>>3772168>You're wrong, equivalence doesn't factor in isoThen why did you link to an article that states equivalence definitely factors in iso. Lol.
>F4 is f4!Yes, but f4 over FF captures more than twice the light as f4 over crop. The article you linked explains this.
>It's the 200-400 f4Then why did you say 100-400 f4, moron.
>On 90d it's 896mmF9 equivalent, nice 'luminosity', retard. Sony 600mm f4 with 1.4 extender gets me to a very similar focal length and f5.6, womp womp bitch tits.
>Using a prime for shooting cheetahs lit by moonlight is retardedLmao, no, it would be the best tool for the job.
>I guarantee the canon would do betterOh, if YOU guarantee it, it must be true, you've certainly shown yourself to be a paragon of knowledge, using old canon cameras in low light, fucking kek. They don't even have animal eye af ;)
>The canon lens is $11kAnd the Sony 600mm is $13k off that site.
Regardless, the Sony 100-400 is significantly sharper than the canon 200-400 and 1.4kg compared to 3.6kg, making the Sony exponentially more viable for a wildlife photographer to not only carry, but to shoot without a tripod. The 600mm f4 or 400mm f2.8 is also nearly a kg lighter than that canon.
Stay mad and wrong sensorlet
