What I attempt to photograph? (Got samples all over this forum lol
Been trying a little bit of everything lately to see what sticks but mostly landscape / macro close-up stuff and tried some bird and wildlife, but I'm really quality light and lens challenged on the birding stuff but have had a tiny bit of success.
The bird stuff is what's making me look at Nikon z glass...
But haven't decided much and after last outing with the 5d4 and siggy 150-600c my shoulder is feeling it (also a lot of this is from work).
I'm a bird photographer primarily, and I happen to shoot Nikon
Ask me anything!
If you're after weight reduction, and want to dip a toe into ML + birding, it may be worth looking at the Canon R7 + 100-400 f/5.6-8. Very affordable, very lightweight, and from what I've seen/read is a stunning performer. Check out Duade Patton on YouTube, he's a Canon bird photographer, and has some thorough reviews of this setup.
If you want FF and have a bit more budget, it'd be tough not to recommend the R5 + 100-500. The R52 has dropped the prices on the previous model, which is an amazing camera (I have one, but have never birded with it though). The 100-500 is extremely light weight (~3-some lbs), excellently sharp, but has a few niggles that some don't like to deal with (use with TCs is a bit of a... challenge).
You can always adapt EF lenses too, as there's a plethora of outstanding glass available at bargain prices on the used market that more than holds up compared to the new fangled RF glass. The only thing you'll be missing out on is assignable buttons and control ring, but whatever, you don't need that stuff to get money photos (and there's an EF-RF adapter with a control ring, if you so choose!). Someday, I may splurge on an EF 600 f/4 II to adapt onto this R5 we have.
If you are looking at Nikon, well, you'll have the very best super-tele lens options available at the moment to fit most any budget, but the main attraction is the mid-range glass that seems to be aimed squarely at wildlife/bird photographers. It's what keeps me in their camp at the present. There's also rebates going which have knocked prices down quite a bit.
The differences b/w the brands, at this point, is small, but in my opinion (again, as a bird photographer):
Canon: they have the tech, they have the pedigree, but they're frustratingly slow to bring stuff to market. They march at the beat of their own drum, often making head-scratching decisions. Their lens choices are amazing, but you either get basement bargain entry level stuff, or the top-tier profe$$ional glass, and hardly anything in between, the 100-500 being the exception, but as mentioned above, it has some nuances that many people don't like. Personally... I'm waiting for them to bring out a new lightweight RF 400 f/4 DO or a competitor to the Nikon 600PF, and I'd be heavily swayed to come back into the Canon fold.
Sony: arguably the best in terms of AF and sensor tech. Similar to Canon, their lens offerings are solid, but aside from the 200-600 you're going to be paying a LOT for anything super-tele. A lot of photographers don't like the ergonomics, though their cameras are getting better with each new release. I've never shot Sony, so can't say much more than that.
Nikon: the best lens offerings at the moment that seemed to be aimed squarely at the mid-market ($2000-$5000 range) bird/wildlife photographers, but also have the BEST upper market 400 and 600 lenses available thanks to the built in TCs. Same as Canon, they also have a huge catalog of great DSLR-era glass that can be adapted, AND you can adapt Sony lenses as well
Their AF is great, but many consider it not quite as good as Sony/Canon in certain fringe circumstances because it requires a bit more work on the part of the photographer to get the best out of it. Nikon has regularly released updated FW that has vastly improved the AF performance, bringing it almost in line with the others.
