My wife wants Canon, but I'm shooting Nikon.

[Matt N]

I'm stuck between two systems: Canon & Nikon. I started with Canon, but switched over to Nikon because of the 800pf lens. But I kept some of the Canon gear because now my wife shoots it. She wants to stay on Canon and is interested in the Canon R5 II to pair with the 100-500 that we have. I've been saving up for a 600 f4 because I'm finding that 800 is often too much and a want to prioritize having more light over reach. So my dilema is:

• I actually prefer the Canon bodies and ergonomics and my wife DEFINITELY does and doesn't want to be on just the Nikon system.
• From a lens standpoint, I'm inclined to stay on Nikon and get the 600 TC and let her stay on Canon
• Gear for a trip would R5 + 100-500; Z8 + 600 TC
• Back up camera/lens is unknown given the two systems...looking for suggestions

I could consider the R5+100-500 as a backup to the Nikon setup, but I'm thinking that a second Z8 body would be better so I don't loose access to the 600 TC on a trip. I can't see getting the Z 100-400 since that's redundant with the 100-500 and I'd prefer not to have 3 bodies since a second Z8 would be collecting dust when it's not being used as a backup.

Am I overvaluing the built-in TC and I should just get the Canon RF 600 F4 and a second R5? There is no scenario where we don't have Canon for my wife. I'm perfectly happy with the Canon bodies, but don't like the idea of swapping out TCs in the field. That's the ONLY reason that I would be on two systems. I have no concerns about IQ, AF, or ability to get shots on either system.

Can someone tell me I'm crazy for using Nikon just for the 600 TC and Canon for everything else?

 

[SCoombs]

I think the biggest selling point for Nikon is definitely the telephoto lens lineup. It's one of the key things that causes people to choose to adopt the Nikon system in the first place, so it makes perfect sense to want to keep the system for a given lens.

I think that unless you're Bill Gates or there is a specific, serious concern associated with having two different systems that there's no reason to spend more money to change over when you can just keep what you have.

 

[Matt N]

I think the biggest selling point for Nikon is definitely the telephoto lens lineup. It's one of the key things that causes people to choose to adopt the Nikon system in the first place, so it makes perfect sense to want to keep the system for a given lens.

I think that unless you're Bill Gates or there is a specific, serious concern associated with having two different systems that there's no reason to spend more money to change over when you can just keep what you have.

On Nikon I only have the Z8 and 800pf and an astro lens that I rarely use. I would sell the 800pf and buy the 600 TC. I already own the RF 1.4x TC. So giving up on Nikon and going back to Canon with their 600 f4 actually saves me money!
Another piece of info: I anticipate wanting 600mm 50% of the time and 840mm 50%.

 

[abc123brian]

Those lenses are currently out of my photography budget, but I would think having the integrated TC would be amazing. I use the 1.4x with my 400 4.5 and occasionally with the 180-600. No matter how good I get at putting it on or taking it off, it’s never going to be as convenient as flicking a switch on the side of the lens. I would like to have a built in TC in my 400 to quickly go between 400 and 560.

 

[MrFotoFool]

First of all, kudos for being smart enough to give your wife what she wants (coming from a single divorcee). You said yourself in the opening post that 800 is often too much, so I think that's your answer. You don't need a TC for the 600, so I think it makes sense to go all in on Canon and skip the TC altogether.

 

[Steve W]

Let her have her Canon. I gave mine choice between Canon and Nikon, fortunately she came down on the Nikon side because it felt better to her. If the Canon, or other brand felt right that’s would she would have got. It’s worked out well as we have a pool of lenses to chose from and both have different needs and styles.

 

[ajrmd]

I'm stuck between two systems: Canon & Nikon. I started with Canon, but switched over to Nikon because of the 800pf lens. But I kept some of the Canon gear because now my wife shoots it. She wants to stay on Canon and is interested in the Canon R5 II to pair with the 100-500 that we have. I've been saving up for a 600 f4 because I'm finding that 800 is often too much and a want to prioritize having more light over reach. So my dilema is:

• I actually prefer the Canon bodies and ergonomics and my wife DEFINITELY does and doesn't want to be on just the Nikon system.
• From a lens standpoint, I'm inclined to stay on Nikon and get the 600 TC and let her stay on Canon
• Gear for a trip would R5 + 100-500; Z8 + 600 TC
• Back up camera/lens is unknown given the two systems...looking for suggestions

I could consider the R5+100-500 as a backup to the Nikon setup, but I'm thinking that a second Z8 body would be better so I don't loose access to the 600 TC on a trip. I can't see getting the Z 100-400 since that's redundant with the 100-500 and I'd prefer not to have 3 bodies since a second Z8 would be collecting dust when it's not being used as a backup.

Am I overvaluing the built-in TC and I should just get the Canon RF 600 F4 and a second R5? There is no scenario where we don't have Canon for my wife. I'm perfectly happy with the Canon bodies, but don't like the idea of swapping out TCs in the field. That's the ONLY reason that I would be on two systems. I have no concerns about IQ, AF, or ability to get shots on either system.

Can someone tell me I'm crazy for using Nikon just for the 600 TC and Canon for everything else?

Can you clarify what it is that you are seeking? A recommendation for a wholesale switch to Canon, or simply to consider a house divided? From an overall standpoint, I concur that the size/weight/ergonomics of Canon bodies is superior. If your wife wants to shoot Canon, let her. The most cost effective approach would be to purchase a R5 or alternatively wait until the R5II is announced. You may want to check out how you like the Z8 mated to the 600 f/4. It's a heck of a lens though I found the function/balance was better when it was mated to a Z9. The only disadvantage that I see with the approach is that the lenses are not readily interchangeable (yes you can adapt a Canon to a Nikon but not the other way around). Unfortunately, if you had only one Canon and one Nikon body and the Nikon camera went on the fritz, you're 600 f/4 would quickly become an anchor.

 

[groob]

I’d personally value the 600mm TC enough to have two systems. I don’t yet have a 600mm TC, but I daydream all the time about the convenience of flipping that switch!

As to a backup camera body, do you only feel you need one for trips? Maybe just rent a backup Z8 as necessary, or buy a used one and sell it upon your return? There seem to be numerous people who do that and lose little to no money.

As for backup lenses, do you feel that you need one on both the Canon and Nikon sides? Even if you bought an R5 as a backup, wouldn’t you need a second Canon lens? Would you get another 100-500 (does Canon offer anything else beyond the 200-800)? If so, wouldn’t that be the ultimate redundancy? I guess I just wouldn’t be overly concerned with redundancy because it’s going to happen unless you give up on Nikon completely and go all Canon. As above the 600mm TC would be worth it to me, and I’d just grab either the 400mm f/4.5 or the 100-400mm. (I personally wouldn’t accede to going from a 600mm f/4 to a 500mm f/7.1 or to 600mm f/8 as a backup).

Also, as a last ditch effort, has your wife held a 400mm f/4.5 or the 600mm f/6.3? The miraculous size and weight savings would seem very hard to turn down.

 

[Matt N]

Can you clarify what it is that you are seeking? A recommendation for a wholesale switch to Canon, or simply to consider a house divided? From an overall standpoint, I concur that the size/weight/ergonomics of Canon bodies is superior. If your wife wants to shoot Canon, let her. The most cost effective approach would be to purchase a R5 or alternatively wait until the R5II is announced. You may want to check out how you like the Z8 mated to the 600 f/4. It's a heck of a lens though I found the function/balance was better when it was mated to a Z9. The only disadvantage that I see with the approach is that the lenses are not readily interchangeable (yes you can adapt a Canon to a Nikon but not the other way around). Unfortunately, if you had only one Canon and one Nikon body and the Nikon camera went on the fritz, you're 600 f/4 would quickly become an anchor.

Good question. I think what I’m seeking is opinions on how valuable built in TC is versus having more redundancy or backups on a trip. There’s no cost difference to me whether I get a canon 600 versus a Nikon 600 f4 TC. The advantage of getting the Nikon is the built-in TC and I already have familiarity with both systems and a Z8. The advantage of going back to Canon 100% for both of us is that I have backup bodies for the 600 and more interchangeable options.

 

[bleirer]

If you think you want to save gear space by sharing some lenses, I see that keeping to one system works. But otherwise you get your gear and she gets hers. Its a real plus to travel with someone that shares your passion for photography, I'd nurture that. If you are the more avid one then make the backup nikon and she would use that in the rare event her camera fails. For sure wait to see what the R5 version ii is. The 100-500 takes a 1.4x well, but you can't close it up fully with the 1.4x attached, so it is more 300-700. The 200-800 is very good but not an L like the 100-500 and 600 f4 and not as small and lightweight as the 100-500, but lighter than the f4.

 

[Matt N]

I’d personally value the 600mm TC enough to have two systems. I don’t yet have a 600mm TC, but I daydream all the time about the convenience of flipping that switch!

As to a backup camera body, do you only feel you need one for trips? Maybe just rent a backup Z8 as necessary, or buy a used one and sell it upon your return? There seem to be numerous people who do that and lose little to no money.

As for backup lenses, do you feel that you need one on both the Canon and Nikon sides? Even if you bought an R5 as a backup, wouldn’t you need a second Canon lens? Would you get another 100-500 (does Canon offer anything else beyond the 200-800)? If so, wouldn’t that be the ultimate redundancy? I guess I just wouldn’t be overly concerned with redundancy because it’s going to happen unless you give up on Nikon completely and go all Canon. As above the 600mm TC would be worth it to me, and I’d just grab either the 400mm f/4.5 or the 100-400mm. (I personally wouldn’t accede to going from a 600mm f/4 to a 500mm f/7.1 or to 600mm f/8 as a backup).

Also, as a last ditch effort, has your wife held a 400mm f/4.5 or the 600mm f/6.3? The miraculous size and weight savings would seem very hard to turn down.

For my wife, I think she could use the small and lightweight 100-400 or a macro lens as a backup for her system. She would just change her focus to a different type of subject. if we stick with two systems, I’ve considered the Nikon 400 f4.5 as a back up. it’s not really comparable to the 600 F4 TC but could get me interesting shots otherwise. I’d really like to take no more than three lenses on a trip. I agree that the Canon 100-500 is not a good backup to a 600 f4, but I have gotten some good shots with that in the past and could make do if needed.

 

[Matt N]

If you think you want to save gear space by sharing some lenses, I see that keeping to one system works. But otherwise you get your gear and she gets hers. Its a real plus to travel with someone that shares your passion for photography, I'd nurture that. If you are the more avid one then make the backup nikon and she would use that in the rare event her camera fails. For sure wait to see what the R5 version ii is. The 100-500 takes a 1.4x well, but you can't close it up fully with the 1.4x attached, so it is more 300-700. The 200-800 is very good but not an L like the 100-500 and 600 f4 and not as small and lightweight as the 100-500, but lighter than the f4.

She really wants the R5 ii so “happy wife equals happy life”. If I get that for her, then she’s OK with me getting a 600 f4. That seems like a pretty good deal to me I am the more avid shooter, and in a worst case scenario she would let me have the R5 and 100–500 while she just used binoculars. I think she would prefer that over using a backup Nikon camera. That’s why we’re definitely having to use Canon for her. But I could use either system.

 

[jeffnles1]

First, there is wisdom to the proverb Happy Wife = Happy Life.
OK, with that out of the way, nothing wrong with you and her shooting different systems. My wife shoots Sony and I shoot Canon (and used to shoot Nikon).

On the surface, it would look like you can save money by sharing lenses. The reality is you will both want to use the same lens at the same time and end up buying multiple copies of the most frequently used lenses anyway. I went through this same thought process with my wife and at the end, what won was what she liked to use the best.

Jeff

 

[Matt N]

First, there is wisdom to the proverb Happy Wife = Happy Life.
OK, with that out of the way, nothing wrong with you and her shooting different systems. My wife shoots Sony and I shoot Canon (and used to shoot Nikon).

On the surface, it would look like you can save money by sharing lenses. The reality is you will both want to use the same lens at the same time and end up buying multiple copies of the most frequently used lenses anyway. I went through this same thought process with my wife and at the end, what won was what she liked to use the best.

Jeff

Thanks. Good to hear thoughts from someone with experience in the situation.

 

[Mike Delgado]

She's going to get Canon anyway so just make the purchase and live happy.

 

[Geoff_G]

A happy wife is a happy life.

 

[ButlerKid]

I had an F mount 600mm and upgraded to the Z 600mm TC. Simply put - and to quote Steve Perry - it is a GAME changer! Huge advantage to be able to shoot @ 600mm and then in a second be shooting 840!

Good question. I think what I’m seeking is opinions on how valuable built in TC is versus having more redundancy or backups on a trip. There’s no cost difference to me whether I get a canon 600 versus a Nikon 600 f4 TC. The advantage of getting the Nikon is the built-in TC and I already have familiarity with both systems and a Z8. The advantage of going back to Canon 100% for both of us is that I have backup bodies for the 600 and more interchangeable options.

 

[arbitrage]

Two 600/4s aren't always created equal and that is ignoring the benefits of the built in TC in the Nikon. The RF600/4 is not balanced as nice as the Nikon or Sony 600/4 lenses. It is longer and really just a hack job of the 600III with an EF-RF adapter. Sure it is much better weight and balance than the 600II but not as nice in the hand as the Nikon or Sony.

I'm getting the impression from your posts that you really want the Z600TC....I'd say go for it. Having two systems in the household shouldn't be that big of a deal. If you are okay using the R5/100-500 in the rare case the Z8 or 600TC has some issue and your wife would be okay just using the bins then I think you will be happier shooting both and not stressing about backups.

 

[nmerc_photos]

Initially my vote was to consolidate systems as you know.

But seeing a couple people talk about it in terms of husband wife shooting scenarios - I now think multiple could work fine.

The reality is you will both want to use the same lens at the same time and end up buying multiple copies of the most frequently used lenses anyway. I went through this same thought process with my wife and at the end, what won was what she liked to use the best.

Jeff

This quote from Jeff in specific.

I say get the 600TC. I cannot overstate how much of an improvement the built in TC is for these lenses. Also as Arbitrage said, the RF 600 F4 is a hack job. Of the 600mm F4 lenses available, it is clearly the worst one in terms of handling, weight, length, price, etc.

 

[Matt N]

Two 600/4s aren't always created equal and that is ignoring the benefits of the built in TC in the Nikon. The RF600/4 is not balanced as nice as the Nikon or Sony 600/4 lenses. It is longer and really just a hack job of the 600III with an EF-RF adapter. Sure it is much better weight and balance than the 600II but not as nice in the hand as the Nikon or Sony.

I'm getting the impression from your posts that you really want the Z600TC....I'd say go for it. Having two systems in the household shouldn't be that big of a deal. If you are okay using the R5/100-500 in the rare case the Z8 or 600TC has some issue and your wife would be okay just using the bins then I think you will be happier shooting both and not stressing about backups.

You make a really good point about there being more differences than just the TC.

I guess the real dilemma I had and reason for starting the thread was my concern that if I have only 2 bodies (R5 and Z8, or R5 and R5), and the body on the 600 breaks (for any number of reasons). If both are Canon, I can take the R5 off the 100-500 and still use the 600 (my wife would be fine using the bins). If the Z8 breaks, I must use the 100-500. The only way around that is to get a second z8 as a spare. I have a feeling it will come to that because she’s going to stick with Canon and I am leaning towards the Nikon 600 TC.

 

[Matt N]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts! It’s been helpful.

 

[BillW]

I do not have the Z 600 TC. I do have the Z 400 TC (which I bought earlier this year) and the Z 800 PF. I use them on a Z9 and Z8.

I was in Botswana recently for 3 1/2 weeks and used the Z 400 mm TC lens as my principal lens on the Z9. I took slightly more photos with the built-in TC engaged (560 mm at f4) than without (400 mm at f2.8). The built-in TC is a wonderful feature. It allows a very quick deployment of the TC. And it avoids the need to take the lens off to add a TC — very valuable when you are in adverse conditions (dust, sand, salt spray, rain, and the like).

I felt the Z 400 mm TC lens was the ideal lens for my Botswana trip and a trip later this fall to British Columbia to photograph spirit bears. Given I would need the lens for 6 weeks minimum, I thought it would be cheaper to buy the lens and resell it (if I did not like it enough) than rent it (especially with insurance). But I liked the lens so much, I plan to keep it. F2.8 is great and so is the built-in TC.

One of the participants on my Botswana trip brought both the Z 400 TC and the Z 600 TC. She fit them both in a Gura Gear backpack with a Z9 — I was impressed by that. Given our trip, she used mostly the Z 400 TC.

All this has me thinking about the Z 600 mm TC. Would be an amazing lens to have.

 

[Nimi]

I asked my wife (who has zero interest in photography). "Tell em to get his own damn system."

 

[nmerc_photos]

You make a really good point about there being more differences than just the TC.

I guess the real dilemma I had and reason for starting the thread was my concern that if I have only 2 bodies (R5 and Z8, or R5 and R5), and the body on the 600 breaks (for any number of reasons). If both are Canon, I can take the R5 off the 100-500 and still use the 600 (my wife would be fine using the bins). If the Z8 breaks, I must use the 100-500. The only way around that is to get a second z8 as a spare. I have a feeling it will come to that because she’s going to stick with Canon and I am leaning towards the Nikon 600 TC.

A 2nd body is a must either way... I had several R5 failures in my time using them. Luckily no failures with Nikon bodies yet, other than the Z9 I dropped.

 

[Calson]

My wife shoots with the Olympus cameras and lenses which are as good as I can get from Nikon with the Z9 and the new Synchro VR lenses. Her kit cost half as much and weighs half as much and the results are comparable to mine and sometimes better with the OM-1.

I shot with Canon back when the Nikon D2x was only usable to ISO 640 but came back to Nikon when they released the D3 and the then new 14-24mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8 that were far better than the Canon L lenses at that time. The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 was so bad that many pro shooters used the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 with their Canon cameras instead.

Nothing compares from Sony or Canon to the lightweight super telephotos from Nikon. I seldom used the 600mm f/4 without the TC-14 attached and always with it mounted on a sturdy tripod with a gimbal head. When I first got the Nikon 500mm PF lens it was truly a game changer. I had a telephoto that I could use hand held and this greatly increased my mobility when photographing subjects on land and worked great shooting hand held from a small boat. Unless one has used such a lens it is not possible to fully appreciate the advanatages of shooting without need for a tripod.

My wife's E-M1 with the 300mm f/4 (equivalent to a 600mm f/4 FX lens) had such amazing image stabilization that I was gettng sharp images of macro subjects shooting hand held at 1/10s. Many years later, I now have that capability with the Z9.