matt_nilson

The Tamron 150-600mm and D7100 makes a great sunny day shooting combination (just like a good bridge camera does ;). But at 600mm (900mm EFL) your shutter speed will need to be at least 1/1000 for handheld. In less than perfect lighting, the D7100 will want to jump up to ISO 3200 and that will kill feather detail completely - DX simply cannot cope with that high an ISO. Put that Tamron on an FX body, even the old D700 and you're good to go up to ISO 3200 and beyond if you nail the exposure.

<p>I agree Kent, if it's all about money. Buying a D7100 for a third of a stop advance is a complete waste of $800 so he might as well use the $800 toward the 300mm f/2.8 on his D90.<br> And let's also remember that in most situations, 300mm is just too short for birding. You would have to be *very* close to get something like a wren to fill the frame. Martin might try setting up his D90 with the 105mm Micro a couple of feet away from the feeding station and remote shooting. I have done this in the past with a Tamron 90mm macro and the results surprised me (in a good way).<br> Matt</p>

<p>That camera has now been sold. Fingers crossed the buyer doesn't strike oil :)</p>

<p>If I were getting my forst FX, I would definately pay the extra for the D750. But thats' because I know what I would be buying it for. Does your wife need 51 pt AF? Does she need a tilt screen?<br> Also, some 'new' D750 samples have emerged <a href="http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/nikon_d750_photos/">here</a></p>

<p>Firstly, that 70-300mm VR isn't the best lens for birding, as you probably know. But we'll come back to that.<br> I'll give you some links to read like this great article on DX vs FX for Sports & Wildlife on photographylife (you'll have to google it as photo.net fasley accuses Nasim of posting fake rumours which is complete rubbish - and prove me wrong if you can). Nasim knows what he's talking about and you should read that article very carefully, but not that now we have the D7100 and D750, both with the same resolution and the same very good AF system. I mention that because Nasim used to recommend the D7100 over the D610 because of the better AF. Now that playing field is level and it turns things around again. So, yes you have to crop more in FX to make you bird fill the frame. But, ISO 1600 on a D7100 isn't really any better than on your D90. Some may take exception to that. That's their choice, but it doesn't change the fact of what I just said. Look at all the side-by-side comparison's you like on dpreview, imaging-resource, camerlabs, photographyblog...wherever you like. All those shots show that high ISO performance on DX sensors hasn't really improved. And don't get worried about the AA filter. You only really notice the difference pixel-peeping when the very best lenses are used.<br> I'll give you another link <a href="http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=245038">showing a D7100 vs a D800</a>. Now, just putting the lousy D800 shot aside for a moment, look at how noisy the D7100 shot is at ISO 1250. Start applying noise reduction to that and you'll soon get the smeared, plastic look that is like an epidemic on the internet. You surely don't want your birds to look shrink-wrapped, do you? But what do you do? The noise is there. It's undeniable and I reckon, no...I KNOW that your D90 wouldn't be that much worse in the same situation. So just keep your wallet shut tight for now.<br> I mentioned the lousy D800 shot. I think he's simply missed the focus. Thats' it! No way should a D800 be looking that mushy at ISO 2000. Or maybe the lens needs a little AF fine tune. Whatever, but there's something so wrong with the shot. The D800 (even the non E version) is simply a far better camera than that.<br> So, where's all this leading us? Well, do you want more noisy pixels on the subject? If so, stick with DX. If you want fewer higher quality, less noisy pixels, go with FX. Is the D750 worth that much more than the D7100? For me and many others the answer is 'yes'. Even at low ISO's, FX will give you more. Oh, and don't let people tell you that you 'need the pro glass'. That's just nonsense. Even the super cheap Nikon 50mm f1.8 D AF on an FX body will take tack sharp photo's, but you already know that good glass can be cheap as you have the 35mm DX (which works *very* nicely on FX with acceptable amounts of vignetting).<br> But for birds you really want a better lens. A minimum of the Nikon 300mm f/4 + TC14EII (not the new III version!). Better yet, the new Nikon 80-400mm. Sigma's & Tamron's are OK, *if* you get a good copy (they used to be a lottery, not so much these days). The Tamron 150-600mm is very good for what it costs (a friend has the Canon version). Obviously the big primes are better still, but consider this - a one man bird hide. They are super-cheap and you'll be able to get close even with your 70-300. Maybe not so great in winter though ;)<br> Well, I hope I've been of help. Please do keep saving for the D750. I'm just trying to avoid you being disappointed with a still noisy D7100.<br> (BTW, the 105mm Micro you have will be even more spectacular with a good FX sensor behind it).<br> Matt</p>