Camera upgrade for birding (Page 3): I believe it's less about the camera and more about the lens. I have an 18-400 Tamron lens and while it's fine for shooting backyard birds (as well...

jsfphotos Loc: New York, NY

I believe it's less about the camera and more about the lens. I have an 18-400 Tamron lens and while it's fine for shooting backyard birds (as well as a good walk-around-lens), you'd probably want a Nikon 200-500 for serious bird photography

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

lrm wrote:

Many of the rreplies herein mention the D500 with the Nikon 200-500. I agree with one caveat. I have replaced my 200-500 with the new 500PF prime. lens. It is superior to the 200-500 and is much, much lighter and easier to shoot hand held. You mentioned cost is not important --- go with the 500 PF if you can find one.

Again, your best option is a used Nikon FX full frame body with a sensor that is 30Mp or higher. Cameras such as D800 will allow you to effectively double and more the effective focal length of cropped images from those cameras while maintaining image quality at a price that is comparable to many mid-price range new DX crop frame bodies.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

bpulv wrote:

That is all true, but here is something to conside... (show quote)

I disagree. Sure you can crop more with a full frame camera, but using the same lens on a D800, to crop to the view you would get an a D500 you would lose about 60% of your pixels. Instead of the 20 mp of the D500 you’d be working with less than 15 mp.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

bpulv wrote:

Again, your best option is a used Nikon FX full frame body with a sensor that is 30Mp or higher. Cameras such as D800 will allow you to effectively double and more the effective focal length of cropped images from those cameras while maintaining image quality at a price that is comparable to many mid-price range new DX crop frame bodies.

Wrong again as I just pointed out in the above post. Even the D850 cropped to DX size would give you 19 mp. That’s the only FF Nikon body I would consider over the D500.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

SuperflyTNT wrote:

I disagree. Sure you can crop more with a full frame camera, but using the same lens on a D800, to crop to the view you would get an a D500 you would lose about 60% of your pixels. Instead of the 20 mp of the D500 you’d be working with less than 15 mp.

I use my D800 that way all the time and regularly print 19" x 13" and even larger prints all the time. I can put those prints side-by-side with similar photographs where the full frame was printed and I challenge you to notice any noticeable decrease in image quality. It is a matter of knowing how to use ISO to your advantage and that can be learned.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

bpulv wrote:

I use my D800 that way all the time and regularly print 19" x 13" and even larger prints all the time. I can put those prints side-by-side with similar photographs where the full frame was printed and I challenge you to notice any noticeable decrease in image quality. It is a matter of knowing how to use ISO to your advantage and that can be learned.

I’m not saying you can’t get excellent images with cropping your D800. I can even crop images from the D500 fairly extensively and get great prints of that size. I’m disagreeing with your assertion that’s there’s somehow an advantage to shooting FF with shorter lenses.

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

bpulv wrote:

That is all true, but here is something to conside... (show quote)

The D800 fps rate is only 4-5. IMO, that is nowhere near enough for bird or wildlife photography. I seldom do anything BUT bird and wildlife photography. I shoot with a Nikon D500 and either the Tamron 150-600 G2 or my Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF.

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

lrm wrote:

Many of the rreplies herein mention the D500 with the Nikon 200-500. I agree with one caveat. I have replaced my 200-500 with the new 500PF prime. lens. It is superior to the 200-500 and is much, much lighter and easier to shoot hand held. You mentioned cost is not important --- go with the 500 PF if you can find one.

I have only good things about the 500 PF lens! How long did you have to wait to get one?

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

SuperflyTNT wrote:

I’m not saying you can’t get excellent images with cropping your D800. I can even crop images from the D500 fairly extensively and get great prints of that size. I’m disagreeing with your assertion that’s there’s somehow an advantage to shooting FF with shorter lenses.

I am not asserting that there is an advantage to shooting FF with a shorter lens. I am asserting that if reducing cost is an important factor, which in the case of the person who originally asked the question it appears to be, that this is a way to use a less expensive lens to mimic a very expensive long telephoto lens.

Labtrainer

Bob Mevis wrote:

Nikon D500.

Bob,

I live in Florida and use my cameras almost exclusively for birding. I am 74 so weight is important. I have a D7500 and 2 D5600's. My wife loves the D5600. People do not realize how small birds are and you need a really long lens. I use a 100-400 when I am doing a lot of walking and a 150-600 when I can drive or there is little walking. The D7500 seems to be faster focusing and is easier to change setting when shooting in manual. Once you start shooting the smaller birds you will realizing the amount of cropping you have to do in post. The longer lens let you get a pretty good shot without upsetting the birds. I used the 100-400 in Panama and was glad that I did not have the 150-600 the first day. Everything was uphill and it was hot/humid. We started at 6:30 in the morning and there was little light. The D7500 seemed to do better in the low light. Good luck with your birding. PS If I were younger I would have the D500 and the 200-500 mentioned in replies.

lrm Loc: Sarasota, FL

I was on bh’ s wait list for 8 months. But, got mine from a smaller chain in 2 months. Put your name in at many dealers.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

bpulv wrote:

That is all true, but here is something to conside... (show quote)

FYI...as a Nikon D800 owner I can say that this is not the correct camera for bird action. The buffer is not large enough nor will it shoot fast enough. I posted this because I don't want someone going into wildlife action photography to think this camera would be a good purchase for that. It's great for landscapes and other still objects or slow-moving action. Just my experience owning it for many years.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

suntouched wrote:

I have only good things about the 500 PF lens! How long did you have to wait to get one?

Hi. Your question was not to me, but I'm answering you! I was wait-listed at B&W for many months, could have even been nine months. I was ambivalent about the expensive purchase as I already have the Nikon 200-500 but I had heard good things about the lens. It almost magically arrived about 2 weeks ago and I still was not sure, especially since I can't take off anywhere to use it. I started using it to photograph the hummers on my porch to try out and it looks like I'm keeping it! I do know that many people had better success in getting it by calling around to smaller camera stores so you might try that. A really nice lens!

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Actually the Nikon 200-500 is f/5.6 through its range.

Correct, thanks.

russraman Loc: New York City

I you wish to remain within the Nikon system, I suggest you seriously investigate the "legendary" Nikon D500, which excels at fast auto-focusing and shooting, and can be used with both FX and DX Nikkor lenses. Check the reviews and videos online!