For me I use the A7RV + 100-400 GM. 400mm is more than enough for me but if I need the 600mm I will put my RV into APSC mode and I still get 26mp so its perfect for my needs especially with travelling
For APS-C users on a budget, it can't get any better than the 70-350mm. It balances well on Sony APS-C cameras, has great reach and awesome image quality.
Great job (as usual), BUT you missed an AWESOME Sony camera that I carried on an 18 day Africa tour of South Africa, Zambia, Botswana, Numibia and Zambia. Through much, brush, dust, in and out of Range Rovers, my faithful RX10IV captured over 5k photos and videos. Phase detect focus with 24-600mm lens worked flawlessly! And, shooting at 600mm/f4 allowed for some beautiful low light shots. And, Sony's anti-mtion blur setting allowed night wildlife shots of a beautiful leopard that no one else in our group could capture. At $1600, the RX10 is a steal for, wildlife and anything else. And, dust and moisture protection kept it going without problems that might experienced by other cameras. At 2 pounds , the RX10IV didn't even cause neck or black strain, not to mention excess baggage cost. 😊👍
My 70-350 and 200-600 gathering dust most of the time, I'm using more often tamron 150-500 with a6700, a lot easier to pack it in small bagpack than 200-600, also tamron is much better with macro than 70-350 or 200-600, so when there no birds or bigger animals around it allows me to do some decent macro shots, this way I never come home with empty card :D
It is purely a weight issue. I personally thing its an even trade most of the time. For me, for documentary video being able to pack the tamron "just in case" is nice
@@bloodybrit127 i can do the same with the sigma, and I'm quite happy with it's size being able to put it sideways in the whistler rl400 and the 450 that never gave me any issues with flying
@@thatcrazydutchguy9824 Certainly you can but it is noticeably larger and heavier. Being able to pack the tamron vertically is a plus, for me it was enough difference that when packing my carry on, the tamron was able to squeez in, but the sigma was too much, especially with the lens good. Overall i think most people dont have my contraints and would be better with the sigma. For Tony and Chelsea, i don;t recall seeing them review the sigma so if i recall correctly, its possible they just never got their hands on it.
Just an observation from a fan. I get that Adorama is sponsoring your videos. That's great. But the constant referral to Adorama throughout the video is more than a little tiresome. Just sayin"
It's a business. You can't make it into a career without making it worth it for your advertisers. You're literally consuming free content that took someone else countless hours to make, I'll never understand how consumers of content still feel like they have a leg to stand on when criticizing...
What about the Sony 400 F2.8 GM lens? About the fastest super telefocal lens available for wildlife photography. No not as much reach as the 600 GM for small or distant subjects, but equally high definition and the ideal lens for larger subjects, be they mammals or large birds such as eagles. The definition is so good, that I get better results with my A1 than with the 200-600 zoom. Also don’t forget that F2.8 is invaluable at dawn and dusk, giving you maybe another 5-10 minutes shooting as the light dims over the F4.
I thought I was the only one thinking about this. Anyway Sony paid them well as they can both use a A1, the most expensive Sony, which is more expensive then Nikon Z9.
The A7R ii with the Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III RXD Is a great option. The only bad part of it are the 5fps but you can pick this combo up for around 1k on the used market.
Thanks for yet ANOTHER great Wildlife Photography video!... BUT I wish you were able to wait until after the introduction of the A9III in two weeks (or have you ALREADY DONE THIS but are under the usual 'NDA' HM-M-M....!?! ;) )
A used A9 is the way to go! No point paying more for an A9II because the difference is very subtle. 24mp, 20fps, no blackout, silent shooting, top-notch AF and a nice EVF. If you find a nice one between $1,200 - $1,500, that’s a great deal!
In the UK the used price between the two is not much, so IMO it is worth spending a bit more for the improvements, but not worth replacing an A9 if you already have one. But 100% agree on the A9 family, really good value used. And lower MP is fine if you're not blowing up heavily cropped images for big prints, and it saves on memory cards and HD space (which fills up quick with 20FPS). Another factor is low light performance, which the A9 does well with. Lower MP means more light per cell which really helps compared to the A7R apparently. And for wildlife, thats great for dawn and dusk with owls, deer etc. Although I have found the AF does struggle in the extreme low light situations, but if you're blasting 20FPS you just need a couple of in focus images which has worked out well for me so far.
This is a pretty terrible video. Lots of information being taken out of context , wrong information like "low mega pixel bodies", "the 70-350 isnt sharp/ is the cheapest telephoto lens on emount (wrong)", recommending 256 GB cards to just spray and pray and just straight up bad advice. And to top it off the example photos are from years ago, have Tony and Chelsea even shot anything recently?
I have the 70-350 G and it is super sharp, quite the equal on APS-C body as the 200-600 on full frame body - and a third of the weight to carry. Talking as someone who also has the A1 and 600 GM, I still use the A6700 and 70-350 when I want to travel light and am pretty satisfied with the results. That combination is what I would recommend to someone starting out.
They don't shoot APS-C, and probably only used the Sony 70-350mm when it was released to make a review video and never since. This whole video is quite disappointing, it's like an Adorama advert.
Crop magnification in editing is software adjusting an image to a preset final size for display or print. ASPC crop from full frame, or FF from medium format, or medium from large crop is just recording less of/cropping the field of view of what a given lens “sees”. The light coming through the lens doesn’t change. There is no inherent optical magnification and unless there’s an extreme quality difference in the sensors smaller never equals gooder picture. Weight and less hurtfulness to the wallet might be though. 🤷🏼♂️
I’m currently on Fuji XT4 and I usually do street photography. But i really love birds and the few experiences that I had with photographing and filming birds makes me want to get a new camera and lens for this purpose. I just got into photography for like a yearish tho, so there’s still so much for me to learn. Currently looking at Canon and Sony but there’s so many choices idk which to choose.
For most shooters, shooting wildlife means birds and some land animals but there is also wildlife under the water surface. There might be some recommendable gear like soft or hard camera cases and lights for under water photography.
Guys there is 100% an owl around you somewhere. Those robins going crazy as well as all the other birds making a ruckus is a telltale sign of a raptor being around
Hi! Is better RX 10 iv o Sony A6700 and Lens Sony 75/350? I have seen also the full frame camera but the lens are very heavy and big.. I want a camera for my travel with quality images and possibile good zoom that can integrate my IPhone 15 pro max. Thanks you
FYI the a6700 shoots at 11fps both mechanical and electronic, while the a6400 is 11 mechanical and 8 electric, but looks like others are pointing out theres a fair bit wrong here, useful as it all is anyway.
I like the Sony FE 400mm f/2.8 GM Lens as I can slap a 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverter on that lens to get that extra reach if I really need it. I like that has a 2.8 Aperture without the teleconverter for those low light shots. Granted you have to get closer to wildlife, but I like the challenge.
I am sure you did a video where you thought the Sigma 150-600 had the edge on the Sony! It is so difficult looking at gear when reviews do not cover the points you need or omit vital information. Incidentally I have a thing that hooks over a car window, a tripod with no legs, great when you are using the car as a hide.
You guys are doing a great job and help a lot of people make well informed decisions. Thank you. Questions: What's your take on A6500 for wildlife? Would you use a 1.4X teleconverter or will you use a crop mode in Sony FF cameras?
I have been using the Wimberley MH-100 Monopod Gimbal on a Benro Supa Dupe monopod when a tripod is not convenient. It is easy to carry either the 400 or the 600 across your shoulders and it is nearly as steady as the tripod.
I have the sony a6400 + Sigma 150-600mm sports lens and it's an awesome combination! I didn't go for a fullframe, because of the 1,5x crop that a crop sensor gives you. I noticed i really need that extra crop.
We reviewed it here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-05EonM03D4Y.html But it just didn't make the cut as a dedicated wildlife lens. It's more a lens for someone who shoot sports and wildlife... it makes some compromises for that versatility.
So usually I’d talk about my 100-400 sigma on aps-c because it’s ~kg and equivalent of a 150-600 on crop… But I’m honestly thinking if I didn’t have full frame cameras I’d trade it for the 70-350 which is lighter and almost as good range…
The field of view is cropped. The optical image quality and magnification out of the lens is unchanged. Try the same lens and same composition of the shot on a fixed tripod with one of each camera body.
@@brianlinton910 effectively if I had an a7r5 then I could crop and get the same photo, as an aps-c but otherwise my 24mp aps c is going to get a better photo than most full frame cameras in terms of long reach.
@@GemmaHentschassuming every other aspect the sensor specs are equal, then yes you would have to multiply the the aps-c megapixels by the crop factor to get exactly the same post crop results on a full frame. The physical optical reach of the lens itself doesn’t change regardless of camera body.
I have been following you both for a while..I have a Nikon D850 with Nikkor 200-500, 70-200 f2.8 and 16-35 wide angle. I shoot for fun ..got interested after my photos were sold to help poor cancer patients. I want an upgrade now…maybe a Sony alpha 1 with 200-600f/5.6 and the 600f/4 with teleconverter….or do you suggest a Canon. I am retired with all the time in the world…john Thomas, Kerala, India😊
I feel guilty about how much I enjoyed this; and I am not a Sony user! Immediately I bought a couple of CFExpress cards for my OM1. Maybe that will help with my buffer problem. As always, thanks for the excellent video!
Oh boy the 100-400 lens lovers are gonna hate this video!!!! lol There is a cult like following for the 100-400 lens and they are always very vocal on videos where that lens is not the star🤦🏼♂️
A problem with gear reviews is that they seldom comment on the quality of customer support provided by the different manufacturers. I bought a Sony 600mm f4 which had issues but got no real support from Sony at all, leaving me with an extremely expensive unusable lens. ....I am now having to move to another brand because i cannot trust my huge investment in Sony gear will be properly supported moving forwards. It is worth taking this side of ownership into account and checking online reviews on review sites to see the size of the problem with particular manufacturers.
I know this was an Adorama video and not a KEH one, but if you're shooting Sony, it's well worth looking out for a used A-Mount Sony 500 F4. Amazing lens.
I have almost all the same gear - but which Gitzo tripod are you actually using? The Gitzo gimbal is also great for video due to the fluid-like damping.
What are your thoughts on pairing the a6700 with either the Sony 100-400 (the older version) OR the new 70-200 f4 macro and 1.4x teleconverter for shooting wildlife? I'm looking to upgrade from my a6000 to the a6700. I could go full frame and purchase a telephoto but it wouldn't be in the budget to also replace all my apsc lenses. I know I could shoot in crop mode on the full frame and use the apsc lenses, but then what is the point in having a full frame camera... this leads me back to the a6700. The telephoto lens will be a splurge for me that will need to last quite a few years... Thanks for any advice!
Get the 70-200 F4 macro, you wont regret it. It is so sharp in the middle that even with the 2x teleconverter on it is still sharp on a crop sensor. It becomes a ~ 200-600mm F8 lens that can do the craziest macro of any lens too! It and the A6700 are probably the most versatile zoom combo on the market.
Adorama must be paying you guys in coffee or red bulls these days. I have the 70-200 GM II and 200-600 G. I recently sold the 100-400 GM. I found that the 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters work well enough with the 70-200 GM II that I no longer needed the 100-400 GM. And if I wanted to go longer, I had the 200-600mm G.
I figured you guys probably have more camera gear and accessories than anyone could imagine! Things have gotten out of control for me. I'm looking for organizational solutions from anyone with ideas? The Milwaukee PACKOUT modular organizers are what I'm trying right now.
I got 4 big toolboxes from Lowe's and added foam to the drawers. I cut out foam in the shapes of cameras and lenses. I keep them in a closet locked with a keycode.
Be happy that we can afford to keep making videos without taking sponsorships from a camera or lens manufacturer. We're pretty much the only big channel that has managed to do that.
I am a beginner and want to start travel and wildlife photography should I get A9i/A7riii/A7iiior save more money to get A7iv. Should I get 70-200gm mk2 + 2x tele, 100-400gm and 200-600g please give me a recommendation?
Yeah, they're outrageously expensive! I use the Angelbird 1TB cards which are only $499, but they're currently backordered... CF Express Type A really sucks.
I purchased a a6600 (1st crop with IBS and it takes the same battery as my a7mk3) the main reason was so I could add the Canon mount Tamron 18-400 from my Canon days, such a great Walk Around/light weight kit. On days when IQ is more of a goal and weight not a concern, I swap that out for the Sigma 150-600 (I chose the Sigma over the Sony 200-600 because of the minimum focus distance being much less) I was thinking of getting the a7mk4 but now I'm thinking the a6700 would be a better choice and more wife friendly. Oops, I mean budget friendly bang for my buck! And yes the 18-400 is at its best performing with good to great light and not so good in lower light conditions
i've the same a7m3 and a wife-friendly (for budget and weight) a6600. Looking for a telephoto lens. What adapter do you use with 18 400. Considering I dont own this lens, would you recommend anything else in similar IQ in Sony? Perhaps, 70 350 G?
I use the Sigma MC-11 Canon EF to Sony E on both cameras,it is tiny bit slower at Autofocus especially with the L glass I used when I first moved from Canon to Sony but,it did the job until I could replace my old glass with Sony E mount glass
The 70-350G with my a6600 is my favorite setup. It's light enough to hike all day and takes great photos. I'll even use it when going to NYC and use it for portraits and architecture @@SenthilRameshJV
Great info you 2. Enjoy your honest opinions. I have the Sony A7Riv and love the ability to crop but since I'm doing 60% wildlife/birds and 40% landscape I'm wondering if I should get either the a6700 because of extra reach and new AF processor etc or maybe the A7Cii ( A&R5 not in budget. What do you think. thks
My Sony A1 was $6500+ tax $650 + 2 160GB $700 .. $7,850.00.. Almost $8,000 before i even put a lens on it. My Canon R7 $1,500 and has better auto focus. Spend your money carefully if you are on a budget. My Nikon Z8 $4,400 .... with better birding lens options.
I'm in the same boat. I've been using that lens since it came out. Like you, 525mm equivelent is just not enough in a lot of situations, but I've yet to find a Lens with more reach that my gimpy old back can tolerate, and I've tried them all. .I know I'll get laughed at, but I recently picked up an OM-1 and a PL 100-400mm. 800mm equivalent with frankly, better bird eye AF than my A6700 (IMO). Sure, there are compromises with the small sensor, but for me, it's been a revelation. Just my experience.
Sony needs compact and light long tele prime Lenses like 300mm 4.0, 400 4.5 and 500mm 5.6, Nikon is doing it good with their 400mm 4.5, 600mm 6.3 and 800mm 6.3
I did exactly this, I was done with the weight of the 150-500 for travel. They call it super light, I like the 1 kilo from the 70-200 GM II a lot more. With TC 2x and in APS-C mode you get 600mm. Works well, but with TC only for non moving objects and it should be in your frame to a reasonable degree. Otherwise difficult to get it sharp. With the f2.8 without TC (also in APS-C mode) you have a great reach with lots of light. Very manageable in terms of weight.
With all that gear you really need to go to some awesome place one day maybe amazon forest or something ( Glenn Bartley probably will be the good person to suggest some trip ) you are doing wildlife for so long it would be a great way to spend time :) I know that you got two dogs on your mind and I know its not easy but maybe there is a way around it :)
@@angeloplayforone tbh I just wish them the best experience for them self :) I would not like them to post video from the trip because they will waste 70% of time there for content creation just go and enjoy :)
