usable" distance? as in, how far away you can be with either lens to get a decent shot? maybe this could be tested on a teddy, as you said?

Try to shoot at 400mm F8 with the subject not too far, you will be surprised.

That’s recovering fuji guy to you

Yea definitely, sigma has a lot of cool stuff. Their new 500 5.6 is a really great looking lens. Wish first party manufacturers would do things like that.