Debating a switch to Sony mirrorless from Nikon DSLR

[fcotterill]

The 300 f2.8G on a D500 was my primary wildlife system with TC14 and TC2 III, and its quality was fine being DX, especially for social media and smaller prints.

The benefits of mirrorless are beyond debate, but it's expensive to afford a MILC with Autofocus matching the reliability and robustness of the D5 Triumvirate: i.e. built into the D500..... This outlay on the expensive mirrorless camera is only the first step, before the Glass.

This high-end MILC means either (1) a Z8 with FTZ Adapter at a minimum or (2) switching to a Sony MILC plus completely new lens system.

An alternative lens system for wildlife - keeping your D500 - is a 70-200 f4G or 70-300 AFP FX zoom and a Used 500 PF; and saving for a Z8 or a future high end Nikon MILC, Z6 lll (or even perhaps the rumoured Z90 but note rumoured)

 

[abc123brian]

Maybe not the answer you’re looking for, but I don’t like either of your original choices personally. I read one of the comments say sell your DSLR stuff and move to mirrorless as your current gear is losing money. I don’t know of any mirrorless gear increasing in value so it’s all losing money as well. Based on what you said your interests are and your budget restrictions, the Sony A9 and 28-75mm kit lens are not your best options. The A9 is fine for wildlife, though lower resolution when you consider the pixels on the the subject you’re going to gain from a crop sensor like your current D500. The A9 also doesn’t have great dynamic range for a full frame camera. If you were to move to Sony, my suggestion would be an A7iii and 200-600mm and a 24-105mm if it’s in your budget. The more economical approach is to stay with the D500 and add the 200-500mm. I would also look at 300mm PF or 500mm PF options as an alternative. The F mount telephotos work well on Z cameras so if you get a lens you like you can use it with a Z8 if you get one in the future. My vote would be to keep the D500, add a lens or two, and enjoy using it.

 

[Harry Woodford]

The 300 f2.8G on a D500 was my primary wildlife system with TC14 and TC2 III, and its quality was fine being DX, especially for social media and smaller prints.

The benefits of mirrorless are beyond debate, but it's expensive to afford a MILC with Autofocus matching the reliability and robustness of the D5 Triumvirate: i.e. built into the D500..... This outlay on the expensive mirrorless camera is only the first step, before the Glass.

This high-end MILC means either (1) a Z8 with FTZ Adapter at a minimum or (2) switching to a Sony MILC plus completely new lens system.

An alternative lens system for wildlife - keeping your D500 - is a 70-200 f4G or 70-300 AFP FX zoom and a Used 500 PF; and saving for a Z8 or a future high end Nikon MILC, Z6 lll (or even perhaps the rumoured Z90 but note rumoured)

Yes this seems to be my issue currently, budget. I think in an ideal world I would just stick with Nikon for the future as I'm already established but move to mirrorless, unfortunately to get what I need from the camera that limits me to the Z8/9 which are way above cost. Or switch to sony which is also expensive as its an entirely new system.

I would love the pf but currently it's just out of reach financially, someone suggested going for the 200-500 5.6 and the cost would also facilitate a macro lens and a good landscape lens. Then possibly moving into either the D850 or just saving and waiting for a Z8. Would you say its worth moving to a D850 if the end goal is to transition to mirrorless ?

 

[Harry Woodford]

Maybe not the answer you’re looking for, but I don’t like either of your original choices personally. I read one of the comments say sell your DSLR stuff and move to mirrorless as your current gear is losing money. I don’t know of any mirrorless gear increasing in value so it’s all losing money as well. Based on what you said your interests are and your budget restrictions, the Sony A9 and 28-75mm kit lens are not your best options. The A9 is fine for wildlife, though lower resolution when you consider the pixels on the the subject you’re going to gain from a crop sensor like your current D500. The A9 also doesn’t have great dynamic range for a full frame camera. If you were to move to Sony, my suggestion would be an A7iii and 200-600mm and a 24-105mm if it’s in your budget. The more economical approach is to stay with the D500 and add the 200-500mm. I would also look at 300mm PF or 500mm PF options as an alternative. The F mount telephotos work well on Z cameras so if you get a lens you like you can use it with a Z8 if you get one in the future. My vote would be to keep the D500, add a lens or two, and enjoy using it.

There is no bad answer and I appreciate your honesty. I agree after more research the A9 is perhaps not the best sony option. I did look at A7iii and A7riii but have seen that their wildlife af is not as robust as thr A9/D500 so it has made me hesitant.

Yeah as someone else echoed for right now and staying within budget the 200-500 would work as I could easily add good used macro and landscape lenses along with it for the time being and utilising the D500 which is a very good dslr. I would also love a 500pf and have planned to get one st some point, as well as its fantastic utilisation on the Z series.

Then would it even be worth moving to the D850 if the end goal was the Z8 or just waiting and saving for full frame?,

 

[Cameron T]

There is no bad answer and I appreciate your honesty. I agree after more research the A9 is perhaps not the best sony option. I did look at A7iii and A7riii but have seen that their wildlife af is not as robust as thr A9/D500 so it has made me hesitant.

Yeah as someone else echoed for right now and staying within budget the 200-500 would work as I could easily add good used macro and landscape lenses along with it for the time being and utilising the D500 which is a very good dslr. I would also love a 500pf and have planned to get one st some point, as well as its fantastic utilisation on the Z series.

Then would it even be worth moving to the D850 if the end goal was the Z8 or just waiting and saving for full frame?,

I actually just had this discussion with someone about this same sort of topic. A d850 in good condition will probably be half of what a Z8 is. I'd just save the extra money for it. If you do buy an 850, and sell it, you'll lose money vs what you paid regardless (might get within a few hundred though).

 

[abc123brian]

There is no bad answer and I appreciate your honesty. I agree after more research the A9 is perhaps not the best sony option. I did look at A7iii and A7riii but have seen that their wildlife af is not as robust as thr A9/D500 so it has made me hesitant.

Yeah as someone else echoed for right now and staying within budget the 200-500 would work as I could easily add good used macro and landscape lenses along with it for the time being and utilising the D500 which is a very good dslr. I would also love a 500pf and have planned to get one st some point, as well as its fantastic utilisation on the Z series.

Then would it even be worth moving to the D850 if the end goal was the Z8 or just waiting and saving for full frame?,

Personally, I would skip the D850 and save for a full frame mirrorless option. The Z8/Z9 are amazing, but if you can live without the highest frame rates and blackout free EVF, an upcoming Z6iii may meet all your requirements and be within reach well before the Z8. When budget is tight, it is usually best to be patient and work towards your ultimate goal in small steps.

 

[John Navitsky]

Personally, I would skip the D850 and save for a full frame mirrorless option. The Z8/Z9 are amazing, but if you can live without the highest frame rates and blackout free EVF, an upcoming Z6iii may meet all your requirements and be within reach well before the Z8. When budget is tight, it is usually best to be patient and work towards your ultimate goal in small steps.

considering the release of the z8 and the rumors around announcements, do you still feel like the z6iii will be announced this year? i'm starting to think it won't

 

[abc123brian]

considering the release of the z8 and the rumors around announcements, do you still feel like the z6iii will be announced this year? i'm starting to think it won't

I’m not certain if it will be this fall or next year, but it is a really important segment Nikon needs to be competitive in. NR says the other camera coming this year could be a ZF, but it really doesn’t make sense to release it with expeed 6 and it would be strange to see it with expeed 7 before a Z6 refresh. I think the Z8 can fill the gap of a Z7iii for the time being, but there is a huge gap in the $2000-$2500 range.

 

[Harry Woodford]

I actually just had this discussion with someone about this same sort of topic. A d850 in good condition will probably be half of what a Z8 is. I'd just save the extra money for it. If you do buy an 850, and sell it, you'll lose money vs what you paid regardless (might get within a few hundred though).

Personally, I would skip the D850 and save for a full frame mirrorless option. The Z8/Z9 are amazing, but if you can live without the highest frame rates and blackout free EVF, an upcoming Z6iii may meet all your requirements and be within reach well before the Z8. When budget is tight, it is usually best to be patient and work towards your ultimate goal in small steps.

Well you've both simultaneously agreed on the same topic. So I will says thanks to you both for the help.
I think for now I will go with the 200-500 and have an all round upgrade on my current lenses, whilst saving the extra cash fro the future goals of a 500 pf and Z series.

With the Z6iii in mind, do you think it would come out at a better price point but still have the AF capabilities for wildlife and bif?

 

[Cameron T]

Well you've both simultaneously agreed on the same topic. So I will says thanks to you both for the help.
I think for now I will go with the 200-500 and have an all round upgrade on my current lenses, whilst saving the extra cash fro the future goals of a 500 pf and Z series.

With the Z6iii in mind, do you think it would come out at a better price point but still have the AF capabilities for wildlife and bif?

A hypothetical z6iii would be good, but you might be waiting a year or more for it.

My personal view on it, I don't think it'll have a stacked sensor, or some of the other high end features (due to heat levels, and price point). I'm not sure how much those matter to you at all.

I'd just save money to sink into a Z8, and then when you have money saved up (plus extra, for an ftz, extra batter, etc) see if there's anything circulating about it yet, and make a decision then.

 

[arbitrage]

Maybe not the answer you’re looking for, but I don’t like either of your original choices personally. I read one of the comments say sell your DSLR stuff and move to mirrorless as your current gear is losing money. I don’t know of any mirrorless gear increasing in value so it’s all losing money as well. Based on what you said your interests are and your budget restrictions, the Sony A9 and 28-75mm kit lens are not your best options. The A9 is fine for wildlife, though lower resolution when you consider the pixels on the the subject you’re going to gain from a crop sensor like your current D500. The A9 also doesn’t have great dynamic range for a full frame camera. If you were to move to Sony, my suggestion would be an A7iii and 200-600mm and a 24-105mm if it’s in your budget. The more economical approach is to stay with the D500 and add the 200-500mm. I would also look at 300mm PF or 500mm PF options as an alternative. The F mount telephotos work well on Z cameras so if you get a lens you like you can use it with a Z8 if you get one in the future. My vote would be to keep the D500, add a lens or two, and enjoy using it.

The A9 has some of the best DR of any MILC once it does the dual gain jump at ISO 640.
See the photonstophotos charts for confirmation.
The A9 is better DR than the A7RV, A1, Z9, Z8 and R5 from ISO 640 and up. It is better than the Z9/Z8 at all ISO values (except for ISO 500 before it hits the dual gain and at base ISO it is equal). The A1 and A7RV are better than the A9 at lower ISO values. I don't think low ISO DR means much for wildlife shooters.

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

 

[Ltgk20]

I think the a9 (or a9ii) and the 200-600 are the better options. I went from the Sony a99ii with its 42mp sensor to the a9ii and 24mp; the difference isn't as large as you'd think, even if cropping in a reasonable amount. The 200-600 works fantastically on the a9 and will work with the 1.4TC quite well also (though it needs a lot of light). There are a few things that are likely to be more of a benefit than you expect:

1. Stacked sensor - this is the main reason the a1, z9, z8 and R3 can do what they do. The A9 is the first generation FF stacked sensor, but there's a reason it's where eveyone is headed.
2. 20fps - you may not want it all the time, but there's a reason people clamor about the 20fps of the a9, z9, z8, etc.
3. Silent shooting - once I got used to it I learned to love it everywhere, all the time
4. Sony customization - Sony cameras are the most customizable of the big three and can be competely customized to operate pretty much any way you want.
5. Tracking - people focus a lot on eye AF and subject ID and it's great, but Sony also has very powerful tracking so that you can point the focus at most anything, hit the tracking button (or activate tracking AF) and then move it all around the frame (think focus and recompose in AF-C).
6. Zebras - Sony has zebras which, when set properly, can alert you to over-exposure in real time before taking the shot.
7. Eye-AF - the a9 won't do bird eye-AF, but it's great on humans and if you take pictures of family and friends, it's really convenient.
8. Dynamic range - The a9 isn't at the very top of the heap at low ISOs as shown in Arbitrage's graph, but it's quite competitive as the ISOs increase. It's not really fair to compare the FF sensor to the crop of the D500, but since those are the two cameras you're looking at, the chart is shown below. The D500 is awesome at low ISOs, but at typical wildlife and BIF ISOs the FF sensor is noticeably better.

One last thing to consider: at this point the a9 is not likely to get lots cheaper and really good deals can be had on the 200-600 as well. If you choose to go this route you're unlikely to lose much money even if you wanted to switch back to Nikon at some point.

 

[abc123brian]

The A9 has some of the best DR of any MILC once it does the dual gain jump at ISO 640.
See the photonstophotos charts for confirmation.
The A9 is better DR than the A7RV, A1, Z9, Z8 and R5 from ISO 640 and up. It is better than the Z9/Z8 at all ISO values (except for ISO 500 before it hits the dual gain and at base ISO it is equal). The A1 and A7RV are better than the A9 at lower ISO values. I don't think low ISO DR means much for wildlife shooters.View attachment 61273

Interesting, what were all the complaints about when it came out? While lower than average at lower iso, still looks usable. It was a long time since it came out, but I remember there being something with it that generated complaints.

 

[MrFotoFool]

I am in a similar boat. In fact, just a few minutes ago I dropped off all my boxed up Nikon F gear to send in to KEH (two D850 bodies, four lenses plus teleconverter, one flash). For almost a year and a half now I have been suplementing my Nikon F gear (which is great) with the amazing Sony 200-600 lens for wildlife. I bought a relatively affordable Sony A7 IV new to go with it (33 megapixels which is enough for most uses). I bought it after renting it because I could not believe how sharp it is (and for the price it may be the best value in a long telephoto). I bought a Sony 1.4x teleconverter as well and there have been a couple times photographing distant coyotes where the combined 840mm was needed.

Since Nikon is dragging their feet on announcing a Z 200-600 (on their roadmap for what - a year or more?) and Canon only has a 100-500 with very slow aperture, my recommendation is the Sony. I should also mention their bodies are small and I have big hands so a battery grip is a necessity for me. Same would be true for Nikon Z6/7ii or Canon R5/6 or similar. The new Nikon Z8 is sized about perfect and specs look perfect for me, but they don't have the lens lineup for mirrorless that Sony has (plus I am already partway into Sony). I rented a Nikon Z7ii and 400 f4.5 but that camera is unuseable for wildlife because there is a horrific lag from sleep mode to wakeup - I missed a coyote in my arroyo because the camera could not wake up fast enough. I am sure the Z8 and Z9 do not have this problem. My Sony certainly does not.

I will say as someone who uses (until today) SLR primarily, I found the rented Nikon Z7ii to have the clearest and most SLR-like viewfinder. My Sony is not bad and I can certainly live with it, but it's not as good as the Nikon (Z8/9 are reportedly even better). The two times I was able to use a Canon R5 I found the contrasty viewfinder awful (but a lot of people use and love that camera, so maybe it's just me?).

 

[abc123brian]

I am in a similar boat. In fact, just a few minutes ago I dropped off all my boxed up Nikon F gear to send in to KEH (two D850 bodies, four lenses plus teleconverter, one flash). For almost a year and a half now I have been suplementing my Nikon F gear (which is great) with the amazing Sony 200-600 lens for wildlife. I bought a relatively affordable Sony A7 IV new to go with it (33 megapixels which is enough for most uses). I bought it after renting it because I could not believe how sharp it is (and for the price it may be the best value in a long telephoto). I bought a Sony 1.4x teleconverter as well and there have been a couple times photographing distant coyotes where the combined 840mm was needed.

Since Nikon is dragging their feet on announcing a Z 200-600 (on their roadmap for what - a year or more?) and Canon only has a 100-500 with very slow aperture, my recommendation is the Sony. I should also mention their bodies are small and I have big hands so a battery grip is a necessity for me. Same would be true for Nikon Z6/7ii or Canon R5/6 or similar. The new Nikon Z8 is sized about perfect and specs look perfect for me, but they don't have the lens lineup for mirrorless that Sony has (plus I am already partway into Sony). I rented a Nikon Z7ii and 400 f4.5 but that camera is unuseable for wildlife because there is a horrific lag from sleep mode to wakeup - I missed a coyote in my arroyo because the camera could not wake up fast enough. I am sure the Z8 and Z9 do not have this problem. My Sony certainly does not.

I will say as someone who uses (until today) SLR primarily, I found the rented Nikon Z7ii to have the clearest and most SLR-like viewfinder. My Sony is not bad and I can certainly live with it, but it's not as good as the Nikon (Z8/9 are reportedly even better). The two times I was able to use a Canon R5 I found the contrasty viewfinder awful (but a lot of people use and love that camera, so maybe it's just me?).

As a full frame entry level wildlife system, the A7iv with the 200-600mm is imo the best option available currently. It is unfortunate Sony doesn't have any budget friendly long primes to move up to so you end up with the zoom as your only option. It doesn't sound like this is in the budget of the OP unfortunately. The Canon 100-500mm is only 1/3 stop slower, than the Sony, but it is 100mm shorter. I haven't used it, but I have it is also a really nice lens. The Nikon Z8 with the 400mm 4.5 and 1.4x is going to be an amazing combo in the midrange.

 

[BlackRockArt]

Hello, as per the title I'm deciding on my next move in equipment, I'm currently "in-between" my big lens, and as I am relatively new and don't have an endless pocket I can only really afford upgrades far apart. My setup was a D500 and an older 500mm prime, but as the big lens has been returned I am debating my choice for the next step. I have wanted to go full frame for a while as although wildlife is my primary objective I want to branch out into landscape/general nature and macro. I was looking at the D850 as this seems to tick all the boxes of a camera I'd need with some specific things that jump out to me, the stacked photo setting for macro and landscapes, and the fact if needed it's DX mode seems to basically be a D500. However I agree it seems mirrorless is the future, and something I want to go into, but to get a Nikon that can handle wildlife properly, they are WAY out of budget. The best I'd be able to switch to is a Z7 which I feel would be a downgrade for wildlife AF and also a step down from the D850.

However I have been debating a switch to Sony for some time, as I've seen their mirrorless camera come leaps and bounds ahead, specifically the A9 which has been famed for it's action photography abilities. The question is whether it's worth the switch due to the fact my funds are limited, my two choices at the moment are;

• Stick with Nikon, replacing my prime with a 300mm f2.8 VR1 and picking up a TC14e for use with the D500 for now. Then having to wait a while to save up for the D850, this could be up to a year as the prime would take my current funds for photography equipment, or..
• Switch to Sony, selling all my current Nikon gear and probably being able to afford a decent used A9, the 200-600mm FE OSS lens and to start the 28-70 kit lens.

Obviously they both have their merits, and both would see me with a very good setup for the future to come. A negative I see of switching would be that Sony has a lot less exotic primes that don't cost and arm and leg etc so I would be very limited in improving that setup, bar the body for quite a while, at least on the wildlife telephoto end. Whereas Nikon has a whole back catalogue of fantastic lenses that will all slowly be coming down in price, however it would also take me longer to switch to FF and even longer to move into Nikons mirrorless side.

Any thoughts and advice is greatly appreciated.

Good evening Harry, welcome to Backcountry Gallery Forum.

Many others have given great advice, I enjoyed reading everybody's comment & appreciate the civility. Like the old saying: date the body, marry the lens.

For the telephoto zoom lens, the Sony E-mount has a few options, I would attach at end of the post.

On the body choice, the Sony A9 was quite far ahead, it was released in 2017 but could still hold the ground against many later models, after firmware V4 update, it kept up the pace. You can find many used A9 in great condition perhaps, the A9II was a nice choice too.

Whichever way you choose, you can not go wrong.

Oliver

PS: telezoom options:


1) Sony 200-600mm, it's the best bang for buck.

2) Tamron

Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VXD Lens for Sony E​

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

3)

Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports For Sony FE​

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

4)

Sigma 60-600mm f/4.5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports for Sony FE​

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

 

[Len Shepherd]

Yes this seems to be my issue currently, budget. I think in an ideal world I would just stick with Nikon for the future as I'm already established but move to mirrorless, unfortunately to get what I need from the camera that limits me to the Z8/9 which are way above cost. Or switch to sony which is also expensive as its an entirely new system.

The Z7 secondhand price will fall soon as some owners trade it up to a Z8.

I expect secondhand prices of the D850 to also full.

These options would cost less than switching systems.

 

[StefanSC]

This is.. not an option I thought of myself but I can see it's merits for both short term and long term. I have heard good things about the 200-500 but how much could I lose in quality in comparison to the 300 prime? This option would allow me to still have a big lens for reach, as well as get the macro lens I want to get into as well possibly upgrading my current 18-105mm to a more dedicated landscape lens. This could also allow me to have spare funds left over so I would be a lot closer to getting the D850.
I could then slowly work my way towards the Z8 once prices on the used market are a little more reasonable.

While I haven't used the 300mm VR 1, I have used the 200-500mm enough and I do own the old AF-S 300mm f4D that most reviewers say it's pretty close optically.

So this is an educated guess... I would expect that the 300mm f2.8 to perform better than the 200-500mm wide open at 300mm and close to if not slightly better at 420mm. And also that there won't be much difference in framing at 420mm vs 500mm when working at closer distances as the zoom lens has a bit of focus breathing.

Finally, I would expect that the 300mm f2.8 to have better AF than the 200-500mm including with TC as it has a brighter aperture so more light reaches the AF system.

That being said, the prime lens is about 700g heavier and this makes it less easy to walk around with it or hand hold for longer periods of time.
More important than that though is the fact that the 300mm f2.8 has been out of production since about 2010 so chances of repairing it at a reasonable cost if something breaks are slim to none...
And when working on a budget, I think it's smarter to go for the lens you can buy new with warranty and that has spare parts readily available than to gamble with an older lens even if you get more performance out of it.

And one more left field idea:
If you already have a D500, the D850 is not really a better wildlife camera (similar pixel-per-subject ability unless you can get close enough to compensate for the 1.5 crop factor, similar buffer, similar AF, less fps without the battery grip...).
A nice used D810 is about half the price of a nice used D850 and when it comes to macro and landscapes, the D810 still holds it's own...

 

[bronaldo]

As a full frame entry level wildlife system, the A7iv with the 200-600mm is imo the best option available currently. It is unfortunate Sony doesn't have any budget friendly long primes to move up to so you end up with the zoom as your only option. It doesn't sound like this is in the budget of the OP unfortunately. The Canon 100-500mm is only 1/3 stop slower, than the Sony, but it is 100mm shorter. I haven't used it, but I have it is also a really nice lens. The Nikon Z8 with the 400mm 4.5 and 1.4x is going to be an amazing combo in the midrange.

One plus for the RF100-500 is that it has (I think) a much shorter MFD and a larger magnification ratio. Could help OP dabble in some macro, perhaps with the help of some cheap extension tubes, before committing to purchasing a dedicated macro lens.

 

[EricBowles]

Hello, as per the title I'm deciding on my next move in equipment, I'm currently "in-between" my big lens, and as I am relatively new and don't have an endless pocket I can only really afford upgrades far apart. My setup was a D500 and an older 500mm prime, but as the big lens has been returned I am debating my choice for the next step. I have wanted to go full frame for a while as although wildlife is my primary objective I want to branch out into landscape/general nature and macro. I was looking at the D850 as this seems to tick all the boxes of a camera I'd need with some specific things that jump out to me, the stacked photo setting for macro and landscapes, and the fact if needed it's DX mode seems to basically be a D500. However I agree it seems mirrorless is the future, and something I want to go into, but to get a Nikon that can handle wildlife properly, they are WAY out of budget. The best I'd be able to switch to is a Z7 which I feel would be a downgrade for wildlife AF and also a step down from the D850.

However I have been debating a switch to Sony for some time, as I've seen their mirrorless camera come leaps and bounds ahead, specifically the A9 which has been famed for it's action photography abilities. The question is whether it's worth the switch due to the fact my funds are limited, my two choices at the moment are;

• Stick with Nikon, replacing my prime with a 300mm f2.8 VR1 and picking up a TC14e for use with the D500 for now. Then having to wait a while to save up for the D850, this could be up to a year as the prime would take my current funds for photography equipment, or..
• Switch to Sony, selling all my current Nikon gear and probably being able to afford a decent used A9, the 200-600mm FE OSS lens and to start the 28-70 kit lens.

Obviously they both have their merits, and both would see me with a very good setup for the future to come. A negative I see of switching would be that Sony has a lot less exotic primes that don't cost and arm and leg etc so I would be very limited in improving that setup, bar the body for quite a while, at least on the wildlife telephoto end. Whereas Nikon has a whole back catalogue of fantastic lenses that will all slowly be coming down in price, however it would also take me longer to switch to FF and even longer to move into Nikons mirrorless side.

Any thoughts and advice is greatly appreciated.

As a general rule, on a tight budget I would not be changing systems. If you make changes, I'd look for incremental changes based on your existing system even if you end up with two camera bodies for a while.

The D500 is a perfectly good camera body that covers the wildlife needs you have.

If you keep the D500, you have some flexibility on camera bodies. A used D850 is around $1500 and would be a great choice. It's a more advanced body and full frame. But the Z7 and Z7ii are mirrorless bodies roughly equivalent to the D850, and with the FTZ will allow use of F-mount lenses that have a focus motor. Some might prefer the D500 for fast action, but not for landscapes or most macro. I have a Z7ii and the differences are more based on technique than gear. While not ideal in theory, you could even consider a Z6. I shot the Z6 over my D850 for the first year because I enjoyed the mirrorless experience and because the Z 24-70 f/4 lens is quite good. If you go with a mirrorless camera for landscapes, you need to prioritize a landscape lens like a 24-70 f/4.

On your lens options, a fast prime is very different from a long zoom. Using a teleconverter should be something you do occasionally - not routinely because the lens is too short. I would not buy a 300mm f/2.8 over a 500mm lens if I needed 400-500mm. The problem with most of the zoom lenses you are considering is the aperture at the long end. All these zooms are f/5.6 to 6.3 at the long end. That means light can be an issue. But you have convenience as a positive.

If it were me, I would want to leverage the system I had rather than selling everything at a significant discount and starting over. Don't underestimate the learning curve of new gear - especially a different system. And don't confuse normal updates in a newer camera with a system difference.

I'd stick with the D500, update with appropriate lenses that can help you move forward, and plan a transition to mirrorless over time. Get a used copy of the 200-500 lens for wildlife. Consider a used Z6 or used D850 for your landscape and macro needs. Get one all purpose landscape lens for that camera and a used macro lens when you are ready. There are lots of 105mm f/2.8 VR macro lenses around for F-mount and they will work fine on a DSLR or Z camera. You get a lot more for your money by buying good used gear than by spending the same money on used gear.

 

[groob]

As a general rule, on a tight budget I would not be changing systems. If you make changes, I'd look for incremental changes based on your existing system even if you end up with two camera bodies for a while.

The D500 is a perfectly good camera body that covers the wildlife needs you have.

If you keep the D500, you have some flexibility on camera bodies. A used D850 is around $1500 and would be a great choice. It's a more advanced body and full frame. But the Z7 and Z7ii are mirrorless bodies roughly equivalent to the D850, and with the FTZ will allow use of F-mount lenses that have a focus motor. Some might prefer the D500 for fast action, but not for landscapes or most macro. I have a Z7ii and the differences are more based on technique than gear. While not ideal in theory, you could even consider a Z6. I shot the Z6 over my D850 for the first year because I enjoyed the mirrorless experience and because the Z 24-70 f/4 lens is quite good. If you go with a mirrorless camera for landscapes, you need to prioritize a landscape lens like a 24-70 f/4.

On your lens options, a fast prime is very different from a long zoom. Using a teleconverter should be something you do occasionally - not routinely because the lens is too short. I would not buy a 300mm f/2.8 over a 500mm lens if I needed 400-500mm. The problem with most of the zoom lenses you are considering is the aperture at the long end. All these zooms are f/5.6 to 6.3 at the long end. That means light can be an issue. But you have convenience as a positive.

If it were me, I would want to leverage the system I had rather than selling everything at a significant discount and starting over. Don't underestimate the learning curve of new gear - especially a different system. And don't confuse normal updates in a newer camera with a system difference.

I'd stick with the D500, update with appropriate lenses that can help you move forward, and plan a transition to mirrorless over time. Get a used copy of the 200-500 lens for wildlife. Consider a used Z6 or used D850 for your landscape and macro needs. Get one all purpose landscape lens for that camera and a used macro lens when you are ready. There are lots of 105mm f/2.8 VR macro lenses around for F-mount and they will work fine on a DSLR or Z camera. You get a lot more for your money by buying good used gear than by spending the same money on used gear.

I agree with nearly all of this. My only point of disagreement is that the D500 is an excellent landscape camera when used with wide angle DX lenses, so I don’t think there’s any need for a D850 for landscapes. The same is true for macro. If you need to print a landscape large, just take a couple of photos for dynamic range purposes and combine them. You’ll have plenty of pixels.

Regarding whether you should switch to Sony, I’d take a longer term view of the issues that are likely to arise on the Sony side. Yes, you can get a highly competent mirrorless camera and a 200-600mm lens now, but that lens will never be wider than f/6.3 on the long end. In my experience, that is often both too short and too slow, and the A9 isn’t going to leave you with a lot of pixels to crop. If you ever want to upgrade the lens, your only choice is the 600mm f/4, which is $13k new (and not much cheaper used). If you think you might have $10k+ in expendable income to spend on a telephoto lens one day, maybe the decision makes sense. If not, Nikon and Canon have the advantage. Nikon has innovative and less expensive telephoto options, and both Nikon and Canon have F and EF mount telephotos that adapt very well to mirrorless cameras. So, you just have a lot more (and more affordable) options on the Nikon/Canon side in terms of upgrade paths.

One more point I’ll make is that you should avoid getting sucked into all the discussion about the advantages that mirrorless systems offer. Sure, there are real and objective reasons why stacked sensor mirrorless cameras are better than DSLRs, but those advantages are overrated when it comes to real world output. Any photo that can be captured with an A9 can also be captured with a D500. Might it take a few more attempts with the D500? Sure, but for me, that wouldn’t override the cash outlay necessary to switch systems. That’s why, if I were in your shoes (and my shoes aren’t all that different currently), I’d stick with the D500, grab a used 200-500 (or perhaps a Nikon 500mm f/4 AF-II), and work on my field craft while saving up for a Z8 or possibly a mirrorless D500 if it’s out by then.

 

[fcotterill]

To add to above, many with experience of the high end telephotos still rate the 300 f2.8G among the best of Nikon's Exotic primes. Sharp, fast and exquisite bokeh. The current model was released with the TC2 III, which works well especially on DX. My own combo captured many keepers until I upgraded to a 400 f2.8E FL.

I agree Nikon is unmatched for telephoto options: both Z MILC and G and E type FMount. The choices are bewildering, actually - see this graphic. It's quite possible their engineers have more Z telephotos in the wings. This could include 70-300, 70-200 f4S, 180-400 TC etc or similar coverage.

Personally I believe a 600 f4.7S PF is quite likely but only sometime 2024 at the earliest. The design basically exists in the 800 f6.3S PF, so it appears to be largely a matter of tweaking the existing lens formula to a focal length of 600mm

 

[EricBowles]

I agree with nearly all of this. My only point of disagreement is that the D500 is an excellent landscape camera when used with wide angle DX lenses, so I don’t think there’s any need for a D850 for landscapes. The same is true for macro. If you need to print a landscape large, just take a couple of photos for dynamic range purposes and combine them. You’ll have plenty of pixels.

Regarding whether you should switch to Sony, I’d take a longer term view of the issues that are likely to arise on the Sony side. Yes, you can get a highly competent mirrorless camera and a 200-600mm lens now, but that lens will never be wider than f/6.3 on the long end. In my experience, that is often both too short and too slow, and the A9 isn’t going to leave you with a lot of pixels to crop. If you ever want to upgrade the lens, your only choice is the 600mm f/4, which is $13k new (and not much cheaper used). If you think you might have $10k+ in expendable income to spend on a telephoto lens one day, maybe the decision makes sense. If not, Nikon and Canon have the advantage. Nikon has innovative and less expensive telephoto options, and both Nikon and Canon have F and EF mount telephotos that adapt very well to mirrorless cameras. So, you just have a lot more (and more affordable) options on the Nikon/Canon side in terms of upgrade paths.

One more point I’ll make is that you should avoid getting sucked into all the discussion about the advantages that mirrorless systems offer. Sure, there are real and objective reasons why stacked sensor mirrorless cameras are better than DSLRs, but those advantages are overrated when it comes to real world output. Any photo that can be captured with an A9 can also be captured with a D500. Might it take a few more attempts with the D500? Sure, but for me, that wouldn’t override the cash outlay necessary to switch systems. That’s why, if I were in your shoes (and my shoes aren’t all that different currently), I’d stick with the D500, grab a used 200-500 (or perhaps a Nikon 500mm f/4 AF-II), and work on my field craft while saving up for a Z8 or possibly a mirrorless D500 if it’s out by then.

I agree on the D500 for landscapes - it's a good all purpose camera. There is a modest disadvantage due to the crop sensor - especially in low light. But that's only relevant for relatively large prints. Most people could not visually observe a difference between a D500 and D850 image.

You make a good point on the benefits of a DSLR. There are some excellent deals on F-mount gear for a DSLR or even for use with the FTZ on a future mirrorless camera. For example, the Nikon 200-500 is about half the price of a Sony 200-600 and image quality is virtually the same. Both are very good prosumer tele-zoom lenses.

 

[Harry Woodford]

I'll start by thanking everyone in here for their detailed and reasonable responses. The community has been polite and courteous with someone like myself who is relatively new and probably asking a repeated question.

Everyone had some very good points and although the Sony and the 200-600 were very tempting I think the short term and long term weigh ups for styaing with nikon is better.

My plan now stands at, keeping the D500, getting the 200-500 5.6, a tokina 105 2.8 macro, then possibly the 10-24 nikon 3.5-4.5 as I would go for the 24-70 but I think the focal range isn't as good on a DX?
Edit: I also will trade my afp 70-300 in for the original vr 70-200 2.8, for when I need a smaller zoom in lower light situations.

Then forgoing the D850 for now, possibly getting a cheap used Z6 for a small transition into full frame and mirrorless as a second, then just saving for the future for a Z8, the 24-70 Z lens and a 500pf.

 

[sinetwo]

@Harry Woodford you are *literally* me, with the same conundrum. However I use D500 for serious underwater photography, so for me it needs to work for both on land and underwater. I looked at the Z8 but it was too big for me with the underwater housing. It's a real shame, as I was ready to make the leap.

I have the 200-500 and the 300 2.8 with TC14eiii and D500. I only use the 300 now - this lens cost about 2x of my 200-500, but produces better than 2x the image. Sure I won't get to 500mm, but 300+1.4x TC beats the 200-500 at 500. It's seriously fast and the IQ is amazing. The 200-500 is *much* slower, and it has caused me missed shots.

On a separate note however, is there a 300 2.8 prime lens that is fully compatible with Sony (AF accuracy, high FPS)? I've not seem to found any, and I sure won't be able to afford their new prime when it comes out.