thelordofthelight
Well-known member
When the Z9 was launched, Nikon announced 6 stops of VR with those lenses that supported Synchro VR. Not sure if the 800 PF also has Synchro VR.
Nikon 800PF Review For Wildlife Photographers (Official Discussion Thread)
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
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).
arbitrage
Well-known member
It does but "only" 5.5 stops
We also have to remember that these ratings are only in Normal VR mode. I found Normal mode un-shootable on the Z9 (and on Nikon DSLRs). So not sure what we are getting in Sport mode but for me that was the only feasible VR mode to use.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Last edited:
I think the Z9 IBIS helps a little, but in this case I think it's more the VR in the lens. IBIS is great for shorter glass, sensor-based stabilization simply doesn't have enough room to move to make a big difference one way or another for longer glass. You need a larger VR group with more movement for stabilization to really be effective and that means most of your stabilization I coming from the lens. Although, I do wonder if the Z9 sensor has a bit more movement than others since there's no shutter mechanism to contend with. Hmm....
fcotterill
Well-known member
This might explain - in part - the wider border around the sensor, which probably holds circuitry buts also allows more lateral side to side motion.
{EDIT} The 54mm wide mount of the Z mount is the allied integral factor that permits the IBIS this much "shake-space" (if this kinesis actually happens when shooting)
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Last edited:
Very interesting. That might explain why the Z9 has the extra half stop of IBIS stabilization.
fcotterill
Well-known member
Yes this all makes sense
Calson
Well-known member
In 2017 when looking at super tele prices for Nikon and Canon lenses the ones from Canon were so much less that I could have bought a high end Canon body and still been ahead. Now with someone thinking about a new DSLR or a new mirrorless camera the "saving" of $9,000 with the 800mm mirrorless version is going to be one heck of an inducement.
thelordofthelight
Well-known member
Normal VR mode is a bit aggressive on Nikon but very effective. To me, it is not a deal breaker because i only use VR when I'm photographing static subjects at less than 1/500th a sec. At higher shutter speeds and particularly when photographing action, i'm anyway using a shutter speed of 1/2000 + and i always keep the VR off. So in my case, it is either VR Off (90%) vs Normal VR.
With the 800PF I notice there is no VR switch and it is controlled via i menu. I truly hope Nikon adds VR to the RSF list. I use RSF for static/ slow shutter and keeping the VR on would help immensely.
With the 800PF I notice there is no VR switch and it is controlled via i menu. I truly hope Nikon adds VR to the RSF list. I use RSF for static/ slow shutter and keeping the VR on would help immensely.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
i can't help think it's not only an issue of "how much" but how well it all works together as a system and how good of an implementation it is in general.
normally i turn off vr for the type of action work i do because i run very fast shutter speeds and my subject is moving.
after my first outing, shooting fast dogs at 400mm, i realized i not only forgot to turn it off, but i was also in "normal" instead of sport which should be more appropriate for my type of work and the images were great.
basically even in questionable situations, it was totally unphased.
as an action shooter i've always been mildly skeptical about vr, and as it is, i feel like i can just leave it turned on and not sweat it.
Oh, I agree - it's not just one or the other, I'm just thinking the lens does the bulk of the work in this case.
And yes, I think you can leave it on and not worry - at least with what I've seen from this lens.
Doug Herr
Well-known member
quick calculation using specs from a big box retailer's website:
z9+ 800 PF = 3725 g
a1+200-600 + 1.4x = 3019 g
a1 + 600 GM + 1.4x = 3544 g
the 800 PF is impressively lightweight but the z9's heft makes the total package a shoulder-bruiser (and the a1 + 600 GM + 1.4x is f/5.6).
z9+ 800 PF = 3725 g
a1+200-600 + 1.4x = 3019 g
a1 + 600 GM + 1.4x = 3544 g
the 800 PF is impressively lightweight but the z9's heft makes the total package a shoulder-bruiser (and the a1 + 600 GM + 1.4x is f/5.6).
Doug Herr
Well-known member
I suspect Synchro VR is Nikon's trade name for optical and sensor stabilization working together, much like several other camera makers have been providing.
Yes when it comes to weight our needs are all over the ball park here on the forum ... if you have shoulder, arm, back issues etc. lighter can be critical. And some of us prefer a bit of heft for stability.
For me the Z9 + 800 pf sound about right or maybe a bit light but as Steve said it seemed to be well balanced ... almost half the weight of my D850 with grip and EN EL 18 battery and 600 f/E and I sure do not plan on shooting it against my shoulder ... LOL
I don’t know the answer to your question but can say the 600/1.4 combo is fantastic IQ wise.
DaveR
Active member
The Z9 is a gripped body so for a fair comparison I think you would need to include the A1 grip and extra battery but even without the difference of 181g is arguably minimal, not really a 'shoulder bruiser' difference. The extra 3rd of a stop is also of little consequence given current software and sensors.
The monumental difference between the two systems you give is the price. Using prices from a well known retailer here in the Uk.
z9 + 800 PF = 11598
a1 + 600GM + grip and battery + 1.4tc = 19441
a1 + 600GM + 1.4 TC = 18977
I would guess you would be hard pressed to tell the difference in IQ in shots taken with the above systems but the difference in price is hugely significant. Not really worth it to gain 181g and a 3rd of a stop. Steve has described the 800PF as a game changer, a term he doesn't use lightly. He was using it to describe performance and handling. But it is also a game changer in terms of cost for a top wildlife setup.
You can buy a complete Nikon system like Z9 + 800Pf + 500PF + 300 PF + 105 macro = 18345.
You need really deep pockets to shoot Sony or indeed Canon when it comes to shooting wildlife these days.
Last edited:
Good ChoiceThe PF kit will happen first. I can only afford one new lens right now and it's the 800mm. It's funny too - I was really on the fence about the 400 2.8 (still am a bit) but this lens was love at first...shot
Still, I think the 400 2.8 with this lens would be a very potent - and flexible - combo.
ChrisM
Well-known member
You've got the weight of the A1 + 600GM +1.4TC wrong by roughly 350gr though, unless you have a secret lightweight edition
DaveR
Active member
I checked and made the difference 219g.You've got the weight of the A1 + 600GM +1.4TC wrong by roughly 350gr though, unless you have a secret lightweight edition
Nikon z9 + 800PF = 3725g
A1 + 600GM + 1.4 TC = 3944g
Included in the weight of the Z9 are two memory cards. Theses are missing from the weight for the A1. I was surprised to find the Z9 setup lighter though.
arbitrage
Well-known member
The reason you pay the extra is for f/4. That to me is worth every extra penny spent. And of course there is the A1 which for me is another step above the Z9 in a number of ways.
That said, the Nikon combo is incredible value if 800mm and f/6.3 fits you shooting style and subjects at hand. And despite my strong preference for the A1, the Z9 is still a very capable camera. Still in my top 3 or 4 that I've owned and certainly my top Nikon. I'd buy the 800PF as a secondary lens but certainly not my primary birding lens...not where I live. I've tried running f/5.6 and f/6.3 as my primary lens and was always left wanting for f/4 or f/2.8.
Doug Herr
Well-known member
I wouldn't use the grip, so no the gripped a1 is not a proper comparison for my uses. Before the z9 was first introduced I was hopeful that it would enable a lightweight system with the 500 PF. Its mass and bulk turned out to be a major disappointment which obliterated the weight savings of the PF lens. Same is true with the 800 PF. The z9's DSLR-like mass & bulk kills the deal for me, doubly so for carrying a backup camera.
Last edited:
Well, the lens sounds a fascinating proposition and may provide an effective option for me to stick with my Z7ii (BIF is a minority of my photography). I had been on the verge of heading for the A1 But I m thinking I will buy this lightweight long reach option and enjoy exploring its new possibilities until Nikon delivers on its clear strategy “to deploy advanced features from the Z9 to the rest of its range” (thanks @fcotterill )
I’ve ordered one to get in the queue and think I will go that route and pass on my Z9 order.
I’ve ordered one to get in the queue and think I will go that route and pass on my Z9 order.
RoyC
Active member
The last bit of this thread comparing the a1 package to the Z9 +800 f6.3 at times has touched on an important issue. If you go with a 800mm prime, either f5.6 or f6.3, you also need faster glass f2.8 or f4 for when there just is not enough light for action @ f6.3. The buyers of this new 800mm lens really need to take this into consideration. Twice a year since 2014 I have brought a 800 f5.6 to YNP and/or GT NP and a 400 f2.8 or a 180-400 has come along and are used early and late in the day.
ChrisM
Well-known member
To me this does not make sense, since with 800mm you fill twice the size of the frame as you do with 400mm, so you capture twice the amount of light for a given frame size.
The benefit of the faster aperture would only exist if you don't need the reach of 800mm.
You dó lose a third of a stop with the 800PF though, but I would not see that as a dealbreaker.
IMO you made a good choice. Unless you shoot BIF/action the lens brings more to the party than the Z9.
Not sure I understand what you're saying here. So in the low light situations you're using the faster 400mm glass and cropping to the 800mm equivalent FOV?
Actually the tradeoff is light for pixels. 400mm 2.8 is taking in 4x as much light regardless of how you crop it. However the 800mm is putting 4x as many pixels on target. With a 1.4x TC on the 400 2.8 you're at f4 which is still 2x the light of the 800mm 5.6 and 1/2 the pixels on target (560/800)^2. It boils down to which choice can be processed most effectively into the desired end result, more pixels/lower DR/more noise vs 1/4 or 1/2 the pixels/better DR/less noise.
Last edited:
RoyC
Active member
So what. If it is to dark to shoot with the f6.3 early in the morning, when the action is taking place that f6.3 lens might as well still be in its case.
Simple observation, Steve was shooting in central Florida for the two days he had the 800 PF. Sunrise, when not cloudy, means you can start shooting with the 800 10 minutes later. Try that in YNP, in the middle of the Lamar Valley which is wide open except that there is a 10,000 foot mountain range to your east. The big yellow ball shows up and hour later. All the action the people with a 400 f2.8 and 600 f4 are photographing you are watching though you 8X binoculars.
Just something to consider.