Which would you pick for birds

[Snapquacky]

@Snapquacky , I've read almost all and would like to share my thoughts.
You wrote you have old screw-driver lenses from Nikon. I have 180/2.8, for exaple and I must say that there are no such lens like old Nikon screw-driver lens in terms of colour and overall rendering. Yes, they have horrible CA's and cannot focus on mirrorless but they give a special look : the saturated deep colours, sharpness (oh, yes, they are sharp) and some kind of 3D-effect.

So, 800PF is closer to those lenses than 200-600 of Sony. My partner has Sony A7R IV and 200-600 and Z9+800PF. After he has got 800PF, he doesn't use Sony anymore. Moreover, he has 400mm/2.8 FL (F-mount excellent lens) which he used with TCs and now he doesn't use it anymore, too. What is good for me ;-) becasue I can use it. Bur 800PF focuses much better/faster on Z9 than Z9+400FL and I think that Z9+800PF is overall better than Z9+400FL+2xTC. So, 800PF is amazing lens.

So, what I want to say is that you'd think what you like more: the look of pictures shoot by Sony or Nikon. Let's say you will buy Sony and don't like the pictures (the bokeh of 200-600 is so "olalala...," for example), than you spent your money and perhaps, you are not unhappy but don't have so much joy and fun like you would with 800PF (what I can guarantee - you will have a LOT of joy)

Perhaps you should rent both combilation and try.

The other thoughts are about Z7 vs Z6. If you take pictures of birds than normally there is already light or there is a short period of dusk. Normally. the birds sleep at night (ok, if you will take pictures of owls than it is different). And there is an excellent software to reduce the noise. I think, the noise will not be an issue but more pixel is better.
If your ever want to take part on some photo-contest then you need a high-resolution camera. The requirements for picture-resolution for contests are very high. So, I would go for Z7. If you additionally do some other kind of photography like astro or nightscapes then Z6 will be better.

Thank you kindly @ElenaH, and yes indeed, those old Nikon lenses like the 180 and 80-200 which I own produce something magical, no doubt about it. Images just seem to pop with them, great shame that Nikon don't offer a converter with built in focus motor for those.

I understand the A7R IV and 200-600 don't always play together so well in certain situations, but it is great to get real world feedback from someone who has access to both setups. Between the three lenses you refenced above you have a great selection there! not bad at all. Your feedback on the 800PF is most useful, sounds like it is getting back to the Nikon magic recipe for glass.

Mostly I use DXO for noise processing, it works amazingly well, very impressive. I do end up in low light quite often, so in some respects a lower resolution sensor like Z6 would work well, but I am keen to go above 40MP for cropping and downsizing to mitigate noise.

Please post some images from the 800PF if you can, or any images for that matter, always a pleasure to view wildlife

 

[NorthernFocus]

Picking between the choices you listed in the OP is not a bad problem to have. I've been a Nikon shooter my entire digital photography life(since 2005) plus a Sony A6000 that I use for travel for five years or so. I've had the Z9 since January. I've shot wildlife with it mostly with the 500mm PF so far plus a few hundred frames with the AF-S 80-400mm at HS sporting events. A couple months ago I picked up a used A1/200-600mm. I've had the opportunity to shoot similar subjects(including BIF) with both kits. The animal subject detection AF in the Z9 still has quite a way to go to catch up with the A1. It's like the A1 reads your mind and simply picks the right subject. And usually finds the eye. Too often the Z9 can't make up its mind. And sometimes changes its mind mid burst. Don't get me wrong, the Z9 is IMO the best camera Nikon has produced to date. And the subject detection AF on humans works like magic. So no doubt the animal subject detect will get there eventually. Regarding your OP I've never owned and A6/7/ii but from everything I've heard/read the AF is even more frustrating than the Z9. With little hope of improving. That said people who shoot static wildlife seem content with them.

Regarding lenses, I've always said the Nikon 200-500mm is the best value long zoom lens on the market. Now I'd have to give that honor to the Sony 200-600. It's a nice lens. Great IQ, short throw, internal zoom, etc. I like it so much I've toyed with the idea of getting an adapter to shoot it on the Z if/when desired and/or until the Nikon version is released.

Unfortunately as things stand right now it's a system decision rather than a camera and/or lens decision. Sony has the better camera(yeah I said it) and Nikon the better overall selection of lenses. When I look at what Sony offers in the focal ranges I'm interested in they're a one trick pony with the 200-600. My own decision short term is to continue with a split system. The A1/200-600 for a zoom option and the Z9 with 300/500/800mm PF primes. Time marches on and who knows what each company will add to their offerings in coming months. But time waits for no man and there are things to be shot in the here and now.

 

[Snapquacky]

Picking between the choices you listed in the OP is not a bad problem to have. I've been a Nikon shooter my entire digital photography life(since 2005) plus a Sony A6000 that I use for travel for five years or so. I've had the Z9 since January. I've shot wildlife with it mostly with the 500mm PF so far plus a few hundred frames with the AF-S 80-400mm at HS sporting events. A couple months ago I picked up a used A1/200-600mm. I've had the opportunity to shoot similar subjects(including BIF) with both kits. The animal subject detection AF in the Z9 still has quite a way to go to catch up with the A1. It's like the A1 reads your mind and simply picks the right subject. And usually finds the eye. Too often the Z9 can't make up its mind. And sometimes changes its mind mid burst. Don't get me wrong, the Z9 is IMO the best camera Nikon has produced to date. And the subject detection AF on humans works like magic. So no doubt the animal subject detect will get there eventually. Regarding your OP I've never owned and A6/7/ii but from everything I've heard/read the AF is even more frustrating than the Z9. With little hope of improving. That said people who shoot static wildlife seem content with them.

Regarding lenses, I've always said the Nikon 200-500mm is the best value long zoom lens on the market. Now I'd have to give that honor to the Sony 200-600. It's a nice lens. Great IQ, short throw, internal zoom, etc. I like it so much I've toyed with the idea of getting an adapter to shoot it on the Z if/when desired and/or until the Nikon version is released.

Unfortunately as things stand right now it's a system decision rather than a camera and/or lens decision. Sony has the better camera(yeah I said it) and Nikon the better overall selection of lenses. When I look at what Sony offers in the focal ranges I'm interested in they're a one trick pony with the 200-600. My own decision short term is to continue with a split system. The A1/200-600 for a zoom option and the Z9 with 300/500/800mm PF primes. Time marches on and who knows what each company will add to their offerings in coming months. But time waits for no man and there are things to be shot in the here and now.

Thank you Dan, this is possibly a great summary of all that has come before in this thread. Also mirrors my thoughts to a great degree, for a new mirrorless user jumping in, until Nikon bring the 200-600 and Z8, Sony A1 + 200-600G are likely going to get the shot.

Of course you can't compare the Sony 200-600 with the 800PF but how do you find the two systems, general use, tracking, handling and so on, maybe most importantly, sharpness and output. Watching videos of the A1 tracking birds and birds eyes, it is quite incredible. I can't help thinking that without the body nailing focus, Nikon's ever expanding lens options might have less appeal, that is a bit harsh but you see my train of thought - more in relation to bird and bird eye tracking.

There are indeed things to be shot right now though, many great images could be taken between today and the next release from either brand

 

[arbitrage]

If you can stretch to a Z9/800PF then I'd maybe lean that way if getting to 800mm is important.

A1 is the better camera in my testing over Z9 and certainly miles ahead of Z6 (I only owned Z7 and Z50 so using those as a proxy) but I don't think 200-600 with 1.4TC to reach 840 on the high pixel density A1 is a great combo. I liked it better on the lower res A9/A9II.

If you just want 600mm then I'd lean more towards the A1/200-600 but could go either way.

I think Dan's assessment of the AF between the Z9 and A1 is spot on. The A1 AF goes up a whole other level once paired with either 400GM or 600GM. I have four friends that have recently upgraded from 200-600 (their gateway lens to the Sony system coming from either Canon or Nikon) to either 400GM or 600GM and all have commented on this after their very first outing with the prime. But even with the 200-600 I think the A1 does better than the Z9.

 

[Snapquacky]

If you can stretch to a Z9/800PF then I'd maybe lean that way if getting to 800mm is important.

A1 is the better camera in my testing over Z9 and certainly miles ahead of Z6 (I only owned Z7 and Z50 so using those as a proxy) but I don't think 200-600 with 1.4TC to reach 840 on the high pixel density A1 is a great combo. I liked it better on the lower res A9/A9II.

If you just want 600mm then I'd lean more towards the A1/200-600 but could go either way.

I think Dan's assessment of the AF between the Z9 and A1 is spot on. The A1 AF goes up a whole other level once paired with either 400GM or 600GM. I have four friends that have recently upgraded from 200-600 (their gateway lens to the Sony system coming from either Canon or Nikon) to either 400GM or 600GM and all have commented on this after their very first outing with the prime. But even with the 200-600 I think the A1 does better than the Z9.

Thanks @arbitrage

I am currently at essentially 420mm on DX, so really I need to go with 600mm on FX minimum. Like many I would love either 400f2.8 or 600f4, budget comes into play. Your testing and feedback has been of great help, I know you push the kit hard and with flight subjects. Roads are still leading to A1 at this point it would seem, tempting as that 800PF lens is, still early days for feedback on it I feel.

Being somewhat light challenged the 400GM lens is quite an attraction, as is any f2.8 for that matter, the images they produce always have some extra magic to my eyes, your recent posts on FM forum were a great example of this My current old 80-200f2.8 never fails to impress in dismal lighting.

The A9/200-600/1.4TC certainly does seem to work well, since this is a big step for me I feel 45-50MP is the way forward.

As ever I value the feedback and comments, so thank you again.

 

[pwaring]

I think with the birds here in the UK that 800mm will be a real boon. In your position I would strongly consider buying an 800 PF and then picking an excellent 2nd hand Z7 rather than trying to buy a new Z7II or something like that. The glass will last and the body will be excellent perched birds and whilst you're getting used to it all. Then when something like a Z8 comes along you can pick one up and sell off the Z7 without feeling like you sunk a load of cash into that body only to sell it.

I own a Z9 and a Z7 and whilst I will agree that the Z9 AF is better for action I think you'll have no issues getting the shots you want on a Z7. How much action are you realistically going to shoot here with an 800mm? It's really not the point of the lens. In future you may want to explore other lenses and other types of wildlife photography.. and by then you'll have moved on from the Z7.

I spent 10 days recently in hides in Scotland and Hungary shooting a lot of birds and the Z9 AF did a wonderful job. I'm not saying that another body can't outperform it in some situations, but I didn't come away thinking that the camera let me down at any point or that I missed a photo I could otherwise have grabbed. I would have also been very comfortable on doing anything that wasn't in flight with my Z7. In that context I feel like there is no compromise being made by using the Z7. The AF when not trying to track action is superb and the quality of the files is wonderful.

It's important to consider the system too. Nikon has been putting out a lot of great wildlife options. You have excellent options for lightweight primes with the 300 PF, 500 PF, 400 4.5 Z and 800 PF. The 200-600 is coming, as is the 600 f4. The 100-400 and 400 2.8 are out and at some point we can expect some of the 300 2.8, 180-400 TC, 120-300 etc to come along. Much of this may not be of interest to you right now but it could be in future. Availability of some of these is certainly more problematic but in the UK you can certainly be smart about where you order and save a lot of time. I received the Z9, 400 2.8 Z and 800 PF all very quickly here and I'm not an NPS member.

Finally, I don't think you can go too far wrong with either of the options you're considering but don't forget how important it is to feel them in your hand too. With my hands I've always been very comfortable with Canon and Nikon but don't get on too well with the Sony bodies. I tend to kill time in airports by checking out new cameras in the tech shops. It's different for everyone and I think it's a lot more important than many people think. It can very strongly affect how much you enjoy grabbing the camera and heading out to shoot.

 

[Snapquacky]

I think with the birds here in the UK that 800mm will be a real boon. In your position I would strongly consider buying an 800 PF and then picking an excellent 2nd hand Z7 rather than trying to buy a new Z7II or something like that. The glass will last and the body will be excellent perched birds and whilst you're getting used to it all. Then when something like a Z8 comes along you can pick one up and sell off the Z7 without feeling like you sunk a load of cash into that body only to sell it.

I own a Z9 and a Z7 and whilst I will agree that the Z9 AF is better for action I think you'll have no issues getting the shots you want on a Z7. How much action are you realistically going to shoot here with an 800mm? It's really not the point of the lens. In future you may want to explore other lenses and other types of wildlife photography.. and by then you'll have moved on from the Z7.

I spent 10 days recently in hides in Scotland and Hungary shooting a lot of birds and the Z9 AF did a wonderful job. I'm not saying that another body can't outperform it in some situations, but I didn't come away thinking that the camera let me down at any point or that I missed a photo I could otherwise have grabbed. I would have also been very comfortable on doing anything that wasn't in flight with my Z7. In that context I feel like there is no compromise being made by using the Z7. The AF when not trying to track action is superb and the quality of the files is wonderful.

It's important to consider the system too. Nikon has been putting out a lot of great wildlife options. You have excellent options for lightweight primes with the 300 PF, 500 PF, 400 4.5 Z and 800 PF. The 200-600 is coming, as is the 600 f4. The 100-400 and 400 2.8 are out and at some point we can expect some of the 300 2.8, 180-400 TC, 120-300 etc to come along. Much of this may not be of interest to you right now but it could be in future. Availability of some of these is certainly more problematic but in the UK you can certainly be smart about where you order and save a lot of time. I received the Z9, 400 2.8 Z and 800 PF all very quickly here and I'm not an NPS member.

Finally, I don't think you can go too far wrong with either of the options you're considering but don't forget how important it is to feel them in your hand too. With my hands I've always been very comfortable with Canon and Nikon but don't get on too well with the Sony bodies. I tend to kill time in airports by checking out new cameras in the tech shops. It's different for everyone and I think it's a lot more important than many people think. It can very strongly affect how much you enjoy grabbing the camera and heading out to shoot.

Thank you for taking the time to respond, appreciated. My usual strategy is glass first, camera second, although these stacked sensor bodies don't make that plan easy! You have a fine selection of lenses, great options there. How are you finding the 800PF in comparison to 400 2.8Z, it seems like early days for the 800PF, aperture and bokeh I am interested in, especially for UK lighting. I suspect the 800 would be more useful for perched subjects and tracking with it will be quite difficult.

I have processed several Z7 sample RAW files and they do look very nice indeed, no doubt about that. Size of the 800PF is something that might limit my handheld shooting style, sometimes I will grab my camera to catch a passing barn owl or similar, I suppose 400-600 range might be more suited to that, depending on distance of course.

Ergonomics is a simple one for me, Nikon just fit my hands well, similar with Canon, Sony are on the small side, but of course I could potentially tolerate that if the performance is there, I know there are grip and extender options for the Sony range which help. Even my D7000 is on the small side, D500 and D850 fit much better, I have large hands.

Very keen to see some more feedback from users like yourself on the 800PF, compared to other lenses, I feel in the UK that f4 and f2.8 might be better suited to lighting, with that said, 800mm is quite the focal length to be going on with!

 

[pwaring]

Thank you for taking the time to respond, appreciated. My usual strategy is glass first, camera second, although these stacked sensor bodies don't make that plan easy! You have a fine selection of lenses, great options there. How are you finding the 800PF in comparison to 400 2.8Z, it seems like early days for the 800PF, aperture and bokeh I am interested in, especially for UK lighting. I suspect the 800 would be more useful for perched subjects and tracking with it will be quite difficult.

I have processed several Z7 sample RAW files and they do look very nice indeed, no doubt about that. Size of the 800PF is something that might limit my handheld shooting style, sometimes I will grab my camera to catch a passing barn owl or similar, I suppose 400-600 range might be more suited to that, depending on distance of course.

Ergonomics is a simple one for me, Nikon just fit my hands well, similar with Canon, Sony are on the small side, but of course I could potentially tolerate that if the performance is there, I know there are grip and extender options for the Sony range which help. Even my D7000 is on the small side, D500 and D850 fit much better, I have large hands.

Very keen to see some more feedback from users like yourself on the 800PF, compared to other lenses, I feel in the UK that f4 and f2.8 might be better suited to lighting, with that said, 800mm is quite the focal length to be going on with!

I got my 800PF after I got back from Hungary and I haven't been out doing photography all that much. We've got some other stuff going on right now and the summer hours make it tricky anyway. So I don't feel like I'm in a great position to say yet. It's certainly sharp enough. Bokeh seems nice enough. I think in challenging backgrounds (lots of branches) then you'll get a slightly less pleasing look to those branches than with something like the 400 2.8 or a 600 f4 but usually having all those branches makes for a pretty poor photo anyway. I find that to be a very acceptable compromise.

I think the ergonomics on the 800PF are great. It's a much slimmer mid-section than the 400 2.8 and it feels remarkably light. I doubt mine will see a tripod very much at all.

I don't mind the aperture. If I put a 2x on my 400 2.8 then it's an 800 5.6. If you want 800m then it's just a third of a stop. This 800 PF is pretty much as good as you can get in terms of aperture at the focal length. You might end up with a slightly higher ISO than if you were using a shorter lens but you won't be doing nearly as much cropping. You have to spend massive amounts more for something like the 400 2.8 Z and whilst still hand-holdable, it's definitely less fun to do so. With the VR on the 800 PF you can get away with 1/250th second on perched birds and keep your ISO very reasonable even on a darker overcast day. In sunny conditions or bright overcast then you'll have no issues at all. If you mostly want to photography whilst in woods on dark rainy days or always at the very extremes of the day then that's probably the point you say you need a brighter lens and compromise on reach.

I'd question what scenario you're planning as your main photography outings that you want the gear for. For trips to UK nature reserves and the great outdoors, especially with an interest in birds, then I think 800mm will be ideal and this is why I got mine. I've used 500mm a lot at nature reserves and it's usually a very frustrating experience. If you're intending to spend a fair bit of time at photography setups (likely the paid kind) then you'll find that they're usually arranged for 400-600mm. If you want to travel the world and photograph all sorts of wildlife then the 800mm becomes a little more niche where it might be good for some specific trips but frequently it'll be too long and would be left at home.

 

[Snapquacky]

I got my 800PF after I got back from Hungary and I haven't been out doing photography all that much. We've got some other stuff going on right now and the summer hours make it tricky anyway. So I don't feel like I'm in a great position to say yet. It's certainly sharp enough. Bokeh seems nice enough. I think in challenging backgrounds (lots of branches) then you'll get a slightly less pleasing look to those branches than with something like the 400 2.8 or a 600 f4 but usually having all those branches makes for a pretty poor photo anyway. I find that to be a very acceptable compromise.

I think the ergonomics on the 800PF are great. It's a much slimmer mid-section than the 400 2.8 and it feels remarkably light. I doubt mine will see a tripod very much at all.

I don't mind the aperture. If I put a 2x on my 400 2.8 then it's an 800 5.6. If you want 800m then it's just a third of a stop. This 800 PF is pretty much as good as you can get in terms of aperture at the focal length. You might end up with a slightly higher ISO than if you were using a shorter lens but you won't be doing nearly as much cropping. You have to spend massive amounts more for something like the 400 2.8 Z and whilst still hand-holdable, it's definitely less fun to do so. With the VR on the 800 PF you can get away with 1/250th second on perched birds and keep your ISO very reasonable even on a darker overcast day. In sunny conditions or bright overcast then you'll have no issues at all. If you mostly want to photography whilst in woods on dark rainy days or always at the very extremes of the day then that's probably the point you say you need a brighter lens and compromise on reach.

I'd question what scenario you're planning as your main photography outings that you want the gear for. For trips to UK nature reserves and the great outdoors, especially with an interest in birds, then I think 800mm will be ideal and this is why I got mine. I've used 500mm a lot at nature reserves and it's usually a very frustrating experience. If you're intending to spend a fair bit of time at photography setups (likely the paid kind) then you'll find that they're usually arranged for 400-600mm. If you want to travel the world and photograph all sorts of wildlife then the 800mm becomes a little more niche where it might be good for some specific trips but frequently it'll be too long and would be left at home.

That is all very useful feedback indeed @pwaring , probably somewhere in line with my expectations for the 800PF. Of course the bokeh is going to suffer compared to the f2.8 and f4, but with good composition what I've seen so far seems to produce great results.

The weight and VR seems very impressive, this I like a lot, a hand held 800mm which can take shots at 1/250th is pretty mighty. Since I am going to be switching to full frame for the first time I suspect that 600-800mm is where I need to be most, only time will tell if 800 is too much more often than not. I suspect since I crop a lot with DX at 420mm that 800mm on FX could be a benefit.

I do get drawn into shooting at the extremes of the day often, not ideal of course but here really f2.8 or f4 is required, that is mostly on me though, maybe it is the challenge I like, or maybe just that you see more and tend to get closer at those times. I look forward to more feedback as and when you get additional time with this lens.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I am primarily a bird photographer and first for ID and then for better images. I shoot birds deep in the brush, high in trees, etc. for ID. I shoot birds in flight from swallows to eagles. I hand hold all of the time for birds and wildlife, in fact have not used my tripod for 2 years. With the Z9&800pf IS I have hand held down to 1/20th but would not recommend it for birds. I have no problem at all at 1/250th which freezes the motion of birds not in flight and works for BIF if you want to show wing blur.

I have not used any Sony gear for no reason other than it just never happened. I have friends who use the A1 and the Olympus micro 4/3 and love them. My first mirrorless was an early Fuji and it was a great travel camera but not good for birds.

I have had an 800 PF since 5-1-22. I have sold all of my f mount glass except a 50mm f/1.8. The birding glass I sold Nikon 600 f/4 E, Tamron 150-600 G2, Nikon 500 f/5.6 PF. The 800 PF is the best birding lens I have used to date. And unlike someone said earlier there is not much of any learning curve with the 800 pf.

I have a Z6II that is quite good in low light and have shot it before sun up with the Z100-400 f/5.6 at 400, quite effectively. The Z100-400 works very well with the 1.4TC at f/8.

I also have a Z9 and have not used the 800mm pf on the Z6II. The Z9 viewfinder is much better than the Z6II with no black out. I really appreciate having the live histogram in both viewfinders. The Z9 is far superior with birds in flight.

Once I set up the buttons on the Z9 to fit my preferences, still a bit of work in progress since there are so many options to try, the Z9 outperforms the DSLR's I used to have D500, D850 and D6.

One thing some never focus on (pun intended) is that the Z9 is a very good AF-C camera with out any of the subject recognition tracking features turned on. In some conditions when photographing in heavy cover etc. I will use single point most often or custom wide area or dynamic area with subject tracking turned off. I have a one button push and hold on my video record button set up to do this. I also have AF ON button set up so with push and hold 3D tracking comes on even when I am not using subject recognition with the focus area mode active at that time.

With the Z6II I almost never use the subject recognition or auto tracking features.

 

[EricBowles]

The 800mm PF is really a game changer if you photograph small birds. These are with the 800mm PF and the Z7ii.

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

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

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

 

[Snapquacky]

I am primarily a bird photographer and first for ID and then for better images. I shoot birds deep in the brush, high in trees, etc. for ID. I shoot birds in flight from swallows to eagles. I hand hold all of the time for birds and wildlife, in fact have not used my tripod for 2 years. With the Z9&800pf IS I have hand held down to 1/20th but would not recommend it for birds. I have no problem at all at 1/250th which freezes the motion of birds not in flight and works for BIF if you want to show wing blur.

I have not used any Sony gear for no reason other than it just never happened. I have friends who use the A1 and the Olympus micro 4/3 and love them. My first mirrorless was an early Fuji and it was a great travel camera but not good for birds.

I have had an 800 PF since 5-1-22. I have sold all of my f mount glass except a 50mm f/1.8. The birding glass I sold Nikon 600 f/4 E, Tamron 150-600 G2, Nikon 500 f/5.6 PF. The 800 PF is the best birding lens I have used to date. And unlike someone said earlier there is not much of any learning curve with the 800 pf.

I have a Z6II that is quite good in low light and have shot it before sun up with the Z100-400 f/5.6 at 400, quite effectively. The Z100-400 works very well with the 1.4TC at f/8.

I also have a Z9 and have not used the 800mm pf on the Z6II. The Z9 viewfinder is much better than the Z6II with no black out. I really appreciate having the live histogram in both viewfinders. The Z9 is far superior with birds in flight.

Once I set up the buttons on the Z9 to fit my preferences, still a bit of work in progress since there are so many options to try, the Z9 outperforms the DSLR's I used to have D500, D850 and D6.

One thing some never focus on (pun intended) is that the Z9 is a very good AF-C camera with out any of the subject recognition tracking features turned on. In some conditions when photographing in heavy cover etc. I will use single point most often or custom wide area or dynamic area with subject tracking turned off. I have a one button push and hold on my video record button set up to do this. I also have AF ON button set up so with push and hold 3D tracking comes on even when I am not using subject recognition with the focus area mode active at that time.

With the Z6II I almost never use the subject recognition or auto tracking features.

Thank you Ken, seems like Nikon really have VR nailed on these newer lenses, that is a very big plus in my book. Rarely do I use a tripod unless for some remote work now and then, otherwise I am strictly hand held only.

Every time I think I've decided to just get an A1, some more positive feedback appears for the 800PF, then some images courtesy of @EricBowles joking aside I do appreciate all this feedback, does look like a beast of a lens.

I am looking forward to more image samples from this lens, I suspect there will be no shortage of them as deliveries come in for more new owners.

 

[Snapquacky]

The 800mm PF is really a game changer if you photograph small birds. These are with the 800mm PF and the Z7ii.

View attachment 42050View attachment 42051
View attachment 42052

Thank you Eric, some wonderful images, happy birds with buttery smooth out of focus areas I really have a great desire to own this lens!

 

[Ken Miracle]

Thank you Ken, seems like Nikon really have VR nailed on these newer lenses, that is a very big plus in my book. Rarely do I use a tripod unless for some remote work now and then, otherwise I am strictly hand held only.

Every time I think I've decided to just get an A1, some more positive feedback appears for the 800PF, then some images courtesy of @EricBowles joking aside I do appreciate all this feedback, does look like a beast of a lens.

I am looking forward to more image samples from this lens, I suspect there will be no shortage of them as deliveries come in for more new owners.

I have posted a few here in other threads.

 

[Snapquacky]

I have posted a few here in other threads.

Thanks Ken, I've been keeping an eye on those, all looking good. The 800PF posts are a bit quiet on here and FM but it will still be quite a rare lens I guess.

 

[O]

Not interested in brand bashing, I am interested in best image quality. Based on current availability and for a relatively matched budget, with some future proofing in mind, which would you choose.

Nikon Z6/Z6II + 800PF or Sony A1 + 200-600G, these work out roughly the same cost, ie about $6500-7500 in my area. I am light challenged in the UK so f6.3 will mean relying on VR and IBIS.

I am likely going to pre-order an 800PF regardless and I realise the focus tracking on the two cameras above isn't ideally matched, but, assume still subjects rather than birds in flight. Interested to get some thoughts from those who have used or are using both systems, bit early for the 800PF feedback I know. My usual theory is to spend money on glass, less so on the camera, but I would certainly like to play with a stacked sensor I could stretch to a Z9 and 800PF but interested to see what you think on comparatively priced packages, which end up with a 'similar' amount of pixels on the bird, or somewhere near.

Once the Nikon 200-600 lands it will be a more even comparison, I like the idea of zooming out if something surprises me! but the 800PF is just so very tempting

Are you a auto tracking shooter or do you still rely on good skill sets.

What are you using now that doesn't do it for you.

If your light challenged and require the best in lock on stickiness then the heavier D6 used is a good choice above mirror less but wont have the resolution.

Any of the brands are ok, i would hire or borrow first.

There is nothing better than taking those few extra steps forward to get that shot.

The Z8 is tipped to be 60 mp with 12 fps small and light with updated focusing like the z9, so forget any of the current Z bodies there pretty much going to be obsolete.
The Z9 is ok but heavy.

Sony and Canon are also coming out with new things soon, so yes its a challenge.

Again if your light challenged do you really feel the 800mm is right for you...........you will need to rely more on the sensor to add light performance and maintain dynamic range........hence the older D6

My self i like the 600 F4 FL or 500 PF i often hire both or a 300 2.8 VR II and use a D850 Z9 or hire a D6 for really tough applications, this of course is not your cup of tea LOL.

 

[Ken Miracle]

The biggest challenge for me here around home is deep shade and heavy cover. Some examples taken with Z9 and Z800 mm pf.

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

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

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

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

 

[Snapquacky]

The biggest challenge for me here around home is deep shade and heavy cover. Some examples taken with Z9 and Z800 mm pf.

Thank you Ken, I have similar challenges with deep shade, looks like the 800 is doing the business, seems that the VR in this lens is pretty impressive at lower shutter speed also from other examples I've seen posted in the 1/250 to 1/400th range.

 

[EricBowles]

Ken has posted some really nice shots. The last one with the bird launching is the one where the Z9 really pays off - but it takes lots of skill and practice. I had some good photos of mammals as well, but the attention in this post is small birds.

Just a few added thoughts. I've got lots of experience with the 500 PF and 1.4 TC on the Z7ii for shorebirds in flight. While that takes a little practice, it's reasonable because the sun angle and wind angles narrow the relevant field of view. It's another matter altogether when you are trying to put a subject flying perpendicular to your position using 800mm. It was very hard to get a subject in the frame at all with the very limited field of view. That type photo becomes a lot easier with a Z9 or next version with the fast readout.

Perched subjects as well as walking subjects are quite easy. The 800mm PF is easy to handhold, VR/IBIS works well, and I had no problem using the combination over 2+ hours of hiking.

Having an 800mm lens caused me to rethink my entire kit. If I need reach, it's the optimum solution. That means stretching for more reach is not a problem with any other decisions, so my thought process for the 100-400 and 200-600 is different than most. Since I have the 70-200 and 1.4 TC, I find the 400mm f/4.5 will replace a number of zooms.

 

[Venkatesh VT]

I own both A1 & Z9 . I have done extensive testing with A1 paired with 200 600 & Z9 with 500 PF
For birding A1 is miles ahead of Z9( Z9 really struggles for perched birds on wires & A1 also does better in BIF )
Z9 is the best in class for video
If I have to choose one between them for birding A1 would be my choice ( even with 200 600 not being a prime)

 

[Snapquacky]

I own both A1 & Z9 . I have done extensive testing with A1 paired with 200 600 & Z9 with 500 PF
For birding A1 is miles ahead of Z9( Z9 really struggles for perched birds on wires & A1 also does better in BIF )
Z9 is the best in class for video
If I have to choose one between them for birding A1 would be my choice ( even with 200 600 not being a prime)

Thank you @Venkatesh VT , this seems to be a viewpoint shared with others who have used both extensively, one reason why I am struggling to get past the A1 as primary option, even though Nikon has some quite attractive glass.

 

[LTK]

I've tried my friends Z6ii , its a nice camera but couldn't recommend it for wildlife , its fine for perched but I'd find it frustrating when it comes to anything moving like small birds . Its possible to get great shots but I found I had far too many misses .
I currently use the A1 200-600 (came from a D850). The 200-600 is good for the price but I'm definitely not getting the most out of the A1 with it , they work well together but I want to upgrade now either to 600mm f4 GM or other alternatives .
One thing I've noticed with the A1 is that I can get bird in flight shots at 1/1600 easier which is useful in less than ideal light which is often the case in the UK, obviously get some wing blur but the heads and eye seem ok

A1 200-600 all cropped

_LTK6099 by leon kirkbride, on Flickr

Puffin1 by leon kirkbride, on Flickr

_LTK2614 by leon kirkbride, on Flickr

_DSC7044_DXO by leon kirkbride, on Flickr

LTK00325 by leon kirkbride, on Flickr

 

[Snapquacky]

I've tried my friends Z6ii , its a nice camera but couldn't recommend it for wildlife , its fine for perched but I'd find it frustrating when it comes to anything moving like small birds . Its possible to get great shots but I found I had far too many misses .
I currently use the A1 200-600 (came from a D850). The 200-600 is good for the price but I'm definitely not getting the most out of the A1 with it , they work well together but I want to upgrade now either to 600mm f4 GM or other alternatives .
One thing I've noticed with the A1 is that I can get bird in flight shots at 1/1600 easier which is useful in less than ideal light which is often the case in the UK, obviously get some wing blur but the heads and eye seem ok

A1 200-600 all cropped

Thank you Leon, your images speak for themselves, I have viewed a few of them on the forums and elsewhere. Having viewed many images from the A1 and various lenses you can certainly see where the 400GM and 600GM shine, to be expected of course and seems like focus is a step up also. With that being said the 200-600 in capable hands seems to do very well. I suspect you would only move to a 600f4 rather than something like the 800PF, the latter would require a Z9s or similar for you to jump away from Sony I would imagine.

Like so many great photographers, you will make incredible images with almost any equipment, no doubt 600GM would make you very happy. Feel free to post some more images, always a pleasure.

 

[LTK]

Thank you Leon, your images speak for themselves, I have viewed a few of them on the forums and elsewhere. Having viewed many images from the A1 and various lenses you can certainly see where the 400GM and 600GM shine, to be expected of course and seems like focus is a step up also. With that being said the 200-600 in capable hands seems to do very well. I suspect you would only move to a 600f4 rather than something like the 800PF, the latter would require a Z9s or similar for you to jump away from Sony I would imagine.

Like so many great photographers, you will make incredible images with almost any equipment, no doubt 600GM would make you very happy. Feel free to post some more images, always a pleasure.

I was happy with the Dipper shot above mainly because of the conditions , it was flying across a river under tree cover , most was in heavy shadow apart from a tiny area that had light on . The A1 tracked it right across , I took a sequence of around 60 shots , 3 shots it went through that little light . All the others was in dark shadow .
If the Z9 can do this I'd seriously consider one , I know for certain the Z6ii would have had huge problems even grabbing it

I think I'd get more use out of a 600, maybe just too limited with 800 f6.3 I think to use as an only setup . If I was you I'd have a good think, could you live with 800mm ? I have tried the x1.4TC on the 200-600 , its ok but consistency drops much lower with BIF.

I don't have many shots with the 200-600 + 1.4TC and both of these cropped with the A9ii . Only tried when the lighting was good enough , soon as we get some better light I'll get some more shots with it on the A1

_DSC0760 by leon kirkbride, on Flickr

_DSC5255 by leon kirkbride, on Flickr

 

[Snapquacky]

I was happy with the Dipper shot above mainly because of the conditions , it was flying across a river under tree cover , most was in heavy shadow apart from a tiny area that had light on . The A1 tracked it right across , I took a sequence of around 60 shots , 3 shots it went through that little light . All the others was in dark shadow .
If the Z9 can do this I'd seriously consider one , I know for certain the Z6ii would have had huge problems even grabbing it

I think I'd get more use out of a 600, maybe just too limited with 800 f6.3 I think to use as an only setup . If I was you I'd have a good think, could you live with 800mm ? I have tried the x1.4TC on the 200-600 , its ok but consistency drops much lower with BIF.

I don't have many shots with the 200-600 + 1.4TC and both of these cropped with the A9ii . Only tried when the lighting was good enough , soon as we get some better light I'll get some more shots with it on the A1

Amazing insight into the Dipper shot, testament to the A1 and your skills, perfect example where frame rate was crucial. Watching tracking videos of the A1 are quite eye opening!

The 800 focal length is certainly on the long end, even with full frame, ignoring absolute image quality and micro contrast the 200-600 flexibility is a big attraction, when compared to any of the primes. There are times when a barn owl is coming towards me and you could pull back to 80 let alone 200mm, so yes, careful consideration really. Suspect the 800mm could easily fall into the specialist use category, where as something in the 400-600mm range is potentially more useful on a regular basis.

A9 series seems to work well with the 1.4 and 200-600, I've seen some cracking shots from A9 and A1 with that combo, but, conditions need to be right as you point out. Feel free to post as many images as you like, your skill behind the camera and with post processing are more than welcome.