runakid Loc: Shelbyville, TN

Ideas?

I shoot most animals and lots of birds- many in flight.

My wife and I shoot Nikon . She has a Nikon 7100 and uses the 18-300 for her trips and family photos. I have a 7000 that sits in the car for stuff that you just see. I also have a 800 and 500 bodies. We have a 70-200 2.8, 200-500, 500 pf and 500 f4.
Seems like a lot of glass and bodies to make the switch.
Looking for better eye focus and saving weight too.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Cameras with mirrors are larger and heavier. Just a fact of the design. You could rent a Nikon mirrorless body and / or an Olympus and make an informed decision vs just reading opinions of people who know virtually nothing about you and your photography style.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

--Bob

Just Shoot Me Loc: Ithaca, NY

I'm sure many people here will advise to go mirrorless to save weight, if that is within your budget. But going from crop to FF is not a weight saving idea, just the opposite. Plus depending on what glass you decide to buy it could add more weight. And like you said you have a lot of glass to make a switch from Nikon. You could try renting a body/lens combo first and see if that is the road you want to travel. Other than that, stay tuned, I'm sure there will be many more comments to follow. Good luck with your decision.

Ron

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

Thee D500 with the 500mm pf lens is a great wildlife and sports combo. Compare its weight to the OM-1 with the 100-400mm or 300mm f4.

While mirrorless cameras may be slightly lighter than DSLRs, if you want to save weight, crop sensor lenses are much lighter than full frame lenses.

rplain1 Loc: Dayton, Oh.

I may be missing something but the difference between a Canon R5 and a Canon 5DmIV (body only) is a grand total of 2.2 ounces. Doesn't seem like a huge difference maker. Especially if you want to keep your old glass and have to add the weight of the converter. There may be reasons to switch to mirrorless, but I'm not going to blow the budget to save 2.2 ounces.

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

Eye focus is nice but it is still all about the available light and a steady hand. It is up to you to decide what fits your budget. You won't get much better results than you do with your D500.

LEWHITE7747 Loc: 33773

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

CHG_CANON is right. But you have indicated that you want to save weight. Try renting two OM-1s bodies and renting the 7-14 f2.8 Pro, 12-100 f4 Pro IS, and 100-400 f5-6.3 IS for a week. Remember that the lens angle of view is doubled (12-100 in 4/3rds is the same angle of view as 24-200 in 35mm). This will give you an idea of what is possible. Be sure to study the manual before you rent the camera. And be sure you know how to pull up the Super Control Panel rather than just relying on the scroll menu. The scroll menu has been improved but the Super Control Panel is faster for most common control changes. And if you feel the 24 angle of view is adequate, you might try renting the 12-45 f4 Pro, 12-100 f4 Pro IS, and 100-400 f5-6.3 IS (both the 12-45 and 12-100 are capable of 1/2 lifesize close-ups). Another heavier combination would be the 12-40 f2.8 Pro, 40-150 f2.8 Pro, and the two 1.4X and 2X teleconverters. All these combinations should be lighter and smaller than what the two of you have now.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

The OM-1 offers 7 stops of stabilization IBIS. That is not possible with full frame.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Can't argue with your logic assuming all things are equal.

However, in the Nikon world the Nikon Z 7II is only two thirds the weight of the Nikon D850 and is physically much smaller as well. On top of that, lenses designed specifically for the Z mount are significantly smaller and lighter than the traditional F Mount Nikon lenses. I was a Canon DSLR shooter for more than a decade but switched over to Nikon mirrorless a year ago and I'm quite happy with the weight and size reduction.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

The savings in weight is not so much the bodies as it is in the lenses. This is where the Olympus/OMDS system would save them size and weight in the lenses.

Urnst Loc: Brownsville, Texas

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

My carry-on is basically 2" under the carry-on three dimensional limits and holds two bodies, 5 lenses (14 to 1200 angle of view), two teleconverters, flash, 4 batteries, and accessories at the Lufthansa 18 pounds carry-on limit. I can actually put it under the the seat in front of me and still have a little room for my feet. What full frame or APS-C system can do all of the above for the same size and weight? I know of none.

jcboy3

I think you would be better off looking at a Nikon Z9. You can save weight by ditching the 500 f4. And prepare to replace the 200-500 with the 200-600 when it is released.

If you want to switch and learn a new system, then the Olympus OM-1 provides a good solution. The 40-150 f/2.8 and 150-400 f/4.5 are obvious choices for wildlife, although for lighter travel the 100-400 is usable as well (but not a substitute). The 300 f/4 is excellent, and works very well with the 1.4x TC. The 12-100 f4 is stellar for wider views. They also make a 12-200, which would be the comparable lens to your wifes' 18-300. However, the 12-100 provides better stability, better low light performance, generally sharper images, and crops very well, and is always my choice unless I need shallower DOF.

Olympus is releasing the OM-5 soon, which is expected to be a smaller body with lower frame rate and maybe not subject tracking (not clear yet, end of the month maybe). But clearly OM-1 is the major wildlife body. Suggested for your wife if she is changing as well but not so much interested in wildlife.

This is not an inexpensive transition. Which is why I suggested a Z9. But if weight savings is key, then there you go...