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

[413x]

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)

 

[413x]

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.

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.

 

[413x]

It' n privce I'm concerned about.

Literally.. Which is better for birds

70d + 100-400 mkii
Sony rx10 iv

 

[413x]

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)

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.

 

[413x]

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

 

[413x]

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.

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

 

[413x]

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.

I will certainly check these out.

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

 

[413x]

It's a shame. I can't try both. Canon 100-400mm and sigma.

leaning towards the Canon 100-400 is II.
It's a close one with a split between people saying the Canon is better than the sigma pastry 400mm. (by cropping in).
Ive certainly found all my Canon lenses fantastic. But had major issues with 120-300mm sigma.

I think I would want the sigma sport too. I'm very fussy on sharpness. Its why I got rid of the sigma 120-300 f2.8. I was rarely happy with the pics. But never had a problem with the Canon 70-200mm

So unless anyone has any compelling reasons to not go for the mk II 100-400 I'll probably get that.

Ill need to sell my sigma art as well to pay for it

Seems like the price of that lens is higher than I paid for it!

 

[413x]

Going to get the Canon 100-400mm is ii in next couple of weeks.

I didn't realise it was quite as capable at macro as mentioned. To be able to take it out and have ability to get macro Shots with 400mm for birds etc in one lens is appealing.

It won't replace my macro in sure but can do both.