The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

[Redspider]

There are thousands of parakeets living wild in London - the assumption is that over the years pet birds have escaped, which have then bred (repeatedly!) in the wild to create the large numbers seen today.
I'd guess something similar happened in Athens (and probably in other cities all over Europe).

Same in Spain.

 

[snerkler]

I actually quite like Olympus colours.
Don't much like Panasonic or Nikon.
Prefer Fuji and canon mostly.

Sony is somewhere in between all that

I always liked Nikon, overall my favourite (after toning down the greens), for me the D750 and D850 were the most true to life colours using camera profiles. All that being said, with Color Fidelity profiles and a few hue and saturations tweaks in LR I now think that the output from my A9ii and A1 are my favourites, very true to life.

 

[nandbytes]

I always liked Nikon, overall my favourite (after toning down the greens), for me the D750 and D850 were the most true to life colours using camera profiles. All that being said, with Color Fidelity profiles and a few hue and saturations tweaks in LR I now think that the output from my A9ii and A1 are my favourites, very true to life.

goes to show there is no one "good" or "best" colours profile. Its purely subjective.

 

[Raymond Lin]

How many on here have bought a higher MP sensor camera to crop, loads I bet? Who uses a FF and hasn't ever cropped, not many? However I'd be more interested about the reason why Trevor was asked and discuss that.

Not me....I bought it for the increased pixels, I only use it when there is a purpose for it. Never one for cropping unless I had to. In the back of my mind, if I am cropping to get the right photo then I have got it wrong in terms of framing to begin with.

I went for like 10 years taking travel photography with just 1 prime lens and I have learn to let go of shots I can't get the framing right out of the gate. Rather than frame then crop. So I still don't now. If I want to crop...I bring a zoom lens.

 

[f/2.8]

I always liked Nikon, overall my favourite (after toning down the greens), for me the D750 and D850 were the most true to life colours using camera profiles. All that being said, with Color Fidelity profiles and a few hue and saturations tweaks in LR I now think that the output from my A9ii and A1 are my favourites, very true to life.

Both me and @f/1.4 both feel that the colours from the Nikon D700/ D3 are probably the best we have seen from the various bodies we have had. Although that could be rose tinted glasses.

Never felt that the later Nikon bodies D800, D750, D850 and for me I also had a D4S were as good.

Probably the best set up I have had from colours point of view was the D700 with the old Sigma 85MM f/1.4, that lens was special.

I think sometimes people underestimate the importance of the lens used when they talk about colours straight out of camera. Especially now when tones can vary so much even with lenses from the same manufacturer. For example the Sony 35G.M is hot which for me I like but @f/1.4 does not, were as the 50G.M is a fair bit cooler. I guess it it comes down a lot to the coating they use. The newer Tamron's are quite cool in terms of tones as well. Samyang lenses tend to run very hot, well the one's I have had have been anyway. They are great option if you want to give someone a free tan. Apparently the newer 50 f/1.4 Samyang and the 135mm Samyang are better in terms of colours, but I haven't owned those.

In the DSLR era it was a little easier as most Nikon lenses were similar as were Canon's etc but there seems to be a much larger variation when it comes to mirrorless lenses even when they are from the same manufacturer.

I think usage plays a part as well as I shoot 99.9% people what I feel is good in terms of colours is going to be different than someone who shoots say Landscapes etc.

 

[woof woof]

I find that even crops to 100% can be acceptable to me, if things combine and are cropped image friendly. Most of my pictures are viewed on screen and although I pixel peep other than those times when looking at an individual picture or a slide show it's of a picture filling a screen and 100% crops often seem good enough for me. Prints for me are pretty rare and usually A4 and with any of my cameras even a heavy crop is ok for an A4 print.

Unless people are selling large prints what are you doing with them? You must have limited wall space but maybe wall mounted pictures are rotated periodically? I took all my A3 prints down years ago when decorating and they never went back up. They've been replaced by A4 prints on the wall and smaller framed prints standing on surfaces.

I think sometimes people underestimate the importance of the lens used when they talk about colours straight out of camera.

Yup.

Having played about with quite a few lenses, most of them old, I agree. The most striking in a good way lens I have for straight out of the camera goodness is the Voigtlander 50mm f2. A comparison I did with all of my film era 50's showed the Takumar 50mm f1.4 gave the most pleasing tones for people closely followed by the Zuiko 50mm f1.4.

 

[Redspider]

Not me....I bought it for the increased pixels, I only use it when there is a purpose for it. Never one for cropping unless I had to. In the back of my mind, if I am cropping to get the right photo then I have got it wrong in terms of framing to begin with.

I went for like 10 years taking travel photography with just 1 prime lens and I have learn to let go of shots I can't get the framing right out of the gate. Rather than frame then crop. So I still don't now. If I want to crop...I bring a zoom lens.

There are many times you need to crop. Jet planes, Small birds. No large lens will get either completly in the frame under normal circumstances. A few times I have got birds and Jets fill the frame, but mostly small birds are too far from humans, and Jets tend to do the interesting maneuvers high up, far out of the reach of any long lens.

My combination of Sony 7CR and 70-350 is by far the best combination I have yet used, and that includes the Sony 200-600, because the combination is so light, it is so steady & you are not waving around when hand held. Obviously my other lenses are all full frame, and I rarely need to crop on those as the use is different.

 

[Raymond Lin]

There are many times you need to crop. Jet planes, Small birds. No large lens will get either completly in the frame under normal circumstances. A few times I have got birds and Jets fill the frame, but mostly small birds are too far from humans, and Jets tend to do the interesting maneuvers high up, far out of the reach of any long lens.

My combination of Sony 7CR and 70-350 is by far the best combination I have yet used, and that includes the Sony 200-600, because the combination is so light, it is so steady & you are not waving around when hand held. Obviously my other lenses are all full frame, and I rarely need to crop on those as the use is different.

Don't shoot either of those. My thought process these days is pretty much "Oh, that is too far away." and not even bother to bring my camera up to my eye.

That is what I mean by letting go. If I can't frame it in camera, I don't bother at all. Especially for personal stuff.

If I do.. let's say I have the 35mm on me only. No time to swap lenses, then I would frame it that moment would be a part of the scene. I would sidestep or move to shoot through something in order for that framing to make sense. That takes perhaps 1 second to do vs like 20 seconds to swap a lens.

This restriction and purposely forcing myself to look and alternatives I think helps one to be a better photographer.

 

[woof woof]

I think one thing cropping can help with is perspective. If for example I have a 35mm lens but I don't want 35mm perspective I can get 50 or 85mm perspective by standing at 50 or 85mm distance and cropping post capture. Some cameras may have this ability built in these days,

 

[woof woof]

I see someone is selling a Tamron 17-28mm f2.8.

That's a lens which could interest me if I could get on better with these new fangled zooms

 

[Redspider]

I see someone is selling a Tamron 17-28mm f2.8.

That's a lens which could interest me if I could get on better with these new fangled zooms

I also have that lens and love it. Pin sharp. I have posted some photo's on here with it.

 

[dcash29]

Some stuff can not be added by firmware. Adding something like dog detection would mean a big change to how the a.f works.

Actually personally I prefer the way Sony do it. Just my own opinion based on conversations I have had with Fuji X photographers and to be fair only one Sony artisan. Fuji get lauded for adding new features by firmware when that isn’t the case. Before launching a new model they send it out for testing like all the manufacturers then based on feedback remove features before launch that don’t work properly. Later on when they fix the issues they add them back in by firmware.

Sony do the same thing but when they beta test and something doesn’t work as it should they just keep working and testing until it does even if it means holding back the launch of the new model. Fuji won’t ever hold back the launch of a new model because something doesn’t work, they just remove it, launch the camera and add the feature back later on down the line.

Play memories itself was a bit of a farce as they were basically asking customers to pay to unlock features on their camera that it was already capable off.

Play memories was basically the equivalent of what some car manufacturers are now doing like Ford and BMW for example. With newer models you have to pay to unlock features that the car already has as standard. For example you have to pay to unlock heated seats etc. Not sure if it went ahead or not but Audi also wanted to do this as well by subscription, so you had to pay £15 a month to unlock the heated seats.

Subscription pricing coming to features your car already has

How would you feel about paying $10, $20, or $100 per month to access features already built into your car? Some buyers are calling foul.

www.businessinsider.com

Some manufacturers upgrade focus detection and some don't. Quite a few of the basic PM add-ons were free, but you had a choice. Re car add-ons are total robbery to say there in the car already. Re seats, monthly is better than annually.

 

[LeeRatters]

Don't shoot either of those. My thought process these days is pretty much "Oh, that is too far away." and not even bother to bring my camera up to my eye.

That is what I mean by letting go. If I can't frame it in camera, I don't bother at all. Especially for personal stuff.

If I do.. let's say I have the 35mm on me only. No time to swap lenses, then I would frame it that moment would be a part of the scene. I would sidestep or move to shoot through something in order for that framing to make sense. That takes perhaps 1 second to do vs like 20 seconds to swap a lens.

This restriction and purposely forcing myself to look and alternatives I think helps one to be a better photographer.

Pretty much how I generally work

 

[f/1.4]

Both me and @f/1.4 both feel that the colours from the Nikon D700/ D3 are probably the best we have seen from the various bodies we have had. Although that could be rose tinted glasses.

Never felt that the later Nikon bodies D800, D750, D850 and for me I also had a D4S were as good.

Probably the best set up I have had from colours point of view was the D700 with the old Sigma 85MM f/1.4, that lens was special.

I think sometimes people underestimate the importance of the lens used when they talk about colours straight out of camera. Especially now when tones can vary so much even with lenses from the same manufacturer. For example the Sony 35G.M is hot which for me I like but @f/1.4 does not, were as the 50G.M is a fair bit cooler. I guess it it comes down a lot to the coating they use. The newer Tamron's are quite cool in terms of tones as well. Samyang lenses tend to run very hot, well the one's I have had have been anyway. They are great option if you want to give someone a free tan. Apparently the newer 50 f/1.4 Samyang and the 135mm Samyang are better in terms of colours, but I haven't owned those.

In the DSLR era it was a little easier as most Nikon lenses were similar as were Canon's etc but there seems to be a much larger variation when it comes to mirrorless lenses even when they are from the same manufacturer.

I think usage plays a part as well as I shoot 99.9% people what I feel is good in terms of colours is going to be different than someone who shoots say Landscapes etc.

D700 and Canon 5DMKII are the goats of colour. Maybe nostalgia plays a part from that era of photography though lol

The 35GM is the worst colour rendering “premium” lens I’ve used (had 3 copies and all identical) it’s flare performance is also pants (though Sony E mount in general isn’t good at all for this)

I’m probably bored of Sony though now and will likely fancy a change in the future lol

 

[snerkler]

Both me and @f/1.4 both feel that the colours from the Nikon D700/ D3 are probably the best we have seen from the various bodies we have had. Although that could be rose tinted glasses.

Never felt that the later Nikon bodies D800, D750, D850 and for me I also had a D4S were as good.

Probably the best set up I have had from colours point of view was the D700 with the old Sigma 85MM f/1.4, that lens was special.

I think sometimes people underestimate the importance of the lens used when they talk about colours straight out of camera. Especially now when tones can vary so much even with lenses from the same manufacturer. For example the Sony 35G.M is hot which for me I like but @f/1.4 does not, were as the 50G.M is a fair bit cooler. I guess it it comes down a lot to the coating they use. The newer Tamron's are quite cool in terms of tones as well. Samyang lenses tend to run very hot, well the one's I have had have been anyway. They are great option if you want to give someone a free tan. Apparently the newer 50 f/1.4 Samyang and the 135mm Samyang are better in terms of colours, but I haven't owned those.

In the DSLR era it was a little easier as most Nikon lenses were similar as were Canon's etc but there seems to be a much larger variation when it comes to mirrorless lenses even when they are from the same manufacturer.

I think usage plays a part as well as I shoot 99.9% people what I feel is good in terms of colours is going to be different than someone who shoots say Landscapes etc.

I agree lenses do play a large part, although I can't say I've noticed a huge difference between the 35mm 1.4 GM and 50mm f1.2 GM. I haven't done side by side testing though.

D700 and Canon 5DMKII are the goats of colour. Maybe nostalgia plays a part from that era of photography though lol

The 35GM is the worst colour rendering “premium” lens I’ve used (had 3 copies and all identical) it’s flare performance is also pants (though Sony E mount in general isn’t good at all for this)

I’m probably bored of Sony though now and will likely fancy a change in the future lol

That's surprising, I don't find that at all and for me is probably the closest to perfection of all lenses I've ever had (this includes the size and weight)

 

[woof woof]

I also have that lens and love it. Pin sharp. I have posted some photo's on here with it.

I tend to be more comfortable with the simplicity of primes and whenever I have a zoom on my camera I feel a bit... weird and treat them as a 28mm f3.5, or whatever.

 

[f/1.4]

I agree lenses do play a large part, although I can't say I've noticed a huge difference between the 35mm 1.4 GM and 50mm f1.2 GM. I haven't done side by side testing though.

That's surprising, I don't find that at all and for me is probably the closest to perfection of all lenses I've ever had (this includes the size and weight)

Horses for courses lol

 

[dcash29]

Sure I certainly use me A7rv as a crop body at times. But that's mostly to save space in the camera bag especially while travelling.

It doesn't make sense to compare a cropped result from a FF camera with a crop camera because that is not the intention of having a FF sensor. It does make sense to compare same field of view but they should be done at native resolution utilizing the full sensor. Cropping a full frame sensor to crop sensor equivalent will not give you better results really.

Basically intention of anyone buying a FF camera should be use the full sensor area or close to it. So cropping the results to m43 equivalent to make yourself feel better about the ISO performance of a crop sensors isn't how you'd be shooting in real world. You'd be using a longer focal length to match the field of view and use the full sensor (and yes the does mean using using larger lenses at times).

Hence I didn't think the test above made much sense.... Hope that makes some sense

(p.s. nothing against crop bodies, I have owned several in past and will most likely own a few more in future.)

So basically you're saying, using FF with a 200-600 would be better than trying to save weight and size instead of using the 100-400 in crop mode?

 

[nandbytes]

So basically you're saying, using FF with a 200-600 would be better than trying to save weight and size instead of using the 100-400 in crop mode?

Well depends on your intention.
In the past I have travelled with 70-350mm and used it on A7IV in crop mode because 200-600mm was too big to travel with for me.

But where I have been able to travel with 200-600mm it is absolutely the better choice for more reach.

If you can crop with 100-400, you can do the same with 200-600mm for even more reach. And if you don't need more reach than 600mm then you will get better IQ from utilizing the full sensor area with 200-600mm. But if you only have space to carry a 100-400mm then 200-600mm is a moot point.

And if you have even more space, money etc then get the 600mm f4 with TC that'll give you even better results than 200-600mm

 

[dcash29]

Well depends on your intention.
In the past I have travelled with 70-350mm and used it on A7IV in crop mode because 200-600mm was too big to travel with for me.

But where I have been able to travel with 200-600mm it is absolutely the better choice for more reach.

If you can crop with 100-400, you can do the same with 200-600mm for even more reach. And if you don't need more reach than 600mm then you will get better IQ from utilizing the full sensor area with 200-600mm. But if you only have space to carry a 100-400mm then 200-600mm is a moot point.

And if you have even more space, money etc then get the 600mm f4 with TC that'll give you even better results than 200-600mm

and what do you think post cropping would produce when compared?

 

[nandbytes]

and what do you think post cropping would produce when compared?

Comparing 100:400mm cropped versus 200-600mm?

Less pixels, potentially more noise and less image quality.

 

[dcash29]

Comparing 100:400mm cropped versus 200-600mm?

Less pixels, potentially more noise and less quality.

10mp is enough for any enthusiast, plenty of scope to remove the noise and I agree with quality. To dirty the water I'm considering gear weight, and comparing MFT.

 

[nandbytes]

10mp is enough for any enthusiast, plenty of scope to remove the noise and I agree with quality. To dirty the water I'm considering gear weight, and comparing MFT.

As I pointed out earlier I have used crop lenses on FF body to save on weight but that was only one area or for one type of lens. I didn't buy a FF body with sole purpose of using smaller crop lenses. Generally speaking I'm intending to use FF lenses that'll utilise the full sensor and hence avail the benefits of paying for the bigger sensor.

If the main intention or driver is size and cropping then crop bodies might be a better choice.

Having said you can get pretty small FF gear these days with Sony.

 

[dcash29]

As I pointed out earlier I have used crop lenses on FF body to save on weight but that was only one area or for one type of lens. I didn't buy a FF body with sole purpose of using smaller crop lenses. Generally speaking I'm intending to use FF lenses that'll utilise the full sensor and hence avail the benefits of paying for the bigger sensor.

If the main intention or driver is size and cropping then crop bodies might be a better choice.

Having said you can get pretty small FF gear these days with Sony.

I have no intention of using crop lenses on a FF body. It would be either to put the camera in crop mode or post crop the image.

 

[f/2.8]

I agree lenses do play a large part, although I can't say I've noticed a huge difference between the 35mm 1.4 GM and 50mm f1.2 GM. I haven't done side by side testing though.

That's surprising, I don't find that at all and for me is probably the closest to perfection of all lenses I've ever had (this includes the size and weight)

Used oxies aka @f/1.4 doesn’t like G.M lenses in general, he dislikes the 35 the most.

The 35GM is definitely warmer than the other GM lenses and there is a noticeable difference between the 35 and the 50. We will notice it more though just because we both shoot weddings and have thousands of examples every work day. Most people won’t see the differences we do as we are always aiming to have our work look consistent which isn’t a big issue for those that don’t shoot weddings.

Personally I like the 35 but then my edits do tend to be warmer than used oxies editing style.

The GM lenses for me are a good tool you know exactly what you are going to get but like anything they aren’t perfect and have flaws.

 

[snerkler]

10mp is enough for any enthusiast, plenty of scope to remove the noise and I agree with quality. To dirty the water I'm considering gear weight, and comparing MFT.

As Nandbytes says you’re always going to get better IQ using the full sensor, if your intention is to buy FF and use in crop mode you’re better off buying a crop body.

Yes people with FF will crop from time to time, as you do with any system, but they’ll primarily aim to use the full sensor where possible.

Weight saving of MFT is not as great as it once was, although if primarily using telephotos it most likely will be. For example IIRC the Panny 100-400mm is around 1kg lighter than the Sony 200-600mm which is a big weight saving, and gives you more effective reach. Of course that doesn’t tell the full story as cropping the higher mp Sony bodies to match the 20mp Olympus will negate any reach advantage. Still a 1kg weight saving though.

 

[nandbytes]

As Nandbytes says you’re always going to get better IQ using the full sensor, if your intention is to buy FF and use in crop mode you’re better off buying a crop body.

Yes people with FF will crop from time to time, as you do with any system, but they’ll primarily aim to use the full sensor where possible.

Weight saving of MFT is not as great as it once was, although if primarily using telephotos it most likely will be. For example IIRC the Panny 100-400mm is around 1kg lighter than the Sony 200-600mm which is a big weight saving, and gives you more effective reach. Of course that doesn’t tell the full story as cropping the higher mp Sony bodies to match the 20mp Olympus will negate any reach advantage. Still a 1kg weight saving though.

Even on telephoto you don't get much (if any) weight savings. What you actually get is more pixels.

If your crop 2x from a 60mp sensor you get 15mp imagine as supposed to 20mp from OM1. The other way around to look at it OM1 has same pixel pitch or design as a 80mp FF sensor and G9ii has same pixel pitch as a 100mp FF sensor.

The sigma 100-400mm or tamron 50-400mm is about the same size as pana/Oly 100-400mm.
And in fact the OM 150-600mm is just a sigma DN rebadge which is a FF lens.

Of course EM1iii/OM1 is cheaper than A7riv/v... So there is that (massive) benefit. They can also shoot action a lot faster etc.

 

[dcash29]

As Nandbytes says you’re always going to get better IQ using the full sensor, if your intention is to buy FF and use in crop mode you’re better off buying a crop body.

Yes people with FF will crop from time to time, as you do with any system, but they’ll primarily aim to use the full sensor where possible.

Weight saving of MFT is not as great as it once was, although if primarily using telephotos it most likely will be. For example IIRC the Panny 100-400mm is around 1kg lighter than the Sony 200-600mm which is a big weight saving, and gives you more effective reach. Of course that doesn’t tell the full story as cropping the higher mp Sony bodies to match the 20mp Olympus will negate any reach advantage. Still a 1kg weight saving though.

There seems to have been some confusion here as Im not sure where using a FF in crop mode has come from. However some good has come from your post Toby, in that post cropping a Sony image eliminates the mft reach

 

[woof woof]

Some from yesterday whilst loitering to kill time on Redcar beach.

A7 and Voigtlander 35mm f1.4.

Dog walker and of course... dog.



Splishy splash splosh.



Sea coal patterns.

 

[ancient_mariner]

cropping a full frame or APS-C image eliminates the mft reach

But this was already known and obvious.

and what do you think post cropping would produce when compared?

Wasn't it?

 

[snerkler]

Even on telephoto you don't get much (if any) weight savings. What you actually get is more pixels.

If your crop 2x from a 60mp sensor you get 15mp imagine as supposed to 20mp from OM1. The other way around to look at it OM1 has same pixel pitch or design as a 80mp FF sensor and G9ii has same pixel pitch as a 100mp FF sensor.

The sigma 100-400mm or tamron 50-400mm is about the same size as pana/Oly 100-400mm.
And in fact the OM 150-600mm is just a sigma DN rebadge which is a FF lens.

Of course EM1iii/OM1 is cheaper than A7riv/v... So there is that (massive) benefit. They can also shoot action a lot faster etc.

And this is why I bought the A7RIV to consolidate to one system. However, as discussed before there's no way you'd buy FF just to crop all the time but it is handy for uses from time to time. I've also chosen to do this over buying the 200-600mm but I don't need 600mm very often. If I was mainly a wildlife shooter I'd put up with the weight of the 200-600mm, or even consider m4/3. The 150-400mm giving an effective reach of 1000mm weighing only 1875g must be a dream for wildlife togs.

 

[dcash29]

I don't mind as long as I wind up with a 10mp file. Weight is important, but it is not the only aspect.

Basically, my mixed-up thoughts are:

1. Sony A7RV 200-600/100/400 - will it follow birds and nail focus better than an A7m3, and will a post-cropped image of about 1.5 be comparable to an MFT image with the same field of view?
2. OM System/300f4 or 100-400 - lighter, possibly better focusing/tracking, more robust, but lacks low-light image quality, increased noise and poor highlight recovery at times.
3. Wait for the Nikon Z6iii, as the Z8 is too large, then pair with a 500PF.

Perhaps I'm asking too much from one system with my expectations?

 

[nandbytes]

And this is why I bought the A7RIV to consolidate to one system. However, as discussed before there's no way you'd buy FF just to crop all the time but it is handy for uses from time to time. I've also chosen to do this over buying the 200-600mm but I don't need 600mm very often. If I was mainly a wildlife shooter I'd put up with the weight of the 200-600mm, or even consider m4/3. The 150-400mm giving an effective reach of 1000mm weighing only 1875g must be a dream for wildlife togs.

I think I rather get Sony 300mm f2.8 than the 150-400mm.

I have been recently thinking a lot about my tele choice. I find the 200-600mm both larger and heavier than I'd like.

The Sony 300mm f2.8 is a good choice looking at reviews especially with TCs. But it's £5-6k.
For near enough same price I could get Z8+400mm/4.5. that's a second body plus lens. Of course I miss out on the 300mm f2.8 aspect plus the 300GM seems sharper than better focusing then a 400/4.5.
The other option is the sigma 500mm f5.6. Lack of TC support bothers me a little....

Think I'll eventually end up down the 300mm GM route but having a second body + lens is really attractive too.

 

[nandbytes]

I don't mind as long as I wind up with a 10mp file. Weight is important, but it is not the only aspect.

Basically, my mixed-up thoughts are:

1. Sony A7RV 200-600/100/400 - will it follow birds and nail focus better than an A7m3,

A7RV will be a lot better than A7iii. In fact my A7IV was a lot better than A7iii. I swapped my A1 for a7IV and never once felt like it was a massive downgrade in terms of tracking.
I haven't used A7RV as extensively yet for animals/birds as I only just got it but for shooting people (i.e. my kids) it feels better than both A1 and A7IV (in terms of tracking only).

and will a post-cropped image of about 1.5 be comparable to an MFT image with the same field of view?

no you will need to crop 2x to match the same field of view (assuming you have the same focal lengths on both system).

2. OM System/300f4 or 100-400 - lighter, possibly better focusing/tracking, more robust, but lacks low-light image quality, increased noise and poor highlight recovery at times.

lighter - not really. 300mm f4 weighs 1.3kg and sony 300mm f2.8 (which is a whole stop faster) weighs 1.4kg. Then there is nikon 300mm f4 PF which weighs like 800g and nikon 400mm f4.5 PF which weighs like 1.3kgs.
the 100-400mm is about the same weight as say sigma 100-400mm or tamron 50-400mm both of which are f6.3 at long end.

So olympus isn't really lighter. what you get with olympus (or panasonic) is more pixels. That in turn can be useful for printing bigger or cropping further.
OR Z6iii+400mm f4.5+1.4x seems to be a better option to me than 500mm PF and adapting.

3. Wait for the Nikon Z6iii, as the Z8 is too large, then pair with a 500PF.

not a bad option in my opinion. There is also a sigma 500mm f5.6 now on Sony which might be better. PF lenses suffer from poorer bokeh and loss of contrast because of the diffrative elements/glass used in PF glass. Its pretty well documented. Sigma 500mm f5.6 achieves the same weight and sharper results without using such elements.

you can get A7IV+sigma 500mm f5.6 today. Z6iii doesn't exist yet and you have to mess about with adapters.

 

[dcash29]

Nand; I do appreciate your detailed response but I won't be paying 5k for a lens nor will I be purchasing 3 party lenses. In respect of the FF/MFT crop, I was thinking of 600MM MFT apposed to 400mm FF then post crop to match 600mm.

 

[nandbytes]

Nand; I do appreciate your detailed response but I won't be paying 5k for a lens nor will I be purchasing 3 party lenses. In respect of the FF/MFT crop, I was thinking of 600MM MFT apposed to 400mm FF then post crop to match 600mm.

fair enough on the money front.
though I am not sure why you are adverse to 3rd party lenses.

so 400mm on FF + 1.5x crop (or APS-C mode) would give you same field of view as 300mm on MFT.

ignoring 3rd party lenses your options are limited to Sony 100-400mm and Sony 70-350mm (latter being an APS-C lens anyway).
Think in these cases I'd prefer nikon Z6iii+400mmPF with added 1.4x TC.

have you also considered the Sony RX10 iv. might be a good option too for getting that 600mm reach plus you have a backup "do-it-all" body. I have considered this myself many times.

 

[dcash29]

fair enough on the money front.
though I am not sure why you are adverse to 3rd party lenses.

so 400mm on FF + 1.5x crop (or APS-C mode) would give you same field of view as 300mm on MFT.

ignoring 3rd party lenses your options are limited to Sony 100-400mm and Sony 70-350mm (latter being an APS-C lens anyway).
Think in these cases I'd prefer nikon Z6iii+400mmPF with added 1.4x TC.

have you also considered the Sony RX10 iv. might be a good option too for getting that 600mm reach plus you have a backup "do-it-all" body. I have considered this myself many times.

Nothing against 3rd party, just personal preference. I've had compact cameras previously and yeah in good light they're OK, without that or at high iso theyre crap IMO.

I think my first action is to get rid of all my bodies, then at least I can postpone lens sales until a decision has been made.

 

[nandbytes]

Nothing against 3rd party, just personal preference.

fair enough.

I've had compact cameras previously and yeah in good light they're OK, without that or at high iso theyre crap IMO.

At high ISO even cropping won't work in your favour.
not sure which compact you owned but on RX10 iv you have a f/4 lens at long end (and f/2.4 at short end). So at long end it lets in one more stop of light than a f5.6 lens for example.
So just to compare with MFT, you will have roughly one stop advantage using oly 300mm f4 because of sensor size but if you use a 100-400mm (f6.3), RX10 iv will be at a slight advantage because you can shoot at lower ISOs and any advantage to sensor size is negated (in terms of noise performance).

using 100-400mm f5.6 on FF and cropping 1.5x you will have about one stop of advantage in terms of noise performance.

not saying you should go one way or the other just explaining what is what, you best know what you need.

I think my first action is to get rid of all my bodies, then at least I can postpone lens sales until a decision has been made.

what system are you shooting with at the moment?
might be prudent (financially) to not have to sell everything and rebuy them on another system.

 

[snerkler]

I don't mind as long as I wind up with a 10mp file. Weight is important, but it is not the only aspect.

Basically, my mixed-up thoughts are:

1. Sony A7RV 200-600/100/400 - will it follow birds and nail focus better than an A7m3, and will a post-cropped image of about 1.5 be comparable to an MFT image with the same field of view?
2. OM System/300f4 or 100-400 - lighter, possibly better focusing/tracking, more robust, but lacks low-light image quality, increased noise and poor highlight recovery at times.
3. Wait for the Nikon Z6iii, as the Z8 is too large, then pair with a 500PF.

Perhaps I'm asking too much from one system with my expectations?

I would imagine if you get the A7RV and 200-600mm and do a 1.5x crop you’d get better IQ than the m4/3 with 100-400mm and 100mm better reach as it would be 900mm eq vs 800mm eq. You would also get more MP, 27mp vs 20mp. However the Sony combo would be much heavier.

As Trev has shown, the OM1 does appear to track better than the A7R V, at least with dogs running towards the camera. If you got the 300mm f4 that would negate some of the noise/low light issues as it’s a 1 and 1/3 stop faster than the Sony. With LR denoise I wouldn’t worry too much about noise anymore. Also you’ve got a better frame rate, the Sony isn’t ideal in this regards.

I had a quick try with the Z8 last week, I really didn’t like it. It felt like a brick and I didn’t find the grip comfortable at all. I was really surprised by this as I found the Z7 possible the best body I’ve handled.

 

[dcash29]

I would imagine if you get the A7RV and 200-600mm and do a 1.5x crop you’d get better IQ than the m4/3 with 100-400mm and 100mm better reach as it would be 900mm eq vs 800mm eq. You would also get more MP, 27mp vs 20mp. However the Sony combo would be much heavier.

As Trev has shown, the OM1 does appear to track better than the A7R V, at least with dogs running towards the camera. If you got the 300mm f4 that would negate some of the noise/low light issues as it’s a 1 and 1/3 stop faster than the Sony. With LR denoise I wouldn’t worry too much about noise anymore. Also you’ve got a better frame rate, the Sony isn’t ideal in this regards.

I had a quick try with the Z8 last week, I really didn’t like it. It felt like a brick and I didn’t find the grip comfortable at all. I was really surprised by this as I found the Z7 possible the best body I’ve handled.

If I was choosing MFT, Id probably lean towards 300f4 plus a 1.4 converter and it would be around a kg lighter. I agree with you about the Nikon however as with my z6ii, the cameras feel alive over the dead feeling I get with the Sony even though it does perform.