Sony A6100 (or any new sony APS-C) with Sony 200-600, or Nikon D500 with 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).

T

Tpap

New member
Member's gallery
Which setup would you recommend?

Sony A6100 is the same as the 6400, 6600 (only one with IBIS) in terms of sensor/AF but just isnt weather sealed and has less video capabilities/log shooting etc.

Sony a6100 with sony 200-600 i can buy for $2328 shipped NEW

Nikon D500 with 200-500 can probably be had for similar or right around $2000 depending on if i get a good deal used.

What are your thoughts?
 
Member's gallery
I'm very comfortable in my Nikon bubble :LOL: so my admittedly-biased answer, for my money, would be the D500 + 200-500. It's a killer combo. The D500 is the only DSLR I'd consider buying after my recent move to mirrorless. Same statement applies to the 200-500 F mount lens (that said, I'm waiting on the Z 200-600).

But again, I know very little about Sony gear - that setup might be amazing too.
 
Member's gallery
My 200-500 is fairly soft at 500 (great at 400 though). I haven't compared it to a 200-600 but I keep bugging my Sony buddy to get one so I can test. I have the sense the 200-600 is better in general, but take my opinion with a grain of salt.
That being the said, I'd take a D500 ANY DAY over the Sony aps-c series. I have an a6500 and while it works for what I need (a tiny video camera) the ergo sucks big time.
 
Member's gallery
I am very happy with my D7500 + 200-500 f5.6 Combo (D500 is even better).
The 200-600 has longer reach, but is a f6.3 starting from 323 mm. The 200-500 has a constant f5.6 throughout it's range (this was the deciding factor for me).
Close distance focus (for Macro shots) is slightly better on the 200-500 (2.2 m) versus the Sony (2.4 m).
On the other hand, Sony leads the Mirrorless market now.

You cannot go wrong with either.
 
Member's gallery
I recently upgraded to a D500 and the 200-500 lens and I am very pleased. I bought the camera used and the lens new. That seems to have worked out fine.

Make sure you have a good tripod for that 200-500. You can shoot handheld but the lens gets heavy and detail goes down the drain! After watching Steve's recent video on Handheld, Monopod or Tripod I am going to stick to using the tripod whenever possible!

Maybe everyone knows this but me, but you can rotate the tripod ring around with the foot at that top of the camera and it makes a great handle for carrying the setup! (Learned that from watching a video!)

D500 @ 500mm
Closeup of Male Rose-Breasted Grosbeck w signiture.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Marshall said:
My 200-500 is fairly soft at 500 (great at 400 though). I haven't compared it to a 200-600 but I keep bugging my Sony buddy to get one so I can test. I have the sense the 200-600 is better in general, but take my opinion with a grain of salt.
That being the said, I'd take a D500 ANY DAY over the Sony aps-c series. I have an a6500 and while it works for what I need (a tiny video camera) the ergo sucks big time.
Click to expand...
This is the first time I've heard of a Nikkor 200-500mm being soft at 500mm. Mine certainly isn't. I suggest having yours checked or repaired. It should not be soft.
 
Member's gallery
Rassie said:
This is the first time I've heard of a Nikkor 200-500mm being soft at 500mm. Mine certainly isn't. I suggest having yours checked or repaired. It should not be soft.
Click to expand...

Wondering too if a proper AF calibration @ 500 would solve this for him. But also with the 200-500, I've heard quite a few people say they had to send theirs back a few times for a "good copy". I think one might have even been Steve (sent 2 back and his 3rd was the keeper). Maybe that issue was just earlier in production.
 
Member's gallery
Interesting, yeah, wide open at 500 it has been a bit soft. I assumed I might have had too high of expectations. I still really like the lens and use it often. I've had the lens for about a year and a half.

Maybe also I need to refine my technique. When originally testing it, I put it on a tripod and found that the images were sharper with VR on, which surprised me. I'm used to the idea of needing to turn VR off when on a tripod. This shows that I may have gaps in my knowledge of how to best use this lens, particularly on a tripod. I didn't think I would need to calibrate since I'm on mirrorless now, but I'll give that a shot too next time I'm out. Most of what I noticed above was on my D850. But, now that I think about it, I haven't really tried 500mm on my Z7 that I can think of, and maybe it was a calibration issue that wouldn't be there on my Z7. I'll give that a try too.

Anyway though, I will dig in on my side first (technique) then maybe send it out to Nikon. Thanks for the advice guys.
 
Member's gallery
Try your 200-500mm on the Z7.

Here are a couple of examples of mine: I did not fine-tune autofocus for any of my lenses on the Z6.

Z6 with Nikkor 200-500mm. Shot at 500mm on a tripod with gimbal head, VR on. 1/400 sec, F7.1, ISO 3600.

_NZ60758BCG.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.




Z6 with Nikkor 200-500mm. Shot at 480mm on a tripod with gimbal head, VR on. F5.6, 1/200 sec, ISO 900.

_NZ68015A.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Marshall said:
Interesting, yeah, wide open at 500 it has been a bit soft. I assumed I might have had too high of expectations. I still really like the lens and use it often. I've had the lens for about a year and a half.

Maybe also I need to refine my technique. When originally testing it, I put it on a tripod and found that the images were sharper with VR on, which surprised me. I'm used to the idea of needing to turn VR off when on a tripod. This shows that I may have gaps in my knowledge of how to best use this lens, particularly on a tripod. I didn't think I would need to calibrate since I'm on mirrorless now, but I'll give that a shot too next time I'm out. Most of what I noticed above was on my D850. But, now that I think about it, I haven't really tried 500mm on my Z7 that I can think of, and maybe it was a calibration issue that wouldn't be there on my Z7. I'll give that a try too.

Anyway though, I will dig in on my side first (technique) then maybe send it out to Nikon. Thanks for the advice guys.
Click to expand...
I had a 200-500mm and I too saw the softness at 500mm and I used to shoot it between 400mm and 500mm because of it. Looking around the web, I've also seen lot's of talk about sample variation issues with this lens. PhotographyLife has a lens review and the lab tests show a fall off in acuity at 500mm (https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6e-vr/3). I was never sure if it was sample variation, inherent in the lens design, or just me.
 
Member's gallery
This is quite interesting. I first had a Sigma 150-500mm lens. That one was virtually useless between 400mm and 500mm. Sharp enough up to 400mm, but it was just terrible beyond that. I was planning a safari in South Africa back in 2016 and I didn't want to have to keep remembering not to zoom beyond 400mm, so I traded the Sigma on a used Nikkor 200-500mm. The difference was night and day, and my copy of the Nikkor is quite sharp at 500mm, even wide open as you can see from the examples above. Seems I dodged a bullet here. :)

Looks like Andrew Lamberson also has a great copy, judging by his excellent image of the Rose-breasted Grosbeak above.
 
Member's gallery
I agree with those that suggest the D500 over the A6100 for wildlife photography. I carry the A6300 for things like backpacking, cross country skiing, mountaineering and rock climbing. It's a great small camera with a relatively big sensor for those kinds of activities outfitted with a Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 lens. But the control layout and overall responsiveness of the camera and its electronic viewfinder are less than ideal for wildlife photography.

For wildlife work I find the D500 control layout for simple things like fast ISO or exposure compensation adjustments to be far superior to the controls on my A6300 which is very similar to the A6100. I even struggle with simple things like changing the focus point position on the A6300 where depending on exactly how you press the rocking selector dial you either change the focus point or toggle the camera into other modes which can be really frustrating when you don't have much time to work before the critter or bird moves away.

That Sony line of cameras is really hard to beat for portability and is definitely my go to for backcountry sports or landscapes far from the road but IMO not as intuitive, easy to set up and control and overall as responsive as my D500 for wildlife, especially fast moving wildlife work.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Marshall said:
Interesting, yeah, wide open at 500 it has been a bit soft. I assumed I might have had too high of expectations. I still really like the lens and use it often. I've had the lens for about a year and a half.
...
Click to expand...

My 200-500 is a little softer at f/5.6 than at f/7.1, which is my go to aperture in good light. I have to look very closely to see a difference, though. It is certainly way sharper than the Tamron 150-600 models that I have had, and I consider the 200-500 to be a very sharp lens at any aperture.
 
Member's gallery
I'm a newbie with high-end cameras and big lens and have a lot to learn. But after watching some of the latest videos on the site, I'm only going to shoot on a tripod and turn the VR off ! I also just received a manual shutter control and I'd bet that will make a big difference! I have a 30-year-old Manfrotto HEAVY metal tripod that I used with my spotting scope in Yellowstone. If you think about it, even a micro shake will cause the image to blurr at 500mm (I suppose that's 750mm on my D500). I'd bet a bird squawk would make it shake!

I'm 63 and I probably shake like a leaf in a breeze handheld!
 
Member's gallery
Andrew Lamberson said:
I'm a newbie with high-end cameras and big lens and have a lot to learn. But after watching some of the latest videos on the site, I'm only going to shoot on a tripod and turn the VR off ! I also just received a manual shutter control and I'd bet that will make a big difference! I have a 30-year-old Manfrotto HEAVY metal tripod that I used with my spotting scope in Yellowstone. If you think about it, even a micro shake will cause the image to blurr at 500mm (I suppose that's 750mm on my D500). I'd bet a bird squawk would make it shake!

I'm 63 and I probably shake like a leaf in a breeze handheld!
Click to expand...

Unless you are using a lens like a 600 f/4, you probably don't need to use a tripod all the time. I almost never use a tripod with my 200-500, and actually use a monopod much more often than a tripod. Remember that in certain situations you will get pretty tired of carrying that tripod around, too. That said, it's all a matter of personal comfort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top