Camera for Wildlife vs. Nature

tahoe22 · May 10, 2016

This might be no-brainer to some but not to me, so here I ask. Setting sports aside...At this time, In the Nikon DX line, many think the D500 would be the go to camera for wildlife but would it also be the one to use for nature...which I am thinking would possibly include wildlife, natural landscapes, waterfalls, etc. per say (possibly shooting from tripod) OR, still in nikons DX line, would one from the d7k line (or any other of nikon's dx models) be better for landscape, water, etc. ( possibly shooting from tripod )?

Thanks

Denis

luxun54 · May 10, 2016

tahoe22 said:
This might be no-brainer to some but not to me, so here I ask. Setting sports aside...At this time, In the Nikon DX line, many think the D500 would be the go to camera for wildlife but would it also be the one to use for nature...which I am thinking would possibly include wildlife, natural landscapes, waterfalls, etc. per say (possibly shooting from tripod) OR, still in nikons DX line, would one from the d7k line (or any other of nikon's dx models) be better for landscape, water, etc. ( possibly shooting from tripod )?

Thanks

Denis

Although I do some wildlife shooting, I have always used my D300 for "nature" shooting, broadly defined as you have described it (see galleries and below for examples). Most of my serious shooting is done from a tripod. That is certainly how I intend to continue using my D500.

--

Galleries by luxun54

www.pbase.com

sansin · May 10, 2016

D810 is generally considered Nikon's best offering for nature photography, with class leading dynamic range and sharpness.

shooter45 · May 10, 2016

tahoe22 said:
This might be no-brainer to some but not to me, so here I ask. Setting sports aside...At this time, In the Nikon DX line, many think the D500 would be the go to camera for wildlife but would it also be the one to use for nature...which I am thinking would possibly include wildlife, natural landscapes, waterfalls, etc. per say (possibly shooting from tripod) OR, still in nikons DX line, would one from the d7k line (or any other of nikon's dx models) be better for landscape, water, etc. ( possibly shooting from tripod )?

Thanks

Denis

Hi Denis, this camera and any other are good for everything. There are cameras like the D810 which due to the quantity of pixels, is being used for landscaping but that does not means it cannot be used for sport, portraiture, etc.

I also do not believe that macro lenses cannot be used for any other application, or that super zoom lenses cannot be used for macro or portraiture.

The D500 has a lot of functions to excel in sport / wildlife shooting but you can use it for whatever type of photography that you can think of. I already used with flash for modeling and it is nothing less that I expected. I also used for macro and no problem at all and I used my 200-500 f/5.6 to shoot models from a distance and I love the results and used the same lens to shoot butterflies ( which are supposed to be shot with macro lenses ) and the result is also superb, so, anything can be used for anything .. but obviously, there are dedicated stuff for certain things which are up to you if you want to stick by the book to them, I don't.

Happy shooting !!

calson · May 10, 2016

There are three excellent wide angle lenses available for the full frame Nikon cameras:

14-24mm f/2.8

18-35mm f/3.5G

16-35mm f/4

For the DX camera there is the 10-24mm f3.5 which is inferior to all three FX lenses.

For situations where I want to use a telephoto or a macro lens the DX cameras provide more teach and allow for greater camera to subject distances. Where I want to use a wide to normal focal length lens the full frame cameras provide many more options.

Ever since a full frame DSLR became an option I have owned one or more full frame cameras AND a DX camera as well (D300, D7100, D7200, D500).

The D610 with the 18-35mm FX lens is going to provide better image quality than the D7200 or D500 with the 10-24mm DX lens. It is expecting too much to have equivalent image quality when dealing with wide picture angles. A top quality 14mm is more difficult and expensive to manufacture than a 20mm lens and yet the 14mm on a DX camera provides roughly the picture angle of the 20mm on a FX camera.

I would sooner have a D610 and a D7200 combination than a single D500 or D750 camera or D810 camera.

n057 · May 10, 2016

calson said:
There are three excellent wide angle lenses available for the full frame Nikon cameras:

14-24mm f/2.8

18-35mm f/3.5G

16-35mm f/4

For the DX camera there is the 10-24mm f3.5 which is inferior to all three FX lenses.

For situations where I want to use a telephoto or a macro lens the DX cameras provide more teach and allow for greater camera to subject distances. Where I want to use a wide to normal focal length lens the full frame cameras provide many more options.

Ever since a full frame DSLR became an option I have owned one or more full frame cameras AND a DX camera as well (D300, D7100, D7200, D500).

The D610 with the 18-35mm FX lens is going to provide better image quality than the D7200 or D500 with the 10-24mm DX lens. It is expecting too much to have equivalent image quality when dealing with wide picture angles. A top quality 14mm is more difficult and expensive to manufacture than a 20mm lens and yet the 14mm on a DX camera provides roughly the picture angle of the 20mm on a FX camera.

Nothing to do with FX vs DX.

Going wide on DX is more expensive because Nikon does not make the required DX lenses. But going long with FX is, well, more expensive because you need longer lenses for FX than on DX. To get the "reach" of a 300mm lens on DX, one just needs a less expensive 200mm lens.

If you do mostly landscape, it might be less expensive to go with FX because the lenses are available for a wide field-of-view on FX. If you shoot mostly long, it might be less expensive to go with DX because you get by with shorter-lighter-less expensive lenses.

But either can do both. Just get the proper focal lenght. Very simple for me because I laugh at "equivalence".

calson said:
I would sooner have a D610 and a D7200 combination than a single D500 or D750 camera or D810 camera.

Pixel boy · May 11, 2016

calson said:
There are three excellent wide angle lenses available for the full frame Nikon cameras:

14-24mm f/2.8

18-35mm f/3.5G

16-35mm f/4

For the DX camera there is the 10-24mm f3.5 which is inferior to all three FX lenses.

For situations where I want to use a telephoto or a macro lens the DX cameras provide more teach and allow for greater camera to subject distances. Where I want to use a wide to normal focal length lens the full frame cameras provide many more options.

Ever since a full frame DSLR became an option I have owned one or more full frame cameras AND a DX camera as well (D300, D7100, D7200, D500).

The D610 with the 18-35mm FX lens is going to provide better image quality than the D7200 or D500 with the 10-24mm DX lens. It is expecting too much to have equivalent image quality when dealing with wide picture angles. A top quality 14mm is more difficult and expensive to manufacture than a 20mm lens and yet the 14mm on a DX camera provides roughly the picture angle of the 20mm on a FX camera.

I would sooner have a D610 and a D7200 combination than a single D500 or D750 camera or D810 camera.

msheikh921 · May 11, 2016

Pixel boy said:
calson said:

There are three excellent wide angle lenses available for the full frame Nikon cameras:

14-24mm f/2.8

18-35mm f/3.5G

16-35mm f/4

For the DX camera there is the 10-24mm f3.5 which is inferior to all three FX lenses.

For situations where I want to use a telephoto or a macro lens the DX cameras provide more teach and allow for greater camera to subject distances. Where I want to use a wide to normal focal length lens the full frame cameras provide many more options.

Ever since a full frame DSLR became an option I have owned one or more full frame cameras AND a DX camera as well (D300, D7100, D7200, D500).

The D610 with the 18-35mm FX lens is going to provide better image quality than the D7200 or D500 with the 10-24mm DX lens. It is expecting too much to have equivalent image quality when dealing with wide picture angles. A top quality 14mm is more difficult and expensive to manufacture than a 20mm lens and yet the 14mm on a DX camera provides roughly the picture angle of the 20mm on a FX camera.

I would sooner have a D610 and a D7200 combination than a single D500 or D750 camera or D810 camera.

Click to expand...

msheikh921 · May 11, 2016

tahoe22 said:
This might be no-brainer to some but not to me, so here I ask. Setting sports aside...At this time, In the Nikon DX line, many think the D500 would be the go to camera for wildlife but would it also be the one to use for nature...which I am thinking would possibly include wildlife, natural landscapes, waterfalls, etc. per say (possibly shooting from tripod) OR, still in nikons DX line, would one from the d7k line (or any other of nikon's dx models) be better for landscape, water, etc. ( possibly shooting from tripod )?

Thanks

Denis

D500 killed the APS-C competition in sports. but that by no means render it useless for landscapes.

It has no AA filter hence it a bit sharper than D610 or D750 using the same glass.

it has lower resolution than the d7200, but can you see the difference between 24 and 21MP? not unless your planning to print billboards

in that case a D810 is the way to go. heck the D500 is a bit lower res. than the 'infamous' 5Dmk3 (being FF has its merits in IQ though).

Finally, and most importantly, the focus points are frame wide. This is killer for creative framing in all sorts of photography; even in portraiture or landscapes.

It's not 'compromised' for absolute max landscape photography (as in the D810 DR and IQ for speed and ISO), But it will do a damn good job at it.

Michael Oersigh · May 12, 2016

Hi

You should check out the 10-24 lens, it has got good reviews but I use the 12-24 f4 which I am told is optically better, It is an old design but still works well. It would help if Nikon brought out a prime lens 12/13 mm DX or FX and an update on the 12-24. That would fix things. I still prefer DX for wide angle shots but there aren't any modern lenses for it.

calson · May 12, 2016

I shot with the Canon pro APS-H cameras with their 1.25 crop factor and this meant that the 16-35mm f2.8 lens had a maximum picture angle of 95 degrees. Contrast that with a D3 using a 14-24mm f2.8 lens with a picture angle of 114 degrees. 19 degrees is a heck of a lot of difference.

If I put that same 14-24mm lens on a DX camera I am at a maximum picture angle of 90 degrees. While I could use the 10-24mm and have owned this lens in the past there is no way that one can say that the 10-24mm produces equivalent image quality to the 14-24mm or the 18-35mm or the 16-35mm on a full frame body.

And it is the crop factor that is affecting the picture angle and it has nothing to do with a DX versus a FX lens. Nikon is also producing the FX lenses for the professional shooter and so they can make a better and much more expensive lens and know that people will buy it. Nikon produces the DX lenses for the hobbyist on a budget. Whether this should be the case or not is beside the point as it is what Nikon has been doing for the past 8 years.

There are excellent DX lenses produced by Sigma like their 50-150mm f2.8 and their 30mm f1.4 lens but these are the exceptions.

Search

Camera for Wildlife vs. Nature

tahoe22

Forum Enthusiast

luxun54

Senior Member

Galleries by luxun54

sansin

Leading Member

shooter45

Forum Enthusiast

calson

Forum Pro

n057

Veteran Member

Pixel boy

Senior Member

msheikh921

Active member

msheikh921

Active member

Michael Oersigh

Guest

calson

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts