Nikon shooter considering Sony for BIF

[Garfield]

Hi All!

Not sure how many Sony shooters there are on Steve's new forum but thought I'd try for some input.

My main photographic interest is birds and I currently shoot Nikon equipment. I own a D850 and Z7, and 200-500VR, 500PF and 600E in long lenses. I love my Z7 for stills and video but tend to rely on the D850+500PF for BIF. I expect folks here are likely doing something similar. Since buying the Z7 almost 2 years ago (time flies!) I've been (im)patiently waiting for Nikon to release or even announce a high performance mirrorless body. It looks like the Z7s is all that's coming anytime soon, and while it's sure to be a big improvement over the Z7 in terms of C-AF and tracking performance -- and it may even be able to catch the A7RIV and get close to the R5 -- it's not likely going to compete with the A9II without completely new sensor technology which is very unlikely at this stage.

So, with raptor migration starting in a couple of weeks I'm considering splurging on a Sony A9II+200-600 with both TC's. Of course any expenditure of this nature is a personal decision, but the performance bar I've established is that the A9II+200-600 needs to bring in at least 30% more keepers than my D850+500PF is capable of doing, or it won't be worth it. I do wish the A9II had more pixels than it does, but figure the class-leading tracking and 20FPS of blackout free shooting should help make up for it when capturing speedy sharpies and kestrels that blow past my owl decoy.

So what do you think? Will the Sony rig capture that much more than the D850?

BTW, I'm not interested in a D5/D6 -- not enough pixels and none of that "mirrorless goodness". ;-)

Gary

 

[Woodyg3]

I have no direct experience, but two of my friends, both pro wildlife photographers, swear by their A9s with the 200-600. They say they have never seen a camera that can autofocus so quickly and accurately. It seems like an ideal setup for BIF.

 

[Garfield]

I have no direct experience, but two of my friends, both pro wildlife photographers, swear by their A9s with the 200-600. They say they have never seen a camera that can autofocus so quickly and accurately. It seems like an ideal setup for BIF.

Thanks Woody. I'm not surprised to hear that, but before I drop a load of cash to buy better performance, it would be nice to be able to quantify "better performance".

 

[ssheipel]

Faced the same questions, myself. In the end I did jump to S mount and mirrorless with the Z6 (and a few of the fast lenses) but definitely not a wildlife or action activity beast to my liking anyway, AND I gave up on waiting for a 'pro' Z and so I've got the D6 (and love it). I'm not a megapixel fixated guy (happy in fact with the 12 in my D3, haha) tho for portrait work I still await the rumoured 60meg Z from Nikon which will allow me to avoid forever a jump to medium format for the reasons I've so considered (resolution). I personally don't like to use resolution to extend the focal length with cropping (and certainly with the D3 that wasn't a real option at all anyway given those now seemingly meagre 12 mgp!). That blather aside, for me, out of the camera you can't beat Nikon colour and I remain of the school that nobody builds glass like Nikon. But I hear yah, having an EVF on a pro body, or a gimballed sensor.... Good luck and have fun with your choice decisions!

 

[Garfield]

^^^ Fully agree about colour, though Sony does has good lenses as well. I realize some folks can work effectively with fewer pixels, but as a birder I'm very often focal length limited and forced to do heavy crops. I'm also fussy about fine feather detail and am always pixel peeping on a 5k monitor -- not a great fit for "low megapixel" cameras! But I'm willing to give the A9II the benefit of the doubt mainly for the top notch tracking, blackout free 20FPS and silent shutter -- huge pluses for birding/BIF.

 

[jcgamble]

I'm old school, but you couldn't beat putting a Nikon D500 on your 500 f5.6 pf. 10 frames per second with an almost unlimited buffer, and state of the art tracking. I would put it up against anything except D5 and D6.

 

[ssheipel]

^^^ Fully agree about colour, though Sony does has good lenses as well. I realize some folks can work effectively with fewer pixels, but as a birder I'm very often focal length limited and forced to do heavy crops. I'm also fussy about fine feather detail and am always pixel peeping on a 5k monitor -- not a great fit for "low megapixel" cameras! But I'm willing to give the A9II the benefit of the doubt mainly for the top notch tracking, blackout free 20FPS and silent shutter -- huge pluses for birding/BIF.

AND it don't matter what's in your hands and pressed against your face if you know what you're doing and put yourself in environments to get good shots!! Enjoy the brand change

 

[Garfield]

I'm old school, but you couldn't beat putting a Nikon D500 on your 500 f5.6 pf. 10 frames per second with an almost unlimited buffer, and state of the art tracking. I would put it up against anything except D5 and D6.

Hey, nothing wrong with the excellent D500 -- it's sure to go down in history as the best APS-C DSLR every made. Unfortunately, it's likely the last of its kind. I'd still own one except I prefer the a gripped D850's wider FX "canvas" to work with -- lets me choose a wide-angle environmental shot or tight "portrait" shot from the same capture. There's no practical difference in AF performance either. Best of all worlds!

 

[DavidT]

I haven’t shot the a9 II and I myself have the same gear as you minus the 600E and been doing the same research.
Here are my thoughts....if I was going to spend that much I would buy a D6 for birds in flight to our up with your current lenses. I’d say you will see the performance improvement you’re looking for and I suspect you will have better results simply because of the 600E. The 200-600 won’t even come close to giving the results the 600E delivers.
Steve has written about this exact scenario when reviewing the D6. He has both the Sony and Nikon 600mm and an a9 II. In his opinion they are matched with tracking BIF. In some situations the D6 won and others the a9 but they are so close its a tie.
With his findings I would switch unless you want entire viewfinder of focus points. Other than that I think you would be better off with a D6.
With all that said if I was looking for animal eye af I’d be looking at the Canon R5.

 

[Garfield]

I haven’t shot the a9 II and I myself have the same gear as you minus the 600E and been doing the same research.
Here are my thoughts....if I was going to spend that much I would buy a D6 for birds in flight to our up with your current lenses. I’d say you will see the performance improvement you’re looking for and I suspect you will have better results simply because of the 600E. The 200-600 won’t even come close to giving the results the 600E delivers.
Steve has written about this exact scenario when reviewing the D6. He has both the Sony and Nikon 600mm and an a9 II. In his opinion they are matched with tracking BIF. In some situations the D6 won and others the a9 but they are so close its a tie.
With his findings I would switch unless you want entire viewfinder of focus points. Other than that I think you would be better off with a D6.
With all that said if I was looking for animal eye af I’d be looking at the Canon R5.

Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts, and I have read Steve's comparison of the D6 vs A9II. Unfortunately I simply have no interest in buying the D6 nor any other DSLR going forward -- I just don't see it as money well spent; although tracking may be similar to the D6, depending on the situation, the A9II has more MP, higher FPS, completely free blackout and is totally silent (not an issue for BIF but very useful in other shooting situations). Also, and although money isn't a deciding factor, I think it's fair to point out that the Sony is less expensive -- I can buy the A9II, 200-600 and both TC's for about the same cost as the D6 body alone. A good copy of the 200-600 isn't that far behind the 600E in terms of IQ from the image samples I've studied, and by all reports Sony's TC's are superior to Nikons's f-mount versions which makes them much more useful (especially the 2xTC). BTW, the problem with the 600E is that it's too big and heavy to follow the speedy accipiters -- tripod or no tripod. (Believe me, I've tried over the years.) I've had the best success shooting with the D850+500PF in this scenario, but I think I can manage a couple of extra pounds with the Sony 200-600.

Bottom line is that if I really want to up my game right now, the only option is to look beyond what Nikon can currently offer, unfortunately.

 

[Yezdi]

As others have suggested I would just get a D500 instead for wasting $$$ on the Sony system. The D500 with your 600E will not only give you added reach but will be a great combination for your BIF pictures too. This entire forum is filled with BIF pictures and there is even an exclusive thread for the same, and if you notice more than 70% of us are mainly using the D500 for BIF. The D850 along with the MB-D18 drive will also boost up your speed to 9.5 fps for BIF pictures to get the extra megapixels you are interested in. I personally use that combo too many a times for BIF shots. In today's bad economy worldwide my sincere advise would be to save your $$$.

 

[Tpap]

I have used both combos you have mentioned and i can say for sure that the a9 with 200-600 is basically cheating. As long as the bird is in the frame for a millisecond, any shot you take will be in focus 99% of the time. I took a series of 200 shots of a red-tailed hawk diving out of the sky and literally counted which photos were critically shot on the face of the bird and 200/200 were critically sharp. However, you do not get the cropability that you do with the d850 or RIV. Also, the 200-600 wide open at 600 is f/6.3, which is going to trend your ISO up into the thousands. But, the a9 files even up to 12,800 are fairly clean straight off the card (as long as you DO NOT CROP in at all). Nothing denoise ai cant fix however.

I will say after using both, you will get GREAT SHARP images with either system, but the A9 200-600 is going to be lighter feeling, easier to use (to get from 200-600 it's a 1/4 turn of the lens), and it is literally cheating to get in-focus shots compared to the d850. The d850 is great, but i found the group AF would always tend to front or back focus on BIF and i am not a pro by any means so 3 photos out of 20 in focus is fine, but with the A9 you will literally get 20/20 to pick from.

Also, with the A9, 20FPS will send you home with WAY too many in focus shots to chose from, which is very overwhelming to be honest. You're left deleting a bunch of good photos and it can be frustrating believe it or not. It also at points feels like it takes away from the "fun" of photography in the field in getting that 1 GREAT shot.

To put it bluntly, the A9 is head and shoulders above all of the competition flat-out. It is like comparing a Kodak disposable cameras AF to an iphone. Once you learn the AF (in about a 1-2 sessions), you will come home with 90%+ of your BIF and all other shots in critically sharp focus. The only downside, and really consider this, is that it will take the "fun" away from photography to a point because it actually turns you into a point and shoot photographer. There is something to be said about taking an old DSLR out and getting those 3 in focus perfect photos where you had to work to get them.

All-in-all, wish you the best of luck with your decision. I can say without a doubt, you will not be disappointed with the sony A9 200-600 combo with the tele. The A9 can AF down to F/16 also, so the teles will not affect the af performance. The colors are definitely more flat, but nothing that post-production cannot fix.

 

[Steve]

A lot of good responses so far. I'd only add that the a9ii is a fantastic camera and the 200-600 is a great zoom. One thing I do want to point out though - we've tried the 200-600 with a 1.4TC and have not been overly impressed with the combo. Not only does it drop you to F/9, you can also see a difference in sharpness as well.

As far as compared to the D850, the a9ii is simply in another league. The D850 is a wonderful DSLR, but from strictly an action standpoint it can't compete with the top-level pro cameras for speed.

 

[AndyL3]

I have both combos and after a month of shooting both I can tell you T-PAP is right on. The A92 and 200-600 are awesome. The 500 PF on my D500 is lighter to carry and a super lens. So I now use my 600 f4 VR with either my D500 or Z6 on the tripod and the Sony rig for passing birds in flight. When hiking longer distance it is the D500 and 500 pf.
The dream set up would be the 500pf on the A92. The more I use the Sony the more I like it. If they had more options with faster glass 100-400 or 200-400 f4 and in time some more affordable 2.8 glass I would switch. I am a sports shooter primarily and need faster glass at night, a caution, if you shoot the Sony be prepared to fall in love with it!!!

 

[Garfield]

Thanks very much Tpap, Andy, and Steve for the really excellent comments from the front lines. Plenty to consider for sure. At this point my thinking seems to be in line with Andy's -- supplementing Nikon equipment with the A9II just for BIF until Nikon can bring out a competing camera. Who knows, maybe the Z7s will be "good enough" for that purpose, but I kind of doubt it will be.

 

[JKoerner007]

Faced the same questions, myself. In the end I did jump to S mount and mirrorless with the Z6 (and a few of the fast lenses) but definitely not a wildlife or action activity beast to my liking anyway, AND I gave up on waiting for a 'pro' Z and so I've got the D6 (and love it). I'm not a megapixel fixated guy (happy in fact with the 12 in my D3, haha) tho for portrait work I still await the rumoured 60meg Z from Nikon which will allow me to avoid forever a jump to medium format for the reasons I've so considered (resolution). I personally don't like to use resolution to extend the focal length with cropping (and certainly with the D3 that wasn't a real option at all anyway given those now seemingly meagre 12 mgp!). That blather aside, for me, out of the camera you can't beat Nikon colour and I remain of the school that nobody builds glass like Nikon. But I hear yah, having an EVF on a pro body, or a gimballed sensor.... Good luck and have fun with your choice decisions!

I agree.

I've shot side-by-side w/ Sony shooters and just don't like the Sony colors.

Sony also doesn't make an 800mm, which produces better image quality than "a zoom + TC" or even "a 600 prime + TC."

I know people who have owned, and shot, the Sony 400 next to the Nikkor 400, and the micro-contrast/detail of the 400 FL ED is superior. (It is also sharper wide-open.)

AF tech is just a small piece of the overall package ... and I think Nikon's forthcoming mirrorless tech will catch-up with Sony ... a lot faster than Sony's lens quality tech will catch up with Nikon.

 

[ssheipel]

I agree.

I've shot side-by-side w/ Sony shooters and just don't like the Sony colors.

Sony also doesn't make an 800mm, which produces better image quality than "a zoom + TC" or even "a 600 prime + TC."

I know people who have owned, and shot, the Sony 400 next to the Nikkor 400, and the micro-contrast/detail of the 400 FL ED is superior. (It is also sharper wide-open.)

AF tech is just a small piece of the overall package ... and I think Nikon's forthcoming mirrorless tech will catch-up with Sony ... a lot faster than Sony's lens quality tech will catch up with Nikon.

I expect [which is a tad stronger than hope. HA] Nikon's next big move will blow things out of the water. The company has always gone about its own way certainly re timing (as damaging, losing so many pro shooters, as that was in the 'slow' jump to pro digital) and I think they're demonstrating that behaviour now, as well. I also see the odd 'refusal' of Nikon to up their current Z cams game to match Sony is because in the works now is their own better technologies and glass. AND it IS Nikon after all and based on my personal expectation and the predictions (for what they're worth) of a few industry 'thinkers,' I think Nikon is going to revolutionize the industry again (whether they win the benefits of it or not is another question: eg consumers don't switch or stay because of the Nikon 'new' and the competition simply 'catches up'/copies technologically). On the video side (for which I care not a drop but understand where the world has gone) I think the predictions of a couple of analysts that Nikon is going to surprise at some point not with the video technology itself per se but with lenses of Cine quality (eg the Noct lens which most photographers dismissed, certainly b/c of the cost, while serious filmmakers see the lens as indication Nikon is turning their glass very much toward professional filmmaking.
Long winded, all to say I agree I think Nikon's mirrorless next step won't just catch up with Sony I think it's going to set a new benchmark. In any event, I'm ass deep financially into Nikon glass, now both F mount and S mount, and don't shoot based on what's coming but what's in my bag and available and producing well today, so switching doesn't occur to me for reasons of getting the next best thing. Probably why I was so happy with the D3 well, well beyond its 'what's new' lifespan and why I'm not concerned that my recent D6 purchase will be 'ruined' by something meant to 'replace' it in 6 months or a year. Unusual I guess coming from a Marketing Communications professional LOL

 

[JKoerner007]

I expect [which is a tad stronger than hope. HA] Nikon's next big move will blow things out of the water. The company has always gone about its own way certainly re timing (as damaging, losing so many pro shooters, as that was in the 'slow' jump to pro digital) and I think they're demonstrating that behaviour now, as well. I also see the odd 'refusal' of Nikon to up their current Z cams game to match Sony is because in the works now is their own better technologies and glass. AND it IS Nikon after all and based on my personal expectation and the predictions (for what they're worth) of a few industry 'thinkers,' I think Nikon is going to revolutionize the industry again (whether they win the benefits of it or not is another question: eg consumers don't switch or stay because of the Nikon 'new' and the competition simply 'catches up'/copies technologically). On the video side (for which I care not a drop but understand where the world has gone) I think the predictions of a couple of analysts that Nikon is going to surprise at some point not with the video technology itself per se but with lenses of Cine quality (eg the Noct lens which most photographers dismissed, certainly b/c of the cost, while serious filmmakers see the lens as indication Nikon is turning their glass very much toward professional filmmaking.
Long winded, all to say I agree I think Nikon's mirrorless next step won't just catch up with Sony I think it's going to set a new benchmark. In any event, I'm ass deep financially into Nikon glass, now both F mount and S mount, and don't shoot based on what's coming but what's in my bag and available and producing well today, so switching doesn't occur to me for reasons of getting the next best thing. Probably why I was so happy with the D3 well, well beyond its 'what's new' lifespan and why I'm not concerned that my recent D6 purchase will be 'ruined' by something meant to 'replace' it in 6 months or a year. Unusual I guess coming from a Marketing Communications professional LOL

Agreed.

Forgetting points where Nikon is already superior to Sony (lens selection-yes, including the seamless availability of F-Mount Glass), ergonomics, and build quality ... their color science and ISO performance is already superior also.

Stepping up video capability and AF capability is really a minor. (The Z6 is already a better video camera.)

Nikon has led the AF department for years, only eclipsed by the recent mirrorless development. They still lead an image quality, at base ISO, as well as high ISO. (I love Canon colors also, to be honest. I also think the new Canon 400 III and 600 III are absolutely sublime, producing jaw-dropping images. I don't feel this way about "anything Sony.")

That said, I have a small fortune already invested in Nikon glass. The only glass for which I envy Sony, are the Voigtländer 65 and 110mm APO Macros, yet even these can be mounted to the Z cameras

The Z-Mount has put Nikon in the position Sony once was ... any lens can fit on Z cameras, but "S" lenses can only fit on Z cameras.

I have just purchased a couple of Leica "R" lenses (Leica Macro-APO-Elmarit-R 100 f/2.8 & Leica APO-Summicron-R 180mm f/2), which only require adapters, rather than restructuring the mounts, so there are even more options available to the Z system.

I suspect, ultimately, the only 2 Nikkor F-mount lenses I will retain on the 400 FL ED and 800 FL ED; everything else will eventually become Z-mount glass (or exotics). There are also several high-end, premium exotics that are only made in F-mount glass, which therefore merge seamlessly to the Z-mount, thanks to the FTZ adapter.

Sony may have dipped their toe (and stuck their foot) into the mirrorless first, but there mount system will prove to be as limiting to them as the F mount was to Nikon.

By making their Z mount as thoughtfully as they have, with all of the laws of physics and future manufacturer in their favor, Nikon has essentially turned the tables, and in due time will enjoy a decided advantage over all the others.

People who want to run around and switch now are making a strategic mistake, when viewed long-term.

 

[Celticursa]

Fotodiox makes an adapter to mount Nikon AF-S lenses to Sony E mount cameras. I have no experience with it and I might be missing something obvious but might this adapter be a useful way to match up the Sony AF performance with long, fast Nikon glass for BIF?

 

[Garfield]

Fotodiox makes an adapter to mount Nikon AF-S lenses to Sony E mount cameras. I have no experience with it and I might be missing something obvious but might this adapter be a useful way to match up the Sony AF performance with long, fast Nikon glass for BIF?

I have no experience with these adapters. But from everything I've read some work better than others and although they may allow you to adapt lenses from other manufactures, none perform optimally compared to native lenses - especially when cutting edge performance is required. These days more than ever it seems, manufacturers are designing cameras and lenses to work closely together as a system. Just look at how the third party lens/adapter manufacturers have to scramble to provide firmware updates every time a new camera is released just to get them to AF properly, let alone optimally. It suggests the technology isn't compatible. That might not be a big problem for landscapes, but it's critical for demanding AF situations such as BIF.

 

[Woodyg3]

Thanks Woody. I'm not surprised to hear that, but before I drop a load of cash to buy better performance, it would be nice to be able to quantify "better performance".

I can certainly understand that. I don't have the funds to change systems, especially to go to the rather expensive Sony system, so I'll "muddle along" with the D500, which is still by far the best camera I've ever owned.

Have you looked at the videos of Mark Smith on You Tube? He uses both Nikon and Sony cameras and has a lot to say about all the models. His advice is quite practical, and his videos are very entertainling with the amazing wildlife shots he gets.

 

[Garfield]

Have you looked at the videos of Mark Smith on You Tube? He uses both Nikon and Sony cameras and has a lot to say about all the models. His advice is quite practical, and his videos are very entertainling with the amazing wildlife shots he gets.

Yes I have watch Mark Smith's videos. I really enjoy his enthusiasm and detailed knowledge about wildlife habits, but I'm not as convinced about his technical prowess in discerning the functional differences between systems. I hope that doesn't sound too harsh because it's not meant to be -- he is one of the better "youtubers" out there.

Truthfully, I'm still very much "on the fence" as to any decision about whether to try the Sony rig. By all accounts the Sony A9II will capture more "in focus" BIF images than any Nikon will, but the Nikon rigs that I shoot (D850/Z7) will yield better image quality for the ones that are in focus. And my D850+500PF is no slouch either....

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Hmmmm...

 

[DavidT]

Yes I have watch Mark Smith's videos. I really enjoy his enthusiasm and detailed knowledge about wildlife habits, but I'm not as convinced about his technical prowess in discerning the functional differences between systems. I hope that doesn't sound too harsh because it's not meant to be -- he is one of the better "youtubers" out there.

Truthfully, I'm still very much "on the fence" as to any decision about whether to try the Sony rig. By all accounts the Sony A9II will capture more "in focus" BIF images than any Nikon will, but the Nikon rigs that I shoot (D850/Z7) will yield better image quality for the ones that are in focus. And my D850+500PF is no slouch either....

View attachment 2262


Hmmmm...

I think Mark knows what he’s talking about. He also bought gear to try it and as he became impressed with the Sony gear he invested in the Sony 600 f4. Steve has also bought some Sony gear and I suspect videos and books on it will be coming.
I really appreciate those who have spent the money and time to try something especially when it’s subject matter such as wildlife which is what I’m interested in. So many reviewers test gear at a camera company event or get a copy for a week and really haven’t invested the time in the gear to have a solid opinion.
Mark shot his Sony gear for a while before he even mentioned it. Steve is doing the same. It’s why his opinion matters the most.

 

[armchicago]

Hi All!

Not sure how many Sony shooters there are on Steve's new forum but thought I'd try for some input.

My main photographic interest is birds and I currently shoot Nikon equipment. I own a D850 and Z7, and 200-500VR, 500PF and 600E in long lenses. I love my Z7 for stills and video but tend to rely on the D850+500PF for BIF. I expect folks here are likely doing something similar. Since buying the Z7 almost 2 years ago (time flies!) I've been (im)patiently waiting for Nikon to release or even announce a high performance mirrorless body. It looks like the Z7s is all that's coming anytime soon, and while it's sure to be a big improvement over the Z7 in terms of C-AF and tracking performance -- and it may even be able to catch the A7RIV and get close to the R5 -- it's not likely going to compete with the A9II without completely new sensor technology which is very unlikely at this stage.

So, with raptor migration starting in a couple of weeks I'm considering splurging on a Sony A9II+200-600 with both TC's. Of course any expenditure of this nature is a personal decision, but the performance bar I've established is that the A9II+200-600 needs to bring in at least 30% more keepers than my D850+500PF is capable of doing, or it won't be worth it. I do wish the A9II had more pixels than it does, but figure the class-leading tracking and 20FPS of blackout free shooting should help make up for it when capturing speedy sharpies and kestrels that blow past my owl decoy.

So what do you think? Will the Sony rig capture that much more than the D850?

BTW, I'm not interested in a D5/D6 -- not enough pixels and none of that "mirrorless goodness". ;-)

Gary

I have the same kit as you (z6 instead of z7) and I’ve thought the same thing. In my research and asking around however, I’ve concluded a couple things... No auto focus system is going to make my reflexes better, LOL, and the 200-600 doesn’t seem to do the a9II justice for birds in flight. So now do I consider $12k for the f4, when I already have one of the best 600 f4 lenses made? And the PF is lightening fast too. Anyway, the answer I came to is... I‘m going to be patient and see what Nikon continues to put out.

If you have the means however or do it for a living, I say... why not?

 

[Garfield]

I have the same kit as you (z6 instead of z7) and I’ve thought the same thing. In my research and asking around however, I’ve concluded a couple things... No auto focus system is going to make my reflexes better, LOL, and the 200-600 doesn’t seem to do the a9II justice for birds in flight. So now do I consider $12k for the f4, when I already have one of the best 600 f4 lenses made? And the PF is lightening fast too. Anyway, the answer I came to is... I‘m going to be patient and see what Nikon continues to put out.

If you have the means however or do it for a living, I say... why not?

Interesting comments, thanks. Indeed, the "serious" birders that I've corresponded with have all said the A9II really "needs" the 600/4 GM to do it justice. While I can afford the A9II and 600GM, from a practical perspective I would only buy it if I was completely switching systems, and I'm simply not prepared to do that, yet. So I'm starting to think I'll most likely wait to see what Nikon announces in the coming months. I'm trying to be patient, but my patience has limits. I'll also use the opportunity to see how the R5 fits into the equation; early reports from birders are very interesting.