Go back and re-read the thread. All I did was say I was hoping for a good Nikon APS-C body and have been told all about how it's not going to happen.
If you want to live under a rock where Sony doesn't have the best af in the industry that's fine. I stick to facts. I've actually shot all these bodies. A large majority of people posting haven't actually shot other systems.
I may be a Nikon shooter but I'm realistic about the need for Nikon to get on even ground with Sony to have a chance.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I have been presenting facts not BS, so stop the name calling. There is no place for that. We can disagree about the value of an EVF. We can disagree about the AF algorithms. That is what is happening here. That you have to call me names because I disagree is the worst way to have a discussion. You may not own a Sony but you were clearly advocating for a Sony camera on the Nikon board. Why do that? I agree you should take that discussion to a different thread.
Dec 20, 2021 at 03:00 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
jwolfe wrote:
Go back and re-read the thread. All I did was say I was hoping for a good Nikon APS-C body and have been told all about how it's not going to happen.
If you want to live under a rock where Sony doesn't have the best af in the industry that's fine. I stick to facts. I've actually shot all these bodies. A large majority of people posting haven't actually shot other systems.
I may be a Nikon shooter but I'm realistic about the need for Nikon to get on even ground with Sony to have a chance.
I have re-read the thread. I also have both Nikon and Sony systems (Leica and Fuji as well), so I have shot these systems too. We have different opinions, but when you reread the thread look at how many times you call my opinions wrong. My facts were not wrong, but you can't seem to separate opinions from facts and you needed to call me names and to call my opinions wrong. The bottom line is we disagree about the viewfinder experience of these cameras. We also disagree about how critical AI AF is to our shooting. Those are differences in opinion not fact.
We didn't disagree about hope that Nikon would develop a good APS-C mirrorless camera, we disagreed about what it would take to make such a camera. You think Nikon can get there with a non-stacked sensor. I think it will take a stacked sensor. Again that is a difference in opinion not a difference in fact.
I obviously made some wrong assumptions about what gear you own, but you also made some wrong assumptions about me. My wildlife camera is a Sony A9, (you could have looked at my profile and figured that out). My wife also has an A1, so I know what Sony AF is capable of. I also know what their non-stacked sensor cameras are capable of having extensively used an A7 II, A7 III, A7r II, A7r III, and a6400. It is a night and day difference between the stacked sensor cameras and the non-stacked sensor cameras. It doesn't appear that you have extensively used a stacked sensor Sony camera. Try one out or try out the Z9 when it is available and I predict you will see the difference right away and understand why I think a good APS-C camera will need a stacked sensor. Maybe you won't and we will disagree about how much better the stacked sensor cameras are, but that too will be an opinion.
I still think an 800 PF deserves a stacked sensor camera. I still think that a Nikon APS-C stacked camera is a long way off--I predict 2025. I still think we are likely to see a Nikon small stacked sensor FF camera before a stacked sensor APS-C camera. You can disagree with those opinions but stop saying they are wrong. They are opinions and not facts and I never said otherwise.
I'm curious to hear from anyone who is debating between this lens and the unannounced 600/4. For me the weight doesn't matter as much, so it will probably boil down to price, and I'm really not sure what to expect with the 800 but I'm guessing in the $5-8K usd range compared to $12-13K for the 600. I wonder if Nikon is trying to tell us this 800 will come sooner since it's no longer a silhouette on the roadmap like the 600.
mbike999 wrote:
I'm curious to hear from anyone who is debating between this lens and the unannounced 600/4. For me the weight doesn't matter as much, so it will probably boil down to price, and I'm really not sure what to expect with the 800 but I'm guessing in the $5-8K usd range compared to $12-13K for the 600. I wonder if Nikon is trying to tell us this 800 will come sooner since it's no longer a silhouette on the roadmap like the 600.
I am debating between the Nikon 800PF (to replace my 500PF) and a 600/4, but not the Nikon but the Sony, for use on my Sony A7RIV. Either lens would be intended as my final birding lens. I still have both options fully open, because the Nikon 800PF may well be smaller, lighter and substantially less expensive than the Sony 600, but on the other hand, I would have to buy a Z7II to use the 800PF, so for me, both will be comparably expensive.
Apart from that, I think Nikon pushed the 800PF forward to stop the exodus of birders/wildlife shooters to Sony (and to a lesser degree Canon), and that is essential, becasue so many have been crossing over in the past year. I think Nikon feels that with the heavy Z9, they need a light super telelens to offer a combo that is still somewhat portable and can be used handheld.
Sony has the ultralight A1, and Canon the R5 and (still rather light) R3. Nikon only has the Z9 (as serious action camera), so although bringing out the 600/4 is essential, a Z9+800PF combo will be much more usefull for Nikon to stop the bleeding.
ChrisMak wrote:
I am debating between the Nikon 800PF (to replace my 500PF) and a 600/4, but not the Nikon but the Sony, for use on my Sony A7RIV. Either lens would be intended as my final birding lens. I still have both options fully open, because the Nikon 800PF may well be smaller, lighter and substantially less expensive than the Sony 600, but on the other hand, I would have to buy a Z7II to use the 800PF, so for me, both will be comparably expensive.
Apart from that, I think Nikon pushed the 800PF forward to stop the exodus of birders/wildlife shooters to Sony (and to a lesser degree Canon), and that is essential, becasue so many have been crossing over in the past year. I think Nikon feels that with the heavy Z9, they need a light super telelens to offer a combo that is still somewhat portable and can be used handheld.
Sony has the ultralight A1, and Canon the R5 and (still rather light) R3. Nikon only has the Z9 (as serious action camera), so although bringing out the 600/4 is essential, a Z9+800PF combo will be much more usefull for Nikon to stop the bleeding....Show more →
I have no evidence of this, but it seems likely the 600/4 Z may also have a built in TC like the 400/2.8 Z will. Having 600/4 or 840/5.6 with minimal impact on IQ is the one thing that gives me pause on the 800 PF. It'll also be interesting to see how well the 400/2.8 does with the 2X.
mbike999 wrote:
I have no evidence of this, but it seems likely the 600/4 Z may also have a built in TC like the 400/2.8 Z will. Having 600/4 or 840/5.6 with minimal impact on IQ is the one thing that gives me pause on the 800 PF. It'll also be interesting to see how well the 400/2.8 does with the 2X.
The images on the roadmap seem to indicate that the TC is not built in on the 600, but I suppose that could change.
I think is the 400mm f2.8 with TC is as good as 600mm f4 and that it can take external TC well, the 600mm f4 without built-in TC will be DOA.
Will be an interesting Spring/Summer when the 400mmf2.8 TC comes out.
Also, since Nikon is about a generation behind C&S in super teles currently, they really need a 600mmf4 with TC to leapfrog the competition.
How would a 600mm with no TC built-in be DOA? No one else makes one.
this is me wrote:
I think is the 400mm f2.8 with TC is as good as 600mm f4 and that it can take external TC well, the 600mm f4 without built-in TC will be DOA.
Will be an interesting Spring/Summer when the 400mmf2.8 TC comes out.
jwolfe wrote:
How would a 600mm with no TC built-in be DOA? No one else makes one.
A 400mm f2.8 with built in1.4TC is a 560mm f4.
What I’m saying is if the 400mm f2.8 with the built in TC can accept external TC without degrading IQ significantly I don’t see the 600mm F4 without built in TC be attractive.
You’re talking about stacking TCs. It will degrade image quality.
this is me wrote:
A 400mm f2.8 with built in1.4TC is a 560mm f4.
What I’m saying is if the 400mm f2.8 with the built in TC can accept external TC without degrading IQ significantly I don’t see the 600mm F4 without built in TC be attractive.
Exactly. It’s an “if” the 400f2.8 TC can take additional TC.
I would expect the built in TC is better than external TC since it’s designed with the lens. Hence, adding additional external TC might not be as bad as stacking TC with a lens that wasn’t designed with internal TC.
Wishful thinking maybe but I hope to see a 600mm F4 with 1.4TC built in from Nikon. This will truly be the first one of a kind 600mm.
I never thought there would be a potentially handholdable 800mm prime. It will be interesting to see how this compares to the current 800mm f/5.6, it's 1/3 stop slower but it has VR, a PF element, and is Z-mount.
A $13k Z 600/4 is the ideal focal length at an unattainable price for me. The 500mm 5.6 PF with TC 1.4iii is the lens I’d consider versus the Z 800 PF. BUT, if the Z 800 PF is handholdable and has a decent mfd, then I’d have to go for it (assuming IQ and AF are at least on par with the 500/TC combo).
mbike999 wrote:
I'm curious to hear from anyone who is debating between this lens and the unannounced 600/4. For me the weight doesn't matter as much, so it will probably boil down to price, and I'm really not sure what to expect with the 800 but I'm guessing in the $5-8K usd range compared to $12-13K for the 600. I wonder if Nikon is trying to tell us this 800 will come sooner since it's no longer a silhouette on the roadmap like the 600.
this is me wrote:
A 400mm f2.8 with built in1.4TC is a 560mm f4.
What I’m saying is if the 400mm f2.8 with the built in TC can accept external TC without degrading IQ significantly I don’t see the 600mm F4 without built in TC be attractive.
w?
My 180-400 TC can also take a TC 1.4 III and I have AFFT for it and tried it out on test targets at different distances. Afterward I have never thought about using it. Did not care for the IQ degradation.
Any TC whether internal or external is going to degrade IQ to some extent. 2x more than 1.4x, stacked 1.4x more than single 1.4x. Who knows if stacked 1.4s are better or worse than 2x.
Ironically with my Canon 200-400 the external was slightly better than the internal. But that was early days of these built-in TCs.
Nothing wrong with a bit of stacking though....
Canon 200-400, built-in TC and external 2xTCIII :-)
