I shot weddings with the D1x, D2x, Canon 1d MK III, and then the D3. The D3 was not as good in low light for autofocus as the D2x and the Canon cameras but the D3 provided a full frame pro grade camera and also the 14-24mm and 24-70mm pro level zoom lenses.
I was having so much difficulty shooting in low light at weddings with the D3 that I started to experiment between weddings and soon found that the problem was that the focus sensors outside of the center 3 columns were not cross type. Holding the camera horizontally as one tends to do the sensors could not lock on to horizontal lines for autofocus. Even focusing on the horizontal bottom section of a picture frame with a print with a mat would result in no focusing by the camera, it would not even hunt.
The D2x has a more usable distribution of the AF sensors for wedding photography. The D3 autofocus was designed for sports shooters and so having the three columns of cross sensors covering onlly the center 25% of the viewfinder was done by design. With the D3 I found that I needed to focus on a shirt collar or neckline of a dress or even an earring and not try to focus on the face in low light situations.
Each camera has its limitations. In bright light the performance of the D5 is stellar but if used with a telephoto lens and a teleconverter it provides only 5 usable AF sensors as compared to 9 with the D850. Nikon appears to have fixed this with the D6.
One of my favorite features with some Nikon lenses is the ease with which I can manually override the autofocus when the camera is failing to focus properly on a subject.
* 24mp vs 20mp - more resolution, comes handy when cropping.
* Better ISO performance, significantly.
* 2200 shots on a single charge.
* Charge USB, great on the go.
* Newer, newer processor, newer sensor, newer AF system.
* Full frame with option to go DX.
I think it's a better well rounded camera, even if you want to use it for anything else. Video is great IF you ever want to record while out there. I think the D780 is highly underestimated. D780 my vote!
kriskunisch wrote:
I am not familiar with the Olympus system, but I am surprised to hear that the camera is struggling with BIF. Most of the photographers I spoke to have praised the system's AF.
Olympus C-AF sucks compared to Sony, Canon, and Nikon. Yes, I have used all four brands.
And the Olympus AF will not get any better now that Olympus is going down the tube.
* 24mp vs 20mp - more resolution, comes handy when cropping.
* Better ISO performance, significantly.
* 2200 shots on a single charge.
* Charge USB, great on the go.
* Newer, newer processor, newer sensor, newer AF system.
* Full frame with option to go DX.
I think it's a better well rounded camera, even if you want to use it for anything else. Video is great IF you ever want to record while out there. I think the D780 is highly underestimated. D780 my vote!
Compared to what ? Judging from your points - the D500 ??
The D500 has smaller pixels, thus higher magnification. So your "just" 20 Megapixels will actually have more detail recorded, when its about wildlife and you need range, range, range. The D500 is in the advantage here, not disadvantage.
The "better ISO performance" is noise though. The D500 is already optimized for excellent high ISO performance, just like a D5 or D6; the D780 isnt. The D500 can, with careful post production on the computer, manage ISO 40k. The D780 is better, sure, but unlike a D5 or D6 not that much better than the D500.
Its funny that you praise the number of shots. Are you unaware that the D500 has a battery grip ?
USB Charging is anything but great, its highly inefficient because occupies and endangers the camera. Its also not, as you possibly want to imply, specifically fast either. And you have to handle the USB cable instead of the full charger. In the sum I'd much rather have a charger.
DX mode on D750 will have 10 Megapixels. DX Mode on the D500 still has 20 Megapixels, since thats all the camera has. Unlike 20 vs 24 Megapixels, this is actually a relevant difference in resolution.
The D500 also has the superior autofocus system. Also, the autofocus system covers almost everything in the frame.
For wildlife, I'd pick the D500 any day over a D780.
At this point, I would council nature photographers interested in the D780 to buy a Z6. I only shoot wildlife and landscapes. I spend many months over a year in the field and have a wide variety of lenses. My primary wildlife cameras are (3) D500 bodies. I use these with a 500PF, 200-500VR, and 70-200E. Each lens has a camera specifically devoted (fine-tuned) to a lens, and is exclusively used with their respective lenses. In addition we (my wife and I) have a pair of Z6 bodies. These are our "flex" bodies and used w/ Z lenses for wide-angle work, and with older G F-mount lenses. Specifically, I use my Z6 on my 200-400mm f/4 VR1, and my wife uses her Z6 on the original 70-200 f/2.8G VR1.
So why buy a Z6 instead of a D780?... I'll offer you two reasons:
1. Nikon's Z-series lenses are nothing short of amazing (optically & sized). They are the future of the Nikon ecosystems, so it is worth dipping a toe in.
2. Compatibility with G-lenses... with the FTZ, the Z-series bodies get the most out of the optics of your old G-series lenses. If you are using a zoom lens where different focal lengths exhibit optical shortcomings due to an inability to infinitely optimize AF-fine tune settings, one tends to avoid specific focal lengths. In my case, I would never shoot my 200-400mm f/4 @ f/4 because if I fine-tuned it for that combination w/ a D500, it throws off my 200mm to 300mm focus... this type of thing drives one nuts. With the Z6, I have fallen in love with my 200-400VR again!.. The focus is now accurate throughout the entire zoom range, and I am able to access 400mm f/4 bokeh goodness that I often need... I suggest you look at these bear pic shot at ISO800 and ISO6400 w/ the Z6 ( https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1303584/6#15264425 ). While I could have done this in live view w/ the D780, I find live view wildlife photography awkward and cumbersome.
Anyway, I am now contemplating the sale of a D500 to buy another Z6 (or better yet, Z7)... had the Z50 been based on the Z6/Z7 body (w/ matching battery, XQD, menu, and top deck LCD) I'd own one yesterday
regards,
bruce
The D500 has smaller pixels, thus higher magnification. So your "just" 20 Megapixels will actually have more detail recorded, when its about wildlife and you need range, range, range. The D500 is in the advantage here, not disadvantage.
It depends on whether you are able to fill the FX frame with the intended composition (in which case you can get somewhat better image quality) or even if you don't, it can be useful for having a safety margin around a moving subject so that it is easier to avoid the subject being accidentally partially cropped.
The "better ISO performance" is noise though. The D500 is already optimized for excellent high ISO performance, just like a D5 or D6; the D780 isnt. The D500 can, with careful post production on the computer, manage ISO 40k. The D780 is better, sure, but unlike a D5 or D6 not that much better than the D500.
Looking at photonstophotos PDR data, D6 and D780 are neck to neck in PDR at high ISO and the D780 is superior for low to mid ISO.
Its funny that you praise the number of shots. Are you unaware that the D500 has a battery grip ?
A lot of people don't want the weight of the battery grip. (Some do.)
USB Charging is anything but great, its highly inefficient because occupies and endangers the camera. Its also not, as you possibly want to imply, specifically fast either. And you have to handle the USB cable instead of the full charger. In the sum I'd much rather have a charger.
The USB charging is an option that you can use, you can use a charger if you like. But e.g. in a car, it can be convenient to be able to charge while driving.
DX mode on D750 will have 10 Megapixels. DX Mode on the D500 still has 20 Megapixels, since thats all the camera has. Unlike 20 vs 24 Megapixels, this is actually a relevant difference in resolution.
It depends ... if you are able to fill the FX frame with the intended composition, then you are likely to get better color, better tonality, less noise, and possibly better detail (depends on whether you are looking at the center of the frame or the peripheral areas).
The D500 also has the superior autofocus system. Also, the autofocus system covers almost everything in the frame.
Both those are strong reasons for a Z, the Z lenses especially IF you need them for landscapes, where a Z7 is the top choice. I rely on the 15 f2.8AIP and 21 f2.8AIP Zeiss Distagons. Both are still top U-wides. I will wait and see on the Z system, as my cameras have to deliver on wildlife subjects primarily, and the D850 doubles up admirably for landscape opportunities.
The image quality in low light Z6 and D780 are both top class - close to what one can get from D5/D6 sensors, with slight advantage of 24 vs 20mp. This high ISO advantage is certainly an advantage over the D500. However, the positives of the D500 are all well known. Some photographers may rate these as key priorities.
.... After almost a month of photographing smaller birds (mostly) with a D780, I'm pleased overall. I mostly use the Liveview with support and in a hide, where it's simple. And this tends to be when my 80-400 G is the most useful lens. Thus, I have the advantage of negating AFFT headaches as well as Silent-shooting. I usually use a prime (300 f4 PF, 400 f2.8 PF also 500 PF) in other situations, and often with a TC - where AFFT is manageable.
The 2 glaring glitches with the D780 are:
#1. Incomplete/impoverished options in Customization options. Too often I use instant switching using AF On+AF mode with Fn (and other buttons). Judging from Nikon's deafness since late 2018, the possibility of a Firmware fix may be too optimistic.
#2. The Fn button is positioned far too low on the camera. If you do want to aim to use it, it's hard to get at. Nikon messed up here - reversed what works well on the Z MILCs, D500 D850 etc ( this D780 problem will persist for action genres even IF Nikon fix #1 with firmware.)
#3. No Grip!? Senseless false economy, especially given the D780 is also aimed at video. This and messing up layout of controls (namely Fn button) Nikon cannot afford to antagonize their loyal clients with such bizarre mistakes in camera design.
#1 #2, #3 are showstoppers that handicap the D780 for action shooting.
#1 is one factor why I traded in the Z7, but especially #4. the "almost predictably" unreliable AFC shooting against clutter. The AFC of the D780 is far better, although the smaller OVF AF window positions it < D850 < D500.
In summary, no camera is perfect. For wildlife genres, choice of camera is personal - weighing up what subjects, local conditions and how one shoots. As with the choices of today's telephotos, the main reason for these questions and debates is attributes of the top-tier Nikon cameras overlap quite closely with few differences. Admittedly, the Differences can be critical, subject to: "Reach", Light Conditions ie high ISO and IQ; Open vs Cluttered Habitats; Cropping; Size of Prints; AFC performance (a number of Factors); Haptics; scope of Customization options.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
The D780 does allow zooms to be fine tuned separately for wide and tele ends.
It allows for only two fine-tuned focal lengths at one specific distance each. Many zooms exhibit focus abnormalities that require tuning at multiple focal lengths and multiple distances. The capacity to fine tune Sigma lenses at multiple zoom points and focus distances makes these lenses highly desirable to those who are hoping to optimize focus acuity at large apertures. The need/requisites to engage in fine-tune dramas are eliminated with mirrorless bodies. So while the D780 finally allows for two fine-tune points, it still will never approach the focus accuracy it will exhibit when shot in live-view.
After Olympus news, I mostly cleared my m43 stuff, got 500mm PF and was all set to go with D500. Are you suggesting that Z6 is good enough to replace D500? I know D500 is in its own class (with D850 etc) for AFC, tracking etc, but can I say Z6 will be sufficient for a photographer hobbyist for bird photography and some BiFs?
If this is working good enough it can really consolidate my gear with single and compact camera body.
- Sagar
OwlsEyes wrote:
At this point, I would council nature photographers interested in the D780 to buy a Z6. I only shoot wildlife and landscapes. I spend many months over a year in the field and have a wide variety of lenses. My primary wildlife cameras are (3) D500 bodies. I use these with a 500PF, 200-500VR, and 70-200E. Each lens has a camera specifically devoted (fine-tuned) to a lens, and is exclusively used with their respective lenses. In addition we (my wife and I) have a pair of Z6 bodies. These are our "flex" bodies and used w/ Z lenses for wide-angle work, and with older G F-mount lenses. Specifically, I use my Z6 on my 200-400mm f/4 VR1, and my wife uses her Z6 on the original 70-200 f/2.8G VR1.
So why buy a Z6 instead of a D780?... I'll offer you two reasons:
1. Nikon's Z-series lenses are nothing short of amazing (optically & sized). They are the future of the Nikon ecosystems, so it is worth dipping a toe in.
2. Compatibility with G-lenses... with the FTZ, the Z-series bodies get the most out of the optics of your old G-series lenses. If you are using a zoom lens where different focal lengths exhibit optical shortcomings due to an inability to infinitely optimize AF-fine tune settings, one tends to avoid specific focal lengths. In my case, I would never shoot my 200-400mm f/4 @ f/4 because if I fine-tuned it for that combination w/ a D500, it throws off my 200mm to 300mm focus... this type of thing drives one nuts. With the Z6, I have fallen in love with my 200-400VR again!.. The focus is now accurate throughout the entire zoom range, and I am able to access 400mm f/4 bokeh goodness that I often need... I suggest you look at these bear pic shot at ISO800 and ISO6400 w/ the Z6 ( https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1303584/6#15264425 ). While I could have done this in live view w/ the D780, I find live view wildlife photography awkward and cumbersome.
Anyway, I am now contemplating the sale of a D500 to buy another Z6... had the Z50 been based on the Z6/Z7 body (w/ matching battery, XQD, menu, and top deck LCD) I'd own one yesterday
regards,
bruce...Show more →
After Olympus news, I mostly cleared my m43 stuff, got 500mm PF and was all set to go with D500. Are you suggesting that Z6 is good enough to replace D500? I know D500 is in its own class (with D850 etc) for AFC, tracking etc, but can I say Z6 will be sufficient for a photographer hobbyist for bird photography and some BiFs?
If this is working good enough it can really consolidate my gear with single and compact camera body.
- Sagar
You'll note that I said that I rely on the D500 for wildlife, and that I keep it mounted to my 500PF. The only bodies that I would use over the D500 on a 500PF is a Nikon D5 or D6. As for why I am contemplating the sale of one of my three D500's... well, I'd like Z7 to use for landscape photography. This would free up my Z6 for exclusive use on the 200-400VR... a lens that really benefits from the Z6 af accuracy.
So, unless you are contemplating a D5, I personally would buy a D500 as a first body to pair w/ the 500PF.
FYI, I voted for D500 in your poll.
While I agree that some zooms have problematic behavior where for example, the ends of the focal range have optimal fine-tune values close to each other and the middle focal lengths deviate from this, this happens generally with 24-70 where the zoom is at its shortest in the middle (45mm? Don't remember exactly) and I don't think it's likely that it would happen on the 200-400. I've certainly had no such problems with my 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses. If the zoom mechanism in the 200-400 is monotonous then I would think straightforward interpolation between wide and tele settings would produce a good enough result.
Regarding the effect of distance, I have owned one Nikon body where this was a significant issue (D800). I believe it was simply a flawed design. None of my newer cameras have had much issue with focus accuracy as a function of distance with my lenses. Lenses which are aberration-ridden such as 58/1.4 or 135 DC can produce erratic results because the system can not clearly see where the focus should be.
Now, extreme distances such as infinity and MFD can certainly be affected, and this is a limitation, but generally I find fine-tuning to be an easy and quick process when I get a new body, and I rarely run into problems afterwards. I understand that mirrorless cameras don't have systematic focus errors to such extent but in practice I find that e.g. Z7 can't focus very well in the dark, and when shooting a sequence of portraits in a dimmish interior, it can get some in focus and then it flies the focus to another universe. I don't have such issues with my DSLRs. Additionally the EVF shows something during the sequence and when I look at the images afterwards, I see something different, moments that I didn't think I was capturing. Because of these issues, I don't want to buy one of these gadgets. I prefer to use what I am used to and what works for me. Focus is kind of a trivial matter compared to capturing meaningful expressions and moments. I don't know why people make such a fuss about it. (If I couldn't have replaced my D800 in favor of a newer body, I'd be very frustrated about it too. But I consider that camera's problems to be partly because of thenatural disasters that occurred in Japan the previous year in 2011. Hard to make precision products when your instruments are shattered and the loo does not work, and you have to rebuild the factories to be able to start to work. Some problems were not noticed and got to the market, unfortunately, in 2012.)
If you have serious issues with fine-tuning being very distance-sensitive, I would take the gear (body and lens) to Nikon authorized service and have them look at the problem.
With the 200-400 there is the issue that it was launched when Nikon had 4-6MP DSLRs, and so the focusing system was designed to cope with the kind of precision that those cameras required. If you shoot a modern 20-45MP DSLR, get a modern lens for it such as 180-400 which is said to stick to the subject like glue. Brad Hill notes "The 180-400? Absolute measures of autofocus performance are notoriously hard to obtain, but in my own preliminary testing of the autofocus performance of the 180-400mm against the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E and against both the Sigma 500mm f4 Sport and the Nikkor 500mm f4E I have been able to discern no clear difference in autofocus performance (i.e., the 180-400 seems as good the best available primes). "
Modern lenses not only tend to be optically better corrected but the AF system is also designed to work with modern cameras.
OwlsEyes wrote:
It allows for only two fine-tuned focal lengths at one specific distance each. Many zooms exhibit focus abnormalities that require tuning at multiple focal lengths and multiple distances. The capacity to fine tune Sigma lenses at multiple zoom points and focus distances makes these lenses highly desirable to those who are hoping to optimize focus acuity at large apertures. The need/requisites to engage in fine-tune dramas are eliminated with mirrorless bodies. So while the D780 finally allows for two fine-tune points, it still will never approach the focus accuracy it will exhibit when shot in live-view.
Sauseschritt wrote:
Compared to what ? Judging from your points - the D500 ??
The D500 has smaller pixels, thus higher magnification. So your "just" 20 Megapixels will actually have more detail recorded, when its about wildlife and you need range, range, range. The D500 is in the advantage here, not disadvantage.
The "better ISO performance" is noise though. The D500 is already optimized for excellent high ISO performance, just like a D5 or D6; the D780 isnt. The D500 can, with careful post production on the computer, manage ISO 40k. The D780 is better, sure, but unlike a D5 or D6 not that much better than the D500.
Its funny that you praise the number of shots. Are you unaware that the D500 has a battery grip ?
USB Charging is anything but great, its highly inefficient because occupies and endangers the camera. Its also not, as you possibly want to imply, specifically fast either. And you have to handle the USB cable instead of the full charger. In the sum I'd much rather have a charger.
DX mode on D750 will have 10 Megapixels. DX Mode on the D500 still has 20 Megapixels, since thats all the camera has. Unlike 20 vs 24 Megapixels, this is actually a relevant difference in resolution.
The D500 also has the superior autofocus system. Also, the autofocus system covers almost everything in the frame.
For wildlife, I'd pick the D500 any day over a D780. ...Show more →
Ah, I figured with their new D5 algorithm AF on the D780 it may have been comparable. 7FPS while not much to brag is still decent, but sure not for BIF. I was talking from a all round camera but I would agree D500 is unbeatable at its price/performance ratio. As for high ISO, I was checking DPs studio scene
But again, not relevant since it'll be used I'm assuming primarily in day-time. That D5 is pretty stellar
