Don Linn
Member
I too have the Wimberley Mono Pod head and love it, I have been using it for about 1-1/2 years with a D850 mated with a 200-500. I first saw it on Steve's video.
Focal length for Birding? Upgrade from 200-500mm
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
In my younger days, see my avatar, I could lug around the Nikon 300mm f2.8 and other gear all day at a baseball game. Now, at 66, I have the family arthritis so a couple of hours with my D780 and 300 PF or new Sigma 150/600 C lens on a monopod is enough. I can't afford a 500PF or some of the lighter mirrorless cameras but frankly, I'm not sure they weigh significantly less. I just try to minimize the load and do short trips. Sometimes it's not the weight but the repetitive motions. I admire the shooters who can be out 12 hours but that's just not me.
Be self aware and do what feels good,
Vinny
Be self aware and do what feels good,
Vinny
Right on ... "Be self aware and do what feels good" We all have different physical abilities and limitations. My wife is 73 and has arthritis and spinal issues from being hit by a car when she was 6 years old so for her a Z50 and a Tamron 100-400 is manageable but the 500 pf on the Z50 is a bit to much. I am also 73 but have been blessed with with good health only a bit of injury arthritis, 3 deformed vertebrae from birth that are managed with exercise and chiropractic, and the ability to work out. So my regular hand held gear for birding at the moment is a Nikon D850 with grip and the big EN EL 18 battery and a Nikon 600mm f/4 E. What feels good to me does not feel good to my wife.In my younger days, see my avatar, I could lug around the Nikon 300mm f2.8 and other gear all day at a baseball game. Now, at 66, I have the family arthritis so a couple of hours with my D780 and 300 PF or new Sigma 150/600 C lens on a monopod is enough. I can't afford a 500PF or some of the lighter mirrorless cameras but frankly, I'm not sure they weigh significantly less. I just try to minimize the load and do short trips. Sometimes it's not the weight but the repetitive motions. I admire the shooters who can be out 12 hours but that's just not me.
Be self aware and do what feels good,
Vinny
dogdaddy13
Active member
400mm on a DX Body gets you, (1.5 crop factor X 400 = 600mm). Add to that the (1.3 additional crop and you get, 1.3 X 600mm = 780mm). More than enough.
I have a 500pf on a D-500 (DX body) and I am still tempted to put on a 1.4TC. I think you can never have enough lens. That being said, lighter and shorter makes it easier to track BIF.
-Tom
-Tom
Ado Wolf
Well-known member
Thanks @Tom Reynolds , I too have the same feeling when I use my 200-500 mm at 500 mm on my D7500 (never have enough lens).
Thanks @dogdaddy13 , I get the 1.5 DX crop factor.. but was is the additional 1.3 crop you are referring to? a TC14 would be 1.4 crop if that is what you meant. I think 400 mm with a TC will be ok for birding when birds are within 5 meters / 16 feet away.
Thanks @dogdaddy13 , I get the 1.5 DX crop factor.. but was is the additional 1.3 crop you are referring to? a TC14 would be 1.4 crop if that is what you meant. I think 400 mm with a TC will be ok for birding when birds are within 5 meters / 16 feet away.
Thern
Well-known member
Ado, I think you answered your question allready….
You’re happy with the reach and IQ of your 200-500 but your main concern is the weight of it.
Then you give us 5 choices consisting of two lenses which are actually available and three lenses yet to be released.
Then you state you dislike the use of a TC asking wether a 100-400 would be to short.
Do you shoot the 200-500 regularly/most of the time at 400mm? If not yup 100-400 will be to short (unless you reassess the use of a 1.4 TC with the F-mount you’ll notice a bit of degradation, with the S-mount it’s allmost invisible)
Next three lenses? Yet to be released so either buy the 500PF, loose the versatility of the zoom, gain somewhat better IQ when shot wideopen and gain clearly better AF and build OR sit still and wait for the lenses you listed.
Btw that 800PF will no doubt be heavier than the 200-500 being a lot more a special very restrictive lens regarding it’s use scenario! Demanding for a good tripod aso so no reduction there whatsoever!
dogdaddy13
Active member
I'm shooting D7100s, They have an option to add an additional crop of 1.3. You should have the same option on your D7500, (I think anyway.) You can find it in your menu. I am shooting hawks in flight. I walk out the door and shoot all day with this additional crop factor on. In post I would crop out a lot of wasted space. Crop out in camera and get the extra boost to my focal lenght. I set my 200 to 500 zoom to 350mm, my sweet spot for that lens. With 1.5 crop that is about 525mm. There is my 500mm lens. I swith to 1.3 dx crop and that is 682mm. There is my super long. If I set lens 400 or greater, my sharpness starts to go the other way. I carry a 70mm to 300mm set the same way 300mm X 1.5 = 450mm X 1.3 = 585. I use it for my close shots out the car window. Grab and run, much easier to swing around when birds fly over at 50 ft.
Found this, https://backcountrygallery.com/all-about-your-cameras-crop-modes/ - I learned some things from this just now.
Last edited:
RoyC
Active member
D7100 24Mp verses Fx @ 45Mp crop factor is pixel density.
@Ado Wolf another way to think about it is that you are using only part of the sensor and so only part of the available pixels and resolution if you use the in camera crop 1.3 x (18x12)
A DX sensor has an image area of 23.5x15.7 mm, compared to a full frame FX format area of 36x24 and using the 1.3 x (18x12) uses only and area on the sensor 18.0 x12.00mm ... you can see an illustration on page 93 of your D7500 manual.
If you go to page 83 on Nikon D850 manual there is a good illustration that shows your image circle (the round light capture from the round lens) as it is projected onto the sensor at various formats. https://download.nikonimglib.com/archive3/AlkAd00v2p2C04HzoG409lpdNe65/D850UM_NT(En)04.pdf
The impact is different with a longer focal length of lens that "magnifes" the circle of light going to the sensor than "cropping in camera". I personally never cropped in camera with my DX cameras D7100, D7500, D300S and D500 because I was starting with a lower resolution and denser set of pixels already. I do use in camera cropping to DX format image size with the high resolution pixel count of the D850 so that in effect it gives me the same resolution of a D500 or if I forget I can just crop more severely with less degradation of the image in processing.
There are those on the forum that have far more expertise and knowledge of the physics of the whole process than I do and I encourage you to look at Steves article @dogdaddy13 shared earlier.
Another tidbit in case you move to a fulll frame FX body sometime is that a lens that is an FX format lens works on either DX or FX format cameras while a DX format lens will work on an FX format camera automatically if you have auto crop set in camera so it crops to DX format when it detects an FX format lens.
Last edited:
Turberticus
Well-known member
If you're using the 1.3x in body crop, you're throwing pixels away. It's no different than cropping in post, which is also throwing pixels away. Plus, if the bird decides to fly a bit closer you risk potentially clipping the wings. Just my preference, but I never use the in body crop feature. Have you tried fine-tuning your 200-500? Mine is pretty sharp at the 500mm end. If you have a good copy you may still have to fine tune it a bit. Steve has some good videos on this.
Ado Wolf
Well-known member
Thanks @dogdaddy13 now it’s clear what you meant by the x1.3 crop.
@Ken Miracle thank you, I am quite aware of the concept of cropping, both in camera and in post processing. But I do agree with @Turberticus in that cropping is ”throwing pixels away”. No point in using my D850 if I’m always cropping down to DX (both pixels and dynamic range is lost). That is why I use my D7 500 when I need more reach. It’s lighter and has the same if not a slightly higher pixel density than a cropped D850. But I agree with you @Ken Miracle about the D850’s flexibility of having the option to crop (on occasion / if needed) and still have enough pixels
@Thern I always try to avoid cropping, or use TCs, but with small birds it is almost inevitable, even with a 500mm lens. That’s why I was hoping the 800 mm would be hand holdable.. I included the 100-400 because it appears that S glass is sharper than F Glas, as well as the new TC seem to have ever less impact on IQ (based on photos shared on this forum / Z9 thread). So I would maintain the flexibility of a zoom (100-400), save on weight (1 kg compared to 200-500) and still have the 500mm reach. But after going through my photos again, I noticed 95% of my wildlife photos taken with the 200-500 zoom were at 500mm.. and if I need to zoom out I can carry with me the light 300 PF.. or lighter 70-300 AFP lens which is surprisingly sharp! So I am down to 2 options:
- get the 500 PF now and start enjoying it
- wait for the 400 PF in case it’s a F4..
Thanks to all who contributed to this thread, it helped me come to this informed decision (or narrow down the options
)
@Ken Miracle thank you, I am quite aware of the concept of cropping, both in camera and in post processing. But I do agree with @Turberticus in that cropping is ”throwing pixels away”. No point in using my D850 if I’m always cropping down to DX (both pixels and dynamic range is lost). That is why I use my D7 500 when I need more reach. It’s lighter and has the same if not a slightly higher pixel density than a cropped D850. But I agree with you @Ken Miracle about the D850’s flexibility of having the option to crop (on occasion / if needed) and still have enough pixels
@Thern I always try to avoid cropping, or use TCs, but with small birds it is almost inevitable, even with a 500mm lens. That’s why I was hoping the 800 mm would be hand holdable.. I included the 100-400 because it appears that S glass is sharper than F Glas, as well as the new TC seem to have ever less impact on IQ (based on photos shared on this forum / Z9 thread). So I would maintain the flexibility of a zoom (100-400), save on weight (1 kg compared to 200-500) and still have the 500mm reach. But after going through my photos again, I noticed 95% of my wildlife photos taken with the 200-500 zoom were at 500mm.. and if I need to zoom out I can carry with me the light 300 PF.. or lighter 70-300 AFP lens which is surprisingly sharp! So I am down to 2 options:
- get the 500 PF now and start enjoying it
- wait for the 400 PF in case it’s a F4..
Thanks to all who contributed to this thread, it helped me come to this informed decision (or narrow down the options
)Calson
Well-known member
I had the D500 and used it with the 200-500mm lens and often found myself using the 80-400mm with this camera instead as the 200mm was too long a focal length too often with the DX camera. What provided the biggest gain was buying the D850 that provided the DX capabilities of the D500 and in FX mode I had a full frame 45MP camera. I shoot 100% in FX mode and then have the option of cropping in whatever manner works best for the image.
In your situation I would invest in a Z7 II camera with the FTZ adapter and get better use from your 200-500mm lens. I figured that with the D850 I get roughly the same image size with a 500mm lens as I would with a 600mm lens mounted on the D5 or D6. Make the Z5 your backup camera and to allow for having two different lenses in the field. I love shooting with the 500mm or 600mm on one camera and the 80-400mm on the other one. Fewer lens changes means less dust inside the camera and fewer missed shots.
In your situation I would invest in a Z7 II camera with the FTZ adapter and get better use from your 200-500mm lens. I figured that with the D850 I get roughly the same image size with a 500mm lens as I would with a 600mm lens mounted on the D5 or D6. Make the Z5 your backup camera and to allow for having two different lenses in the field. I love shooting with the 500mm or 600mm on one camera and the 80-400mm on the other one. Fewer lens changes means less dust inside the camera and fewer missed shots.
Ado Wolf
Well-known member
@Calson thank you for your input. My situation seems different from yours. I find myself shooting my 200-500 on my D7500 (DX) at 500 mm for 95% of the time (when it comes to wildlife). So going FX (with my D850) is counter productive. My goal with this thread is to figure out which lens can replace my 200-500mm and offer a lighter weight but maintain the 500 mm or more reach. We already ruled out the 800 PF (too heavy). This leaves me with either the 500 PF or the "yet to come" 400 PF with a TC.
I too carry 2 bodies, the second being my Z50 with the adapted 70-300 AFP lens.
I too carry 2 bodies, the second being my Z50 with the adapted 70-300 AFP lens.
Ado Wolf
Well-known member
Just purchased the 500 PF
- can be used on both D and Z cameras
- 500 mm @F5.6 without the need for a TC
- compact, light, weather sealed
- prime IQ and AF speed /accuracy
- will be delivered in 3 days! ((rather than in unknown future)
thanks everyone for helping me come to this decision!
- can be used on both D and Z cameras
- 500 mm @F5.6 without the need for a TC
- compact, light, weather sealed
- prime IQ and AF speed /accuracy
- will be delivered in 3 days! ((rather than in unknown future)
thanks everyone for helping me come to this decision!
arbitrage
Well-known member
You’re going to love it. I sold my 200-500 after one week with the PF.
That lens is really the only reason I’m still shooting Nikon alongside my Sony kit.
Although I have to say it loses a little bit of its compact magic when having to use an adaptor on my Z50 and Z9.
Ado Wolf
Well-known member
Thanks @arbitrage , I too already put up my 200-500 on sale. No point in keeping it, specially when I have the 300 PF a d 70-300 AFP.
I intend to use it with my D cameras
so as to make use of all the magic
dogdaddy13
Active member
I am very interested how this turns out. I am betting that your going to love the sharpness you'll get in post. I never shoot my 200mm too 500mm fully out to 500. I get burned in post with a little softness I hate. (DX Body). I can get to 400mm and be happy. My first test would be to test shoot my 200 to 500, set at about 350, and shoot the same subject with the 500 prime on the same DX body. Post would be most interesting.
ssisteve
New member
I own the Nikon 200-500 which I love but it is pretty heavy. Nikon just loaned me the Z7ii and the 500mm pf to try for a couple of weeks and I had a chance to shoot it this past weekend in Florida at a bird sanctuary. I must say the 500mm pf is pretty impressive and so much easy to travel with and hand hold. I took over 1100 shots and the 200-500mm never left the case. The 500 pf is that good and so easy to hold. We were shooting egrets, ospreys, and smaller birds so I really needed the 500mm length all of the time. I'm tempted to buy the 500mm pf and probably will will.
Calson
Well-known member
Image size is a function of the sensor resolution and the amount of lens magnification. A high density sensor is important whether it is a FX D850 or a DX D7500 camera.
The relative image size increase with a longer focal length lens can be calculated by taking the square of the focal length divided by 100. A 400mm lens has a image size value of 16 and a 500mm lens has a value of 25 and a 600mm lens has a value of 36. Even though the additional 100mm focal length of a 600mm compared to a 500mm lens seems small the 600mm lens provides an image size that is 44% greater.
Something overlooked is that longer lens are more subject to ground thermal effects that degrade the image with distance. There is also increase likelihood of diffraction with longer focal length lenses or when using a teleconverter.
Birds also vary greatly in size from a small junco to an egret and the best lens is not going to be the same for these birds. And if one goes to Yellowstone for example and wants to photograph bison and elk a very long focal length lens is far from ideal in most situations. Same applies to photographing marine animals or wild horses or even bears (excepting sows with cubs).
The relative image size increase with a longer focal length lens can be calculated by taking the square of the focal length divided by 100. A 400mm lens has a image size value of 16 and a 500mm lens has a value of 25 and a 600mm lens has a value of 36. Even though the additional 100mm focal length of a 600mm compared to a 500mm lens seems small the 600mm lens provides an image size that is 44% greater.
Something overlooked is that longer lens are more subject to ground thermal effects that degrade the image with distance. There is also increase likelihood of diffraction with longer focal length lenses or when using a teleconverter.
Birds also vary greatly in size from a small junco to an egret and the best lens is not going to be the same for these birds. And if one goes to Yellowstone for example and wants to photograph bison and elk a very long focal length lens is far from ideal in most situations. Same applies to photographing marine animals or wild horses or even bears (excepting sows with cubs).
Ado Wolf
Well-known member
My 500 PF was just delivered. All I need now is a sunny / dry day to go out and test it.
The first thing I noticed is how small and light it is. One reads / hears about the size and weight, but in real life it feels even lighter!
The original foot does make me nervous. So I am considering screwing in a screw under the Button to disable it.. this way it won't be pressed by mistake.
It is so light, that I will manage to hand hold it all the time. But I will eventually take the advice provided in this forum when I look for an arca swiss compatible foot replacement.
I will update you shortly once I have some sample shots. till then, I wish everyone a good day.
The first thing I noticed is how small and light it is. One reads / hears about the size and weight, but in real life it feels even lighter!
The original foot does make me nervous. So I am considering screwing in a screw under the Button to disable it.. this way it won't be pressed by mistake.
It is so light, that I will manage to hand hold it all the time. But I will eventually take the advice provided in this forum when I look for an arca swiss compatible foot replacement.
I will update you shortly once I have some sample shots. till then, I wish everyone a good day.
Last edited:
I have had the 500pf for 11/2 years and it has never come off my D500 unless I’m adding the tc to it. It’s a great lens . Great right out of the box. All the photos posted on this forum except for a few before I got the lens are taken with the 500.
In this case you are talking about total area of the image, though, while I was thinking of the width of the field of view at normal shooting distances. Both have their uses. Doubling the focal length gives one fourth the total image area and vice versa if the sensor size and distance stays the same. But in real world shooting I'd say the width of the field of view is also meaningful in a practical sense. At 30 feet a 500 mm lens on crop sensor covers a width of 1.44 feet by .96 high, while a 600 mm covers 1.2 feet wide by .8 high. 20% wider and 20% higher, as you said. But shooting that bird at 30 feet I'm not sure i would take off the 500 mm and put on the 600 for 3 inches. I would definitely buy the 600 over the 500 if weight, size, price, build quality, and image quality were equal, but they never are equal are they.
Ado Wolf
Well-known member
I think 500 mm is a sweet spot for the type of photography I do, in the sense that I find myself sometime in situations where the critter (deer / fox) is only 3 to 5 m away (10 to 18 feet). With a 600 mm I might be restricted to portrait type of shots.. I guess..