Best upgrade on a budget?

[Dmacfarl]

The D500 is a great wildlife camera, so if you shoot mostly wildlife, I’d stick with that. Do you like and use the flexibility of a zoom like the Sigma 150-600, or is most of your work at the long end? If the latter, then the 500PF would be a great choice. On the other hand, if you enjoy having zoom capability, then you might look at the Nikon 200-500, which is a great lens, with better AF and IQ than either the Sigma or Tamron equivalent, IMHO. Years ago, I rented and tested out all three, and found the 200-500 superior in almost every respect and, at only $1300 new, it’s a real bargain. Having said that, however, I would not call the AF “fast”, especially in low light conditions, and it gets even slower with a TC attached. Nonetheless, I find AF acceptable in most situations on the 200-500. If you opt for the 500PF, what will you use to cover the shorter range? The Nikon 70-200 f2.8 would be a great choice, but then that would exceed your $3000 budget.

I have the D500, 500PF, 200-500 and 70-200 f2.8. The 70-200 rarely comes off. The 500PF is a solid lens for wildlife, birds, etc. I loved the 200-500 (especially for airshows - it’s really heavy, though) but I rarely use it anymore ….

 

[Calson]

The question to ask is what kit you want a few years from now. DSLRs are dead in terms of new cameras and f-mount lenses. No real advantages in your situation to a Z camera as compared to a mirrorless from Sony or Canon. You D500 provides 21MP in a DX image and that translates to a 45MP or greater resolution sensor with a full frame camera.

I shot with the f-mount cameras and lenses and now with the Z9 cameras and multiple S lenses. My wife has been shooting for years on our wildlife trips with her Olympus E-M1 cameras that are MFT. Her kit for the same view angles and fast glass is have the size and less than half the weight of my Z kit. She never needs to decide which lenses to take as she can fit them all in a 18 liter backpack with two MFT cameras.

In terms of performance the Olympus MFT cameras and lenses are as good as anything from the companies producing full frame gear. The only place where a Z9 is better is with regard to high ISO noise. Optical stabilization is as good with the Olympus cameras and lenses as that of my Z gear. There is an ergonomic aspect as I find the E-M1 camera to be a little on the small size for my hands (same issue with the otherwise excellent D750 that I owned).

 

[Roy]

With the autumn/winter discount period looming, I am thinking of an upgrade to my wildlife kit that comes in at about 3000 USD.

Currently I am shooting with a Nikon D500, a Sigma 150-600mm C and a Nikkor AF-S 300mm f4D and TC14 II.
The things that are bugging me are the slow AF of both lenses, the lack of VR of the 300mm and the fact that sometimes the D500 and Sigma's VR produce baffling softness in the images.

I also have an m43 kit composed of the Panasonic G9 and some pro lenses.

I've narrowed my options to the following:

1) Grab a 500mm PF for the Nikon D500.
This means down the road I will most likely sell my m43 kit to fund a Z9 or some Z90/Z8 camera.

2) Grab either an Olympus OM-1 or an Olympus 300mm f4 (which has the better discounts basically).
This means that down the road I will most likely sell my Nikon kit (except my D810 that took a nose dive and a couple of prime lenses) to fund the other bit of kit that I didn't get.

What does the wisdom of the group say it's the best course of action?

The 500 PF works really well on the Z9 and is great value now.
An option is the 200-500 AFS lens - great VR but not quite as fast an autofocus as the 600mm f4 pro level lenses.
But if you are thinking Z then i'd hold off and buy native Z glass.
The best reason to go Z is the lenses...

 

[O]

With the autumn/winter discount period looming, I am thinking of an upgrade to my wildlife kit that comes in at about 3000 USD.

Currently I am shooting with a Nikon D500, a Sigma 150-600mm C and a Nikkor AF-S 300mm f4D and TC14 II.
The things that are bugging me are the slow AF of both lenses, the lack of VR of the 300mm and the fact that sometimes the D500 and Sigma's VR produce baffling softness in the images.

I also have an m43 kit composed of the Panasonic G9 and some pro lenses.

I've narrowed my options to the following:

1) Grab a 500mm PF for the Nikon D500.
This means down the road I will most likely sell my m43 kit to fund a Z9 or some Z90/Z8 camera.

2) Grab either an Olympus OM-1 or an Olympus 300mm f4 (which has the better discounts basically).
This means that down the road I will most likely sell my Nikon kit (except my D810 that took a nose dive and a couple of prime lenses) to fund the other bit of kit that I didn't get.

What does the wisdom of the group say it's the best course of action?

This subject in our club has been a common one for ages.

Out of all the club members who each have their own needs for considering weight size cost performance etc, it appears from memory they seem to use

Body - D500, D850, D5, Z9 to which several have sold their Z9 units, i don't know why, other than one who said its to sophisticated or complicated for them.

Lenses - 200-500, 500 Pf, 300 F4 PF 1.4 III TC, 150-600 Sigma, Tamron 150-600 G II, 500 F4

Most popular Preferred size and weight combo D500, 500 PF,

Most popular NON ISSUE size and weight D500 D850 Z9 200-500, 500 PF,

100-400 owners find its a great lens but mostly gravitate back to their 500 PF

In General- Many have traveled the OM Fuji or 4/3rd track and nearly all have come back to what they had previously or similar in Nikon or Canon, and only a few have both systems, however they do love their smaller systems.

Considering your budget is caped at $3000 i would move slowly.

The 150-600 Sigma is excellent lens used properly, the 200-500 Nikon has better colours as well as the edge. If your mostly shooting at the long end then the 500 PF seems preferred especially given the size and weight advantages, image quality appears the same.

The Z9 is out of the budget if i read you correctly.

I wonder how you are using the D500 and Sigma given the image softness experience, at what shutter speeds are you using the combo ?

As we know with fast moving subjects focus attack speed is paramount, 10-12 fps with is usually plenty i find.

Hope its of help............

Only an opinion

 

[O]

The 500 PF works really well on the Z9 and is great value now.
An option is the 200-500 AFS lens - great VR but not quite as fast an autofocus as the 600mm f4 pro level lenses.
But if you are thinking Z then i'd hold off and buy native Z glass.
The best reason to go Z is the lenses...

SPOT ON

 

[O]

I'd go for the OM1 and figure on a used Olympus 100-400 mm lens, a light very good combo that might slightly exceed your budget but will produce excellent photos --

Very Good and real world practical Video
Its amazing how Olympus has the click on the lens collar as does Canon yet Nikon's $16000 USD flag ship doesn't, i wonder why?

 

[Roy]

Very Good and real world practical Video
Its amazing how Olympus has the click on the lens collar as does Canon yet Nikon's $16000 USD flag ship doesn't, i wonder why?

My 70-200 lens collar became undone in the bag and dropped my Z9 from the tripod onto my bag.
I wished all tripod feet had no quick release feature...

 

[StefanSC]

Thank you all for your replies.

They have helped me put things into context and I have given a lot of thought to my conundrum:

1) I enjoy traveling and shooting with m43rds and often I am surprised how much above it's weight it punches but there is a certain "je ne sais quoi" in the image quality of my failing D810 that I will miss. So I want to get back to Full Frame after that camera gives up the ghost.

2) There are rumors starting to swirl around a possible Z8, the upgrade of the Z7 and the Z 200-600mm. Since Nikon has been hitting it out of the park lately when it comes to lenses, I feel I might end up missing out if I jump the gun too soon.

3) I am happy with about 600mm-equivalent FF field of view if the lens is great and the pixels are solid. Also, I enjoy Nikon haptics and interface and I'd rather be out shooting than learning new camera gear. Weight is not a problem at this point.

4) Winter is slower shooting when it comes to wildlife where I live (mostly small birds in city parks).

As such, I have come to this conclusion:

I will wait until about April next year (before the bird migration starts) to see if Nikon launches the Z200-600mm and if we get more concrete info about the Z8.
If these things don't happen, I will pull the trigger on a used 500PF (they already seem to be coming down in price at MPB for example) and start saving for a Z9.
If the Z200-600mm gets released, then I will try to get it and maybe a Z6II/Z7II (or III or Z8, depending on what Nikon does).

Again, thank you all for the kind, considerate and informative replies.

P.S: Phew, GAS attack averted

 

[O]

Thank you all for your replies.

They have helped me put things into context and I have given a lot of thought to my conundrum:

1) I enjoy traveling and shooting with m43rds and often I am surprised how much above it's weight it punches but there is a certain "je ne sais quoi" in the image quality of my failing D810 that I will miss. So I want to get back to Full Frame after that camera gives up the ghost.

2) There are rumors starting to swirl around a possible Z8, the upgrade of the Z7 and the Z 200-600mm. Since Nikon has been hitting it out of the park lately when it comes to lenses, I feel I might end up missing out if I jump the gun too soon.

3) I am happy with about 600mm-equivalent FF field of view if the lens is great and the pixels are solid. Also, I enjoy Nikon haptics and interface and I'd rather be out shooting than learning new camera gear. Weight is not a problem at this point.

4) Winter is slower shooting when it comes to wildlife where I live (mostly small birds in city parks).

As such, I have come to this conclusion:

I will wait until about April next year (before the bird migration starts) to see if Nikon launches the Z200-600mm and if we get more concrete info about the Z8.
If these things don't happen, I will pull the trigger on a used 500PF (they already seem to be coming down in price at MPB for example) and start saving for a Z9.
If the Z200-600mm gets released, then I will try to get it and maybe a Z6II/Z7II (or III or Z8, depending on what Nikon does).

Again, thank you all for the kind, considerate and informative replies.

P.S: Phew, GAS attack averted

"Ducks Guts" whats the go on a budget, hang the rest........

You are so missing out on brilliant image quality and universal quality performance, Cheap as used in mint condition even with low actuation, THE AMAZING MAGICAL D850 will last you a long time. Its the best do everything really well camera available from Nikon.

500PF is a winner, the breathtakingly underrated brilliant budget priced 200-500 is equal to the price of a romantic weekend for two.

Mirror less, forget it completely for now, i would wait for the Z8 and see what it brings to the table, don't waste your time on the Z9 its not a budget item and while excellent is really overkill for most as its a specialized tool as well as for so many people a steep learning curve as well as being unforgiving. I like mine I don't love it becuase of its complexity due to my lack of geek skills.

I will likely trade my Z9 for a Z8 small light higher resolution.......?

The Z6 Z7 and II versions are basically obsolete already or if not then soon as the Z8 will be the refined new direction, the Z9 is excellent but like the initial Z6 rushed and unfinished, i feel the Z9 will be sooner than later updated to a Z9s or Z9 II with new improvements.........i think in early 2024 to keep up with the imporved A1 II and Canons R1 champion, its only a guess.

The industry will like smartphones pop out newer models more frequently...........as more gear runs more electronics with sophisticated software and along with that will come more glitches like every thing these days.

Enjoy what your doing, you don't need a computer to make photos..

Only an opinion

 

[Calson]

I would go the OM1 route and get their 100-400mm lens with the view angles of a 200-800mm lens. This lens works very well on the Olympus EM-1 cameras but may not work with your G9 camera, or at least the optical stabilization may not work as well.

The OM-1 is technologically on par with the Z9 in everything except eye recognition. It has an advanced Pro Capture mode that begins recording before you release the shutter; able to record at 120 fps with fixed focus or 50 fps with continuous AF, this mode begins recording once the shutter button is half-pressed and then stops once the button has been fully pressed. Up to 70 additional frames can be recorded with this mode, serving as a safeguard for times when the action occurs just before you press the shutter button. This is also available with the Olympus E-M1 camera my wife uses and this feature works excceedingly well. Camera shoots at 20 fps as with the Z9 camera.

The D500 is old technology and not something to continue to put money into a f-mount kit. However, the 500mm PF will be great with the D500 and it can work well it the FTZ adapter on a Z camera so not a bad investment in the short run. Prices have dropped a great deal on used f-mount lenses to where one can expect to get 30% of what one paid for a lens when new. Good idea to buy used f-mount lenses if you go that route.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I have the OM-1/100-400 and love it. I do NOT see any IQ difference between it and the D-500/500pf that I sold. It is basically what you want, a Z-9 with a 20MP sensor plus lenses designed for the smaller sensor available.

However,.......

I like the idea of waiting to April and see if the mythical Z-8 DX is announced. If it is a 500PF/ftz and "Z-8 DX" will save you the process of switching to another brand. The OM-1 is a daunting camera and there is no Steve Perry equivalent to write a useful field guide.

Commentary
--------------
I have never owned a camera with more than 20MP and am amazed that so many Nikon shooters can't live without 45MP anymore. The advantage of a DX camera is that the 500pf becomes 750mm in equivalent reach. If the mythical Z-8 is a lightweight FF camera as opposed to a DX and if, in DX crop mode drops, the image drops too much below 20MP then I would bet that you might not live long enough to see a DX version so I would abandon Nikon in that case.

Regards,

Tom

 

[GrandNagus50]

I have the OM-1/100-400 and love it. I do NOT see any IQ difference between it and the D-500/500pf that I sold. It is basically what you want, a Z-9 with a 20MP sensor plus lenses designed for the smaller sensor available.

However,.......

I like the idea of waiting to April and see if the mythical Z-8 DX is announced. If it is a 500PF/ftz and "Z-8 DX" will save you the process of switching to another brand. The OM-1 is a daunting camera and there is no Steve Perry equivalent to write a useful field guide.

Commentary
--------------
I have never owned a camera with more than 20MP and am amazed that so many Nikon shooters can't live without 45MP anymore. The advantage of a DX camera is that the 500pf becomes 750mm in equivalent reach. If the mythical Z-8 is a lightweight FF camera as opposed to a DX and if, in DX crop mode drops, the image drops too much below 20MP then I would bet that you might not live long enough to see a DX version so I would abandon Nikon in that case.

Regards,

Tom

Joe McDonald has come out with an e-guide to the OM-1 that is written from a perspective of a wildlife photographer.

The OM-1 Menu; What I Use and Why. The Guide for Wildlife and Nature Photographers

Although there are myriad options on the OM-1 menu, in this book I cover the ones you need to know, and thoroughly explain how to find and use these items. Don't waste your time plowing through manuals ... everything you need to know is here!

mcdonaldwildlife.e-junkie.com

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Joe McDonald has come out with an e-guide to the OM-1 that is written from a perspective of a wildlife photographer.

The OM-1 Menu; What I Use and Why. The Guide for Wildlife and Nature Photographers

Although there are myriad options on the OM-1 menu, in this book I cover the ones you need to know, and thoroughly explain how to find and use these items. Don't waste your time plowing through manuals ... everything you need to know is here!

mcdonaldwildlife.e-junkie.com

Thanks, have it and several others but they are not Steve.

 

[O]

I have the OM-1/100-400 and love it. I do NOT see any IQ difference between it and the D-500/500pf that I sold. It is basically what you want, a Z-9 with a 20MP sensor plus lenses designed for the smaller sensor available.

However,.......

I like the idea of waiting to April and see if the mythical Z-8 DX is announced. If it is a 500PF/ftz and "Z-8 DX" will save you the process of switching to another brand. The OM-1 is a daunting camera and there is no Steve Perry equivalent to write a useful field guide.

Commentary
--------------
I have never owned a camera with more than 20MP and am amazed that so many Nikon shooters can't live without 45MP anymore. The advantage of a DX camera is that the 500pf becomes 750mm in equivalent reach. If the mythical Z-8 is a lightweight FF camera as opposed to a DX and if, in DX crop mode drops, the image drops too much below 20MP then I would bet that you might not live long enough to see a DX version so I would abandon Nikon in that case.

Regards,

Tom

Tom said "I have never owned a camera with more than 20MP and am amazed that so many Nikon shooters can't live without 45MP anymore"

I love
12 mp D300dx, D700, D3s,
16mp DF, D4, D4s,
20mp D5, D6, D500 dx,

owned and loved them all.

25mp D7100 dx,

FX now

25mp D3x stunning pro camera so underrated,
45mp D850 best all round DSLR ever made,
45mp Z9

own and love them all for resolution.

Excellent glass as we know makes a huge contribution to the end result = made available also through 45mp sensors that reveal so much.

The subject being photoed is the same distance physically on a DX or FX camera just the view is different.

As we know the 4/3rd style or DX cameras have a higher pixel density due to smaller sensor size and yes can look amazing if taken in good light or conditions.

Their light and small and all have a great purpose.

Because they have much much smaller actual pixel pitch - size, this often brings to the table the need for higher ISO and less crop ability.

Their is no comparison to the amazing quality and magic we are seeing from 45mp FX sensors like the D850 or Z7II or Z9. Period.

The iso performance, dynamic range, detail, micro detail, micro contrast, crop ability is for me clearly superior.

High Pixel density sensor files look awesome but when worked or pushed are in my personal experience not on par to full frame 45mp, i really look forward to 60mp that will bring even more image dimensional value.

Similar applies to 150mp medium format sensors versus 35mm FX sensors. MF excels in light gathering, colour, crop ability, and have significantly higher ISO performance.

But with respect i cant say 20mp or smaller high pixel density sensors are not excellent or don't have a place, their just not as good as to what a 45 or 60 mp sensor can achieve, thats why Nikon owners say "l cant live with going back or to less than 45mp, with what i have used i cant either.

Only an opinion

 

[GrandNagus50]

I use both the M43 (Olympus/OM) and Nikon (now FF) systems for bird photography. I guess I am an exception to the "rule" that people who go from full frame to M43 inevitably dump the latter.

I use the Nikon gear when I take photos "locally," i.e., places to which I can drive within a few hours. But when I travel internationally, the M43 gear goes with me. The advantage in terms of size and weight is real and significant. My best full frame bird rig features the Z9 with a 600mm f4G VR lens, plus I take along teleconverters. The big glass on the Z9 provides amazing resolution and detail. But we are talking big, heavy, tripod-mounted. My "secondary" lens for the Z9 while doing bird photography now is the Sony 200-600 using the Megadap adapter, which works really well (knock on wood).

If I take this full frame gear onto a plane I prefer to use a rolling bag (Think Tank International). The total weight quickly approaches and then exceeds thirty pounds. On my most recent trip, I took Copa Airlines to Panama and then on to Quito. It was the only airline that worked in terms of my scheduling parameters. When I went to the counter at SFO the agent weighed my carry on bag. Yup, checking to see whether I could meet their 10K limit for carry-on. Fortunately, I brought my OM1, my 150-400 zoom, the 40-150 Pro, and teleconverters packed into a Mindshift Backlight 26L backpack. 18 pounds. Pass! Had I brought my Nikon rig I would have had to at the very least pay an overweight fee. I hate to think they would have made me check it as regular luggage. Ugh.

The OM1 Olympus bird rig can easily be handheld for long periods, and when I do use support, I can get by with a lightweight travel tripod. And here's something else: the 150-400mm, with its 1.25x built-in teleconverter, goes to 500mm, which is the full frame angle of view equivalent of 1000mm. So I get significant magnification easily. The Olympus teleconverters can be added and they are small and light. Using the 2x I can get out to 1000mm f11 when there is adequate light, and the results are just fine. I have attached a photo of a nunbird taken at this focal length.

Because of the ease of reaching high magnification, I don't have to crop as much as I might have to with my full frame rig. To the extent that there is a disadvantage in terms of noise levels at high ISO, these are ameliorated somewhat by my not having to crop as much. I see that Steve has just reposted his video about reducing noise through cropping less. Also, of course, the latest post-processing software from DxO and Topaz go a long ways towards minimizing the problem of high ISO noise. I will add that one could get pretty similar results using the Olympus 300mm f4 plus the 2x TC, which comes to 600mm f8 which is the full frame equivalent of 1200mm.

My point is not to disparage full frame, which does have advantages. The old saying, there is no such thing as a free lunch applies to using a smaller format. But the plusses of using a smaller format, especially for international travel, are considerable, and I am glad that now I have that choice.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[BorderBirder]

Second hand prices on a 500Pf are very alluring at the moment. I’ve just bought one in as new condition at £1300 saving. That would be my vote. Others’ points in favour of Om-1 are well made from my readings.

 

[Roy]

Tom said "I have never owned a camera with more than 20MP and am amazed that so many Nikon shooters can't live without 45MP anymore"

I love
12 mp D300dx, D700, D3s,
16mp DF, D4, D4s,
20mp D5, D6, D500 dx,

owned and loved them all.

25mp D7100 dx,

FX now

25mp D3x stunning pro camera so underrated,
45mp D850 best all round DSLR ever made,
45mp Z9

own and love them all for resolution.

Excellent glass as we know makes a huge contribution to the end result = made available also through 45mp sensors that reveal so much.

The subject being photoed is the same distance physically on a DX or FX camera just the view is different.

As we know the 4/3rd style or DX cameras have a higher pixel density due to smaller sensor size and yes can look amazing if taken in good light or conditions.

Their light and small and all have a great purpose.

Because they have much much smaller actual pixel pitch - size, this often brings to the table the need for higher ISO and less crop ability.

Their is no comparison to the amazing quality and magic we are seeing from 45mp FX sensors like the D850 or Z7II or Z9. Period.

The iso performance, dynamic range, detail, micro detail, micro contrast, crop ability is for me clearly superior.

High Pixel density sensor files look awesome but when worked or pushed are in my personal experience not on par to full frame 45mp, i really look forward to 60mp that will bring even more image dimensional value.

Similar applies to 150mp medium format sensors versus 35mm FX sensors. MF excels in light gathering, colour, crop ability, and have significantly higher ISO performance.

But with respect i cant say 20mp or smaller high pixel density sensors are not excellent or don't have a place, their just not as good as to what a 45 or 60 mp sensor can achieve, thats why Nikon owners say "l cant live with going back or to less than 45mp, with what i have used i cant either.

Only an opinion

I have the same cameras except the d300.
Unless you 're photographing mostly for the internet then have a look at higher megapixel bodies.
You may find the resolution addictive ...