Go from D800 to 7100 for birding? (1 Viewer)

[stoop]

Hi folks,

I'd like some opinions please about moving from D800 to D7100 for bird photography. I love my D800 but use Dx mode most of the time for birds. (Of course it depends where I go)

Now, here in Japan, the D7100 body is just 83000 yen, or $842us and I thought it sounds like a good deal.

I plan to keep the D800 fitted with 25mm for landscapes.

I will use either Af-S 80-400mm or AF-S 300f4 + TC 1.4 ii with the new body.

Thank you for your advice.

Russell

 

[Pasquier]

I use the D7100 / Af-S 80-400mm combo and am very happy with it.
The higher pixel density of the D7100 enables better cropping than the D800.
I also like the broader AF sensor array of the D7100.
If you do go that route, get the dedicated battery grip as well - it really stabilises the D7100 / Af-S 80-400mm combo.

 

[mpe]

I think it is a terrible idea.

I doubt you'll see any increase of image quality due to higher pixel density. The difference in details between up sampled/downsampled 15mpx vs 24mpx at crop area is pretty much zero.

Most likely, you'll find the quality to be lower due to inferior high-iso noise performance, lower DR and poorer tonal range of the D7100. You won't be able to push shadows as well as on the D800 and you'll have to tackle the noise. Also the build quality of D800 is miles better than D7100. Not even mentioning the brightness of the full frame finder.

There is nothing wrong about D7100, but the D800 is much better camera in almost every aspect.

If you constantly finding yourself using DX crop on D800 it is a sign that the problem is in your lens or you ability to get closer to your subjects. There are no shortcuts. No magical crop multiplier could change that.

 

[stoop]

Thanks for the feedback, Pasquier and mpe. I was kind of battling both ideas in head so I decided to ask here. It seems that results will depend on the subjects and habitats and my own ability. In the bush the D800 is excellent but I can't reach far at a wetlands.

I will think more. Thank you for the advice.

I also got a very nice brochure on the new Nikkor 1 70-300mm. Nice Steller's Sea-eagle pics have got me going but I'm wary of the sensor size...

 

[stoop]

To add a bit more info about what I want to use it for. This is a link to a post on my blog:http://russelljenkinsstoop.blogspot.jp/2014/05/coffee-cake-and-eagle.html

I was on holidays to visit family in oz and we went to a winery and this eagle appeared. I just carried a backpack with D800 and af-s 80-400. To be honest I am disappointed with the results. I thought maybe my trusty D300 with sf-s 300 f4 + 1.4ii may have caught better.

To the eye the eagle was close and I ran out of the cafe into the car park to get the shots. With the D800 it just seemed out of reach and the focussing didn't really grab and many shots were soft. I think any Dx body would have been easier to frame and focus. I also think my 300 f4 is a touch better at focussing even with TC.

I will visit Australia again in August and thought the D7100 my yield a better result in such circumstances.

Thank you for any advice.

Russell

 

[BillN]

Just to confuse the matter slightly, my view would be that it depends on the light and distance. - I have a D7100, D300 and D700 ……. I thought about the D800 but the sensor size put me off

IMHO the FX D700 is a great camera and much "better" overall for general photography than the DX D7100, I am also really fond of the DX D300, more so than the D7100. I prefer to shoot with the D700 and D300 more than the D7100.
If you are shooting from a hide the D700 bird images are really good, as so are the D300 unless the light is poor, in my experience the D700 performs much better as high ISO's than the D300

The farer away you are from the subject I find that the D7100 starts to win out ……… obviously the D800 has more pixels than the D700 but I think that you will also find that the D7100 has slightly more pixels than the D800 on the same sized crop - i.e. the D7100 pixel density is greater than the D800.

low light performance is also important with small bird images.

For the money, if you want a "dedicated" body for shooting birds, the D7100 is very good value if you like the UI, (the UI on the D700/300 is IMHO much better).

What we need is a "D400" ……. DX body, D700 UI, and 16 mp sensor with great high ISO performance

 

[stoop]

Thanks Bill. Very good advice.

I have also thought about the Tamron 150-600mm (but I have enough lenses and still have a poster of the 300 2.8 on the fridge) or now maybe even the 1.7 TC with the 300 f4 which would be the cheapest option.

and the D400/D9300...but it'll be expensive and late.

I want the extra reach for nesting kestrels now and for my trip to oz in August. I will give it a bit more thought.

Thanks everyone.

 

[gandytron]

Stoop,

How about one of the Nikon 1 bodies? The V3 is apparently quite impressive, but not sure about BIF.

You could use your lenses on it and have lots more reach (and the small size is good for travel).

 

[stoop]

Actually you're right, Gandytron. I picked up some excellent brochures here in japan on the V3 and new 70-300mm. Some excellent eagles in flight pictures!

I thought about it and wanted to use what I have. I have a v1 but the electronic viewfinder has some delays and the FT1 gets many misses for BiF shots. I like an optical viewfinder the best but it sure looks like a grand package.

 

[BillN]

Thanks Bill. Very good advice.

I have also thought about the Tamron 150-600mm (but I have enough lenses and still have a poster of the 300 2.8 on the fridge) or now maybe even the 1.7 TC with the 300 f4 which would be the cheapest option.

and the D400/D9300...but it'll be expensive and late.

I want the extra reach for nesting kestrels now and for my trip to oz in August. I will give it a bit more thought.

Thanks everyone.

There is a big difference in price and weight between the 300mm f2.8 VR and the 300mm f4 ……. you really need both, but get the f4 first!!!
Both are very good, but value for money you cannot beat a used or new 300mm f4 - the performance at f4 is really good. Also the TC14Ell hardly reduces the IQ and the lens is v good hand held and easy to travel with……… if you can use it on a tripod or even a monopod your results will be even better ….. and try to keep the shutter speed high, (I try to keep it at 1/1000th or over), and let auto ISO take up any slack .. just the way I use it .. maybe others don't

The f2.8 is exceptional, but very heavy, expensive, difficult to travel with and most people need to use a tripod 90% of the time, unless you can rest it on something.
The 300mm f2.8 really comes into its own when used with the TC20Elll as this is a really cost effective and flexible way to get to 600mm at f5.6 and the IQ will just thrill you

The 70 300mm VR f4.5/5.6 is good for the money but well below the f4 for IQ at 300mm and as with birds photos you never have enough reach you will be working most of the time at 300mm …… but it is a lens worth having for the money ……. I use it if I am in a canoe or swampy ground.
TC's - TC14Ell is good with the 300mm f4 … the 17 and 20 are not so good
all three, the 14, 17 and 20, especially the TC20Elll are good with the 300mm f2.8 and the TC20Elll Nikon recommend with their f2.8
TC are no good with zooms … you may as well forget them

I have a V1 and FT-1 and have used it with all my lenses …… I find it difficult to use and my "keeper" rate is very low - I have found that I get better results hand held with the Nikon 70 300mm f4.5/f5.6 VR than any of my lens ……. I have found it OK on a tripod with the 70 200mm f2.8VR at f8 …….. but generally that it takes time to spot the target, that AF can be slow and unreliable, (you can only use spot, therefore you need contrast), and it is not comfortable to use.

I have tried to "like" the Nikon 1's but just don't, everything is just too small for bird and wildlife and it takes time to set up and use and I am never sure what the image will look like …. I have found that it has a nasty tendency to blown the whites when used with a long lens ….. even if I adjust the settings, I find it "hit and miss"

BIF are difficult at the best of times, but for me almost impossible with the V1 as you need a good burst rate and fast and sophisticated AF

i have no experience of longer zooms, except the Nikon 70 200 f2.8VR, which, for me, is just not quite long enough for birding, even with a Nikon TC, unless you are in a hide.


My computer groans at the thought of the D800 file sizes, but I am sure that it is a great camera ……. but the D700 is still a star for many

I am a very average photographer, bird images are difficult, the above is based on my experience in using the mentioned equipment, guys with a better technique will have a different view. I tend to buy most of the expensive equipment used.

Hope this helps but try them as you need to be comfortable with what you buy as "long lens" photography is expensive and addictive

 

[mpe]

What we need is a "D400" ……. DX body, D700 UI, and 16 mp sensor with great high ISO performance

You are talking about D800 here. Consider this:

- almost perfect 15.4mpx DX crop resolution with options to go to 1.2x 25mpx and FF 36mpx if needed
- better than D700 body and controls
- better than D700 hi-ISO performance
- same 5 fps as D700 (without grip)
- much bigger and brighter viewfinder than any DX camera will ever have
- better true AF coverage than any DX camera (if you take DX frame and adjust magnification)

Given by current prices (refurbished, promotions, cash back) any hypothetical pro-class DX body won't be significantly cheaper than the D800 is now.

 

[BillN]

You are talking about D800 here. Consider this:

- almost perfect 15.4mpx DX crop resolution with options to go to 1.2x 25mpx and FF 36mpx if needed
- better than D700 body and controls
- better than D700 hi-ISO performance
- same 5 fps as D700 (without grip)
- much bigger and brighter viewfinder than any DX camera will ever have
- better true AF coverage than any DX camera (if you take DX frame and adjust magnification)

Given by current prices (refurbished, promotions, cash back) any hypothetical pro-class DX body won't be significantly cheaper than the D800 is now.

Agreed, and OK I have gone a little OT …. but that tends to be the norm on forums

but it can depend on the budget

You can buy a good used D7100 or D700 with a 300mm f4 and maybe the TC14ll for the price of a new D800.
OK if you have the money new kit is great, but you can be up and running for £1,500 ….. body, lens and TC, buying used .. and depreciation will be much less if you want to upgrade

The D800 will only be the latest until the D900 comes out but Nikon glass is good for years and maybe the glass quality decides the image quality more than the body on the end of it …… that's what I have found anyway and my D300 with the 300mm f2.8 beats the others with a "lessor" lens ….. I also still use my "old" Nikkor MF lenses and the results are good.

Also with regard to TC's - if you stick the TC20Elll on the f4 it becomes f8 and you will have trouble focusing some or most of the time …… no problems with the TC14Ell as you are at f5.6 ……. I do not know about the TC17E ……..TC tend to only work at wider f-stops

Lots of bird images, especially small birds, are taken using spot, single cell focusing and also spot metering
Not sure that I would want to go over ISO6400 for any bird image …. the D700 is good up to that

My D400 comments relate to a camera for birding where the light is seldom ideal, in Europe anyway, high ISO performance, low noise and bust rate are important ….. and to date you get this more effectively from a lower mega pixies sensor that the Sony D800 sensors …… maybe that's why Canon are not chasing mp's in the same way as others … IMHO, (always have to qualify on camera forums)

So balance your available budget and spend more on glass and a tripod, just IMHO

So the general conclusion is, (for travel) - use your D800 as you have it and it is the best around, and buy a new or used 300mm f4 and TC14Ell, and maybe a good CF travel tripod, one that folds down to 50cm ….. the tripod being my suggestion and maybe the Manfrotto 393, again my suggestion for travel as it is light and takes to pieces easily
The Redged TSC 427K or similar is good price/performance/quality/weight
I have found that a grip is also useful

PS - good 500px site and images Mike?, (mireksbirds)

 

[mpe]

Yes I agree. The D7100 (or even an used D700) + 300mm f4 + converters is a great combo for birds.

However, the OP already has a D800 and is thinking about getting D7100 instead to get extra 800 vertical pixels hoping that they improve the quality anyhow. No, they won't.

D7100 has 6000x4000 and D800 4800x3200 pixels at DX crop area. So there is only a 25% difference in resolution - that's a very small difference that can hardly compensate larger photosites and other benefits of D800. My experience is that it is very hard to see any difference in details even if the pixel count doubles.

If you can't get enough pixels on the bird on a camera with 4800x3200 pixels you are simply not close enough. Sampling with 6000x4000 sensor can't make the situation any better.

 

[BillN]

I need to try a D800, but I dare not, otherwise I'd probably buy one and then have 4 DSLR's and that's not good

I suppose the question is, does a DX camera have any benefits over an FX camera for (small) bird photography? - given like for like - i.e. not comparing a D300 with say a D800
(apart from the cost and greater buffer speed because of smaller files)

and the other question is,

is the D4S any better for bird photography than a D800E, excepting the odd BIF image

 

[gandytron]

Actually you're right, Gandytron. I picked up some excellent brochures here in japan on the V3 and new 70-300mm. Some excellent eagles in flight pictures!

I thought about it and wanted to use what I have. I have a v1 but the electronic viewfinder has some delays and the FT1 gets many misses for BiF shots. I like an optical viewfinder the best but it sure looks like a grand package.

I'm biding my time on this one, Stoop.

Now I have a D7100, 300 f4, 1.4 TC and a V1 with adapter. Do I have enough reach? Well, not for waders unless I use the V1 or fieldcraft, or the car as hide.

I see my options as either the Tammy 150-600 or the N1 700-300 when it appears and we get some reviews. I'm hoping the dedicated lens will overcome the shortcomings of DSLR & ft-1 combos.

Switching from d800 to D7100 seems like it won't make a huge difference.

 

[mpe]

I suppose the question is, does a DX camera have any benefits over an FX camera for (small) bird photography?

No it doesn't. The crop factor is always a disadvantage. What matters for small bird photography is the pixel density (unless you can get close enough or just use the right lens of course which is always preferred).

In the past when we had 12mpx FX and 12mpx DX cameras. The latter had a significant pixel density advantage. Preferring DX could make a sense and this is why many people still talking about advantages of DX cameras for bird photography.

However, the times have changed and now we have reasonably priced 24 and 36mpx full-frame cameras that have enough pixels to give you a decent "reach" unless you need a lot of more pixels for much larger prints. There is a big difference between 12mpx (D300) and 5mpx (DX crop of D700). But not so much between 10mpx or 15mpx and 24mpx.

Talking about D4S. I think it is currently the best Nikon body available for any kind of nature photography, including small birds. Supposing that you can complement it with an appropriate lens. However, people who could afford £5000 body are likely to be using a decent lens without relying on pulling pixels out of short lenses.

 

[BillN]

Talking about D4S. I think it is currently the best Nikon body available for any kind of nature photography, including small birds. Supposing that you can complement it with an appropriate lens. However, people who could afford £5000 body are likely to be using a decent lens without relying on pulling pixels out of short lenses.

so in the D4S body the 16mp sensor is as good as the 36 mp sensor in the D800E body for small bird images ………… just a question as I am thinking about my next upgrade and keep moving between the two bodies

 

[flanken]

I'll weigh in with my two cents, since I actually took the reverse path you're contemplating: I sold my D7100, and bought a D800E. I was very satisfied with the D7100, and after using the D800E for some time, in my opinion both are excellent birding cameras, and you can't go wrong with either one. Here are my very particular reasons for switching; these may not all be relevant to you, and many of these honestly turned on the fact that I also have an Olympus OM-D E-M1 and a Micro Four Thirds lens set for my "small" camera kit:

-Having gotten used to the large EVF of the E-M1, I wanted the larger viewfinder of the D800E, which has turned out to be useful for planning and framing BIF shots

-The D7100 has very good high ISO performance, but at a pixel-peeping 100% view, it has a lot of luminance noise, which in my opinion was too prominent to give a large resolution jump over the D800E, even when comparing 24MP vs. 15.4MP

-24MP DX was testing the resolving limits of many of my lenses, particularly on the telephoto end. Even my 500mm f/4 needed to be stopped down one stop to get maximum sharpness, and just about all lenses I used lost their luster when a teleconverter was attached. Thus, I figured I had nothing to lose in going back to 15.4MP of DX resolution, as I was previously quite happy with the D7000's 16MP images.

-I wanted better fast wide-angle prime options, in particular the 28mm f/1.8G, which is one of my most-used non-birding lenses. For the D7100, the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is actually as good, or better than most FX primes optically, but it's pretty large and heavy for a non-telephoto lens, and its focusing can be finicky.

-My DX kit didn't have much of a performance jump (aside from AF) over my Micro Four Thirds kit. Since I'd be using the same telephoto lenses, the wider angle portion of my FX lens set wouldn't be much larger or heavier than what was available for DX, and with a boost in image quality and low noise performance, a better compliment to my Micro 4/3 kit with its tiny lenses.

-I probably have a mild to moderate case of Gear Acquisition Syndrome. I wasn't able to pass up a good deal on a D800E, which led to my selling the D7100 and all my DX lenses to make the switch.

-The D800E in 1.2x crop mode creates an image about the same size (~25MP vs. 24MP) as the D7100, at a slightly lower frame rate (5fps vs. 6fps), with better pixel-level noise performance. The D7100 only has a 1.25x crop advantage compared to a D800E in 1.2x mode.

I'm very satisfied with the D800E. For bird photography, the D7100 probably still has a small edge in resolution, thanks to its higher pixel density, and the fact that although the D800's viewfinder is larger, distant birds are still more magnified in a D7100 finder. I find autofocus performance to be essentially the same between the D800E and the D7100. But otherwise, I prefer the D800E for all non-bird photography; I find the shallower depth of field and high resolution very pleasing. That said, if I had to pick one sensor size and system, the most cost-effective answer I'd be reasonably satisfied with would probably be a kit built around a D7100.

Here are some shots I've taken with the same lenses on both cameras. They are uploaded at full size, so you can pixel-peep to your heart's content.

D7100 & 80-400mm AF-S:
https://flic.kr/p/gjyvKH
https://flic.kr/p/fgVxsZ

D800E & 80-400mm AF-S:
https://flic.kr/p/mZLt29
https://flic.kr/p/nfRf8Y

D7100 & 500mm f/4 AF-S II:
https://flic.kr/p/mQpH1N
https://flic.kr/p/iSQwBJ

D800E & 500mm f/4 AF-S II:
https://flic.kr/p/ksVmVB
https://flic.kr/p/nPLZyT

The good news is that I don't think you can go wrong with either choice. If funds allow, and you can tolerate the increased weight and bulk, consider getting a larger telephoto lens. The new 80-400 is a very good lens, but a used 500mm f/4 AF-S, or the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 is definitely a step up in reach and sharpness without becoming unmanageable.

 

[Chosun Juan]

Stoop,

I can't speak to the D800, but I have just purchased a D7100 (after a fair bit of sleuthing and haggling for a little bit more than you've quoted - so yeah, good deal).

I am eagerly awaiting a Tammy 150-600.

The thinking was that I didn't want the expense or the weight of a full-frame plus megaloudenboomer fast telephoto lenses, even though I do find the D7100 a bit rinky-dink in the ergo's department due to my large hands - whatev's - it's about the best lightish weight affordable combo out there.

Particularly of interest is the extra 1.25 (called 1.3x) in-camera crop of the D7100. Fingers crossed, I hope for better AF performance using this mode, which I am expecting to use most of the time.

Unless my calculations are out of whack, the D800 can't match the D7100 on pixel density, or actual pixels on the subject. Of course as already mentioned, the size and quality (noise, luminance) of those photo-receptor sites, as well as Iso, and DR performance is clearly advantage D800.

Going by exact sensor size dimensions (p63 of the UM), and pixel counts, sees the D7100 with an approximate ~25% -> 55% advantage in pixel resolution when both photos are cropped to the same size. Using the same methodology, the actual magnification advantage of the D7100 when using the 1.3x (1.25x actual) in-camera crop mode, compared to the full frame native is ~1.91x (not 1.95x or even 2x).

Even if the Tammy only turns out to be ~575mm at the long end in practice, I've still got a 1100mm @f6.3 (35mmeq)................ not bad for ~2.7kg (6lb) all up, and <$2.5K.

To get the same focal length and aperture on a full frame setup you are looking at a 400mm f4 lens with 1.7x TC (or 500mm f4.5 with 1.4x TC) and using the D800 in DX mode. A vastly heavier and costlier proposition. Alternatively should Nikon ever get its ducks lined up with a 1 series V4, then the 300mm f4 + 1.4x TC becomes an appealing lightweight option.

The D7100 + Tammy seems the best bet for me at the moment as a hand-held, walkaround proposition in concert with Black Rapid sling.

A Canon 7D MkII + 300mm f2.8 + 2x TC may prove tempting down the track, especially if it also comes with a 1.25-1.33x in-camera crop capability.

Unless of course, Nikon pulls its finger out with the mooted D400, improving quality, DR, Iso, fps and buffer through a size increase and UHSII capability, and importantly trumps Canon by peeling even more weight out of its 300mm f2.8 lump of ironmongery.



Chosun :gh:


Btw stoop - great Wedgie pics! :t:

 

[stoop]

Thanks for your insights everyone. Lots of good information. I guess it's all about compromise or no compromise. I would like a set up that's at the ready in a backpack while I do other things like visit a winery with family so I don't think they'd like to see me pack a 500 f4 when we're going out for lunch

That said, I visited one of the biggest camera shops in Tokyo yesterday and ran around with my squeaky shoes on. I studied Leica and Zeiss binocs as well as had my hands on a Nikkor 300 2.8. I don't know what I was talking about at dinner but my wife had to slap me hard.

I am very happy with the D800 and af-s 80-400 but have recently been using my D300 with af-s 300f4 + 1.4 and like the extra reach and distant focus ability.

I wish I could get a D300 with 24mp and same focussing system as the D800.

I also had a look at the V3 but I have been using an optical viewfinder for 30 years and don't wanna change.

I maybe just need to accept how the birds choose to approach me, whether I get a close encounter or not.