G'day all, I'm a long-time Canon man and I have a kit that includes an ancient 40D, a 6D Mk I plus three lenses (100/2.8 macro, 100-400L Mk I and 17-40L). I'm planning to upgrade from the 100-400L Mk I to the Mk II, consign the 40D to the bin and buy a 5DIV which will become my primary camera. I'll retain the 6D as a back-up.

I have heard good reports from bird photographers about the Sony A9 and the Sony telephoto zooms (100-400 and 200-600) so, before I outlay a truckload of money for the Canon 100-400 Mk II and the 5DIV, I'm seeking advice about which way to go. Do I change to Sony mirrorless, or do I stay with Canon? Any advice will be gratefully received. Thanks in advance for any responses and assistance.

Cheers,

George

Hi George, You are asking a question like what is the meaning of LIFE?!!! I will try to give you a well considered response later. For now, remember that the Sony A9 is the flagship sports-action camera from Sony so you would be well-advised to wait a few months until the latest flagships from Canon (1Dx III) and Nikon (D6) are known quantities. It would be unreasonable to compare the Canon 5DIV (4-years old I think) with the latest Sony A9 (about 3-months old). Cheers, Ian

Many thanks for your prompt response, Ian. It’s the A9, not A9 II, that interests me.

I wanted to expand my initial post to cover some of the things that I would consider important when choosing my next birding camera and lens, but didn’t want to make it the length of War and Peace. My requirements will be similar to any birder’s i.e. rapid & accurate focus capture, adequate number of focus points, excellent low light performance, modest (5 to 10 per second) frame rate, a few custom functions. Other things like weather sealing, robust construction and ergonomics that are important for any type of photography would also be something that I’d consider before purchasing. DXO rates the A9 and 5DIV as equal when it comes to the basics (dynamic range, low light performance etc.). I look forward to your detailed response.

BTW, I have the life thing worked out, so no assistance required there. Ta. Cheers, George

Hi George, BLP member Jack Shick who is a Lord Howe Island resident is using the A9 with the sony 100-400 and has produced some fine results. It may be worth contacting him via one of his photos posted on BLP.

I don't think there's going to be an issue with image quality, frame rate (which is invariably faster on mirrorless because there's no mirror to flip out of the optical path every time a photo is taken) and probably noise performance as Sony sensors were in the lead by a small margin last time I looked (a while ago). It's going to come down to whether the operation of the camera is going to work for you and the accessories available which will be more limited for the Sony. Here are a few factors that I know about but there are probably lots of other:

1. Adjusting to an electronic viewfinder versus an optical one. I believe the electronic viewfinders on high end cameras like this are now very good but they are probably still going to take some getting used to versus a viewfinder where you are actually seeing the image directly from the lens optics. For mirrorless there will always be a tiny but perhaps noticeable delay as the camera processes the image from the sensor. I've never used a high end one so can't comment further.
2. Mirrorless has no need for focus microadjustment since focus is directly via the imaging sensor, not a secondary sensor in a different optical path in the camera. A small but significant advantage over a DSLR
3. I've heard some user frustration expressed about the non-intuitive nature of Sony camera menus but again, no personal experience.
4. Battery life is going to be a lot worse with mirrorless as the camera has to do a lot more processing work to take every shot - mainly presenting the image in the electronic viewfinder at near real time and at fairly high resolution which take a lot of processing grunt.

As I said, there's probably lots more to think about but that's a quick run-down based on what I know. There was a talk by Nikon at the BLP conference about mirrorless v DSLR but I suspect it was may have been skewed by Nikon's own commercial interests. Either way, it did *not* give a ringing endorsement of mirrorless as the way of the future at least in the near term.

Cheers
Glenn

Thanks George, that is a helpful clarification.

I am going to paint a big picture that is not intended to be brand specific although my experience is all Canon. I have used the 7D, 7DII, 5DIII, 5Ds and 1DxII extensively for bird photography and the one that has given me the best pictures is the 5Ds. For me, I found this to be the best all-round bird photography camera. The thing that makes this camera so versatile is the megapixels or more particularly, the size of the sensor pixels, about 4.1 micron. This is the same size as the sensor pixels in the 7DII. It means that with the same lens, both cameras put the same number of pixels on the bird. The 5Ds being full-frame has an advantage in that it covers a wider field of view with the same lens. The wider field of view can be handy especially when trying to find a moving bird in the viewfinder. Many photographers think the 5Ds has way too many pixels and will choke their image editing software and file storage but I have never found this to be the case with two generations of desktop computer. Some photographers think it will require a tripod and that hand-held shooting is out of the question. These people forget that it is the pixel size and exposure time that determines whether or not a tripod will be required, not the number of megapixels. No-one doubts that you can successfully hand-hold a 7DII for bird photography and the 5Ds behaves exactly the same, they have the same pixel size so what goes for one goes for the other. Where I am heading with this argument is towards cameras with more megapixels than less. My experience with the 5Ds tells me that for my kind of bird photography the best options are full-frame high megapixel bodies so that is where I recommend you seriously look for your next kit. In my opinion, the A9, 1DxII and D5 do not have enough pixels for general purpose bird photography. They require a lens of about 800 mm effective focal length be useful, their main advantage being class leading AF systems and the highest frame rates. The image quality from high megapixel cameras with lenses of more modest focal length (500-600 mm) and f/4 aperture easily bests the flagship cameras with their 600 mm f/4 + 1.4x optics.

For what is is worth, my next camera will most likely be the high megapixel Canon full-frame mirrorless body expected early next year. It is expected to have the same size sensor pixels as the recently released 90D and M6 MkII, that is 3.2 micron making the full-frame sensor about 83 megapixels. I don't find this in the least intimidating, plenty of folks are taking great bird photos with the cropped sensor version of this sensor. I have absolutely no doubt that it will take superb images with a 500 or 600 mm f/4 prime. The main issue is going to be the frame rate, it needs to be at least 5 fps for avian flight photography, and have an electronic viewfinder that can keep up. I have confidence that Canon will deliver adequate performance in all other regards for general purpose bird photography.

I hope these thoughts are in some way helpful, cheers Ian

Thanks for your very helpful responses, Glenn and Ian.

Ian Wilson wrote: ... It means that with the same lens, both cameras put the same number of pixels on the bird...

Whilst not an expert, I understand this to mean that this is true when the subject is the same size in the frame, not the same distance from either camera. Is that what you meant? TIA.