John Howard Loc: SW Florida and Blue Ridge Mountains of NC.

[quote=imagemeister]At 24MP, the cropability of the D750 is nothing to get excited about - but the higher ISO capability is.

agreed. If OP is going to crop the image to DX size to mimic a crop sensor camera, he will with the D750 be down to 10 MP. That is like stepping back 5 or 10 years in technology. Different story is starting with a D8xx.

I follow a lady birder who uses the D500 with a 500mm and 1.4TC and she gets great results hand held. If I shot more birds that is what I would do. Do now I just have the 200-400 on an 810 and I crop as necessary.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Sounds like a plan.

tomcat

Same here. I have the D750/D500 combo. So I would opt for a refurb D500 from Nikon and definitely keep that G lens. The D500 will give you a 600mm equivalent and you'll get a lot more use of out it than you would just a Tamron lens

tomcat

Sorry. I misread your lens type. If it's a D then I would get a refurb G from Nikon. I buy refurb stuff from them and it's sometimes better than new

ksmmike

I've been reading the advice and agree with most of it. I too have the older 80-400 Nikon lens. It does focus too slow for bids in flight most of the time. However, for birds in trees at fairly close range, its fine. I also use the Nikon D750. For me, it depends on how far away are most of the birds are that you will be photographing? Before you laugh, I live near several areas where birds are pretty close. Would I prefer a Nikon 200-500 for birding? Yes. No doubt. However, I now us the Nikon 300 F4 PF and for BIF close to me, that does a great job. I'm not saying I would recommend it over the 200-500 for birding. I'm saying depending how much you want to walk around, that lens with D750 and a 1.4 tele gives you about the same reach as the 80-400. For me the weight makes a huge difference because I walk the parks for hours and many miles. I get less strained. When I take the 80-400, it sits on a monopod and I'm far more stationary in particular spots.

If you will give me the Powerball numbers, I'll be happy to buy the 200-500 along with the 600 F4 and give you a better review. Smiles. For me personally, I use the 300 much more than the 80-400 now because of the weight and I fear when I eventually get the 200-500, I might end up saying the same thing. One last caveat on why I bought the 300. I have Miami Dolphins season tix and the 80-400 was horrible for trying to focus, even close to the field in my end zone seats. It was too slow and too heavy for a game. I got the 300 hoping the weight and the faster focus will be much better. So for me, I got it as much for sports as for the birds. It was a trade off to try and appease me for both. The stadium would never allow me to take in the 200-500 to the games. I got stopped a couple of times with the 80-400 since it doesn't really fit inside their policy, but I usually talked my way past the gates. At Marlins games, forget it, they gave me grief every time. So the shorter 300mm for me is the trade off to all those things. But, Ive gotten better bird photos with the 300mm inside of 6 months, than I did with the 80-400 over the course of many years.
Mike

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Which is about what a D7000 is, 16mp, and the D7000 is a fine camera. I've even cropped from photos taken with the D7000 and they're sharp. I don't see a big difference between 15.6 and 20 or 24. If you can't make a good photo from 15.6mp's, you've got problems.

tomcat

Dolphins fan, eh? Not much reason to shoot or even take a camera to the games these days is there?



lol, btw I've been a Dolphan since the 60's. Back then in NC, the closest football we had was either the Redskins or Colts and they were boooorrrring, so a lot of us quickly adopted Miami. And it didn't hurt that they had some pretty good teams in the 60's and 70's....

Acountry330 Loc: Dothan,Ala USA

I have the newer Nikon 200-500 that I use on my D-700 and D-800 with a 1.4 and sometimes a 1.7 converter with great results. Good luck with your decision and Happy shooting.

ksmmike

"Dolphins fan, eh? Not much reason to shoot or even take a camera to the games these days is there?"

Hey Tomcat,
They made the playoffs last year. :) Not sure they will this year, but I do think this new coach is a keeper. Time will tell, but they FINALLY seem to be heading
in the right direction again. They had several terrible drafts a few years ago, but the 2 recent ones were a bit better. Keep the faith. Fins up.

Mike

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

600mm is pretty good for birds. I am sure you know that a DX camera is more convenient for wildlife than a FX camera because of the "digital factor."
I would not use a tele-converter with a slow lens and the lens you have in mind is also a slow lens. You loose one stop of light on an already slow lens.
By the way, the 80-400 VR-D lens could be old but it is a great performer. Many times I limit the zoom range to make it more efficient but never a complaint about the quality of its images.

therwol Loc: USA

The OP is using a D750. A crop to the size of a DX sensor will give about 10 megapixels. I think that's a significant handicap if further cropping is necessary. I don't own a DX camera, but I'd find it hard to believe that 20 or 24 megapixels wouldn't offer more flexibility, even if the pixels on the D750 are better because they're larger.

therwol Loc: USA

Another way to look at it is this. I paid 3 grand for a D810 with 36 megapixels. If I felt I needed only 15, I would have bought a different, cheaper camera. I've argued in this forum that the ability to crop with the D810 is a distinct advantage, but it shouldn't be the goal of using the camera. The OP should buy a longer lens, and there are good recommendations in this thread. The recommendation of using his current lens on a DX camera is also valid.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Using a FX for wildlife/birds puts you in the BIG leagues ! ( Like A. Morris ) - with BIG lenses and BIG expenditures.....

therwol Loc: USA

Wouldn't that be a choice? I was actually trying to make a case that DX is a better choice than cropping FX pictures you take with an inadequate lens.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes - but alas, FX with an ADEQUATE lens and proper technique/management mostly trumps everything else !

I dare say there are a few FF cameras where you can exploit cropping effectively - but the D750 is not one.