"big 3" wildlife setups at differing budget levels

[nmerc_photos]

Hello everyone. My uncle is looking to get back into photography. He shot Canon DSLR's for the last 20 years and wants to swap to mirrorless. He's brand agnostic and looking to get the best bang for his buck, essentially starting from scratch. We wanted to look at different body and lens combos and see what might make sense for him.

I'll post mine below, and invite others to discuss shortcomings, swaps, and the merit of any other setups. For simplicity sake, we'll keep batteries, bags, memory cards, etc. outside of the budget and assume that'll all be fairly similar between setups. We'll also assume that it's everything in the current ecosystems, with no future guessing or releases. IE we can't say Sony with intent of the A1 II or Nikon for a Z9 II or Canon for an RF 200-500. Also - only include lenses that are 70mm-200mm or longer.

I got all of my used prices from the FM forums, from an average of items that are either currently listed or have sold in the last 2 months. And often the zooms can be interchangeable. 70-200, 100-400, 200-600 are all within ~$500 of eachother for all brands I think.

Admittedly, I only really have experience with the upper end gear so picking stuff sub $5K was difficult for me. I'd love more options in those categories.

What does everyone think? Is there any one setup at each bracket that is a clear winner? Is it a matter of choosing priorities? AF vs FPS vs glass?

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

 

[Dollar]

From the Nikon side, the Z6iii and perhaps even the newly announced Z50ii would deserve a spot in there somewhere. Of course, you then have to get into the discussion of APS-C vs Full Frame and what your uncles megapixel needs or desires are; those criteria may rule out these two bodies entirely.

If the budget was sufficiently constrained you could consider the Tamron 150-500mm to pair with either. Looking at new items only and at full prices (not including current promotions for BF/CM):

Camera	Body Only	w/ Tammy 150-500mm	w/ Nikkor 180-600mm
Z50ii	~$900	$2300	$2800
Z6iii	~$2500	$3900	$4,400

From a purely "bang for your buck" stand point, those are probably Nikon's best combos at lower budgets. Otherwise, as your chart shows you can get into the Z8 and the whole mid-level range of lenses (400 f/4.5, 600PF, 800PF) which in my mind is where Nikon really shines.

 

[nmerc_photos]

From the Nikon side, the Z6iii and perhaps even the newly announced Z50ii would deserve a spot in there somewhere. Of course, you then have to get into the discussion of APS-C vs Full Frame and what your uncles megapixel needs or desires are; those criteria may rule out these two bodies entirely.

If the budget was sufficiently constrained you could consider the Tamron 150-500mm to pair with either. Looking at new items only and at full prices (not including current promotions for BF/CM):

Camera	Body Only	w/ Tammy 150-500mm	w/ Nikkor 180-600mm
Z50ii	~$900	$2300	$2800
Z6iii	~$2500	$3900	$4,400

From a purely "bang for your buck" stand point, those are probably Nikon's best combos at lower budgets. Otherwise, as your chart shows you can get into the Z8 and the whole mid-level range of lenses (400 f/4.5, 600PF, 800PF) which in my mind is where Nikon really shines.

I need to do more research on both of those bodies. Admittedly, I know very little about either. In my mind it's still that I wouldn't want to shoot any Nikon bodies until the Z8/Z9 level.

Would love if the Z50II ends up being good competition for the R7, and not sure where the Z6III would rank. Maybe against the A7R5?

I definitely should consider more of the tamron options! and perhaps the Sigma 500mm f5.6 as well

 

[Dollar]

I need to do more research on both of those bodies. Admittedly, I know very little about either. In my mind it's still that I wouldn't want to shoot any Nikon bodies until the Z8/Z9 level.

It's slightly oversimplified to say this, but to keep it brief I usually just say that for serious wildlife people need to stick to the Expeed 7 bodies. Until these two bodies came out, the Zf, Z8, and Z9 were indeed the only bodies with that processor and thus anything cheaper would likely disappoint (and ofc the Zf being retro in styling and ergonomics is not ideal unless you REALLY like that sort of thing). But with these two releases Nikon is starting to produce some capable cameras in the lower price brackets fortunately.

Apologies as the Z50ii is of course APS-C, I suggested it as I did not see full frame being a requirement in the body of your post but I see now it's called out in the title.

As for the Z6iii, again oversimplifying a bit but probably the largest difference for a stills-only shooter will be the 24MP vs the Z8's 46MP.

and perhaps the Sigma 500mm f5.6 as well

For sure, I keep forgetting that lens exists despite how happy I was to see it announced! I really hope Tamron and Sigma will offer more competition in the "compact and affordable supertelephoto" market. I would love to see more brands offering counterparts to Nikon's PF lenses to keep the competition strong on all sides.

 

[nmerc_photos]

It's slightly oversimplified to say this, but to keep it brief I usually just say that for serious wildlife people need to stick to the Expeed 7 bodies. Until these two bodies came out, the Zf, Z8, and Z9 were indeed the only bodies with that processor and thus anything cheaper would likely disappoint (and ofc the Zf being retro in styling and ergonomics is not ideal unless you REALLY like that sort of thing). But with these two releases Nikon is starting to produce some capable cameras in the lower price brackets fortunately.

Apologies as the Z50ii is of course APS-C, I suggested it as I did not see full frame being a requirement in the body of your post but I see now it's called out in the title.

As for the Z6iii, again oversimplifying a bit but probably the largest difference for a stills-only shooter will be the 24MP vs the Z8's 46MP.


For sure, I keep forgetting that lens exists despite how happy I was to see it announced! I really hope Tamron and Sigma will offer more competition in the "compact and affordable supertelephoto" market. I would love to see more brands offering counterparts to Nikon's PF lenses to keep the competition strong on all sides.

oh whoops, I called out full frame and then included the R7 on my chart. ohwell. I guess I should've specified "big 3" (Canon, Nikon, Sony) basically since he isn't interested in trying Olympus or any other brands. instead of saying full frame.

Sigma is probably my favorite lens manufacturer so I'd love to see more options from them

 

[Anjin San]

For Nikon…the Z8 or cheaper Z6III are both excellent…but for wildlife the higher MP Z8 allows more cropping. I take either the 600PF and 100-400 or the 180-600 depending on whether I’m taking 1 body or 2 amd how far I’m walking with it…and take the 1.4TC as well…the 2.0 I have but it gets less use and foot zoom is preferred since it loses 2 stops. For me…the high priced list is out not on price but weight…sold my Z9 for a second Z8 and the TC lenses are just too heavy to handhold and the weight means other lenses get left behind and the lost flexibility is the killer along with weight.

I find those 2 lenses and the TC make the perfect kit for me.

 

[jeffnles1]

You will get a lot of different opinions. I can tell you what I shoot and if I'm satisfied. I shoot a Canon R7, my wife shoots a Canon R10.
My setup:
Canon R7
RF 100-500L
RF 24-105 F4 L
RF 100 F2.8 L Macro
RF-s 10-18
RF 16mm F2.8

My wife's setup:
Canon R10
RF 100-400
RF 100mm F2.8L Macro
We share the wide angle lenses.

I am well pleased with my setup. Like all systems, it has some quirks but after using it a bit, he will learn the quirks and how to get around them (i.e. rolling shutter but I have one of the "C" settings for mechanical shutter so when I'm shooting fast moving stuff, I turn the dial to C2 and all is good.

I am very impressed with the Canon RF 100-400 my wife shoots. For budget conscious it is a lot of bang for the buck in a telephoto. The 100-500 is pricy but it is a very good lens. The 24-104 F4L is also a great lens but a little pricy and that Canon macro is a work of art.

The quirk with the R10 is battery life is somewhat limited but buy a couple extra batteries and you're good to go.

I'm sure the Nikon, Sony, OM System and Fuji shooters can chime in on the quirks of their systems since they all have some.

I'm kind of a generalist wildlife and nature shooter. I do some landscapes, some astro/night sky, wildflowers, insects, some birds (but not a lot), and some head/shoulder portraits for volunteers in civic organizations (pro bono work), family gatherings. My wife and I like to shoot nature stuff on the go. We rarely stand in one place very long so weight and portability is important (i.e. we walked about 5.6 miles today looking for and photographing deer). You can look at my gallery here and see some of my photos, also my Flickr page is linked in my signature line. It has a sampling of some of my photos.

Hope this is helpful.
Jeff

 

[arbitrage]

My choices from your three columns would be:
$5K: Z8/400f/4.5 (although I'd really be wanting to push the budget and add the Z1.4TC)
$10K: A1/300GM/TCs
$20K: Either A1/600/300 or Z9/400TC/70-200 (although I'd swap the 70-200 for 100-400)

There certainly isn't any clear winner that everyone will agree on. I have bias against Nikon bodies and Canon lenses. I have bias towards Sony in general and towards Nikon lenses.

 

[MrFotoFool]

It may depend on weight - how much does he feel comfortable carrying? For example, even using Nikon SLR (D850) I bought a Sony to use with their 200-600 for wildlife. I ended up selling it as it got too heavy to carry around. Then traded my Nikon SLR gear for Z8 and got their (then new) 180-600, which is slightly lighter than the Sony. After a few months I sold it as well, because it still got too heavy to carry around for extended periods. I settled (for now anyway) on the lighter 600PF.

If weight is a consideration and he wants a good zoom, then perhaps Canon R5ii with 100-500 would be the best choice.

If he doesn't mind a bit of weight, Nikon Z8 with 180-600 would be my top choice.

Sony, however, has best lens lineup and their amazingly light 300 f2.8 is a dream IF you don't need a zoom and you shoot in low light.

Ergonomics is another important (and often underemphasized) factor. I have large hands so the Nikon Z8 with it's larger body is ideal for me. When I had my Sony A7IV, I had to get the optional battery grip to make it comfortable.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

M<y view is relatively simple:

If you are willing to carry and pay for a FF 45+mp camera and you want a zoom, my current choice is the Canon R5-2/100-500 because it has competent pre-capture. It is a little short reach wize so a 1.4 TC might be indicated. However, if the Sony A1-2 comes out with competent pre-capture, then it becomes the clear choice with the 200-600 zoom. Translation: I would wait and see what Sony does.

OTOH, If you want a prime the Z-8/600pf will produce incredibly sharp photos by not competent pre-capture. My problem, at this point, is that I expect that you will upgrade the Z8 whenever the next Nikon version of it with pre-capture comes out. Nikon has, by far and away the best weight/quality combo with the pf series primes.

If you do not want to carry or pay for a FF setup the OM-1 mark 2 with a 100-400 lens is selling for $3000 new. That is a no brainer and weighs less than 4# (actual weight my scale with hood, battery and card but no lens foot).

However, if you can't stand anything other than the big 3 or can't handle the m43 small sensor the Canon R7/100-600 is my choice. BTW there is nothing wrong with the Sony A7iiii but I would wait for the bigger A1-2 sensor. (based on OM Systems current discounted price I currently rule out the R7/100-400

 

[wotan1]

I have only shot Nikon so offer no opinion on the other two.

For Nikon I prefer the combination of the 400mm f4.5 and the 800mm PF.

I would graciously accept switching the 800mm pf for the 600mm f4.

 

[fcotterill]

Which ever camera system the gentleman decides to invest in, the established rule applies: Date the bodies, Marry the Glass.

Lenses typically have longer working lives, compared to Mirrorless cameras. Autofocus and related features are evolving fast in MILC technology, especially compared to DSLRs, where technology levelled off over the past decade. Ancillary features such as PreCapture (very useful in wildlife photography) are also an active area of R&D. Nikon has improved theirs with free firmware, but MILC hardware is also likely to iterate over the coming decade.

Wildlife subjects include birds, mammals usually, but also close ups and Animalscapes. Video with/or Stills are also important variables to consider.

Tactics are equally important, particularly vehicle/hide or hiking. Long hikes benefit greatly if one carries a Commando Kit, where PF telephotos confer big advantages, together with a lighter camera.

A zoom covering 180-600 is a highly affordable solution to extend a tighter budget to buy flexibility and focal length. The 100-400 S Nikkor, or similar equivalent, performs well for mammals and also close ups and video.

For birds, 800mm is invariably required, sometimes even tighter FoV. And this lens must be manageable in one's hands. A 800 is often useful for tight framing of mammals, even megaherbivores.

There are several routes to "get to" 800 with a Teleconverter, but these pairings are penalized for their fastest fStop, and perform best at shorter subject distances.

auto Capture and

 

[ButlerKid]

Be sure to consider how much weight he wants to carry. While inexpensive, the super zooms are often heavier than something like a Nikon Z 100-400 + 1.4 tele.

Can you be more specific regarding subjects. Small birds, BIFs, dogs/cats, mammals or ???

Will be often be shooting in good light, cloudy or dark situations?

Will he be shooting raw or jpg? If raw, what software and how much processing is he willing to learn and do?

What will he do with the images? Share on the internet, occasional medium-sized print for home, competitions or ?

 

[nmerc_photos]

For Nikon…the Z8 or cheaper Z6III are both excellent…but for wildlife the higher MP Z8 allows more cropping. I take either the 600PF and 100-400 or the 180-600 depending on whether I’m taking 1 body or 2 amd how far I’m walking with it…and take the 1.4TC as well…the 2.0 I have but it gets less use and foot zoom is preferred since it loses 2 stops. For me…the high priced list is out not on price but weight…sold my Z9 for a second Z8 and the TC lenses are just too heavy to handhold and the weight means other lenses get left behind and the lost flexibility is the killer along with weight.

I find those 2 lenses and the TC make the perfect kit for me.

When I was doing my research, I was surprised how fast the Z8 value dropped. There was a brief point in time where I could spend $3500 and pick between the Z8 or the Z9 used. Now you can get the Z8 significantly cheaper, so it makes the choice easier.

I've yet to use a Z6III, but interesting that it has similar (or the same?) AF as the big boys, in a small 24MP body

I think 100-400 + 600PF or 180-600 + 800PF are killer two lens combos, but not sure he's ready to pony up to that yet

You will get a lot of different opinions. I can tell you what I shoot and if I'm satisfied. I shoot a Canon R7, my wife shoots a Canon R10.
My setup:
Canon R7
RF 100-500L
RF 24-105 F4 L
RF 100 F2.8 L Macro
RF-s 10-18
RF 16mm F2.8

My wife's setup:
Canon R10
RF 100-400
RF 100mm F2.8L Macro
We share the wide angle lenses.

I am well pleased with my setup. Like all systems, it has some quirks but after using it a bit, he will learn the quirks and how to get around them (i.e. rolling shutter but I have one of the "C" settings for mechanical shutter so when I'm shooting fast moving stuff, I turn the dial to C2 and all is good.

I am very impressed with the Canon RF 100-400 my wife shoots. For budget conscious it is a lot of bang for the buck in a telephoto. The 100-500 is pricy but it is a very good lens. The 24-104 F4L is also a great lens but a little pricy and that Canon macro is a work of art.

The quirk with the R10 is battery life is somewhat limited but buy a couple extra batteries and you're good to go.

I'm sure the Nikon, Sony, OM System and Fuji shooters can chime in on the quirks of their systems since they all have some.

I'm kind of a generalist wildlife and nature shooter. I do some landscapes, some astro/night sky, wildflowers, insects, some birds (but not a lot), and some head/shoulder portraits for volunteers in civic organizations (pro bono work), family gatherings. My wife and I like to shoot nature stuff on the go. We rarely stand in one place very long so weight and portability is important (i.e. we walked about 5.6 miles today looking for and photographing deer). You can look at my gallery here and see some of my photos, also my Flickr page is linked in my signature line. It has a sampling of some of my photos.

Hope this is helpful.
Jeff

Hey Jeff, very helpful! I love to see more feedback about the R7. When I had one a year ago or so, I was impressed at how close it came to the R5. At the time it was like $1500 for an R7 and $3000 for an R5. Now that the prices are even cheaper, I think it makes more sense.

If he sticks with Canon, he'll definitely be getting the RF 100-500, with a little bias from me. I think it's the best tele zoom out there.

My choices from your three columns would be:
$5K: Z8/400f/4.5 (although I'd really be wanting to push the budget and add the Z1.4TC)
$10K: A1/300GM/TCs
$20K: Either A1/600/300 or Z9/400TC/70-200 (although I'd swap the 70-200 for 100-400)

There certainly isn't any clear winner that everyone will agree on. I have bias against Nikon bodies and Canon lenses. I have bias towards Sony in general and towards Nikon lenses.

Yeah when I saw the 1.4x put it above budget by like $200, I was heavily contemplating adding it anyways... but decided to try and keep it under that $5K limit. In the real world, I think just about everyone would find the extra money to make it work.

Right now my bias is mainly against Canon, and I'm opening up more to Sony although I've historically not liked the feel of their bodies. I was not impressed with the A1 ergos. But everyone says the A9III is a big upgrade - and I've yet to use that.

It may depend on weight - how much does he feel comfortable carrying? For example, even using Nikon SLR (D850) I bought a Sony to use with their 200-600 for wildlife. I ended up selling it as it got too heavy to carry around. Then traded my Nikon SLR gear for Z8 and got their (then new) 180-600, which is slightly lighter than the Sony. After a few months I sold it as well, because it still got too heavy to carry around for extended periods. I settled (for now anyway) on the lighter 600PF.

If weight is a consideration and he wants a good zoom, then perhaps Canon R5ii with 100-500 would be the best choice.

If he doesn't mind a bit of weight, Nikon Z8 with 180-600 would be my top choice.

Sony, however, has best lens lineup and their amazingly light 300 f2.8 is a dream IF you don't need a zoom and you shoot in low light.

Ergonomics is another important (and often underemphasized) factor. I have large hands so the Nikon Z8 with it's larger body is ideal for me. When I had my Sony A7IV, I had to get the optional battery grip to make it comfortable.

I suppose it may be helpful to provide background. Right now he has some sort of DSLR (not sure which, but FF) and an EF 500mm MK I (8.5lb version) with an old EF 100-400 as well. and then whatever his landscape stuff is.

He is wanting to get away from lugging 30lbs+ everywhere he goes, so I think a handholdable zoom with new IBIS on lens/body will be a gamechanger, in addition to all the improved AF, FPS, etc.

R5II + 100-500 is most likely out of his budget, but R5 + 100-500 is where it seems we'll land to start.

It's interesting that you think Sony has the best lens lineup. That's the first time I've heard that. Unless you mean ecosystem wide, and not just wildlife/telephoto.

M<y view is relatively simple:

If you are willing to carry and pay for a FF 45+mp camera and you want a zoom, my current choice is the Canon R5-2/100-500 because it has competent pre-capture. It is a little short reach wize so a 1.4 TC might be indicated. However, if the Sony A1-2 comes out with competent pre-capture, then it becomes the clear choice with the 200-600 zoom. Translation: I would wait and see what Sony does.

OTOH, If you want a prime the Z-8/600pf will produce incredibly sharp photos by not competent pre-capture. My problem, at this point, is that I expect that you will upgrade the Z8 whenever the next Nikon version of it with pre-capture comes out. Nikon has, by far and away the best weight/quality combo with the pf series primes.

If you do not want to carry or pay for a FF setup the OM-1 mark 2 with a 100-400 lens is selling for $3000 new. That is a no brainer and weighs less than 4# (actual weight my scale with hood, battery and card but no lens foot).

However, if you can't stand anything other than the big 3 or can't handle the m43 small sensor the Canon R7/100-600 is my choice. BTW there is nothing wrong with the Sony A7iiii but I would wait for the bigger A1-2 sensor. (based on OM Systems current discounted price I currently rule out the R7/100-400

Interesting view. I'd pick the R5II + RF 100-500 over the A1II + 200-600 any day.

I've tried many copies of the 200-600 and have never liked it. I'm not a fan of calling it a 600 when it's much closer to 550 in reality. that 50mm focal length difference doesn't outweigh the significant weight penalty vs the 100-500 imo

Agree on all the other points

I have only shot Nikon so offer no opinion on the other two.

For Nikon I prefer the combination of the 400mm f4.5 and the 800mm PF.

I would graciously accept switching the 800mm pf for the 600mm f4.

I've been waiting for you to buy a 600TC or at least try it out

Which ever camera system the gentleman decides to invest in, the established rule applies: Date the bodies, Marry the Glass.

Lenses typically have longer working lives, compared to Mirrorless cameras. Autofocus and related features are evolving fast in MILC technology, especially compared to DSLRs, where technology levelled off over the past decade. Ancillary features such as PreCapture (very useful in wildlife photography) are also an active area of R&D. Nikon has improved theirs with free firmware, but MILC hardware is also likely to iterate over the coming decade.

Wildlife subjects include birds, mammals usually, but also close ups and Animalscapes. Video with/or Stills are also important variables to consider.

Tactics are equally important, particularly vehicle/hide or hiking. Long hikes benefit greatly if one carries a Commando Kit, where PF telephotos confer big advantages, together with a lighter camera.

A zoom covering 180-600 is a highly affordable solution to extend a tighter budget to buy flexibility and focal length. The 100-400 S Nikkor, or similar equivalent, performs well for mammals and also close ups and video.

For birds, 800mm is invariably required, sometimes even tighter FoV. And this lens must be manageable in one's hands. A 800 is often useful for tight framing of mammals, even megaherbivores.

There are several routes to "get to" 800 with a Teleconverter, but these pairings are penalized for their fastest fStop, and perform best at shorter subject distances.

auto Capture and

In this case, with his budget I think he's primarily going to be limited to zooms or the "cheaper" primes (400 4.5, 600PF, 800PF).

So we'll probably be doing the opposite of the conventional and putting most of the money into the body. Jumping from DSLR to high end mirrorless with his current lenses should provide a much bigger jump than having a lower end mirrorless body and a newer mirrorless lens - imo

 

[nmerc_photos]

Be sure to consider how much weight he wants to carry. While inexpensive, the super zooms are often heavier than something like a Nikon Z 100-400 + 1.4 tele.

Can you be more specific regarding subjects. Small birds, BIFs, dogs/cats, mammals or ???

Will be often be shooting in good light, cloudy or dark situations?

Will he be shooting raw or jpg? If raw, what software and how much processing is he willing to learn and do?

What will he do with the images? Share on the internet, occasional medium-sized print for home, competitions or ?

Yep, all important considerations Karen!

His subjects are all over. Everything from backyard birds to moose.

In my opinion, he is excellent at putting himself in situations with good light, so I don't think I'll see many cloudy or dark situations.

Always shooting raw, probably processing in LR + PS

And the images are just for fun, friends, family, and sharing on the internet. I don't think he's interested in printing and definitely no competitions

 

[Dollar]

I think 100-400 + 600PF or 180-600 + 800PF are killer two lens combos, but not sure he's ready to pony up to that yet

I will say, as an 800PF shooter I considered the 180-600 as my backup/second lens but between the weight and the size I decided to pick up a 100-400 instead. I'm a 1-body shooter and as much as I usually prefer internal zooming on my lenses, the external zoom of the 100-400 means it folds up smaller in the backpack which I really appreciate. But, weight and size tolerance is of course totally personal and my decisions are significantly influenced by my passionate love of the Backlight 26L backpack and my personal resistance to bumping up to the 36L.

If he sticks with Canon, he'll definitely be getting the RF 100-500, with a little bias from me. I think it's the best tele zoom out there.

As a Nikon shooter, the Canon 100-500mm is likely the only lens from another brand that I've ever really been jealous of. Always wished Nikon had a competitor to it.

It's interesting that you think Sony has the best lens lineup. That's the first time I've heard that. Unless you mean ecosystem wide, and not just wildlife/telephoto.

I spend a lot of time in more "generalist" photography spaces where this sentiment is common and I do agree that between OEM and third party options, Sony probably has the most diverse and comprehensive lens market...until you get to about 400mm. I feel that Sony starts getting pretty limited beyond that point whereas Nikon shines and Canon has a few interesting options as well.

 

[Ever]

Two nits:

1. I don't see an implicit need to automatically upgrade from the Z8 to the Z9 when going from the $10k to $20k column
2. Don't sleep on the 500pf (+ Z adapter) in the $5k column if it offers any added flexibility when choosing various kits in that price range

 

[MrFotoFool]

It's interesting that you think Sony has the best lens lineup. That's the first time I've heard that. Unless you mean ecosystem wide, and not just wildlife/telephoto.

Yes, I mean entire lineup, they have by far the largest number of offerings, both their own lenses and third parties. I am referring specifically to autofocus lenses.

If you go to B&H (which carries a full line of offerings) and filter for full frame lenses with autofocus, here are the number of lenses available for each mount (including third party):
Canon - 48
Nikon - 65
Sony - 164

 

[nmerc_photos]

I will say, as an 800PF shooter I considered the 180-600 as my backup/second lens but between the weight and the size I decided to pick up a 100-400 instead. I'm a 1-body shooter and as much as I usually prefer internal zooming on my lenses, the external zoom of the 100-400 means it folds up smaller in the backpack which I really appreciate. But, weight and size tolerance is of course totally personal and my decisions are significantly influenced by my passionate love of the Backlight 26L backpack and my personal resistance to bumping up to the 36L.

As a Nikon shooter, the Canon 100-500mm is likely the only lens from another brand that I've ever really been jealous of. Always wished Nikon had a competitor to it.

I spend a lot of time in more "generalist" photography spaces where this sentiment is common and I do agree that between OEM and third party options, Sony probably has the most diverse and comprehensive lens market...until you get to about 400mm. I feel that Sony starts getting pretty limited beyond that point whereas Nikon shines and Canon has a few interesting options as well.

How do you like the 100-400 / 800PF combo? I've always expected it to be too much of a gap, and people usually go 100-400/600PF or 180-600/800PF.

Agree, the RF 100-500 makes me envious. It's the best Canon offering currently, imo.

Yeah I think most content creators, wedding photographers, "generalists" flock to Sony. Sony really doesn't have a strong wildlife presence until the upper tiers, where stuff starts to even out.

Two nits:

1. I don't see an implicit need to automatically upgrade from the Z8 to the Z9 when going from the $10k to $20k column
2. Don't sleep on the 500pf (+ Z adapter) in the $5k column if it offers any added flexibility when choosing various kits in that price range

#1 - Fair enough
#2 - Great point! Geez, that would be a fantastic lens for my uncle to use. Can't believe I overlooked it.

Yes, I mean entire lineup, they have by far the largest number of offerings, both their own lenses and third parties. I am referring specifically to autofocus lenses.

If you go to B&H (which carries a full line of offerings) and filter for full frame lenses with autofocus, here are the number of lenses available for each mount (including third party):
Canon - 48
Nikon - 65
Sony - 164

Wow. I knew it was a lead, but I didn't know it was that big of a lead. That alone is probably why I won't shoot Canon again anytime in the future. They have no good wide angle astro lenses, and won't let third parties come in to fill the hole.

Sony pretty much has it all

 

[Dollar]

How do you like the 100-400 / 800PF combo? I've always expected it to be too much of a gap, and people usually go 100-400/600PF or 180-600/800PF.

I only just received my 100-400mm this past weekend, so I'll need some time to evaluate the combo before I can speak with experience. However, I think I have a different mindset regarding the gap and I'm not sure if it's typical of one-body shooters or if it's just my own personal preference.

For me, because changing lenses is a mild hassle (since I have to retrieve a lens from the backpack and stow the other once finished), I don't go out planning to do very much swapping. The companion lens is really only there as a "just in case" measure, should some unexpected opportunity present itself, so I don't feel the need to cover the entire focal length range. If my 800PF is too much focal length for the subject I'm shooting, my takeaway is more likely to be that I should have brought the 500PF as my main lens (or that I should go buy a 600PF), not that I should be adding more weight and size to my bag by bringing a bigger secondary lens and expecting to swap lenses while actively shooting a subject. For shooters who use two bodies, I could definitely see how it makes sense to cover more focal length between them, as swapping to a second body that's hanging from the other shoulder is a lot faster.

An example that illustrates my usage would be that I previously went out to a local pond where I got a tip that an Osprey was known to fish daily around a certain time. While I waited for the Osprey to show up, I stowed my 800PF and used my 300PF to shoot some bees collecting pollen from various flowering plants. But once the Osprey arrived, the 300PF went back into my backpack and did not come out again. The two lenses were used for completely different things, and if the Osprey got too close for the 800mm I would have seen it as a failure of the 800mm, not the 300mm.

For MY mindset, the 100-400 should be a great secondary lens. The 300PF was doing okay for me but the 100-400 will add a good bit more versatility while taking up about the same space as the 300PF+FTZ in my backpack. For how I'll probably end up using it, the close focus range on the 100-400 excites me more than adding additional focal length on the long end would.

 

[Dollar]

If you go to B&H (which carries a full line of offerings) and filter for full frame lenses with autofocus, here are the number of lenses available for each mount (including third party):
Canon - 48
Nikon - 65
Sony - 164

Sony pretty much has it all

As mentioned above though, this massive Sony advantage in terms of variety of lens offerings is concentrated in more generalist focal lengths rather than those particularly useful for most wildlife photography. Of course, this is only relevant if someone is deciding on a brand AND they specifically know they want to focus heavily on wildlife, which may or may not apply to OP's uncle.

That said, using Fred's filter criteria, Sony has 164 lenses available. But...

• 103 of those are prime lenses of <=100mm focal length
• 20 of those are zoom lenses with <100mm max focal length
• Sony has no smaller/lighter/more affordable 400mm prime
• Sony has no smaller/lighter/more affordable 600mm prime
• Sony has no native 800mm prime or zoom period

I certainly won't argue that Sony's ecosystem overall isn't much more developed than Nikon's or Canon's, and I've recommended Sony to multiple friends or acquaintances who wanted to get into photography because of it. But I do think it's important to be a bit nuanced about it, because the fact that Sony E-mount has 17 different 35mm primes available doesn't really help much if you wanted to upgrade from the 200-600mm but don't have $12,000 to burn on an exotic lens.

 

[Woody Meristem]

You also didn't tell us how old he is, whether he's physically capable of carrying the weight of FF cameras and lenses or whether he really doesn't want to lug much weight around. Does he usually/often shoot from a vehicle or nearby or does he walk multiple miles in search of subjects? If he's as old as I am (83) he needs a lighter weight camera and lenses. If that's the case, I'd recommend an Olympus Om-1 ii, an Olympus 100-400mm and 40-150mm f/4 pro lens -- that combination would run about $3450, new camera and used lenses. Remember, that combo would be the FF equivalent of 80-800mm and even more reach if a 1.4x teleconverter was added to the mix.