Ex Canon user looking at Nikon alternative for Birding:

[jason_x]

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

I'm a new user here but have recently been enticed to switch to Nikon with the D750. I have a 7D (mark I) and waited for the Mark II and am incredibly underwhelmed.<br>

I shoot birds mainly but am wanting to get into it a lot more. I bought the 7D when it came out in '09 because of it's versatility as a stills and video camera (both facets I really needed in '09). Now I am getting a lot more into bird photography and have found the dynamic range of the 7D pretty limiting - something I noticed when a Nikon friend of mine imported her photos into my computer and pulled incredible shadow detail out of some long exposure shots (something impossible on my 7D).<br>

I have been watching the D750 and the lens selection for Nikon and was disappointed that there is no Nikon equivalent to the Canon 400mm f5.6 L lens which has been on my wish list for a long time. I see that you can get the 300mm f4 Nikor lens for a bit less than the Canon 400mm but am wanting some advice from Nikon users who may have experience with both camera lenses/platforms.<br>

Does anyone have any advice for someone like me contemplating a move to Nikon particularly for bird photography? Any advice is greatly appreciated!</p>

[Two23]

<p>An FX camera for birding? Wouldn't you want at least a 600mm f4? If I was looking to buy a Nikon camera for birding it would definitely be the D7100. If I wanted the best moderate priced set up for birds it would be the Canon 7Dmk2 and the new Canon 100-400mm. Yes, a D750 would have a stop more DR, but at a huge cost in other ways! No way I'd do it. Well, maybe if I was also getting a Nikon 600mm f4.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ShunCheung]

As far as I know, a lot of bird photographers are happy with the 7D mark 2. I would highly recommend that you stay with

Canon.

[munim]

I'm using a D90 with 300 f4 with TC1.4 for birding.

If I were to upgrade, it will be either the D7100 with the 80-400 zoom, or the 7D2 with then 400L5.6.

Having said that, it all depends on your style of birding. If you do a lot of bird-in-flight shots, the 7D2+400L5.6

combo is the one to get. For long exposure shots in dark places like the Malaysian rainforests here, you'd need

a Nikon, a fast lens (at least a 300 f/2.8) and a sturdy tripod. A friend of mine got good results with the

lightweight combo of V3 with the 80-400.

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Any Canon and equivalent Nikon made in the past 8 or 10 years is probably equally capable (across the same market segment of course).</p>

<p>I'd also not switch.</p>

[noreen]

<p>A friend of mine--a professional wildlife/bird photographer--used a 7dI and that 400mm you mention with enormous success. I can't imagine that the 7dII is inadequate. However, because he needed better performance in low-light situations (e.g., rain forests), not too long ago he acquire one of Canon's high-end FX bodies and a 200-400mm with built-in teleconverter. I agree with Shun that you'd be best sticking with Canon.</p>

<p>If you are nonetheless bent on switching, I second Raden's recommendation of a D7100, which is what I use for birding photography with a 80-400mm (formerly a 70-300mm). If I find myself <em>needing</em> (not just wanting) to shoot birds in low light, given the current Nikon offerings I'd save up for a D810 with its 36 MP.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I have used Nikon and Canon DSLRs and lenses. For sports photography I currently use a Nikon 400/2.8 AIS, Canon 300/4 L and Canon 70-200/4 L on a 5D II. I have been without a Nikon crop body for a few years now since selling the D2X and am itching to get the D3300 to mate with the 400/2.8 to improve the IQ of the few sports events that I still enjoy. It gets more pixels on my subject and at 5 fps and at less money than the T5i. The 400/2.8 is strictly manual focus/manual aperture so I just need a good sensor in a box behind it.</p>

<p>While I wholeheartedly agree with your disappointment with the 7D II, I do suspect you can pull detail out of your current Canon if you applied the same post processing that your Nikon friend likely did.</p>

<p>Don't forget that the 7D AF system is still highly regarded with respect to "birding" and if I am not mistaken the 7D II is even better.</p>

<p>You don't mention what lens you currently use but I suspect an upgrade to a 300/4 L with 1.4x or the 400/5.6 L will also make a considerable difference over one of the typical Canon zooms.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I don't know much but I read so many posts asking what Nikon would introduce to counter the 7DmkII. Those posts are from Nikon users so I guess the 7DmkII is very good camera compared to the D7100 which many people said it's the best Nikon for birding. </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I've got to agree that using a full-frame camera for birding doesn't make a lot of sense. But if you feel the need to move to FF then surely a Canon 6D would be the obvious choice? You then wouldn't need to completely re-kit with expensive glassware.</p>

<p>Do you also need a huge dynamic range for bird photography? I wouldn't have thought so; not if you get the exposure right to start with. Dragging shadow detail out of an under-exposed shot is one thing, while getting a good-looking normally exposed picture is quite another. I have shots from my old Canon 5D that it would be difficult to tell apart from those taken with my Nikon D800 on an A3 print. Sure, it's easy to see the difference when pixel-peeping on a computer, but in final presentation - not so much. Another consideration is that there aren't many telephoto lenses that fully realise the resolution capabilities of today's high megapixel camera bodies. And those that do are extremely expensive and at the mercy of atmospheric conditions being perfectly right. Even then they probably need to be stopped down a little to achieve their best IQ.</p>

<p>So Jason, if you feel you really <em>must</em> move to Nikon: Welcome! But personally I'd consider the D7100 before jumping to FF. Or if you have exceptional lung capacity, you could hold your breath waiting for the rumoured D7200.</p>

<p> </p>

[panayotis_papadopoulos]

<p>Hi Jason,<br>

I can understand what you say. Most of your notices, in my opinion, have to do with the sensor. This is a known issue for Canon. Sensor wise Canon can not compete Sony and Nikon sensors. DXO Labs after testing the 7D II concluded, once more, that sensor is not on par with the camera and other futures, i.e. AF system. It's camera's week spot.<br>

If you are really want to concentrate in better sensors (with all the "goodies" that these sensors produce), then moving to Nikon (or Sony for that matter), might help. But I would suggest you try first the 7D II...(if this manageable).</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>"disappointed that there is no Nikon equivalent to the Canon 400mm f5.6 L"<br /><br />That's because the Nikon equivalent is a 2.8. You're disappointed that the Nikon lens is two stops faster? :)<br /><br />That aside, I agree with sticking with Canon. I've shot Nikon for 40 years but among equivalent cameras Nikon doesn't have any magical image quality over Canon any more than Canon does over Nikon. If your friend is getting better dynamic range with her Nikon, it's in her shooting technique, the settings she is using on the camera or what she's doing on the computer. Any difference in the camera is so subtle that it's well within the range of what you can change in Photoshop.<br /><br />If you have any investment at all in lenses, flashes and any other brand-specific accessories, changing from Canon to Nikon or Nikon to Canon is a very expensive proposition. It's not just a matter of the price of a body. Not something most of us would do lightly.</p>

[donbright]

<p>400mm to 600mm lenses are crucial for birding. Anything less than 400mm becomes frustrating for birds.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>AF-S 300 f/4 with TC14 make a quite nice alternative. Just not on FX where it is not long enough more often than not. The differences in sensors are made into a big fuzz on many review websites, the reality is that the manufacterers are awfully close. If you cannot make it work with a 7D (which is still a great camera also today), then a move to Nikon will not be some miracle cure.</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>At least one of the tests of the 7D-II I have read indicates that the sensor is just as good as Nikon/Sony's at high ISO values. This is what counts with BIF pictures.<br>

The OP mentiones "incredible shadow detail out of some long exposure shots...". Bird photography and long exposure don't go together, they move too fast and a 400 mm or longer lens require really short shutter speeds. I guess the grass is always greener at the other side.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I switched to Nikon for high resolution (D800E) and low-light work (in my case the D3s, shooting in near darkness). I have not been disappointed.</p>

<p>I do not see any particular advantage in switching to Nikon for birding, since both brands can get you what you want in that type of work.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[noreen]

<p>Why not rent a Nikon body and lens that are in your budget? Put them to the test in the field with the kinds of photography you want to do. Post-process them on your computer. That way you will find out first-hand whether the equipment will really make any difference in <em>your</em> photography.</p>

<p>(Jos's observation regarding long exposure and birding crossed my mind, too.)</p>

[jason_x]

"That's because the Nikon equivalent is a 2.8. You're disappointed that the Nikon lens is two stops faster? :)"

 

No, disappointed about the $$$ difference ;)

 

----

 

Hi everyone... Wow, thank you so much for all the replies!

 

This really helps me out. To give a little more background, I have been using Canon since the very first digital rebel came

out. That's the camera that I cut my teeth on and when it died I upgraded to the 7d. From day one I was quite surprised

with the noise levels even at base ISO. I even sent the camera back to Canon for them to check it out and they sent the

camera back saying that it performed as it is expected.... Okay, I'll live. Since then I try to shoot at its native ISO of 320

(based on my own tests) and I get a lot better results.

 

I've been using the camera for people/nature shots mostly but I have been itching to get into birding. I only have 2 lenses

at the moment a 100mm macro and a 11-16 tokina which I am pleased with quite a bit.. I was using 2 kit lenses that I

ended up giving away because they were optically crap. I have been eyeing the 400 f5.6 because of the sharpness and af

speed (and because it won't send me broke ;). I was also planning to get the sigma 35mm art lense to fill in the gap in my

lineup.

 

I live in Australia and there is no end to birding opportunities, but half of those are in rainforest areas where being able to

pull shadows out really helps.

 

I always knew that Nikon had better noise performance than Canon and there are times where I wish I had that latitude.

When my friend came over and we did some night shots, I was blown away by the amount of detail that could be pulled

from her darker images. A completely different camera. I'm not a pixel peeper really, I just like to "buy once, buy properly".

 

To answer the question a couple of you had regarding my post processing, I ingested the images the same way way (using Aperture) and applied the same adjustments, the difference between her d800 and my 7d was night/day. No marketing gimmick, I saw it with my own eyes.

 

I have about 100k images from my 7d and heard about the mark II coming down the pipeline, so I thought I'd see what

Canon was planning. Better focusing in live mode isn't exactly what I'd call earthshaking, but I do know people who would

love that. Since I only have 2 lenses, I thought I'd look at what Sony and Nikon have. Neither have an equivalent to

Canons 400mm (that's in my price range), but if the cameras are that much better I could adapt. I wasn't too impressed

with their crop frame cameras (mainly due to AF performance which I find excellent with my 7d).

 

The only camera that I was interested in was the 750. AF seemed comparable, the burst mode was lower than my

existing 7d (which seems to be Nikons Achilles heel), but if the quality was that much better, I could live with that

limitation.

 

What I'm seeing is that a lot of birders gravitate to the 7d line. Since that is what I want to do more of, I think that makes

sense. Even with my 100mm, I get a lot of shots that I'm happy with (friendly birds and ones that I can get very close to).

Your feedback has been extremely helpful, thank you all very much. I may hold off on a camera buy and have a service

done when the time comes.

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Bird photography and long exposure don't go together</em></p>

<p>Well ... with a bit of planning and 74 nights in a hide, Bence Mate did this with a 15mm fisheye on an FX camera; two exposures totalling 32 seconds:</p>

<p>http://www.nhm.ac.uk/resources/visit-us/wpy/2014/large/23.jpg</p>

<p>Also Greg du Toit used a 3 s exposure for this:</p>

<p>http://www.nhm.ac.uk/resources/visit-us/wpy/2014/large/26.jpg</p>

<p>Never say never. ;-)</p>

[jason_x]

Very cool shots Ilkka! I love stuff like that... I've had a lot of fun with night exposures (and long daylight exposures).

[munim]

<p>And here's my 5 second twilight bird shot. Shot on my Nikon D90.</p><div></div>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"being able to pull shadows out really helps"</em><br /> <br /> I find this ability to do this successfully is related more to image processing software than the sensor. I use DXO software and its ability to do this and do it well (using RAW files) is absolutely incredible (from just about any camera).</p>

[jason_x]

Amazing shot Raden, beautiful work!

 

Thank you Elliot, I'll check out that software!

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p>Well ... with a bit of planning and 74 nights in a hide</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nice one... :-) <br /> Here are the results from a guy who "walksabout"deily with a Canon 7d and a 300mm F2.8, and does <em>not</em> spend long stretches in a hide.<br>

His main "trick" is : He knows in what habitat to expect whitch birds, and how they behave at what time of day / year.</p>

<p>If you subscribe to his website you get almost daily a mail with his "yetserdays results" ..<br /> <a href="http://www.vogeldagboek.nl/vogeldagboeken">http://www.vogeldagboek.nl/vogeldagboeken</a></p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>I shoot birds with Nikon bodies and lenses. If you switch, get a Nikon 500mm f 4.0 or a 600mm f4.0 lens If you do only birds in flight, get a Nikon 300mm f 2.8 with a Nikon 1.4x tc. I could argue body choices forever. For birds in flight I still use my D 300s, a 12 MP DX camera with a battery pack to get 8 frames per second. For portrait type stuff, a FX body could work. I wish the D 7100 had a higher capacity buffer as I shoot in RAW. If you shoot JPEG, the D 7100 could be a good option for a DX body. Check out this link: http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=250402</p>

<p>Joe Smith</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>You have brought up some curious points. The Nikon is a D800. What lens was she using? I assume you were comparing with shots taken with your 100mm Macro? </p>

<p>With respect to image quality the D750 is not in the same league as the D800, D800e, or D810. It is more comparable to the 1DsIII, 5D II, or 5D III.</p>

<p> </p>