วีดีโอ

I have a question - I already have the 100 - 500 is it worth adding the 200 - 800 or is this just extravagant?

Fantastic review, thank you 😊 Now Subscribed 👍🏻

The 180-600 is good but it’s not in the same class as the 400 f4.5 or 600 pf

Hi Fabian, yes great thank you so much. Yes I live in Florida now for long time so I love to shoot the herons,cranes,ibis,egrets,any ducks,iguanas and the florida soft shell turtles. All these are are at ponds,parks and lakes here anywhere you can find. Yes Idk if i'll ever move back to where I came from Detroit🙂thanks great tips for my shots. Looking forward to next😊

The 100-500mm is a great ‘walking around lens companion to my R6mkII. The 200-800 would be too heavy and cumbersome for that and for extra reach for birds have the 800mm F/11.

So many beautiful birds! New subscriber here ✨

Thanks.

Hi Fabian, thanks for the educational video - some lovely footage/images of the shore birds from the low down perspective. Hope the gear is all ok now!

Great episode Fabian, the monkeys didn't seem to be too concerned with you getting close ! Yes, the lens condensation can be a drama, I'm not sure there's much you can do as it seems to be an environmental change thing. It happens occasionally to me in the tropics, it sometimes happens after an hour or so in the morning, so it's not a sudden change ie going from aircon to outside. It's frustrating and nothing you can do till it clears up by itself....I often wonder what damage it's doing to the lens....Safe travels !!!

I live in the Tropics and humidity and temperature gradients are always a problem. At high humidity levels even bringing a lens into the slightly hotter outside after a night in a house without AC will result in some condensation. I will sometimes put my camera and lenses in sealed plastic bags with the air squeezed out so they warm up without being in the humid warm air. It's the opposite of skiing in your country, coming into the warm interior of a hut on the slopes from minus 5 has the same effect, leave your gear in sealed off bags.. For clothes in the tropics in the humid season, get the hotel to put them in the tumble drier. Cotton especially never dries quickly. Anyway some nice shoreline images today, thanks for uploading.

Try vinegar for the mould. Apparently it kills it more effectively than bleach and you don't run the risk of discolouring your materials etc. I have used it here on my gutters many times after a mould problem in my paint. Excellent series from your trip there, informative and enjoyable content as always! Safe trip home.

Do you want to get better bird pictures? Check out my E-Book: naturfotografie-fopp.ch/wp/e-book-bird-photography/

Use topaz AI and you don’t have to worry about sharpness anymore… it’s history.

Nikon Dseries full frame. It’s the best for starters and professionals. Hands down!

I have the 800 PF, it is far better than I expected. I also own the 100-400 and 180-600, this is a good compliment. For my trip to Alaska I used the 100-400 and the 800, I never needed anything else, even though the 180-600 was in the car, it was never used. The 800 is my favorite lens for shooting birds.

Very nice and useful video about these two systems. Also seems to be quit objective in the way you test. But, without meaning to criticize, it also seems a bit unfair. The R5 is a 45 megapixel camera and i also assume the lens quality of the 600mm should be better. As i buyer i would be very interested in a comparison not on thecnical specs but more on value for money. So a comparison with a R6 (also 20mb) and and a RF 100-500. That would give me an insight of what would be best for me regarding the amount of money i can spend. Would like to see such a comparison……. 😇 Nevertheless thanks for the work you did on this issue.

Thanks for the video, Is there a way that you can adjust the speed of the photos? What I'm talking about is the time between each photo, because I will be using flash and it's impossible for flashes ro recycle at that speed. Please help!

15 or 13pro

Nice video again!! Do you always use DXO or Topaz in the post processing? Also with low ISO settings (for example with photos taken with ISO 400-800 or lower). Sometimes using these programs takes away some details and giving aberration (I mostly using RF100-500 and RF 200-800).

So 11 mins in we get a couple of compliments. You present your preferences as clear negatives. You clearly would have preferred one of the three Nikon z 600mm lenses to review...

This video has a lot of mistakes! Full frame does not collect more light than APS-C or M43. That is just wrong! Full Frame can collect more light per pixel but only if we do not talk about FF sensors with very high megapixel counts. The difference in quality comes from the noise that is generated as the pixels in crop sensors have to be much smaller to reach the same Megapixel count. F2 is also F2 on micro four thirds. A F4 lens on M43 collects as much light for the sensor as a F4 on Full Frame! The crop factor does not apply to light gathering! The only thing is that M43 has double the depth of field (less Bokeh / Toneh). Summary: You just have less sensor area for each pixel. A 60Megapixel FUll Frame will have similar pixel density than a 24 Megapixel APS-C and therefore will not necessarily work much better in low light in terms of "noise". ChatGPT can help us here: Full Frame sensors typically have dimensions around 36mm x 24mm. APS-C sensors vary slightly depending on the manufacturer, but a common size is around 22.3mm x 14.9mm. Micro Four Thirds sensors have dimensions around 17.3mm x 13mm. Let's calculate: Camera 1 (Full Frame, 24 Megapixel): Sensor area = 36mm * 24mm = 864mm² Pixel per surface area = 24 MP / 864 mm² ≈ 0.0278 MP/mm² Camera 2 (Full Frame, 45 Megapixel): Sensor area = 36mm * 24mm = 864mm² Pixel per surface area = 45 MP / 864 mm² ≈ 0.0521 MP/mm² Camera 3 (APS-C Nikon, 24 Megapixel): Sensor area = 22.3mm * 14.9mm ≈ 332.27mm² Pixel per surface area = 24 MP / 332.27 mm² ≈ 0.0722 MP/mm² Camera 4 (Micro Four Thirds, 20 Megapixel): Sensor area = 17.3mm * 13mm ≈ 225.5mm² Pixel per surface area = 20 MP / 225.5 mm² ≈ 0.0887 MP/mm² Camera 5 (Full Frame, 60 Megapixel): Sensor area = 36mm * 24mm = 864mm² Pixel per surface area = 60 MP / 864 mm² ≈ 0.0694 MP/mm² For low light it still makes sense to carry full frame but not for the same reasons as described in the video.

Rf100-400 or old first generation EF100-400L? I looking for amateur airshow lens

Thank you so much Fabian for the helpful and informative video! God bless and good luck! ❤🙏

You're mostly right. There are also some indications that future RF dual-motor lenses (like the 100-300 f2.8) will focus faster with the R3's higher-voltage batteries, that the R3 batteries maintain performance while the R5 autofocus and frame rate are reduced as the battery gets below 50% discharge (per Canon spec sheets), and that the R3 is more weatherproof and damage-resistant (priceless when you're travelling). I've compared shots taken with both cameras, and for some reason the R5 sometimes shows more detail and other shots it does not. I think there's more to it than just the number of pixels, that the camera software sometimes works better and rendering a "prettier image". This isn't true of studio shots, but when shooting bursts of a moving subject and mixed light, some pictures render more detail than others. Having shot millions of frames on a variety of cameras, I still don't understand what's happening :-(. Regardless, you made a great comparison of a couple of excellent cameras. I'll stick with the R3 for the next few years.

Very comprehensive! Can you suggest a few versatile two lens combination for a masai mara trip?

The OM-1 s price is wildly wrong, Its about 1868,92 $ I got mine while this video was released at that price brand new.

Regarding ISO and shutter speed, I got a tip from an mft user. He finds correct exposure and then raises ISO and reduce shutter speed until he gets the speed he wants. He said as long as light is ok for the human eye, and iso is not used to “brighten” the picture, but reduce shutter speed, the image quality will not be impacted too much. Was surprised that I was taking ISO 3200-6400 pictures that looked ok 😂 This also kind of made me understand the advantage of wide apertures, because if “brightening” an image using ISO is what makes them noisy, shooting something fast in the shade is really only possible with flash or a big aperture lens.

Nice comparison thanks. A big issue for me is that is impossible to shoot pre shots in raw. It’s unacceptable in 2024, less expensive apsc or m4/3 cameras allow this function

The bigger sensor within the same tech generation will always have better image quality. If you care for lots of background blur, cropped sensors will never make sense: once you match the DOF look of FF, your cropped set up will probably be bigger, heavier and more expensive than the FF equivalent. I don't care much for the background blur. I like F8 on FF. So I find the smaller MFT cameras and lenses very convinient. And image quality is good enough for most (if not all) real situations.

Size and weight differ from lens to lens. I’ve kept my EF 200 L IS macro, as I don’t need to go to 1:1.4 and the new RF 100 macro is just as long as the EF with the adapter fitted - and has focus breathing issues. But I sold my excellent EF 16-35 L IS as it was enormous with the adapter, and the RF 14-35 is smaller, lighter and goes wider.

Awesome video

Do you own the 100-300? I can’t wait to use it, all booked for just a couple of days in Aug. Awesome video. Enjoy your time there too

Very nice video as always,Fabian. Unfortunately, crazy bad IBIS wobble during the selfie footsge... was that the R5? Thanks and have a good visit. Rudy in Ottawa

Thanks for sharing Fabian, some nice shots as always. I find that shooting in public parks is often quite interesting but they are what they are, not wild natural places. Just enjoy shooting and seeing the animals. I've got some of my most interesting shots when I only had an unsuitable lens for the task, it makes one inventive and pumped full of adrenaline trying to actually get something acceptable. Enjoy your break in München . 😊

Don't you use the crop 1.6 modus on the camera (tab 1)? Can you explain something about that? Thx.

algo

Great video ! thank you for sharing !

Very good video of the Nikon telephoto lens lineup! Thank You!

Thx for the review. Will pickup my 800mm next week :-). Where did you shoot your birds in Spain? 🙂

Would you guys say the 100-400 lacks "character"? That distinct property that some lenses have.

I've just bought this 600mm - reviews like this helped me make my decision. I've been going to the gym 4 times a week for the last 6 months, so I think I'm just about good to hand hold this beast. After a year of hard training, I may not even need IS! Thanks again for this stellar review.

The Ef 600mm f4,0 mk3is actually more expensive than the RF 600mm f4,0, and the same for the 400 f 2,8. Quite strange to me?

you should test the R5 with canon 300 mm f2,8 versus that OM and the 300mm f 4,0, crop the canon images so you get the same size on subject. Then you would have about the same effective sensor size

Is it worth the extra cost??? Well, that all depends on what you want to use it for and what sort of results your need or expect. If you want a cheap, low budget lens, or an expensive professional lens. If you are shooting professionally where you are being PAID for your photos, I would NOT advise using a cheap, low budget lens! Just remember, YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR! I have tried both these lenses, and sure, the cheap RF is a great value and a good performer, but the 100-500mm is FAR superior in pretty much every way!

Very nice comparison and very informative. Good job!

You don't have to hold the camera at arms length, you can easily alternate between the viewfinder and dot sight. I'd even say it's more convenient to use the sight closer to your eye, because you don't risk losing the little crosshair.

AF is a myth it seems. A few of my friends now using OM1.2 said it is better than R5! They have been using R5 for several years and just got OM1.2 for about a month. If I don't have back issue, I would be shooting Z8 or Z9 with either the 400mm F2.8 with built-in TC or the 600mm with built-in TC.

Well, a few of my friends just switched from R5 and 600mm F4 to OM1 Mark II and either 300mm F4 or 200mm F2.8 lenses. One soon to get 150-400mm F4.5 lens. As we get older, we no longer have that physical strength and the joy of taking photos and hiking just goes away. I don't think I have heard you mentioned anything about SS when comparing the stabilization. Speaking of my own experiences and my friends how just switched, the results are dramatic once you get lower than 1/15 SS. I am talking about shooting at 600mm equivalent. For sure, there is deny the quality you can get with the FF. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses.

I use Fuji as well as Canon, and being able to adapt EF glass on both systems is great. AFAIK you can’t adapt RF to anything. I’d love my RF 100-500 on APS-C, just am not convinced by the R7.

The only difference that matters is that one is a camera, the other a bazooka 😀