Honestly after taking a long break myself and selling my old gear I've gone back to a Nikon D500. I looked at all the mirrorless options and nothing really caught my attention, with the exception of the R7 but that's impossible to buy at the moment. I've used the D500 in the past and it's a body I know I can rely on in any conditions, add to the Nikons amazing range of F mount glass and it was really an easy choice.
You can certainly save a lot of money buying used gear or keeping the old one. And if you feel like it, you can still switch to mirrorless in a couple of years
I just bought a Nikon Z8. With the 2,01 firmware update, autofocus is spectacular, particularly for bird photography. It is lighter than the D850, and has the same general specifications as the Z9 in a smaller, lighter body. The stacked sensor eliminates rolling shutter problems, the 45.6 MP resolution exceeds most modern lenses, and the video performance is phenomenal. It's an amazing camera, and I love it.
I got into the canon system and really enjoyed sigma and Tamron lenses. But I became greatly disappointed when they banned 3rd party lenses on their new system. The EF/RF adapter only allows me to use older lenses and not any newer 3rd party models. It's a personal choice for sure but I'm switching to Sony for that reason. Otherwise I would've happily stuck with them.
Before you watch this video (I didn't watch it) - read this: If you buy a camera system for the first time, get something most of your friends already have. They will be able to help you with the menu & settings, share lenses, accessories and more. In the end the big difference between camera systems is the price, some lenses availability, and sometimes built quality! .. but after all, nobody will be able to guess which camera system you use just by looking at your photos... so why bother?!
I was reluctant to upgrade to the R7 in part because of problems with AF pulsing on my Sigma 150-600C and the cost of the RF 100-500. But I finally bit the bullet and couldn't be happier. While pricey, I don't have to worry about AF pulsing, the dual focus motors are exquisitely responsive,
...., the 100-500 lens is only 3 lbs vs 4.7 lbs for the Sigma, and the image quality is breathtaking. As someone whose images are mostly birds, it is definitely the system to beat if you can swing it. Here in Canada I was also lucky when one of our national chains also had a pre-Black Friday sale with 20% off, which shaved $1250 off the package price. Thanks for your summary, though it came a few weeks late for me :)
Wellington, I'd welcome your advice - I just bought the R7. I have the EF 100-400 L IS version II. I do mostly small birds and always want more tele 'reach'. I'm currently trying the 600 F11, but the image quality seems lacking. I too am put off by the price of the Canon RF100-500, but its overall versatility seems impressive. How do you find working with that len's maximum reach of 500 (800 with apsc 1.6 multiplier effect)? thanks, Craig
@@craigcarlson4022 Hi, Craig: Like you, 95% of my shots involve birds. For this, I think that if you can manage the price, I would definitely recommend the RF 100-500. I was initially worried that I was losing reach compared to the Sigma 150-600C, but I've found that I more than made up for it with better image quality (that allows more room to crop in post). To my surprise, I don't miss the Sigma at all, as the image tended to soften between 500-600 mm. In contrast, the RF 100-500 has excellent image quality throughout its range. Moreover, I find it difficult to find my target when the effective length is greater than 800 mm in any case. And the 3 lb weight and better image stabilization makes it easier to hand hold. So I remain thrilled by the results.
Hey Fabian, I started out with a Nikon D850, then moved to Sony for an A7RIV, which has been replaced by an A7RV mid-November. If I were to start out again and money was a major issue. I‘d get a Sony RX100 VII for starters. Small, great AF and image quality in pocket size. I own one, so I may judge. If money was no issue, I‘d get the Sony Alpha A1, the 400 2.8, the 600 4.0 and both teleconverters. 30fps @50mp raw is just wow! 🥳
I use Sony (apsc) and I feel like Sony neglects their APS-Cs. If I'm thinking what camera I'd buy now, that would be a full frame. What's the most important for a wildlife photographer is good AF system (animal/bird eye af), high enough fps, and although the least important: more than 24 megapixels. There is no Sony camera that can give all these, except the A1. I can not afford a flagship. My heart would pull me to Nikon, but the lack of good af system makes me change my mind. In fact, Canon is the only one that gives all these 3 things in one camera, and this camera is not a flagship. If I'd choose Sony, I'd choose between a7iv, a7riv and a7rv. But whatever I choose, I'd miss something. If not the bird eye af, then the fps. IF I get the Canon R5, I get all of these. (damn...I don't want to change system)
Any photographer can successfully use any of these systems...but being blocked from new lenses on the RF mount is a deal breaker for me. Please do a video on the Sony A7Rv
@@Mike-uz8dp I can only speak to my own experience, but I was previously using the Sigma 150-600C and Tamron 100-400 Di VC almost exclusively for birds/wildlife, on a Canon M6 II (APSC). TBH, I don't think I've ever had so much fun with a camera, but I recently upgraded to the R7 to take advantage of the new bird eye tracking. The two cameras are otherwise similar, with 32 MP sensors and 15/30 fps mechanical/electronic shutters, and I find little difference between them using Canon's 18-150 mm zooms: I really can't see any difference in image quality or dynamic range. But the RF 100-500 mm is far superior to the Sigma and Tamron lenses that it replaced: No issues with AF pulsing, the dual focus motors are more responsive, and the image quality is breathtaking. It's probably the sharpest lens I've ever used, and though I shuddered over the price difference, I think it was worth it.
I use all three brands....and i have to say... I LOVE to just go shoot and being outside. Sony sucks the most for me, but I love to shoot with the Nikon and Canon as Canon being best all around.
That’s all very true. Nikon lenses really shines with integrated TC. But for my taste I mostly never use 1.4x TC only 2x. Canon could design integrated TC for primes because they already have 200-400/4 for ages. And it’s sad new Canon 800/5.6 and 1200/8 are not a real deal
A new Nikon body is on the way. Stick with what you like. Canon has excellent performance, but the no third-party option would keep me from recommending it. Sony is always high tech , but their cameras are never fun to use . However , everyone has different needs and taste . It’s best to try all the different brands and judge for your self .
Do you have any updated thoughts with the release of the Z8? I'm an R5 user looking to invest in a serious wildlife setup up to $20,000+. Canon has some great lenses like the 100-300mm f2.8 that nobody else offers but their longer primes seem inferior, basically just the EF design with an adapter slapped on (RF 600, 800, etc). Nikon's lenses look incredible like the 600mm f6.3, 800mm f6.3, and 600mm f4 TC. The Z8 is also supposed to get the recent Z9 update that substantially improves AF and puts it on par with the R5 for animal eye-AF. Sony's lens lineup is also fantastic with the "compact" 600mm f4 and 300mm f2.8.
The AF of the R5 feels much better than the Z8. However, the Z9 caught up with their latest firmware and it‘s only a question of time until the Z8 will as well. I love my RF100-300/2.8 but I would prefer the Z600/4 over my RF600/4 to be honest (but here the RF is around 6000€ cheaper than the Z600). If I would start fresh, it would be very hard to choose between Nikon and Canon to be honest
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography thank you for the input. Yes it's a tough decision. I'm sure the R1 and R5II will make the decision even more difficult as those bodies may be "better" than the Z8/Z9 until Nikon releases the Z9II.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography mirrorless is definitely nicer to have. But from the price point, I think I’m good with good DSLRs especially when its prices are so affordable today.
super happy with my Canon gear but it sure is a dent in my pocket. I wish they would make some more durability focused lenses. I really think one should try them out before deciding as usability heavily depends on preference in the end.
I am extremely jealous as a Canon shooter when I look at Nikon and their low cost, low weight super tele primes. They are just SO good. I can't believe Canon is even still selling to wildlife photographers anymore. It doesn't feel like they really like their customers. They say to either buy their ultra expensive white primes, or their crappy ultra low aperture primes and zooms, (which the 100-500 isn't "bad", but 500mm is a little short for wildlife imo and F7.1 is no good. I know because I had this lens for 2 years). They put out crappy cropped cameras now when they used to be known for their crop cameras, (ehemmm, R7). It's like they only care about FF. To make matter worse, they c*ck-blocked Sigma from making lenses we wildlife people actually care about. I think at the time of this writing there is only like 1 RF lens from Sigma, and no plans to release their newer 500 F5.6. I am thinking of selling all my Canon kit at this point and moving on to Nikon. They've got everything I could possibly want right now.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotographyformer Nikon shooter here. I jumped ship and went over to the Canon side of things. I’ve never looked back & have never regretted it 😊
Thanks for sharing another wonderful video like always, I really enjoy using Canon, I would like to text the z9, I'm just curious about the color science 👍
In your introduction you said 'that all systems are very good' - yet some (eg. Olympus, Lumix and Pentax) are excluded from the discussion. Why is this - what puts these three brands ahead of the others ?
I meant all three (Sony, Nikon, Canon) have very good offers for wildlife photography. They are the only three manufacturers that offer full frame mirrorless cameras and lenses for wildlife photography, that’s why I focussed on those
Personally, I would choose Nikon or Canon. I don’t really care for third party lenses and the AF of the Sony A7IV was nowhere close to the one of the Canon R6 II when I tested it
If I had to do it all over again, I'd go Canon or Sony & stay well clear of Nikon. Nikon is not a customer friendly business & they always follow, never innovate. Heck, it's 2022 & still they can't do AF like Canon & Sony
Recommended equipment (affiliate links):
Canon EOS R5: amzn.to/3RIMcI6
Canon EOS R7: amzn.to/3RY72n7
Honestly after taking a long break myself and selling my old gear I've gone back to a Nikon D500.
I looked at all the mirrorless options and nothing really caught my attention, with the exception of the R7 but that's impossible to buy at the moment.
I've used the D500 in the past and it's a body I know I can rely on in any conditions, add to the Nikons amazing range of F mount glass and it was really an easy choice.
You can certainly save a lot of money buying used gear or keeping the old one. And if you feel like it, you can still switch to mirrorless in a couple of years
I just bought a Nikon Z8. With the 2,01 firmware update, autofocus is spectacular, particularly for bird photography. It is lighter than the D850, and has the same general specifications as the Z9 in a smaller, lighter body. The stacked sensor eliminates rolling shutter problems, the 45.6 MP resolution exceeds most modern lenses, and the video performance is phenomenal. It's an amazing camera, and I love it.
Yes, the firmware update really changed a lot!
I got into the canon system and really enjoyed sigma and Tamron lenses. But I became greatly disappointed when they banned 3rd party lenses on their new system. The EF/RF adapter only allows me to use older lenses and not any newer 3rd party models. It's a personal choice for sure but I'm switching to Sony for that reason. Otherwise I would've happily stuck with them.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts
Before you watch this video (I didn't watch it) - read this: If you buy a camera system for the first time, get something most of your friends already have. They will be able to help you with the menu & settings, share lenses, accessories and more. In the end the big difference between camera systems is the price, some lenses availability, and sometimes built quality! .. but after all, nobody will be able to guess which camera system you use just by looking at your photos... so why bother?!
Great advice
Also a good point!
I was reluctant to upgrade to the R7 in part because of problems with AF pulsing on my Sigma 150-600C and the cost of the RF 100-500. But I finally bit the bullet and couldn't be happier. While pricey, I don't have to worry about AF pulsing, the dual focus motors are exquisitely responsive,
...., the 100-500 lens is only 3 lbs vs 4.7 lbs for the Sigma, and the image quality is breathtaking. As someone whose images are mostly birds, it is definitely the system to beat if you can swing it. Here in Canada I was also lucky when one of our national chains also had a pre-Black Friday sale with 20% off, which shaved $1250 off the package price. Thanks for your summary, though it came a few weeks late for me :)
Yes, it’s an amazing lens. I’m very happy with mine
Wellington, I'd welcome your advice - I just bought the R7. I have the EF 100-400 L IS version II. I do mostly small birds and always want more tele 'reach'. I'm currently trying the 600 F11, but the image quality seems lacking. I too am put off by the price of the Canon RF100-500, but its overall versatility seems impressive. How do you find working with that len's maximum reach of 500 (800 with apsc 1.6 multiplier effect)? thanks, Craig
@@craigcarlson4022 Hi, Craig: Like you, 95% of my shots involve birds. For this, I think that if you can manage the price, I would definitely recommend the RF 100-500. I was initially worried that I was losing reach compared to the Sigma 150-600C, but I've found that I more than made up for it with better image quality (that allows more room to crop in post). To my surprise, I don't miss the Sigma at all, as the image tended to soften between 500-600 mm. In contrast, the RF 100-500 has excellent image quality throughout its range. Moreover, I find it difficult to find my target when the effective length is greater than 800 mm in any case. And the 3 lb weight and better image stabilization makes it easier to hand hold. So I remain thrilled by the results.
Hey Fabian, I started out with a Nikon D850, then moved to Sony for an A7RIV, which has been replaced by an A7RV mid-November. If I were to start out again and money was a major issue. I‘d get a Sony RX100 VII for starters. Small, great AF and image quality in pocket size. I own one, so I may judge. If money was no issue, I‘d get the Sony Alpha A1, the 400 2.8, the 600 4.0 and both teleconverters. 30fps @50mp raw is just wow! 🥳
Thanks, yeah, the last one is a killer combo
I use Sony (apsc) and I feel like Sony neglects their APS-Cs. If I'm thinking what camera I'd buy now, that would be a full frame. What's the most important for a wildlife photographer is good AF system (animal/bird eye af), high enough fps, and although the least important: more than 24 megapixels. There is no Sony camera that can give all these, except the A1. I can not afford a flagship. My heart would pull me to Nikon, but the lack of good af system makes me change my mind. In fact, Canon is the only one that gives all these 3 things in one camera, and this camera is not a flagship. If I'd choose Sony, I'd choose between a7iv, a7riv and a7rv. But whatever I choose, I'd miss something. If not the bird eye af, then the fps. IF I get the Canon R5, I get all of these. (damn...I don't want to change system)
I totally understand, really not an easy choice!
Any photographer can successfully use any of these systems...but being blocked from new lenses on the RF mount is a deal breaker for me. Please do a video on the Sony A7Rv
Unfortunately I don’t have access to that camera
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography what's your thoughts on it? And is canon glass that superior to third party in your opinion?
Depends a bit on the lens, but especially in the telephoto range this was my experience, yes
@@Mike-uz8dp I can only speak to my own experience, but I was previously using the Sigma 150-600C and Tamron 100-400 Di VC almost exclusively for birds/wildlife, on a Canon M6 II (APSC). TBH, I don't think I've ever had so much fun with a camera, but I recently upgraded to the R7 to take advantage of the new bird eye tracking. The two cameras are otherwise similar, with 32 MP sensors and 15/30 fps mechanical/electronic shutters, and I find little difference between them using Canon's 18-150 mm zooms: I really can't see any difference in image quality or dynamic range. But the RF 100-500 mm is far superior to the Sigma and Tamron lenses that it replaced: No issues with AF pulsing, the dual focus motors are more responsive, and the image quality is breathtaking. It's probably the sharpest lens I've ever used, and though I shuddered over the price difference, I think it was worth it.
I use all three brands....and i have to say... I LOVE to just go shoot and being outside. Sony sucks the most for me, but I love to shoot with the Nikon and Canon as Canon being best all around.
I totally agree, spending time outside is the most important thing 😊
That’s all very true. Nikon lenses really shines with integrated TC. But for my taste I mostly never use 1.4x TC only 2x. Canon could design integrated TC for primes because they already have 200-400/4 for ages. And it’s sad new Canon 800/5.6 and 1200/8 are not a real deal
Yes, I was also disappointed when I saw the 800/5.6 and 1200/8
A new Nikon body is on the way. Stick with what you like. Canon has excellent performance, but the no third-party option would keep me from recommending it. Sony is always high tech , but their cameras are never fun to use . However , everyone has different needs and taste . It’s best to try all the different brands and judge for your self .
I agree!
Fun to use? What does that even mean? You use them all nearly the exact same way... Sounds like you're delusional.
Do you have any updated thoughts with the release of the Z8? I'm an R5 user looking to invest in a serious wildlife setup up to $20,000+. Canon has some great lenses like the 100-300mm f2.8 that nobody else offers but their longer primes seem inferior, basically just the EF design with an adapter slapped on (RF 600, 800, etc). Nikon's lenses look incredible like the 600mm f6.3, 800mm f6.3, and 600mm f4 TC. The Z8 is also supposed to get the recent Z9 update that substantially improves AF and puts it on par with the R5 for animal eye-AF. Sony's lens lineup is also fantastic with the "compact" 600mm f4 and 300mm f2.8.
The AF of the R5 feels much better than the Z8. However, the Z9 caught up with their latest firmware and it‘s only a question of time until the Z8 will as well. I love my RF100-300/2.8 but I would prefer the Z600/4 over my RF600/4 to be honest (but here the RF is around 6000€ cheaper than the Z600). If I would start fresh, it would be very hard to choose between Nikon and Canon to be honest
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography thank you for the input. Yes it's a tough decision. I'm sure the R1 and R5II will make the decision even more difficult as those bodies may be "better" than the Z8/Z9 until Nikon releases the Z9II.
Nikon Dseries full frame. It’s the best for starters and professionals. Hands down!
Why not the z-series?
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography mirrorless is definitely nicer to have. But from the price point, I think I’m good with good DSLRs especially when its prices are so affordable today.
super happy with my Canon gear but it sure is a dent in my pocket. I wish they would make some more durability focused lenses. I really think one should try them out before deciding as usability heavily depends on preference in the end.
I totally agree, a lot comes down to personal preferences as well
Mark Denny switched from Sony to Fujifilm.
Yes, for landscape photography that’s certainly a very interesting system. But I think it’s not really usable for bird or wildlife photography
I am extremely jealous as a Canon shooter when I look at Nikon and their low cost, low weight super tele primes. They are just SO good. I can't believe Canon is even still selling to wildlife photographers anymore. It doesn't feel like they really like their customers. They say to either buy their ultra expensive white primes, or their crappy ultra low aperture primes and zooms, (which the 100-500 isn't "bad", but 500mm is a little short for wildlife imo and F7.1 is no good. I know because I had this lens for 2 years). They put out crappy cropped cameras now when they used to be known for their crop cameras, (ehemmm, R7). It's like they only care about FF. To make matter worse, they c*ck-blocked Sigma from making lenses we wildlife people actually care about. I think at the time of this writing there is only like 1 RF lens from Sigma, and no plans to release their newer 500 F5.6.
I am thinking of selling all my Canon kit at this point and moving on to Nikon. They've got everything I could possibly want right now.
I think both have their advantages and disadvantages. If I would start fresh, I‘d still go with Canon, but Nikon would be an excellent choice as well
@@FabianFoppNaturephotographyformer Nikon shooter here. I jumped ship and went over to the Canon side of things. I’ve never looked back & have never regretted it 😊
@idahomountainlover754 why did you switch to Canon ?
Thanks for sharing another wonderful video like always, I really enjoy using Canon, I would like to text the z9, I'm just curious about the color science 👍
Thanks!
In your introduction you said 'that all systems are very good' - yet some (eg. Olympus, Lumix and Pentax) are excluded from the discussion. Why is this - what puts these three brands ahead of the others ?
I meant all three (Sony, Nikon, Canon) have very good offers for wildlife photography. They are the only three manufacturers that offer full frame mirrorless cameras and lenses for wildlife photography, that’s why I focussed on those
I would never switch to Sony. Not because they aren’t great cameras, but because they don’t fit well in my hands and the menus make me ill.
Yes, quite important that it feels comfortable
Title should read ‘ older’ Nikon. Thanks for your work Fabian
Thanks for spotting it! It was German(oder=or), I corrected it now 🤦♂️🙈
Really helpful video, cheers :)
Glad to hear, thanks!
Why choose sony? Better autofocus and third party lens availability
Personally, I would choose Nikon or Canon. I don’t really care for third party lenses and the AF of the Sony A7IV was nowhere close to the one of the Canon R6 II when I tested it
How about olympus Om1 with the 150-400mm lens?
Certainly a good option for some people. Personally, I don’t care for micro four thirds, I like fullframe
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I use R7 R5 + 500mm F4 for birds. But always wonder if OM could do the job for half the weight.
Because they use a smaller sensor. So cheaper, less weight but the background is not so blurry and it’s a tiny bit noisier
Great video!
Thanks
Wat abt fujifilm ?
They don’t have such a big lens selection, therefore I didn’t consider them
@@FabianFoppNaturephotographywhat do you think about the 100-400 5.6 I’m currently buying it rn
Nikon gives more natural photos
In which sense? I never found that the Nikon files look more pleasing than Canon. I‘m very happy with both
If I had to do it all over again, I'd go Canon or Sony & stay well clear of Nikon. Nikon is not a customer friendly business & they always follow, never innovate. Heck, it's 2022 & still they can't do AF like Canon & Sony
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! What do you use now?
Nikon don’t innovate ??? Their lenses and future roadmap are fantastic.
Their z lens lineup is really Awesome..
As of 2024 to me it seems they are innovating fairly well
@@Lucidexplore what exactly are they 'innovating' in 2024?