D810 for wildlife photography ?

<p>Dear Members ,<br>

I would enlist the requirements of wildlife photography ( not necessarily in the order of importance ) as 1) reach 2) details 3) silent shutter 4) low light performance (capability to use relatively high shutter speed in low light) 5) focus acquiring capability 6) buffer .<br>

<br />The D810 with high MP , it may not always be possible keep the shutter speed high to negate shake even with VR on , considering the wildlife photographers to be using long lense most of the time . From the information I have gathered , it seems that wildlife photographers are using both the categories , full frame and APS-C cameras .</p>

<p>So , what would you recommend considering the above requirements - APS-C or both APS-C and full frame . Would you recommend D810 in the full frame camera category for wild life photography ?</p>

<p>Do professional wildlife photographers carry all categories of camera , one for reach , one for low light and the other for details ? The scene may be lost while trying to decide what to use :) </p>

<p>Please correct me if I am wrong anywhere .<br>

Regards .</p>

<p>http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/about/whats-in-mooses-camera-bag/mooses-wildlife-gear/</p>

<p>Moose Peterson has very definite ideas about which gear to carry for various applications. His specialty is wildlife, along with action and landscapes. His "What's In My Bag" has always been interesting and informative. He usually explains why he makes his choices, and offers tips on how to use it to its best advantage.</p>

<p>You will never have a lens long enough! The key to wildlife photography is patience and the ability to get in close. In general, you want your gear to be as rugged as possible, and fast to focus, track and shoot. High resolution is not a necessity, nor is it always compatible with the primary requirements.</p>

<p>If you are in the boonies, it's a good idea to have a backup camera. It doesn't have to be the same model, as long as it will do most of the job and use the same lenses and accessories. You might select a D5 as the primary, and a D810 as a backup. It is lighter and has higher resolution for landscapes and closeups. Whatever you choose to carry, remember it is you doing the carrying. FX and/or DX is a personal choice. However top of the line cameras for action and low light are generally FF.</p>

<p>Camera shake is nearly a constant. Its magnitude depends on the focal length and shutter speed, not the sensor resolution. You run into trouble when the effect of camera shake exceeds the pixel spacing. In the absence of IS, the rule of thumb of 1/F for the shutter speed will limit resolution for any sensor larger than about 2 MP. To take advantage of a 36 MP D810, you would have to use 1/4F, a tripod, or an IS lens.</p>

<p>Honestly, I think the D500 is going to be your best bet. It's got the crop factor, speed & low light and low noise. The wildlife guys I know all carry 500/600 lenses and then often a converter so the cost of the camera will pale in comparison to the big glass (and hauling it around) and the tripod and the gimbal.</p>

<p>The D810 wouldn't be my choice for wildlife photography: too many pixels, frame rate too slow ....</p>

<p>Today, a D500 or D750 would be better choices or even the D4/D4S and D5 if you can afford it. On the other end of the spectrum, there D7200 is quite good as well.</p>

<p>The new D500 is a no-brainer for wildlife. It has high pixel density, fast frames per second, and first class auto-focus. Might be the best camera ever made for wildlife. The D810 would be my choice if shooting weddings, portraits, studio, and landscape (coupled with PC-E lenses.) It would not be my first (or even second) choice for wildlife.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I am with Shun and Kent as far as the D810. It would be down the list as far as wildlife. I can't think of any current camera better for wildlife than the D500, with the D7200 second and D750 third. Now if at least half of your shooting is landscape, then the D810 begins to enter the equation.</p>

<p>I learnt a lot from these responses - I certainly don't have the experience of these contributors - but I would like to add that I have been using the D810 (and the D800) for wildlife photography handheld for quite some time now with a variety of lenses, including the new 200-500 mm and even with heavier lenses like the f2.8 300 mm and have been very satisfied with the results. I also own the 800 mm lens but, even with a very good tripod and a remote trigger I have not been entirely satisfied with the D810 results. The other camera backs suggested may be more optimal for you however if you want to focus mainly on wildlife photography.</p>

<p>Thanks all for your responses , Edward thanks for the link ,<br /> <br /> I had asked this question out of my interest . The D500 looks very promising . Quiet shutter mode , fast focus acquiring ability , good buffer and extraordinary high ISO performance ( usable ISO at 51200 ?! ) . I would wait for more reports on D500 and for the initial dusts to settle down .</p>

<p>I do not have much experience as a wildlife photographer . However , I have understood the requirement of high shutter speed when using the long lens . This becomes more critical in low light conditions . Wild animals are more active at dusk or dawn . Although I have not used a D810 , because of its very high MP , I was having doubts regarding its usability at high ISO . In the net , it seems many photographers are advocating the use of D810 in wildlife photography . So , there is no "do it all" type of camera yet .</p>

<p>Oliver - interesting piece of information , have you used D810 in low light ? How would the picture come out if the shutter speed is 1/100 or less , handheld with VC/VR/OS on ?<br>

</p>

 

<p>Almost 20 years ago, I went to Antarctica with nature photographer David Middleton who also teaches a lot of photo classes and seminars. Back then we were all using film SLRs, of course. Middleton said that he would rarely use film faster than ISO 200. He said if you need faster film than ISO 200, that means the light is quite poor and (in most cases) you don't want to shoot anyway.</p>

<p>Obvious technologies have changed drastically since then (1998). Today I use ISO 1600, 3200 fairly routinely. But what Middleton said 18 years ago still holds true to some degree. It is one thing that you may use ISO 12800 to capture a wedding ceremony inside a dim church or a high school night football game where the floodlight isn't bright. For wildlife, I rarely need really high ISOs. Since high ISO can be quite good nowadays, I may favor 1/2000 to stop the motion of a hummingbird and therefore move up to ISO 6400, but I can mostly get away with 1/1000 sec with ISO 3200.</p>

<p>For wildlife, at least I wouldn't use ISO 51200. Nikon may gave that as a setting option. I real life, that is not a setting I would use on the D500 or D810, nor ISO 25600. There are, of course, occasional exceptions. You know, when there is this rare bat inside some cave that nobody has ever photographed, I might use ISO Hi 2 just to get anything.</p>

<p>If you are asking if the D500 would be usable at ISO 51200, I would have to say no unless you are talking about just posting to the web. Based on my short experience with the D500 I would say you need to stick with ISO 6400 and below if you are talking about making prints of any size. Of course if it is a once in a lifetime shot of Big Foot in almost total darkness, then I would crank it up to 51200 to get the shot! :)</p>

<p>There is a video in youtube where a photographer takes print of a photo captured at 51200 ! Thats why I put a question mark . When sun is absent , my lens being tamron 150-600 , with shutter speed of around 1/500 and aperture varying between 8-11 , is it possible to calculate or guess the ISO ? Obviously , I do not want take photo at 51200 . How far the ISO shoot up in these modern cameras or what is the maximum usable ISO ( not what Nikon says but from you all who have used these cameras under trying field conditions ) ? For D7000 , I have the maximum usable ISO set at 3200 . Chances of sighting of many animals ( tigers ) is more in such low light conditions .</p>

<p>Quality of YouTube video varies a lot, just like photo blogs and camera reviews. Some of those video have good info and some are completely junk "reviews." Use your good judgment on the web.</p>

<p>While it is not a wildlife image, attached is a pixel-level crop of a ISO 12800 sample from the D500. 51200 is not an ISO setting I would use.</p><div></div>

<p>If I was a nature photographer, I would get the D500 and not look back. One of the top bird photographers in my area just got one and he says it is the cats pajamas and then some.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> FX and/or DX is a personal choice. However top of the line cameras for action and low light are generally FF.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This isn't completely accurate. Firstly, a wildlife photographer might prefer DX because of reach, which isn't an arbitrary concept. In real terms, the 1.5x crop factor means you get longer reach with the same lenses, or you can use shorter lenses and get the same reach as FX. this has practical/economic consequences, since an 80-400 is effectively a 120-600 on DX. A 300/2.8 costs $5500, a 500/4 is $10,300. So the cost savings are not insignificant, as well as weight savings. if the OP already has a 150-600, on DX that effectively becomes a 225-900/5.3-6.3. 900mm @ 6.3 is a lot of reach, and reasonably fast at that focal length. Secondly, the D500 IS a 'top of the line camera for action' in DX format. it has shared AF systems with the D5, fast frame rate, and weather-sealed build. For the price, you could certainly do worse for wildlife. It is true that FF cameras have better low-light performance, but i dont know that i would prioritize that over reach for shooting wildlife. <br>

<br>

The recommendation of a D5 with d810 would be an expensive one, and largely unnecessary, especially for an inexperienced wildlife shooter. Let's see, you'd be spending around $10,000 on two FX bodies, plus whatever your investment in lenses. You'd have to get longer, more expensive lenses without the benefit of the crop factor. The D5 would be great for action, but the only real benefit over a D500 (for $4700 more) would be low-light performance, and you're actually losing 50% of your effective reach with your current body. The D810 would be unspectactular for wildlife due to its slow frame rate, though it would be a much more useful option for landscape, especially on a tripod.<br>

<br>

It looks like the OP already has a D7000, that is a solid DX body, although it's been surpassed in performance by D7100, D7200, and D500. Upgrading to a D500 would give more responsive performance, faster FPS, and better AF and metering. if you wanted the benefits of FF low-light performance without breaking the bank, you could add a D750, which has a slightly faster frame rate than the 810. I don't see an especially compelling reason to get a D5+D810 for the OP unless he has money burning a hole in his pocket. But even then, spending less on bodies and investing more in lenses is probably a better long-term strategy.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>there is no "do it all" type of camera yet .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is probably a good thing, when you think about it. There are overall/all-around bodies like the D7200 and D750 which will do a lot of things well, but involve some compromises. If you want better performance/speed, you're looking a D500 or D5. If you want max. resolution, or top performance with 35mm lenses at native focal lengths, you're looking at a D810. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>usable ISO at 51200 </p>

</blockquote>

<p>i do think one has to be realistic about high-ISO settings. if you look at top wildlife photographers and their EXIF settings, they're not shooting at 51,200. it's not really reasonable to expect a D500 to shoot clean at this setting, or an 810 for that matter.</p>

<p>RTuhin, you stated <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=819353" rel="nofollow">because of its very high MP , I was having doubts regarding its usability at high ISO</a>"<br /> <br /> It is exactly because of the high MP count and sensor [FX] size that you get incredible results at high ISO - images are low in noise and full of detail - at levels you cannot match with any DX body, including the D500.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone , thanks Shun for the reference photo ,</p>

<p>It is not a question of me buying but which one a better , more useful gear for wildlife photography . Allow me to cite one of my photos that I took recently in a national park in India . <br /> <img src="/photo/18232451" alt="" /><br /> This photo was taken at around 5PM , lens was 150-600 , shutter speed 1/500 , f9 , ISO 3200 . From the reference photo provided by Shun , I get some idea of the maximum usable ISO on D500 . That also provides me some idea of the ISO that would be , when shutter speed is 1/500 in the fast fading light ( from the reference photo provided by me ) .</p>

<p>Not too happy seeing the noise levels at ISO 12800 in D500 but then this is the best option now ( I am doubtful if I could use such high shutter speed with D810 in fading lights ) , if one does not want to burn a hole in the pocket :) .</p>

<p>Thanks .</p>

<p>moving from a d7000 to a d500, you should see better high-ISO results, but the biggest improvements will be elsewhere, particularly in AF-C tracking ability. there is a theoretical ISO limit with DX, but 3200 should be within the envelope. of course you can always shoot with a faster lens and/or wider aperture, but getting out to 600mm with another lens wouldn't be cheap. </p>

<p>Thanks Erik ,</p>

<p>It would be logical for someone to upgrade if the present gear becomes limiting in its performance in the desired condition and not because another better gear is available . The day I would find the gear limiting , I would upgrade . And of course , if the up-gradation is economically logical .</p>

<p>I have read lot of articles written by you here .</p>

<p>The last single-digit (i.e., "top of the line") Nikon to have an APS-C sensor was the D2X (or D2XS). A DX sensor has more "reach" than an FX sensor with the same lens, but DX is somewhat challenged to do wide angles. All else being equal, a DX sensor should have more noise than an FX sensor with the same resolution. However all else is seldom equal. A good DX will be less noisy than a mediocre FX. But a good FX ... 'nuff said. There's also a big difference in build quality between top of the line and the runners up. Perhaps you get something for $6500 v $2000, but not necessarily enough to justify the difference, depending on your needs and budget.</p>

<p>I have a D800E which is VERY similar to D810, and honestly I try to not go over ISO 2000 with it. ISO 3200 is as high as I'm comfortable with. I also have a D7100, and the times I am going out to photo wildlife (I have 80-400mm AFS) I take the D7100. It is better than the D800E for that. The ISO difference between D800E and D7100 is at most a stop & half. The problem with shooting in really dim light is the colors start looking crappy because there isn't a full spectrum of light available. Another advantage for the D500 over D810 is you get one more stop worth of DoF with the D500. I.e., the D500 will give the same DoF at f5.6 as the D810 will give at f8. That gives you another stop right there. Instead of shooting your photo at f8 you could have gotten away with f5.6 or maybe even f4. I'd rather put the cash on a faster lens designed for wildlife than a more expensive camera that's designed for indoor weddings (for wildlife.)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>DX sensors have more 'reach' by virtue of in-camera cropping due to sensor size, but in reality do not get you any closer to your subject. The D500 sensor is about 20mp, the D800/D800e/D10 DX crop is about 15mp. A difference of 5mp is not enough that you could see it in a typical print or likely even with extreme pixel peeping.</p>

<p>My experience with the D800 was that its ISO 6400 results were pretty close to low ISO IQ when shooting RAW, processing with a high quality image processing program, and printing typically sized prints. In any case, IQ from a FX sensor will always be better than a DX sensor, especially when high ISO performance is the goal. My D3, as old as it is, will deliver better high ISO results than any current DX body (I will exclude the D500 as I have not seen any tests results from it yet) when comparing processed RAW images.</p>

<p>While results are similar with all of the latest Nikon DSLR bodies DX or FX for most applications/shooting conditions, the FX bodies do deliver slightly better IQ under adverse conditions.</p>

<p>In any case, the OP will be happy with any of the bodies mentioned for his application.</p>

<p>I have browsed through the good and thoughtful responses above - all of them useful!<br /><br /> Personally, I come from almost 30 years of non-professional nature photography, obviously rooted in the 'FX-size' 'slide film era'. And with a wide variety of subject matter for my images, ranging from landscapes, through <em>mini-landscapes</em>, micro-photography to telelens photography. 'Nature photography' is <em>so much more</em> than capturing birds in flight, or perching.<br /><br /> It has been written above in this thread: Many micro- and telelens applications profit from using a smaller DX-sensor camera. And - from my experience - for many 'landscape & environment' images I would prefer a FX-camera ..Like the D810 (I have a D800 myself..).<br /><br /><em>So.. Luxury choices!</em> What's first on the necessity/urgency/want-badly list?? <br />Current DX D7xxx camera too limiting for bird-in-flight or low-light telelens photography? --> D500 it is!<br />Wide-angle landscape capability not to satisfaction? --> D810 it is!<br /><br />Please share the results!</p>

<p>Thanks all ,</p>

<p>Elliot , Op will NOT be happy with any of the bodies :)</p>

<p>I had not posted the question to seek a remedy to my buying enigma . I had wanted to know how well D810 would fit as a wildlife photographic camera with its high MP and what I know , a better "quiet mode" shutter than D750 . Would one be able to use it in low light conditions with enough high shutter speed to negate shake even with the lens stabilisation on ? I was and still is, sceptical about this ability of the D810 even if I forget and forgive its focus acquiring ability . Had it passed the test , it would have been the preferable "do it all" camera .</p>

<p>It would be interesting to know why many of the hardcore wildlife photographer do not use DX ( hope I am not wrong ) . At least , Moose Peterson's disclosed gear list does not have any . That they go for D4s and D5 , is nothing new . Getting close to the subject may not always be possible . It may not be an open grassland or there may be other restrictions to the movement . Probably , they go for gear that can, not only perform well but also withstand the demanding conditions . But , is not difference in image qualities of DX and FX in those demanding conditions getting narrower ? </p>

<p>A shallow DOF is often an advantage for photos in nature. It sets the subject off from a distracting background, and sometimes foreground. On the other hand, even the best DOF (high f/stop) will probably not achieve the toes to horizon sharpness you get with a tilting lens. That said, focus stacking can be used to great advantage when shooting static subjects, which wind aside, describes most landscapes.</p>

<p>Nature photographer Art Wolfe goes to great lengths showing how a shallow DOF can be used to your advantage.</p>