My current Pentax system has wonderful color reproduction and high dynamic range suitable for macro, wildflower, and landscape photography. I enjoy bird photography, but my current system is not suitable for action photography. The autofocus is poor and I struggle getting good images of birds. My success rate ranges between 1 and 10% with no flying birds possible. I am interested in the Canon 7d Mark II and the Nikon D500 for birds. I can afford purchasing used equipment to keep within the budget. From what I read, both cameras are comparable with the dynamic range better in the D500. The autofocus is impressive in both of these cameras and most of these differences in other features seem trivial. For those of you that have or are using the D500 or 7d Mark II, what do you like and dislike about the cameras. What is your success rate capturing animals in motion? Thank you for your help.........................................Jim
I'm a Canon user--and 7DII owner--and if I were starting from scratch and choosing one of those two bodies, I'd go with the D500. While the AF on the 7DII seems okay (I primarily use my pro level bodies these days, so it's hard to give a recent opinion), I've always been pretty unhappy with the image quality on the 7DII once you get above 800 ISO.
There are several other comparisons online as well.
In addition to a good camera, you're going to need a big and FAST sucker of a lens. What do you have in mind there ?
I have had mixed results with the 7D Mark II. I use it almost exclusively with the Canon 500mm lens in order to get the extra reach still at f/4. On the one hand, the focus is extraordinary - truly exceptional. Of course, with focus, much is on the operator too. I use back button focus and on the 7D2 I use both back buttons with each configured for a different focusing mode and autofocus case within each mode. This gives tremendous flexibility for the different situations of birds in clear sky vs busy background. I don't know if the Nikon has a similar flexibility with autofocus cases. I'm sure a Nikon user can chime in.
The negative with the 7D2 is as mentioned by Max although I don't agree with the 800 ceiling. I've shot the 7D2 routinely at 1600 ISO and even 3200 and gotten some good results. Just not as many as at lower ISO's and nowhere near as many as with the 1Dx Mark II for which 3200 is not even a challenge. Even with a 1.4x converter and the 100-400mm zoom on the 1Dx2, the results are super.
Always a tough call to decide on a system. It's good you're doing your homework.
Jim, a few more thoughts - birds in flight are especially tough. There is a "3d" Setting on some cameras that tracks and focuses on the closest object - great for birds in flight against a clear sky or against a messy distant BG.
Other settings regarding tracking ability are also a custom option. Be sure you know about these for any camera or lens you get. (Sorry if you already know about these).
Here is an example from a couple years ago - poor noon light, but you get the idea.
I've never kept any hard data on success rate. I'm a Canon user and have used the 7D2 for some time. The AF is much better than anything I owned previously, but I don't have any real data to compare with the D500. While the dynamic range on the 500 may be slightly greater, I don't notice any real difference in the quality of the images posted, though prints might show something. I'd blow the money and rent both for a few days to see how they feel. The balance and feel in your hand probably makes as much difference in flight shots as anything. Some cameras just point more naturally for one person than another. I noticed when I had a 1DIV that I liked the way it pointed, so when I got the 7DII, I bought a battery grip for it and to me it points better with it than without (and also allows easier switches to portrait orientation). So if you can rent battery grips for your test, I'd do that as well.
A major consideration is also the lens you want to use with it. I've been using the Sigma Contemporary 150-600 the last few years and I like it a lot (enough that I sold my old 500 f4). Most of the people on NPN who shoot Nikon and tried this lens have switched to the Nikon 200-500. I believe Sandy recently got the Sigma 150-600 sport and uses it on her Nikons with excellent results. Note that the Sport costs twice as much as the Contemporary and weighs more than twice as much. If you're planning on shooting with a prime, they'll both work about the same and probably weigh in about the same.
Thank you. I have been doing a lot of research and the best information is provided by folks that are experts in the art of action photography. My current camera system does not feature tracking and of course, my 600 mm is a manual focus lens. I examined those links Sandy and are quite informative. I've outgrown my current system and Its time for a change. I told Jenny what I would like to purchase (D500) and we'll see. The D500 has speed, excellent dynamic range, and reasonable noise for higher Iso's. I have a friend that shoots with Nikon equipment she said that she would loan me her 300 mm f4. It will be good practice as most of the birds around our house are within 300 mm reach. Max, John, and Sandy (that peregrine is awesome!), you have displayed some impressive bird photos and its nice to get advice from you folks that have a lot of expertise. Its why I have been an NPN member for a number of years. ............................................................Jim
" I believe Sandy recently got the Sigma 150-600 sport and uses it on her Nikons with excellent results. (Thanks, Dennis!) Note that the Sport costs twice as much as the Contemporary and weighs more than twice as much. If you're planning on shooting with a prime, they'll both work about the same and probably weigh in about the same."
I got the Sigma because I have been dragging the 500 prime around for 10 years and I'm exhausted. I honestly can't tell the difference (I think) between either at 500, or 500 vs 600 in sharpness. It's impt to note that i had the Sigma lens professionally fine-tuned and calibrated to my cameras
BUT!!! The Sigma is much less weight the weight of the Nikon 500 prime, and shorter.
In looking at the published specs, I think they are wrong. Just weighed both with my accurate luggage scale -
Sigma Sport weight = 101 oz (2860gm) - about 7#
Nikon 500 F4 prime = almost 10#, both with tripod feet and hoods on. In hand-holding overhead, that is a killer difference.
Sigma Sport length = 11.4 inches
Nikon 500 mm F4 = 15.25 inches.
End result:
Jim, if there is ANY way you can swing it, I'd go for the Nikon D850 - lots of good used ones - and a used Sigma Sport 150-600 that should be about $1000 or so. With birds, you need as many MP as you can find, and there is a huge difference between the 20 of the D500 and the 36MP of the D850.
Also consider a good used Nikon 300mm F2.8 - all the speed you'll need, plus it does great with ALL the teleconverter, especially the 2.0 which makes it a 600 AF lens.
Hope this helps somewhat, rather than muddying the waters further!
Sandy
Thank you for joining the discussion. Casting pixel peeping aside, the 7d Mark II and the D500 are very close in performance. I'm looking for autofocus accuracy and speed. As John and Max said, I shoot for the print so dynamic range is very important with limited noise. I do a small amount of landscapes, but not in my wheelhouse. Macro, wildflowers, and birds make up most of my portfolio. I'll go to the camera store today and check them out for ergonomics. Sandy, I agree with your assessment of the 300 mm f2.8 lens--a versatile piece of equipment. I am seriously considering that one because with extension tubes and teleconverters. But, I need to evaluate where my picture taking skills is going to take me and my needs for different lenses. Jenny said that I can purchase a camera body so I have some more research to do and then I'll go shopping. In the meantime, dragonflies have made their appearance around the duck pond.
Discussion
8 repliesMax
Jim, these may help:
Nikon D500 vs Canon 7D Mark II - Photography Life
Nikon D500 vs. Canon 7D Mark II - New Atlas
5 Reasons Why The New Nikon D500 is a 7D Mk II Killer - DigitalRev
There are several other comparisons online as well.In addition to a good camera, you're going to need a big and FAST sucker of a lens. What do you have in mind there ?
Sandy
The negative with the 7D2 is as mentioned by Max although I don't agree with the 800 ceiling. I've shot the 7D2 routinely at 1600 ISO and even 3200 and gotten some good results. Just not as many as at lower ISO's and nowhere near as many as with the 1Dx Mark II for which 3200 is not even a challenge. Even with a 1.4x converter and the 100-400mm zoom on the 1Dx2, the results are super.
Always a tough call to decide on a system. It's good you're doing your homework.
Other settings regarding tracking ability are also a custom option. Be sure you know about these for any camera or lens you get. (Sorry if you already know about these).
Here is an example from a couple years ago - poor noon light, but you get the idea.
Sandy
I've never kept any hard data on success rate. I'm a Canon user and have used the 7D2 for some time. The AF is much better than anything I owned previously, but I don't have any real data to compare with the D500. While the dynamic range on the 500 may be slightly greater, I don't notice any real difference in the quality of the images posted, though prints might show something. I'd blow the money and rent both for a few days to see how they feel. The balance and feel in your hand probably makes as much difference in flight shots as anything. Some cameras just point more naturally for one person than another. I noticed when I had a 1DIV that I liked the way it pointed, so when I got the 7DII, I bought a battery grip for it and to me it points better with it than without (and also allows easier switches to portrait orientation). So if you can rent battery grips for your test, I'd do that as well.
A major consideration is also the lens you want to use with it. I've been using the Sigma Contemporary 150-600 the last few years and I like it a lot (enough that I sold my old 500 f4). Most of the people on NPN who shoot Nikon and tried this lens have switched to the Nikon 200-500. I believe Sandy recently got the Sigma 150-600 sport and uses it on her Nikons with excellent results. Note that the Sport costs twice as much as the Contemporary and weighs more than twice as much. If you're planning on shooting with a prime, they'll both work about the same and probably weigh in about the same.
" I believe Sandy recently got the Sigma 150-600 sport and uses it on her Nikons with excellent results. (Thanks, Dennis!) Note that the Sport costs twice as much as the Contemporary and weighs more than twice as much. If you're planning on shooting with a prime, they'll both work about the same and probably weigh in about the same."
I got the Sigma because I have been dragging the 500 prime around for 10 years and I'm exhausted. I honestly can't tell the difference (I think) between either at 500, or 500 vs 600 in sharpness. It's impt to note that i had the Sigma lens professionally fine-tuned and calibrated to my cameras
BUT!!! The Sigma is much less weight the weight of the Nikon 500 prime, and shorter.
In looking at the published specs, I think they are wrong. Just weighed both with my accurate luggage scale -
Sigma Sport weight = 101 oz (2860gm) - about 7#
Nikon 500 F4 prime = almost 10#, both with tripod feet and hoods on. In hand-holding overhead, that is a killer difference.
Sigma Sport length = 11.4 inches
Nikon 500 mm F4 = 15.25 inches.
End result:
Jim, if there is ANY way you can swing it, I'd go for the Nikon D850 - lots of good used ones - and a used Sigma Sport 150-600 that should be about $1000 or so. With birds, you need as many MP as you can find, and there is a huge difference between the 20 of the D500 and the 36MP of the D850.
Also consider a good used Nikon 300mm F2.8 - all the speed you'll need, plus it does great with ALL the teleconverter, especially the 2.0 which makes it a 600 AF lens.
Hope this helps somewhat, rather than muddying the waters further!
Sandy
Thank you for joining the discussion. Casting pixel peeping aside, the 7d Mark II and the D500 are very close in performance. I'm looking for autofocus accuracy and speed. As John and Max said, I shoot for the print so dynamic range is very important with limited noise. I do a small amount of landscapes, but not in my wheelhouse. Macro, wildflowers, and birds make up most of my portfolio. I'll go to the camera store today and check them out for ergonomics. Sandy, I agree with your assessment of the 300 mm f2.8 lens--a versatile piece of equipment. I am seriously considering that one because with extension tubes and teleconverters. But, I need to evaluate where my picture taking skills is going to take me and my needs for different lenses. Jenny said that I can purchase a camera body so I have some more research to do and then I'll go shopping. In the meantime, dragonflies have made their appearance around the duck pond