Second body for wildlife photography

Hello All,

I have researched this quite a bit, but my questions and needs are quite specific, so I could not find fully satisfying answers.

I am a serious amateur currently shooting with a Nikon D300. Wildlife photography is my passion and I primarily shoot with the Sigma 150-500 and recently acquired the Nikon AF-I 300mm f2.8. My recent Alaska trip exposed several flaws in what I thought was a nice and affordable wild-life setup: camera shake due to low shutter speeds leading to images that are not sharp enough for me (even with monopod and lens VR or OS). Below gives you an example of what I like to photograph:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/smiling_buddha/sets/72157631726099487/

I wish I could goto higher ISOs to push shutter speeds to at least 1/500, but I don't like the results of the D300 beyond ISO 800-1000.

So my question is what would be a good "won't break the bank" solution, if any exists? I like DX bodies because of 1.5X reach. I don't care for video or stuff like on-camera flash.

I have constantly shifted between (i) a D300s (apparently slightly better high ISO performance?)+replacing the Sigma with the Nikon 70-200 (I already have the 300mm f2.8+TC-14E that I did not have before). (ii) D700..but this takes away my 1.5X reach and is significantly more expensive than the D300S (iii) D3.....a bit more expensive than the D700, but gives me 9fps and supposedly excellent and fast AF which I think would be critical for the kind of work I do? I don't mind the extra weight...and I was quite stunned by some examples I saw online at ISO 6400.....very low noise.

I like options (ii) and (iii) (althought I would have to wait quite a bit for the D3 to become affordable), but I wonder about the crop capabilities of a 12 MP sensor? What is the largest print I could make without losing too much quality? For printing at 300 dpi for 8x10, it runs into roughly 8 MP. So, do I have enough room to crop AND print at 8x10 using an FX camera? I don't intend on going beyond 11x14.

I would really appreciate your opinions on all this. And YES...I have considered the D800 as well and it remains an attractive option. With 16 MP DX mode, I think it is a nice choice....

Avi

Wait for the D7100 or D400 when they are released next spring.

You may also have to get your Sigma lens OS unit serviced by Sigma. Mine quit working good after about a year and I had to have it replaced (it did work somewhat, just not well). That could be part of your problem.

As for me, I tried the D7000 and sold it after a year because I did not like the AF. I am now using my D700 with TCs in the meantime and saving my pennies for the D400. The D700 is 12 MP and prints 11x14 just fine, even if I have used a TC.

So another option is to get a gently used D700 to tide you over until the D400 is released. Keep in mind that the D700 will continue to drop in price now that the D600 and D800 are out. I already had the D700 for low light and event work.

The D600 is a non-starter for me since it has the same crummy 39 pt AF as the D7000 (maybe marginally improved). I lived with that in the D7000 for a year and hated it. No way am I going backwards from my 51 pt AF that works so well in the D300/D300s/D700/D3.

And the D800 is too expensive and I do not like the 4fps limitation.

Good luck. There are a lot of us in the same situation.

--
Catallaxy

Well, you're fishing in the part of the Nikon product line that has gone the longest without upgrade. I would think what you would most want would be a 24MP D400 or D7100 or D9000, at least one of which will appear next year.

If you have to buy something now, then your choices are D7000 or D800 (and plan to crop D800 for reach). Both are similar reach (15 and 16MP) at DX crop. The D800 is 3x the price, but obviously has the FX option for other types of shooing.

I myself shoot a D300 with long glass for both large field sports and wildlife (birds in flight). I'm waiting to see what top-end DX cameras Nikon introduces next year because I think one of them will be more optimized for what I shoot than a D600 or D800.

--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com

Avi,

The D800 is a very nice step up from the D300/D300s. IMO, the image quality is much better and the extra pixels respond very well to photo editing and sharpening. The 2 image "in camera" HDR works great, better AF, better high ISO capability and other nice features.

4fps works very well for me, I have a D300s w/grip when I need 8fps.

Also, in the beginning, I was worried about the large file sizes, but I have reached the point where I don't save every single picture I take, so it has not been a problem. For sports I use the crop mode and the extra reach and lower pixels are welcome. For wildlife and landscapes, the 36mp's provide excellent detail.

Bob

--
www.raphoto.zenfolio.com

You mention VR, yet you have the old 300 f2.8 AF-I? Anyway, my suggestion is that you buy another teleconverter - the TC-17E or TC-20EIII - to go with that, and then work on support and technique. You didn't mention a tripod. I shoot with a 300 f2.8 VR plus TC-14E/TC-17E handheld and a 500 f4 AF-S plus TC-14E on the tripod a lot and never have issues with camera shake. I use both the D300 and D300s and there is no significant difference in high ISO ability. I'm pretty sure we'll get a new camera this spring, but I'm only expecting about 2/3 of a stop additional low light capability - from ISO 800 to ISO 1250. For long telephoto work FX is no advantage, although the newer sensor in the D800 is a short term advantage.

--
Jim

I think that is sound advice. In reality what I am looking for a "D300-like" camera. The D300 is an absolutely fantastic camera and for me, a D300 with better high ISO performance is the panacea that I am searching for.

It does everything else I need it to. I think Nikon have been very clever in their product releases....

I am not attracted to the D600 either. The D800 is much more attractive since it would still give me 6 fps in DX mode at 16 MP. And it clearly has better high ISO performance.

Honestly....I don't really need any higher resolution than 12 MP.....I'd rather shoot with a telephoto than crop.

Bob,

Yes...I do believe the D800 might work well as a 16MP DX body.....I don't care for it as an FX camera since I don't need that for the kind of shooting I do (except for maybe intrinsically better high ISO performance of FX cameras).

I think if I wait it out, and assuming Nikon does release something like the D400, the D800 prices might drop. They have already dropped by $500 in the used market.

Avi

Jim,

Yes....there is no way in this lifetime that I would be able to afford the VR version (or even the AF-S) version of that lens. I'd rather compensate for that by concentrating on support and technique.

My initial comments were based purely on the Sigma 150-500 with OS mounted on a monopod. In all fairness to the lens, I was shooting from a constantly bobbing boat. That notwithstanding, shutter speeds were less than 1/250 s and that is a problem under any circumstance. I am really not comfortable shooting wildlife action at speeds less than 1/500 s. With the monster 300mm f2.8, even that would be pushing it I think.

And yes...I have no intention of using the 300 2.8 without a gimbal head and a solid tripod, especially since mine has no VR.

My long term idea is to shoot with 2 bodies (one of which will always be the D300): one with better high ISO performance to which I can pair the AF-I 300mm; and pair the D300 with the Nikon 70-200.

The Sigma is a a gem of a lens and absolute bang for the buck.....but it is way too slow.

I hear you on the high ISO performance, but the examples I saw at ISO6400 with the D3S really surprised me....and I don't intend on ever going beyond ISO3200.

http://photographylife.com/nikon-d700-d3-vs-d3s-high-iso-noise-comparison

Thanks.

Avi

I would go for the D5200 when it becomes available, or the D7100.  With either of those, you should be able to shoot right up to ISO 3200 or 6400 in a pinch, although you won't have to very often.  You'll need good noise reduction.  The more pixels the merrier for wildlife. 

There is no way you can expect any kind of consistently decent results with the Sigma 150-500 (or any long lens for that matter) shooting at long focal lengths in the scenario you described (above, in part). In-lens image stabilization (IS) can only help you to a point. Frankly, I think IS in long lenses is over-hyped resulting in many of us thinking that IS will solve our shooting problems. It's difficult to hand hold (or monopod hold) a long lens and get anything decent in low light. While I cannot match the expertise of the likes of Messrs Friend and Pearce (who've also responded in this thread), I think I've learned enough to say that with some confidence.

Sure, we all been waiting for the long-awaited DX upgrade. But it might not come with the shooting specs (much higher acceptable ISO levels that help us overcome the lack of light) that we all want. Nikon has disappointed us before, and I'm sure it will happen again. So, in the meantime you might want to work on some technique.

Sure the Sigma is a little slow. But you paid $1K for it. Want faster? Spend $10K for a 400/2.8. But you will still have some limitations based on your shooting conditions.

Grand Teton NP. October 3, 2012 just before dark. Nikon D300 and Sigma 150-500 at 450mm (675mm in 35mm equiv., f/6.3, 1/100, EV -0.66 (for some more shutter speed), Gitzo 3540LS tripod and a Wimberley Sidekick. NO image stabilization.

I think I am getting about as much as I can from the Sigma 150-500. Sure, I'd love something faster, longer and/or sharper. But at what cost? I've already fallen off my "Financial Cliff".

--
http://jamesfarrell.smugmug.com/

Looks like ISO 1600 would have given you 1/500. The new D-? should let you go there in a pinch. Go to FX and you need to add 1.4x to the lens or TC and shoot at ISO 3200. How do you gain? You need to remember that when you crop FX you're losing DR as well. A DX camera works a lot better with a 300 f2.8 than an FX camera, even for larger animals. Unless you want to get really, really close to these cuddly creatures.

--
Jim

The best solution may be to forget the cropping sensor for reach and try to get a lightly used D3s. Rapid AF and excellent low light/high ISO performance.

Just a thought.

IainD

The OP's issue with FX is the cost of lenses that would get the appropriate reach.  One can't just "forget" appropriate reach when it's needed which it often is for wildlife.

--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com

He also mentioned that he was impressed by the abilities of the D3, even though he lost the 1.5 cropping. Also, you will see that I presented this possibility as a thought, and not a direction. We don't know if the ability of the D3 bodies will suit the op. We can present possibilities he may not have considered. Then he can decide.

IainD

Jim,

Thanks for the explanation. I am not sure I totally understand though. Why does using an FX camera in DX mode cause loss of DR?I can understand the loss of DR at higher ISOs.....

But you are absolutely right....I have no interest in an FX camera other than its low light capabilities....I am extremely happy with DX for wildlife.

Avi

I am not worried about the cost of the lenses, because I already have the lenses I need: the Sigma 150-500 and the Nikon AF-I 300mm f2.8. I may replace the Sigma with the Nikon 70-200 (VR1), which is slowly becoming affordable thanks to the VRII version. I have no intentions of going beyond 300mm (+1.4, 1.7 TC ) for the for-seeable future, since I simply cannot spend upwards of $5000. So, that is not an issue for me.

The D3S is beyond reach, but the D3 may become affordable in a couple of months time. My issue with the D3 was cropping....I am losing the reach, which I could gain by cropping. But with a 12 MP sensor, how much room do I have for cropping? The D3X solves the problem here with the 24 MP sensor, but it is also beyond reach financially.....

Iain,

Thanks a lot. Yes.....I am definitely searching for possibilities and these discussions are definitely proving very valuable for me. So, please keep the suggestions coming.

The D3 seems like a great camera with the almost perfect specs I seek for my wildlife photography needs.....but I need decent crop capabilities because I know 300 (even with the 1.7x TC) is not going to be enough in some cases. And that is what worries me.....

The key question regarding the D3: does it have enough resolution (12MP) to crop (how much is obviously a variable) and print 11x14 without appreciable loss of quality?

If the answer to the above question is YES....then the D3 maybe the camera for me.  The D3X seems to be what  I am after, but its a full $1000+ more expensive than the D3.....out of the question for the moment.

Avi

If you crop to DX you'll only get about half of the ISO improvement you're looking for - with a D800. With a D3 I doubt you'd get any improvement at all: http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#D300,D800(DX),D800 .

--
Jim

Jim,

A stupid question: what is the difference between shooting with an FX camera and cropping the picture to get DX FOV vs shooting with the FX camera in DX mode?

According to what you have mentioned, the latter should have lower DR?

Thanks.

Avi

Oh, Bill does have D3 data: http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#D300,D3(DX),D800(DX),D3,D800 !

The explanation is a little complicated Avi. What it comes down to is that some of the DR in a camera is a result of down-sizing the file when you produce the reference print - basically an 8" x 12" held at arm's length. The more you crop, the smaller the file gets and you lose DR.

--
Jim