D200 or D700 or 40D? (1 Viewer)

Duke Leto · Aug 17, 2009

Birder Ozzie said:
I have been reading things that suggest that Nikon have improved the image quality on the D300s so, you could get a 300mm f2.8 VR and a 500mm f4 VR, before getting a D400 as the D200 is a very competent camera. If you get the 300 2.8, you could get a 500 f4.8 with a 1.7x converter.

Oscar

Gaz I do love these threads......
Very few people, me included have the technical ability to use a camera in the field as they compare them in a lab, I take shots with my D200 that are as good as my D300, the difference for me was 2 things the focus and the noise management, I have a better hit rate on the D300 than the D200 and i can up the ISO without too much fear of introducing too much noise (within reason).
I have not yet read anything that would suggest that the £500 hard earned would be well spent on a D300s unless you want video.

As for the comment regarding a 500/4.5 & 1.7x, this would be an extremely bad idea, it doesn't work and I only use it if I need to record a bird that is fairly distant. It will work okay with a 1.4x

In my opinion cos I have been through exactly the same process, stick to the D200, use the money that you would have spent on a D300/300s to get a good quality used Sigma 500/4.5 and spend a little on a 1.4TC and the battery pack for a D200 so its a better balanced unit.

With the lens you'll find an immediate improvement in your images without breaking the bank, and if you find it works you can always px the 200 for a newer body or px the lens for a Nikon unit.
Don't forget though the Sigma 500/4.5 is quite small for a 500 so make it a nice lens to lug about all day

Dave Williams · Aug 17, 2009

Gaz Shilton said:
My apologies.
Just indecision on my part.
Thanks for the reply (does that make it 136?)

Duke Leto said:
Gaz I do love these threads......
Very few people, me included have the technical ability to use a camera in the field as they compare them in a lab, I take shots with my D200 that are as good as my D300, the difference for me was 2 things the focus and the noise management, I have a better hit rate on the D300 than the D200 and i can up the ISO without too much fear of introducing too much noise (within reason).
I have not yet read anything that would suggest that the £500 hard earned would be well spent on a D300s unless you want video.

As for the comment regarding a 500/4.5 & 1.7x, this would be an extremely bad idea, it doesn't work and I only use it if I need to record a bird that is fairly distant. It will work okay with a 1.4x

In my opinion cos I have been through exactly the same process, stick to the D200, use the money that you would have spent on a D300/300s to get a good quality used Sigma 500/4.5 and spend a little on a 1.4TC and the battery pack for a D200 so its a better balanced unit.

With the lens you'll find an immediate improvement in your images without breaking the bank, and if you find it works you can always px the 200 for a newer body or px the lens for a Nikon unit.
Don't forget though the Sigma 500/4.5 is quite small for a 500 so make it a nice lens to lug about all day

Some sound advice but I would not go for the Sigma 500mm over the 300mm f2.8VR for lots of reasons. The price is only about £100 difference, The Sigma weighs more, it doesn't have image stabilisation and I doubt it is as well constructed as the Nikon. It has a minimum focus distance of 400cm comapred to the 300's 220. You can get extra reach by buying a 1.4 TC for the Nikon but you are still short on the reach of the Sigma but you have a much more flexible lens, much faster focus for BIF and also useful for other subjects like butterflies and flowers. Great bokeh gives good portraits too.
In comparison a 500mm is very desirable but unless you have the other options covered off I'd go for an outstanding shorter lens first.
Of course, this assumes you have £4k to spend otherwise the 300f4 should give better IQ than you have currently.
Incidentally, when buying TC's I'd stick to Nikon too. The 300mm f2.8 will take a 1.7TC to give you 500mm f5.6 but the AF is sluggish and is better for static objects.

Gaz Shilton · Aug 17, 2009

rioja said:
Some sound advice but I would not go for the Sigma 500mm over the 300mm f2.8VR for lots of reasons. The price is only about £100 difference, The Sigma weighs more, it doesn't have image stabilisation and I doubt it is as well constructed as the Nikon. It has a minimum focus distance of 400cm comapred to the 300's 220. You can get extra reach by buying a 1.4 TC for the Nikon but you are still short on the reach of the Sigma but you have a much more flexible lens, much faster focus for BIF and also useful for other subjects like butterflies and flowers. Great bokeh gives good portraits too.
In comparison a 500mm is very desirable but unless you have the other options covered off I'd go for an outstanding shorter lens first.
Of course, this assumes you have £4k to spend otherwise the 300f4 should give better IQ than you have currently.
Incidentally, when buying TC's I'd stick to Nikon too. The 300mm f2.8 will take a 1.7TC to give you 500mm f5.6 but the AF is sluggish and is better for static objects.

Below is my 'shopping list'.
I would love the 500 vr, but the weight is putting me off.
Also the close focus is not nearly as good as the 300/2.8 for butterflies/fungi which I also like taking picks of.
As you say rioja, with a 1.7x attached I would get 500/f5.6 with a close focus of 2.2m on a tripod/wimberley.
Plus, I have seen the amount of room that 500/600 users take up in a hide so, for me, the allure of the 300 + TC's on a beanbag not taking up too much space for other hide users would be a bonus (Piper Marsh hide at Potteric Carr can get busy if the Bitterns are showing, for example).
I am just trying to be practical and I am sure you guys with the big lenses will put an argument forward in their favour!!!!
1 x Nikon 300mm f2.8 G AF-S VR Nikkor Lens
1 x Nikon TC-14E AF-S Teleconverter II
1 x Wimberley P40 Quick Release Plate
1 x Wimberley Sidekick
1 x Gitzo G3530LS Systematic Studex with Safe Lock Plate Tripod
1 x Nikon TC-17E II AF-S Teleconverter
Total:£5230.64 (inc. p&p)

Gaz Shilton · Aug 17, 2009

Seaspirit,
Love your galleries.
Gives me food for thought with what can be achieved with a 300 lens.

Jaff · Aug 17, 2009

A highly inprobable request here but don't ask and you'll never know at all.

Could someone show me in one way or another just how much extra detail you can pull out of a shot with a cropped sensor as opposed to a FF sensor. I remian unconvinced that it really is that much better. I mean why does everyone seem to be so dismissive of the D700 as a birders camera just because it's full frame.

Cheers. B

Duke Leto · Aug 18, 2009

Rioja, I did say a good second hand Sigma 500, and having used a 300/3 plus a 1.4TC at 420mm its really a little on the short side

Jaff I did read somewhere that a cropped FX is not as good as a DX as the light sensors on the FX are slightly larger (microns) than the DX so in theory the image won't be as good......... Don't shoot the messenger its only what I read

pduxon · Aug 18, 2009

not been through every post so if its already been discounted....

if you're looking at the 300f2.8 have you considered the 200-400 f4? will work with a 1.4tc.

Jaff, I think they are dismissive because of "pixel density" a d700x would be a different thing altogether. never used a d700 so can't compare.

Dave Williams · Aug 18, 2009

Duke Leto said:
Rioja, I did say a good second hand Sigma 500, and having used a 300/3 plus a 1.4TC at 420mm its really a little on the short side

He could look for a good used 300mmf2.8VR too, I got one in absolute mint condition from Grays with a 12 month guarantee

There is no doubt that the 300mm will prove a little short but then there is also the lack of flexibility of a 500mm.
It's always a trade off !

Duke Leto · Aug 18, 2009

I agree completely hence I have a 300 as well as a 500, I don't normally have to reach for the 300 out of frustration, I will use the 300 when I need too.
If I had a open budget I would buy a D3, 600vr and a 200-400vr, with my 1.4 and 1.7tc's this would give me all the flexibility I would need.......

Dave Williams · Aug 18, 2009

Duke Leto said:
I agree completely hence I have a 300 as well as a 500, I don't normally have to reach for the 300 out of frustration, I will use the 300 when I need too.
If I had a open budget I would buy a D3, 600vr and a 200-400vr, with my 1.4 and 1.7tc's this would give me all the flexibility I would need.......

I might be tempted by a D3x Steve, if only eh !

pduxon · Aug 18, 2009

ah a if money were no problem thread.............

Jaff · Aug 18, 2009

rioja said:
He could look for a good used 300mmf2.8VR too, I got one in absolute mint condition from Grays with a 12 month guarantee
There is no doubt that the 300mm will prove a little short but then there is also the lack of flexibility of a 500mm.
It's always a trade off !

I saw one too on MPB not so long ago! Mint for a little over £3000. But at that rate it'd be better to get a brand new one from Kerso (he does deal in Nikon doesn't he?) which is only about £100-200 more. That was the last price I got off him for a Canon one but they are roughly priced the same as Nikon ones on WHE so should be the same ball park figure from him too.

As for the other thing. Does anyone know of anyone on here that does shoot with a D700?

Gaz Shilton · Aug 18, 2009

pduxon said:
not been through every post so if its already been discounted....

if you're looking at the 300f2.8 have you considered the 200-400 f4? will work with a 1.4tc.

Jaff, I think they are dismissive because of "pixel density" a d700x would be a different thing altogether. never used a d700 so can't compare.

I have considered the 200-400 f4 but it's the weight thing again.
Is it as portable as a 300/2.8?
Not that the 2.8 isn't a small lens by any means.
It's just that the 300 f4 with TC's seems a popular lens choice out there.
Also the 400mm f5.6.
This confuses me.....
I know the 300/f4 is a lot smaller/lighter/cheaper lens than the 2.8, but, it is (correct me if I'm wrong) a 420mm f5.6 with a 1.4x TC on it.
Whereas the 2.8 is a 420mm lens at f4 with the same TC.
I suppose it's horses for courses, you get what your budget can allow you to get.
I just think (maybe wrongly) that the 300/2.8 could be 3 primes in one:
A 300mm f2.8, a 420mm f4 and a 600mm f5.6.
All for a fraction of the cost of buying a 300 prime a 400 prime and a 600 prime. I understand there would be degradation in picture quality, but, a damn site cheaper.

Duke Leto · Aug 18, 2009

Gaz the 300/2.8 is a cracking lens but ask yourself what you want from a lens, I bet that anyone birding with that lens has the 1.4 as a permanent fitting. You have a 200-500 lens now so you know where you shoot most of your shots, with that in mind you may be better placed to decide. Everyone on BF will have a combo that they like, everyone will have a budget from very tight to unlimited. You know the focal lengths you use based with this I'm sure that you'd make the right choice.
Look at the lens data in the BF gallery, look at the images see whats possible with the combination's you are considering.

rdspalm · Aug 18, 2009

I upgraded from the D200 to a D700. The low light /no noise capability is superb, as is the super accurate metering. However I won't be selling my D200 anytime soon. It has greater reach when coupled with the 300VR lens. I think the D300s may be the body for bird photos. Its all money which ever road you go down!

pduxon · Aug 19, 2009

Gaz you are talking lenses that I can't justify buying so I've no real knowledge of the lenses first hand

firstly have you read this? http://www.bythom.com/rationallenses.htm scroll down to the bit on exotics etc

he rates the 300f2.8 highly (accept with a 2.0 Tcon). although it doesn't seem to feature in the core of his kit http://www.bythom.com/choice.htm

everything is a compromise. I'm sure we'd like all the big exotics on a body ready to use but sadly that ain't practical.

the 300 is a "light" lens, the 200-400 is a heavier more flexible lens. I suspect as a minimum you would have the 1.4 tcon on all the time giving you a 420f4.

yes tcon's give you a degree of flexibility but do you really want to keep changing them and read what hogan says about converters in that rational lens article.

my own suggestion is that you hire a 300f2.8 the 1.4 1.7 converters and a 200-400 for a day or so. fixation charge £39/£156 a day/week for the 300f2.8 and £45/£180 for the 200-400 f4 and £9.5/£38 per converter. Given you are talking THOUSANDS of pounds hiring equipment for a day or two testing thoroughly would make good sense.

I'm sure there are companies nearer to home that rent.

Birder Ozzie · Aug 19, 2009

Duke Leto said:
Gaz I do love these threads......
Very few people, me included have the technical ability to use a camera in the field as they compare them in a lab, I take shots with my D200 that are as good as my D300, the difference for me was 2 things the focus and the noise management, I have a better hit rate on the D300 than the D200 and i can up the ISO without too much fear of introducing too much noise (within reason).
I have not yet read anything that would suggest that the £500 hard earned would be well spent on a D300s unless you want video.

As for the comment regarding a 500/4.5 & 1.7x, this would be an extremely bad idea, it doesn't work and I only use it if I need to record a bird that is fairly distant. It will work okay with a 1.4x

Gaz, Duke Leto, what i meant was if you use the Nikon 300mm f2.8 VR + a 1.7x converter, you will get a 500mm f4.8 with VR. Sorry if it was unclear.

As for the image quality of the D300s, Andy Rouse is testing it at the moment and I would wait for his review to come out before nying. He's in Svalbard at the moment and I don't know when he'll be back.

Oscar

Gaz Shilton · Aug 19, 2009

At the moment, I think the 300/2.8 with TC's is at the top of my list.
As you say Oscar, 500mm @ f4.8, portability/weight wise, has got to be given some consideration.

pe'rigin · Aug 19, 2009

Gaz Shilton said:
At the moment, I think the 300/2.8 with TC's is at the top of my list.

Excellent choice, the camera's will get better in the future and hopefully cheaper!

D200 or D700 or 40D? (1 Viewer)

Without habitat, there is no wildlife. It's that s

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registered Member

Without habitat, there is no wildlife. It's that s

Quacked up Member

Well-known member

Without habitat, there is no wildlife. It's that s

Well-known member

Quacked up Member

Registered Member

Well-known member

Without habitat, there is no wildlife. It's that s

Well-known member

Quacked up Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread