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

[Barbara]

I thought I'd do a A1/OM-1 comparison out of (idle) curiosity. An A1 w/ 1.4 TC and 100-400 lens costs $9550 new, weighs about 5.1 lbs, and produces a 21MP image at 840mm-e (f/8) with the in-camera 1.5 crop. An OM-1 w/ 150-400 costs $9700 new, weighs about 5,2 lbs, and produces a 20MP image at 1000mm-e (f/5.6) with the built-in 1.25 TC engaged. The Olympus lens is a little bigger than the Sony, but in my opinion the Sony has the better AF capability. OTOH, the Olympus is close on AF and has a bunch of other "computational" modes. IQ-wise, the Olympus' 20MP are crammed into a MFT sensor, while the A1's 21MP are in an APS-C size sensor. Truthfully, I'm not sure which way that cuts. So, arguably better AF and a wider wide end with the Sony vs longer reach and a stop faster for the Olympus.. Of course, you have to be willing/able to spend just under 10K new.

I did not compare the A1/100-400 w/ 2.0 TC because it takes you to f/11.

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

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

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

Tom

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I thought I'd do a A1/OM-1 comparison out of (idle) curiosity. An A1 w/ 1.4 TC and 100-400 lens costs $9550 new, weighs about 5.1 lbs, and produces a 21MP image at 840mm-e (f/8) with the in-camera 1.5 crop. An OM-1 w/ 150-400 costs $9700 new, weighs about 5,2 lbs, and produces a 20MP image at 1000mm-e (f/5.6) with the built-in 1.25 TC engaged. The Olympus lens is a little bigger than the Sony, but in my opinion the Sony has the better AF capability. OTOH, the Olympus is close on AF and has a bunch of other "computational" modes. IQ-wise I'll bet they're about the same. So, arguably better AF and a wider wide end with the Sony vs longer reach and a stop faster for the Olympus.. Of course, you have to be willing/able to spend just under 10K new.

I did not compare the A1/100-400 w/ 2.0 TC because it takes you to f/11.

Thanks, that saves me some work. Between the two I would pick the Sony because Steve provides supporting documents. The canon solutions are about $4.3K (R7) and $6K (R5) with the R5 weighing about the same and the R7 quite a bit lighter (4.3#)

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I estimate that the "lightweight" Z-9 and Nikon 200-600 lens would come in at 6#, cost $5K and available to me in June 2023

 

[AlfC]

I think the factors you are weighing up and the options considered are relevant to a lot of us. Good luck!

 

[AlfC]

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

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

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

Tom

I think the factors you are weighing up and the options considered are relevant to a lot of us. Good luck!

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I think the factors you are weighing up and the options considered are relevant to a lot of us. Good luck!

Does that 1/2# and $2K savings mean as much to others (R7 versus the rest) as it does to us? I think it depends.

 

[EricBowles]

I estimate that the "lightweight" Z-9 and Nikon 200-600 lens would come in at 6#, cost $5K and available to me in June 2023

That's pretty good estimate of the cost. I was guessing $3200 for an FX action camera and $2000 for an APS-C camera as a D500 successor. The lens would be $1400-2000 depending on whether it is priced off the Sony 200-600 or as a Nikon 200-500 replacement. It might be a little bit heavier than that since the 200-500 is 5.5 pounds (and the Sony 200-600 is 5.4 pounds). If you can sweet talk a smaller dealer with an early commitment for both camera and lens you might have it by January. More importantly, you have a 500 PF until you get the zoom lens and it is very good on the Z cameras. It's also a nice, light lens at 2+ pounds less than the zooms.

You mentioned the 2X Sony teleconverter on the 100-400 earlier. I don't think that's practical because of the effective aperture at f/11 and the reduced image quality. While technically possible, f/11 wide open for flight is not going to produce a very high keeper rate.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

That's pretty good estimate of the cost. I was guessing $3200 for an FX action camera and $2000 for an APS-C camera as a D500 successor. The lens would be $1400-2000 depending on whether it is priced off the Sony 200-600 or as a Nikon 200-500 replacement. It might be a little bit heavier than that since the 200-500 is 5.5 pounds (and the Sony 200-600 is 5.4 pounds). If you can sweet talk a smaller dealer with an early commitment for both camera and lens you might have it by January.

You mentioned the 2X Sony teleconverter on the 100-400 earlier. I don't think that's practical because of the effective aperture at f/11 and the reduced image quality. While technically possible, f/11 wide open for flight is not going to produce a very high keeper rate.

Yep 1.4 T/C which makes the Sony 560 which is OK given the 45MP.

My current thinking is that while I may not wait for Nikon I could easily switch back. At 81 every trip takes on added significance.

Tom

 

[jeffnles1]

That's pretty good estimate of the cost. I was guessing $3200 for an FX action camera and $2000 for an APS-C camera as a D500 successor. The lens would be $1400-2000 depending on whether it is priced off the Sony 200-600 or as a Nikon 200-500 replacement. It might be a little bit heavier than that since the 200-500 is 5.5 pounds (and the Sony 200-600 is 5.4 pounds). If you can sweet talk a smaller dealer with an early commitment for both camera and lens you might have it by January. More importantly, you have a 500 PF until you get the zoom lens and it is very good on the Z cameras. It's also a nice, light lens at 2+ pounds less than the zooms.

You mentioned the 2X Sony teleconverter on the 100-400 earlier. I don't think that's practical because of the effective aperture at f/11 and the reduced image quality. While technically possible, f/11 wide open for flight is not going to produce a very high keeper rate.

If Nikon can come out with the 200-600 and make the weight somewhere between the Canon 100-500 and the Nikon 200-500 I'd be a buyer at almost any reasonable cost. I'm OK with them using modern composite materials for the lens barrel and hood. Keep metal for the mount and make it weather sealed. Many of the modern composites are as durable if not more than aluminum or steel. Look to the firearms industry and military weapons. A firearm takes much more beating than any kind of camera lens. I'd be a buyer if they saved considerable weight.
Hoping they will come out with something soon. I'm really liking the R7 and 100-500. A friend has the R5 and 100-500 combo and it is a pretty sweet setup.

Jeff

 

[bleirer]

Thanks, that saves me some work. Between the two I would pick the Sony because Steve provides supporting documents. The canon solutions are about $4.3K (R7) and $6K (R5) with the R5 weighing about the same and the R7 quite a bit lighter (4.3#)

The R5 would be more like $6.7K with the 100-500.

 

[ChrisM]

In all honesty, I think you have a tough case if you want to upgrade your D500-500PF combo, but want to retain the lightweight profile. I had it for 3 years and it is an absolutely superb combo.
I switched to the Sony A1+200-600G recently, in part because I found that the reach of the D500-500PF fell a little short, and I did not like the 1.4TC on the 500PF, but mostly because I was ready for a move to mirrorless.
The Sony A1+200-600G does offer a bit more reach, but in my case is intended to be a temporary solution until I can raise the funds for the 600GM lens, because i.m.o. reach is not so much about the number of pixels, or the pixel density you put behind a lens, but much, much more about the resolving power and light gathering of the optic you use.
That is why I would never consider the Canon R7+100-500 as a replacement for, let alone an upgrade to, the D500+500PF. A sensor like the 32mp 1.6x crop sensor needs a lens with very high resolving power as well as light gathering, certainly not a very slow zoom lens. I would consider it with the rumored Canon RF500mm f4.5DO lens, but that lens will be very expensive if it ever makes it into production.

My personal reason for the A1 move was amongst others, my wish to limit myself to one camera, and I now use it for all possible photography. For me, it is the closest way to an upgrade to the D500-500PF, because the lens, although not quite as good optically, is still very good, and has the 100mm extra, and the A1 has no weak points in weight, performance or image quality, unlike your other mirrorless options, that all fall short somewhere. The Nikon 800PF could have been a good option, but Nikon has no weight/size friendly flagship camera yet.

 

[John Navitsky]

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

Tom

fwiw, i've shot the a1 w/100-400 and it's a nice setup. i haven't run with the 2.0 converter so don't know how image quality holds up. i will note tho that fully extended and then adding the 2.0 converter, you might be extended pretty far, and so it may feel heavier than it actually is due to the center of balance

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Comparing the R5 versus the R7

MP 45 32.5
EV 5.8 2.4
SM 12 15
SE 20 30
C CF SD

These seem to be the reverent differences.
1-Although the R7 is more frames/sec in both Mechanical and Electronic shutter I would think that the R5's CF card will clear the buffer while the R7's SD card will not.
2-As said before I like 32.5MP in DX over 45MP FF based on my shooting
3-I cannot evaluate the EV difference since I have never shot mirrorless. THOUGHTS.

Tom

 

[DavidT]

I would add an Olympus OM-1 and their 300f4 to your kit and call it a day. Light, great af, fast and very affordable. Add the tele if needed. I think it solves your problems and isn’t very expensive.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I looked at the OM-1/300f/4. Its weight is 4.55#, roughly equivalent to the R7/100-500 and has a good EV (R7 questionable) and has pro capture and high shot rate about equivalent to the R/7.

The camera captures 20MP @ 600EQU versus 32.5MP @800EQU but at f/4 versus f/7.1.

Qlympus does have a 100-400zoom f/5-f/6.3

Interesting. Comments?

Tom

 

[jeffnles1]

I looked at the OM-1/300f/4. Its weight is 4.55#, roughly equivalent to the R7/100-500 and has a good EV (R7 questionable) and has pro capture and high shot rate about equivalent to the R/7.

The camera captures 20MP @ 600EQU versus 32.5MP @800EQU but at f/4 versus f/7.1.

Qlympus does have a 100-400zoom f/5-f/6.3

Interesting. Comments?

Tom

I hope this does not come off as brand bashing as it is not my intent here. I have considered the OM-1 and I spent quite a bit of time on Flickr looking at images shot with this camera and a host of different lenses. The one thing I noticed was that in a fairly high percentage of photos the out of focus backgrounds was not pleasing to my eye. I cannot put my finger on it as anything specific but just not "beautiful".

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I hope this does not come off as brand bashing as it is not my intent here. I have considered the OM-1 and I spent quite a bit of time on Flickr looking at images shot with this camera and a host of different lenses. The one thing I noticed was that in a fairly high percentage of photos the out of focus backgrounds was not pleasing to my eye. I cannot put my finger on it as anything specific but just not "beautiful".

good info. I suspect we need to evaluate the R7 shots when I get the camera

 

[John Navitsky]

I looked at the OM-1/300f/4. Its weight is 4.55#, roughly equivalent to the R7/100-500 and has a good EV (R7 questionable) and has pro capture and high shot rate about equivalent to the R/7.

The camera captures 20MP @ 600EQU versus 32.5MP @800EQU but at f/4 versus f/7.1.

Qlympus does have a 100-400zoom f/5-f/6.3

Interesting. Comments?

Tom

i know these guys are pretty "light" and maybe my take was inaccurate, but i didn't feel like the OM-1 AF was similar to the competitors in this coverage

 

[Woody Meristem]

Here's a comparison of the Sony and the Olympus by a professional wildlife photographer who used both and how and why he made a decision.

 

[Barbara]

Here's a comparison of the Sony and the Olympus by a professional wildlife photographer who used both and how and why he made a decision.

Bottom line: the IQ from both is good enough for him, and he has a lot of MFT lenses. I wouldn't rely too much on this.

 

[DaveR]

Bottom line: the IQ from both is good enough for him, and he has a lot of MFT lenses. I wouldn't rely too much on this.

He was originally an Olympus user. Then he moved to a Sony A1 for it's AF abilities mostly for BIF. He used to speak very highly about the Sony. Then he tried the OM1 and found it gave him a better hit rate for BIF mainly due to it's frame rate giving him more options. His A1 is now up for sale on in the shop section of his website.
Given that he has made his living from photographing birds for many years I wouldn't dismiss his decision too lightly.

 

[CharlieR]

I switched from my Z 7II/D500/500 PF dual combo to a Canon R5 with the RF 100-500 the first part of this past April. I took it to Magee Marsh in OH the first week of May to shoot warblers (my first big test of the camera). That camera/lens combo has exceeded my expectations. I've found the 100-500 to be equal to the 500 PF and the AF in R5 is such an improvement over the two Nikons that it's hard to put into words. I'd been a long-time Nikon shooter but I haven't missed it too much--I do feel the Nikon RAW files are slightly superior to Canon's, but that would be my only complaint--and not a major one. I've gotten BIF shots I never would've gotten with either my Z 7II or D500--I've had a string of 30+ shots of an American bittern in flight--all in focus, crisp, and leaving me wondering which ones I should post. Had I tried taking the bittern with either of my two Nikons (which I had in the past), I'd have been lucky to get 3-5 shots out of 30 good enough. The 20 FPS in RAW doesn't hurt either. The hardest transition was just that everything on a Canon is backward from a Nikon, and I still try to turn on my R5 with my shutter finger !

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I switched from my Z 7II/D500/500 PF dual combo to a Canon R5 with the RF 100-500 the first part of this past April. I took it to Magee Marsh in OH the first week of May to shoot warblers (my first big test of the camera). That camera/lens combo has exceeded my expectations. I've found the 100-500 to be equal to the 500 PF and the AF in R5 is such an improvement over the two Nikons that it's hard to put into words. I'd been a long-time Nikon shooter but I haven't missed it too much--I do feel the Nikon RAW files are slightly superior to Canon's, but that would be my only complaint--and not a major one. I've gotten BIF shots I never would've gotten with either my Z 7II or D500--I've had a string of 30+ shots of an American bittern in flight--all in focus, crisp, and leaving me wondering which ones I should post. Had I tried taking the bittern with either of my two Nikons (which I had in the past), I'd have been lucky to get 3-5 shots out of 30 good enough. The 20 FPS in RAW doesn't hurt either. The hardest transition was just that everything on a Canon is backward from a Nikon, and I still try to turn on my R5 with my shutter finger !

Thanks, great info

 

[Joel N]

He was originally an Olympus user. Then he moved to a Sony A1 for it's AF abilities mostly for BIF. He used to speak very highly about the Sony. Then he tried the OM1 and found it gave him a better hit rate for BIF mainly due to it's frame rate giving him more options. His A1 is now up for sale on in the shop section of his website.
Given that he has made his living from photographing birds for many years I wouldn't dismiss his decision too lightly.

i have subscribed to his video after watching a few, although I dun support bird baiting which he does, I still find that he is a very experienced photographer, that is transparent and gave good advise. his testings were very objective; based on his own requirements and needs. Which i respect because in this day and age, most are often influenced by others and reviews when it comes to preferences of gears.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Essentially, my question about the R7 comes down to these:
"To what extent will rolling shutter @ 30F/S be apparent with 'Pro capture' (1/2 sec preclick) enabled?"
"Is the EV ok for me?"

Conclusions
-------------
1-Numerous reports and images show that the autofocus is superb with options equal to anything out there.
2-15 f/s is not 20 but good enough for normal work. Compressed RAW is not a problem. I will need to back off a bit from what I do with a D-500 but this is not a problem.
3-The Canon 100-500 is not a 600E F/4 but roughly comparable to my D-500. The 50% more MP is nice.