DX or FX for Wildlife photography ?

<p>Dear Members ,</p>

<p>Which would you prefer while shooting wildlife/birds/macro , 1) a DX camera and take advantage of the crop factor or 2) FX camera and crop later during post processing ?<br>

Let me presume the DX camera to be D7K and the FX to be D700/800 . I use D70 .<br>

Would appreciate your inputs .</p>

<p>Regards ,<br>

Tuhin</p>

<p>I'd take a good DX. You can usually never hvae enough mm's ;)</p>

<p>I'd lean towards the D7000, unless you shoot very long series in which case its buffer might be limiting; in which case the D300s could be worth considering. The D800 does have the advantage of having a D7000 inside in DX crop mode, but if you're quite sure you will crop most of the time, getting a crop camera to start with saves a lot of money.<br>

At the current prices, though, the D700 is a lot of body for reasonably little money (at least here in Europe). Just got one, and it's a great camera, truely loving it. But I'm keeping the D300 most likely (well, still contemplating), for... birds, macro.</p>

<p>What I'd really do: wait a bit. A successor to the D300s or/and a cheaper FX option are all rumored quite loudly.</p>

<p>The D7000 and D800 can give you improved resolution over the D700 and the d70. Whether you will see the difference depends on how much you crop your images, what print size you will be making and your post processing skills. A DX sized crop on a D800 will be about the same in IQ as a the full frame of the D7000.</p>

<p>I would be more concerned with AF ability of the cameras more than resolution. Of the bodies you mention, the D800 should have the best.</p>

<p>D7000 has more pixels than the D700 and more frame rate than the D800. If I was only shooting wildlife, DX would make sense for me. (Bearing in mind that you can get around <i>most of</i> the ISO performance advantage in low light by going for faster, shorter lenses in the telephoto range - 400 f/2.8 vs 600 f/4, 300 f/2.8 vs 500 f/4, etc.) If a D400 turns up with the autofocus and frame rate of a D4 and the resolution of a D3200 (or at least D7000), it'd be even more obvious. Not that I always shoot wildlife, so I'm not personally after a DX body. :-)<br />

<Br />

More mm certainly isn't always an advantage - with a TC-16A on my 500 f/4 AI-P (so that I can get some autofocus), the resulting 800mm is quite tricky to aim, especially at a moving subject, even in full frame and with a gimbal mount. Shame I don't get acceptable image quality from the long end of my 150-500, because it was very handy to be able to zoom out and work out where I was pointing... Admittedly the D800 can achieve this through cropping (and a less magnified view), but it's not a low-cost way to achieve this effect.</p>

<p>D800 and you have the best of both worlds, shallow DoF and enough pix in the dx-mode.</p>

<p>It's simple - you want DX -- with wildlife there's always the issue of reach. My D300 is still my slave when it comes to wildlife. I'm still trying to figure out if I should get the D800E. I want the pixels. But the cost is an issue for me these days. Very fixed income & I'd have to sell at least one of my cameras to do it. Right now I'm seriously considering selling my D700 as it gets very little work. And my D300 has always been a great camera for me. I've loved it since day 1. OK that decided it - - I'm selling my D700.</p>

<p>Welcome back, Lil! Haven't 'seen' you around these parts for awhile.</p>

<p>I can't add more to the reasoning, but, having shot quite a lot of wildlife in the last couple of years, I will add my vote for DX, particularly for birds and other small animals. (I use a D300.)</p>

<blockquote>D800 and you have the best of both worlds, shallow DoF and enough pix in the dx-mode.</blockquote>

 

<p>To clarify (I trust Hans knows what he means, but in case we get confused readers): you get shallower DoF than DX if you're using the whole frame (in that a lens on an FX camera will behave like, on a DX camera, a lens 1.5x shorter with an aperture 1.5x faster would at an ISO 2.25x lower). A lens used on a D800 in DX mode behaves almost exactly like the same lens would on a D7000, including the same DoF.<br />

<br />

Enough pixels? Well, not as many as a D3200. Certainly not as many as a 1-series Nikon would fit into its (tiny) crop region with a lens adaptor - which might be worth considering as a fast and cheap(ish) way to extreme telephoto, if 10MP will do. Not quite as many as a D7000, but I'll concede it's close (unlike the D700, whose DX crop is such low resolution that it's useless to me). More than a D700, though.<br />

<br />

My big concern would be the frame rate, although the battery life is a close second.<br />

<br />

Personally, I'm after a D800, but I don't intend to use it solely in DX crop. Thom Hogan has an article on that subject.</p>

<p>Ive used the D300 for years and recently got a D800 to use as my new primary body. I've been figuring out how I'll use them precisely in terms of wildlife. I thought about the D800 in DX crop mode, but in practice it isn't all that appealing--framing becomes less than ideal because you end up using only a small section of the view finder. The D300 viewfinder on the other hand is nice and big and framing is just second nature with it. On the other hand, shooting FX mode on the D800 and then cropping is certainly an option--the larger frame gives you a lot of flexibility cropping with all its MPs. It would just get annoying having to crop all the shots...or maybe not, I don't know. <br>

What I'm thinking now for an upcoming Alaskan wildlife/landscape trip is that I will leave the 80-400mm on the D300 and use my 24mm PC-E on the D800 most of the time. At times I'll try the 80-400mm on the D800 when the wildlife is closer (shooting in FX mode) and put a DX 17-55 on the D300.<br>

Personally my biggest dilemma was whether to wait for a possible D400 (for which I'd been hoping and waiting for about 2 years) given how much I've loved my D300, or or just make the FX jump even though I don't yet have a lot of FX glass because I really needed a second body with all the external functionality of the higher end cameras. Obviously, I went with the latter. T<br>

The only surprise so far in using the D800 is how much I dislike shooting it in DX mode. Either the whole viewfinder remains bright with a thin line delineating the DX crop boundries or you can fog out the unused outer part of the FX viewfinder and only have it clear where the DX crop is. The problem is the center ends up looking so small relative to the entire viewfinder that it is not comfortable to use for me.</p>

<p>Hi Hosteen Yendikeno, thanks for noticing. :-) I'm trying to get back to my photography & my photography forums. Actually supposed to go out photographing tomorrow. I'm in physical therapy for my hand right now & am hoping my hand will hold up. <br>

<br />Oh and I'm still sticking to a DX camera for wildlife. ;-)</p>

<p>When I am hiking I carry a Nikon FM10 and a 50mm+24mm lens. Wildlife photogrphy is not something I strive for actually but I will take a shot if I see something that I can handle with that set up. </p>

<p>I've owned D300, D700 and D7000 and I'd say DX. I thought the D7000 focus speed and accuracy inferior to D700 though, so perhaps the long-awaited update to the D300s would be even better.</p>

<p>A good DX camera has many advantages when using telephoto lenses. I too would wait for the D300 replacement. </p>

<p>I live in South Dakota and am surrounded by wildlife. My choice is definitely DX. I don't see any advantage o FX at all for wildlife shooting. I'm waiting for Nikon to update the D300. That could well be the best camera for wildlife ever made (so far.)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Thank you all for such overwhelming response :)</p>

<p>I came across another thread which was also informative - <a href="00aYiy">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aYiy</a></p>

<p>Any additional information is welcome .<br /> Regards.</p>

<p>PS. if the link does not work, please see the thread "DX after FX".</p>

<p>Welcome back Lil. Hope your health is improving. Didn't know anything about the hand. I know Lex also has hand issues.</p>

<p>Back to the OP. DX for sure. Being an 'advanced' hobbyist with a D300 I have no need or desire for FX. My high ISO quality is good enough, although all my lenses are f/2.8 or faster. My next acquisition will likely be a 1.7 teleconverter. </p>

<p>Thanks Mark - I sure hope my health will improve soon. Hand held up as did the hip. Physical therapy must be helping. My hyperactive thyroid however my hand held an issue. But I was smart enough to take many shots so I did come home with photos :-) I'll share on Wednesday :-)<br>

<br />And I hope Lex's hand issues are resolved fast :-)</p>