Oosty
Well-known member
I've seen some good wildlife shots with a D500 and that's only 21 Mp - I also think Steve made some good points about using the frame.
Z6iii - not a body for wildlife/BIF?
- Thread starter Kenny88
- Start date
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).
ricardo00
Well-known member
The D500 (which was my primary camera for many years and have two of them) is not full frame. So the pixels per subject are comparable to a 45MP full frame camera. My wife currently uses our D500s and were considering getting the Z6iii to replace these but decided that she would rather have the higher megapixel density than the low light capacity since she doesn't want to carry the heavier lenses needed for the distance we usually shoot (also she was worried about the battery drain being so high on mirrorless). And I have to admit, many of her pics with the D500 beat out my Z8 pics.
Last edited:
Calson
Well-known member
I shot with the D500 and quickly switched 100% to the D850 when it arrived. Having a full frame camera allowed for imprecise centering of a bird in flight and having a high resolution sensor allowed me to crop and have sufficient pixels left. A DX crop with the D850 provided a 19MP file. The same crop with a D5 results in a 9MP file which is quite limiting - as with the Z6 series cameras.
There are situations where a 24MP full frame camera is enough or even advantageous, but wildlife photography is not one of them.
There are situations where a 24MP full frame camera is enough or even advantageous, but wildlife photography is not one of them.
Skills, perhaps, but opportunity/location is I'd argue a lot more important.
If I'm not mistaken Jan lives in a place where he literally walks onto his back porch and has more amazing, colorful birds to photograph at close range with beautiful backgrounds than most will ever see in a lifetime. Eric and others talk about wading birds that let them get close enough to use a 500mm or even a 400mm lens and get a full framed shot. That's amazing and most cameras/lenses will be perfect in those situations.
Others are in places where with carefully practiced craft and a lot of effort acclimating you might get close enough to photograph a wading bird that takes up 10mp of your 45 at 600mm or where your best shot is to rent out an exclusive hide somewhere.
Please don't mistake this for being curmudgeonly or confrontational. That's not my intent. I'm just trying to note that the local wildlife in one place can demand more out of gear than in other places.
StefanSC
Well-known member
I'm always fascinated on how in some places people can get to within 20 feet of herons and around here they fly away when they see you at 200 feet...
A big part of it is how habituated they are to humans. Those who hang around lakes, rivers and estuaries with a lot of fishermen are used to people and sometimes see us as a source of food as they try to steal the catch or pick up fish that are thrown back but don't make it.
Deer in some of our local state and county parks will continue feeding and "doing deer stuff" when I'm standing 50 feet from them. Deer in other areas where there is hunting pressure head for the deep brush when I step out of the car even if they are 200 yards away. It is habituation to humans. There is one local eagle nest that is in a person's back yard and it doesn't mind the kids playing, lawn mowers going off, dogs barking etc. The back yard backs up to a river and fishing seems to be pretty good there. Some eagles would never consider nesting in that close proximity to people.
While never having been on a safari in Africa, most of the shots I see come from animals which are very habituated to humans. The safari vehicles go by them every day and sometimes multiple times a day. The safari jeeps and all the cameras pointing at them just become part of the landscape. They do not see it as a threat and go about their daily lives.
Is it truly a "wild" experience to take photos of deer in parks, herons and egrets in lakes that see a lot of fishing pressure or a pride of linons that are photographed dozens of times a day? As long as the animals are free to come and go as they please and are not fenced in, I think it is still a wildlife experience. If they are somehow fenced in, then it is more of an animal photography experience than a wildlife experience. Others differ on that and it has been discussed ad nauseam here.
At least this has been my experience.
Yep..up at Circle Bar B last year we had a Great Efret come out of the water 20 feet away onto the path and literally walked past us close enough that I could have used a 24mm lens or petted it. It was totally cool with people. We have GBHs that come to our pond out back…some are people proof and others fly off when you slide open the glass door to the lanai.
Megaera
New member
I do envy you! I live in the UK and it is a hugely over-populated, small island. So many green spaces have been built on now, that the pressure is immense on wildlife. All species are being crammed ever-tighter into smaller areas.
Even our so-call wilder places (Scottish mountains, moorland etc) are inundated with tourists, walkers etc. As a result, most wildlife is extremely wary of human contact and will invariably bolt if a human is seen within 500 yards! It is a such a shame. I’ve seen Steve’s videos from various National Parks in the US and am astonished just how habituated some of your birds and mammals are. You are so lucky to have such special places!
We spent almost a month in northern England last summer…and you’re right…wildlife was scarce. Everything but a single Z8 and 24-120 never even came out of the backpack. The IS is blessed in a lot of areas with wide open spaces and plenty of critters…but we have some areas where they're scarce too.
I'm still a D850 shooter with the 500pf lens. How will this camera perform with an adapter and the 500pf? I would be in one category that Steve mentioned ie. lowest cost transition to mirrorless. No comment on adapting my F lenses to minimise transition costs.
The 500mm PF worked fantastically with my Z6 II and works great with the Z8 and Z9 via the FTZ adapter. I have to believe it will work quite well with the Z6 III.
I still mostly run adapted F mount lenses and have no complaints regarding their performance when mounted on the Z bodies.
Robert S
Well-known member
I escaped from England in Jan 1978. One of my few good decisions was to come to Australia. Lived half and half Australia NZ for a while but Australia won out. When I was in the UK Scotland was ok. Only been back once since I left.
fcotterill
Well-known member
A great deal depends on which wildlife subjects. Not everyone concentrates on birds, where the Z9,Z8, D850 are useful with their cropping flexibility.
600mm is often the bare minimum focal length for most birds, for which 800mm has the more optimum FoV on FX; and this combination can require 1120mm quite often - with a TC14. But it depends how confiding one's bird subjects are, and also the composition one prefers.
Another very important factor is Nikon is unmatched in combining the lightest telephotos in its PF primes, and also the 180-600. The Z8 is the lightest high end ILC with 45 mp sensor to pair with these lenses; in comparison the Z6 III weighs 760 g versus 910g and is a bit more compact (139 x 102 x 89 mm versus 144 x 119 x 88mm).
My camera of choice for African mammals is a D6 with a fast zoom telephoto, or sometimes 800 f5.6E for tighter framing. Like the D5, it delivers excellent image quality from the 20mp sensor. I also use a Z9 for silent shutter and if higher fps is important.
The 24mp sensors also have their advantages in low light, when ISO 12800, and higher, is commonly needed. Moreover, the full house of upgraded video features of the Z6 III should also make it ideal for wildlife.
The new Z6 III looks like an ideal wildlife camera, particularly with the wide choice of F and Z mount lenses besides the Z9 AF engine. @Steve 's latest pair of videos leave no doubt the Autofocus is up to the challenges of flying birds etc. {edited}
Last edited:
Mine worked fine and while I did no personal testing against F bodies…the general conclusion was that AF is better on the Z body but that’s because of the better AF in the Zs as compared to Fs. AF speed was comparable and IQ perhaps slightly better because of the no need to tune focus as is sometimes needed on F bodies. The Z 600PF is better…but that’s a function of better optical design software and the wider mount making optics easier and smaller/lighter lens. But the 50lPF works fine…and the AF, FPS, EVF, and other goodies are worth the upgrade from the F body IMO.
Brian L
Well-known member
My 500 pf works absolutely fine on my Z8 using the (old) FTZ. It also worked fine with my Z6ii, except the Z6ii AF is just not good enough for fast action.
The FTZ is simply a hollow extender, it has no optical effect whatsoever. All your F glass will work seamlessly.
Steve’s video says the Z6iii basically puts the AF problem of the older vintages to bed and comes close to matching the Z8/9. That plus the bottomless buffer and the best EVF brightness and res of any mirrorless camera means you should make it your transition to mirrorless. I bought the Z6ii, it didn’t work well, and then upgraded to the Z8. But if the Z6iiI existed when I made the upgrade it would be a very tough choice (because the original Z6 line was great for pretty much anything but action).
Last edited:
I am not, in any way, criticizing Steve or you in this post. However, remember that while we see all of our own missed/bad shots, and beat ourselves up over them, what we often see from pros is an extremely small sample of their photos. They leave out their shots that aren't the best, so we often fall into the trap of thinking either that all, or most, of their shots are perfect, or nearly so.
They have their own failures, but usually don't share them.
Yes, it is enough. Many started shooting wildlife with 12.x MP (or less) digital cameras, and thought that going to a 24.x MP camera was absolutely the end-all/be-all of wildlife photography.
What would you like to see in the next Z8 release?
Megaera
New member
Good call! I’m long past the point where I can up and go. If only I’d known then what I know now
Glad it all worked out well for you!
And what about some of the Scrub Jays in Florida that frequently land on camera bodies and lenses, or even a photographers head?
Last edited:
All I want to do is visit Australia and New Zealand for a month or two, and somehow I never seem to be able to.
.... One of these days; one of these days!
Yep. Guys like Steve depend on ‘the best images’ for their livelihood and thus the gains incremental or more of the exotic lenses make sense for them. They keep the non best for teaching purposes as Steve does…but for the rest of us…the definition of a keeper can be and often is a little less strict. While we are all wildlife photographers…his perspective and needs are rightfully differ from those not making their money with it…and that’s just fine. I have…well, many…perfectly sharp images of rollers and other BIF from Africa with clipped wings…but that’s why I was shooting 20FPS.
Yep. And meerkats in Africa…we’ve all seen those shots too…and cheetahs hopping up on the truck to get high or into the truck if there were lions around.And what about some of the Scrub Jays in Florida that frequently land on camera bodies and lenses, or even a photographers head?
ricardo00
Well-known member
RAW pre-capture would be my first wish. Zebras in the EVF would be second. Third might be 240 fps video.
Last edited:
NWGuy
Well-known member
"A constant redefining of the unacceptable" comes to mind with the 'just 24 MP,? ugh!'. As technology progresses, what was once considered acceptable or even top of the line gets replaced only to be replaced with something 'better' down the road. If this version of 'better' doesn't meet our wants and needs, then we're stuck waiting for the next 'better'. But we are all like, "I want it NOW!".