Would you still purchase a Nikon 600/4 today

[Woody Meristem]

I am retired and on a fixed budget. Looking to upgrade from my $400 (used) Nikon P900 bridge camera.
I live 5 minutes away from a National Wildlife Refuge in Montana and take waterfowl photos about 6 days a week for my own pleasure.

My upgrade budget is $3,200. I was looking at the Canon R7 mirrorless but the selection of lenses was limited.
I was thinking of a used Nikon D850( $1,600) and the Nikon AF-I NIKKOR 600mm f/4 ($1,655)
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

You won't get many seconds to my recommendations on this forum, but you should take a look at used Olympus E-M1 iii or E-M1 X with an Olympus 100-400mm. They're both lighter and less expensive than the comparable Nikon/Canon bodies and lenses and produce excellent images. You could have two bodies and several lenses for less than your budgeted amount. I'm in my early 80s and, like you, not getting any younger -- weight is becoming an issue as my back and legs wear out after 52 years of working in forest and field and the Olympus gear is lighter and easier to handle than larger cameras and lenses. Take a look at my gallery, most of those are images from my Olympus gear-- and at some of Thomas Stirr's older posts (http://smallsensorphotography.com/).

 

[TurtleCat]

Going from a P900 to any of those setups will have a big learning curve, regardless of brand. I’m familiar with Nikon and Fuji so between those I would suggest something like the Fuji X-T5 with Fuji 150-600 lens as one possibility. A Z6II with the new 180-600 would work very well if you aren’t looking for specific subject tracking on erratic motion. A D780 with a Tamron or Sigma 150-600 would be very capable and come in under your budget. All these lenses are slower than the old, old AF-I 600f4 but they are more flexible and much lighter. You could also go with a Nikon D500 and a 500 PF or 80-400 or 150-600 or 200-500.

 

[mdirvin]

with an Olympus 100-400mm.

I'm sure that an Olympus camera is as good as any, but 400mm is as bit short for birds. My 400mm is only used on very small birds that I can get within the MFD. In my case that is 8ft. Sometimes that is to far requiring excessive cropping. Then I have to switch over to a 600 + TC. Some of the 100-400 focus much closer, the trick then becomes being able to get that close.

 

[TurtleCat]

I'm sure that an Olympus camera is as good as any, but 400mm is as bit short for birds. My 400mm is only used on very small birds that I can get within the MFD. In my case that is 8ft. Sometimes that is to far requiring excessive cropping. Then I have to switch over to a 600 + TC. Some of the 100-400 focus much closer, the trick then becomes being able to get that close.

The Olympus has a 2x field of view crop so the field of view of the 400mm length would be like that of 800mm on full frame. However the background separation will still be the same as if 400 on a full frame cropped to the same size. Noise may or may not be a consideration for you as well with the smaller sensor.

 

[Woody Meristem]

I'm sure that an Olympus camera is as good as any, but 400mm is as bit short for birds. My 400mm is only used on very small birds that I can get within the MFD. In my case that is 8ft. Sometimes that is to far requiring excessive cropping. Then I have to switch over to a 600 + TC. Some of the 100-400 focus much closer, the trick then becomes being able to get that close.

Unfortunately you just don't understand some of the advantages of Olympus cameras. That Olympus 100-400mm lens gives the same field of view at 400mm as the Nikon 800mm -- and it focuses to a just over four feet, greatly easing the ability to take close-up photos of butterflies and other skittish small critters. If noise is a problem for you it's easily handled with DxO or topaz DeNoise.

 

[Calson]

The "learning curve" is very much camera dependent. With the Olympus MFT cameras there were picture modes so my wife could select macro and the camera would control the flash for perfectly exposed flowers or frogs with black backgrounds. Same with sunset where it would expose the foreground subject and not underexpose with the strong backlighting. Nikon has done this with cameras like the D3500 and Canon with its Rebel cameras.

A huge advantage of the Olympus/OM-1 cameras and Olympus MFT lenses is that they cost half as much as comparable full frame lenses. The lenses are smaller and so cost less to manufacture. For example the 40-150mm f/2.8 (full frame 80-300mm f/2.8) sells new for $1,300. Compare that to the Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 that sells for $2.300.

 

[StefanSC]

I was thinking of a used Nikon D850( $1,600) and the Nikon AF-I NIKKOR 600mm f/4 ($1,655)

I'd rather have a used D500 and a 500mm f5.6 PF in that budget. The AF-I is unrepairable today, while you might still be able to get repairs on a 500mm f5.6 PF in 5 years time.

You also get faster fps, bigger buffer, much lighter gear, and VR.

Also, if you are willing to dig a bit, you could squeeze an used Olympus OM-1 and 300mm f4 in your budget and that set-up puts anything that isn't a Z8/9, A9/1 and R3/5/6 to shame when it comes to wildlife.

Keep in mind though that, coming from a P900, any of those lenses will feel very very short

A huge advantage of the Olympus/OM-1 cameras and Olympus MFT lenses is that they cost half as much as comparable full frame lenses. The lenses are smaller and so cost less to manufacture. For example the 40-150mm f/2.8 (full frame 80-300mm f/2.8) sells new for $1,300. Compare that to the Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 that sells for $2.300.

Then again, the Oly 40-150mm f2.8 doesn't offer the subject isolation or light gathering capabilities of a Nikon Z 70-200mm f2.8 And all the 70-200mm f4s, which are closer in actual usage to the Oly are lighter then it and either cheaper or 2-300$ more expensive .

And if I were really really pedantic, I'd point out that the closest comparable lens to the Oly 40-150mm f2.8 for FullFrame is the Sony FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G OSS which is cheaper and not much larger

 

[TurtleCat]

The "learning curve" is very much camera dependent. With the Olympus MFT cameras there were picture modes so my wife could select macro and the camera would control the flash for perfectly exposed flowers or frogs with black backgrounds. Same with sunset where it would expose the foreground subject and not underexpose with the strong backlighting. Nikon has done this with cameras like the D3500 and Canon with its Rebel cameras.

A huge advantage of the Olympus/OM-1 cameras and Olympus MFT lenses is that they cost half as much as comparable full frame lenses. The lenses are smaller and so cost less to manufacture. For example the 40-150mm f/2.8 (full frame 80-300mm f/2.8) sells new for $1,300. Compare that to the Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 that sells for $2.300.

I would point out that the background separation is where you pay the difference. It may not matter to any given individual (it’s a personal aesthetic choice) but a 150 f2.8 will have different background characteristics than a 200 f2.8 and so on. There may be other features and lens attributes that are more or less desirable to consider as well. Otherwise we would all be using 1 inch sensors with 100 to 300 mm lenses.

 

[MMoretti]

So, a year and a half after this thread started, I’m seeing that the 600/4 FL can be had for considerably less than $7k. Would you (anyone) buy one today, now that the 600/6.3 PF is widely available? (I own a copy.) I’ve been tempted by the F-mount version which would pair nicely with my 120-300/2.8. For roadtrips, mainly, no way for hiking.

 

[MT_Dave]

How about a Canon EOS R7 with the RF 600mm f/11?

 

[TurtleCat]

So, a year and a half after this thread started, I’m seeing that the 600/4 FL can be had for considerably less than $7k. Would you (anyone) buy one today, now that the 600/6.3 PF is widely available? (I own a copy.) I’ve been tempted by the F-mount version which would pair nicely with my 120-300/2.8. For roadtrips, mainly, no way for hiking.

I have thought about it as I have a 500 PF now and I wouldn’t want to lose 1/3 a stop to what I have. Gaining some focal length plus a full stop is tempting. But think at this point I would save longer and get the 600f4 TC if possible.

 

[Whiskeyman]

So, a year and a half after this thread started, I’m seeing that the 600/4 FL can be had for considerably less than $7k. Would you (anyone) buy one today, now that the 600/6.3 PF is widely available? (I own a copy.) I’ve been tempted by the F-mount version which would pair nicely with my 120-300/2.8. For roadtrips, mainly, no way for hiking.

I'd still strongly consider purchasing a used 600/4 E FL, if I didn't already have the G VII version. I just can't justify taking the bath I'd take with selling or trading my current copy to get the E FL version.

How about a Canon EOS R7 with the RF 600mm f/11?

For what I like to do, photographicly, I would not consider any f/11 lens. So, no.

 

[Roy]

I am retired and on a fixed budget. Looking to upgrade from my $400 (used) Nikon P900 bridge camera.
I live 5 minutes away from a National Wildlife Refuge in Montana and take waterfowl photos about 6 days a week for my own pleasure.

My upgrade budget is $3,200. I was looking at the Canon R7 mirrorless but the selection of lenses was limited.
I was thinking of a used Nikon D850( $1,600) and the Nikon AF-I NIKKOR 600mm f/4 ($1,655)
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

I moved to have a National Park at the end of the driveway.
Still have one D850 body and still have that 600 f4 AFS lens.
Its a great lens and I still sometimes use it but its big and very heavy.
An alternative is the 500 PF that has become exceptional value.
Its light and sharp and only one stop slower...

 

[MT_Dave]

How about a Canon EOS R7 with the RF 600mm f/11?

I decided to go with a Canon R7 and the Canon RF 100-400mm and Canon RF 800mm prime.