I received an email from pictureline.com indicating the 500 pf is in stock. I checked the site and it was allowing me to purchase once in the cart. I didn't buy one. I sold all my nikon gear since the 500pf is the only native lens I wanted and it seemed like mission impossible trying to find one. So ...
I had a similar experience waiting since March for BH to get stock. I cancelled and am wording a 200-600. May swap completely to Sony. Deems like Nikon and Canon are loosing ground......
Bryan Crowe wrote:
I had a similar experience waiting since March for BH to get stock. I cancelled and am wording a 200-600. May swap completely to Sony. Deems like Nikon and Canon are loosing ground......
I disagree...
I do not think Canon or Nikon are losing ground in terms of product quality; I think that people are enamored the tech that Sony has to offer. They are the "new kid in town," and have produced an AF system in their A9/A9II that is quite compelling. The capacity of the system integrated in those bodies rivals (surpasses?) the D5/1DX2, but other factors associated with the camera may be less compelling.
For some, new = better, for others... familiarity breeds success. While the 200-600 is a better lens design than the Nikon 200-500, for its internal zoom and faster AF, I have not been blown away by many of the images I've seen produced with the lens. This does not mean that the 200-600 can't produce outstanding pictures, it's just not the "amazing" optic that some make it out to be.
Much like the 200-500, the contrast diminishes as the focal length increases. With this drop in contrast, their appears to be a reduction in sharpness. Like the shooters of the 200-500, if you enjoy post-processing (as I do), you can make the 200-600 appear to be as sharp as a 600 prime. Now, if you had the money to buy a Sony 400 f/2.8 or 600 f/4 w/ an A9/A9II (at about $15000), then a Nikon shooter might have a good reason to switch. On the other hand... you could buy a D5/D850/ or D/500 w/ a 500PF for a lot less money and have amazing sharpness right out of the camera at f/5.6 in a super light package.
For the record... I shoot w/ a 500PF and D500/Z6 and considered buying the A9/200-600 combo. In the end, I found that my 200-400VR1 (at $1700) with the D500 produced nicer images (sharper w/ better bokeh) than my friend's A9 w/ 200-600 combo. While he had a higher AF success ratio (98% to my 85%), when we compared similar images... he preferred my pics to his...
Sometimes old tech can be better tech.
cheers,
bruce
cvrle59 wrote:
Nothing, but amazing, as always...so colorful!
---------------------------------------------
Lance B wrote:
Great series, Geoff!
---------------------------------------------
charles.K wrote:
Superb series Geoff !!!
Thanks guys, glad you enjoyed the images. I bought the Z50 do be able to do some of the things I like to do with my A9 but wanted to do with my 500PF. Mainly use the flip screen on the ground at water's edge which all of these were and to shoot silently in my backyard which the previous hummingbirds were. Mission accomplished!! I also shot a few flight sequences of some gulls and a Goldeneye duck and I got a fair number of keepers out of each burst. The AF isn't as good as an A9 but it certainly outperforms certain Canon DSLRs I shot with just a few years ago especially for non flight work.
arbitrage wrote:
Z50....500PF...what a lightweight mega combo....love it!!
Every one of these is stunning! I wish I had this type of color and diversity visit my neck of the woods during winter. I love the tight portraiture. The details captured is astounding!
Thanks for the update regarding the usability of the Z50 with the 500PF. I have contemplated adding the body to my bag for the reduction in weight and flip out screen. The 750mm effective focal length with that sensor is just perfect for birds.
arbitrage wrote:
Z50....500PF...what a lightweight mega combo....love it!!
Another beautiful set, Geoff.
I echo the sentiment. When I picked up a Z50, just a couple days before a trip to southern FL, I had no idea just how much I'd like it. It saw a good bit of action on that trip - primarily with a 500PF attached.
OwlsEyes wrote:
I disagree...
I do not think Canon or Nikon are losing ground in terms of product quality; I think that people are enamored the tech that Sony has to offer. They are the "new kid in town," and have produced an AF system in their A9/A9II that is quite compelling. The capacity of the system integrated in those bodies rivals (surpasses?) the D5/1DX2, but other factors associated with the camera may be less compelling.
For some, new = better, for others... familiarity breeds success. While the 200-600 is a better lens design than the Nikon 200-500, for its internal zoom and faster AF, I have not been blown away by many of the images I've seen produced with the lens. This does not mean that the 200-600 can't produce outstanding pictures, it's just not the "amazing" optic that some make it out to be.
Much like the 200-500, the contrast diminishes as the focal length increases. With this drop in contrast, their appears to be a reduction in sharpness. Like the shooters of the 200-500, if you enjoy post-processing (as I do), you can make the 200-600 appear to be as sharp as a 600 prime. Now, if you had the money to buy a Sony 400 f/2.8 or 600 f/4 w/ an A9/A9II (at about $15000), then a Nikon shooter might have a good reason to switch. On the other had... you could buy a D5/D850/ or D/500 w/ a 500PF for a lot less money and have amazing sharpness right out of the camera at f/5.6 in a super light package.
For the record... I shoot w/ a 500PF and D500/Z6 and considered buying the A9/200-600 combo. In the end, I found that my 200-400VR1 (at $1700) with the D500 produced nicer images (sharper w/ better bokeh) than my friend's A9 w/ 200-600 combo. While he had a higher AF success ratio (98% to my 85%), when we compared similar images... he preferred my pics to his...
Sometimes old tech can be better tech.
cheers,
bruce ...Show more →
Great points. I agree that the new shiny thing always gets attention. I would also add that each system is complicated and the level of control any given photographer has over it effects their success. That said I see a fair amount of Sony gear at pro sporting events which is some indicator of it's performance.
I will be keeping my D500/D850 bodies for know as I too enjoy the 200-500/300PF as well.
Male Northern Cardinal’s flaming red head feathers, after his fall molt. He’s stunning amongst the low-key winter browns, tans and muted greens. All wildlife are gearing up for Spring. :-)
Please post C&C. Need to hear it. Much appreciated.
The Z50 + 500PF sounds awesome, bringing all of the advantages of mirrorless to birding/wildlife, but I'm really hesitant to trust another MILC for birds after my experiences w/ the EOS R and 600 + 1.4. Described in as few words as possible: I absolutely hated it.
Right now, the D500 + 500PF are pretty much perfect, I see no reason to upend the balance and risk another episode of being let down by a mirrorless body, yet maybe Nikon has done it better than Canon in this area. For you all that are using the Z50 and have the D500, how'd you compare the two bodies in terms of AF speed and accuracy? How's the viewfinder lag/blackout in the Z50?
The thing about the EOS R that frustrated me to no end was it's penchant for missing AF on a target (bird on a branch) in front of a busy background, and then grabbing onto that background for dear life and not letting go unless I manually reeled the focus ring back in. I gave up on shooting Warblers this past fall with the combo, the camera just couldn't deal w/ the messy fore/backgrounds and the rapidly flitting birds. The D500 (and the Canon 90D) were rock solid, in comparison.
.
