Nikon D500 + 200-500

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
macwalter said:
Yes you can use f mount “older” glass on z bodies but not vice versa. Just be aware the the FTZ adapter will cause the lens to stick out about an inch more and this can upset the balance compared to using the lens on a dslr. This was a main reason for me selling my beloved 500pf and in in the z mount 600pf. I handhold and feel and balance is very important to me.
Click to expand...
Actually, the ftz replicates the spacing that a dslr has, and the reason the balance is off is due to ml bodies being lighter weight due to lack of mirror. It doesn't cause the lens to stick out more or less VS a dslr, it's the exact same distance from the sensor.
 
Member's gallery
It's a mistake to underestimate the focus abilities of Nikon's recent DSLRs. I use a D6 with Z9 (and 'still' have a 7 year young D850). And I use several F-mount E and G type Nikkors on the Z9. The FTZ works seamlessly, and in fact the AF precision of Teleconverter pairings are improved on Z MILCs, together with overcoming the "f8 AF Barrier".

Group mode is hard to match with AutoAF mode as the widest equivalent on the D5 Triumvirate DSLRs. If the AF grabs the background, it's useful to use AF memory Recall, if it's available on a F-mount telephoto to focus at a preset distance. This is straightforward on Z MILCs using custom settings.

The Z9 AF system has yet to match the Closest Subject Priority of the AF system of the D5 Triumvirate and especially the D6. The Z9 has the advantage of its subject detection AF and much higher fps (plus Wysiwyg, Silent Shooting and the other MILC advantages).

Nikon published a wildlife guide for the Z8/Z9

If memory serves, that’s Steve’s baseline recommendation. The focus area selection in Auto Area is too chaotic for me. I find that Wide-S/L or my custom C-1 (19x7) works better. I handoff to 3D when needed. It’s difficult to get the small 3D box correctly placed over the head or eye of a...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com
 
Member's gallery
In summary, the AF performance discrepancies reside in the fundamental differences between the respective designs of the AF sensors in DSLRs compared to MILC's.

IME with Nikon Z9 technology, the steadily improving Subject Detection often makes up for the inherent deficiencies of MILC Autofocus.

This is why the D5 AF engine still holds its inherent advantages over Mirrorless AF systems: D850, D500 included.

The triplet design cross-type sensors of the D6 set a far tougher standard in Closest Focus Priority (CFP) and sheer "Stickiness" that an on-sensor AF System struggles to match, with its issues with 'X-Y sensitive PDAF'.

To quote a recent post on Dpreview "Cross-type sensors are important for omnidirectional sensitivity, but there's a bigger advantage of DSLR systems: defocus-independence of depth discrimination and noninterference of the image pairs near optimal focus. Put another way, the DSLR PDAF system uses cleaner and more consistent data."
 
Member's gallery
I do find that dslr cameras do have some advantages in AFcapabities but overall I still find my hit rate higher with the z8. I never had the d5or 6 so I can’t compare them. I did have the d500 and d850 and had good success with both. Single point and group AF were my go to AF zones and I do think mirrorless cameras are more willing to go to the background in some cases. DSLRs are also probably more rugged with far better battery life. I still prefer the z8
 
Member's gallery
I’m still using a D500 - I like the crop factor. I would agree that the AF of the 200-500 is not so good, especially for BIFs against a blue sky although it does depend on the bird. Larger raptors - Bald Eagles and even Ospreys - are fairly predictable in flight and my camera seems to better find them and stay on them. I mostly use single point, with group available on a button.

The big zoom is clearly not as capable as my 500 PF or my 300 PF but its IQ is very decent and its versatility is very useful. One of my favourite spots right now is a wetlands with a boardwalk around it, and it is full of nesting herons and egrets. The 500 PF is great for chicks and close-ups but usually too much lens for entire birds. And the 300 PF is terrific for larger birds but not really enough for chicks. And of course, the 200-500, despite its size and heft - it’s at about my limit for handholding - it can do both.

SD_DSC8108-2.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
I would think you have a good setup. Larger birds definitely benefit with a zoom. When I was using similar gear I would a times miss shots due to using a prime. I found the 300pf too short for birds overall. As I am using mostly a 600pf I look for situations where i can get the bird further away from the lens is as sharp as the 500pf with an extra 100mm reach. I mainly use single point on small subjects in dense conditions and would mostly use group af for BIF. I never had good luck with 3d tracking. Now with the mirrorless system it is much easier together interesting moments with high frame rate etc.
 
Member's gallery
macwalter said:
I would think you have a good setup. Larger birds definitely benefit with a zoom. When I was using similar gear I would a times miss shots due to using a prime. I found the 300pf too short for birds overall. As I am using mostly a 600pf I look for situations where i can get the bird further away from the lens is as sharp as the 500pf with an extra 100mm reach. I mainly use single point on small subjects in dense conditions and would mostly use group af for BIF. I never had good luck with 3d tracking. Now with the mirrorless system it is much easier together interesting moments with high frame rate etc.
Click to expand...
I agree that the 300 PF is generally too short for birds. But, especially with an APS-C camera, that little 300 PF with a TC-14E III makes a terrific, light weight, easy to pack travel outfit.
 
Member's gallery
My sense is TCs work best on primes and if the prime is f5.6 or slower the 1.4 will work well but the 2x can be iffy, you need good conditions. In the f mount world the 1.4tc worked OK on the 500pf , very well on the 300pf f4 , the 1.7 worked OK on the 300pf but not something I would do unless no other option. The z TCs are better overall but even the 1.4 TCiii worked well with the 500pf on the z8. I have had good results using the 2x TC on the 400f4.5 at f9 at 800mm but the 600mm with the 1.4tc at 840 is better at f9. I would imagine using the big f4 glass things improve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top