Chris1966 wrote in post #18968949
It's interesting to hear that the D500 is apparently still miles ahead of any Canon body. But the comparison between the Canon 600/4 and the Nikon 500/5.6 is an odd one, they are such different lenses, I cannot imagine how a 500mm f5.6 lens could ever replace a 600mm f4 lens.
If you were to put the 600mm f4 with 1.4tc on the 90D, you would have reach (at identical aperture) that leaves the Nikon set far, far behind, even without factoring in the much higher pixel density of the Canon 90D.
So if you do not need that reach, then sure, I would sell the 600mm f4 without doubt and enjoy the 500mm PF, but otherwise, how can the 500PF éver replace the Canon 600mm f4?
B.t.w. I find myself contemplating the Nikon set though, having only recently gotten the Canon 400DOII with converters. I sorely miss the Sony sensor of my former Pentax K3II. It turns out I cannot easily come to grips with the Canon AA-filters and the 7DIII that I would really want, is unsure to say the least. So I am thinking of taking it all in and get the D500 with 500PF and be done with it...
After having shot with the 100-400II, 400 DOII, 500II, 600II/III on both APSC and FF bodies, I've been able to zero in on the focal length(s) that best suit what I need: ~750 to 850mm, give or take. I ended up w/ the 1DXII + 600 III + 1.4 = 840mm, and then the D500 + 500PF = 750mm. For me, there's more to it than meets the eye though:
I know the 1DX2 wins the test chart contest, no argument there, and while that's the case, I like the files from my D500 better than from my 1DX2. While the 1DX2 has the much better high ISO noise control, I'm blown away by how excellent the D500 files are in post, especially with the advent of Topaz DeNoise AI. To me, that's almost erased the noise advantage.
But aside from the files, I have other reasons to prefer the Nikon setup:
- D500 + 500PF has you framed at 750mm and f/5.6. (Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm still technically at 500mm f/5.6, I know.)
- 1DX2 + 600III + 1.4TC, and you're at 840mm and f/5.6
- Same aperture at similar FOV
- 500PF has better MFD
- Canon setup will have more pleasing background blur, but with the right shot setup, this advantage isn't all that
- Canon = $14k better more expensive
- Canon = ~ 6lbs heavier
- D500PF = immeasurably better to hand hold all day, not even debatable
- D500PF = so much easier to travel with
Really, the shots from the 1DX2 setup just weren't "mind blowingly" better enough to justify the additional weight and cost. I'm ok with taking whatever test chart IQ hit for all the benefits and advantages the D500PF brings for how and what I want to shoot.
When I first started shooting w/ the D500PF, I was certain that the 750mm FOV would be too short for my birding, but I've been pleasantly surprised by how well I've done with the reduced reach compared to what I was getting w/ the 1DX2600III. I think a lot of it has to do with both how I have gotten better at getting closer to my subjects, and being more exacting in choosing the right setting/composition for the photos I want to make. Naturally, there will be shots I miss because I don't have enough reach, but on the same token there will be shots I can get when a bird comes in closer and the 840mm is too much. You win some, you lose some.
Maximum focal distance easily goes to the 600mm + 2.0x, but I find that if I'm that far away my shot composition has a good chance of being garbage. I shoot small birds in primarily woody/brushy areas, so I'm looking for closer shots because the further out you get, things get much more difficult: the higher the chance you have for obstacles in the viewing path, and your composition choices/control becomes more narrow (getting nice light + right shooting angles + predicting where bird will land + avoiding aforementioned obstacles). Picking a more close up site with multiple perch options and more clear lanes of shooting grants me better chances of getting a clean shot, vs. trying to snipe from further out.
What I've learned is that when getting closer in, I was A) hitting MFD sooner w/ the 600, and B) the bigger rig as much more inflexible when it came to responding to unpredictable subjects. Often times I might be shooting from weird, contorted angles, or could be sitting completely still with camera up to the eye at the ready for long periods, or be required to lean out past my center of gravity to get a different composition. In situations like this, the 600 will wear me out a lot faster, whereas the 500PF I can sustain for a lot longer.
In the end, yeah, a 500 f/5.6 can't replace a 600 f/4 if you need a 600 f/4, but for me the 500 is the best choice. It comes down to what works for each individual, and I've been elated to discover that the Nikon setup accomplishes exactly what I want for my photography, and I'm so happy that I don't need the bigger, more expensive rig.
Chris1966 wrote in post #18968949B.t.w. I find myself contemplating the Nikon set though, having only recently gotten the Canon 400DOII with converters. I sorely miss the Sony sensor of my former Pentax K3II. It turns out I cannot easily come to grips with the Canon AA-filters and the 7DIII that I would really want, is unsure to say the least. So I am thinking of taking it all in and get the D500 with 500PF and be done with it...
As I mentioned above, the files I'm getting from the D500 just come off the camera looking great, whereas the Canon files need some massaging to get into shape. In Lightroom, the recent addition of the Texture slider was huge for bird feather detail, it feel that it was exactly what my Canon files have been missing all these years. It's been fun going back and re-editing my past favorites and seeing the immediately better quality of my shots.
It's looking more and more like I'll have to change how I shoot with it then, knowing I have to be more careful of focus position; maybe by default I'll just rack the focus back closer to MFD before proceeding. Will also test and see if the 1.4 TC is affecting AF responsiveness and accuracy. 
