Nikon D750 or D7100 with Nikon AF-S 200-500mm for fast auto focusing.

[rajivgarg]

<p>Hey All<br>

<strong>Auto focus</strong> would be better if I use D750 instead of using D7100 with Nikon AF-S 200-500mm ultra zoom lens for birds in <strong>dim light.</strong> Need expert advice.<br>

Sincerely<br>

RG</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>The 750 has better AF. But... Why not a D7200? That one focuses wicked fast, too, supposed to be great in low light, gets you the advantage of the crop factor for birds. (Same AF module as 750???)</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>Peter, the 7200 has faster focusing than the 7100?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>IIRC, it does, especially in low light. It has the newer Multi-Cam 3500<strong><em> II </em></strong>AF module.<br>

<br>

It also has better low-light sensitivity, so you might be able to freeze action better with that (relatively) slow f5.6 zoom and still get a clean shot.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>Oh ok, thanks. Damn - I have a 7100 :-(</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Nish, that is still a great camera and very good AF module.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>In dim light, the f/5.6 aperture will be a serious limiting factor; the AF unit in the D750/D7200 is as good as you'll find in a Nikon now, the D7100 only marginally behind. But the AF accuracy and speed increases a lot with faster lenses (and best at f/2.8 more or less). A f/5.6 lens gives the AF unit 4 times less light to work with - that will harm performance more in dim light than the minor differences between a D750 and D7100. For birds, I'd prefer DX, simply because of the reach.</p>

[rajivgarg]

Thanks Wouter, you are absolutely right. A faster lens is the answer. I will rethink regarding the purchase of D750.

 

There is a photo on Nikon website taken in moon light with Nikon D750, which gave me this idea and i thought that it would be a great camera in shooting small birds in dim light.

 

RG

[eric_arnold]

<p>the advantage of a 750 is more latitude with high-ISO performance. whether you need that or not depends on what you're shooting. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The 200-500mm/f5.6, or for that matter any f5.6 zoom, is not the right lens for dim light. It doesn't matter whether you use the D750, D7100, or D7200, chance is that AF will hunt quite a bit.</p>

[rajivgarg]

<p>Hey all,<br>

Thanks to all for their excellent suggestions regarding the use of camera in dim light condition with Nikon 200-500mm. The answer is to use a fast lens. But fast lenses are beyond my reach so I will change my strategy for shooting birds in dim light (Small birds are most of the time feed in between trees).<br>

Here is a photo of Grey headed Flycatcher taken with 200-500mm + D7100 combination after many failed attempts.<br>

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

[owen_omeara]

<p>Beautifully done my friend. It speaks well about both you and the d7100.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Nice image, Rajiv. However, I see some blue sky (which is not over-exposed) in the background, so I wonder how dim the light was. (It still could be dim if it is a very dense forest.)</p>

<p>Another factor is that this is a static subject, with the bird perching on a tree. Remember I mentioned that AF would be slow with an f5.6 lens. Under dim light, if you use either the 80-400mm f5.6 AF-S VR or the 200-500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR (or anything f5.6) for birds in flight, you might still be able to get the occasional good image, but overall it is likely a frustrating exercise.</p>

<p>After all, the subject of this thread is about "fast auto focusing."</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I wonder how dim the light was</p>

</blockquote>

<p>f/5.6, 1/400s, ISO400 kind of dim ;-)<br /> <br /> This one was f/5.6, 1/1000s, ISO4000 - that's about two stops dimmer than Rajiv's (and shot with a D810 - so I suppose the D750 and D7100 should at least not fare worse). I apologize for the mess in front of the bird - this was a test shot and is not something I would keep otherwise:<br /> <a title="Western Scrub Jay" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5658/23143424002_e3f7aa74f0_z.jpg" alt="Western Scrub Jay" width="640" height="640" /></a></p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Again, if we are talking about birds that are standing on some tree, when you lens is on a tripod, you can even use live view to slowly fine tune your focus. That is not at all challenging to the AF system. In that case an f5.6 lens is totally fine and the body's AF capability doesn't matter much.</p>

<p>I assume this thread is about AF speed since that is in the subject.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Shun, Rajiv has asked about AF speed under dim light - he didn't mention anything about fast action. I do agree though that tracking action under dim lighting conditions is an additional hurdle for the AF to overcome - but it all starts with acquiring focus to begin with. If your camera can't perform then, it certainly can't when it is supposed to track on top of it.<br>

<br /> And you are mistaken if you assume that my image was taken from a tripod, or using live view - that bird would not have sat still long enough to do all that. My test was indeed quite challenging for the AF system - with the bird in the shade and lots of distracting elements in the frame (and I already mentioned that it didn't sit still at all).</p>

<p>For the longest time, I made do with a D300, the AF-S 300/4D (mostly with TC-17EII, sometimes with TC-14E, hardly ever the lens alone), and the AF-D 80-400 VR. Those two lenses aren't known to be particularly fast (and the D300 AF specs aren't as good as those from current Nikon DSLR with the 51-point AF module) - and I missed a lot of shots because of it. Rarely though did I have an issue tracking a bird once focus had been acquired - mostly when I wasn't able to keep the camera steadily on the bird because of the birds unpredictable flight pattern or when something got between me and the bird long enough for the camera to lose focus.</p>

[ShunCheung]

Dieter, I did not at all assume you were using a tripod. I assume you were using the 200-500 which you are likely hand

holding.

 

However, when a bird is standing on a tree, even though it might take a full second to acquire focus, in most cases it is

sufficient. You may lose a few images here and there when the bird flies away quickly, but that is not a scenario that

challenges the AF system. 20 years ago I was using the 500mm/f4 P manual focus to photograph birds on trees from a

tripod, and it was mostly fine.

 

It was photographing moving targets that convinced me to upgrade to AF-S.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Shun, I just took the 200-500 mounted on a D7100 down to my rather dark kitchen - AF acquisition on anything I pointed the lens at was without delay (I hate to use the word instantaneous - but for me, there was no noticeable delay at all - certainly not a full second). When I moved the lens from one target to the next - no hunting at all (granted, distance differences aren't that big indoors - and I got hunting when I pointed the lens onto something that was too close). To clarify "dark kitchen" - f/5.6, ISO4000, 1/2 - 1s - that's not a condition I would go out shooting birds in - stationary or flying.</p>

<p><br /> And just for comparison's sake - I mounted the AF-S 300/4 onto the D7100 and repeated the "dark kitchen" test. Despite being a full stop faster, the lens took longer to acquire focus and on several occasions had trouble when I moved from target to target. That round certainly goes to the "slower" 200-500 - and shows that maximum aperture is not the only parameter that determines AF speed. And yes, I am fully (and painfully) aware that the AF-S 300/4 isn't particularly fast for an AF-S lens. But then again, long lenses with f/2.8 are also not that common either - 400/2.8 and - with the right-sized wallet and biceps - the Sigma 200-500/2.8. I am sure the latter will be acquiring focus blazingly fast - provided you get to point it onto the target first (especially when hand-holding) ;-)</p>

<p>What I often find a much bigger problem is the algorithm Nikon uses when the lens/camera loses focus - it starts hunting towards the minimum focus distance first - which depending on the lens can take a long time. Why doesn't it go the other way first? Or better yet, when it was tracking, it had a good idea which way the target was heading (towards or away from the camera) - so why not search in that direction (and a limited range) first?</p>

<p>I have not had experience with the group area AF yet - the D7100 (and I believe the D7200 too) don't offer that option - maybe it provides a better performance than what I currently get from using mostly 9-point dynamic area AF (when I am not restricting myself to single point to avoid the camera moving the area without me noticing).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Dieter, I'll say it one more time, my earlier comments are about moving subjects. Try to use the 200-500mm/f5.6 or 80-400mm AF-S VR for some birds in flight shots at dusk, e.g. 5pm now in the California winter, and you'll see the difference.</p>

<p>The old 300mm/f4 AF-S is notorious about its slow AF. I got mine in 2001 since it is lighter than the 300mm/f2.8 AF-S I bought in 1998. I still own both lenses today, but prior to the 80-400 AF-S VR, my goto lens for birds in flight was the 300mmf/2.8. I neither need f2.8 for outdoors (typically stop down to f4 anyway for more depth of field) nor prefer to hand hold a heavy lens, which I can't do for very long, but the 300mm/f4 AF-S is never satisfactory for birds in flight even under good light.</p>

<p>Fortunately, technology has improved, and the 80-400mm AF-S VR and 300mm/f4 PF AF-S VR both have much better AF.</p>

<p>As long as you are photographing birds standing on a tree, you can ignore this entire thread about AF speed on the 200-500mm/f5.6 with the D750, D7100, or D7200. Any one should give you good results. The D7100 has the worst high-ISO results among the three cameras, though.</p>

<p> </p>

[rajivgarg]

<p>Shun, The bird was in shade. In my opinion, 1/400 seconds, ISO 400 and F5.6 is not enough to photograph a 14cms small, a very active bird which is almost similar in color to its background (Low contrast). I was lucky to get this bird sharp due to continuous burst but after several attempts.<br>

As you all know it looks clear due to cropping.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>1/400 seconds, ISO 400 and F5.6</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is exactly three stop below "sunny 16," which is extremely bright, harsh noon-time light that usually doesn't yield good results.</p>

<p>To me, that is not dim at all. 2 to 3 stops below sunny 16 is very typical for the beautiful early morning and late afternoon light. Otherwise, the blue sky in the background should have been seriously overexposed.</p>

<p>However, even though the bird is standing and its feet are not moving, if the head and/or body is moving, 1/400 sec may not be sufficient to stop motion with 500mm-type magnification. It does help to shoot a bunch of consecutive frames so that you get to pick a good one. After all, it is the good ones that matter; nobody cares how many bad images you delete.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Try to use the 200-500mm/f5.6 or 80-400mm AF-S VR for some birds in flight shots at dusk, e.g. 5pm now in the California winter, and you'll see the difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am planning to - only so far my schedule hasn't allowed me and when I was out and about, the birds didn't fly ;-)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>My experience with the 200-500 is that when photographing fairly distant subjects, its autofocus works very well but for close-up subjects (especially in a forest with background details that can attract the AF sensor) it can miss the primary subject or lose focus on it easily. I use a D810 body. The 300/4E PF AF-S VR has very fast autofocus and it focuses very well even in the near distance range, so you may want to consider that. It will also give you one stop larger aperture but of course its focal length is "only" 300mm. It is super lightweight and compact so it's a lot of fun to use in a walkaround manner.</p>

<p>The D7200 and D750 have a newer autofocus module which is supposed to be especially good in dim light. Some users say that the D4(s) gives an advantage in autofocus tracking when using the 200-500mm lens, but I haven't used these combinations so I can't really say yes or no. </p>

<p>If you know someone with the D7200 you could try that and see how it works with your lens and subjects. I think the shade of a forest can be very beautiful environment for bird photography. Another option that is somewhat more expensive is the 300/4 PF. The D750 is a great body as well but perhaps for bird photography you may want to continue using a DX camera.</p>

[rajivgarg]

<p>Thanks, <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=19054">Ilkka Nissila</a>. You are right, 200-500mm is a very good lens. Yes, sometimes it refuses to focus for close subjects, Otherwise it is a sharp lens. I will stick on DX body. Waiting for pro. DX body, if Nikon has some plan. </p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Rajiv, I've been testing out the 200-500 zoom myself on a D600. I find the AF to be very good, maybe not ultra fast, but very good. At EV 13 (two stops below bright direct sunlight) it's great.</p>

<p>OK, just tried some indoor shots. Indoor lighting, D600 ISO 800 1/50th at f/5.6, this is EV 8, 7 stops down from bright sunlight. The AF is fine in this dim lighting.</p>

<p>And, the VR performance is astounding to me. I won't give a number, but I have sharp images at low shutter speeds I wouldn't have believed.</p>