Two23 wrote:
Yes, you can crop down a shot from a D800 but to me that just seems dumb. Why spend $3,000 on a camera and then shoot it as if it were a $1,200 D7000?
Kent in SD
You can still crop in-camera if you want and still have 16MP worth of resolution. Just because you choose to crop some shots like this doesn't mean you have to make a one time decision it you want to use the camera as FX or DX.
Look at is this way. If you buy a D800 for $3000, take $1200 off for your crop D7k and now on top of a really nice DX camera, you have a bitchin FX camera with 36MP for $1800!!!! Two cameras in one (kind of).
Plus it's all about POV. For me $3000 for a 36MP FX camera is a ridiculous deal. Like take my money now kind of deal.
Sooooooooo many advantages to a 36MP FX body over any DX body, imo.
Ideally I want the D300 replacement. The problem is no one knows when it will be released. Only a ton of speculation. I'll probably wait a few more months and see where Nikon stands on new bodies. The 300mm is a great lens and would work great for birds with a TC. Not so much for air shows, that's where I want a zoom and fast AF, I just can't afford (or justify the cost since I really only shoot as a hobby) the 200-400. As for the body I want around 4-5 fps with a good buffer that will allow around 10 frames before it's full.
Seems you have overlooked consumer zooms as a possibility. I have had the Nikon and Tarmon (still have the tammy) 70-300. They are a budget friendly choice for what you are describing as you target.
OTOH, if you are ready to shell out, the 70-200/VrII is the top gun when coupled with the TC 2x (III), from those you are considering. The Vr1 does well, but not as good as the Vr2, and for the long shots, you will notice and appreciate the diff.
crewshin wrote:
You can still crop in-camera if you want and still have 16MP worth of resolution. Just because you choose to crop some shots like this doesn't mean you have to make a one time decision it you want to use the camera as FX or DX.
Look at is this way. If you buy a D800 for $3000, take $1200 off for your crop D7k and now on top of a really nice DX camera, you have a bitchin FX camera with 36MP for $1800!!!! Two cameras in one (kind of).
Plus it's all about POV. For me $3000 for a 36MP FX camera is a ridiculous deal. Like take my money now kind of deal.
Sooooooooo many advantages to a 36MP FX body over any DX body, imo....Show more →
Perhaps at the moment, but the D400 should be coming soon.
crewshin wrote:
You can still crop in-camera if you want and still have 16MP worth of resolution. Just because you choose to crop some shots like this doesn't mean you have to make a one time decision it you want to use the camera as FX or DX.
Look at is this way. If you buy a D800 for $3000, take $1200 off for your crop D7k and now on top of a really nice DX camera, you have a bitchin FX camera with 36MP for $1800!!!! Two cameras in one (kind of).
Plus it's all about POV. For me $3000 for a 36MP FX camera is a ridiculous deal. Like take my money now kind of deal.
Sooooooooo many advantages to a 36MP FX body over any DX body, imo....Show more →
Perhaps at the moment, but the D400 should be coming soon.
DavidWEGS wrote:
Seems you have overlooked consumer zooms as a possibility. I have had the Nikon and Tarmon (still have the tammy) 70-300. They are a budget friendly choice for what you are describing as you target.
OTOH, if you are ready to shell out, the 70-200/VrII is the top gun when coupled with the TC 2x (III), from those you are considering. The Vr1 does well, but not as good as the Vr2, and for the long shots, you will notice and appreciate the diff.
I'd buy the Nikon 70-300 (VR) over the Tammy as it's a mu sharper lens. I may buy that along with the Bigma (150-500) but the more things I hear about the Sigma in general the less I like it, There is a reason most local camera stores don't sell the Sigma brand. Ideally I want Nikon (as do a lot of us) to release a replacement for the 80-400
The Sigma f1.4 series of lenses are superb; many think they are better than the Nikon equivalents. Sigma is NOT a substandard manufacturer. There does seem to be a difference between the lenses they've been designing over the past two years versus the ones from five years or longer ago though. You are stuck with your twin wants. To photo an air show, the Nikon 80-400mm is probably the best choice, but only by default. To photo birds in flight, you really need much more robust AF than what the 80-400mm gives and for that the Nikon 300mm f4 with TC-14E comes into it's own. You are being pulled into two different directions: zoom flexibility or fast AF. No lens will deliver both at your price point. You either wait for an updated 80-400mm AFS (which we've all been waiting about five years for now) or you spend the bucks for the 70-200mm f2.8-II and a TC-20E-III.
There's a joke that's really true when it comes to lenses. You can have any two of the following three qualities in a lens: Fast, Long, Cheap. You can't have all three qualities though, only two. So, which two are the most important for you?
I'm starting to take a hard look at the 300mm f4 with a 1.4x or 1.7x (or both) TC for birds. and possibly just upgrade my 70-300 to the VR version. That way I'd have up to 300mm covered with a pretty good lens and 300, 420 (1.4TC) and 510 (1.7TC) covered with a great lens, although no AF on the 1.7x or 2X). My main concern with the 300mm f/4 is no VR, especially when adding the TC
You are aware that VR does nothing at shutter speeds above 1/500s. In fact, it is counter productive. Keep your ISO high enough to maintain 1/500s or faster and there's a good chance you'll be fine. The Nikon 300mm f4 AFS should do AF with the TC-14e, and maybe the TC-17e in good light.
Don't let anyone dissuade you on the merits of VR when shooting wildlife. Low light statics a given but
for BIF at effective FL's of 400/500/600 etc. it'll sure steady the subject in the viewfinder and totally rocks
the rate when panning. I use mine thru 1/1000th with no qualms, often higher...most guys would kill for
my keeper %'s on stuff that moves. Just sayin'
Thanks TM, because of the low light I deal with most of the year out here VR will help boost that shutter speed and trying to shoot moving subjects is drizzly weather with no VR? fugeddaboudit! If I could afford a pro prime it would be a different story, but I can't so I have to make it work in my budget.
trenchmonkey wrote:
. I use mine thru 1/1000th with no qualms, often higher...
I tested my 70-200mm f2.8 VR and 80-400mm VR at 1/1000s and quite often found (>50%) I lost sharpness with VR on. I was shooting static test target though, not panning.
Low light statics a given but