Canon 100-400mm mkii vs Sony rx10 iii/iv

413x

413x

413x

Caporegime
Joined
13 Jan 2010
Posts
33,163
Location
Llaneirwg
About to ditch my 70-200mm and 35mm 1.4 sigma art

Was looking at 100-400mm mkii (on 70D)
Then I came upon the Sony bridge.

Price is equivalent.

Which is better? Bear in mind this is for wildlife. Bonus for the Sony is all in one and smaller.

Really, the reason is for wildlife at distance. Birds etc.

I will be keeping my 70D for ultra wide and macro (100mm L macro)
 
I don't understand the question. One is a lens and the other is bridge camera. The bridge camera can take photos, the lens needs a separate camera.

The RX10 has a 200mm FF equivalent zoom on a small 1 inch sensor. The 100-400 has a 640mm FF equivalent lens used on your 70D, with a sensor around twice the size.


There really isn't a comparison at all for wildlife
 
D.P. said:
The RX10 has a 200mm FF equivalent zoom on a small 1 inch sensor.
There really isn't a comparison at all for wildlife
Click to expand...

DP, The RX10 iii / iv go out to 600mm and the Op has stated he has a 70D so the RX10 is about the same price as the 100-400 and will achieve around the same focal length.
OP what about so Sigma / Tamron 150-600, they can be had for £500-£600 used, my opinion would be that if oyu are keeping the 70D then make use of its advantages.
 
Columbo said:
DP, The RX10 iii / iv go out to 600mm and the Op has stated he has a 70D so the RX10 is about the same price as the 100-400 and will achieve around the same focal length.
OP what about so Sigma / Tamron 150-600, they can be had for £500-£600 used, my opinion would be that if oyu are keeping the 70D then make use of its advantages.
Click to expand...

What I'm wondering is if these bridge cameras outperform the dedicated lenses of the likes of tamron etc.
I used to have a 120-300 sigma and never liked the results.

Really I'm asking if Canon 100-400mm + 70D is better or worse than an rx10.
 
RX10 III lacks integrated PDAF of IV.
RX10 IV works better for moving targets because of that.

I know one nature photographer who doesn't anymore touch his Canon DSLR stuff because that Sony achieves mostly same in lot more comfortable to carry for long times package.
(with Panasonic GH4 already starting to replace Canon when he started shooting more video)
 
EsaT said:
RX10 III lacks integrated PDAF of IV.
RX10 IV works better for moving targets because of that.

I know one nature photographer who doesn't anymore touch his Canon DSLR stuff because that Sony achieves mostly same in lot more comfortable to carry for long times package.
(with Panasonic GH4 already starting to replace Canon when he started shooting more video)
Click to expand...

Moving target is a must.
This is the sort of post I'm looking for.
If there is no difference in quality (as a Non pro) I may as well just get the Sony.
And yeah it would be IV
Hope to get a few more replies

Will keep my dslr because macro lens is fantastic.
 
That nature photographer has also done lots of bird photography, so I trust him having tested also that. Though I could ask him tomorrow if you're interested.
If you've watched Tale of a Forest or Tale of a Lake nature documentary you've seen some of his video work.
(I would expect those to having been shown in UK television)


For noise performance that 1" sensor is about stop and maybe half behind Four Thirds, which isn't that far from Canon's APS-C sensors.
Just select RAW for equal processing and then cameras you want to compare against:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx10-iv/6
Of course faster lens compensates for good amount of that: F4 in tele end is one stop faster than that Canon 100-400mm

Again for stationary/slow moving targets you've got that stabilization in whole range from 24mm to 600mm.
So in certain situations it could gather more light than that Canon handheld, because of no IS in any really fast system camera lenses.
For some reason that seems to be often "forgotten" out by some people in technical ability comparison of different cameras.
And for same depth of field (in landscape shots etc) all formats have same light gathering ability per time unit.
 
Thanks for the help. I appreciate it.
I'll do some more research into it.

Soon should have the funds to get one or the other.
It's a surprise how little info is available
 
I would honestly consider the Tamron or Sigma 150-600. I had the 100-400 and you will always be cropping massively unless you've got some serious time on your hands and lots of fieldcraft. You could get a TC but your aperture will take a hit and in some cases affect the auto focus speed ( though I've heard with current Canon iterations not so much).



This is with the Sigma 150-600mm , 7Dm2.

Have a look at my stream. Happy to answer any questions.

With regards to the compact option I have no experience. I don't know any serious bird photographer use them.
 
A few thoughts on the 100-400 II. I only shoot FF and mine's been very good for birds/bugs (close and with or without 1.4x) and landscapes. Was recently on the Inner and Outer Hebrides and had one body on the 600 +1.4x and one body on the 100-400 II on the car seat next to me and I'm pleased with the results. Also used it on a boat for eagles, seabirds and dolphins. Been shooting demoiselles the last couple of days and used it with the 1.4x @f9 and, while there's some loss of AF speed and a bit of hunting, the results have been good. The close focus is just under a metre (the Sigma is 2.8m) and it takes 77mm filters (same as my landscape kit).
 
413x said:
About to ditch my 70-200mm and 35mm 1.4 sigma art

Was looking at 100-400mm mkii (on 70D)
Then I came upon the Sony bridge.

Price is equivalent.

Which is better? Bear in mind this is for wildlife. Bonus for the Sony is all in one and smaller.

Really, the reason is for wildlife at distance. Birds etc.

I will be keeping my 70D for ultra wide and macro (100mm L macro)
Click to expand...

I really don't mean any offence by this but you seem to be a little bit all over the place with regards to the lenses and body combo you own and what it is you actually want to photograph, comparing a bridge to an SLR for example is just a non-sequitur.
 
EsaT said:
And for same depth of field (in landscape shots etc) all formats have same light gathering ability per time unit.
Click to expand...

The light density is the same at the same aperture (not dof) but the total light gathering capability is directly proportional to the size of the image circle, the aperture needs be multiplied by the crop factor in order to determine the effective aperture. Eg a 222mm f/4 on 1" is equivalent to a 600mm f/10.8 on ff in terms of perspective, dof and total light gathering capability.
 
Last edited:
Energize said:
I really don't mean any offence by this but you seem to be a little bit all over the place with regards to the lenses and body combo you own and what it is you actually want to photograph, comparing a bridge to an SLR for example is just a non-sequitur.
Click to expand...

Just to answer this before leaving.

Really only interested in nature and architecture.
So I dont really need anything in the 70-200mm range, whenever I use my 70-200mm it's pretty much stuck at 200mm with me wanting more.
The sigma 35mm is a great lens, but again, I never use it.

I do use my
10-22mm
100mm macro
All the time.

The macro lens is my favourite so need to keep my dslr.

The Sony is a consideration because its an all in one with a long reach. And I read that because it always has the same lens the processing in the camera can be highly tuned for that particular piece of glass. Like nikon p900.
And at the price it is, I expected it may be competitive

Really, I don't need the 100mm end of the 100-400mm but the other lenses (primes 400mm) are too much. And the old slow 400mm lacks IS (I really find OS helps)

Reason I didn't include the sigma/tamron is I didn't get on well with the 120-300 OS. I was never happy with the pics compared to my 70-200.

Love the 400mm DO II but, alas, it is beyond justifiable for a hobby
 
Last edited:
Buddy said:
I would honestly consider the Tamron or Sigma 150-600. I had the 100-400 and you will always be cropping massively unless you've got some serious time on your hands and lots of fieldcraft. You could get a TC but your aperture will take a hit and in some cases affect the auto focus speed ( though I've heard with current Canon iterations not so much).



This is with the Sigma 150-600mm , 7Dm2.

Have a look at my stream. Happy to answer any questions.

With regards to the compact option I have no experience. I don't know any serious bird photographer use them.
Click to expand...

I will certainly check these out.

Have now sold my 70-200mm so I can now actually purchase whatever I get next.
 
413x said:
Just to answer this before leaving.

Really only interested in nature and architecture.
So I dont really need anything in the 70-200mm range, whenever I use my 70-200mm it's pretty much stuck at 200mm with me wanting more.
The sigma 35mm is a great lens, but again, I never use it.

I do use my
10-22mm
100mm macro
All the time.

The macro lens is my favourite so need to keep my dslr.

The Sony is a consideration because its an all in one with a long reach. And I read that because it always has the same lens the processing in the camera can be highly tuned for that particular piece of glass. Like nikon p900.
And at the price it is, I expected it may be competitive

Really, I don't need the 100mm end of the 100-400mm but the other lenses (primes 400mm) are too much. And the old slow 400mm lacks IS (I really find OS helps)

Reason I didn't include the sigma/tamron is I didn't get on well with the 120-300 OS. I was never happy with the pics compared to my 70-200.

Love the 400mm DO II but, alas, it is beyond justifiable for a hobby
Click to expand...

In that case I would 2nd the above suggestion to take a look at the 150-600mm f/6.3 also, getting you the equivalent of 960mm at f/10.

But expecting the same image quality as a 70-200 f/2.8 is unrealistic for most zoom lenses.
 
413x said:
I will certainly check these out.

Have now sold my 70-200mm so I can now actually purchase whatever I get next.
Click to expand...

Mine is the contemporary btw. Imho the sport version isn't worth the extra money - probably gaining 5% improvement in image quality (sharpness) but it weighs a ton (2.9kg)! The contemporary Is lighter , significantly cheaper and weighs 1.9kg.

I wear a shoulder strap and it's comfortable.
 
I can highly recommend the Sigma 150-600know sports, it works extremely well with the D800.
The contemporary is decent but it is measurably softer at 600mm wide open,stopped down and at short focal length there isn't much in it, but wide open at 600know is exactly where I want the maximum sharpness. Moreover, the biggest difference is the focus speed and accuracy. I spent over 18months going back and forth between the S and C but too many side by side comparisons showing the S to be just that little bit more superior where it really counts.

You do have to factor in cost and weight. The weight wasn't a huge a factor to me as it is not like either is a light pocket solution. Once I added my D800, tripod, gumball head and everything for a day hike it didn't make a huge difference to what I could or couldn't do.The Sports version is perfectly hand holdable if need be,and I can carry it around a few hours on a decent should strap. For going light nothing beats the Nikon 300know f/4 PF at 700g
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom