This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you.

 Moderated by: chrisbet, Page:    1  2  3  4  Next Page Last Page  
Choices   -   Page   1
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost



Posted: Sat Feb 2nd, 2019 16:43
 
1st Post
blackfox



Joined: Wed Apr 11th, 2012
Location: Flint, North Wales, United Kingdom
Posts: 1252
Status: 
Offline
Taking into account that I shoot wildlife mainly , I'm looking at a cheap upgrade to the D300S , choices boil down to a D7200 or going full frame with either a D3 ... D3's .... or D800 which can all be purchased for around £500 .... I like the iq on the D300S but noise can be a issue so what would the pundits advise a D500 is beyond my reach

 




Posted: Sat Feb 2nd, 2019 17:51
 
2nd Post
Eric



Joined: Wed Apr 18th, 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4583
Status: 
Offline
blackfox wrote:
Taking into account that I shoot wildlife mainly , I'm looking at a cheap upgrade to the D300S , choices boil down to a D7200 or going full frame with either a D3 ... D3's .... or D800 which can all be purchased for around £500 .... I like the iq on the D300S but noise can be a issue so what would the pundits advise a D500 is beyond my reach

My D3 was 1stop better than the D300 when it came to noise. I would happily photograph at upto 3200ISO outdoors with the D3 but not the D300 which I recall was ok to 1600.

I remain unconvinced that the new models, D850 and D500, are significantly less noise free at these lowish ISOs. I think they are, again, only a stop better in the 3200 region than their resp. counterparts. Sure they may be better at 10000iso than the older brigade...but not in the common use regions. IMHO.

Don't know where the prices sit ...but I would be looking at D750 or D610 which we're both in the sweet spot of 25mp on an FX sensor....if noise level was the main issue.

I got a D750 to replace my D3 and was more than happy the IQ was better. In someways I regret getting rid of my D750....best feel and balance in the hand I've ever experienced in a Nikon....although D850 is close.

No experience with D800 but didn't that still have a low pass filter ? Or was that the D810? I seem to recall there being a lot of debate about the difference in IQ in the 800 series due to the removal of the LP filter is one or the other.



____________________
Eric
 




Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2019 01:36
 
3rd Post
blackfox



Joined: Wed Apr 11th, 2012
Location: Flint, North Wales, United Kingdom
Posts: 1252
Status: 
Offline
Thanks Eric , I think this stems from yesterday when I used auto iso for the first time on it , with poor results noise wise I have now switched it back to manual ..
I don't really want to go full frame due to the alleged reach issues so I will investigate the D7200 a bit further .

 




Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2019 02:24
 
4th Post
jk



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: Carthew, Cornwall, United Kingdom
Posts: 6993
Status: 
Offline
D3S is one stop better for noise than my D3 (now Robert's). The D800 is better again but not by much. I still say that you should be able to find a D500 for about £800-1000 and it will serve you better.
There is the loss of APS-C over FX that will adversely effect (IMHO) your wildlife photography.
One thing I have learned with kit is that compromise costs! Dont ever compromise otherwise you will end up paying more.
Search for a D500.
Or get help finding one.

If and when I go out specifically to shoot wildlife I might take my Z7 or D850 but my first choice would be D500 for the extra reach and my 200-500 goes on it.



____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none
 




Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2019 03:53
 
5th Post
Robert



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: South Lakeland, UK
Posts: 4066
Status: 
Offline
This is more than about noise.

Bird photography is a very challenging aspect of photography. Highly detailed images of distant, textured subjects, subtle colours and frequently moving.

Focus, exposure and poor light are distinct issues. Fieldcraft skills and technical perfection can only go so far, for the very best, their success is still a percentage of their exposures. What you are trying to do is up the percentage rate of your good images.

I would be delighted with the excellent images you are producing but I understand that it will never be 'good enough', nor should it be, is it right? Are you satisfied? If so it's good enough. I don't think you should ever be completely satisfied, it's the driver you need to keep standards high.

FX isn't the way forward for birding in my opinion, except perhaps a D850, but for ordinary people who can't justify multiple, highly expensive equipment, I doubt it will out perform a D500 sufficiently to merit the outlay. If you are constrained cost wise then I think the D300S is a very good choice and put up with the foibles. Again, in my opinion Dxxxx bodies may seem tempting but in truth are hobbled to keep the price down to be ultra competitive in the market place, not optimised to take the best possible exposures on the day.

Simplified, from the Nikon DX stable you have the D300S or the D500. I doubt there are significant gains to be had from other makes because I have seen bird images which would knock you over, from highly competent photographers made with Nikon cameras, photographers who are easily able to afford any camera they need, they currently choose the Nikon D500 or D850, to me that speaks loudly.

However, it's also worth remembering, many a good tune has been played on an old fiddle, the current new cameras have not made the old ones worse, when the D300S was current it was highly acclaimed.



____________________
Robert.

 




Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2019 04:07
 
6th Post
Robert



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: South Lakeland, UK
Posts: 4066
Status: 
Offline
By the way, a 12Mp D3, can't possibly compete with a 12Mp D300S when cropping to the same magnification.

PPD, pixels per duck! Think about it... Simple maths. Brick size pixels.



____________________
Robert.

 




Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2019 04:08
 
7th Post
blackfox



Joined: Wed Apr 11th, 2012
Location: Flint, North Wales, United Kingdom
Posts: 1252
Status: 
Offline
cheers for that Robert , I think yesterday was a poor day in good light due to my own in camera changes ,which I have now rectified.

yes we are always striving for that ultimate perfection and being realistic keep forgetting I still have my mirrorless gear which I could well have used instead . we were shooting red squirrels in deep woodland ..

i'll calm down and rethink it again , good call rob.

edit: I have in fact just gone back into yesterdays images and p/p a couple more , I think the main lesson is don't process stuff after a long day and 200 mile round trip , any mistakes yesterday were user generated ,lesson learned

 




Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2019 14:56
 
8th Post
Eric



Joined: Wed Apr 18th, 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4583
Status: 
Offline
Robert wrote:
This is more than about noise.

Bird photography is a very challenging aspect of photography. Highly detailed images of distant, textured subjects, subtle colours and frequently moving.

Focus, exposure and poor light are distinct issues. Fieldcraft skills and technical perfection can only go so far, for the very best, their success is still a percentage of their exposures. What you are trying to do is up the percentage rate of your good images.

I would be delighted with the excellent images you are producing but I understand that it will never be 'good enough', nor should it be, is it right? Are you satisfied? If so it's good enough. I don't think you should ever be completely satisfied, it's the driver you need to keep standards high.

FX isn't the way forward for birding in my opinion, except perhaps a D850, but for ordinary people who can't justify multiple, highly expensive equipment, I doubt it will out perform a D500 sufficiently to merit the outlay. If you are constrained cost wise then I think the D300S is a very good choice and put up with the foibles. Again, in my opinion Dxxxx bodies may seem tempting but in truth are hobbled to keep the price down to be ultra competitive in the market place, not optimised to take the best possible exposures on the day.

Simplified, from the Nikon DX stable you have the D300S or the D500. I doubt there are significant gains to be had from other makes because I have seen bird images which would knock you over, from highly competent photographers made with Nikon cameras, photographers who are easily able to afford any camera they need, they currently choose the Nikon D500 or D850, to me that speaks loudly.

However, it's also worth remembering, many a good tune has been played on an old fiddle, the current new cameras have not made the old ones worse, when the D300S was current it was highly acclaimed.


Whilst I agree with a lot you say Robert...it is about noise.
Because that's the end byproduct of the process when we wrestle with.....low UK light, fast moving subject (demanding fast shutter speeds), long lenses to encapsulate the subject, smaller apertures to manage reduced dof. etc etc

I've seen superb bird images taken on a D3...In Mexico.
I've taken photos in France where I had 2 stops more exposure than I estimated the light level would give me in the UK.

So when the light is good ...you can use anything.

Unfortunately we are not so lucky most of the time in the UK.

There is no doubt that FX sensors handle noise better than DX sensors...but it may not be so in all lighting/cropping situations.
o.O



____________________
Eric
 




Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2019 15:04
 
9th Post
Eric



Joined: Wed Apr 18th, 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4583
Status: 
Offline
Robert wrote:
By the way, a 12Mp D3, can't possibly compete with a 12Mp D300S when cropping to the same magnification.

PPD, pixels per duck! Think about it... Simple maths. Brick size pixels.


That's not true Robert, despite your maths.

I struggled over far too many experiments with the D3 and the D300 (notS) trying to decide if there was any difference in image quality cropping a D3 to D300 frame. Inconclusive at best. The only image benefits come from not emphasising noise by cropping. So in poor light the D3's better handing of noise ( 1-2stops ) meant cropping never emphasised the noise as much as the DX performance at the same ISO.

In good light there was no difference.



____________________
Eric
 




Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2019 15:26
 
10th Post
blackfox



Joined: Wed Apr 11th, 2012
Location: Flint, North Wales, United Kingdom
Posts: 1252
Status: 
Offline
Stop it guys your confiscating my bank balance

 

Reply
1st new
This is topic ID = 1641     Current time is 02:21 Page:    1  2  3  4  Next Page Last Page    
Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Cameras > Choices Top

Users viewing this topic

Post quick reply

Go to top
Go to end
Messages
Home
Recent topics
Unread posts
Last posts
Splash

Current theme is Modern editor



A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk Thank you.


Hosted by Octarine Services

UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0588 seconds (66% database + 34% PHP). 83 queries executed.