Nikon D500 with 500 PF vs Canon R7 with EF 100-400 ii

[liamwallace]

I have been doing quite a bit of research into these two systems since I want to upgrade from my D7200 with a Sigma 150-600 which I have enjoyed but is a bit lacking regarding FPS, AF, and IQ. Many people have said the D500 has fantastic AF, the best for a DSLR, and that the 500 PF is a super sharp lens. The 10 FPS and the buffer also seems really nice and a big improvement from the D7200. I was also looking into the R7 since it seems like the best mirrorless camera for the price with a bigger sensor than the D500, faster FPS, and animal-eye focus. I was thinking about pairing the R7 with the ef 100-400 ii since it is light like the 500 PF, very sharp, and gives an effective focal length of 160-640 on the R7 which is plenty of focal length and more versatile than the 500 PF. Any advice regarding which system would be better from people who have had experience with both or either camera would be greatly appreciated.

 

[PhotoLover]

I don't know anything about the Canon system.

I have a D500 and a 500 pf. It is indeed a very fine combo, almost certainly an upgrade over your D7200 and 150-600. The 500 pf is a fantastic lens; light, fast AF, sharp any aperture, any distance. It functions reasonably well with the 1.4 III TC. And the D500 does a lot of things well.

That said, if I was looking to invest in a new system now, I would go mirrorless. Note that the 500 pf apparently works well on the Nikon mirrorless cameras like the Z8 and Z9.

Of course, you can buy a used D500 and a used 500 pf for a lot less than they used to cost new.

Whatever I did, I would be looking at what mirrorless solution I wanted to wind up with, even if completing that solution is two or three years away. I think Nikon has a lot of really good wildlife lenses, both F and Z mount.

 

[liamwallace]

Thank you for your quick response! It seems the D500/500 PF be a huge upgrade for me and an investment regarding mirrorless since like you said, the 500PF is good with the Z8 which will probably drop in price in a few years. I cant afford either the Z8 or Z9 right now and it doesn't seem like other mirrorless cameras from Nikon are really worth buying instead of the D500 since people have said the AF is not on par.

 

[ricardo00]

I used the Nikon D500 and 500mm PF lens for many years and loved it. However I would think that the 2 year old Canon R7 mirrorless would be much better and the 100-400mm for sure would be more versatile. The Nikon D500 and 500mm PF would give you more pixels on your subject if you are shooting distant subjects. Both should be an improvement over the D7200 and Sigma 150-600mm. But these are two very different paths to choose. So consider your long range goals.

 

[MrFotoFool]

I also used a D500 and 500PF and they were excellent, but then again ANY modern camera will be excellent. As someone else said, if you are going to invest in equipment at this point, mirrorless is the way to go. The Canon R7 is priced low, but buying a new mirrorless and pairing it with a non-mirrorless EF lens makes little sense to me. (Yes I know they work very well with adapters). Canon has an R 100-400 that I believe is reasonably priced (because it is not an L series). You should also consider mirrorless options from Nikon and Sony, with Sony offering by far the largest choice of lenses (both their own and third party).

 

[StefanSC]

Any advice regarding which system would be better from people who have had experience with both or either camera would be greatly appreciated.

I've shot for the past few years with a D500 and Sigma 150-600mm C.
This year I put about 5000 frames on a D7200 for fun and giggles and got the chance to try out an R7 and 100-400mm II with the 1.4x TC.

Here's my take on it all:

1) Just getting a used D500 and using it with your Sigma 150-600mm C will get you better results as that pesky f6.3 at the tele end really holds back the D7200 AF system.
2) The R7 is an impressive camera and decent bang for buck. The AF, even with the 1.4x TC was quick to acquire the subject and it was quite sticky.
3) There are situations where a D500's AF will be superior (e.g: Dragonflies in flight or birds with branches and leaves in front of them).
4) The 100-400mm II is surprisingly sharp and it takes the 1.4x TC quite well.
5) The R7 EVF is quite poor and the rolling shutter and small buffer really makes it a 15fps camera not a 30fps camera. Also, the build quality feels more consumer level than the solid chunk that the D500 feels like and adding an adapter to the mix really made me feel uneasy.

All that being said, which one you choose depends on what your plans for the future are.

If you plan on upgrading your gear again in the next ~3 years, then I wouldn't recommend either the D500+500mm PF or the R7 and 100-400mm II.
If I were you, I'd be looking at either Z6 III (as it inherits most of the Z8 AF) and a Nikon 180-600mm or at a Sony A6700 and either a Sony 200-600mm or Sigma 500mm f5.6 as both systems have a more logical lens layout for wildlife shooters, plus a decent body upgrade path.

If you don't plan on upgrading your gear again in the next ~3 years and you want to keep it 5+ years, then again I wouldn't recommend either the D500+500mm PF or the R7 and 100-400mm II.
I'd get an OMDS OM-1 (ideally the mk. II version) and the Olympus 300mm f4 and 1.4x TC.
I actually did get this kit one year ago as an upgrade from my D500 and 150-600mm and after using the R7 and a few other systems this year, I'm happier than ever with my choice. I don't actually think there is a better bang for buck wildlife set-up (but I do plan on shooting it into the ground ).

 

[beano]

If I can offer another alternative, (almost) keeping in line with your thoughts on the D500: Grab the Z50II and 180-600Z optic.

Will be a very good birding setup. And pretty affordable.

 

[MikeA]

I have a D500 and D850 and use them with the 500 PF all the time, a great camera/lens combo I am very happy to have! Great AF, tack sharp with enough reach. My 600 mm stays home more often because it is too heavy for me when hiking. If I am using a car, then I prefer the 600mm.

 

[bleirer]

At this point in the revolution I would go mirrorless. That is where all the tech advances will be.. As far as Canon, given how close they are in price I would go for the RF 100-500 over the older 100-400 that needs an adapter. The 100-500 is lightweight and compact and has .4x magnification and a MFD around 3 feet. It takes the 1.4x well as far as image quality. (unfortunately the 1.4 doesnt let the lens go wider than 300). Also for the money the RF 200-800 is a good choice, though heavier and bulkier. Now that the Canon R5ii is here, a new R5 can be had for around $2500. It is full frame, but at 45 megapixels you still get a decent resolution in crop mode when needed. The R7 is a good choice for a crop body.

 

[liamwallace]

I used the Nikon D500 and 500mm PF lens for many years and loved it. However I would think that the 2 year old Canon R7 mirrorless would be much better and the 100-400mm for sure would be more versatile. The Nikon D500 and 500mm PF would give you more pixels on your subject if you are shooting distant subjects. Both should be an improvement over the D7200 and Sigma 150-600mm. But these are two very different paths to choose. So consider your long range goals.

I am very flexible regarding brand but I am kind of skeptical regarding investing in Canon mirrorless since they have not made many good affordable lens for wildlife for the RF mount (200-800/rf100-400 only ones I can think of and they're kind of slow) whereas Nikon has more like the 180-600 and adaptable 500PF. Let me know if you have any insights into which brand is worth investing into from your experience

I also used a D500 and 500PF and they were excellent, but then again ANY modern camera will be excellent. As someone else said, if you are going to invest in equipment at this point, mirrorless is the way to go. The Canon R7 is priced low, but buying a new mirrorless and pairing it with a non-mirrorless EF lens makes little sense to me. (Yes I know they work very well with adapters). Canon has an R 100-400 that I believe is reasonably priced (because it is not an L series). You should also consider mirrorless options from Nikon and Sony, with Sony offering by far the largest choice of lenses (both their own and third party).

What Nikon or Sony bodies do you recommend in combination with lenses? I’ve heard most of the Nikon mirrorless cameras AF systems aren’t that good except for the Z8/9 which I can’t afford right now. Regarding Sony, I’ve seen a lot of praise for their mirrorless cameras but don’t know a lot about them but I do know people really like the 200-600 which I would probably get if I went Sony.

 

[Jbear]

I have a D500 and D850 and use them with the 500 PF all the time, a great camera/lens combo I am very happy to have! Great AF, tack sharp with enough reach. My 600 mm stays home more often because it is too heavy for me when hiking. If I am using a car, then I prefer the 600mm.

I'm in the same camp and also use a D5 with it. What continues to amaze me is that when I am shooting with a 300 2.8 VR on one body and a 500PF on another (doesn't matter which is on which)...the 500PF is easily as good optically (I almost always shoot it wide open), and AF is more consistently accurate. I mean it never misses unless I screw-up...it's weird. I know there're individual, lens-to-lens behaviors, but this one is sort of ridiculously good. When I have it on a D5 it seems like cheating sometimes. The VR is also the best I've used short of the 200-500VR, which IMO has the best VR out there...still.
I cannot comment on ML performance, but I know that if I ever do go in that direction, I will get an adapter and keep this lens. What works for me though...yada yada...ya know?
Good luck with your decision.

 

[liamwallace]

I've shot for the past few years with a D500 and Sigma 150-600mm C.
This year I put about 5000 frames on a D7200 for fun and giggles and got the chance to try out an R7 and 100-400mm II with the 1.4x TC.

Here's my take on it all:

1) Just getting a used D500 and using it with your Sigma 150-600mm C will get you better results as that pesky f6.3 at the tele end really holds back the D7200 AF system.
2) The R7 is an impressive camera and decent bang for buck. The AF, even with the 1.4x TC was quick to acquire the subject and it was quite sticky.
3) There are situations where a D500's AF will be superior (e.g: Dragonflies in flight or birds with branches and leaves in front of them).
4) The 100-400mm II is surprisingly sharp and it takes the 1.4x TC quite well.
5) The R7 EVF is quite poor and the rolling shutter and small buffer really makes it a 15fps camera not a 30fps camera. Also, the build quality feels more consumer level than the solid chunk that the D500 feels like and adding an adapter to the mix really made me feel uneasy.

All that being said, which one you choose depends on what your plans for the future are.

If you plan on upgrading your gear again in the next ~3 years, then I wouldn't recommend either the D500+500mm PF or the R7 and 100-400mm II.
If I were you, I'd be looking at either Z6 III (as it inherits most of the Z8 AF) and a Nikon 180-600mm or at a Sony A6700 and either a Sony 200-600mm or Sigma 500mm f5.6 as both systems have a more logical lens layout for wildlife shooters, plus a decent body upgrade path.

If you don't plan on upgrading your gear again in the next ~3 years and you want to keep it 5+ years, then again I wouldn't recommend either the D500+500mm PF or the R7 and 100-400mm II.
I'd get an OMDS OM-1 (ideally the mk. II version) and the Olympus 300mm f4 and 1.4x TC.
I actually did get this kit one year ago as an upgrade from my D500 and 150-600mm and after using the R7 and a few other systems this year, I'm happier than ever with my choice. I don't actually think there is a better bang for buck wildlife set-up (but I do plan on shooting it into the ground ).

Thank you for your in depth response! I think I'll likely upgrade in a few years so like you said maybe I should probably invest in mirrorless now. My budget right now is less than $3k so I can't afford a Z6III with the 180-600 although it seems like a great combo. Someone else recommended the Z50ii, do you know anything about it? Sony also seems like a good move but the a6700 looks really small. Do you think the size is a dealbreaker and if so, what are other possible Sony bodies with good AF around the $1500 mark used?

 

[ricardo00]

I am very flexible regarding brand but I am kind of skeptical regarding investing in Canon mirrorless since they have not made many good affordable lens for wildlife for the RF mount (200-800/rf100-400 only ones I can think of and they're kind of slow) whereas Nikon has more like the 180-600 and adaptable 500PF. Let me know if you have any insights into which brand is worth investing into from your experience

I have only shot Nikon since I took up wildlife photography 14 years ago but have friends who use Sony, Canon and even OM. All three can do the job. Personally, as for Nikon, I would not get anything at this point other than the Z8 (I know others would disagree). If that is out of your budget, I would stick with the D500 until you could afford the Z8. I waited several times for Nikon to bring out the gear I wanted, including the D500. Many people said Nikon would not bring out a new DX camera and many were surprised when the D500 was introduced. So at this time I would get the D500 and wait for the mirrorless that you can afford but with the focussing abilities of the Z8 and pixel density of the Z8.
As for other brands, Sony is not cheap. In fact, higher priced than Nikon. The lowest price is the OM system. The OM-1 (version 1) is now about $1,000. However have no first hand experience with it. The Canon R7 and R5 have been highly rated by some and know people who use them and get some great photos. Their preferred lens is the 100-500mm.

 

[liamwallace]

I have only shot Nikon since I took up wildlife photography 14 years ago but have friends who use Sony, Canon and even OM. All three can do the job. Personally, as for Nikon, I would not get anything at this point other than the Z8 (I know others would disagree). If that is out of your budget, I would stick with the D500 until you could afford the Z8. I waited several times for Nikon to bring out the gear I wanted, including the D500. Many people said Nikon would not bring out a new DX camera and many were surprised when the D500 was introduced. So at this time I would get the D500 and wait for the mirrorless that you can afford but with the focussing abilities of the Z8.
As for other brands, Sony is not cheap. In fact, higher priced than Nikon. The lowest price is the OM system. The OM-1 (version 1) is now about $1,000. However have no first hand experience with it. The Canon R7 and R5 have been highly rated by some and know people who use them and get some great photos. Their preferred lens is the 100-500mm.

I am not super anxious to get into mirrorless right now since I am a hobbyist so saving up for the Z8 and using it with the 500PF that I get with the D500 might be my best option since other systems like you said are way more expensive. The D500 combo seems like a huge improvement over what I currently have and I think I would be more than satisfied with it until I upgrade to a Z8 in a few years.

 

[ricardo00]

I am not super anxious to get into mirrorless right now since I am a hobbyist so saving up for the Z8 and using it with the 500PF that I get with the D500 might be my best option since other systems like you said are way more expensive. The D500 combo seems like a huge improvement over what I currently have and I think I would be more than satisfied with it until I upgrade to a Z8 in a few years.

Sounds like a good plan! I, like you suggest, went from the D7200 to the D500.

 

[Morado]

If there is one camera I regret letting go of, that is the D500. If there's a lens I regret parting ways with, it's the 500PF. If there's a combo I lament not keeping, it's the D500 + 500mm PF.

Don't get me wrong, the Z9 is a marvel. But if I am coldly objective, it has not allowed me to take pictures I could not take before with a D500 (or D850). But it has made things a lot easier and with many options to achieve what I want.

The D500 is built like a little tank. Because it was marketed as a wildlife/action camera, where it shines, sometimes it goes unsaid/unknown that it is very versatile camera. Pair it with Sigma's f/1.8 APSC zooms and you'll be have a surprisingly nice portrait camera (especially with the 50-100mm).

The 500 PF has nothing to envy from the new Z telephotos. Certainly not optically, though you'd have more stabilization with the newer lenses on Z bodies. Then again, if you are shooting BIF, for example, you'd be at shutter speeds at which you'd disengage VR.

Given your stated budget, a D500 + 500 PF would be a great option. Together they'll take great photos for 10 years, at least. If you want to go mirrorless in Nikon, the Z50ii has essentially the AF of the Z9. But shutter speed tops out at 1/4000.

 

[liamwallace]

If there is one camera I regret letting go of, that is the D500. If there's a lens I regret parting ways with, it's the 500PF. If there's a combo I lament not keeping, it's the D500 + 500mm PF.

Don't get me wrong, the Z9 is a marvel. But if I am coldly objective, it has not allowed me to take pictures I could not take before with a D500 (or D850). But it has made things a lot easier and with many options to achieve what I want.

The D500 is built like a little tank. Because it was marketed as a wildlife/action camera, where it shines, sometimes it goes unsaid/unknown that it is very versatile camera. Pair it with Sigma's f/1.8 APSC zooms and you'll be have a surprisingly nice portrait camera (especially with the 50-100mm).

The 500 PF has nothing to envy from the new Z telephotos. Certainly not optically, though you'd have more stabilization with the newer lenses on Z bodies. Then again, if you are shooting BIF, for example, you'd be at shutter speeds at which you'd disengage VR.

Given your stated budget, a D500 + 500 PF would be a great option. Together they'll take great photos for 10 years, at least. If you want to go mirrorless in Nikon, the Z50ii has essentially the AF of the Z9. But shutter speed tops out at 1/4000.

I looked into the Z50ii and it seems very similar to the D500 except it has subject tracking, slightly higher fps, and a better processor. Do you think the differences warrant getting a Z50ii over a D500 and would the 500 PF still work very well with the Z50ii or would a different lens be better?

 

[Morado]

I looked into the Z50ii and it seems very similar to the D500 except it has subject tracking, slightly higher fps, and a better processor. Do you think the differences warrant getting a Z50ii over a D500 and would the 500 PF still work very well with the Z50ii or would a different lens be better?

Whether getting a Z50ii over a D500 is warranted depends a lot on personal preferences and intended use. I do not shoot video, so that side of the ML equation is moot to me. More FPS is always nice, but I can count with my fingers (of one hand) the times I have set my Z9 to more than 10FPS.

F-mount glass works really well on the Zs. Some people do not like dealing with the FTZ; I find it great as it gives me more choice in glass, but I do have more than one so that I do not have to move it from lens to lens. If you do not wish to use the adapter, then a Z lens is a better option, but a pricier one.

Then there is form factor. Personally, I like the form factor of the D500 much better. You might feel differently. If you can go to physical store, get a feel for the Z50ii in your hand. A Z8 would give you a good sense of how the D500 would feel in your hands.

Finally, I would suggest you look at this article from Thom Hogan, which I think it's quite relevant to your decision-making, particularly the second-to-last paragraph: https://dslrbodies.com/newsviews-2/the-repair-replace-or-upgra.html

 

[jeffnles1]

I shot the D500 and Nikon 200-500 for several years and was quite happy with it. I wanted to go to mirrorless and do more with video which the D500 isn't the best choice. I bought the Canon R7 and the Canon 100-500mm lens. It is a super system. Like with the d500, it has quirks and all cameras have quirks. I shot the FE2, d5000, D7100, D7200, D500 in the Nikon lineup and each camera had little quirks that were easily overcome with experience and understanding what the camera did well and where it struggled. I do find ISO noise performance between D500 and R7 on par with each other.

The R7 is the same way. Mirrorlss Cameras (not just Canon) struggle with AF when there are vertical sticks in the way. some of the newer ones seem to have resolved some of that but I've shot a Z9 and a R5 Mk II and noticed it with both. My experience with the Z9 and R5II were limited to only an hour or so using a friend's camera so I am no way qualified to make an overall judgment.

After 22 months of shooting the R7, the quirks I see are 1) the above mentioned getting hung up with vertical things like brush and twigs between me and the subject, 2) the infamous rolling shutter. I got around this by setting my C1 as electronic shutter Manual with auto ISO and C2 as Mechanical shutter with same settings as C1. When I'm shooting something that will be moving fast, just a quick flip of a dial and I'm ready to go it really isn't an issue. 3) 30fps is, for my shooting, excessive. I have it set for 15fps.

I don't think you would go wrong with either the D500 or the R7. It really depends on what you want. The menu settings are different and you'll have to learn a new menu system and nomenclature but that is also not a big deal. It took me just a few days to get the hang of what Canon calls stuff vs. what Nikon called it.

Best wishes with which ever direction you travel
Jeff

 

[bleirer]

I am very flexible regarding brand but I am kind of skeptical regarding investing in Canon mirrorless since they have not made many good affordable lens for wildlife for the RF mount (200-800/rf100-400 only ones I can think of and they're kind of slow) whereas Nikon has more like the 180-600 and adaptable 500PF. Let me know if you have any insights into which brand is worth investing into from your experience

What Nikon or Sony bodies do you recommend in combination with lenses? I’ve heard most of the Nikon mirrorless cameras AF systems aren’t that good except for the Z8/9 which I can’t afford right now. Regarding Sony, I’ve seen a lot of praise for their mirrorless cameras but don’t know a lot about them but I do know people really like the 200-600 which I would probably get if I went Sony.

The comment about Canon lenses deserves further research in my opinion. Both the 100-500 and the 200-800 perform above their price category. Especially the 100-500 which as you say is f4.5 at the short end and f7.1 at the long end, but that 7.1 is what contributes to it being only 3 pounds.

 

[StefanSC]

Someone else recommended the Z50ii, do you know anything about it? Sony also seems like a good move but the a6700 looks really small.

Don't know much about the Z50II as it's quite new and I haven't had the chance to use it. Looks good though on paper and wouldn't say no to a Z50II and a 180-600mm.

WRT a6700 being small... it actually isn't that small in real life. It's quite dense and has decent ergonomics (for a Sony APS-C). But as with most mirrorless, when used with a longer/heavier lens it will be slightly unbalanced.

 

[liamwallace]

The comment about Canon lenses deserves further research in my opinion. Both the 100-500 and the 200-800 perform above their price category. Especially the 100-500 which as you say is f4.5 at the short end and f7.1 at the long end, but that 7.1 is what contributes to it being only 3 pounds.

Yeah I’ve heard great stuff about the 100-500 but it’s too pricey for me right now. As for the 200-800, it certainly gives a ton of reach and people say it’s sharp but I’m trying to find a lighter setup than the one I currently have and the 200-800 weighs more than my sigma 150-600.

 

[liamwallace]

Whether getting a Z50ii over a D500 is warranted depends a lot on personal preferences and intended use. I do not shoot video, so that side of the ML equation is moot to me. More FPS is always nice, but I can count with my fingers (of one hand) the times I have set my Z9 to more than 10FPS.

F-mount glass works really well on the Zs. Some people do not like dealing with the FTZ; I find it great as it gives me more choice in glass, but I do have more than one so that I do not have to move it from lens to lens. If you do not wish to use the adapter, then a Z lens is a better option, but a pricier one.

Then there is form factor. Personally, I like the form factor of the D500 much better. You might feel differently. If you can go to physical store, get a feel for the Z50ii in your hand. A Z8 would give you a good sense of how the D500 would feel in your hands.

Finally, I would suggest you look at this article from Thom Hogan, which I think it's quite relevant to your decision-making, particularly the second-to-last paragraph: https://dslrbodies.com/newsviews-2/the-repair-replace-or-upgra.html

D500 seems like a better fit for me. Z50ii looks kind of small like you said and I would prefer a bigger more rugged camera like the D500. Like you I also don’t care about video and I don’t think the improved AF with the Z50ii really warrants it over the D500. Also apparent the battery life is bad and it only has one card slot.

 

[beano]

D500 seems like a better fit for me. Z50ii looks kind of small like you said and I would prefer a bigger more rugged camera like the D500. Like you I also don’t care about video and I don’t think the improved AF with the Z50ii really warrants it over the D500. Also apparent the battery life is bad and it only has one card slot.

Well, from that PoV, the D500 will suit you better. My wife has one and it is a phenomenal stills-camera. I often poach it to take it out for a few shots, and always an enjoyable experience. It is a pro-dx body, dual card slots, rugged body, bigger than your average mirrorless.

I have larger than average hands, if you’re in the same boat, get the d500, or wait until you can buy the Z8, as they are very similar in hand. It’s pointless buying a mirrorless if you won’t ever use the video features, the d500 is an exceptionally capable DSLR for wildlife.

That sensor is fantastic, just watch out for over-exposure, I prefer underexposing up to a stop and dragging it back up in Lightroom. It is definitely more sensitive vs my d850, but unless you’re into landscaping and/or want to crop a lot, the d500 would be my pick for wildlife. Plus, it just goes for ages in a single charge, much better than any of the mirrorless bodies.

I do own the d850, z8/z9 and zf bodies, and the d500 is my wife’s, and if I had to pick my favourite, the d500 would be high on the list, probably just behind my zf. YMMV.

 

[bleirer]

Yeah I’ve heard great stuff about the 100-500 but it’s too pricey for me right now. As for the 200-800, it certainly gives a ton of reach and people say it’s sharp but I’m trying to find a lighter setup than the one I currently have and the 200-800 weighs more than my sigma 150-600.

I get it. In your title you mentioned the EF 100-400 ii. That is a $2400 lens so I assumed the $2600 for the 100-500 was in your ballpark.