It is nice that I have the lens already so you cannot … tempt me!
But truth be told D850 and D500 with 500PF are superb. I recently shot with D850+500PF+1.4EIII combination and the result was very good.
Upvote
0
Show your Bird Portraits
- Thread starter 1982chris911
- Start date
But truth be told D850 and D500 with 500PF are superb. I recently shot with D850+500PF+1.4EIII combination and the result was very good.
Sorry for the long post, but it’s in case anyone is deliberating about lenses. I have embarras de richesse for my style of nature photography as I have more than enough gear to keep me more than happy, and would be only a little less happy without the redundancy. My priorities are first it has to be light enough for someone of my age to go out hiking with. Secondly it has to give adequately sharp, well-resolved and focussed images. And, thirdly, I can take distant birds and close up ones, and insects. To be honest, my 5DSR, which is now my Canon back up body (and my wife uses), and 100-400mm II plus 1.4xTC still meet our needs in the main and I would cheerfully take the pair on my next trip abroad. The R5 near enough matches the 5DSR for resolution and it is more versatile for BIF and pairs really well with the 100-400mm II and I can use it at 800mm. The Nikon D850 or 500 with the 500PF also pass the weight test. I get sharper images than with the zoom, especially close up. With the minimum focal distance of 3m, I usually get better images of dragonflies and butterflies with the 500PF than with 100-400 closer up, and apart from the tracking. It is as good as the R5 for BIF at 500mm but not at 700mm because the DSLR focusses slowly at f/8 when the 1.4xTC is on the f/5.6 500mm - the R5's AF is a killer at f/8. The 500PF has the edge on sharpness for distant small birds, especially with the 1.4xTC. So, I am very happy taking the Nikon pair on a days hike or on safari. The 400mm DO II catches up on the sharpness and focusses brilliantly at 800mm f/8 on the R5. However, I haven't decided yet on whether to keep the 400mm DO II. The difference in weight is just enough to make a difference. The R5 + 400 DO + lenscoat is 3.25 kg and 3.5 kg with the 1.4xTC. The D850 with the 500PF and lenscoat is 2.8 kg. Put the 2xTC on the 400 and the weight goes up to 3.6 kg, and with the 1.4TC on the 500, it's 3 kg. So, it's an extra 0.6 kg or so carrying the Canon prime pair vs the Nikon full frame for similar resolution. I am going to test the 400mm DO II for BIF on the R5. If it is much better the 100-400mm II, then I'll keep for special days out but not for general use.It is nice that I have the lens already so you cannot … tempt me!
But truth be told D850 and D500 with 500PF are superb. I recently shot with D850+500PF+1.4EIII combination and the result was very good.
Upvote
0
Alan I agree with the redundancy you mention (the only issue being the decision making each time - at least for me).
I too have kept my 400 DO II. Since you can afford it maybe you could keep it for many years for these occasions where you do not have to take long hikes like when shooting from home or going by car to bird hides. I see nothing wrong with that.
EDIT: The close shooting IQ with the Nikons + 500mmPF is indeed superb!
I too have kept my 400 DO II. Since you can afford it maybe you could keep it for many years for these occasions where you do not have to take long hikes like when shooting from home or going by car to bird hides. I see nothing wrong with that.
EDIT: The close shooting IQ with the Nikons + 500mmPF is indeed superb!
Upvote
0
Would you consider replacing you Nikon D850 camera with Nikon Z (6 or 7)? I think it's time for me to get rid of Canon 5D m4 (which I love, btw) and replace it with something lighter and smaller. R5 is the most natural choice, of course, but while it is still unavailable for indefinite time in our part of the world, I'm also looking at Sony a9/7 and Nikon Z.
Upvote
0
The Z6 and Z7 are excellent cameras. However, like the original R, they are not up there with good tracking for bird photography. The version IIs that have just been released are supposed to be better but I haven't come across a review yet by someone I trust to comment.
Upvote
0
Since I presently don't mind hiking with the 1Dx2 and the DO II, from all I'm hearing it sounds like the R5 paired with it should be great. That's why I've been keeping my eyes open for comments regarding how well the R5 does at totally replacing the 1DX2. I'm wondering if the EF 70-200 with 1.4X would fill the gap for closer situations such that I wouldn't need to spend on something like the 100 - 500. Not having zoom capability with the 400 is certainly a drawback as is it's poor close focusing for butterflies etc.
Jack
Upvote
0
Hello Jack. My only reservation is focusing speed with the 2XIII. I was about to test it but then something happened that had priority and I lost the light today. I was not impressed with focusing speed INSIDE the house. This is NOT going to make me reject it since the real test would be outdoors with decent light and limited focusing range, although the full range is useful for ... "surprises".
Upvote
0
That is a concern for sure. The 1DX2 mechanically has the speed but from what I can understand so far, it misses more optical focus than the R5, presumably that relates to the power of the battery. I've become pretty attached to 400 X2 for the little critters.
Jack
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Tron, for a wile I was hesitating to comment on your comment (Finally! An Oystercatcher that caught an … oyster!
) but since here we are community of mix photographers/naturalist I can't resist: We still have to wait for a photo of oystercatcher catching true Oyster (oyster is ambiguous) because the shellfish on that photos is a Scallop (also ambiguous but both groups have very distinctive shells). Not big deal at all but there is that devil in me that always make me uncomfortable when I see miss-identification (and in the same time I hate my photos of interesting/rare for my location birds that are not good at all and it's very painful!).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Thanks Jack! Your smile makes me feel like my comment makes some sense (at least for some of the public if not the for the entire public on this topic...).
I was really hesitating to post it - in these times you can go rude even if you don't mean it (it could be served as just an interpretation, especially if someone looks for an alternative of what you mean). Any way - thanks again!
I was really hesitating to post it - in these times you can go rude even if you don't mean it (it could be served as just an interpretation, especially if someone looks for an alternative of what you mean). Any way - thanks again!
Upvote
0
I think Tron, like me, is not going to take offence over trivial things and that's what makes this thread nicer than some others. And we appreciate your knowledge and insight. Anyway, the clam was a joke to begin with and made me smile almost as much as your reply.
Jack
Upvote
0
I've been trying to test the 400mm DO II on the R5 under real conditions but there are so few birds around. A Green Woodpecker was eating insects in our back garden. They are so skittish the only chance of getting a shot is through our terrible double glazing. The top one is at 800mm using the 2xTC (cropped and reduced by 50% to fit here) the lower at 560mm with the 1.4xTC at about original size, at iso 3200..
Upvote
0