martin_jones6

<p>This is about as noisy as I can tolerate:<br> <img src="http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg202/donkondra/Fullcrop_zps2795704b.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="900" /></p>

OK. Now I'm a bit confused, but I do have a few things to say. I really don't think 300mm is enough. I often have to crop down to about 3MP for finches and I just can't get any closer to them, so - get more mm. A hide won't work - the D90 shutter is just too noisy and scares birds off from 10m away (believe me, I know from experience). It's hard to tell if a D7100 at, say, ISO 1600 will be 'significantly better' than my D90. I've seen examples that suggest it will and examples that suggest it won't :( I think I might be best served with something like the Tamron 150-600 and a D7100 (I've seen great shots with this combo), or get the lens now (if I can find one) and wait and see if Nikon come up with a new DX body early next year. If they don't, I'll just get the D7100 in time for spring.

<p>Many thanks for your replies.<br> Shun - I'd love the 80-400. If I go with the D7100 then that's £1000 saved (from the price of a D750) toward a new lens. I'm aware of Tamron and Sigma, but I would imagine that the Nikon is optically better. I've read that the Tamron start to go soft at about 450mm and the Sigma's at about 400mm (of course one might be lucky and get a really tack-sharp copy).<br> Elliot - thanks for explaining with some numbers. I didn't realise I'd be losing so many MP. I've just begun using RAW software, so far Lightroom and Capture 1. I try very hard to avoid the smeared, plastic look that some people end up with. Personally, I'd rather have a bit of 'grain'.<br> Rick - yes the money saved is important. I'll give the D7100 a 'workout' at my local camera shop.<br> Rodeo Joe - My D90 scares the birds off, so I've resorted to to shooting from inside the kitchen. I doubt the double-glazing does anything to improve IQ ;) Hopefully, the D7100 shutter will be less noisy.<br> Martin</p>

<p>Hi everybody.<br /> So I've been using my D90 for nearly 5 years with few complaints. I have 4 Nikon lenses - 18-105 DX, 35 f/1.8 DX, 70-300mm VR, 105mm Micro. I know the 70-300 isn't the greatest birding lens, but it's all I have and all I'm likely to have for the forseeable future. That's why I'm basing my post around that lens only.<br /> This year I got a bird feeding station, but I'm finding that in order to keep a high shutter speed (say 1/1000) with the 70-300 at, say f/8, my ISO is creeping up to 1600 and things are getting noisy and I'm seriously considering moving to FX. My concern is that I lose reach.<br /> So lets consider the following:<br /> At 300mm, 1/1000s, f/8 and ISO 1600, I take a (properly exposed and focussed) photo of a bird that is, say 15 feet away using firstly a D7100, then a D750 (or a D610 assuming the sensor is the same as the D750). I know about 'crop factor', but that's not relevant as I only have the 70-300, so I accept that I will 'lose reach' on the FX camera. Also, the D7100 lacks the OLPF or AA filter, which <em>may</em> result in more detail.<br /> The bird doesn't fill the frame in either case, so cropping in post is required (obviously I need to crop more with FX). I crop each image so that the bird fills the frame vertically.<br> My question is: will the D750 give me 'better IQ' (eg, detail, noise) than the D7100?<br> Thanks.<br /><br> Martin<br /></p>