Originally posted by UserAccessDenied And I could care less about the guy shooting the 600 F4 lol, he can sneer all day. I'll take the $8500 I saved by shooting F5.6 and go on an incredible trip to Europe with my wife!
I used to think that too but look at the date on that photo and I still remember that guy, he obviously made an impression.
The thing about ƒ4, is in demanding AF situations, ƒ4 gives the AF system twice the light to work with. It's not a snob thing about the money, it's functional thing about the odds fo success.
That's why the guy changed his tone. I think he realized how snobby that sounded, and that wasn't his intent. It was all about chance of success.
And the point here is, you don't get the benefit of a better AF system on something like a D500, if you don't buy the lenses that will take advantage of it. IN fact it would be interesting to see a comparison of a D500 with say a 150-600 and Pentax with a 600 ƒ4. People assume there would be an advantage to the Nikon system, but, when the Pentax is the expensive system and the Nikon is the bargain basement system, that's probably not the case.
The only question is "What do I have to pay to get the performance I'd like." You have to count the cost of the whole system, not just the body. If you don't buy the fast glass, how de we know you're gaining anything at all changing systems? I personally gave the a D500 good look when it came out, analyzed what I'd have to buy to get an increase in performance, and stayed with my K-3.
But maybe you have a lot more money to spend than I do.