Bird Photography -- D7200 300mm f/4 or D610 200-500mm f/5.6?

<p>Planning for my annual bird photography trip to Florida.</p>

<p>In the past, I've shot with D300, a 300mm f/4, and a monopod. I prefer this lighter rig to bigger iron (e.g. 500 f/4 on a full frame body, big tripod, gimbal head). But, it's time for some changes. The D300 feels out of date at 12MPx, and Nikon has just introduced the 200-500mm f/5.6 lens.</p>

<p>I'm thinking of either:<br>

- D7200 with one of the 300mm f/4 lenses<br>

- D600 with the new 200-500 f/5.6</p>

<p>What do I want to shoot? Here's a good example. (Borrowed a Canon rig for that trip.)</p>

<p><img src="http://2under.net/images/140204-Wakodahatchee-GBHx2-H9A0022-Ed-Scr.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<h4>Two Great Blue Herons, Wakodahatchee Wetlands, Delray Florida, 2014</h4>

<p>I would use a different combo: D7200 + 200-500mm/f5.6.</p>

<p>I captured the image below, also a Great Blue Heron, with that combo @ 500mm. Of course, a lot of that depends on how far the birds are from you.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that while (I think) most people can hand hold the 200-500mm for an hour or two, it is still a big and heavy lens, and it is still best to use it from a tripod or at least monopod for any extended period.</p><div></div>

<p>More: <br>

- AF performance is probably most important. I shoot continuous AF, single point, put it on the bird, and hold it there.<br>

- With the fixed 300mm, I'm shooting loose, and cropping later. Zoom might be a little different<br>

- Usually there's enough light. I'll shoot at 1/1000th or more. (Photo above is 1/2500, ISO 1000).</p>

<p>The 200-500mm on a crop body could also be an option.</p>

<p>Shun, thanks for the response. Monopod is my choice support. And, can you say why you suggest the crop body? For more reach? I'm thinking the D7200 and D600 will have about the same image quality. Does that sound right?</p>

<p>How's the 200-500 at 500mm wide open? Thanks for the example, but hard to tell from the screen image. Sharp?</p>

<p>Sebastian, sorry I am generalizing here, but for bird photography, you mainly want reach. For example, some song birds can be really small on a tree. If you mostly shoot larger waterfowls such as the great blue herons, pelicans ..., perhaps a D600 is ok. But then, I would prefer the D750 instead of the D600/D610 for the better AF.</p>

<p>We have had a few threads on the 200-500mm. IMO sharpness @ 500mm is not a problem at all. However, I think AF is not the best. And if you shoot birds in flight, I think the 80-400mm AF-S VR is more versatile. Sometimes when a flying bird approaches, you want to zoom to the wide end and 200mm is not wide enough. The 80-400 has a better zoom range.</p>

<ul>

<li>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dVDu</li>

<li>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00daG8</li>

<li>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dc0Y</li>

</ul>

<p>Please pay attention to <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=19054">Ilkka Nissila</a> and <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=323291">Dieter Schaefer</a>'s comments on the third thread (Nikon Wednesday) just to get some different perspectives..</p>

<p>Thanks, Shun. </p>

<p>Anyone else with experience on the 200-500mm lens?</p>

<p>I normally shoot with D800e's, but shooting my 200-500mm is probably the only reason I have these days for wanting an APS-C body. I may yet get one.</p>

<p>One other minor thing to mention -- Nikon had issued a service notice for 200-500mm lenses that shipped early on. Mine is affected, but it;s such a minor issue that I have never been able to replicate it. Still, I may send in my lens for the service before spring birding. I would guess that those lenses that are shipping these days are not affected by this service order (unless of course you buy used). You can enter the lens' serial # in the the Nikon USA website to see if the lens is affected.</p>

<p>I do sometimes shoot the 200-500mm with a monopod, but personal preference is a proper tripod with a ballhead and a Wimberley Sidekick -- just a personal preference.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anyone else with experience on the 200-500mm lens?<br /> How's the 200-500 at 500mm wide open?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 200-500 is fine wide open - on both the D7100 and the D810. I would say about at par with the AF-S 300/4 and the TC-14E mounted and a <strong>lot</strong> better than the 300/4 with TC-17EII.<br /> Nikon's refusal to give us a properly equipped DX camera makes the D810 (in 1.2x crop mode (for speed and with the additional advantage of reducing the storage requirements)) my FX choice for use with the 200-500 (if maximum reach is not required; go with the D7200 in that case)).</p>

<p>I briefly tried the Sigma 150-600/5-6.3 Sport - which allegedly is a tad sharper than the Nikon 200-500 but also $600 more expensive and about 2lbs heavier (which does affect hand holding he lens quite a bit). It offers more range but is also slower than than the Nikon towards the long end. <br /> The Nikon requires an almost 270 degree twist of the zoom ring to go from one end of the range to the other - not good if one needs to move fast. The Sigma needs 90 degrees - but the zoom ring on the lens I tested was very stiff and not easy to turn - so no dice there either.</p>

<p>Re: the firmware upgrade. I ordered my lens 11/12/15 from adorama (first day they had them in stock) - the copy I received fell within the original serial number range affected but checked out as "not affected" when entered into the current version of checker on the Nikon USA website - so it must have obtained the firmware upgrade at some point in time.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Smaller formats for any high-mag application (tele or macro) every time. In fact I'd consider a 4/3rds body if I was seriously into birding.</p>

<p>The little Robin below was only a few yards away in my garden, and shot on a D800 with the 180mm f/2.8 AF IF-ED lens I happened to have on the camera when the bird appeared. The full-frame image still needed a lot of cropping to get the result shown. Had I had a DX body at the time the result would have needed much less of a crop.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>In fact I'd consider a 4/3rds body if I was seriously into birding.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And quite likely rather quickly reconsider that choice.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Nikon's refusal to give us a properly equipped DX camera..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In what way is the D7200, not "properly equipped" Dieter? Sure, it doesn't feel as robust as my D800, but it performs very well and can reach a higher frame-rate than the D610. And, let's be honest, most bird photography isn't done by professionals making a full-time income from their gear and giving it hard daily use. Enthusiasts tend to look after their kit quite carefully, but I'm pretty sure that both the D610 and D7200 would suffer similar damage on being dropped 20ft from a hide or being dunked in a wetland pool!</p>

<p>I must admit I have no experience using a 4/3rds system, but if I was seriously into wildlife or birding, I would definitely investigate with an open mind what was on offer. Whether current 4/3rds systems offer a better practical solution is open to debate and down to individual choice. Theoretically a mirrorless system should be almost silent in operation, which I would have thought would be a major advantage.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>In what way is the D7200, not "properly equipped" Dieter?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lack of dedicated AF-ON button. Idiotic two-handed operation needed to change AF modes - a clear step backwards from the D300/D700 (sacrificed for the live view switch that really could have been placed almost anywhere on the camera). Rather slow frame rate - compare with the Canon 7D MKII. Lack of dynamic group AF. A mode dial that requires left handed operation - not ideal when using heavy lenses hand held. And a body that simply doesn't feel good - or dare I say - feels cheap. </p>

<p>I have no experience with the 4/3rds system either - but my main concerns would be noise performance at the often quite high ISO values that are required. The smoothness of the OOF areas (DOF related, the 2x crop factor isn't helping here). The lack of suitable lenses and AF tracking performance. Personally, I have not encountered issues with camera noise interfering with my bird photography - in most cases, one simply isn't close enough for it to matter.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sebastian, I have a couple of questions. Where are you planning to visit down here? Are you sticking with Wakodahatchee or do you plan to visit other sites like Green Cay, Shark Valley, Merritt Island or Loxahatchee? Wakodahatchee isn't very hard on reach and as you probably learned from your earlier visit, the 300mm was probably enough. (Nice capture of the Great Blues, by the way.) If you hit Green Cay, Merritt Island or Lox, you're going to need more reach. Green Cay and Merritt Island are bigger and Lox is truly wild. The 200-500 would suit you well/better in those places. (and it's not really too big for Wakodahatchee either) </p>

<p>Last year, a friend and I rented a Sigma 150-600 Sport, he with a D7100 and I with a D7000. The ability to zoom and the extra reach available over the 70-200 w/1.4 teles attached was phenomenal. Reach is always going to be important in birding so the 1.5 conversion of the D7200 (which I now have) will excel over the 610. Plus the D7200 has Nikon's latest autofocus module in it, exceeding the capabilities of the D610. That <em>will</em> make a difference. Plus it will see and focus better in low light. For what you intend to shoot, I think the D7200 is a no-brainer. I don't have the 200-500 so I can't comment directly on the combo but from everything I've read, you'd be very pleased with the results.</p>

<p>If you do decide to go that way, I would recommend you convert/assign the rear AE-L/AF-L button to function as 'back button focus'. If you aren't familiar with that, doing so will remove the autofocus function from the shutter release and move it to that rear button. The advantage of that is that while the button is held down, you remain in continuous autofocus. When the button is released, it stays locked onto the last focus point. It gives you both focus modes within the same button. I would never go back to using the shutter release as the focus initiator after using my D7200 that way. Takes a little getting used to and then it becomes automatic.</p>

<p>The D7200 is truly a wonderful camera, 2nd only to the D300 in frame rate. I can't think of any logical reason to choose the D610 over the D7200 for what you intend to do. I've shot with both of them. I bought the D7200.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p>Tom, we'll be at Wakodahatchee, Green Cay, and Loxahatchee. I've had best luck at Wakodahatchee and Green Cay. I'll also be on the Gulf side where I've had good luck at Ding Darling and Estero. I intend to explore some of the other West locations as well. </p>

<p>Agree about reach. Loxahatchee action was too far. </p>

<p>Thanks for the comments on the D7200, especially about AF. </p>

<p>Hey guys<br>

I had literally the same dilemma. A month ago I rented a 200-500 and a D7200 for a trip to a state park in Iowa. For this coming trip I'll try the 300 f4 and D7200, plus my own D750 70-200 f4 and tc1.4. I will be in North Miami Beach and Vero Beach so if you have any more suggestions for the area please share. I am not an experienced birder and when I rented the 200-500 a month I go I was expecting eagles, but there were not any. I discovered the 200-500 is not a great lens for shooting my children in a forest. Other than that I would like to try it again, maybe in a trip to Florida. This time I went with the 300 f4 because I haven't tried it yet and also it will be easier to carry. The 200-500 was sharp and had good focus but it wasn't super snappy, and the zoom ring is huge and takes several turns to zoom its extent, handheld it is extremely difficult if not impossible. It will be a fun lens to try again someday, and for now I am excited for the 300f4.</p>

<p>Tom -- (more)</p>

<p>Yes, I'm familiar with moving AF from the shutter release to a back button. I do that when birding and go back for other photography.</p>

<p>I'm mulling over a comment in Brad Hill's extensive review of this lens</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>• <strong>Compared to primes?</strong> At the subject distance of 5.7m I brought the Nikkor 300mm f4 PF and the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E VR into the testing. Owners of these lenses can now take a sigh of relief. Both primes produced images that were instantly recognizable as sharper. And the difference in sharpness between the primes and the sharpest zoom (the Sigma Sport 150-600) was greater than between the 4 closest-competing lenses in this test (the 200-500, the two Sigmas, and the Tamron). Don't take this to mean the zooms are all soft - they aren't. It's just that the 300mm f4 PF and the 400mm f2.8E VR are crazy sharp.<br>

<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have always been really pleased with the sharpness of my 300 f/4 shots (both the original and AFS versions). Brad's got me worrying; how about the 200-500 at 300mm vs. one of the 300 f/4 lenses? For sharpness in particular? Bokeh looks good on both lenses.</p>

 

<p>Sharpness of the 300 f/4 -- Like this one, with the AFS lens on a D300. </p>

<p><img src="http://2under.net/images/150200-Pileated-DingDarling-D038445.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<h4>Pileated Woodpecker, D300, Nikkor AFS 300 f/4, Ding Darling, Feb 2015</h4>

I suppose that if critical sharpness is your #1 priority, either of the 300s will provide more of that than any of the zooms in the range you're

considering. But I did notice that Brad introduced the primes at a distance of 5.7m - about 20'. It would be interesting to see the

sharpness potential of the 300s at longer distances, then cropped to similar perspectives compared to a lens @ 500mm. Might be close

or even better.

 

Since you know what you have in the 300s, why not just get a D7200 and stay with the lenses you are familiar with? 24mp give you 'crop

ability' you didn't have with a D300. The package will be smaller and very friendly to handle and shoot with.

 

Tom

<p>Getting more air between lens and subject is asking for degraded IQ. The atmosphere is very rarely free of mist, dust, pollution, heat turbulence and/or anything else that will cut contrast and sharpness. That only occurs on those rare occasions when rain has just washed the crud out of the air and it's turning dry and bright, but not yet warm enough for heat-haze or turbulence. In other words for about 15 minutes every other blue moon.</p>

<p>IME the best way to improve your bird and wildlife shots is to improve your stalking skills and/or invest in a hide to get closer. Actually a parked car makes a good mobile hide. Most wildlife is so used to seeing these multi-coloured tin boxes around it takes no notice of them, whether they're occupied or not.</p>

<p>Good point about the haze. But the wetlands that Sebastian is headed to are a little unique. These are well established wetlands, several of which have boardwalks in and through them, so the birds are <em>much</em> less skittish than in a more wild setting. Some of the rookeries are no more than 30-40' from the walkway. I've had situations where a bird, usually a Tri-colored Heron, would stay put on the railing while I walked close on the other side at a distance of about 8'. But it's happened with Wood Storks, Black-bellied Whistlers and Roseate Spoonbills too. The longer lenses give you a little more working distance or isolation or a different vantage point than the masses. Black Necked Stilts are pretty tiny and the extra reach is helpful for them too. Wakodahatchee will spoil you for other locations. This picture is a pretty common occurrence there.</p>

<p>Tom</p><div></div>

<p>Nice shot Tom. Your post has reminded me that there's a marsh area not far from where I live that can be seen from a train but otherwise seems pretty inaccessible. I've been meaning to get the 25k:1 map out and investigate it for some time. I'll definitely do that now. I'm sure the birdlife there will be worth dragging a camera, tripod and long lens to. Can't see any roads or footpaths from the train though.</p>

<p>Wakodahatchee, Grand Cay, Estero, Anhinga Trail, Shark Valley -- All these have features that put you in proximity to birds who are used to humans and not skittish. Typical shooting is 30', but sometimes it's 8-10'. It's not at all like walking in the wild, spotting a bird in the distance, and trying to approach.</p>

<p>I've had the same experience many times with a bird on the rail, un-bothered by humans nearby. Here's an example.</p>

<p><img src="http://2under.net/images/130311-HeronOnRail-FL-D035657-Scr.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<h4>Heron on a Railing, probably Wakodahatchee, D300 300 f/4 EDIF, 2013</h4>

<p>What a wonderful read. I have not been birding since a friend of mine moved back to Michigan 6 years ago. This thread has inspired me to do so. problem for me is while I have the bodies, I do not have any long lenses. But I can say this. As a D300S owner and a D7200 owner, I can tell you there is no contest. The D7200 KILLS the D300s ...Yes the D300s shoots more frames per second, but the D300s has far less keepers. It misses focus allot. At least, that has been my experience. </p>

<p>Ofer wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I will be in North Miami Beach and Vero Beach so if you have any more suggestions for the area please share.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Ofer, if you are in the Miami area you have to go at least a couple of visits to Shark Valley. You'll be 30-50' from interesting birds along the water-filled trench, and a bit further in the fields. A great spot. Further away to the South is the Anhinga Trail. Another prime spot.</p>

<p>Try to go very early, as the park opens (best light for Shark Valley).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>while I have the bodies, I do not have any long lenses</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Javier, for reasonable prices you can rent just about <em>anything</em> from LensRentals.com and they do a great job.</p>

<p>I own the old 30mm f/4, but more recently, I've rented the newer AFS f/4 or the 300mm f/2.8 from them. It's a great way to get access to glass you won't use so often.</p>