Full frame camera (primarily for bird photography)

I have a Nikon 7000. I am wanting to buy a full frame body but I find all of the information confusing. I would like opinions please. I enjoy

travel, wildlife, and nature photography. This year I have been photographing a pair of eagles and I went to Costa Rica. With the eagles

and most of the photographs from Costa Rica I pushed my Nikon DX 55-300 1:4.5-5.6 lens to the limit. I am disappointed with my

photographs from Costa Rica. I do not know if it was the humidity or me, but I could not get a fast shutter speed. The hummingbirds look like a gaugan nightmare. If I did get the shutter speed up to 1000, the photographs were black if I did not raise the ISO to at least 800. I have never had that problem. Needless to say, the photos on the night tour are fine, but I see photographs with full frame that are much sharper than mine. I have the Tamron 60mm f/2 macro 1:1, AF-S Nikkor 18-105mm 1:3.5-5.6, the Tamron SP 10-24mm 1:3.5-4.5. I think a full frame would give me the quality I want more than another lens. I photograph birds mainly, in all light conditions.

<p>I found that for most of my bird photography I really needed to go out 400mm or longer. Also, it was critical to have lots of light. I'm not sure a full frame body will begin to answer your concerns. Remember that the cropped bodies will produce shots (in the Nikon world) where the subject appears to be about 50% larger than on a full framed body shot. Most people don't realize that in the bird photography world, stalking skills and getting close to a subject, in good light, generally outweighs the sensor on one's body. Also, firm support for one's gear is critical for sharp shots...at least for me, hand held shots just don't cut it.</p>

<p>You couldn't get a fast enough shutter speed because there wasn't enough light. Black images mean severe underexposure. It has nothing to do with DX vs FX. You would have had to increase the ISO higher than 800. A full frame camera may allow higher ISO with less noise, but you also will need longer, faster telephoto lenses than your 55-300mm.</p>

<p>You need to understand light and how it affects your bird images. The camera meter often reads the light in the sky, giving odd results when you are doing your best to get a great bird image. If you set your D7000 to Manual mode, and take a test shot (or several) you should be able to see what setting work best. There is no *one* answer for your questions.</p>

<p>(A digital full frame camera will likely give you the same results.)</p>

<p>Please check</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1016994</p>

<p>for some bird photos taken with a variety of Nikon camera bodies.</p>

<p>Whether you have D7000 or D4s the same principals apply. So no, the ff doesn't have the magic to override the combo of aperture, shutter speed and/or the ISO's. You need to analyze the action and lighting, and adjust your camera appropriately. Here is for instance, if you are doing a portrait of someone with 105mm lens and the shade is quite dark would you still use 1/60sec shutter...because the camera tells you to do this ? OK, it's similar with birds, sport action or similar. Unless you determine the <strong>appropriate</strong> shutter-aperture and then follow up with ISO's to match it (or whichever sequence you choose), the camera is not build to make that decision for you. </p>

<p>Hummingbirds tend to flutter quite fast and I wouldn't hesitate to crank the shutter to 1/1500-1/2000 or even faster...that becomes a judgement call + experience. Yes, flukes do exist, but if I were you I wouldn't count on it (below). The other issue is the optics. If I were you, I'd get something longer like 300/4 + 1.4 extender....and you'd get some decent reach and the results would be quite sharp too. Nonetheless, you may still have to crank up the ISO's if the conditions require such. Many folks here will tell you that they'd not even start taking photos of the birds unless the shutter is 1/1250sec or higher.....to obtain something usable.</p>

<p>The D7000 is a very capable camera. It's more about the technique and less about equipment. You need to brush up on basics. Sometimes the conditions are simply too dark to shoot (and you should recognize those limits) and the high ISO's and floating golf-balls of noise will not rescue your photo. Hmmm, denoiser might.</p>

<p>Good luck to you.</p>

<p>Les</p>

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

<p>Cameras are not magic. Consider that if you use your 70-300mm lens on a full frame camera, it will be equivalent to using a 200mm on your current camera. You will lose a lot more than you gain here. I agree with above that your problem seems to mostly be understanding exposure. You should be able to use ISO 1600 with your D7000 with no problem. Lenses are almost always more important than cameras, and that's especially true for bird photography. If I were wanting to do what you wanted, I'd spend the money on a better lens before even thinking "camera." If I was mostly photo'ing birds on a "casual" basis, I'd go for a Nikon D7100 and either Nikon 80-400mm VR-G or Tamron 150-600mm OS. I have that D7100 & 80-400mm VR-G combo and it is fantastic! You would have to buy a Nikon D800 and a lens costing well over $3,000 to beat it for birds.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I shoot birds a lot under varying conditions. While I have sometimes wished for a full-frame camera because I am not entirely satisfied with the high-ISO performance of my D7100, I can't imaging sacrificing the beneficial crop factor to gain it. I photographed birds in Costa Rica (and elsewhere in Latin America) using a D300 (and 70-300 VR) and did quite well. Jungle or overcast conditions can be a challenge, I do admit; I haven't been back there since obtaining my D7100 but know that it would do better.<br>

The others have given you good advice about adjusting all your settings--and expectations--to match the shooting conditions. (I don't have a hummingbird-in-shade shot readily at hand; I hope this will do. The mosquito is almost frozen! They were almost as big as hummers...) </p>

<p><img src="http://www.noreen-doyle.com/graphics/blogphotos/fauna/_NDB9073-GrayNeckedWoodRail-sm.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Gray-necked Wood-Rail in the jungle at El Peru (Waka), Guatemala: D300; Nikon 70.0-300.0 mm f/4.5-5.6; 230.0 mm (in 35mm: 345.0 mm); 1/160 sec; f/5.6;ISO 400</p>

 

<p>I cross posted with Kent and agree. If you are serious about photographing birds, you really need to invest in different gear. (While I used to shoot with a D300 and 70-300 VR, my kit these days is a D7100 and the new 80-400.)</p>

<p>Me too. Kent and Noreen have it right. The D7100 is a lovely camera. (So is your D7000 for that matter.) The 80-400 is a great lens to go with it. If I were you, before I bought anything I would grab my 55-300 and go stalking birds. Once you have the exposure business down pat then you can see about another camera. My suspicion is though, that once you get better at nailing your exposures you will be happy with your D7000. </p>

<p>Pamela, could you post some of those underexposed immages just to see where things do not work out well ?</p>

<p>Depending on the final usage of your images and how you process them, the D7000 can be used effectively at ISO 800 and higher. You get good results at ISO 3200 and even 6400 with some care and good post processing software (shooting RAW). This article may help you better understand ISO:</p>

<p>http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Article/g9mqnyb1/understanding-iso-sensitivity.html </p>

 

The D4s is the camera you want. BUT I ALSO RECOMMEND THE Nikon 200-400mm f/4. Neither are cheap. For general

photography The D4s does a great job with suppressing noise all the way up to ISO 12,800 and even 25,600. With birds

you might find the signal to noise above 6400 objectionable for fine detail.

 

Your existing camera does a really job as well, but not knowing how you used it I suspect the limiting factors here are your

choice of lenses and technique.

<p>What others said; frankly when you say:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I did get the shutter speed up to 1000, the photographs were black if I did not raise the ISO to at least 800.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My first reaction is that you do not understand how exposure works; rather than spending money on any gear at this moment, I would spend a few dollars on Bryan Peterson's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-3rd-Bryan-Peterson-ebook/dp/B004FEFS5E/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398602568&sr=1-1&keywords=bryan+peterson">Understanding Exposure</a> and get the basics of exposing images into your system. Before you blame your gear, make sure it's not your technique that's coming short, as spending another few thousand dollars on gear only to find that you still have the same problem with the exposure is going to be a bigger disappointment.</p>

<p>If there is one area where DX has a distinct advantage, it's wildlife and birds. Your D7000 is a very capable camera for this kind of work, the 55-300 a little less so. So as many other said, if you really want to upgrade the gear, you're better served looking at lenses at this point.<br>

But refining your technique is really the best investment of them all.</p>

<p><em>"If there is one area where DX has a distinct advantage, it's wildlife and birds."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Statements like this are often made, but it simply isn't true. When it comes to image quality, a DX sized crop from a D800 gives pretty much the same everything as the DX image from the D7000.</p>

<p>I have two FX bodies and one DX body, all Nikon. For birds, I use my D 300s, a DX body because its 1.5 crop sensor "boosts" the apparent focal length of any lens used on it. For birds, you almost always need more focal length ! The D 300s also has the ability to shoot at a high frame rate or frames per second, something lacking on my more expensive D 800 E, a FX body which is why I do not use it for birds very often.<br>

I have improved my keeper rate by making sure that my shutter speed is between 1/1250 and 1/3000 of a second. To accomplish this I just increase the ISO even as high as 3200 to get the needed shutter speed. To make sure exposure is correct in the camera, you need to master it by reading books and articles on it, learn how to set Exposure compensation and know when to use it. One place to start on photo education is to go to the Internet and search on Cambridge Photo Tutorials. That will get you started. <br>

Joe Smith</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Statements like this are often made, but it simply isn't true. When it comes to image quality, a DX sized crop from a D800 gives pretty much the same everything as the DX image from the D7000.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>People make that kind of statement often because a lot of the world's leading wildlife photographers prefer DX bodies. While you could crop an image from the D800, you are still burdened with capturing all 36MP so that your frame rate is slower and your storage requirement is higher. Even in its DX crop mode, the D800 still has a slower frame rate than the D7000 and D7100, and a viewfinder that shows a lot more than the capture area is confusing and difficult to se.</p>

<p>And incidentally, the D7000 is no longer state of the art. The top DX body is now the D7100 with 24MP.</p>

<p>While there are now better cameras, such as the newer D7100, the OP's D7000 is fine. Her main equipmet problem is lens. If I were restriced to a slow 55-300mm DX lens, I would be very frustrated as well.</p>

<p>Since the OP mentioned Costa Rica, I captured the image below with a D300 and 200-400mm/f4 lens at f4, 280mm. It was dim at that location but I was allowed to use flash, which solved the issue with dim lighting.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Statements like this are often made, but it simply isn't true. When it comes to image quality, a DX sized crop from a D800 gives pretty much the same everything as the DX image from the D7000.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>But, you are then buying a $2,500 camera (used price) to get basically the same performance you are getting from a $600 camera (used price.) That makes little sense to me. Meanwhile, you're still stuck using the 55-300mm lens. The $2,500 would be better spent on a lens.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Hummingbirds are an extreme case since they are tiny. Here is another example I captured about two weeks ago, on April 13, with the D4S + 600mm/f4 AF-S VR lens. This is one of my favorites from this spring. Unfortunately, the useful part of the image occupies about 1/9 of the frame, give or take. When you start with a 16MP D4S, you are down to below 2MP, which is not very useful beyond posting a small JPEG to the web. Had I used a D7100, I may have a 6MP image to work with. The problem is that the D7100 does not have the D4S' frame rate and deep buffer for action photography.</p>

<p>Fortunately, most birds are larger. My suggestion to the OP is to stay with the D7000 and improve her lens. Keep in mind that once you are talking about a 200-400mm/f4, 500mm/f4, and 600mm/f4, they become very expensive and also very heavy, plus you need a sturdy tripod. In other words, bird photography is demanding and there are no easy answers.</p>

<P>

I am very much into bird photography, among other types of photography, myself. Switching to FX is exactly the wrong move for the OP.

</P><div></div>

<p>You've gotten a lot of help here. But as a bird photographer - along with occasional other wildlife, attempts at landscapes etc... The answer is simple...<br>

1, you want a crop camera body - I'm still shooting most of my bird photography with the old D300 which I love.<br>

2, you need a far better lens than what you have. With birds especially, you need reach - 500 mm + <br>

I have a D800, but it rarely does bird photography - yes I can crop, but the extra reach of the D300 makes me still reach for it in most situations.</p>

<p>If bird photography is your interests - stay with a good crop camera & invest in better lenses. Then learn how to correctly expose the birds.</p>

<p>Look like the OP need the 600 f/4 lens and may be upgrade to the D7100. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Look like the OP need the 600 f/4 lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>surely there are other options for an amateur photographer than a $9500 lens.</p>

<p>a d7100 isn't a terrible idea, for the extra hi-ISO performance, crop ability, and better AF module. one might also consider a Nikon 1 + FT-1 adapter+ used 70-200 (which gives you a 189- 540mm @ 2.8). of course, you're limited to center focus point there, but you will at least have fast AF tracking, plenty of reach, and a much faster max aperture.</p>

<p>but let's be realistic here. a new 80-400 VR AF-S is $2700. a used older model is a lot less, but even then, you still have a max aperture of 5.6 at the long end -- the same as the 55-300. shooting at ISO 800 and 5.6 isnt enough to maintain a 1/1000 shutter, so... simply raising the ISO to 1600 or 3200 will have the biggest effect on this situation.</p>

<p>For once I am in nearly 100% agreement with Shun (it's not quite in the league with a freeze warning for Hell).;)<br>

When you get a DX body with the same generation sensor as the FX body, you are likely to be ahead with the DX 1.5X factor, rather than cropping the image from the FX. The pixies are really crowded in there on the DX sensor.</p>

<p>There's always the 300 mm f/4 with a TC as a lens <br>

Shun has it right.</p>

<p>Pamela must be out shooting somewhere deep on the woods of Costa Rica. Just as a comparison, the recently discontinued but still available Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS HSM with a 1.4 teleconverter is about $2850. Between the two, that's an equivalent range of 180-450mm f2.8 and 252-630mm f/4. The Nikon AF-S 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR for $2700 would be 120mm f4.5 to 600mm f5.6. I opted for the Sigma with my D300s.</p>

<p>To get back to Pamela's question, she needs to decide:</p>

<ol>

<li>What type of birds under what conditions she would like to photograph.</li>

<li>What her overall budget is.</li>

<li>How much weight she is willing to carry.</li>

</ol>

<p>For #1, very generally speaking:</p>

<ul>

<li>Larger birds are easier to photograph than smaller one</li>

<li>Birds on the ground or water, are easier to photograph than ones on trees. Birds in flight tends to be most challenging, and even that varies depending on which types of birds.</li>

<li>Conditions with more light are easier than dimmer conditions.</li>

</ul>

<p>One day in Costa Rica, I went to a location not prepared to photograph hummingbirds, and all of a sudden I saw many of them under overcast light. My longest lens with me was a slow 28-300mm/f3.5-5.6 AF-S VR and that location does not allow flashes. Needless to say, I got a bunch of rather poor images with lot of motion blur and high-ISO noise issues.</p>

<p>For example, the new Tamron 150-600 should be available in Nikon F mount in the near future: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cY4F<br>

A slow, 600mm/f6.3 zoom is going to post a lot of limitations, but if one can work within those limitations, it can be a very good lens for certain bird photography at a bit over $1000.</p>

<p> </p>