Which camera for low light nature work?

[peter_wald]

Hi All,

 

I currently have a D200 with 12-24, 24-70, 70-200, 50 and 85 1.4, 20 2.8 and an AF-D 105 macro. I also have an SB-

800 and a good tripod. I had a lot of older MF glass I've been changing out for these since my manual focus days are

probably behind me ( the 35 1.4 was the last to go). I am not a professional but have been taking pictures since the

late 60's. I shoot mostly nature with occasional party/portrait for friends. Here's my quandry. I've been using the D200

as my first digital camera for about 2 years. I'm really very happy with it, except for low light- last week I was

shooting bats emerging from a cave around sunset with the 50 and just couldn't get the shoots I wanted. Depending

on what I am shooting I also need some reach. I've been staying on DX since I was shooting a lot of tele, but got the

24-70 as insurance for a potential FX switch. Since I only have 1 DX lense I could probably go either way at this

point, either DX or FX

 

I feel like I need better high iso performance. I like the D200 form factor so I'd be looking at the D300 or D700, the D3

is just too big/expensive for my needs. Would it be worth going for the 700 over the 300 in terms of low light

performance. With what I lose in reach from the D300 could I get an equivalent or better quality in low light with a

crop from the D700. Thanks for your help

[james_symington1]

From what you say the D700 would be right up your street provided you can accept the reduction in reach of your 70-200mm.

[peter_wald]

Thanks James. I actually also have an 80-400 which works fine for me since I don't usually shoot action. Has anyone reported how it would work on a D700?

[elliot1]

"Would it be worth going for the 700 over the 300 in terms of low light performance?"

 

Yes!

 

"With what I lose in reach from the D300 could I get an equivalent or better quality in low light with a crop from the D700."

 

Yes. A D700 5mp image will give you the pretty much the same image quality as a D300 full resolution image. You won't see a difference unless you pixel peep or print huge posters.

[elliot1]

I have the 80-400mm and have been getting fantastic results with it on my D3. I even tried my 2X on it and it actually gave pretty good results as well!

[peter_wald]

Thanks Elliot! This is extremely helpful. I don't usually print larger than A3. Anything bigger than that I would send out. How big do you feel you easily go with your D3 and 80-400?

[frank_skomial]

"D700 would be right up your street provided you can accept the reduction in reach of your 70-200mm." - I am

puzzled understanding this phrase. Anyone knows about the limitted reach of this lens ? - please explain.

 

Per Nikon's specs and my own experience with this lens, the lens is great for Film cameras, FX cameras, and for

DX formats, no vignetting except possibly on extension tubes, however 200 mm may not be long enough for some

reach? It is not a macro lens, so very close reach will not be possible. What else ?

[ShunCheung]

<I>last week I was shooting bats emerging from a cave around sunset with the 50 and just couldn't get the shoots I

wanted</I>

<P>

Peter, could you elaborate exactly how the D200 and 50mm lens failed to get what you wanted in this case? It is

best if you can also include a sample image or two. Without knowing exactly what the problem is, it is hard to

suggest a solution.

<P>

For nature photography, typically you don't need very good high-ISO performance from the camera for low-light

situations. We usually put the camera on a tripod and use a very slow shutter speed to compensate for the low light.

It is very different from wedding photography where your human subjects demand a reasonable shutter speed to stop

motion so that

you need high ISO.

<P>

An exception is when you have flying or running animals at low light. In that case you may need a fast shutter speed

or a flash to freeze action. Your bats shot could be in that situation. That is why I'd like to see some samples, and

how often do you shoot something like that? If it is only once in a blue moon, I am not sure it justifies to spend a lot

of money on equipment to solve that problem. But only you can decide.

[peter_wald]

Shun, I'll post some images back tonight when I get home. We were advised to not use flash so we wouldn't disturb the bats, so I was trying to shoot with availbile light. I agree that for landscapes I usually use a tripod.

[elliot1]

"How big do you feel you easily go with your D3 and 80-400?"

 

Peter, I don't understand your question.

[peter_wald]

Sorry Elliot. I was typing too fast. How large a print with good quality do you feel you can make with this combo

[elliot1]

I made a 30" x 40" poster from a cropped D300 ISO 1600 image (probably equivalent to 7mp or 8mp and it looked as good as a 13" x 19" inkjet print, even close up. I upsized it using CS3.

 

You really don't need more than 10mp to make great prints even at poster size.

 

My suggestion would be to go to a local camera store with your D200 and take identical pictures with your camera and a D700 or D300 (or both) and then compare the results. I loved my D200s but much prefer the newer release because of significantly better focusing (both for speed and accuracy, especially in low light). The improved image quality doesn't hurt either!

[eric_arnold]

if you already have the 24-70, it strengthens the case for a d700 considerably.no sense getting an FX camera without some FX lenses. however, a d300 would work well too in that situation. the batcave definitely sounds like a situation where the better AF module of the d300/d700might have made a difference. but like shun says, how many times are you going to shoot bats coming out of a cave?

[peter_wald]

Hi Shun,

Here's a jpeg crop. I really wasn't able to get the shutter speed up high enough to stop the action. Meanwhile you're right! I don't do this very often so I will carefully ponder if it's worth swithing out the D200 (plus probably the 12-24) for a D700. Thanks<div></div>

[peter_wald]

Sorry Shun, I'm rushing and I can't get the upload right. I'll try to reload but appreciate all of the help

[elmroc]

this shot is full of JPG artifact, so it's difficult to tell what;'s going on here

[ShunCheung]

That shot is indeed full of JPG artifact, but it is clear that is a dim-light shot with little details anyway.

If that is Peter's "typical" low-light image, he certainly does not need a very high end DSLR to preserve the details.

[peter_wald]

Here's another try at the upload. It still had some jpeg compression artifact. I've just started using capture so I appologize that I can't seem to get a small enough file to upload from the raw version.

[peter_koralis]

No matter what you use, there will be always situations where shadow noise will be a problem. But if you have the money and want something better, then your choices are the D300 and D700. The difference between the D200 and D300 are 1 stop (better for the D300) and the shadow noise in the D300 is not blotchy like the D200. The D700 on the other hand is in another playing field altogether. I would suggest the D700 for better noise performance (especially at higher ISO's) and if you dont want to spend that much money then stick with the D200.

 

PK

[peter_wald]

Thanks to Peter and everyone on this thread. I think it's clearly to me now that the next step would be D700/ I think I'll stand pat for now and wait for the D700 prices to come down