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

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
liamwallace said:
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.
Click to expand...
The new Z50ii is surely worth consideration alongside the d500 if you decide to go with the 500pf.
 
Member's gallery
Morado said:
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.
Click to expand...
A couple of thoughts .... I found I could go as low at 320 or 250 handheld with the D500 and 500 pf and the VR was good enough. I have a few shots at 125 but I don't like going that low. Faster is better of course, but in really low light ...

One comment I wanted to make is that with the 500 pf, I keep it in sport mode VR, whether I'm shooting a perched bird at a shutter speed of 320 or a fast moving bird at 3200. Not having to turn VR on/off is a wonderful thing. And I especially noticed this because I have a Tamron 100-400 ... which is a decent lens for the money and quite versatile. But on my copy, I need to turn VR off at high shutter speeds or sharpness suffers.

For birding in general, I find 400 a little short. The extra reach on the 500 is quite noticeable. I wouldn't want a 100-400 as a main birding lens unless it took a TC really really well. I often put the 1.4 TC on the 500 for smaller birds, despite the hit to the AF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top