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

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).

Tom Reynolds said:
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.
Click to expand...

The regular Canon raw is lossless compressed, they don't offer uncompressed. The c-raw is more compressed and supposed to be slightly lossy, but when I've looked side by side on my RP files (26 mp) I can't see the impact.
 
Member's gallery
Tom Reynolds said:
In deciding to upgrade my D-500/500pf combo I considered three factors:

  • Weight. The R7/100-500 rig is 4.3# if the lens foot is not added. The D-500/500pf is 5.1#. A third consideration, the Sony A1/200-600 is 7# (Weights approximate) while a 4th, a Canon R5/100-500 is 5#.
  • Cost. The R7/100-500 is $4.3K. The Sony A1/200-600 is $9.5K. A third consideration, the Nikon Z-9/800pf is $12K (Prices approximate)
  • One camera solution. The non-compound lenses often require carrying a second camera/lens combo. On the South Padre Island boardwalks, I carried a second D-500/70-300dx. In the blinds at the ranch a D-500/300pf was in residence and was often useful.
If weight and cost were not an issue I would pick the Z-9/800pf without question and carry a D-500 with a shorter lens. In my view 800mm is the correct lens for a full frame camera. The professional I shot with who had an A1/200-600 had a T/C mounted virtually 100% of the time and did another professional I shot with who used a Canon R5/100-500.

However, if weight and cost were only somewhat of an issue, I would choose the Sony A1/200-600 and eschew the T/C. An additional benefit is that the Sony is a one camera solution.

Default solution​

In my case I concluded that a one camera solution was a requirement. I had significant issues carrying the two camera Nikon D-500 solution on the easy walking South Padre Island Birding Center boardwalks. I tried many carry solutions without success. Simply stated, it wasn’t fun. Understand that I am 81, overweight and under exercised. Your mileage may vary.

The zero cost, one camera solution, is, of course, to pick one camera configuration, presumably the D-500/500pf rig, and live with it. However, with a small weight penalty I could upgrade to a D-850. That would give me both a 500mm and 700mm (DX crop), rig from one setup for about $1500 or so outlay and virtually no learning curve. That does seem superior to the D-500 one camera solution. Therefore, in my case, the comparison is between a D-850/500pf versus one of the single-camera zoom lens configurations or a Z-9/800pf setup without a second camera.

Weight​

I eliminated the Z-9/800pf simply on the basis of weight. Cost was an issue but if the weight was about 5# the Z-9/800pf may well have been the winner. My analysis is that the Z-9/800pf would take the best pictures of the group as long as 800mm in a Full Frame rig was not too long. However, I experienced carrying 9# of camera/lens (D-500/500pf, D-500/70-300dx) in the SPI boardwalks and did not like it at all. Also, the fixed lens was also a problem, 500mm (750mm FX equivalent) being too long is some situations on the boardwalks and in the Ranch blinds.

Canon R7 vs R5​

Shooting the 500pf on a cropped D-500, I find myself cropping most of the time so 500mm on a 45mp full frame sensor seems short. However, 500mm on a 1.6 crop, 32.5mb R7 sensor reaches the 800mm equivalent and allows for the cropping that I do. This, plus faster shots/sec in both mechanical and electronic shutter led me to choose the R7 over the R5. The weight difference was not insignificant also.

Shooting the R7​

I think I need four distinct configurations:

  • Bird Portrait: mechanical shutter, auto ISO, 1/1600, lowest f/stop available, small AF rectangle
  • Bird takeoff (waiting): electronic shutter, animal eye tracking engaged, pre-click engaged, auto iso, 1/3200+, lowest F/stop available, large rectangle AF
  • BIF1: Mechanical shutter, 1/3200, auto iso, large rectangle AF, lowest f/stop available
  • BIF2: Electronic shutter 1/4000, auto ISO, largest AF, pre click not engaged, lowest F/stop available
The problem is that I admit that I am guessing.
Click to expand...
Although Canon will probably be releasing a R1 - The Sony A1 and Z9 are easily the superior cameras.
As for weight the A1 , I found a battery grip necessary which made it about the same size/weight as the Z9.
If you need a 800mm lens then for the price and because of the weight the new Nikkor 800mm PF would be very hard to beat at the price.
Have a look at the lenses you are considering before deciding.
The 500mm PF lens works at least as well on the Z9 as on a DSLR and therefor could save money until you buy the 800mm... 🦘
 
Member's gallery
Yes, this is very interesting territory. After turning down my Z9 in grounds of weight I have looked favourably and extensively at OM1 as an option. But ..
jeffnles1 said:
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".
Click to expand...
Like Jeff I couldn’t find the busy background images pleasing in many images posted, and you do need to multiply the f stop by x2. I would love to find it the contrary as I do like their diminutive size and weight and pro capture options. I might even try one to keep me busy until the Z8/ Z7iii. 😊 But even then perhaps a Sony A1 and 200-600 is a better option. I would probably resell to return to a one make system, and I love the Z7ii for landscapes etc
 
Member's gallery
The OM-1 + the 300 f/4 comes in @ 4.55# for $5K + tax etc
The R7 + 100-500 f/7.1 (f/6.3 @ about 450mm) comes in at 4.35# (or 4.75# if the lens foot is included) for $4.4K +tax etc.

These are the two less than 5# rigs that I have under consideration.
 
Member's gallery
More "catalog ware"
OM-1 R-7
Sensor 20 MP 32.4MP
MShutter 10 (139 shots) 15 (187 shots)
E Shutter 20 (108 Shots) 30 (93 Shots)
E Shutter 50 (97 shots)
EVF 5.76 2.36 million dots (reviewers consider the r7 EVF wimpy)
 
Last edited:
Tom Reynolds said:
More "catalog ware"
OM-1 R-7
Sensor 20 MP 32.4MP
MShutter 10 (139 shots) 15 (187 shots)
E Shutter 20 (108 Shots) 30 (93 Shots)
E Shutter 50 (97 shots)
EVF 5.76 2.36
Click to expand...

Can you explain the evf numbers? I did notice the r7 was magnified 1.15, not sure how that will improve the view but maybe to a degree.
 
Last edited:
If I did the math right if you crop the R7 to OM1 dimensions, e.g. a 2.0 crop factor rather than the 1.6 you start with, you still get 20.5 megapixels.
 
Member's gallery
The hands-on reviews that I have seen do not support these specs.

Electronic Shutter: Up to 30 fps at 32.5 MP for up to 126 Frames (JPEG) / 93 Frames (Raw)
Mechanical Shutter: Up to 15 fps at 32.5 MP for up to 224 Frames (JPEG) / 187 Frames (Raw)

SDXC ii cards write up to 250mb/sec (San Disk Extreme Pro) but others are much slower so that may explain it.
 
Last edited:
Tom Reynolds said:
The hands-on reviews that I have seen do not support these specs.

Electronic Shutter: Up to 30 fps at 32.5 MP for up to 126 Frames (JPEG) / 93 Frames (Raw)
Mechanical Shutter: Up to 15 fps at 32.5 MP for up to 224 Frames (JPEG) / 187 Frames (Raw)

SDXC ii cards write up to 250mb/sec (San Disk Extreme Pro) but others are much slower so that may explain it.
Click to expand...

That might possibly be c-raw which would be smaller files than the regular lossless compressed raw. The numbers below are what I've seen.

Max. Approx. 15 fps. with Mechanical shutter/1st curtain electronic speed maintained for 224 JPEG or 51 RAW images or 30 FPS with electronic shutter speed maintained for 126 JPEG or 42 RAW images
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top