Do You Love Your Nikon?? (1 Viewer)

Hi Nikon peoples,

I'm wondering: Do you adore your Nikon setup for bird photography?

Why or Why not?

What Nikon body and lenses do you love best for your bird/nature/landscape photography?

Do you ever want to chuck Nikon and switch to another system? If so--what system and why?

My Story:
I recently "borrowed" a Nikon D60 from a family member and have been shooting with it for several months. It came with 2 kit lenses: the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 and the 55-200mm f/4-5.6 (both with VR and AF, but I shoot almost exclusively in manual mode, so I seldom use the AF.) Neither lens is very good for bird photography, and the D60's poor performance at ISOs over 400 is problematic, but I continue to make valiant attempts. (If you're curious: Bird photos here; Nikon D60 photos here.)

I'd like to upgrade, but since I want a new body as well as longer lens, I'm contemplating a switch to Canon (or possibly another system, but I haven't gone too far down that road yet; still busy researching Nikon and Canon).

I'm not planning to make any big purchases for about a year, and my budget will be limited; I probably won't be able to spend more than $5000 U.S. on the initial camera-and-lens combo.

So....Can anyone here convince me to stick with Nikon?

I apologize for raising the never-ending Nikon vs. Canon question. But really I just want to know if YOU love your Nikon--and why or why not.

Thank you very much!!

i don't love their service (i don't own enough lenses to qualify for NPS alas) but their equipment is pretty much top-notch.

You are asking an impossible question, really, They very similiar either way,

My answer would really be that if I did shoot Canon, I am sure I would have enjoyed it as much.

Regards

I use Nikon but I think both Nikon and Canon have excellent stuff. For me, the biggest factor affecting my success is not whether I'm using Nikon or the closest Canon equivalent equipment; it's my skill and technique--both in the field and post-processing--and how often I get out (more times out = more practice & more chances for special opportunities).

I think the options for bird photographers can still improve quite a bit, and currently I'm not entirely satisfied with what I see from either Nikon or Canon or anyone else. Right now most of the very best telephoto lens options out there run anywhere from $5000-$10,000 and they are usually very heavy, fast lenses designed to work with a full frame sensor. What's largely missing right now are high quality prime telephoto lenses designed to be used with smaller sensors (APS-C or micro4/3) that are a little slower (i.e., f/4 instead of f/2.8, or f/5.6 instead of f/4). Lenses like that could be much smaller and lighter, not cost a fortune, and still be capable of delivering excellent results. But right now there are not many (any?) telephotos out there like this. I think some nice prime telephoto lenses will soon begin to appear for the new mirrorless APS-C cameras made by Panasonic, Sony, Fuji, etc. However I read that they are still trying to figure out how to make the continuous autofocus work well on mirrorless cameras. Anyway, my point is that maybe within 5 years, more lightweight affordable telephoto lens options might become available that would be very appealing for bird photography. I doubt Nikon or Canon will lead the way on this, but we'll see.

But for now, one logical lens upgrade option for you--and one chosen by many others--would be to get a 300mm f/4 (designed for full frame sensors, but I'd suggest you use it with an APS-C body, not full frame). 300mm is not really enough "reach" for birds, but a 300 f/4 is very sharp, lightweight and affordable. With a 300, lots of people add a 1.4X teleconverter to increase the focal length to 420mm. Both Nikon and Canon offer a 300 f/4, and Canon also offers a 400mm f/5.6 for about the same price.

This is not your only option. But to give you an idea of how many people use these lenses for birds, check out these Flickr groups. Keep in mind when you look at examples that the quality of the photos will vary a lot depending on the photographers' skill, what body they use, and the distance to the bird. I find it easier to click the blue link that says "light box" to browse larger images.

Nikon 300mm f/4 photo group:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikkor300f4/pool/

Canon 400mm f/5.6 group:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/24121876@N00/pool/

--Dave

Looks like the new D7100 plus the new 80-400mm which will be announced this week will provide an excellent set up. Add a V1 or V2 body for extra reach when necessary and you'll be set!

Thanks for the responses so far!

Again, please understand that I am NOT asking whether Nikon is "better" than Canon!!

I know you all get that a lot here, and I understand why your knee-jerk reaction is to assume that I am also asking that infernal question. But please hear me when I say that I am NOT. I understand that both Nikon and Canon offer excellent gear, and that the photographer matters more than the camera and etc. etc.

But that said, there are small differences between camera bodies and lenses at similar price points (in dynamic range, low-light performance, AF speed, number of focus points, optic quality, color rendition, fps, mp count, size/weight, weatherproofing, menu organization, ergonomics and control placements, & etc.)

But really, my question is NOT, "Is your D7000 better than your buddy's 7D?"

It is, instead, "Do YOU love YOUR Nikon setup?"
I'm interested to know:
-What Nikon setup do you generally use for bird photography?
-What features do you love best in your camera and lenses?
-What features are useless for your needs as a bird photographer?
-What features don't work as well as you wish they did?
-What features do you wish you had in your setup?

I know that some people end up shooting with one system over another because they started out in that system and it was too costly to switch. So I was wondering if anyone here is in that situation, but wishes they could switch to Canon or something else. OR, is everyone pretty happy with their Nikon gear?

I just want thoughts and opinions based on PERSONAL experiences, NOT objective discussions of which system is "better." I mean, if I want to do objective side-by-side comparisons, I can look up the specs myself.

What I find more valuable is hearing what real photographers (and specifically bird photographers) who are out in the field on a regular basis have to say about the gear they really use.

Thanks!

Thank you very much, Dave, for the detailed response!

opticoholic said:

I use Nikon but I think both Nikon and Canon have excellent stuff. For me, the biggest factor affecting my success is not whether I'm using Nikon or the closest Canon equivalent equipment; it's my skill and technique--both in the field and post-processing--and how often I get out (more times out = more practice & more chances for special opportunities).

Click to expand...

Agreed: Once you have a decent DSLR and a reasonably long, reasonably fast lens, the rest is entirely up to you when it comes to bird photography. But I figure since I'm basically starting from scratch, I can put a lot of thought into which system will work best for me, and offer the most value for my money over the long haul.

I think the options for bird photographers can still improve quite a bit, and currently I'm not entirely satisfied with what I see from either Nikon or Canon or anyone else.

Click to expand...

See, that's very interesting to me.

Right now most of the very best telephoto lens options out there run anywhere from $5000-$10,000 and they are usually very heavy, fast lenses designed to work with a full frame sensor. What's largely missing right now are high quality prime telephoto lenses designed to be used with smaller sensors (APS-C or micro4/3) that are a little slower (i.e., f/4 instead of f/2.8, or f/5.6 instead of f/4). Lenses like that could be much smaller and lighter, not cost a fortune, and still be capable of delivering excellent results. But right now there are not many (any?) telephotos out there like this. I think some nice prime telephoto lenses will soon begin to appear for the new mirrorless APS-C cameras made by Panasonic, Sony, Fuji, etc. However I read that they are still trying to figure out how to make the continuous autofocus work well on mirrorless cameras. Anyway, my point is that maybe within 5 years, more lightweight affordable telephoto lens options might become available that would be very appealing for bird photography. I doubt Nikon or Canon will lead the way on this, but we'll see.

Click to expand...

Also interesting!
Just so you know where I'm coming from: I have been doing a LOT of research. Lots of internet/youtube/forum research for reviews and opinions (including a long thread over in the Canon subforum of this extremely helpful site), plus lots of flickr and photo blogs for sample images, plus harassing the very tolerant staff at my local camera shop with an endless barrage of questions.

I have been focusing my research primarily on Nikon and Canon DSLRs so far, but I do plan to learn more about the mirrorless systems before making a final decision.

At this point, as I said, I almost never use autofocus, so I wouldn't miss it with the mirrorless systems. (However, I'm pretty sure that if I had a camera with a really good AF system, I'd start to use it more often and would probably find it valuable.)

But for now, one logical lens upgrade option for you--and one chosen by many others--would be to get a 300mm f/4 (designed for full frame sensors, but I'd suggest you use it with an APS-C body, not full frame). 300mm is not really enough "reach" for birds, but a 300 f/4 is very sharp, lightweight and affordable. With a 300, lots of people add a 1.4X teleconverter to increase the focal length to 420mm. Both Nikon and Canon offer a 300 f/4, and Canon also offers a 400mm f/5.6 for about the same price.

Click to expand...

Yes, thank you! Due to its relative affordability, I have in fact been researching the 300mm f/4 over in the Canon subforum. Nice to know that you think the Nikon version is just as good And maybe it's better, because it seemed to me that people on the Canon side were more likely to recommend the 300mm f/2.8 + TCs (if I could afford it) OR the 400mm f/5.6 (if I couldn't) over the Canon 300mm f/4 with teleconverters.

This is not your only option. But to give you an idea of how many people use these lenses for birds, check out these Flickr groups. Keep in mind when you look at examples that the quality of the photos will vary a lot depending on the photographers' skill, what body they use, and the distance to the bird. I find it easier to click the blue link that says "light box" to browse larger images.

Nikon 300mm f/4 photo group:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikkor300f4/pool/

Canon 400mm f/5.6 group:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/24121876@N00/pool/

--Dave

Click to expand...

Thanks so much! I spend half my life on flickr these days....But when researching sample images, I've been spending most of my time in the Canon groups (and also checking out some of the Nikon body groups). So I don't think I've actually visited the group pools you link to here. I will check them out asap!
Cheers!

I use a d5100 with a 70-300mm lens, this combination has it's limitations over distance but is reasonably sharp for my budget at shorter distances and in good light.

Here is one I took recently



I am on this forum www.talkphotography.co.uk and quite a few people like the sigma 50-500mm lens but it is heavy at around 2kg

There is a flickr group for this as well http://www.flickr.com/groups/bigma/

Best of luck

I currently use a D7000, with the 300mm f/4 AF-S with the TC-14 teleconverter, and with an old Sigma 500mm f/4.5 HSM (the early 2000s, non-DG version). I'm pretty pleased with the D7000, and have used it for the last two years, although mine does have a rather irksome focusing problem with long lenses and continuous autofocus where it doesn't even try to lock on to subjects that are more distant than the current focus set-point, but just racks the lens to the closest focus distance. Thus, I have a D7100 on preorder, and plan on selling my D7000 to someone who doesn't plan on using long lenses.

On the whole, I've been quite pleased with my Nikon setup, even with my D7000's autofocus issues. I've previously bought, used, and sold a number of other long lenses, so I could offer an opinion on any of them if you're curious about them. These are the Tokina 80-400 f/4.5-5.6, Tamron 200-500 f/5-6.3, Sigma 100-300 f/4, Sigma 50-500 f/4.5-6.3 OS, Nikon 400mm f/3.5 AI-S, Nikon 200mm f/2, and the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 AF-S II.

Juniper J:
I really don't know if the Canon 300 f/4 is just as good as the Nikon, but I will say I was careful to look at a LOT of examples from the Nikon 300 f/4 before I bought mine not long ago, and that lens is a proven performer. Lots of people have been able to get satisfying results with it. A few examples from Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bramreinders/7366026448/in/photostream/lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bkushner/8451424822/lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alain_ghignone/5937533149/lightbox/

I sent you a private message about lens prices, etc.
--Dave

for "birding" - In order of preference and (IQ)

Lens - at the affordable lens end there are the 300mm f4, 70 300mm f4.5/5.6 VR and 80 200mm f2.8 VR plus the three Nikon TC's, x1.4 x1.7 x2

with D300
300mm F4 ...... hand held in good light and tripod when situation arises ....... always satisfied .. for me, it's a great lens
sometimes with Nikon TC x 1.4, then down to f5.6 ...... reasonably happy
Seldom with 80 200mm f2.8 VR ....... never really suits me for "birds"

with V1
70 300mm f4.5/f5.6 VR hand held and a "keep in car" set up...... most of the time .... I like this set up although I generally find the V1 too small.... I am happier with this set up than with V1 + 300mm f4

sometimes with 300mm f4 with or without TC x 1.4 on tripod ..... good/OK if you have the time to (quickly) find the image

My next expenditure would be a D7100 ....... I would like to try the 300mm f2.8 VR ...... but would only buy used ......... I am not keen on the 80 400mm, (don't ask me why)


always use AF and 90% of the time AP mode ..... generally spot focusing and "spot" exposure ....... I would say that 75% of my shots with the 300mm f4 are at f4
Live view gets a "look in" now and again, but not much really ......... I try to use ISO200 or ISO400 and never really go above ISO800 with the D300.
Most of my images are "crops" and PPed in LR ........ LR is an important factor in my "photography" and well worth learning and the cost

I am happy with Nikon and have always used them, (my last Canon was an A1 SLR in 1979)

All I can add here is that I'm using a D90 with a 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 ED VRII lense and that has given me some great resultsbirding wise with the only draw back being the range limit. I want to upgrade to a 300 prime with a 1.7x converter but that is pipeline dreams........

So far I can say that I'm not using the lense and body combo to the maximum of its capabilities due to operator inexperience. I'm sure I can do a lot more than what I'm currently getting out. So Before I'm not better I won't be upgarding. Usually shot in Apeture priority for birds and still need to do more manual focusing and setup programming mode.... added a shot I took resently with the gear! Had to crop a lot due to range issues.
Live and Learn....

Juniper_Jade said:

Thanks for the responses so far!

Again, please understand that I am NOT asking whether Nikon is "better" than Canon!!

I know you all get that a lot here, and I understand why your knee-jerk reaction is to assume that I am also asking that infernal question. But please hear me when I say that I am NOT. I understand that both Nikon and Canon offer excellent gear, and that the photographer matters more than the camera and etc. etc.

But that said, there are small differences between camera bodies and lenses at similar price points (in dynamic range, low-light performance, AF speed, number of focus points, optic quality, color rendition, fps, mp count, size/weight, weatherproofing, menu organization, ergonomics and control placements, & etc.)

But really, my question is NOT, "Is your D7000 better than your buddy's 7D?"

It is, instead, "Do YOU love YOUR Nikon setup?"
I'm interested to know:
-What Nikon setup do you generally use for bird photography?
-What features do you love best in your camera and lenses?
-What features are useless for your needs as a bird photographer?
-What features don't work as well as you wish they did?
-What features do you wish you had in your setup?

I know that some people end up shooting with one system over another because they started out in that system and it was too costly to switch. So I was wondering if anyone here is in that situation, but wishes they could switch to Canon or something else. OR, is everyone pretty happy with their Nikon gear?

I just want thoughts and opinions based on PERSONAL experiences, NOT objective discussions of which system is "better." I mean, if I want to do objective side-by-side comparisons, I can look up the specs myself.

What I find more valuable is hearing what real photographers (and specifically bird photographers) who are out in the field on a regular basis have to say about the gear they really use.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Hi,
Firstly can I say that I love your bird images. You have really got the best from your D60/55-300. I hear you want better iso performance and you need more reach.

I also made a decision when I started bird photography to go Nikon and having gone from a D90 to a D800 via a D7000 with my first big lens a Sigma 150-500 but now use longer prime lenses I love using Nikon. It has great iso performance which means higher shutter speeds or dusk dawn shooting and great colour.

Having said that Canon would also be good and they have more lens options for new birders. The Canon 300mmf4 has IS and is as sharp as the nikon non stabilized lens. Their 100-400 f4-5.6 is a good sharp starter lens too. Camera wise I would wait for the 7D mkII.

If staying with nikon I would suggest the new D7100 which will give you great pixel reach, fabulous feather detail and retain that Nikon colour. I would use your 55-300 with it and see if you still want more reach. If you don't then the 300 f4 is a good step up. If you do then the new 80-400VR is looking good with the D7100.

Whatever choice you make will be fine and give you a lot of fun.

I used to love my Nikon gear but I sold it all. I hadn't fallen out of love, a little frustrated by the lack of a D300s replacement but it wasn't a marriage breaker.
Unfortunately I was tempted by a loose Canon, a used 600mm f4 IS L lens at a price that was a bargain. I started an affair which became too involved, my lens was treated to the best body Canon had to offer. I tried but I couldn't live in two marriages. One had to go.
Regrets, none whatsoever. The grass might appear greener on the other side of the fence but I have found that there isn't much difference really.
The major factor in the decision was and will be financial. Ironically, at the top end Nikon is a lot cheaper to buy in to now than Canon but I dare say that will change in due course.

opticoholic said:

Juniper J:
I really don't know if the Canon 300 f/4 is just as good as the Nikon, but I will say I was careful to look at a LOT of examples from the Nikon 300 f/4 before I bought mine not long ago, and that lens is a proven performer. Lots of people have been able to get satisfying results with it. A few examples from Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bramreinders/7366026448/in/photostream/lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bkushner/8451424822/lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alain_ghignone/5937533149/lightbox/

I sent you a private message about lens prices, etc.
--Dave

Click to expand...

I have a D7000 and 300mm f4 af-s and absolutely love the combo. All my wildlife images on Flickr are pretty much taken with it.

A friend of my mine is into aviation photography and has a Canon setup. After using his 50D +300mm f4 for a day, I must say that I definitely preferred by own setup. The Nikon combo felt nicer in the hands, and I thought produced better images, when I later compared them side by side. I really do think the Nikon 300mm f4 is one cracking lens. It will be a very sad day when I have to let that lens go!

My only wish for my set up for bird photography is for it to have VR, so early morning/late evening shots are not confined to a tripod and things are bit easier on those overcast days when I want to handhold. However, that would probably double the price of the lens, and it took me long enough to save for the current version

I am sure Nikon make excellent cameras and lenses and that people worldwide will continue to use the products for many years.

Personally, I loath the company and would never ever buy one of their products. So there.

Having used Nikons for over 25 years, I guess that I do like their products.
I like their product continuity - no change of bayonet like Minolta/Sony or Canon FD/EOS.
Their equipment is very reliable - at least the Pro tools.
However - in reality it is much of a muchness - Canon makes superb tools as well.
Love is really too strong a term for either - better reserved for Leica M or classic Hasselblads.....

A bit off offtopic... VR lenses have an option to switch between off-on VR. My question is when I need to switch off the VR? I have a Nikon 5100 with 55-200 Nikkor 4-5.6 VR

Yes, I like my Nikons for birding

First of all, Jade, that D60 and those to old kit lenses was not a birding kit when it was brand new and certainly is not today. Any understandings you'd get from that should not be considered when looking at a current camera.

My birding gear is somewhat based on my working gear as for the bodies. I'm a salaried full time corporate event photographer, so those bodies have to make do for my real passion which is bird photography. I currently use and love

• Nikon D3S
• Nikon D700 gripped
• Nikon D800
• Nikon D300

Also understand my areas of interest are Florida wading birds which tend to be larger and slower than most. Also the fact I've developed fairly good field craft in this environment helps quite a lot. I've been nose to nose with Snowy Egrets, inches apart. This makes my glass choice somewhat different.

I also take the time to document the habitat both pictorially and in a journal. I also note the political issues facing various Florida wetland parcels in my images and journal. I'm not the best photographer nor writer, but I am passionate about it.

I think the reasons I switched to Nikon in 1968 was because of compatibility and the size of the system. I still have lenses I purchased brand new back in those days, I still use in my daily work. To me that is legacy and that's important to my style. To go with this chain of thought, I've Nikon tends not to move things around on their semi-pro grades and professional cameras. Other than a very few changes in a few controls for new features over the years, all the external controls are where I expect them to be, from model to model.

My favorite birding glass right now is:

1. Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AFD
2. Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 AFS VR
3. Nikon 300 f/2.8 AFS VR with Nikon 1.7 converter
4. Nikon 500 f/4 -P AIS with converted Nikon 1.4 converter

Cheers, Craig

Vr

etelebaxi said:

A bit off offtopic... VR lenses have an option to switch between off-on VR. My question is when I need to switch off the VR? I have a Nikon 5100 with 55-200 Nikkor 4-5.6 VR

Click to expand...

You should switch it off whenever you don't need VR. My default condition for VR is Off.

Generally, If my shutter speed greater than my maximum flash synch, there is no advantage to VR.