I was thinking about going again at some point in winter 😊

@ start March

Thanks!

Thanks

Thanks! Yes, that sounds amazing

thanks! Exactly, this was before I bought the R1

Danke! Ja, das 100-300/2.8 ist für mich momentan fast DER Grund für Canon (neben der R1). Aufs 600/4 TC bin ich wiederum neidisch 😅

Thanks a lot!

thanks

Thanks for the nice feedback

Thanks!

Thanks for sharing your experiences here!

Did you try all of the tips from the video?

See my answer to @Synthpeter. Sometimes we don't use all the tools at our disposal.

Thanks and enjoy

No, the brightness would be the same, since it describes the intensity of light (photons/area). But if you shoot both at 800 ISO than the image quality of the MFT will look more like 3200 ISO on a full frame

Thanks!

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work like this. In video you use slower shutter speeds because you want motion blur, but if you grab a still after you want to have a sharp subject

Thanks

You‘re welcome

Thanks! Yes, I agree, but it's really only ISO 500 for the A1. I tried to keep it general, but maybe I was too broad on this one.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography It is not just the a1, many full frame cameras for at least the last few generations exhibit partial(minimal noise impact from increasing exposure in post) or total invariance over at least some of their ISO range. I am not up to date on Canon but they have historically had less invariance than Nikon and Sony, both use Sony sensors. Overall your other tips are good but this specific tip is misleading for some of your viewers. It is unlikely to hurt their images but it also won't help.

For a very mild help, consider backing off your zoom to 472mm (which is barely anything compared to 500mm really) which will give you access to F6.3 instead of F7.1.

@@gregmonforton4103 Yeah, I know.. But compared to an 600/4 still it's like 1.3 stops slower at ~80% of the focal range.. But ok, since I'm on APS-C, to get 600mm equivalent I could in theory go down to 375mm which would allow f/5.6. But that is still 1 stop slower than f/4.0. Now we're not even mentioning the f/2.8 and f/3.2 shots in the video 😁 I guess the conclusion is if you can't afford it you gotta learn to make the best of what you have 🤪

@@Synthpeter Agreed! Another conclusion: "it's too dark for good bird photos right now and right here". I've also found that low-light is flat light, and it's usually boring even if you can get the exposure acceptable.

I guess it depends on the situation. The same techniques apply, but obviously with a 600/4 you can just shoot in darker environments than with a 100-500

The aperture values don’t change by stops, they are continuous. It’s just that the camera only shows it in 1/3rd stops. But if you go from 471 to 472mm, you don’t loose 1/3 of a stop of light

Yes, electronic shutter is great 😊

Thank you!

@ what percentage can you crop with a 25 megapixel sensor camera?

​​@@theflyingdutchman7127would have thought it would be somewhat image dependent old bean General gist of what Fabian said was "Not at all if you can help it" and "As little as possible if you have to"

Thanks and I totally agree

😅 curious to see how a future R3 II will look like

Thanks for releasing that camera 😃

I really enjoyed the larger Viewfinder and Precapture

@@FabianFoppNaturephotographyinteresting. I’m really happy with the R3’s EVF and don’t care for orecapture

@@FabianFoppNaturephotographythe dual card sot is nice and any improvements to AF performance is always welcome

​@@FabianFoppNaturephotography hey Fabian, well, when I went to pick up my new baby (RF200-800) the shop had a R1...so I asked to have a quick play with it. I have small hands, so it was an immediate dislike for me - it's much larger than the R3 and the grip is too large and very uncomfortable for me. I can reach the video on/off toggle switch with my R3, not so with the R1 (not that I shoot much video to be honest, I'm a stills kind of guy). The R3 fits much, much, much better in my hands, more like the older 1D/1DIIn that I have (yes, I still have them!). I had a play with the EVF and whilst I didn't have my R3 to compare it to, it didn't feel larger than my R3. Without a direct comparison in real time though, it's hard to be sure, since the mind can play funny tricks on you in situations like that. I was saving for an EF600f4II, but that was going to take another 3-4 years. By the time I had the money, Canon would have discontinued servicing/repairing the lens (my contacts at Canon Australia CPS have told me that this will happen in 2029). Since I am 55, and I hope to retire when I'm 68, I am planning to retire, and access my superannuation fund savings to buy a used RF600f4 II (should be a II by that stage). By then we should be up to a R5IV and R1 II (at least, if not III). In the interim, I decided to get the RF 200-800, to use alongside my EF 500f4 IS L (mark 1). Whilst the optics on this lens are still top notch, the IS performance is poor, and the AF can't, imho, keep up with BIFs (but it still very usable for perched birds). So, the RF200-800 will be used alongside my 500 prime and both will need to last me until I retire. My next goal is to save for a used original R5 (I am not fussed with things like pre-capture). I will use the R5 (with grip) for most of my birding photography, and the R3 for lower light rainforest birding photography, as well as general street photography and portraiture and landscapes. I really do love my R3, but it would have been much better with 35mp. Canon's post sale firmware support has been truly horrendous imho. Canon should have taken a leaf out of Nikon's book, but instead, like Sony, employs the firmware CrippleHammer™ (FCH).

Thanks! Yes, but I really wanted the f/2

Nice

Thanks and enjoy your A9 III

I shoot with a 500mm prime and 1.4x TC, for 700mm focal length. Only the RF200-800 outmatches this combo in terms of focal length, but it is optically inferior. The R3 and 24mp is fine if you can get close to your subject and fill the frame. It can still take nice environmental shots with the bird smaller in the frame. It is not great when it comes to cropping. As an example, I can shoot in crop mode with the R5 and still get an 18mp image. A tad smaller than the 24mp in the R3/R1, and with a 1.6x crop factor for extra reach.

Thanks