D810 for wildlife photography ?

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>A shallow DOF is often an advantage for photos in nature. It sets the subject off from a distracting background, and sometimes foreground. On the other hand, even the best DOF (high f/stop) will probably not achieve the toes to horizon sharpness you get with a tilting lens. That said, focus stacking can be used to great advantage when shooting static subjects, which wind aside, describes most landscapes.</p>

<p>Nature photographer Art Wolfe goes to great lengths showing how a shallow DOF can be used to your advantage.</p>

<p>Example with two-stage focus stacking...<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18213193-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p>

[Tuhin]

<p>Thanks Edward ,<br>

landscape photography and focus tracking are different topics . Thanks for the name , I will read about him . There was no focus tracking during the days of Ansel Adams !</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Tunin, actually you probably would be happy with any of the bodies mentioned, as they are all very similar and all excellent. <br>

All the latest Nikon bodies easily meet the criteria you set forth in you original post, whether FX or DX. And ultimately you would likely be equally happy with any of the bodies mentioned. But ultimately you may need to handle them all to see which you prefer. </p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>It would be interesting to know why many of the hardcore wildlife photographer do not use DX ( hope I am not wrong ) . At least , Moose Peterson's disclosed gear list does not have any . That they go for D4s and D5 , is nothing new . Getting close to the subject may not always be possible . It may not be an open grassland or there may be other restrictions to the movement . Probably , they go for gear that can, not only perform well but also withstand the demanding conditions . But , is not difference in image qualities of DX and FX in those demanding conditions getting narrower ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D500 may be a game-changer in this regard, since Nikon hasn't had a professional-level DX body since the D300s in 2009. A simple explanation might be just that Peterson hasn't tried a D500 yet. Peterson's gear list is dated 2/25/16; the D500 didnt start shipping until late April. Peterson may be an extreme case, in any event, since his main lens is the $16,000 800/5.6. note the 150-600 Tamron gives up less than a stop of aperture and is 100m longer on DX (while costing $15k less). it's also worth noting that Peterson is a Nikon Ambassador, which may mean he's not paying full retail on all that gear. Another prominent wildlife shooter who uses both FX and DX is Thom Hogan, whose longest lenses are 400 and 500mm. These two differ in approach; Peterson uses the 14-24, which doesnt take filters, and has no lenses between 70mm and 300mm; Hogan uses the 70-200/4 and the 16-35/4 and frequently pairs the D7200 with the 80-400. A list of Hogan's gear, which includes a DX kit, is <a href="http://www.dslrbodies.com/technique/essays/in-thoms-bag.html">here</a>. Hogan's list is from January, pre-D5/D500 release btw. Of late, he's been blogging a lot about the D500, so it seems likely that will replace the D7200 in his bag. </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>the D500 will give the same DoF at f5.6 as the D810 will give at f8. <br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was responding to the post by Kent Staubus.<br>

<br>

Ansel Adams died 15 years before digital photography was barely available. Not all of Adams' work was large format,and had digital we know today been available, he would have readily embraced it. While he was famous for his landscapes, he made a living from commercial photography.</p>

[Tuhin]

<p>Good morning and thanks all for your valuable comments ,</p>

<p>In my last trip to a national park I felt the need for two bodies , a long lens permanently fixed to a DX body and a wide angle zoom fixed to another DX or FX body ( user's choice ) . The second body is for the landscape within the national park and that would also serve as a back up . </p>

<p>Thanks .</p>

<p> </p>

[glen_h]

<blockquote>

<p>All else being equal, a DX sensor should have more noise than an FX sensor with the same resolution. However all else is seldom equal. A good DX will be less noisy than a mediocre FX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Seems to me that, for telephoto photography, you should compare with similar diameter lenses. That gets you one more stop for DX, and so more light on each of those smaller pixels. That is, about the same number of photons per pixel. <br>

<br>

So, compare a D500 with a 400mm lens, and D810 with 600mm lens, where the 400mm is one stop faster. I don't know at all how the prices for such lenses run, though.<br>

<br>

In the case of mirror lenses, the 500/8 and 800/11 are similarly priced. Maybe not for the high-end ED lenses.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>In the case of mirror lenses, the 500/8 and 800/11 are similarly priced. Maybe not for the high-end ED lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>a mirror lens would be pretty terrible for wildlife photography. also, a Nikon 500/4 is about $6700, an 800/5.6 runs around $16,000.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>It looks like the OP is still fairly new to wildlife photography and has a Tamron 150-600mm lens. If one has the budget for a D810, the D500 is definitely the way to go for wildlife photography. Currently the difficulty is that D500 are hard to find, but that is merely a temporary issue.</p>

<p>However, as usual, techniques and lenses are to some degree more important than the camera body, although the D500 has great AF. When you get more serious, I would add an f4 super tele as f6.3 on the long end is very limiting.</p>

<p>As far as DX vs. FX does, back in 2009, I attended a 4-day seminar with famed wildlife photographer Frans Lanting. At the time he had both a D3 and D300, but his preferred body was the DX-format D300: http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00TCtL<br>

In that era, I know several wildlife photographers who all preferred DX: Wayne Lynch, Tui De Roy ... to name a few. I saw De Roy again last year (2015), and she has switched to a D4, mainly because the D4 has better, more reliable AF. Things could change again with the introduction of the D500.</p>

<p>If one wants to spend less, the D7200 is a fine choice as well. However, IMO 36MP is more a hindrance for wildlife and action photography.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>I have read with interest all of the postings on this topic. I do not think there is an easy answer as to what camera or lens is best or needed for wildlife photography. What is best for me will probably not be best for you. Are you motivated by environmental type images that can be taken with a shorter focal lens without the need for a camera with fast frame rates? If Yes, then a FX body like the D810 might be best for you. If you are into taking pictures of animals and birds at long distances, then the DX body with longer lenses might be best. And if the animals and birds are moving fast then a body with a fast frame rate might be best. I know Nikon nature shooters who are now FX only; others are FX and DX; and some who are DX only. Just get a good body for your needs and good lenses you will use a lot.<br>

Joe</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<p>the 810 is a high-resolution camera, but not a high-performance camera. 5fps would be a lot more limiting than the D500's 10 fps, and unless you shoot a lot at ISO 6400+, the D500 should be able to handle reasonable low-light situations. Nikon actually doesnt make a high-performance/high-resolution model, and to get that same level of speed in FX costs about $4500 extra. A more practical matter for the OP may be that he's used to using the 150-600 on a DX body; switching to FX would cause one to have to rethink how you shoot that lens, which would no longer have the crop factor.</p>

[Tuhin]

<p>Many of us can not be as dedicated as the pros , and for wildlife photography , here is one example from India , Dhritiman Mukherjee , <img src="http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/ltGQh14syiP3SCRg3z90DI/Into-the-wild.html" alt="" /> . Wildlife photography entails field , action photography . And in field photography , one learns with every trip . There are photographers who are spending winter months in Ladakh region to photograph snow leopard ! If I am physically fit , may be I would become a vagabond photographer after my retirement ! Presently , my approach is to get the maximum out of the present gear keeping in mind my and its limitations .</p>

<p>D500 is still not available in India and it is and still would be pricey after one year of its launch ( especially after the hype that it has created ) . I do not know the the maximum usable ISO in D7200 . Saw a comparison with D500 images at different ISO in fredmiranda . If it is D7200 , I would want atleast ISO 6400 to be usable . For D500 , Joseph Smith has posted some images in the nikon forum of photo net <img src="/nikon-camera-forum/00dvcC" alt="" /> . 12,800 seems good and he has used a high shutter speed just what I wanted .</p>

<p>For the second category of back up cum landscape camera , if one has FX lenses , prefer D750 for its better low light performance .</p>

<p>Thanks all .</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> If it is D7200 , I would want atleast ISO 6400 to be usable .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the D7200 is a generation behind the D500 in low-light performance, so that might be pushing it. Personally, i would want a very long lens if photographing leopards in the wild. </p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Personally, if photographing Leopards in the wild I would want my 375 H&H right by my side! :-) I believe that though some cameras might be better than others, any good camera / lens combo can do the job in good hands. As an example, I bought a used first model 80-400 VR despite lots of negative comments about its capabilities. It isn't perfect, but I find it to be excellent, and able to do most of what I want to do. <br>

I believe that you should get what you want, the best quality you can afford and move forward. You will be able to make it work!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Leopards are nocturnal. If you specialize in leopard photography, you'll need a fast long lens and FX. We can discuss that when it becomes reality. There is no point to get too far ahead.</p>

[Tuhin]

<p>You all are reading my posts in sleepy eyes to the extent that people would misunderstand my posts :) ,</p>

<p>I said there are wild life photographers so dedicated that they spend winters in Ladakh region ( northern most part of India bordering China ) for photographing the endangered SNOW LEOPARD , they are crepuscular ie, active at dawn or dusk . </p>

<p>Thanks all for your responses . </p>

<p> </p>

[harveysteeves]

<p>given current technology and your proposed subject material, I would be going with the D500. Reach and auto focusing capability. From what I have seen, I do not believe there to be a massive difference in ISO capability. Cropped 810 is slightly less, down-sized 810 is better.</p>

 

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>Moose Peterson's latest post indicates he is looking forward to using the new D500, so apparently he has one on order.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Moose Peterson has been a Nikon ambassador for decades. If anything, it would surprise me that he doesn't receive a D500 on day one and was probably a beta tester for Nikon. While Moose has a lot of experiences, I would also keep in mind that he is not going to have any negative comment on any Nikon product.</p>