BillA

Good Morning Huggers:

I am a bird photographer and shoot with a Nikon D500 and Nikkor 200-500 zoom. I love this camera/lens and I have carried it for about 4 years now. However, it is getting too heavy for an all day (or almost all day) trip. I have decided to replace the body with a Nikon Z 7 and a zoom as yet to be determined. My current thinking is that I will need to go down to nothing longer than a 400mm. I know this will be a little short for what I get with the 200-500; however I think this will be OK, if my following assumption is correct.

Assumption:
My D500 is a C-crop sensor, so my 200-500 gives me an "effective" range of 750mm; the D500 provides 20mp of resolution. The Z7 is a full frame and has a resolution of 47mp. This is where I think I can compensate. Since the Z7 has more than double the resolution than that of my D500, does this not mean I can crop the Z7 image to get something very close to the size/quality of my current rig if I choose the right zoom for the Z7. I am currently thinking the Nikkor Z lens 100-400mm. This should give me a "effective" look of 800mm. Since I crop to a resolution that has 20+ MP - should this not be the same quality as I am now getting for my D500?

Do you agree with my assumption? I cannot find anyone nearby that has a FF camera with 40 or more MP to test this on or I would try to empirically determine this.

Thanks for any assistance and all the best!

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

The Z7 has almost exactly the same sensor density as your D500. If you put your 200-500 lens on the Z7, images at 500mm would have almost the same resolution as images shot with your D500. You would just capture a slightly wider view. Using a 400mm lens on the Z7 will have the same result as using a 400mm lens on your D500...again...just a wider total view. I have tested this with my D500 and D850 (same resolution as the Z7) and verified it to be the case.

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

Someone tell me if I'm wrong, but I think you can set your Z7 to crop sensor mode and effectively get 150-600 from the 100-400. It will reduce the MPs by quite a bit but I'm not sure if doing that is better/worse than cropping an image when shot at 45 mp. I know that doesn't get you out to 800 mm but 600 is not bad.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You probably should check the weights:

D500 - 29.6 oz. / 839g
Z7II - 24.5 oz. / 694g
Nikon 200-500 - 81.25 oz. / 2,300g (with collar)
Nikon Z 100-400mm - 50.1 oz. / 1435 g

You're talking about changing to a $3000 mirrorless camera to achieve a 5-ounce difference. Doesn't seem like that buys very much difference at all, when the lens is the overwhelming amount of the combined total weight, when keeping the 200-500. Changing lenses for the $2700 zoom gets a 35-ounce combined change, just over two pound of combined weight, about $162 per ounce or about a 22% reduction in combined total weight.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Yes, do the math. You won't save that much weight. If the camera is too heavy to hand hold for your birding, then try a monopod. It's not hard to actually carry the weight, it's hard to hand hold that much weight as you are holding the camera up to your eye. Think about it.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

I can't help myself. I have to weigh in with my own prejudice. And, quickly ignore me if you have a habit of making 30x40 prints.

Before you spend all that Nikon money, look at the smaller offerings from Olympus and Panasonic. Both have a good long zoom lens. My version is a (aging) GX8 with a 100-400 that weighs in at 3.2 pounds and has the 35mm equivalent field of view equal to 200-800.

Lighter yet is the Sony RX10 IV that weighs in at 2.4 pounds with a 600 mm equivalent. My wife just got one. I'm worried about the competition! We are driving to Alaska and back this summer and it will kill me if her pictures are better than mine. She does cheat. She will ask be to slow down or pull over. While I'm doing that, she gets it on and ready while my hands are still stuck to the steering wheel. That gives her a frequent two or three minute head start advantage!

Again, ignore my comments if this is about the excitement of a good excuse for some new Nikon gear. It is is really about weight, there are less weighty options that capture good image files.

CO

Since a 400mm focal length is sufficient, a cost effective solution is to get the Tamron 100-400mm for your D500. It weighs 1115 grams as opposed to the 2300 grams for the Nikon 200-500mm. I have rented it before. It's an excellent lens, especially considering that it's only $800. I got great results with it at an airshow. Continuous AF tracking worked great with the lens. I already have the Nikon 80-400mm so I didn't purchase one..

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

--Bob

bruswen Loc: Eugene OR

Given your equipment, I would recommend you replace the lens with Nikon’s PF 500mm f/5.6. You save a couple of pounds in weight and get a pro level lens. Focus is faster and it is sharp across the frame instead of just the center. The 200-500mm lens is very good but the PF 500mm is better. You lose the ability to zoom in and out. I have this combination and can attest to the quality. When I first got this lens I really noticed the difference in weight.

PhotosBySteve

Weight savings would be negligible.
Quality would be superior.

User ID

Your math is off. The Z7 has over twice the pixel count, but has only 50% more pixel resolution. Resolution is a linear measure.

The diagonal resolution of the D500 is about 6400 pixels vs 9500 for the Z7, which is, as already mentioned, a 50% advantage to the Z7. If you crop the Z7 frame down to equal the D500 frame, you just break even. You create a 1.5x "crop factor" and the cropped image is about 5500x3670 pixels which is 20.2MP. As to "reach" and pixel count, you have recreated the spec's of the D500 with your plan to crop the Z7 image.

A 20MP image from a 100-400 is the same on both the D500 and the Z7. If you crop a 100-400 to get the image size of your 200-500 on your D500, then either camera will provide about 16MP. Theres no such thing as a free lunch.

The Z7 is not light, but its a bit lighter than my D750 which should weigh about equal to a D500. A 100-400 should weigh less than your 200-500, and acoarst youve already looked up all that stuff.

User ID

Quality would be no better. 20MP and similar tech with either camera.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Z50 with 500 PF ? ......
.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I shoot a Z7 and love but I don’t use it for birds. I’d say you want at least a Z7II if you do wildlife. But as has been pointed out, you won’t save much weight. I was using D500 with 200-500 and got great results. I switched to the Olympus E-M1X with the 100-400, which gives me a little extra reach over the D500 combo, (200-800mm equivalent as opposed to 300-720). Tomorrow I’m trying out my new OM-1 with the 100-400, much lighter than the E-M1X and should get even better results.

flip1948 Loc: Hamden, CT

There's always the Z50 with the same resolution and crop factor as your D500, but weighs just a hair under 1 pound with battery and card installed.

That will give you 150-600mm equivalent if you do pick up the Z100-400mm.

At about $1200 with the kit 16-50mm and 50-250mm lenses it's very affordable.

The savings with respect to the Z7ii would pay for a big chunk of that 100-400mm lens.