Canon to Nikon - D500 + 200-500 (1 Viewer)

[kuzeycem]

Hi all,
For the last 4 years I have been using Canon EOS 7D with my 400mm 5,6 lens (which are my first ever photo. equipment). I have been satisfied mostly but for the last couple of years I have been increasingly bugged by just how poorly 7D handles ISO. Seriously, any shot beyond 800 or sometimes even 640 ISO are useless (at least by my standards) due to huge amounts of noise. Despite all the selective NR I do I usually always throw away otherwise very good shots in terms of species/action/composition etc.
I looked for some alternatives in Canon. 1DMX and the other 1Ds are above my budget, and for the time being I don't want an FF camera like the 5Ds. So that left me with stuff like 80D and 7DM2. 7DM2 has been my favorite so far but I have heard from many sources that the ISO capabilities are still very poor and not very progressive compared to the old 7D.
So I did the next sensible thing and looked at Nikon. With the D5 also out of my budget rnge the next best thing was D500, which I must admit I like very much. Several friends using it speak very highly of it and the low light management seems phenomenal to me. So it may well be my dream camera.
But honestly switching brands seem a bit scary to me, because they operate differently and may take some time getting use to. I think it'll be worth it but if anyone would object, or would support this opinion I would like to know. Especially if anyone switched from Canon to Nikon (or vice versa) I would like to listen to them.

Another thing is that I have always thought about using a Nikkor 500mm f/4 lens with the D500 but I now see that is quite expensive too, so I think I will but the 200-500 f/5.6. What's bothering me is if the IQ and speed difference between the two lenses are too much (from what I've seen on the internet the zoom lens seems very good for the money), and also whether switching from Canon's prime 400 to 200-500 would also mean a significant drop in speed and sharpness.

Sorry for the long post but could really use your help. Thanks a lot! o

 

[Vespobuteo]

The nikon 200-500/5.6 is a very decent lens for the money, but it's not a prime. It's also quite a bit larger than the canon 400/5.6. Steve perry has a review on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1obqCxg52Q

If you would like something in the same size as the 400/5.6 canon, a Nikon 300/4 PF + 1.4xTC would be an alternative.

Sigma's new and handy 100-400mm lens also seems pretty capable for a very good price.

Tamron has an upcoming whooping 18-400mm, pics I have seen look pretty good at 400mm.

Sigma 500mm/f4 DG OS Sports would be next step up.

 

[nikonmike]

I cant talk Canon to Nikon as my last Canon was the 300D but i do have the D500, noise is a difficult one to answer,what you will be ok with may be different for me and the other way round.

The image below is from the D500,Sigma 100-400 @ iso 2000 with no NR,the water would have stood some but ime ok with it.
The thing i like about the D500 is i can run manual with auto iso and at the same time dial in exposure compensation which i dont think you can do with all Canon cameras.

 

[kuzeycem]

Thank you both. I am fairly certain the noise of D500 will be negligible compared to the 7D. At 2000 ISO, an image taken with 7D would be almost certainly useless.
Deciding between lenses turned out to be quite difficult. I certainly can't afford a Nikkor 500mm f/4 and a 300mm f/4 is not really charming to me to be honest.
I recently also checked the Sigma 150-600 Sport and wonder if I should get that one instead of the 200-500. Seems a bit sharper and faster than the latter, close to a prime lens, but would a third party lens bring up compatibility problems?
Thanks for your help.

 

[Dave Williams]

You can't compare a 7D with a D500 as that is unfair. A D500 vs a 7D2 is more like it and I have a feeling a 7D3 won't be long in the pipeline.( You can use exposure compensation in manual when using auto-iso on a 7D2 and the ISO range is much better but not as good as the D500 I don't believe).
Remember too that Nikon users were getting frustrated waiting for the D500.
I swopped from Nikon to Canon purely as I had been made an offer I couldn't refuse on a used Canon 600mm f4. Any regrets? No. Which is the better system? Both have benefits over the opposition but those benefits can change at anytime. The big problem is being invested too heavily with one system then there is a financial consideration to make if you are likely to lose money when you sell your old equipment.
My overall subjective opinion is that Nikon do continue to shade Canon with their bodies in terms of ISO performance but Canon lead the way with glass.
The 100-400mm Mk2 is an exceptional lens, very fast and lightweight and that takes a 1.4TC well too. You also have the 400mm f5.6 for which Nikon don't have an equivalent. If Canon bring out a 200-600mm zoom you may regret swopping to Nikon and so it goes on.
The grass always appears greener on the other side !

 

[Chosun Juan]

Kuzey, I feel your pain!

Canon or Nikon (or other?) - the eternal (infernal! question .... :brains:

As Dave said, Canon has been (and is) and in the short term anyway, will continue to be THE goto in glass. Nikon recently largely has been (and is) THE bees knees in crop bodies especially (in terms of dynamic range, noise, and 3-D tracking AF)

I ummed and ahhed a few years ago about which way to invest - C or N. In the end, it was the imminent potential release of the upcoming D500 and the revitalization of the Prime Telephoto's with FL glass and similar Canon series II lightweight diet, that swayed me into camp N.

I was quite annoyed when this didn't include a lightened 300mm f2.8 ...... grrrr! :storm:

The 200-500mm f5.6 wasn't even an inkling in its parents eye back then, so I stumped up for a D7100 and Tamron G1 150-600mm f6.3, along with a Tokina 12-28mm f4.

I shot this alongside a friend whose rig is 7D + 300mm f2.8 II with 2xTC Mk III. (such lens combo is what I wanted in the Nikon equivalent).

The major differences are that:
* the higher frame rate of the 7d gave much more varied BIF wing positions compared to my 6-7 fps (but often quickly dropping to 4 fps in practice due to the D7100's poor buffer)
* the D7100's sensor trumped the 7D's visibly. (Note that the D7100/D7200's sensor even trumps the D500's up to 200 iso)
* the 300f2.8 + 2x soundly beats the Tammy for IQ, shutter speed, (and AF speed in all but the very best light) at the expense of only an extra ~700grams (~1.5lb) weight, though still easily hand holdable due to the compact length.
* My Nikon set up was of course only 1/4 the cost of my friends Canon set up.
* I really liked the extra flexibility of the D7100's extra in-camera 1.3x crop. (Which is retained in the D500 along with a 1.5x crop in video mode on top of the 1.5x of the APS-C sensor)

I am currently mulling over upgrades through gritted teeth:-
The Nikon 300mm FL E f2.8 probably won't arrive until ~2018 .... fingers crossed it lobs at under the Canon's 2350 grams .... I want to get the D500 body, but I'm not excited about the current lens choices (500 or 600f4's being a bit heavy for my injured shoulders lately) , so I don't know whether to wait the new 300 out, get the 200-500, or stick with the Tammy for the time being :cat:

I am not personally interested in the Sigma 150-600 Sport (ultimately wanting something faster than f6.3 and lighter than nearly 3kg), but FWIW, anecdotally, reports seem to put its AF as faster than the Nikon 200-500 on the D500 (at least in good light) - I don't know what happens with either of these in low light, but know that my Tammy drops off in AF speed as the light softens of an afternoon.

In the Canon camp there are some enticing lens options on the horizon:-
The 600mm f4 DO will probably lob in ~2018, though be expensive ....
There is the prospect of the 200-600mm f5.6 also later in 2018 ....
It is rumored that the 'big whites' will undergo further IS, optical coating, and weight lightening upgrades perhaps in 2018 too ....
A new 7D MkIII body may turn up in ~2019 ?

There isn't even a rumour of a Nikon 600mm f4 PF (Diffractive Optics) lens ..... Nikon seems to be lagging several years behind Canon in the lens department ..... grrrr! :storm: They really need to pull their fingers out !!

So it could even be over to camp C in 2019?? So what to do, what to do! Greener grass indeed! (and at least at the prosumer entry level of my rig a 50% bath in value!) ..... grrr again!


Chosun :gh:

 

[Colin M]

Hi there, I made the jump to D500 with 300mm PF f4 + 1.4 iii converter. Really delighted with the all round performance. The ergonomics are superb to handle in my view. ISO and dynamic range excell for a crop sensor, albeit a little larger sensor than Canon. It is worth spending real time learning both camera and any lenses to achieve peak performance. Recovery of detail from shadows and the ability to not burn out whites are outstanding to name but two features. No one knows which lenses anyone will bring out in the future. The Nikon 200-500mm has many happy users in the bird and wildlife field. Have a look at Steve Perry's backcountrygallery.com

 

[kuzeycem]

You can't compare a 7D with a D500 as that is unfair. A D500 vs a 7D2 is more like it and I have a feeling a 7D3 won't be long in the pipeline.( You can use exposure compensation in manual when using auto-iso on a 7D2 and the ISO range is much better but not as good as the D500 I don't believe).
Remember too that Nikon users were getting frustrated waiting for the D500.
I swopped from Nikon to Canon purely as I had been made an offer I couldn't refuse on a used Canon 600mm f4. Any regrets? No. Which is the better system? Both have benefits over the opposition but those benefits can change at anytime. The big problem is being invested too heavily with one system then there is a financial consideration to make if you are likely to lose money when you sell your old equipment.
My overall subjective opinion is that Nikon do continue to shade Canon with their bodies in terms of ISO performance but Canon lead the way with glass.
The 100-400mm Mk2 is an exceptional lens, very fast and lightweight and that takes a 1.4TC well too. You also have the 400mm f5.6 for which Nikon don't have an equivalent. If Canon bring out a 200-600mm zoom you may regret swopping to Nikon and so it goes on.
The grass always appears greener on the other side !

The reason I'm comparing it with 7D is because that is my current camera. Otherwise of course it isn't fair, they are almost 10 years apart!
Nikon, in my experience, definitely has a better sensor and thus has handles problematic ISO better. Main problem for me right now are lenses, and I've so far narrowed it down to Sigma 150-600 Sports and Nikkor 200-500, and I think I'm gonna go with the latter.
7D+400 were my first equipment and I don't intend on selling them, especially the 400mm. So no deep investments on my part

Thanks for your response.

 

[johnf3f]

I can't comment on the D500 as I have yet to give one a good try out! However I read that it is a very good camera.

Have you tried out a 7D2? Whilst it is not quite up to the D500 it does have the advantage of being a much cheaper upgrade and you can still use your 400 F5.6 L! Whilst the Canon 7D was great in it's day things have moved on, the Mk2 AF is significantly better and the ISO performance is at least a stop better some (me) would say more. I am quite happy at ISO 1600 with mine and will go a little further (but not a lot) when needed as it cleans up better than the 7D. Just my opinion.

I would suggest that you try the 7D2 and the D500 (with an appropriate lens) and then decide if a switch is worth it to you. These days both are great systems but both have their pros and cons - it is really down to which will suit you better in the long term.

Happy choosing!

 

[kuzeycem]

Kuzey, I feel your pain!

Canon or Nikon (or other?) - the eternal (infernal! question .... :brains:

As Dave said, Canon has been (and is) and in the short term anyway, will continue to be THE goto in glass. Nikon recently largely has been (and is) THE bees knees in crop bodies especially (in terms of dynamic range, noise, and 3-D tracking AF)

I ummed and ahhed a few years ago about which way to invest - C or N. In the end, it was the imminent potential release of the upcoming D500 and the revitalization of the Prime Telephoto's with FL glass and similar Canon series II lightweight diet, that swayed me into camp N.

I was quite annoyed when this didn't include a lightened 300mm f2.8 ...... grrrr! :storm:

The 200-500mm f5.6 wasn't even an inkling in its parents eye back then, so I stumped up for a D7100 and Tamron G1 150-600mm f6.3, along with a Tokina 12-28mm f4.

I shot this alongside a friend whose rig is 7D + 300mm f2.8 II with 2xTC Mk III. (such lens combo is what I wanted in the Nikon equivalent).

The major differences are that:
* the higher frame rate of the 7d gave much more varied BIF wing positions compared to my 6-7 fps (but often quickly dropping to 4 fps in practice due to the D7100's poor buffer)
* the D7100's sensor trumped the 7D's visibly. (Note that the D7100/D7200's sensor even trumps the D500's up to 200 iso)
* the 300f2.8 + 2x soundly beats the Tammy for IQ, shutter speed, (and AF speed in all but the very best light) at the expense of only an extra ~700grams (~1.5lb) weight, though still easily hand holdable due to the compact length.
* My Nikon set up was of course only 1/4 the cost of my friends Canon set up.
* I really liked the extra flexibility of the D7100's extra in-camera 1.3x crop. (Which is retained in the D500 along with a 1.5x crop in video mode on top of the 1.5x of the APS-C sensor)

I am currently mulling over upgrades through gritted teeth:-
The Nikon 300mm FL E f2.8 probably won't arrive until ~2018 .... fingers crossed it lobs at under the Canon's 2350 grams .... I want to get the D500 body, but I'm not excited about the current lens choices (500 or 600f4's being a bit heavy for my injured shoulders lately) , so I don't know whether to wait the new 300 out, get the 200-500, or stick with the Tammy for the time being :cat:

I am not personally interested in the Sigma 150-600 Sport (ultimately wanting something faster than f6.3 and lighter than nearly 3kg), but FWIW, anecdotally, reports seem to put its AF as faster than the Nikon 200-500 on the D500 (at least in good light) - I don't know what happens with either of these in low light, but know that my Tammy drops off in AF speed as the light softens of an afternoon.

In the Canon camp there are some enticing lens options on the horizon:-
The 600mm f4 DO will probably lob in ~2018, though be expensive ....
There is the prospect of the 200-600mm f5.6 also later in 2018 ....
It is rumored that the 'big whites' will undergo further IS, optical coating, and weight lightening upgrades perhaps in 2018 too ....
A new 7D MkIII body may turn up in ~2019 ?

There isn't even a rumour of a Nikon 600mm f4 PF (Diffractive Optics) lens ..... Nikon seems to be lagging several years behind Canon in the lens department ..... grrrr! :storm: They really need to pull their fingers out !!

So it could even be over to camp C in 2019?? So what to do, what to do! Greener grass indeed! (and at least at the prosumer entry level of my rig a 50% bath in value!) ..... grrr again!


Chosun :gh:

First of all thank you for your heartfelt response
I actually have a very clear conscience about switching to Nikon-in terms of body everything seems a lot better. Comparing D500 with it's Canon equivalent, 7DM2, it trumps it in everyway. But as you mentioned Nikon still hasn't given us an affordable prime lens like the Canon 400.
I actually wanted to wait for 7DM2 before I bought my 7DM1, but it was a year away and I got impatient. But now I don't regret it, because 7DM2 IMO didn't live up to it's expectations. ISO, AF and all that are very poorly improved compared to 7DM1. And that is one of the reasons why I'm jumping the ship. If Canon could give a worthy successor, I would be the first one to buy it 3
And I doubt the 7DM3 would be a big improvement on M2, or if it would even top the D500.
I've been reading a lot of reviews lately and if there's one thing I understand it's that these things are very subjective. One says 200-500 outperforms all, the next says Sigma beats all the other zoom lenses. A tough call really. Nikkor has the fixed aperture, a smoother zoom ring, a well-positioned manuel focus ring, very good VR, steady and well lit viewfinder, and a very good AF. The Sigma is heavier and larger but does have an extra 100mm zoom and it is weather sealed. It is apparently sharper and a bit faster but it's VR is not as good and I've heard that the viewfinder is quite dark.
Sooo... decisions, decisions 8-P

 

[Dave Williams]

One thing I did do a U turn on was my original intention of keeping my Nikon gear as well as Canon's. It doesn't work for lots of reasons.

 

[kuzeycem]

Hi there, I made the jump to D500 with 300mm PF f4 + 1.4 iii converter. Really delighted with the all round performance. The ergonomics are superb to handle in my view. ISO and dynamic range excell for a crop sensor, albeit a little larger sensor than Canon. It is worth spending real time learning both camera and any lenses to achieve peak performance. Recovery of detail from shadows and the ability to not burn out whites are outstanding to name but two features. No one knows which lenses anyone will bring out in the future. The Nikon 200-500mm has many happy users in the bird and wildlife field. Have a look at Steve Perry's backcountrygallery.com

Hi, thanks for your response. I am also very keen to get my hands on a D500. I have spent 4 years with my 7D and know pretty much everything about it and shot some very good images with it, but well it just doesn't do it for me anymore
I considered the 300mm but for some reason I can't explain (which is just great), I really don't feel into it I originally wanted a prime 500 but that is just too expensive, so its down to Nikon and Sigma, and I think Nikon might perform better with a DX Nikon body.
Thanks for the link, I'll check it out

 

[kuzeycem]

I can't comment on the D500 as I have yet to give one a good try out! However I read that it is a very good camera.

Have you tried out a 7D2? Whilst it is not quite up to the D500 it does have the advantage of being a much cheaper upgrade and you can still use your 400 F5.6 L! Whilst the Canon 7D was great in it's day things have moved on, the Mk2 AF is significantly better and the ISO performance is at least a stop better some (me) would say more. I am quite happy at ISO 1600 with mine and will go a little further (but not a lot) when needed as it cleans up better than the 7D. Just my opinion.

I would suggest that you try the 7D2 and the D500 (with an appropriate lens) and then decide if a switch is worth it to you. These days both are great systems but both have their pros and cons - it is really down to which will suit you better in the long term.

Happy choosing!

Hey, thanks for your response
I have considered 7DM2 and was actually quite convinced. But as I explained in a previous post, I just don't see it being a worthy improvement for that money. I mean, the D500 might cost more, but it triumphs 7DM2 in everything, especially the noise/ISO stuff, which are really important to me. So I think it would be money well spent.
But you are right about the 400mm 5.6. Maybe it's because the only other lens I have used so far was the old 100-400mm, but I really like the trusty 400mm. So I hope at one point in my life I can go back to using it with a better body

 

[kuzeycem]

One thing I did do a U turn on was my original intention of keeping my Nikon gear as well as Canon's. It doesn't work for lots of reasons.

Why was that?

 

[Dave Williams]

Because when you use one camera for a good length of time it becomes second nature as to where all the buttons are. Nikon and Canon bodies are similar but not identical by any means. You have to stop and think which you are using.
Then there is the economics. You keep your 7D2 and 400f5.6 but buy in to Nikon D500 and a lens.
Canon then bring out the 7D3 which is better than the D500 what do you do? Financially you can't( well I can't anyway) try and keep two systems going.

 

[Chosun Juan]

First of all thank you for your heartfelt response
I actually have a very clear conscience about switching to Nikon-in terms of body everything seems a lot better. Comparing D500 with it's Canon equivalent, 7DM2, it trumps it in everyway. But as you mentioned Nikon still hasn't given us an affordable prime lens like the Canon 400.
I actually wanted to wait for 7DM2 before I bought my 7DM1, but it was a year away and I got impatient. But now I don't regret it, because 7DM2 IMO didn't live up to it's expectations. ISO, AF and all that are very poorly improved compared to 7DM1. And that is one of the reasons why I'm jumping the ship. If Canon could give a worthy successor, I would be the first one to buy it 3
And I doubt the 7DM3 would be a big improvement on M2, or if it would even top the D500.
I've been reading a lot of reviews lately and if there's one thing I understand it's that these things are very subjective. One says 200-500 outperforms all, the next says Sigma beats all the other zoom lenses. A tough call really. Nikkor has the fixed aperture, a smoother zoom ring, a well-positioned manuel focus ring, very good VR, steady and well lit viewfinder, and a very good AF. The Sigma is heavier and larger but does have an extra 100mm zoom and it is weather sealed. It is apparently sharper and a bit faster but it's VR is not as good and I've heard that the viewfinder is quite dark.
Sooo... decisions, decisions 8-P

You are right that the 7D MkIII is a bit of an unknown, I don't even think too many specs are nailed down yet. You would think the Nikon D500 provides a clear benchmark so they should be aiming to tangibly beat that, though at this stage I'm not confident that is the case - merely playing catch up will not cut it. Canon rumours has the 7D MkIII being announced after halfway through next year, but how reliable that is - is anyone's guess.

Not only doesn't Nikon have a lightweight 400 f5.6 prime, but they don't have a 400 f4 DO like Canon, and their 300 f2.8 is way over weight. They also don't have any of the enticing prospects Canon is working on like the 600 f4 DO, the 200-600 f5.6, or further upgrades and weight reductions to the big white L range. Nikon needs to seriously work on it's competitiveness with its glass - particularly with regard to weight. I'd love to see a sub 6.5lb 600 f4 PF (Diffractive Optics) from Nikon. :king:

I think you have the differences between the Sigma Sport 150-600 and the Nikon 200-500 fairly well tied down, so it will just come down to which compromise you prefer. It might come down to whether you will do much hand held shooting or not.

Another option you might consider, though an order more expensive (but not as much as the Canon or Nikon 5 or 600 f4's) is the new Sigma 500 f4. Apparently the IQ at least is comparable to the Nikon 500f4, at only about 10% heavier, but only 2/3rds of the price too.


Chosun :gh:

 

[Vespobuteo]

Btw, did you check out the Fujifilm X-T2 + the 100-400mm zoom? It's a very capable combo, and nice package. Noise wise, as good as the D500. And the fuji colors are amazing.

Obviously you don't have any super tele lenses to dream about, but Fuji film will release a tele photo prime next year, but how long it will be is not clear, but not unlikely a 300/f2.8. Fuji film have very good TC:s so theoretically/speculating you could effectively get to 900mm/f5.6* with the X-T2.
BUT it also might be a 200/f2 that fuji is releasing (for maximum bokeh/shallow DOF).

TC:s work fine with the 100-400mm also of course.

Here is a comparison with the D500:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYf7t9lzslQ

*FF equivalent would be f/8

 

[capdegat]

A quick input here. I've had them all being a gear head .Loved canon lenses didn't like sensor , had d7200 ,d500 and d750 .
Loved d750 -not enough range
liked d7200 but better af on d500 tempted me over. Didn't really like d500 sensor ( despite everybody saying how good it was )
So i'm on to xt2 and 100-400 . Only had it a week but excellent ! even evf ( which I used to hate for birding ) af is also very good - I started a thread in the fuji forum
single example :

 

[kuzeycem]

Hi all, very sorry for the late reply I've been very busy.
Thanks a lot for your contributions. I have considered XT-2 but I backed out based on three things: 1) Nobody around me uses that camera, or even Fuji for that matter, for bird photography, 2) I don't like the lens options and 3) I am a little afraid of using a mirrorless
So I guess I'm set for D500 + 200-500mm. My heart goes out to 500mm f/4 of course, but I'm only an enthusiastic kid

 

[the black fox]

The one thing you have left out of the equation is the older 1D series cameras ,I used and loved a 1 Dmkiii for a few years ,and coupled with a sigma 150-600 sport got some outstanding images ,when that finally gave up the ghost I switched to a 80D also a very capable camera and extremely good resolution at high ISO values ,but I missed the handling of the 1D series bodies so I have now got a 1Dmkiv and what a dream of a camera I have recently taken some shots in a dark wood location at 10,000 ISO and although there is noise present in the original files they clean up extremely nicely .a used camera can be bought these days for less than 1000 u.k pounds.feel free to browse my Flickr stream ,link below . And judge for yourself