Gary Irwin wrote:
Thanks for posting. I'm very interested in hearing about your impressions/experience with the D500+500PF vis-a-vis 1DxII+600III. That 600III looks pretty sweet. To be honest if owned the 600III and Canon had a high-resolution/high performance body to go with it I wouldn't have bothered with the 500PF.
FWIW I own the Nikon version of the 600/4. As much as the 500PF impresses me by its size, weight and IQ, so far all its really done is satiate my desire for the 500/4. A couple of days ago I made a difficult capture of a small birds nest @15m or so...the IQ from the 500PF+TC14EIII (700mm @f8) was very good, but not surprisingly it just couldn't compete with the 600E+TC14EIII (850mm @f5.6)...aside from the extra reach, the 600 is just so darn sharp. Never-the-less, I think the 500PF is a unique and very cool lens that I'll be hanging onto. ...Show more →
Gary, I haven't forgotten about your post here, so I took my two birding rigs out today, the 1DX2+600III+1.4xIII (840mm), and the D500+500pf (still 500mm, but a 750mm FOV). So while it's easy to think they're comparable because they appear to be framed very similarly, it's still a 500mm vs. 840mm. Same shutter speed, aperture and ISO. The difference in the background blur is quite apparent. IQ between them is so similar that it's no longer a metric I'm using for comparison. Honestly, I don't think that the two can be compared, and that's just going to make things a ton more difficult when it comes time to choose which one to take out for the day.
It's a testament to how stellar the Nikon setup is, that it can go toe-to-toe with Canon's best at nearly 1/4 of the cost. I rarely shoot BIF, so I'm speaking purely in terms of fast moving, small birds in branchy/leafy settings with high contrast lighting. Like Gary mentioned in a post a few pages back, if you're able to get a clean, distant background, the 500pf does perfectly fine creating hat smooth OOF area, whereas the 600mm combo can do it almost effortlessly.
If Nikon releases a lightened 600mm f/4 in the same vein as the Sony/Canon, I'm all in, but how long of a wait will that be after announcement?
brian_sp wrote:
hmmm...sign on the door said this was the nikon forum, see a lot of ex canonites though
The grass is always greener....just last weekend I was drooling over Pius' "featherweight" Canon 600 III.....I had visions of buying a used 1DX2 just to use that lens....then along came Sony.......it never ends....
arbitrage wrote:
The grass is always greener....just last weekend I was drooling over Pius' "featherweight" Canon 600 III.....I had visions of buying a used 1DX2 just to use that lens....then along came Sony.......it never ends....
well, i should be feeling horrible then struggling along with the d850 and ancient 500mm G, i am in a field of straw looking at green grass everywhere
Here’s one from last weekend, at a national park in North India. This was taken after sunset so light was very challenging, while I did miss my 400 f2.8, the 500mm PF made up with its portability.
Leopard stalking its prey that eventually got away - shot on D5
brian_sp wrote:
well, i should be feeling horrible then struggling along with the d850 and ancient 500mm G, i am in a field of straw looking at green grass everywhere
I envy those that can just soldier on and make good images without bouncing back and forth from one gear to the next. Keep the warblers coming!!
MatthewK wrote:
Gary, I haven't forgotten about your post here, so I took my two birding rigs out today, the 1DX2+600III+1.4xIII (840mm), and the D500+500pf (still 500mm, but a 750mm FOV). So while it's easy to think they're comparable because they appear to be framed very similarly, it's still a 500mm vs. 840mm. Same shutter speed, aperture and ISO. The difference in the background blur is quite apparent. IQ between them is so similar that it's no longer a metric I'm using for comparison. Honestly, I don't think that the two can be compared, and that's just going to make things a ton more difficult when it comes time to choose which one to take out for the day.
It's a testament to how stellar the Nikon setup is, that it can go toe-to-toe with Canon's best at nearly 1/4 of the cost. I rarely shoot BIF, so I'm speaking purely in terms of fast moving, small birds in branchy/leafy settings with high contrast lighting. Like Gary mentioned in a post a few pages back, if you're able to get a clean, distant background, the 500pf does perfectly fine creating hat smooth OOF area, whereas the 600mm combo can do it almost effortlessly.
If Nikon releases a lightened 600mm f/4 in the same vein as the Sony/Canon, I'm all in, but how long of a wait will that be after announcement?
Thanks Matthew, I appreciate your comments and your effort to convey your experience. I'm not going to think too hard about comparing these setups given the many variables, but that you found the subject IQ being similar is interesting enough given the significant differences in equipment. It's no surprise that the increased magnification from the longer lens on FX would do a better job blowing-out the background vs shorter glass on DX for the same subject distance.
For the first time in a while I took out my 600E+Z7 yesterday instead of my 500PF+D850 and was reminded how much I enjoy the power and flexibility of a 600/4 lens. Interestingly, the weight really didn't bother me that much even though I mostly hand hold. But if Nikon does release a new light weight 600/4 in the 6 lb range I'm quite certain I'd upgrade and I honestly don't know what that would mean for the 500PF. Fortunately for my bank account(!) I don't think we're going to see anything like that from Nikon anytime soon...perhaps it will show up sometime in the future in a Z-mount.
I just returned from a trip to the Khutzeymateen, and while I have edited only a few of my thousands upon thousands of images, I can say for sure that the 500PF and Nikon Z6 did not disappoint. For those wanting to get the most accurate focus in challenging light, the combination seemed to be perfect. While my 500PF only saw about 25% of the action, it was the perfect lens when I needed it. There were times when I had to hold the lens to my eye for 20 minutes to get the shot that I wanted. Since a tripod is not usable on a zodiac and lower was not always better (i.e. resting the lens on the raft), I was dependent on my arms to keep things steady.
Currently in a B&B without a proper computer to do edits, I wanted to share a portrait that caught my eye.
cheers,
bruce
Old news to most of you I'm sure, but the D500 impresses me on ISO ability.
I live in a perpetual rain forest and light is a premium...couple that with early morning or late evening activity and the ISOs climb Here's one at 4000 and the TC.
Not quite an "ex-Cannonite" just yet, just enjoying what everyone has to offer. 
...it never ends....
