arbitrage wrote:
The 500PF seems somewhat sharper to me but it isn't a huge difference. I really only tried it with the A9 to jog my memory of how bad the AF is If the AF was as good as an adapted Canon lens then I'd certainly use the 500PF on the A9 for a lightweight carry around setup when not aiming for BIF. But the 200-600 on A9 gets me the extra 100mm with only 1/3 stop penalty and the zoom versatility and blazing fast and accurate native AF. Only small downside is it is heavier and larger to pack.
I'm hoping I will be able to do a quick test of the 500PF on the A9II and see if it does have better AF as has been reported to me by a member on here. I know one person with the A9II so next time I see him I will see if I can do a quick test. But even if the 500PF works reasonably well on A9II I don't think that would be enough of a reason for me to upgrade from my A9.
Anyways, right now my attention has been drawn back to the light with the EOS R5 rumors ...Show more →
Thank you for the reply. One more quick question. How do you rate the success rate between a9+200-600 vs D500+500 PF (or if you have D850)? I could not find much difference in keepers. May be I'm not utilizing a9 well. That's why I'm asking. Of course I love a9 for lot other stuff that need screen. For wildlife I always use viewfinder and I enjoy OVF more.
"Anyways, right now my attention has been drawn back to the light with the EOS R5 rumors :angel" So you are all over . Love your pictures..
Jemini wrote:
Thank you for the reply. One more quick question. How do you rate the success rate between a9+200-600 vs D500+500 PF (or if you have D850)? I could not find much difference in keepers. May be I'm not utilizing a9 well. That's why I'm asking. Of course I love a9 for lot other stuff that need screen. For wildlife I always use viewfinder and I enjoy OVF more.
"Anyways, right now my attention has been drawn back to the light with the EOS R5 rumors :angel" So you are all over . Love your pictures..
I find for the large majority of subjects I get fairly similar success rates between my D500, D850 and A9. But at 20FPS (when I use it) I have more wing positions and/or head angles to cherry pick from.
I do find that even for static subjects (birds on perch and ducks floating around) that all MILCs (A9, Z7, Z50) give me more consistent focus with less minor front and back focus shifts. Nikon is pretty good at minimizing these (Canon had more minor shifts) which end up ruining critical pixel peeping eye focus when DOF is narrow. Stopping down a little can cover the narrow DOF and increase success with the DLSRs.
The two main reasons I like using my A9 and Z50 is for full AF function via the rear flip screen for ground level shooting (especially ducks) and for complete silent shutter for my backyard shooting and other twitchy birds. But like you I do prefer the OVF for decreased eye strain and easier to look through when waiting for action to happen.
I started doing photography with Canon and then gradually moved to Nikon in 2016 and then gradually into Sony in 2018. I kept a lot of Canon stuff around up until mid 2019. I like buying and testing new gears even if I don't really need them to make my images. But Nikon AF (I have D500 and D850) and then Sony AF (A9) have made really tough BIF (small, erratic, messy backgrounds) much easier to do than my Canon gear. I owned a lot of Canon bodies over the years (5D2, 5D3, 5DSR, 5D4, 7D, 7D2, 80D, 1D4, 1DX, 1DXII) and I could easily jump back to them if they impress me. But for the last 4 years they didn't really impress me compared to the others.
arbitrage wrote:
I find for the large majority of subjects I get fairly similar success rates between my D500, D850 and A9. But at 20FPS (when I use it) I have more wing positions and/or head angles to cherry pick from.
I do find that even for static subjects (birds on perch and ducks floating around) that all MILCs (A9, Z7, Z50) give me more consistent focus with less minor front and back focus shifts. Nikon is pretty good at minimizing these (Canon had more minor shifts) which end up ruining critical pixel peeping eye focus when DOF is narrow. Stopping down a little can cover the narrow DOF and increase success with the DLSRs.
The two main reasons I like using my A9 and Z50 is for full AF function via the rear flip screen for ground level shooting (especially ducks) and for complete silent shutter for my backyard shooting and other twitchy birds. But like you I do prefer the OVF for decreased eye strain and easier to look through when waiting for action to happen.
I started doing photography with Canon and then gradually moved to Nikon in 2016 and then gradually into Sony in 2018. I kept a lot of Canon stuff around up until mid 2019. I like buying and testing new gears even if I don't really need them to make my images. But Nikon AF (I have D500 and D850) and then Sony AF (A9) have made really tough BIF (small, erratic, messy backgrounds) much easier to do than my Canon gear. I owned a lot of Canon bodies over the years (5D2, 5D3, 5DSR, 5D4, 7D, 7D2, 80D, 1D4, 1DX, 1DXII) and I could easily jump back to them if they impress me. But for the last 4 years they didn't really impress me compared to the others....Show more →
Thanks for taking time to explain in detail. I definitely get the advantages for mirrorless and it's LCD especially for low level shooting. I was lying down on my belly when I took below pic (with D300 and 500/4) . It's almost necessary for taking family pictures especially ever moving babies and toddlers.
I mostly used Canon 7D II for an year, but D500 came out moved back. Now the 500 PF won't let me drop Nikon any time soon it seems .
I like to see Sony (or any mirrorless camera) resolve the wake up time issue. It's almost 10-15 years behind regular DSLR. I remember we complained about DSLR wake up time compared SLR. Now DSLR almost 'never sleep'. Mirrorless need to catch up. I missed many moments while a9 took time to get ready and start focusing.
I also like to see Sony start making PF/DO lenses for wildlife. They made the camera small and light. But lenses are same size (or even bigger in some cases like 24-70) and heavy as SLR. So the balance is horrible. Need more lenses like Tamron 28-70. But for wildlife we definitely need lenses like 500 PF to reduce size/weight of the overall setup. I don't like the size of a9 at all. I know I can solve the issue using a grip. Then we lose the weight advantage. Wish if it was slightly taller camera with same weight.. I know this a subject people discussed million times..
Finally got a copy of this lens today and took it out for a spin even if it was quite overcast. VR at low shutter speeds seems to work nicely. Really doesn't feel much heavier than the 300 PF with the teleconverter.
Are many of you putting a clear UV filter to protect the front element on this lens? i have one for my 300 PF but don't usually put it on unless i am by salt water .
Here is a Snow Bunting from the country side, shortly after sunrise. Only -10 Celsius, but it felt much colder after a while, laid down on my matress in the snow, immobile. Pretty skittish birds! They move as a big bunch (about 30-40), so they are not easy to isolate...
chloesview wrote:
Finally got a copy of this lens today and took it out for a spin even if it was quite overcast. VR at low shutter speeds seems to work nicely. Really doesn't feel much heavier than the 300 PF with the teleconverter.
Are many of you putting a clear UV filter to protect the front element on this lens? i have one for my 300 PF but don't usually put it on unless i am by salt water .
No filter for me, just the bare front element protected by a smaller, shorter lens hood I use to replace the original.
fpoet wrote:
Here is a Snow Bunting from the country side, shortly after sunrise. Only -10 Celsius, but it felt much colder after a while, laid down on my matress in the snow, immobile. Pretty skittish birds! They move as a big bunch (about 30-40), so they are not easy to isolate...
Fascinating bird, for reasons you already said. Years ago, when I first saw a group of Snow Buntings come off the snow here in Maine I was like “What the heck are those!?” It was the flash(s)/patch(s) of white when they went up that told me this was something different.
Such birds make me wonder .... what can they possibly find on the seemingly barren snowscapes to give enough energy to get through the winter months? And in the wide open areas ... consider the windchill too. How do they do it? Always so many unanswered questions in nature.
Nature is so fascinating and yet most people just overlook it. And so I like to say that anyone who loves nature has a friend in me. Extraordinary effort with the mattress.
chloesview wrote:
Finally got a copy of this lens today and took it out for a spin even if it was quite overcast. VR at low shutter speeds seems to work nicely. Really doesn't feel much heavier than the 300 PF with the teleconverter.
Are many of you putting a clear UV filter to protect the front element on this lens? i have one for my 300 PF but don't usually put it on unless i am by salt water .
no UV filters any more for years
this lens is no different
so after years using UV filters and 10 years w/o them I can report not a single mark on any front elements
BUT
took my 80-400 to the beach one day and $850 latter Nikon removed all the sand so if we wanna keep an urban myth alive let's go with a good one.....if it's windy and probably even if it's not, DON'T shoot a zoom at the beach
chloesview wrote:
Finally got a copy of this lens today and took it out for a spin even if it was quite overcast. VR at low shutter speeds seems to work nicely. Really doesn't feel much heavier than the 300 PF with the teleconverter.
Are many of you putting a clear UV filter to protect the front element on this lens? i have one for my 300 PF but don't usually put it on unless i am by salt water .
Congratulations... the lens is a very liberating one to use!
I keep a high quality filter on mine. Living in MN, I shoot in rain, snow, ice, and deep cold conditions. I also travel a lot and occasionally drop my gear as I am hiking through the woods. For some, ultimate sharpness is everything and a filter compromises this goal. For me, I'd rather not worry about the conditions in which I shoot... so, if a stick pokes into my lens or a sandstorm pummels the glass, I will keep shooting.
FYI, I bought a breakthrough photography filter for my 500... it seems to be great, but frankly, I wouldn't know if it wasn't.
Fascinating bird, for reasons you already said. Years ago, when I first saw a group of Snow Buntings come off the snow here in Maine I was like “What the heck are those!?” It was the flash(s)/patch(s) of white when they went up that told me this was something different.
Such birds make me wonder .... what can they possibly find on the seemingly barren snowscapes to give enough energy to get through the winter months? And in the wide open areas ... consider the windchill too. How do they do it? Always so many unanswered questions in nature.
Nature is so fascinating and yet most people just overlook it. And so I like to say that anyone who loves nature has a friend in me. Extraordinary effort with the mattress.
If the AF was as good as an adapted Canon lens then I'd certainly use the 500PF on the A9 for a lightweight carry around setup when not aiming for BIF. But the 200-600 on A9 gets me the extra 100mm with only 1/3 stop penalty and the zoom versatility and blazing fast and accurate native AF. Only small downside is it is heavier and larger to pack.
. Love your pictures..
