Reading mode: Light Dark

What do bird photographers use FX or DX

Go to last post
Peter thanks for a lovely photo. Great composition especially with the light. The D700 seems to pull out colour when it is lacking. The detail is less than I normally expect but this may be previews compressor. Great picture though.

Any others?
--
Cheers, BB
 
The only advantage of DX is the extra "reach" due to the crop factor. When you consider the cost of long glass, giving back the reach to FX is kind of silly. So when I need need reach, I shoot my D300.

But for the times I don't need maximum reach, or the light is low, my D3 gets the nod. I love shooting the D3...it's just so superior to the D300 in every way I can think of. It's nicer to handle, slightly faster frame rate, superior AF, lower noise, brighter viewfinder, and most of all, more "forgiving" when it comes to using TC's and when hand holding. I'm hoping the D4 comes with a 24MP sensor because I'd use it even more.

But right now the ideal solution for me is to own both formats.

--
Gary -- D3, D300 glass & NAS -- and a preference for wildlife in natural light
http://www.pbase.com/garyirwin
http://photographersonlinemagazine.blogspot.com
 
tarnish said:
When the subject is smaller than the frame you will be cropping to achieve a desired composition. In good light there will be an advantage to whatever gives you is more pixels on the target, one of many factors to consider. In low light noise performance may be more important.

Forget about total MP count; what you care about is pixel size.
Click to expand...
That's it in a nutshell, a compromise between pixel density and noise. A large sensor which gives a 300 dpi print of the desired size without downsampling would seem to be the ideal.
 
I am still testing , using also a test chart.

Lenses 300f4 , 500 f4vr, tc 1.4 and 1.7 , bodies, D3x ,D7000.

Lenses have a finite resolution that goes down and micro vibration blur that goes up adding TCs . The other big limit is AIR, the more air between you and subjet the lower the resolution.

Increasing pixel density meets lens resolution and micro blur limits pretty soon.

Actually my best result on test chart about "reach" are on D7000 and 500vr + tc1.4 .

In real bird shooting I still prefer the pro bodies af .

Cropping 1/9 is really too much. You should aim to longer lens, no TCs and shorter distance .
--
Lisperit
 
CriticalI said:
I think you should assume that a D7000 is about 1 stop slower than a D700 for the same overall pixel quality at ISO1600. The D7000 does fine in DR terms as well.

However, if you want to shoot the same subject you will need a lens 50% longer which will be a stop slower anyway. Currently you are using an equivalent 600mm F5.6 lens. To emulate the same resolution with FX but gain that stop you would require a 900mm F5.6 lens. Good luck with that. There is a Sigma 800 F5.6 but you'd need a mule to carry it any distance.

FX gains most if you shoot at wide to short tele focal lengths. In this case you have both fast glass and the extra stop of ISO if required.

I expect a D300s replacement is due soon with a D7000 sensor. I think that would be your best bet.
Click to expand...
I concur with the above.

I think I may sell off my D7000 when a D300s replacement comes along as it will mirror the operational aspect of the D700 more closely so that swapping from one to the other is easier and also the D300s has better AF options.
CriticalI said:
Brandon birder said:
I am a bird photographer. I use a D90 and a 300mm f2.8 Nikkor with a 2xTC eiii.

I want to change my camera as it is not fast enough for birds in flight and has too much shadow noise when using higher ISO's. I use higher ISO's a lot as the weather in the UK is often dull.

I have read lots of comments on DX versus FX in this forum and I understand the arguments.

What I can't glean from these is whether the higher pixel quality of an F700 especially as ISO increases will offset the higher resolution and crop factor of a D7000 for photographing birds with a long telephoto lens. I am interested in colour, and feather detail only, in this instance.

I have got off a few trial shots of jpgs from outside a store of an F700 and an F7000 and can't decide which are better detailed in photoshop. To me F700 detail is better in shaded areas in spite of lower resolution though F7000 detail is clearly better in normal lighted areas.

I thought that there must be more than a few bird photographers who have used both and have decided on one or the other for this type of photography. Please if you are able to contribute let me know the reasons you came to a decision and also what sort of light you work in.

--
Thanks, BB
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Steve
Click to expand...
--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b

 
Depends on how close you can get to the subject, lighting conditions, etc. There really is no perfect solution for all cases.

That said, I would recommend giving a D700 a rental for a few days and shoot some birds with your setup - 600mm is pretty good distance for FX, though of course one always wants more distance! I used to shoot a Bigma with FX, and even at 500mm I wanted more.

--
JL Smith
http://jl-smith.smugmug.com
 
Livio Spallone said:
I am still testing , using also a test chart.

Lenses 300f4 , 500 f4vr, tc 1.4 and 1.7 , bodies, D3x ,D7000.

Lenses have a finite resolution that goes down and micro vibration blur that goes up adding TCs . The other big limit is AIR, the more air between you and subjet the lower the resolution.

Increasing pixel density meets lens resolution and micro blur limits pretty soon.

Actually my best result on test chart about "reach" are on D7000 and 500vr + tc1.4 .

In real bird shooting I still prefer the pro bodies af .

Cropping 1/9 is really too much. You should aim to longer lens, no TCs and shorter distance .
Click to expand...
Live thanks and that is clear regarding test charts. I can see why you like the feel of th fx bodies though. I don't think it unusual to crop extensively when shooting from hides and in good light my combo produces good images.
See http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/

Perhaps I need two bodies fx and DX.
Or perhaps get a D7000 now and wait and see what a D400 or D800 brings.
Going to do some tests myself Monday.
Cheers BB
Lisperit said:
--
Lisperit
Click to expand...
--
Cheers, BB
 
If you have some very long lenses (you mentioned 300 2.8) say 500mm or better (excluding TC's) FF is going to be a good choice if you need high iso performance for BIF.

Depending on your area and how close you can get to the subject matter a tripod is essential for your lack of light and not so much high ISO performance of the camera unless your shooting BIF.

I shoot with a D300 and D3 using 300 f2.8 VR1 with TC17eII and 300mm afs f4 with TC14eII. Most of the time I grab the D300 for the crop factor because even with the TC17 shooting at 510mm its still not enough. The D300 is excellent up to iso 800 and the D3 iso 1600. They both can shoot higher iso but, with less detail YMMV.

Recent examples:

D300 with 300 afs f4 and TC14eII
1/3200, iso 640, f6.3



D300 with 300mm VR1 and TC17eII
1/1250 f7.1 ISO 200



D300 with 300mm VR1 and TC17eII
1/1000 f7.1 ISO 220



D300 with 300mm VR1 and TC17eII
1/80 f7.1 ISO 200
Gitzo monopod
SB900 with Better Beamer flash extender. Flash set for ttl fp -1 2/3 50mmm



Hmmm no D3 in the mix :)

peace,

Ray
 
Search around here for posts by Jim Fenton (look in the D300 forum.)

He currently uses a D300s for the extra crop factor, usually with a 500mm lens and 1.4 TC.

Great photos.
 
Ray thanks. Very nice photos. You are clearly very skilled and patient.
The raptor is much better than I could achieve but the light was very good.

I feel the IQ of the D 300s is much the same as my D90 though the Af performance is much better.

I want better iso performance and af performance. It seems to me that until the D400 comes out my choices are between the D700 and the D7000.
I still can't decide which.
--
Cheers, BB
 
Chaz f64 said:
Search around here for posts by Jim Fenton (look in the D300 forum.)

He currently uses a D300s for the extra crop factor, usually with a 500mm lens and 1.4 TC.

Great photos.
Click to expand...
Chaz thanks for the tip. Jim Fenton is just amazing.

I found brilliant preview thread started by him here
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&message=34431851

Anyone asking the question I did should read this too.
Thanks for all the help so far from everyone.
--
Cheers, BB
 
Like I have always said, I want a DX format camera the has the high ISO capabilities of the D700.

In the past, I had no choice but to use the D700. Remember, this is a global forum, and shooting in full Florida sun is not everyones weather (regretfully) - in other countries , take the jungles of Honduras, having high ISO is necessary , it is not a choice (well it is, but you are going to junk a lot of photos).

I hated the fact that the D700 was full frame because I "lost" the crop factor. But I could not go over (at least to my taste) ISO 800 on all my previous Dx format cameras.... until.... until ..... the D7000.

The D7000 is no D700 yet, but it is a step closer.






Brandon birder said:
I want better iso performance and af performance. It seems to me that until the D400 comes out my choices are between the D700 and the D7000.
I still can't decide which.
--
Cheers, BB
Click to expand...
--

 
I use DX. I recently replaced my D300 with a D7000 specifically for birds. I use a 500VR plus teleconverters. When D400 comes out, I'll get that too.

Some bird photographers seem to go after Herons, Eagles, Pelicans, things of that size. Which I do also, but oftentimes my targets are tiny Wood Warblers and the like. Bird of that size are an order of magnitude HARDER ergo - DX!

I have a D700 and use it very occasionally but it doesn't have the digital reach does it.
--
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/119002
 
If a D400 comes out along with a replacement of the 80-400 (some are saying it will be a 100-500) I think this set-up would be nice for birding at a reasonable cost / weight.

A camera such a s a D400 would have better low light abilities than a D300/s and possibly better than the D7000 as well and more suited to larger lenses. I reckon a 100-500 would sell like hotcakes if it had nice IQ and the weight/size was similar to the 80-400. Would be a great combination for those who are serious but not so serious as to fork out the kind of money the longer Nikon lenses go for to get to the 600-800mm mark.

Could be a good year for this sort of stuff on DX.
 
It has probably been suggested already, but if noise is the primary concern for you, and you're willing to give up a third of your reach, FX is the way to go. I take both DX and FX cameras with me when I go birding, and 90% of the time I'm using FX (as I heavily favor the golden hours over broad daylight)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top