fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 4

6 end

Archive 2024 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ??

sparadise
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #1 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ??

ChrisMak wrote:
It's perfectly fine that you have your own main reasons for adopting the Nikon system, they are very valid, and also part of what atracts me to the Nikon system.

Personally though, I don't think it matters at all who manufactures the sensors, but instead the design and implementation are what makes raw files from different camera makers look different. The color filter will play a large role.
On top of that, the lenses are very different.

I like Sony for general shooting, my travel combo is the A7RIII with Loxia 25 and 50.
But I don't really like the latest Sony camera's, technically...Show more →b

I only shoot small songbirds and birds in flight. I will agree every brands images have a bit of a different look to them, In the past few years I have shot with the Canon R5 and 6. Sony A9II and A1 and most recently the Nikon z8 400 and 600mm pf. If I had to pick the best looking images overall they would definitely be from the A 1 and mostly with the 2-600.
I have begun the task of uploading more of my favorite images from the past 5 years or so on Flickr. Check them out here

https://flic.kr/ps/seGhX

Apr 07, 2024 at 08:08 AM

MatthewK
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #2 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ??

Quite the dumpster fire of a thread going here. Nice!

Apr 07, 2024 at 08:19 AM

sparadise
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #3 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ??

ilkka_nissila wrote:
How is this related to colour?

The colours are determined by incoming light, the coatings and other optical components and the colour filter array in front of the sensor (likely made to Nikon specifications so that they can control the colour workflow all the way through, including algorithms used in their raw conversion software (in and off camera). The sensor itself (photosensitive components (without the optical stack) and electronics) have little role to play in the colour of the images (and even though Sony fabricates most sensors Nikon currently use, Nikon works with them to achieve their desired outcome). By...Show more →

You can change color post so if you shoot raw is a non factor for me

Apr 07, 2024 at 08:21 AM

sum1sgrampa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #4 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ??

MatthewK wrote:
Quite the dumpster fire of a thread going here. Nice!

Most likely that's on me. Apologies.
Gary

Apr 07, 2024 at 08:25 AM

ilkka_nissila
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #5 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ??

sparadise wrote:
You can change color post so if you shoot raw is a non factor for me

You can of course, but it doesn't mean you can convert an image from one setup to look identical to the corresponding image from another setup, unless replacing RGB values manually pixel by pixel. The camera converts the continuous spectrum of light into three values (R, G, and B) and different colour filter arrays (CFAs) lead to different translations from the spectra seen in nature into digital images that depend on the spectral weighting of the different wavelengths. Once the CFA is applied and the light for each photosite is detected, it's not possible to go back to the full spectrum of light in the original scene (the digital image will have lost information that cannot be recovered). Different camera systems handle this differently and even if the colour is normalized by a process such as using X-rite colour checker to generate profiles, the outcomes from two different systems will still look different. Anyway, editing images is a lot of work, and I think it makes sense to start from good data to being with, something that you already like straight out of the camera, where possible, simply to minimize the tedius post workflow.

Of course, camera systems have other differences as well and different people can choose based on different criteria.

Apr 07, 2024 at 08:30 AM

ilkka_nissila
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #6 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ??

With regards to the 600 PF lens, I think it doesn't do anyone any good to fight over what constitutes meaningful differences in image quality (or autofocus performance, weight or size for that matter). Everyone will have different criteria and thresholds for lens characteristics, and one can not usually convince another person to change their views, so try not to do that. Present your own views and respect other people's different views without trying to win them over.

For me personally I have the 100-400mm and the 600 PF would be a great pair for it for longer focal lengths, but I couldn't bring myself to liking the aesthetics of the 500 PF even though I shot a lot with it for many years and I don't think I'll buy another lens that is so similar to it. I am likely to get the 400/4.5, however, as the aesthetics of the images I've seen from it, and the handling when I tried it, are very much to my taste. However, there are budget limitations and 2/3 stops may not be enough to justify the prime over the 100-400 for now. Maybe in the future it will, but I'm more keen to see a Z 300/2.8 in the future. If that doesn't appear for several years then I will consider the 400/4.5.

The 600 PF I am not considering because of the style of images that the PF lens delivers is not to my personal taste. I also am not presently considering the 180-600 as I prefer the removable foot design of the 100-400, 400/4.5, and 600 PF, and I'll just have to work with the shorter focal lengths and wait for the subjects to be close enough so that 400 mm is adequate. But as I am sure you can tell, birds are not my primary subject. If they were, I would likely save for a 600/4 or wait for a Z 500/4 to appear in the future. I tend to like the wide-aperture lenses for the way the images look, even though they can be a bit of a pain to work with (tripod etc.)

Apr 07, 2024 at 08:40 AM

sparadise
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #7 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ??

sum1sgrampa wrote:
Most likely that's on me. Apologies.
Gary

No need to apologize . We are simply having a discussion . Personally I have not been offended by any of the conversation. It would be nice to see some samples pics along with the points being made. This is how we all learn

Apr 07, 2024 at 11:14 AM

MatthewK
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #8 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ??

I have some real world test shots privately hosted on Flickr showing a comparison b/w the 600PF and 180-600 at 3 different distances (9, 18, 34 yards), if that's any interest.

In summary: from my back-to-back shooting sessions (non-controlled) with both lenses, I've generally not been able to tell the differences, especially after post, and it wasn't until I did these careful test shots (from a tripod, timer release, manually focused, blah blah blah) that I could in fact see some differences. Basically, the closer you are to the subject, the closer in performance these two lenses are, but as you get farther away one of them starts to more visibly fall apart. It's not until you get out of realistic usable range (35+ yards, in this case, somewhere I'd never find myself shooting) that yeah, the 186 isn't holding up, but the shots are going to be crap anyway regardless of what gear you're using, so it's not an useful metric to wave around.

Again, in real life shooting, I firmly believe the differences will not be visible in any end result image, and any small differences are more than made up for in post.

Edited on Apr 07, 2024 at 03:56 PM · View previous versions

Apr 07, 2024 at 12:43 PM

Eric214
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #9 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ??

100% if I didn't have a greater need for the 800f6.3 PF lens. The 600f6.3 would have been my choice. The 180-600 being a non S lens has some resolving power issues compared to the other s lenses like the 100-400, 400f4.5, 600f6.3PF, 800PF, 400TC and 600TB and even the 500PF.

For example, I shot with the 180-600 lens for a couple weeks straight. My 800 can take an Eagle at distance and cropping 100% and the Eagle still only being about 40% of the frame, I still easily get a clearly sharp and defined pupil. With the 180-600, with the same conditions and 100% making the Eagle about 40% of the frame (it's obviously closer due to 600mm than 800mm) the images are noticeably soft and not really usable. This I believe is the weakness of a non S lens, the resolving power.

You need to roughly half fill the frame on the 180-600 fir it to be really tack sharp. So it's a secondary lens, not really a main wildlife lens

Apr 07, 2024 at 01:09 PM

sum1sgrampa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #10 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ??

Eric214 wrote:
100% if I didn't have a greater need for the 800f6.3 PF lens. The 600f6.3 would have been my choice. The 180-600 being a non S lens has some resolving power issues compared to the other s lenses like the 100-400, 400f4.5, 600f6.3PF, 800PF, 400TC and 600TB and even the 500PF.

For example, I shot with the 180-600 lens for a couple weeks straight. My 800 can take an Eagle at distance and cropping 100% and the Eagle still only being about 40% of the frame, I still easily get a clearly sharp and defined pupil. With the 180-600, with...Show more →

Someone please help me out here, I'm confused. So a "main wildlife lens", like yours, no doubt, that's for people who sit on the sidelines and snap away at stuff that's too far away and then they crop away to try and get a decent image.
And a lowly "secondary lens", well that's for people who have learned how to or are patient enough to almost fill the frame and use a lens properly. Wow, that almost sounds backwards to me. There's so much great stuff to learn here I don't know how I'll ever keep up

Eric, I'm sure you're a decent guy but that last statement has got to be one of the most pretentious, misinformed, out of touch, and outright silliest statements I've read here in quite a while. And it has zero to do with the lens in question. I'd say the same thing if you were referring to the 70-300 AF-P for example. Just for giggles I took a quick look at the first ten images that popped up on a google search for Wildlife Photographer of the Year. Canon 24-70 2.8, Canon 400 5.6, Nikon 14-24 2.8, Fuji 200 F2, Canon 100-500 4.5-7.1, Canon 100 2.8, Sony 35 1.4, Canon 10-20 4.5-5.6, Nikon 800 5.6, and some kind of 8mm 2.8. Seems to me people use all different types of lenses for wildlife work.
Gary

Apr 07, 2024 at 03:27 PM

Eric214
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #11 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ??

sum1sgrampa wrote:
Someone please help me out here, I'm confused. So a "main wildlife lens", like yours, no doubt, that's for people who sit on the sidelines and snap away at stuff that's too far away and then they crop away to try and get a decent image.
And a lowly "secondary lens", well that's for people who have learned how to or are patient enough to almost fill the frame and use a lens properly. Wow, that almost sounds backwards to me. There's so much great stuff to learn here I don't know how I'll ever keep up

Eric, I'm...Show more →

No I'm telling you the weakness of the lens. My field craft is very good if you ever see my photos. I get close, crop when i have to add all wildlife photographers do. But if you want to go to a zoo to sit or sit in a blind and not do any work to get you shots, then by all means

Apr 07, 2024 at 10:35 PM

sum1sgrampa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #12 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ??

Eric214 wrote:
No I'm telling you the weakness of the lens. My field craft is very good if you ever see my photos. I get close, crop when i have to add all wildlife photographers do. But if you want to go to a zoo to sit or sit in a blind and not do any work to get you shots, then by all means

"No I'm telling you the weakness of the lens".
Well thank you for that revelation Eric. I've been shooting with this class of lens for the last 8 years. It's always nice to be reminded of one's deficiencies.

Apr 08, 2024 at 12:21 PM

sum1sgrampa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #13 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ??

The ultimate irony of this whole thread is I just noticed on the Micro Four Thirds Forum that the OP went to an OM Systems OM-1ll and the 100-400

I hope he doesn't mind that I posted this. I'm in the process of trading for that combo also. Not giving up the Z9 and 180-600, just adding lightweight option.

Apr 08, 2024 at 12:43 PM

ChrisMak
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #14 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ??

Eric214 wrote:
100% if I didn't have a greater need for the 800f6.3 PF lens. The 600f6.3 would have been my choice. The 180-600 being a non S lens has some resolving power issues compared to the other s lenses like the 100-400, 400f4.5, 600f6.3PF, 800PF, 400TC and 600TB and even the 500PF.

For example, I shot with the 180-600 lens for a couple weeks straight. My 800 can take an Eagle at distance and cropping 100% and the Eagle still only being about 40% of the frame, I still easily get a clearly sharp and defined pupil. With the 180-600, with...Show more →

Just out of curiousity: did you try one copy of the 180-600?
Amongst the real weaknesses of a consumer zoom lens I suspect copy variation to be in the top three regardless of brand.

The Sony 200-600G had random focussing issues on the A7RIV to the point where it was more or less a lottery getting that combo. And even the Sony100-400GM (which I don't really see as a professional wildlife lens) apparently has a pretty big resolution variable from copy to copy.

Copy variation makes discussing a lens of this type near impossible. But there's no doubt that a high end 800mm prime will knock out a 180-600mm consumer lens, especially on distant shooting.
I had the Sony 200-600G and later got the 600GM. I waited quite a while because there were so many posts by users of both lenses that they could not see a difference in sharpness between the two. Yeah, right

I guess some have to upgrade to a decent monitor, get new glasses and train their eyesight

Or use their lenses for something other than backyard birds at 10m.

What I see from the 180-600 though, exceeds my expectation of a consumer zoom lens. It (or at least some copies) produces really beautiful and detailed images. I rate it above the Sony 200-600G in quality of color and rendering.

Apr 09, 2024 at 02:13 AM

tazo
Offline
• • • • •
[X]

p.5 #15 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ??

sparadise wrote:
I own a Z8 and the 400mm 4.5 1.4 combo. Would it make sense to own both. The weigh difference is so slight and the extra reach w/o a convertor never hurts. According to what I have read the AF on the 600 is a little better than the 4.5 1.4x combo.I have no interest in the 180-600 due to the weight.

If you frequently find yourself needing the extra reach without a converter and prioritize slightly better autofocus, then owning both could indeed make sense. However, if weight is a significant concern for you, sticking with the 400mm 4.5 1.4x combo might be the more practical choice. Ultimately, it boils down to your specific needs and shooting conditions.

Apr 09, 2024 at 04:26 AM

Eric214
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #16 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ??

ChrisMak wrote:
Just out of curiousity: did you try one copy of the 180-600?
Amongst the real weaknesses of a consumer zoom lens I suspect copy variation to be in the top three regardless of brand.

The Sony 200-600G had random focussing issues on the A7RIV to the point where it was more or less a lottery getting that combo. And even the Sony100-400GM (which I don't really see as a professional wildlife lens) apparently has a pretty big resolution variable from copy to copy.

Copy variation makes discussing a lens of this type near impossible. But there's no doubt that a high end 800mm...Show more →

Yes i used a friends for 2-3 weeks shooting it for about 15 days and averages and 1700 shots a day. I didn't expect this to be a copy happening with AF. It was consistent in what i saw, was sharp if the subject was at least it cost to half filling the frame. Anything with a heavy crop of 100% was soft compared to other S line lenses like the 400f4.5, 100-400 and the big 4 of course if the 400tc, 600tc, 600PF and the 800pf.

I'll be buying off at some point this year to set my kit for wildlife with the 180-600 and the 800PF. It'll just be for trips to places like Yellowstone where stuff just get to close for 800mm and I know I'll be generally filling the have. You just should it's limitations

Edited on Apr 09, 2024 at 02:12 PM · View previous versions

Apr 09, 2024 at 09:04 AM

Gary Irwin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #17 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ??

FWIW I bought the 600pf for a light-weight walk-around lens late last year to use with my Z9. It's a nice portable combo and much more portable and comfortable to use than the Z9+180-600. But the 600pf really started to shine after I recently added a Z8 to my kit. The Z8+600pf is "next level" in terms of size, weight and ultimate capability -- I've never experienced anything remotely like it. I used to own a MFT body with the 100-400 and although it's light weight, it doesn't come remotely close to the Nikon kit for overall capability and IQ.

I now carry the Z9+800pf on a tripod with the Z8+600pf on a Black Rapid sport strap for ultimate flexibility. I bought the Z8 partly with the idea selling either the Z9 or Z8, whichever ended up being used less, but now I realize I really need (ok, want) both bodies!

Apr 09, 2024 at 09:44 AM

OwlsEyes
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #18 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ??

I'm not sure if I have anything to contribute to this thread, but here it goes.
In the last 24 months I have owned &/or continue to own the following: 400 f4.5, 400 f2.8TC, 100-400S, 800PF, and 180-600.
In terms of usefulness for general wildlife photography, I'd rank the order: 400 f2.8TC > 180-600 > 100-400S > 400 f4.5 > 800PF
In terms of raw sharpness and appealing bokeh, I'd rank the order: 400 f2.8TC > 400 f4.5 > 800PF = 100-600 > 100-400S
While I realize that last line will be controversial, I only found the 800PF to be useful when shooting small birds up close and that it wins on bokeh and sharpness for this. I did a side-by-side comparison of my 800PF w/Z9 and 180-600 w/ Z8. This was not test chart shooting, but live action of chipmunks that I baited with bird seed on a natural log. I put two tripods together shot the 800PF w/ one and the 180-600 w/ the other. I would shoot straight up at about 20'. I also compared the 800PF FX against the 180-600 in DX.
My findings were clear... the 800PF is sharper and faster to AF but not so much that it impacted image quality after post. The 800PF is slightly sharper at distant shooting, but the impact of heat distortion seemed worse with the 800PF than the 180-600... this makes it a wash. In my opinion, the 180-600 was so versatile that this versatility made it a "better" lens than the 800PF.
Months later, you may be surprised to know that my bag consists of the 400TC and 100-400S. I have sold the rest recognizing that I gave up my most versatile and useable lens. My reason... I am very committed to the 400 f2.8 and want to use it for as much of my wildlife photography I can. I am also a landscape photographer and find that the pairing of the 24-120 and 100-400 makes more sense than using the 180-600. I also shoot birds, seals and otters from a kayak, and wanted a lens that could be handheld more easily.
In the end, I opted for a "worse" zoom in terms of raw optics because of my needs.
The last sentence is the key... define your shooting needs / desires first... if you do so, your choice in lenses will be made obvious.
regards,
bruce

Edited on Apr 09, 2024 at 12:43 PM · View previous versions

Apr 09, 2024 at 09:52 AM

ChrisMak
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #19 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ??

OwlsEyes wrote:
I'm not sure if I have anything to contribute to this thread, but here it goes.
In the last 24 months I have owned &/or continue to own the following: 400 f4.5, 400 f2.8TC, 100-400S, 800PF, and 180-600.
In terms of usefulness for general wildlife photography, I'd rank the order: 400 f2.8TC > 180-600 > 100-400S > 400 f4.5 > 800PF
In terms of raw sharpness and appealing bokeh, I'd rank the order: 400 f2.8TC > 400 f4.5 > 800PF = 100-600 > 100-400S
While I realize that last line will be controversial, I only found the 800PF to be useful when...Show more →

Thanks for your input.
Although I am currently not a Nikon shooter, I have little doubt that within a year or so, I will be (again).

I will definitely get an 800PF for birding, because of the reach, and the ratio (or combination) weight/size to subject isolation. For me personally, that ratio is off with the other wildlife lenses like the 600PF or Z600TC. I follow 800PF image threads, and I am extremely impressed with the look of many of the images, very clear and natural.

I also browsed through Z400TC and Z600TC image threads recently, and these lenses are top of the line, but also big and extremely expensive. The Z400TC would be a superb allround lens though, and size/weight are just manageable.
So a set-up with Z800PF and Z400TC would be my preferred choice.

My current plan is to keep the Sony A1 with 600GM, and add a Z8 with 800PF, and then later on trade the Sony combo for the Z400TC. To have only an 800PF would be too limiting, I intend to at least have one faster and shorter lens.

Apr 09, 2024 at 10:04 AM

IndyFab
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #20 · Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ??

Gary Irwin wrote:
FWIW I bought the 600pf for a light-weight walk-around lens late last year to use with my Z9. It's a nice portable combo and much more portable and comfortable to use than the Z9+180-600. But the 600pf really started to shine after I recently added a Z8 to my kit. The Z8+600pf is "next level" in terms of size, weight and ultimate capability -- I've never experienced anything remotely like it. I used to own a MFT body with the 100-400 and although it's light weight, it doesn't come remotely close to the Nikon kit for overall capability and...Show more →

I agree 100% about being flexible in the field

Every individuals shooting needs for wildlife/sports is different. There is nothing wrong with a prime tele regardless of length. However its advantageous to have a second Camera & Lens with you in the field when your prime becomes to long for the situation at hand. Be it a shorter prime or zoom.

Apr 09, 2024 at 11:44 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 end
FM Forums \| Nikon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 6 end