David Arbogast wrote in post #18472294
Robert, how do you decide between using your a9 vs a6500 for your bird photography? I know the remarkable a9 has better AF and shooting speed, but isn't the a6500 also excellent in those ways as well?
Whether it's shots by you or Cory or Gene or other a6500 shooters (sorry if I forget and missed someone - Eddie perhaps?), the image quality consistently impresses. That Downy is razor sharp.
Good question, and not just for birds. If I knew ahead of time that reach would be pushed for focal length and I didn't need the best AF-tracking I'd use the 6500 for the 'effective' focal length and pixel density. [IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/VVCipw]Buteo face to face
That was my mental argument/logical debate with myself to justify adding the 6500 (well that's kinda of bull because Poof has the 6300).
Now after having used the a9 with the 2 tc's that argument for the most part goes out the window---this me believing that I got some very nice pics at 800mm.
A better question is the a6500 + 70-300G vs the a9+100-400 and nothing to do with AF or AF-tracking prowess, truthfully for those parameters either the 6500 or a9 can provide more than I'll ever need. The issue is kit weight and you know I suffered the EOS kit weight a long time....well when I wield the a9 + 100-400 it too will get weighty in a matter of time----sure I can wield it way longer than the
1DXii and big whites but when I pick up the 6500 + 70-300g it is just a joy.
You, Gene,Paul well anyone who has the 100-400GM knows what a stellar and I mean outstanding optic it is (another reminder of what Canon could have done=always holding back, the Sony kicks the EOS 100-400ii and I thought it was great). I've posted this one before (I think) via the 70-300G just to show that it too is a fantastic lens-
, on Flickr
That was with the a9 and the Buteo was flying straight at me, I got a whole series of tack (if you think this one is tack, tack enough for me) with the 70-300G.
So could the a6500 have done that? Probably not with every frame nailed, but how often does the bird come absolutely straight at me? Well it is a question I posed to myself when I had both the a9 and the 1DXii, comparing both side by side-so I went through my BIF album and looked for how many times the bird was coming right at me=rare, rare indeed....most, well the vast majority they are passing side to side or coming at me at something greater than 45 degrees. Well my a77ii could do those shots all day long.
Point, well several...with the effective reach of the 6500 (or 6300) and the 70-300G a lot of lightweight BIF work can be done.
Cropability. It was the same problem I had when steep in the EOS world. Me again going through the BIF and wildlife albums and seeing that the 7Dii gave me many more keepers than the 1DXii simple because I could crop more. Pixel density means so much to me and it is real unless you have the biggest of lenses. But I didn't have the EOS 600 or 800, and even at places like Conowingo my EOS 500 + 1.4tc was minimal entry for reach. But even if I'd had the longer whites I wouldn't have been able to wield them.
Even on the last Florida trip with the 1DXii kit I'd use it for 5-7 min's then set it down and pick up the a99ii just because of weight (we were on a boat David and no way to use a tripod, I did try a monopod but even that got in the way)
Well all that EOS saga went to the for sale thread at FM once I saw the a9 could do anything (excepting astro and star focus) the 1DXii could do only faster, with equal DR, but with more mpx's for cropping. The a9 broke Canon's back for me, and perfect timing as I was physically very tired of the weight.
There I go again, rambling about stuff I know little about. Sorry.
Hey, speaking of choices, in 3 days the RX10 iv will be here and it's going to Conowingo in November