Nikon 600PF First Look Field Review!

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).

Member's gallery
marlowtravelsoften said:
I hear what you're saying. To me, as an engineer, if you were to put 1 finger under the lens foot, and the system as a whole stayed perfectly level (horizontal) that would be "balanced". I have to use my hand/finger/thumb to resist the setup from wanting to rotate downward all the time. That is very stressful on my hand over time. I am hiking for periods of 4+ hours several times a week, which is probably way more than most people. I bought a BlackRapid strap recently, and will need to just try it out more - keeping my hand on the foot while hiking with the strap sounds like it might be a very good alternative for me.

Back to the main topic. Sorry for getting the thread side-tracked.
Click to expand...
My previous response was based on the fact that in my experience most photographers are not engineers and when they refer to "balance" they're really talking about the intuitive "feel" of the camera/lens when shooting handheld. So anything that forces them to alter hand holding technique/position is uncomfortable. That said, just as with using a gimbal true balance is what matters for carrying on a black rapid type strap. If the attachment point is too far off even a hand placed on it while walking will tire after hours of walking. But a properly chosen lens foot for use on a gimbal will typically also work well for carrying with a strap as well. After all COG is the same whether the lens is top side up or down.
 
Member's gallery
Dave Stargazer said:
In terms of balance for the 400mm f/4.5 on a Z9, it looks to me like the 3rd party tripod feet will not actually balance for gimbal use if you put on a TC - esp the TC 2.0x. I have the long Kirk plate on the original Nikon tripod foot, and it's mounted close to as far back as it can be - then balance is possible without a TC or with the TC 1.4x. When using the TC 2.0x on a gimbal, I have to slide that plate even further back, but it can get to the balance point. I'm sure a Z8 wouldn't have nearly the same problem.

Cheers!
Click to expand...
I'm using one of the Hejnar feet and it balances on both strap and gimbal with or without the 1.4x TC.
 
Member's gallery
Krümelkraft said:
I'm not sure about this anymore. The new 600 is so ridiculously expensive that a lot of people will still go for the 500. When compared to the 600, the 500 will appear even more attractive, esoecially when you can get a used one.
Click to expand...

I think that’s false economy. More would consider the 180-600 or 400 4.5 with TC. It’s wishful thinking to expect the 500 PF to retain high residuals.
 
Member's gallery
Rookie Roy said:
I read, understand and agree with Steve’s thoughts that the 6.3 speed is not a deal breaker. It does seem odd to me, however, that Nikon could make the Z 800mm PF a 6.3 and not make the Z 600mm PF at least a 5.6??
Click to expand...
I think Nikon's aim was to maintain a common 95mm diameter filter thread, which is not achievable with a 600mm/5.6.
(This sounds odd, correct me if my english is bad)
 
Member's gallery
NorthernFocus said:
I'm using one of the Hejnar feet and it balances on both strap and gimbal with or without the 1.4x TC.
Click to expand...
Have you tried to balance the 400mm f/4.5 with the TC 2.0x and Hejnar foot? Of all the 3rd party feet I've seen, the Hejnar extended back the furthest, but not as far back as I had to go with the TC 2.0x. Also I found removing the L-Bracket from the Z9 helped move the balance point forward a bit, making true, gimbal-balance easier. The clearance between the back of the plate, and the Z9 body is less than I'd like with either TC attached, making camera orientation rotation more difficult. Cheers!
 
Member's gallery
NorthernFocus said:
My previous response was based on the fact that in my experience most photographers are not engineers and when they refer to "balance" they're really talking about the intuitive "feel" of the camera/lens when shooting handheld. So anything that forces them to alter hand holding technique/position is uncomfortable. That said, just as with using a gimbal true balance is what matters for carrying on a black rapid type strap. If the attachment point is too far off even a hand placed on it while walking will tire after hours of walking. But a properly chosen lens foot for use on a gimbal will typically also work well for carrying with a strap as well. After all COG is the same whether the lens is top side up or down.
Click to expand...

Do you have a recommendation for a lens plate that might help offset that? I have an aftermarket RRS LCF-11 for a lens foot on the lens now.
 
Member's gallery
NorthernFocus said:
My previous response was based on the fact that in my experience most photographers are not engineers and when they refer to "balance" they're really talking about the intuitive "feel" of the camera/lens when shooting handheld. So anything that forces them to alter hand holding technique/position is uncomfortable. That said, just as with using a gimbal true balance is what matters for carrying on a black rapid type strap. If the attachment point is too far off even a hand placed on it while walking will tire after hours of walking. But a properly chosen lens foot for use on a gimbal will typically also work well for carrying with a strap as well. After all COG is the same whether the lens is top side up or down.
Click to expand...
I’ve been using an RRS clamp with a screw knob with my Black Rapid straps. Screw a Black Rapid connector into the clamp and attach the connector to the strap. I can then chose where on a foot or plate (which are Arca Swiss compatible) to attach the clamp, as opposed to being stuck with the location of the attachment points (regular and QD) on the foot or plate. Have had no trouble finding a balance point with my Z9/Z8/Z7II and my Z telephotos (and the 500 mm PF). And I can also adjust the clamp position if I add a TC, which changes the balance point.

I still generally keep a hand on the lens/camera on the strap, but not to hold it level.
 
Member's gallery
BillW said:
I’ve been using an RRS clamp with a screw knob with my Black Rapid straps. Screw a Black Rapid connector into the clamp and attach the connector to the strap. I can then chose where on a foot or plate (which are Arca Swiss compatible) to attach the clamp, as opposed to being stuck with the location of the attachment points (regular and QD) on the foot or plate. Have had no trouble finding a balance point with my Z9/Z8/Z7II and my Z telephotos (and the 500 mm PF). And I can also adjust the clamp position if I add a TC, which changes the balance point.

I still generally keep a hand on the lens/camera on the strap, but not to hold it level.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see a photo of your setup if you get the chance.
 
Member's gallery
Dave Stargazer said:
Have you tried to balance the 400mm f/4.5 with the TC 2.0x and Hejnar foot?...Also I found removing the L-Bracket from the Z9 helped move the balance point forward a bit, making true, gimbal-balance easier...
Click to expand...
I've not with the Z9. If you were trying to balance things with an L bracket you certainly weren't helping the situation.

Actually the only time I've had the 400 4.5 on a tripod at all has been for doing sharpness tests. I've never shot a "live target" anything other than handheld. OTOH I have carried it on a black rapid strap a LOT both bare and with 1.4x TC.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks for the video, Steve. It solidifies my intention to keep my 500 PF for the foreseeable future. As great as the new Z lenses are, the cost/benefit factor always creeps in there for my particular needs and situation. Your reviews probably help people spend money a large part of the time, but know that you are saving some of us a significant amount of cash, as well. :)
 
Member's gallery
@Steve
Very informative and expensive 😉video…
I was waiting for a optically top notch lighter weight 600mm. Mini 600/4TC.

My feelings: The 6.3 is cheating. For this price Nikon should have done it 5.6.

Regarding your video editing, I noticed you took it next level. Great work! (The 2 catch lights in your eye is drawing my attention to it😀)
 
Member's gallery
JoelKlein said:
@Steve
Very informative and expensive 😉video…
I was waiting for a optically top notch lighter weight 600mm. Mini 600/4TC.

My feelings: The 6.3 is cheating. For this price Nikon should have done it 5.6.

Regarding your video editing, I noticed you took it next level. Great work! (The 2 catch lights in your eye is drawing my attention to it😀)
Click to expand...
it wouldn't have been this cheap, or this small. That's why it's 6.3
 
Member's gallery
Steve: In your video you mention using the control ring to adjust ISO, but you're using auto ISO, correct? When I'm using auto ISO adjusting ISO doesn't seem to have an effect, so I am using exposure compensation for fine tuning. What am I missing? Thanks.
 
Member's gallery
Rob Pedowitz said:
Steve: In your video you mention using the control ring to adjust ISO, but you're using auto ISO, correct? When I'm using auto ISO adjusting ISO doesn't seem to have an effect, so I am using exposure compensation for fine tuning. What am I missing? Thanks.
Click to expand...
This is what I do as well. Auto ISO and bump the exposure comp +/- as needed. I find it to be quicker than manually adjusting the ISO all the time for the different light conditions as the camera does a fairly good job on its own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top