My selection process (so far) for upgrading from a D-500/500pf

[Tom Reynolds]

In deciding to upgrade my D-500/500pf combo I considered three factors:

• Weight. The R7/100-500 rig is 4.3# if the lens foot is not added. The D-500/500pf is 5.1#. A third consideration, the Sony A1/200-600 is 7# (Weights approximate) while a 4th, a Canon R5/100-500 is 5#.
• Cost. The R7/100-500 is $4.3K. The Sony A1/200-600 is $9.5K. A third consideration, the Nikon Z-9/800pf is $12K (Prices approximate)
• One camera solution. The non-compound lenses often require carrying a second camera/lens combo. On the South Padre Island boardwalks, I carried a second D-500/70-300dx. In the blinds at the ranch a D-500/300pf was in residence and was often useful.

If weight and cost were not an issue I would pick the Z-9/800pf without question and carry a D-500 with a shorter lens. In my view 800mm is the correct lens for a full frame camera. The professional I shot with who had an A1/200-600 had a T/C mounted virtually 100% of the time and did another professional I shot with who used a Canon R5/100-500.

However, if weight and cost were only somewhat of an issue, I would choose the Sony A1/200-600 and eschew the T/C. An additional benefit is that the Sony is a one camera solution.

Default solution​

In my case I concluded that a one camera solution was a requirement. I had significant issues carrying the two camera Nikon D-500 solution on the easy walking South Padre Island Birding Center boardwalks. I tried many carry solutions without success. Simply stated, it wasn’t fun. Understand that I am 81, overweight and under exercised. Your mileage may vary.

The zero cost, one camera solution, is, of course, to pick one camera configuration, presumably the D-500/500pf rig, and live with it. However, with a small weight penalty I could upgrade to a D-850. That would give me both a 500mm and 700mm (DX crop), rig from one setup for about $1500 or so outlay and virtually no learning curve. That does seem superior to the D-500 one camera solution. Therefore, in my case, the comparison is between a D-850/500pf versus one of the single-camera zoom lens configurations or a Z-9/800pf setup without a second camera.

Weight​

I eliminated the Z-9/800pf simply on the basis of weight. Cost was an issue but if the weight was about 5# the Z-9/800pf may well have been the winner. My analysis is that the Z-9/800pf would take the best pictures of the group as long as 800mm in a Full Frame rig was not too long. However, I experienced carrying 9# of camera/lens (D-500/500pf, D-500/70-300dx) in the SPI boardwalks and did not like it at all. Also, the fixed lens was also a problem, 500mm (750mm FX equivalent) being too long is some situations on the boardwalks and in the Ranch blinds.

Canon R7 vs R5​

Shooting the 500pf on a cropped D-500, I find myself cropping most of the time so 500mm on a 45mp full frame sensor seems short. However, 500mm on a 1.6 crop, 32.5mb R7 sensor reaches the 800mm equivalent and allows for the cropping that I do. This, plus faster shots/sec in both mechanical and electronic shutter led me to choose the R7 over the R5. The weight difference was not insignificant also.

Shooting the R7​

I think I need four distinct configurations:

• Bird Portrait: mechanical shutter, auto ISO, 1/1600, lowest f/stop available, small AF rectangle
• Bird takeoff (waiting): electronic shutter, animal eye tracking engaged, pre-click engaged, auto iso, 1/3200+, lowest F/stop available, large rectangle AF
• BIF1: Mechanical shutter, 1/3200, auto iso, large rectangle AF, lowest f/stop available
• BIF2: Electronic shutter 1/4000, auto ISO, largest AF, pre click not engaged, lowest F/stop available

The problem is that I admit that I am guessing.

 

[Bennvdm]

Also consider an used Z7 or Z7 ii and getting a 1.4x f mount tc for the 500pf. BIF will be downgrade to the D500, but still possible with a bit lower keeper rate. Maybe try renting one for a week. Biggest issue with Z6 ii is not af system to me, but screen refresh rate/ playback mode in high shooting speed. Only shoot in continuous low for BIF. Continous high is ok for fast action where subject tracking is not needed

Mirrorless works great with TC’s. Not the same experience with tc’s and dslr’s. Even with fast lenses and tc’s, the AF is not as accurate as with mirrorless. I would then sell Z7 for Z7iii or Z500 when becomes available. Should not lose to much if buy used. For most action shots other than BIF, I find the z6 ii af to be sufficient and proportion of images in focus to be better.

I currently have z6 ii and D500. I really like the 500pf with 1.4tc on z6 ii. 200-500 is a bit long on d500 for 2nd body, so I am thinking of selling it and getting a tamron 100-400. I also have the sigma 120-300 Os f2.8 that works great with 1.4x & 2x tc’s, but is only for shooting from car or monopod due to weight. Sigma witch tc’s also have more accurate af on mirrorless than on my D500. I am seriously considering selling the D500 and getting an used Z7.

Since getting the z6 ii, the d500 is only my goto for BIF or when trying my luck to shoot dragon flies etc. All other shots have been taken with z6 ii. BIF is only small proportion of my shots, as mostly flamingo’s on Xmas coast vacations

I am also looking in getting in weddings, so 2nd fx body will be more useful over crop d500 and allready have a few z mount lenses that cannot mount on d500/d850. For portraits, the z6 ii is a big upgrade over d810 shooting wide open with Sigma 135mm f1.8 and see similar comments for 58mm f1.4 etc.

I am to heavily invested in nikon mount glass to even contemplate a switch in systems. Z mount lenses image quality is also step up from f mount.

 

[StefanSC]

my 0.02$:

The R7 + 100-500 is a camera with a higher density sensor using an inferior technology with a zoom lens that is 2/3rds of a stop slower at the long end when compared to the D500 + 500mm PF. Chances are that the zoom is worse optically at 500mm than the prime lens. I would be surprised if, in practice, you'll get any improvement in IQ with the Canon gear at anything over ISO800.

Also take into consideration that the EVF of the R7 is really low end as far as modern EVFs go and there is a good chance that the read speed of the sensor will be quite low. And since normal EVF (i.e: not A9/Z9/A1) make following subjects harder than OVFs, you'll probably end up with about the same level of keepers for action shots as the D500...

So... I don't see much of an upgrade in the R7 + 100-500 over D500 and 500mm PF as long as you don't need the zoom.

 

[Bennvdm]

Another light all in one solution might also be Z7/z7 ii with z 100-400 & z tc 1.4x for walk around. New z 100-400 also appears to take tc’s very well, but no personal experience with it. Maybe try renting 1st once z 100-400 becomes available for renting.

Can keep 500mm pf to use with ftz and f 1.4 tc where more reach is needed.

The canon R7 with 100-500 L and possibly 1.4 tc also looks like a good solution, but availability is likely only December. Might be bigger change to adapt to canon ergonomics. I like using front and back control wheel for manual mode auto iso shooting on nikon.

 

[abc123brian]

The R7 + 100-500mm could be a great option. I haven’t personally any experience with it so cannot say anything specific on how well it it works in comparison, but I know people are really happy with the 100-500mm and it is small and light. The problem with it for me is that F/5.6 is already too small for where I like to shoot so it’s already a compromise to get a smaller lens and going to 7.1 is only going to be worse. I‘m often in thick tree cover without much light. I don’t think it would be an issue for you on the boardwalk. My biggest question would be is the R7 better than the R5 here. Each has some pros and cons over the other. I personally like the controls of the R5 better, but that’s a personal preference.

 

[Chris K]

Any reason you’re not considering the Z9+500PF? It seems to satisfy your cost needs (between the Canon and Sony options), and your weight needs (same as Sony). Unlike on your D500, it also works really well with a 1.4 on the Z system.

This is my current kit (with a 1.4x), and I’m very happy with it.

Also, if you can get your hands on an OM1, the 300/4 and 150-400/4.5 are very well-regarded.

In any case, I don’t think you can really make a bad choice here. They’re all great!

 

[Backdoor Arts]

I shot a pair of D500's for years, one with the 500mm and the other with whatever else was necessary. I switched to the R5 & 100-500mm a year ago and haven't looked back, and pre-ordered the R7 as soon as the store would let me.

The R5 is a lot of camera and the 45MPs can really slow down your ingest and post-processing particularly if you are using Topaz AI products, but the results are worth it. Coming from a 20MP camera I find that if I shoot in DX mode (1.6x crop) I'm at 18MP which is only slightly less that the D500 and the "pre-cropping" can greatly reduce ingest times.

Now the R7 is an only slightly-known commodity, but I'm looking forward to it. With the 100-500mm you're shooting an effective 160-800mm - that's amazing to think about in a lightweight, carry around rig!! I have several reservations, some of them only due to the difference in form factor from the R5. The one you would likely be concerned with is buffer size, which seems to be about 30 RAW images. Shooting with the mechanical shutter at 15 fps that can fill it up in 2 seconds. Coming from a D500 that wouldn't fill until maybe over 300 images that's going to take some getting used to if you're used to shooting in long bursts. If you don't then I have no reason not to push you towards this combination.

The Canon focus system has been named superior to Nikon and Sony's best cameras by multiple reviewers who shoot Nikon and Sony as well, and it is truly remarkable. And you get the same one that's in the R3 when you buy the R7 - and you could buy 3 of those for the price of a Z9. Heck, get an R5 AND an R7 for the price of a Z9!!

 

[Bennvdm]

Any reason you’re not considering the Z9+500PF? It seems to satisfy your cost needs (between the Canon and Sony options), and your weight needs (same as Sony). Unlike on your D500, it also works really well with a 1.4 on the Z system.

This is my current kit (with a 1.4x), and I’m very happy with it.

z9, ftz ii, 1.4 tc iii f-mount & 500pf comes to 6.3lb or 2.85kg

 

[FB101]

Reading through your post, if I understood you correctly, you have 3 objectives with this change.
1. Go from 2 to 1 body but retain a focal range from 100 to 750mm (roughly)
2. Keep weight low
3. Not sacrifice reach as even 750mm equivallent is often short.

Additional points is that you want to do it with native, not adapted, lenses it seems and price although not your first consideration is preferably kept in check.

That‘s a tall order and you have a couple options that come close, but they will have compromises

R7 + 100-500 will meet points 2 and 3, the focal range will start at 160mm but probably not a huge deal. As others have mentioned though, the EVF is really low resolution and we have not seen any high iso review (but if you shoot in good light you might be ok)

R5 + 100-500 will meet point 1 and 2 but your DX crop will be around 17mp so not a huge amount to crop further into if you need. That would still be my pick, the R5 is a very nice camera and I know that for me, the ergonomics are better than what I see on the R7 (but that’s personal)

You could build a viable solution with a z7ii and adapting your current lenses. That would be the cheapest option by far as long as you don’t do much BIF and your subjects aren’t erratic or in very busy backgrounds. Lots of people make it work and post great pictures from those combos but it’s not as easy as with canon or Sony. The other issue is that it’s not a one body solution - or you’ll need to swap lenses in the field, which you do not seem to favor.

The Sony A1 + 100-400 is light, optically superb and very easy to get great results from. It is expensive and the reach is less. To get to your objective you’d need the 200-600 and it’s quite a bit heavier. Good news though is that its DX crop is 21mp, not 17mp like the R5

Although I shoot the A1 and 200-600 myself, I think based on your needs you’d be happier with the R5 and 100-500

Two caveats though, first if you shoot with teleconverters, that canon 100-500 is a real pain and I’d actually recommend the Sony. Second, if you have arthritis or pain in your hands that might make handling the stiffer zoom ring of the canon difficult, then know that the sony zoom is very smooth and easy to operate with a much shorter throw.

i hope this gives you a bit more insights into the options you are considering (and I have shot with all of them, except the R7 obviously).

 

[bleirer]

You (OP) mentioned wanting different shape rectangles. One feature worth investigating about the R7 is the customizable AF rectangles. I've read that if you have bird eye/animal eye active it will only search your custom rectangle for the eye. I believe this would be a plus because I think but am not positive the other camera search outside their rectangles.

The other thing I think is different is you can have eye detection in all af modes on the R7. I believe there are only certain modes where eye detection is allowed on the others.

I think I'd lean toward the R5 because I want landscapes as well, and I'd rather have the choice how much to crop each scene by cropping in post. 18 mp would be plenty if I got all the way to aps-c size but wouldn't have to go that far every time.

 

[bleirer]

Reading through your post, if I understood you correctly, you have 3 objectives with this change.
1. Go from 2 to 1 body but retain a focal range from 100 to 750mm (roughly)
2. Keep weight low
3. Not sacrifice reach as even 750mm equivallent is often short.

Additional points is that you want to do it with native, not adapted, lenses it seems and price although not your first consideration is preferably kept in check.

That‘s a tall order and you have a couple options that come close, but they will have compromises

R7 + 100-500 will meet points 2 and 3, the focal range will start at 160mm but probably not a huge deal. As others have mentioned though, the EVF is really low resolution and we have not seen any high iso review (but if you shoot in good light you might be ok)

R5 + 100-500 will meet point 1 and 2 but your DX crop will be around 17mp so not a huge amount to crop further into if you need. That would still be my pick, the R5 is a very nice camera and I know that for me, the ergonomics are better than what I see on the R7 (but that’s personal)

You could build a viable solution with a z7ii and adapting your current lenses. That would be the cheapest option by far as long as you don’t do much BIF and your subjects aren’t erratic or in very busy backgrounds. Lots of people make it work and post great pictures from those combos but it’s not as easy as with canon or Sony. The other issue is that it’s not a one body solution - or you’ll need to swap lenses in the field, which you do not seem to favor.

The Sony A1 + 100-400 is light, optically superb and very easy to get great results from. It is expensive and the reach is less. To get to your objective you’d need the 200-600 and it’s quite a bit heavier. Good news though is that its DX crop is 21mp, not 17mp like the R5

Although I shoot the A1 and 200-600 myself, I think based on your needs you’d be happier with the R5 and 100-500

Two caveats though, first if you shoot with teleconverters, that canon 100-500 is a real pain and I’d actually recommend the Sony. Second, if you have arthritis or pain in your hands that might make handling the stiffer zoom ring of the canon difficult, then know that the sony zoom is very smooth and easy to operate with a much shorter throw.

i hope this gives you a bit more insights into the options you are considering (and I have shot with all of them, except the R7 obviously).

Wondering what you don't like about the 1.4 TC on the 100-500?

 

[Tom Reynolds]

My reason for eliminating the Z9/FTZ/500pf is the 2# difference between it and a R7/100-500 (6.3# vs 4.3#). I also think that the rig does not have enough reach for the lazy way I shoot (cropping often and deep.

I will say that in fact nothing is off the table. I am prepared to return the rig and try something else.

Tom

 

[EricBowles]

In deciding to upgrade my D-500/500pf combo I considered three factors:

• Weight. The R7/100-500 rig is 4.3# if the lens foot is not added. The D-500/500pf is 5.1#. A third consideration, the Sony A1/200-600 is 7# (Weights approximate) while a 4th, a Canon R5/100-500 is 5#.
• Cost. The R7/100-500 is $4.3K. The Sony A1/200-600 is $9.5K. A third consideration, the Nikon Z-9/800pf is $12K (Prices approximate)
• One camera solution. The non-compound lenses often require carrying a second camera/lens combo. On the South Padre Island boardwalks, I carried a second D-500/70-300dx. In the blinds at the ranch a D-500/300pf was in residence and was often useful.

If weight and cost were not an issue I would pick the Z-9/800pf without question and carry a D-500 with a shorter lens. In my view 800mm is the correct lens for a full frame camera. The professional I shot with who had an A1/200-600 had a T/C mounted virtually 100% of the time and did another professional I shot with who used a Canon R5/100-500.

However, if weight and cost were only somewhat of an issue, I would choose the Sony A1/200-600 and eschew the T/C. An additional benefit is that the Sony is a one camera solution.

Default solution​

In my case I concluded that a one camera solution was a requirement. I had significant issues carrying the two camera Nikon D-500 solution on the easy walking South Padre Island Birding Center boardwalks. I tried many carry solutions without success. Simply stated, it wasn’t fun. Understand that I am 81, overweight and under exercised. Your mileage may vary.

The zero cost, one camera solution, is, of course, to pick one camera configuration, presumably the D-500/500pf rig, and live with it. However, with a small weight penalty I could upgrade to a D-850. That would give me both a 500mm and 700mm (DX crop), rig from one setup for about $1500 or so outlay and virtually no learning curve. That does seem superior to the D-500 one camera solution. Therefore, in my case, the comparison is between a D-850/500pf versus one of the single-camera zoom lens configurations or a Z-9/800pf setup without a second camera.

I think I need four distinct configurations:

• Bird Portrait: mechanical shutter, auto ISO, 1/1600, lowest f/stop available, small AF rectangle
• Bird takeoff (waiting): electronic shutter, animal eye tracking engaged, pre-click engaged, auto iso, 1/3200+, lowest F/stop available, large rectangle AF
• BIF1: Mechanical shutter, 1/3200, auto iso, large rectangle AF, lowest f/stop available
• BIF2: Electronic shutter 1/4000, auto ISO, largest AF, pre click not engaged, lowest F/stop available

The problem is that I admit that I am guessing.

I think you are mixing vastly different solutions. The D6, Z9, A1, and Canon R3 are one set of options, but those are all flagship cameras with performance that matches. The traditional flagship cameras don't consider size to be a problem.

The next step down is the Full Frame high resolution cameras. The D850, Z7ii, R5, and A7riv are the choices. The mirrorless versions are a bit smaller. None of these are completely "action" cameras, but all can do the job. The most advanced for subject recognition is the R5, but the others are all very capable cameras. The mirrorless cameras are all a bit more advanced than the D850, but the D850 is probably the best all around DSLR.

I'll rule out the "standard" resolution full frame cameras as you lose the cropping capability you articulated. I will say as a Z6 owner that cropping ability is a bit overstated because of the lower noise you have in a standard resolution camera. The cropping with high resolution comes with a tradeoff. But this group of cameras does have the A9ii and R6 - both capable cameras for action with very good subject recognition and just a step behind the flagship models.

Finally, you have the APS-C cameras. As with the full frame cameras, these cameras bring high resolution but it is already cropped. The D500 is a solid choice here but lacks subject resolution of the newest AF systems. Canon's R7 suggests a worthy new entry here, but it has not been in the hands of users to fully assess where it falls.

Then you have the upcoming cameras. You could put the R7 in this group. Nikon is tight lipped, but their financial forecast shows a high volume enthusiast camera for this fall. It almost certainly will be based on the Z9 technology and bring the smaller body you describe. I'm using the Z7ii and will be getting the new camera when it is released. I'm expecting a full action camera with shutterless operating, a dual readout for a fast EVF, and a fast frame rate. Whether it is an FX, APS-C, or both remains open. I expect to see it released with the long awaited Z 200-600 targeted for the same market.

When it comes to lenses, the 500 PF will work with the Nikon FTZ adapter. I was successfully photographing shorebirds in flight with the Z7ii, 500 PF, and TC14E III teleconverter. The FTZ makes things seamless. The 500 PF is a terrific lens and quite light for a quality 500mm lens - plus you own it. The Nikon z lineup has a range of excellent light-weight lenses - the 24-70 f/4, 40mm, and 28mm as well as others. This is by far the least expensive system and maintains flexibility.

You have pointed out a distinction between electronic and mechanical shutters. That's not necessarily a distinction with all bodies. Nikon appears to be heading to a shutterless design with a real time EVF for their enthusiast and professional cameras and has already executed that with the Z9. The Z9 successors for enthusiasts will likely have a similar design.

When it comes to reducing weight, I'm not sure you can create a kit that is materially lighter than your D500 and 500 PF. The Z7ii camera or equivalent with the FTZ would be a little lighter, but we're talking a few ounces. There are things you can do with camera straps and carry systems that help. The reality for most of us is we can all stand to lose 5 pounds and get a little more exercise.

Perhaps the other solution is one you have not mentioned. The Olympus system has a good camera and good lenses with a 2X crop factor. It's going to be marginal for birds in flight, but is smaller and lighter and could save a pound or so.

Personally, I would wait for the next Nikon camera announcement. If it's as I strongly expect, the performance will be a nice upgrade from your D500 with lighter weight and smaller size - plus the familiar controls and handling and it uses your existing lenses. That seems like an easy solution given you have waited this long.

 

[John Navitsky]

I'm not sure why you'd look to the R7 and R5 as a possible D500 replacement and not consider the R6. IMO the R6 is more comparable in price and performance than the other two.

And also, if you're willing to wait, the Z6iii/Z7iii/Z8(?) will all likely be options.

 

[bleirer]

I'm not sure why you'd look to the R7 and R5 as a possible D500 replacement and not consider the R6. IMO the R6 is more comparable in price and performance than the other two.

And also, if you're willing to wait, the Z6iii/Z7iii/Z8(?) will all likely be options.

I think the 20mp would be the barrier for the r6. A crop shooter who is accustomed to cropping the crop camera might be frustrated by the 8 megapixels from the r6 in crop mode.

I agree if I were happy with the d500 and already owned a 500pf it would be worth waiting to see what Nikon comes up with as a high performance crop body.

 

[John Navitsky]

Then you have the upcoming cameras. You could put the R7 in this group. Nikon is tight lipped, but their financial forecast shows a high volume enthusiast camera for this fall. It almost certainly will be based on the Z9 technology and bring the smaller body you describe. I'm using the Z7ii and will be getting the new camera when it is released. I'm expecting a full action camera with shutterless operating, a dual readout for a fast EVF, and a fast frame rate. Whether it is an FX, APS-C, or both remains open. I expect to see it released with the long awaited Z 200-600 targeted for the same market.

while i somewhat expect the next z6iii/z7iii to be traditional sensors with similar performance to the r6/r5, if Nikon comes out with a stacked sensor crop, it'll likely be awesome, a true d500 successor.

it's interesting canon is pushing downward with the r7, r10. it seems like a good strategy for them, but i suspect in order to push down there inherently be compromises that will keep them from being a spiritual successor to the pro sport body d500.

basically, i think any true d500 successor will be a stacked sensor.

 

[John Navitsky]

I think the 20mp would be the barrier for the r6. A crop shooter who is accustomed to cropping the crop camera might be frustrated by the 8 megapixels from the r6 in crop mode.

I agree if I were happy with the d500 and already owned a 500pf it would be worth waiting to see what Nikon comes up with as a high performance crop body.

i shot 20mp with my d500 for years and years and am still happy with the images. i think we're just looking at it differently.... if i had a r6, i wouldn't be shooting it in crop mode so from my perspective it would "the same" other than picking up low light performance.

i shot my d500 and z6ii back to back and never felt compelled to shoot the z6ii in crop. ymmv.

 

[BlueGil21]

In deciding to upgrade my D-500/500pf combo I considered three factors:

• Weight. The R7/100-500 rig is 4.3# if the lens foot is not added. The D-500/500pf is 5.1#. A third consideration, the Sony A1/200-600 is 7# (Weights approximate) while a 4th, a Canon R5/100-500 is 5#.
• Cost. The R7/100-500 is $4.3K. The Sony A1/200-600 is $9.5K. A third consideration, the Nikon Z-9/800pf is $12K (Prices approximate)
• One camera solution. The non-compound lenses often require carrying a second camera/lens combo. On the South Padre Island boardwalks, I carried a second D-500/70-300dx. In the blinds at the ranch a D-500/300pf was in residence and was often useful.

If weight and cost were not an issue I would pick the Z-9/800pf without question and carry a D-500 with a shorter lens. In my view 800mm is the correct lens for a full frame camera. The professional I shot with who had an A1/200-600 had a T/C mounted virtually 100% of the time and did another professional I shot with who used a Canon R5/100-500.

However, if weight and cost were only somewhat of an issue, I would choose the Sony A1/200-600 and eschew the T/C. An additional benefit is that the Sony is a one camera solution.

Default solution​

In my case I concluded that a one camera solution was a requirement. I had significant issues carrying the two camera Nikon D-500 solution on the easy walking South Padre Island Birding Center boardwalks. I tried many carry solutions without success. Simply stated, it wasn’t fun. Understand that I am 81, overweight and under exercised. Your mileage may vary.

The zero cost, one camera solution, is, of course, to pick one camera configuration, presumably the D-500/500pf rig, and live with it. However, with a small weight penalty I could upgrade to a D-850. That would give me both a 500mm and 700mm (DX crop), rig from one setup for about $1500 or so outlay and virtually no learning curve. That does seem superior to the D-500 one camera solution. Therefore, in my case, the comparison is between a D-850/500pf versus one of the single-camera zoom lens configurations or a Z-9/800pf setup without a second camera.

Weight​

I eliminated the Z-9/800pf simply on the basis of weight. Cost was an issue but if the weight was about 5# the Z-9/800pf may well have been the winner. My analysis is that the Z-9/800pf would take the best pictures of the group as long as 800mm in a Full Frame rig was not too long. However, I experienced carrying 9# of camera/lens (D-500/500pf, D-500/70-300dx) in the SPI boardwalks and did not like it at all. Also, the fixed lens was also a problem, 500mm (750mm FX equivalent) being too long is some situations on the boardwalks and in the Ranch blinds.

Canon R7 vs R5​

Shooting the 500pf on a cropped D-500, I find myself cropping most of the time so 500mm on a 45mp full frame sensor seems short. However, 500mm on a 1.6 crop, 32.5mb R7 sensor reaches the 800mm equivalent and allows for the cropping that I do. This, plus faster shots/sec in both mechanical and electronic shutter led me to choose the R7 over the R5. The weight difference was not insignificant also.

Shooting the R7​

I think I need four distinct configurations:

• Bird Portrait: mechanical shutter, auto ISO, 1/1600, lowest f/stop available, small AF rectangle
• Bird takeoff (waiting): electronic shutter, animal eye tracking engaged, pre-click engaged, auto iso, 1/3200+, lowest F/stop available, large rectangle AF
• BIF1: Mechanical shutter, 1/3200, auto iso, large rectangle AF, lowest f/stop available
• BIF2: Electronic shutter 1/4000, auto ISO, largest AF, pre click not engaged, lowest F/stop available

The problem is that I admit that I am guessing.

If you decide on the R7, you may want to just put in a preorder now as a placeholder. Release date is end of June and first batch may be already accounted for because of limited numbers and part shortage issues all companies are struggling with. If demand is high you probably won’t get your camera until something else that will have your interest is announced.

 

[AlfC]

Perhaps the other solution is one you have not mentioned. The Olympus system has a good camera and good lenses with a 2X crop factor. It's going to be marginal for birds in flight, but is smaller and lighter and could save a pound or so.

Personally, I would wait for the next Nikon camera announcement. If it's as I strongly expect, the performance will be a nice upgrade from your D500 with lighter weight and smaller size - plus the familiar controls and handling and it uses your existing lenses. That seems like an easy solution given you have waited this long.

I have the OM-1 while waiting for a smaller, lighter, cheaper Z9. I find I am using my D500/500PF much less for birds in flight because the OM-1 is distinctly better (mainly because of its very fast bird/eye recognition) and has several other advantages: pre-capture, focus stacking, hand-held hi-res, (almost) blackout-free EVF, and very fast frame rates. I don't have the Oly 300 F/4 but it is reported to work very well with both 1.4x and 2.0x TCs giving up to 1200mm FF equivalent FOV which might serve the OP well.

 

[FB101]

Wondering what you don't like about the 1.4 TC on the 100-500?

Simply that you can't mount it if the zoom is not extended to 300mm or more. Which means that it's very hard to put the camera + TC + extended zoom back in a bag (if the bag fits the 100-500 collapsed it often won't fit it extended to 300mm+). It's also awkward to mount because the zoom has to be partially extended to do so. I just did not enjoy the experience at all.
Optically it is excellent, no complaints but functionally I found that design to be a royal PITA.

 

[FB101]

I think what would be very useful would be for the OP to clarify what he wants to achieve. The thread title says upgrading but when reading the options considered and why, it's more of simplifying (1 body system vs 2), keeping it light (but not necessarily lighter) and keeping the same focal range he has in 2 lenses but with one lens (one body).
That's not necessarily an "upgrade" in image quality or performance and more an upgrade in convenience for his needs. Unless I read it all wrong of course, just guessing here.

If I am correct, things like the R6 can't get there and all the other options mentioned come in with trade-offs. Question then boils down to which ones are less problematic for the OP.

 

[Chris K]

My reason for eliminating the Z9/FTZ/500pf is the 2# difference between it and a R7/100-500 (6.3# vs 4.3#). I also think that the rig does not have enough reach for the lazy way I shoot (cropping often and deep.

I will say that in fact nothing is off the table. I am prepared to return the rig and try something else.

Tom

Fair enough. If 6lbs is your benchmark, your choice is much easier. The Z9/500PF is off the list, as are any other Nikon Z9 options and any Sony option barring the 100-400.

Here’s all the other super-tele options I’m aware of:

• OM1+150-400. It’s 5.4lbs, and gets to 1000mm-e, at f/5.6 with its internal TC.
• OM1+300. It’s 4.1lbs and gets to 600mm-e at f/4. You can mount a 1.4x to get to 840mm-e at f/5.6.
• OM1+100-400. It’s 3.5lbs and gets to 800mm-e at f/6.3.
• X-H2S+150-600. This isn’t announced yet, but is rumored to come in a week. It’ll be ~900mm at f/8.
• A1+100-400. It’s 4.7lbs and gets to 560mm if you crop it to APS-C. That’s too short, so you’ll be using a 1.4x to get to 840mm-e at f/8.

All of these are BEAF cameras, which I think you should limit yourself to as your primary goal here is wildlife.

For lightweight wildlife I’m most intrigued by the OM1. I think the 150-400 is the lens to beat for performance-per-pound. That said, the R7+100-500 seems like a fine choice, as well.

I think it’s real hard to pick a loser, here. Pick the system with the features you like best, and go with it!

 

[Palmor]

i shot 20mp with my d500 for years and years and am still happy with the images. i think we're just looking at it differently.... if i had a r6, i wouldn't be shooting it in crop mode so from my perspective it would "the same" other than picking up low light performance.

i shot my d500 and z6ii back to back and never felt compelled to shoot the z6ii in crop. ymmv.

It's not the total MP it's the pixel density of the sensor that makes a huge difference. If the OP is used to D500 and 500mm that is an equivalent of 750mm. To get that same equivalent on a Z6 you'd have to crop way down or get closer to your subject.

 

[John Navitsky]

It's not the total MP it's the pixel density of the sensor that makes a huge difference. If the OP is used to D500 and 500mm that is an equivalent of 750mm. To get that same equivalent on a Z6 you'd have to crop way down or get closer to your subject.

sure. i just assumed we'd adjust the lens to match the desired framing for the camera. it sounded like we were talking about a camera/lens pair

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Thanks everyone. Your suggestions/ideas really help.
As several have said this analysis is about my needs, not a technical analysis of cameras/lenses. My wife and I have agreed that we will not purchase a rig that is significantly heavier than our D-500/500pf. We previously shot D-7200/Sigma 150-600C and didn't like it. We were always on the monopod/monogimble instead of hand-held. So, as someone remarked, 6# is a hard cap in weight and lighter is better. FOR US. Others will have different needs and different analysis.

We also agreed that we crop our D-500/500pf shots all the time, sometimes dramatically. We do not want the DX size pixel density to fall below the D-500 (21). A DX crop of a 45mp density FX camera is ok, but not below that.

I have seen three suggestions that need to be considered.
1-Wait. Nikon will have an entry into the analysis.
2-A1/100-400 with a 2.0 T/C
3-Olympus
I am looking at both these options and will report.

Tom