Nikon

A 30MP Z900/Z90 would offer resolution equivalent to a 68MP full-frame image cropped to APS-C. I think there's a least a coin flip chance that Nikon will build such a body around a higher megapixel sensor than the D500. Only time will tell if they do.

Ramon767 said:

So I have a D500 and 500PF (also a Z6 and a few other Z lenses kicking around which I'm not too worried about).

• I really like the 500PF, and because its only about a year old I don't really want to turn it over just yet.
• Whilst I really enjoy the D500, I'd like to change to full frame, mainly for more detail and better noise control.

Click to expand...

You are not going to get any more detail on full-frame. Now if you can always fill the frame with a full-frame with wildlife then you will get a little less noise. But will you be able to do that with the wider field of view?

Ramon767 said:

1. Sell everything and buy a Canon R5 and the 100-500 lens. Downgrades the glass a tad, but upgrades the body a reasonable way. But really decent long glass is back to >$17kAUD.

Click to expand...

Don't really see the point of this option. At the long end that lens is f/7.1, almost a stop slower than the 500pf so you are losing light again, and the advantage of full-frame is negated. The only better glass is not hand-holdable, so you you will need to change your shooting style completely.

Ramon767 said:

1. Sell everything and buy a Sony (something) and the 200-600 lens. Downgrades the glass a tad, but upgrades the body. Again, really decent long glass is back to >$17kAUD.

Click to expand...

Same point as above.

As I understand it you think you will achieve significantly better shots with FF because of noise, which I do not think to be true, mainly because I doubt you will get as many shots filling the frame, and you'll be cropping to APS-C levels.

Instead, the most ideal solution here is for you to up your post-processing game so you can remove noise better in post.

I do not believe going to full-frame for you will have any advantages, unless you actually do upgrade your glass to an f/4 lens like the Sony 600 f/4, at which point you will likely never hand-hold again.

Ramon767 said:

Yes I love the D500, but I am running out of ways to get more detail.

Click to expand...

The real way to improve this is to improve your fieldcraft and postprocessing, not get a better camera. You should be able to get phenomenal detail out the D500 and 500PF.

With the R7 out, Nikon will respond.

Wait for superfast zdx9. 200-600 with 30mp gives 44 percent more reach.

Keep what you have for now. D500 is a good wildlife machine.

Looking forward to the z telephotos.

JasonTheBirder said:

Ramon767 said:

So I have a D500 and 500PF (also a Z6 and a few other Z lenses kicking around which I'm not too worried about).

• I really like the 500PF, and because its only about a year old I don't really want to turn it over just yet.
• Whilst I really enjoy the D500, I'd like to change to full frame, mainly for more detail and better noise control.

Click to expand...

You are not going to get any more detail on full-frame. Now if you can always fill the frame with a full-frame with wildlife then you will get a little less noise. But will you be able to do that with the wider field of view?

Click to expand...

Not all of the time, but when I can, the point to was crop to crop sensor size but being able to use FF sensor. I dunno what to call this except for a greater range of sensor flexibility. Unless they smash out a 33MP or more APS-C sensor (or 60MP FF for that matter), then I’d probably be struggling to avoid a reason to use that because it’d be pretty awesome.

Member said:

Member said:

1. Sell everything and buy a Canon R5 and the 100-500 lens. Downgrades the glass a tad, but upgrades the body a reasonable way. But really decent long glass is back to >$17kAUD.

Click to expand...

Don't really see the point of this option. At the long end that lens is f/7.1, almost a stop slower than the 500pf so you are losing light again, and the advantage of full-frame is negated. The only better glass is not hand-holdable, so you you will need to change your shooting style completely.

Click to expand...

Reah, I feel a bit the same, although have seen some excellent results here in spite of the 7.1. Has pretty good AF.

Member said:

Member said:

1. Sell everything and buy a Sony (something) and the 200-600 lens. Downgrades the glass a tad, but upgrades the body. Again, really decent long glass is back to >$17kAUD.

Click to expand...

Same point as above.

Click to expand...

yeah, and I’m too dyslexic to operate a Sony.

Member said:

As I understand it you think you will achieve significantly better shots with FF because of noise, which I do not think to be true, mainly because I doubt you will get as many shots filling the frame, and you'll be cropping to APS-C levels.

Click to expand...

Close, I think that I’ll be able to get significantly better images in certain situations only, and more flexibility always. And a FF sensor for everything else.

Member said:

Instead, the most ideal solution here is for you to up your post-processing game so you can remove noise better in post.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting point. I’m fairly reasonable at this, but I do doubt what I’m capturing sometimes.

Member said:

I do not believe going to full-frame for you will have any advantages, unless you actually do upgrade your glass to an f/4 lens like the Sony 600 f/4, at which point you will likely never hand-hold again.

Click to expand...

I don’t hand hold ever! Monopod, maybe that’s my problem. It does make me wonder about glass, but honestly I like the Pf.

Member said:

--
Wildlife YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/WildEarthPhoto
My personal website: https://jpolak.org/

Click to expand...

Resolution aside, they will still need to address the OP's concern over evf lag to help in the action catching ability of fast moving subjects.

Just going to threw it out there. There are people adapting 500 PF to Fuji cameras, specifically X-H2S (stacked sensor). Maybe this is something you could look into and ask in Fuji forum?

Interesting!

Whilst I’m not a huge X-Trans fan I’m honestly willing to reconsider everything. Cheers!

thanks for your thoughts!

I recently did your 4th option and am very pleased. Was a Nikon user since 2006, as well as a bird photographer. Nikon has fallen too far behind on mirrorless for bird shooters. The Canon birds eye focus combined with the RF 100-500 is fantastic…very hard to miss a shot! I opted for the R5 and later added the R7. Very happy with both! Good luck with your decision

Interesting. I picked up a secondhand D850 just to try.

I’m able to acquire and focus on pretty much every size of bird, just closer in (I was getting Swallows for example yesterday, but I think I left my shutter speed slightly lower than I should have and they were a tad blurred).

• the detail of the D500 is not as good as the D850, but that’s obvious as there are less pixels.
• I’m able to fill the frame with the D850 quite easily. Like I say, I’m just closer to the bird when I press the button.
• because I fill more of the frame, there is less noise to deal with.

The APS-C sensor is just smaller and cheaper.

The one downside to the D850 is the lack of fps, but I’ll add a grip and improve that from 7 to 9.

Other than that, I can barely tell the difference between the two, functionally.

the one thing I haven’t really dealt with is small perched flitty birds, that may or may not provide some advantage to the D500. My guess though is not.

Awesome!

because I was conflicted, I picked up a secondhand D850, and it works really well.

that said, I’m really interested in having better AF, and the R5 is probably the only place or one of the only places I can have that for now.

I suspect that this option is still on the cards! Just one more body to sell haha!

The really interesting realisation for me was this:

I realised that the D500 puts distance between you and the subject, it doesn’t give you more “reach”.

it’s just a cheaper option because the sensor is three times less in cost. That’s literally the only advantage.

It removes the opportunity to crop from FF to anywhere between FF and APS-C, and therefore FF allows you to maintain a better pixel density than the D500 can provide.

Ramon767 said:

Awesome!

because I was conflicted, I picked up a secondhand D850, and it works really well.

that said, I’m really interested in having better AF, and the R5 is probably the only place or one of the only places I can have that for now.

I suspect that this option is still on the cards! Just one more body to sell haha!

Click to expand...

As I mentioned earlier, I sold my 3 Nikon bodies, D7500, Z50 and Z6, along with some lenses and purchased the R5 with the RF100-500mm lens. All I can say is Wow! The autofocus, especially for birds is night and day. The R5 locks on to the birds eye and doesn't let go. I'm in my early 70s and didn't want to wait for Nikon to maybe come out with a body and AF system as good as or better than the R5.

Excellent advice, as it happens. I did buy a secondhand D850, much prefer it, and I’m now thinking that the R5 option would be amazing.

everyone is probably right though, there’ll probably be a new Nikon option within a year, but there may even be an R5 update, right now I could easily go either way.

Just glad I skipped the Z7ii!

Yep, did this and you were right! Thanks!

Sounds like a great call! Sometimes it’s just the right answer to get what works for you and take advantage of what technology has to offer!

Ramon767 said:

Excellent advice, as it happens. I did buy a secondhand D850, much prefer it, and I’m now thinking that the R5 option would be amazing.

everyone is probably right though, there’ll probably be a new Nikon option within a year, but there may even be an R5 update, right now I could easily go either way.

Just glad I skipped the Z7ii!

Click to expand...

The D850 is certainly a good camera - especially if you buy it right. But there are advantages of the latest cameras. The R3 is better than the R5 in most areas. The Z9 is probably at the top. And the Z7ii is a lot better than you realize for most subjects. Birds in flight is certainly not a problem.

But your decisions might include the lenses as well. The Nikon 800mm PF is an amazing lens even on a lowly Z7ii. And it works with the 1.4 TC - if you can handle 1140mm equivalent. One big plus with the Z cameras is any place in the frame gives you autofocus. On the D500 and D850, just the center sensors will work with the 500 PF and a 1.4 TC.

There are lots of sources of lag - and lag of different types. The Z9 is virtually instant and concurrent with a visual EVF. The Z7ii is a little slower, but it depends on your settings. If you use the Mechanical shutter, you have a view near real time but a slower frame rate. If you use electronic shutter, your EVF is a view of the image just taken so it lags slightly. Each one has benefits depending on the subject and situation. I use both.

I expect to see an announcement of a smaller format enthusiast level version of the Z9 between now and year end. Who knows what they will call it. But I expect it will be the top enthusiast camera from any manufacturer when it is released. The D500 was just such a camera - a follow up to the D5.

The lenses are indeed the reason I’ve stayed in the Nikon Ecosystem, I was quite keen on the 800mm, but perhaps more interested in whatever they release in the 600mm range.

And I’m sure that you’re right on the Z7, it just feels like a massive risk after trying the first version zed bodies for BIF and using the 500PF I basically couldn’t get the AF to acquire anything at all.

The D850 has been nice, I suspect the group AF works a ton better than on the D500, even Swallows in flight hasn’t really been a massive problem.

unsure, maybe I’ve made a mistake going backwards, but the price of the Z9 here is $9k, well over the odds in comparison to the exchange rate compared to the US price, I’m hoping that there’ll be a non 9k version that is a little more easily justified, but that’s a bit more developed that the Z7ii.