More "reach" - more pixels (D3200) or more lens (Sigma 150-500)

[mike_vine]

Hi - I am looking for more reach than my current set-up provides and seem to have two options. My current set-up is a D7000 with a 70-

300VR for reach.... I would like more reach for bird photography In particular.

 

Options seems to be either:

 

1. A longer lens on the D7000 - looking at the Sigma 150-500 (with OS) based on Thomas Hogan's review.... This option would give all

the benefits of the D7000 (AF etc) but the lens is very large and costs £650 at least.

 

2 A D3200 with 24MP to give more MP for closer cropping - can use existing 70-300 lens and only costs £300 (plus get an additional

compact body for back-up and general use) but have reduced functionality compared to the D7000 plus needing to learn a new camera.

 

Options based on simple logic that need about 6MP for a decent A4 print, i.e. a one third crop on D7000 and one quarter crop on a

D3200....

 

All advice gratefully received.

Thanks

Mike

[ilkka_nissila]

One option is the D5200, which has

24MP, better high ISO than D3200, and

the autofocus sensor from the D7000

(alas, without focus fine tune).

 

Personally I think AF performance and

viewfinder clarity are more important

than the increase from 16 to 24MP in DX

format. Neither D5200 nor D3200 has a

particularly good optical viewfinder,

whereas the D7000 vf is high quality.

 

What you probably need is a better

quality long lens. Unfortunately apart

from the 300/4 AF-S, which is the lens I

recommend here, Nikon's high quality

long lens options are expensive (they

are good and have large maximum

apertures in return, but that doesn't help

if one is on a budget. I hope Nikon

updates the 80-400 soon, and

introduces an AF-S VR 400/4.5 or

similar lens that could be in the 3000

EUR ball park. However the current

300/4 is optically excellent and would

give you more detailed images than the

70-300 so you can do some tighter

crops if you must.

[mark_stephan2]

<p>I'd go for the excellent Sigma 150-500 OS for more reach. Your D7000 is a perfect match for the Siggy. I use it with my D300s and D2x. If you wait for a Nikon AFS 300 f/4 VR or 80-400 VR you're in for a long wait.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I am afraid that the 24MP on either the D3200 or D5200 is going to out-resolve the 300mm end of the 70-300mm AF-S VR. You may have more pixels, but you won't have more real information to capture the details on the birds. Those extra pixels will merely take up more space in the memory cards and hard drives.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I have the D7000 (two of them, for use at events) and I think you would make your bird photography more difficult with the lesser autofocus and viewfinder of the D3200 or D5200.</p>

<p>Hogan says that the 150-500 performs well only to 400mm, which suggests another possibility, combining the superb Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S with the Nikon 1.4X teleconverter, for 420mm at f/5.6. A little quality is lost with the teleconverter, but it's still a very sharp combination. I have this, like it, but have no way of comparing it to the Sigma.</p>

<p>Another alternative is to wait for the D7000 replacement which is expected soon. It may well have a version of the 24 MP sensor.</p>

[gideon_kok]

I have the D3200 and 70-300vr and

have been chasing the Zululand birdlife

around for a few attempts. Nice

combination when you get close.

However going to extreme crops I do

not think the D3200 would give that

much better crops than the D7000. This

lens at 300 mm gives less than 6mp

perceived resolution on the D7000

(according to DXO mark). The extra

resolution will not give you significant

more cropping potential because your

combination is mostly lens limited to

start with.

[elliot1]

<p><em>'</em><em>the excellent Sigma 150-500"</em> hmmmmm...</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I bought a better and longer telephoto first, and then ended up buying a better body too.<br /> You might see what you can do with lightly used examples, especially for a not-quite-the-latest-thing camera body. Benefit from the tragedy of "must have the latest thing" shooters.<br /> I have personally found the Photozone.de reviews to be useful for lens comparisons (<a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests">link</a>) [when they get to it, anyhow]<br>

For the Sigma see Hogan's review: http://www.bythom.com/sigma-150-500mm-lens-review.htm </p>

[chris_weller]

Please excuse the giant paragraph - Its and ipad thing. Once you are finished with your research, I believe you will find that the D7000 with 300 f/4 and 1.4 tc is the best solution for your needs.

 

 

 

Birds - You want every last ounce of high quality reach you can get. This give you 630 full frame equivalent. It's relatiely inexpensive for

what you get. It's lighter than the 150-500, noticably better IQ. I would not consider any body that doesn't have af fine tune. It's critical in

getting the best images on DX bodies with long lenses. Plus you want every last bit of FPS speed you can get. So this rules out the

D5200, in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've used this combo for over 2 years. It's no hasle to carry, it's relatively fast fps and the quality is as good as your going to get for less

than $5,000 in equipment. It has no gotacha's or significant weaknesses. Satisfactory experiences are often limited by the weakest link

in the image chain whether it be a bad uv filter or converter or lack of af fine tune or poor autofocus etc....this combo matches everything

up well, and provides the highest, most even floor of performance.

 

 

 

 

 

You could put a 150-500 on a D4, but it would be a waste because the 150-500 is a far weaker solution than the D4 deserves. That lens

is designed more for those who need the most possible reach and do not have highly discerning tastes for quality. I personally don't see

the point of going through all the expense and work of capturing bird images and not have them be of gallery quality. Some birders are

fine with simplly documenting a bird and for them the 150-500 would be fine (acutally far better than fine, but not in the same league as

the 300 f/4).

 

 

 

 

 

It is similar to what Shun said above; the new 24 mp dx sensors will outresolve the 70-300, making the extra mp essentially useless or

even negative. The same holds true for every aspect of the image chain.

 

 

 

 

 

D7000, 300 f/4 wtih 1.4 tc (nikon only please) - You won't be disappointed. One last thing....be sure to af fine tune and stop down to 7.1

or 8.0.

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>I will defer to some of you birding experts out there, but I have seen good looking examples of the 500/f4 AF lenses go for reasonable money on the big auction site lately. More than the OP's budget, maybe., but it ought to be super if supported well.<br>

Otherwise, go for the 300/4/AFS+1.4TC+D7000 as others have stated well. I have compared recently, the 300/4 is a quantum improvement vs the 70-300VR at 300mm. For best results, support the lens or keep the shutter speeds well up there, stop down a little.</p>

 

[mike_vine]

Hi - thank you all very much for your guidance. The 300mm AF-S with TC seems to be the way to go - though funding will be the

issue.... By any chance is the earlier AF version an option worth considering - that would put it in budget right away and my local camera

shop has one in stock....

Thanks again,

Mike

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>A bit belatedly (so I'm glad everyone's advice agrees with mine), I wanted to confirm my experience that a 150-500 is not a good way to get to 500mm. There essentially doesn't seem to be a cheap way to achieve 500mm. It's not sharp at 500mm even on a D700; there's no way it would be on a D3200. If you want a long lens, please don't buy one (unless you want to take mine off my hands...)</p>

[mike_vine]

<p>Hi again - really appreciate all your feed-back and would be very grateful for any comments on 300 AF as opposed to 300 AF-S as an option. Many Thanks, Mike</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Hi Mike. I can't vouch for the performance of the AF lens, though its optical formula is different from the AF-S (some AF-S conversions are effectively the same lens, which makes it easier to comment). Bjørn Rørslett says good things about the older one (although not of its focus ring position), and also pans the tripod collar quality of the new one (which may bother you if you're shooting in the 1s-1/60s range and haven't replaced it). Thom Hogan likes both versions, but notes that the near focus distance of the AF version (8') is a bit limiting and it might not take teleconverters as well as the AF-S (and, of course, won't autofocus with the new ones). I'm pretty happy with my brief experience of my 300 f/4 AF-S on my D800, for what it's worth - especially since there's a really big difference in prices between some on-line retailers, at least where I am.<br />

<br />

My understanding, therefore, is that with the older lens you lose out on near(er) focus distance, teleconverted image quality and support for systems (including the newer teleconverters and cameras like the D3200/D5200) which need AF-S lenses. You might get a better tripod collar for your (lack of) money, though. Or you could wait and see whether a VR version gets released, in which case the price on the current AF-S might drop - but people have been waiting quite a long time for the VR update to happen.</p>