Thoughts on this recent post - Nikon 600 w/TC

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
I'm seeing a lot of brand defense in this thread. Can we tone that down a bit?

Tin Man's argument for the 400 f/2.8 over the 600 is a little weak IMHO. If I'm close enough to use a 400mm lens the negligible DOF at f/2.8 isn't much use to me and I'd rather use a smaller, lighter-weight 400mm lens than an f/2.8.

OTOH the weight and wait points resonate for myself. I didn't consider any 600mm f/4 until there was a relatively lightweight model available for mirrorless, and I've been happily using one and making a huge number of photos with it for the last three years. If I had been waiting for a lighter option from any other maker I'd still be waiting and I'd have missed out on numerous photo opportunities. The z 600 TC is a great option for those who've chosen to wait and who don't mind the z9's weight. I'm not one of them.

Note that I've bolded a few words. This means the opinions I've expressed are my opinions and that I don't expect my opinions to be universal.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Since I have no interest in the lens, I wasn't going to watch this, but with the comments in this thread I just had to for entertainment reasons. He was so all over the place in his comments I really never understood what his final conclusions were other than he won't be getting the new 600. Cool, everyone moves up one spot on the wait list. :)
 
Member's gallery
Woodyg3 said:
Since I have no interest in the lens, I wasn't going to watch this, but with the comments in this thread I just had to for entertainment reasons. He was so all over the place in his comments I really never understood what his final conclusions were other than he won't be getting the new 600. Cool, everyone moves up one spot on the wait list. :)
Click to expand...
I think his reasoning can be summed up, "I won't get it, since it is not a Sony"
 
Member's gallery
Doug Herr said:
Did you notice the part where he says he has the Nikon 600 FL and also has been waiting 6 months for the z 400 TC he ordered?
Click to expand...
Correct but he's a Sony shooter now and maybe keeping his hands in Nikon gear. We used to compare notes now and then when he shot Nikon but it stopped when he switched. That's ok and if that gear works better for him it's all good, people are allowed to like different things.

If he goes to places where a 400/2.8 works better for his livelihood that's awesome! He used to be a flight attendant if I remember and I'm happy for him that he's doing this now as a professional because he's a good photographer and young enough to give it a try!

Anyway I get his reasoning for a 400/2.8 because where I live and go most days it's a great option for me which is why I grabbed one.

it's all good, as mentioned I think he's a great photographer but a little biased now and that's ok too! Really who cares about someone else's choices as long as you're happy with your choices don't let anyone change them just to be a follower. These kinds of videos are in my opinion kinda silly and click bait but again who really cares.

Not directed at anyone, sorry 🥰
 
Member's gallery
He did mention his recent preference of shooting in more low light situation to get the more dramatic good looking image which he does show the images (to his credit). This could be the reason why he is putting out the 400 f2.8 into the picture and why he is more justifying the short distance with find the right spot instead of just using 600mm. Yes the weight reasons was all over place and the title sure is click baity. Well if you can carry both 400 and 600 to a hike what's 1.5 pound of difference in camera body. I took it light heartedly, we shouldn't convert this into a camp issue cause it isn't. The world is big enough for a few reasons,

Also I want to quote George's words too - "Not directed at anyone, sorry 🥰"
 
Member's gallery
What we don't see or highlight is how wonderful that ppl are now able to shoot along shoulder to shoulder with camera from different brands and sometimes brags a little or share the unique experiences with each other over coffee. If all are using the same brand, it will sure be hard to find an excuse for lame pictures taken compare to others using the same thing. :ROFLMAO:
 
Member's gallery
Patrick M said:
I watched the video. It didn't appear so much brand bashing as having a moan about wait time. I also felt he was looking to justify his reasoning with those 3 W's. "Wait" time ffs. Weight too, For about 1/2 lb weight difference it would affect how FAST he can move into position for a shot. That's ridiculous, The weight could be in his back pack or even his clothing! Drink some water to lighten the weight of the water bottle. So we have a disgruntled YouTuber who hasn't even used the lens. Click bait maybe? I doubt.
So I don't see it as brand bashing, but just somebody posting something. Needless he won't be on my watch list !
Click to expand...
Thanks Patrick, I watched the video and I completely agree with your comments
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
In watching the video, he's all over the place. It's really just clickbait to create controversy and try to get more views. The bottom line is that he's all over the place and the points makes, well accurate, are still pretty weak. Whining is not a good look.

In addition, he's also comparing apples to oranges with a 600 vs a 400. He should compare the Nikon 400 to the Sony 400. Don't pretend it's the weight and wait when really you like the 400 2.8 better than the 600 F/4. That's fine and to each their own. Although I would add that the final output from an image taken at 400mm F/2.8 at ISO 1600 and cropped to a 600mm FOV will look the same from a noise standpoint as an image with the 600 F/4 taken at ISO 3200 and not cropped. The only way the 400 2.8 gives you an edge in low light is to fill the frame the same way you would have with the 600. If you can't close that gap, you're not getting an edge.
Click to expand...
Love your comments . Add to that when he mentioned about getting close to animals, I found it really weak argument, if it is like we can do what we want while we are in Safari and there is no rule or ethic with photographing wildlife.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
John Navitsky said:
random thoughts:

1) is a 600 f/4 the right lens for you (totally outside of the specific lenses under discussion)

2) does adding an integrated TC change #1

3) assuming #1 and #2 are true, do they provide enough advantage to make *replacing* existing len(es) make sense?

4) do they provide enough advantage to replacing existing ecosystems?

i'll suggest when you get down to #4, there's very, very, very, very few people left.
Click to expand...
5) The cost of #2 (if I did my math right) is about $3000+. Or are the optics of the new 600mm that much better.
 
Member's gallery
Over half a century ago, the 400mm and 600mm telephotos became firmly established as the 2 primary focal lengths in telephotos, with the 500mm, 300mm and 200mm. Sports photography was undoubtedly the main market, then as it is perhaps still today. The major global events catalysed the launches of a new model eg 300 f2.8 back then; as this year Nikon timed the launch of its latest 600 f4 TC for the World Cup.

Nevertheless, wildlife photography has expanded hugely over the past 2 decades. There must be dozens of threads debating 'Which Focal Length (s) ?" And even more shared coffee on these questions 😃

The General Saw is 400 for large mammals (eg in Africa, Pacific NW), 600 for Birds. Equally f2.8 gives one invaluable faster stop of light in the gloaming. DoF and rendering work equally well wide open in both niches.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
There are always exceptions obviously. Tighter portraits of large mammals need a 600 and often a 800. Newer sensors extend the ISO ceiling high above the doctrine of even the D3 era; for a few years past, TC14 teleconverters have permitted using a 400 f2.8 as a 560 f5.6; analogously a 600 f4 extended a 840 f5.6, or 500 f4 to 700 f5.6; latterly highend MILCs allow a wider 'TC Window' to use at even slower lens speeds than f8 eg the 500 f5.6 PF as a 700 f8, or 850 f9.5, or 1000 f11.

And there's also the choice of high quality telephoto zooms, which launched with the 70-200 f2.8, and 80-400/100-400, especially the 200-400 f4. Nikon's exotic telezooms have complicated choices somewhat, as these two Models raised the quality to prime-like, or rather they have extended prime-like quality beyond the reach of the 70-200 f2.8EFL. [EDIT: what Brad Hill terms Aperture Independent Sharpness]
And availability of an internal TC in a Telephoto injects yet another dimension into the debates!
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I think 2022 will come to be recognized as the year when the 800mm Focal Length became ”democratized". In the sense that it's become suddenly affordable to many of us, who previously had never hoped to actually own a prime of this specification; so most of us had instead settled quite comfortably twinning a Teleconverter on our trusty Four Hundred or Six Hundred.

So it's now more the question(s) as to 400 or 800 primes, 600 or 800, or even add a 800 prime with the pair of 400 & 600? :oops:

I've found the questions easier to get past, by having the extraordinary luxury to build up both a primary system, aka Destination Kit and a Commando Kit: distinctly different situations for logistics as much as tactics for wildlife. Thus 500 PF or 400 f4.5S (or 100-400 S) with a pair of Teleconverters.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
fcotterill said:
as this year Nikon timed the launch of its latest 600 f4 TC for the World Cup.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with your thoughts, other than to say 600mm is really too long & limiting for football (your "soccer") and the timing wasn't really intended for Qatar 2022, there was however an almost complete halt to shipping from April thru Sept as diversion of stock went to pros shooting the Z400TC for Qatar, I became a victim of that long hiatus, my order has since been fulfilled. No solid proof of course..........just a suspicion.
 
Member's gallery
I didn't bother watching, it has been in my YouTube suggestions since he launched it but frankly I figured it was click bait. Bottom line is I have both the 400 and 600 and I shoot the 600 a lot more. I believe in picking the right tool for the job. I don't use a screw driver to pound a nail. For me if you don't have the choice and can only choose one than you need to decide where you will use the lens the most, what are the subjects and do you have any size/weight constraints to consider. Once you figure that out buy the one that best fits what you need. For many that might even be a zoom and not a prime. If I could only keep one lens the 400f2.8 or the 600F4 I would keep the 600. In fact I have been considering selling the 400F2.8 and buying a second 600F4. It is a personal decision that should be made with caution as it is a large amount of money but it isn't one size fits all.
 
Member's gallery
Two problems with the reasoning in the video. First is that one does not pick the lens and then go out and spend $14,000 on two A1 bodies to use with it. The "system" is what matters and for example if one is also doing macro then the Sony would be the last camera system I would choose as the speedlight options are markedly inferior to what Canon and Nikon provide.

Second problem is with 400mm f/2.8 versus 600mm f/4 focal lengths the former would be my choice for places in Costa Rica or Equador and the latter would be my choice for Yellowstone or the pampas of Argentina. In Yellowstone, even if one ignores the park regulations, it is foolish to be wthin 30 yards of a sow with her cubs. Neither lens would be good for shooting from a boat.

It was different before so many lighter weight lens became available like the 500mm PF at 3 lbs and the very lightweight 800mm PF, 400mm f/4.5, and 100-400mm lenses. With film I was limited to ISO 160 and lens speed was very important. Now I can shoot at ISO 6400 or 40 times higher and so the critical need for super fast glass is greatly reduced. The 500mm PF lens at f/5.6 provides excellent background bokeh so this is not a problem with subjects.
 
Member's gallery
marc said:
Totally agree with your thoughts, other than to say 600mm is really too long & limiting for football (your "soccer") and the timing wasn't really intended for Qatar 2022, there was however an almost complete halt to shipping from April thru Sept as diversion of stock went to pros shooting the Z400TC for Qatar, I became a victim of that long hiatus, my order has since been fulfilled. No solid proof of course..........just a suspicion.
Click to expand...

The new 600 is ideal for Qatar. I shoot both types of football and my favorite kit was always hand holding a 200-400 f4 on one body and using a 600 f4 on a monopod on the other. I now have a 180-400 f4 TC and the Z 600 TC S would be the perfect complement for my style of shooting. I rarely ever took my 400 f2.8 with me unless I was shooting in a stadium with poor light at night which was the exception. Pro and College stadiums have plenty of light. The Z 400 S is now more flexible with the TC but I have even more flexibility with the 180-400 TC paired with the Z 600 TC S and the 600 is a half pound lighter than the 180-400 without the FTZ.
 
Member's gallery
FB101 said:
I shoot sony and I couldn’t make it through all the BS in this video.
‘Truth is, if Sony had such a lens, many of us would be all over it.
‘But Sony doesn’t, so the question is whether a built-in 1.4x TC is enough to change a full system, trade in $30k or more worth of equipment and adapt to a new system. For most people the answer is simply no, not worth it. It’s got little to do with his 3 Ws.
Click to expand...
The frequency with which some of these guys switch camera systems is mind boggling' I too was wondering how he justified the "W" for wallet when you factor in the cost a full system switch.
 
Member's gallery
Doug Herr said:
Tim Man said that when using 30 frames/sec with the Serval cats there was only one frame with the tail flicked the way he wanted it.

The weight and the wait have kept me from the Z9. As far as I'm concerned it's a race between N and S: will N make and have in stock a lightweight high performance body before S makes PF-weight lenses? Time will tell.
Click to expand...
Weight may be an issue... Its a big camera. I like the way a D850 fits my hand, and would use a vertical grip anyway, so its not much of an issue to me (though I haven't bought one yet)
Wait on the other hand is now a non issue as they are in stock in quite a few places right now.
Wallet is what I can't get passed just yet. Its an expensive camera for my budget. If the Z8 being a "baby Z9" turns out to be true, I'll likely buy one of those, but I'll miss the battery grip and probably wish I'd bought the Z9, lol.
 
Member's gallery
John Navitsky said:
i think "wait" in this context was his guestimation of availability for the 600 f/4 tc
Click to expand...
For myself the "wait" is also something smaller and lighter than the z9. I chose not to wait and for nearly 2 years I've been using a comparable camera+lens that people who wish to use a Nikon are still waiting for.

EDIT: just to clarify, a smaller and lighter body than the z9 would have to have comparable performance. I waited several years for a camera body with the performance and size that interested me but the wait was over nearly 2 years ago.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top