Need some advice Nikon d750, d800,d810

[Rbat5875]

Hi all

I am a Very Keen wildlife photographer and have been using a Nikon D3100 for the past 2 years and I'm interested in buying a new camera body. The Nikon D 750 and Nikon D810 are both in my budget. My question is do I go for the D800 or the D750 and be able to put some extra money away for a new lens. I know that both cameras have good reviews but do I go with more pixels or faster frame rate please help. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Ryan

 

[Raj_55555]

Hi all

I am a Very Keen wildlife photographer and have been using a Nikon D3100 for the past 2 years and I'm interested in buying a new camera body. The Nikon D 750 and Nikon D810 are both in my budget. My question is do I go for the D800 or the D750 and be able to put some extra money away for a new lens. I know that both cameras have good reviews but do I go with more pixels or faster frame rate please help. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Ryan

Are you sure you want to go full frame? I'd go with D750 due to the 6.5fps but truth be told, even if I had all the money in the world, I'd get a DX body for wildlife stuff. You'll loose a lot of reach otherwise. I know many professionals use full frame for wildlife stuff, but I'd still suggest getting a crop body first.

My suggestion, get the D7100, which would be a significant upgrade from your D3100 in itself, and then invest in some real quality glass from the money that you've saved. Use it for at least an year and get used to it, I doubt you'll ever need more. But if in the future you are missing some features that only the full frame can provide, you'll have enough experience by then to make your own call. You can always sell it off, and buy whatever FF is there in the market.

 

[Braineack]

+1 for the D7100. If FX was a must, then there would be little doubt I'd go for the D750 over the rest.

 

[KmH]

For shooting wildlife the crop factor a DX camera offers is seen by many as an advantage over FX.

Next, to get full benefit from the increase in resolution FX is going to give you may need to upgrade your lenses.
As an example, if you now use a Nikon AF-S 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6G VR lens thew lens resolving power comes up short and you woon't get full benefit from the FX sensor in those cameras. To do so you would probably need to get a $6000 Nikon 300 mm f/2.8 prime.

 

[jaomul]

I'd go the d810, 7 fps in crop mode with the benefits of having one of the best ever fullframe Dslrs.

Having said this the d7100 is nice as said and I'm sure the d750 is great, but if money wasn't an option it would be the d810 on top for me

 

[tirediron]

First of all, some clarification: There really isn't any extra "reach" provided by a DX body. Your field of view (FoV) is approximately that of a lens 1.5x longer on an FF body, but that does not affect the size of the subject. Second, unless you are or intend to be shooting aspects of wildlife where camera speed is critical (I don't know, the Cheetah 500 perhaps?) then, the D800/810 with their 36 Mp will be of a distinct advantage, because that will allow you to crop much more tightly, while still maintaining a reasonable-size subject. If shooting speed isn't all that important, than a used D800 would (IMO) be an excellent choice. If it is a consideration then I would suggest either the D750 or 7100. Note that for a similar dollar value, you can likely pick up a used D3s and have the best of almost all worlds.

 

[Raj_55555]

First of all, some clarification: There really isn't any extra "reach" provided by a DX body. Your field of view (FoV) is approximately that of a lens 1.5x longer on an FF body, but that does not affect the size of the subject.

It seems I still have some things that need clarification in this regards, time to put my research hat on!!

 

[Derrel]

The D7100 is one of Thom Hogan's favorite safari cameras, even though he has access to the 36MP FX Nikons. The APS-C sensor puts more pixels on the subject than cropping down a D800 frame...the D800's 36 million pixel sensor gives you about 15 million pixels left when cropped to DX size; the D7100 has 24 million pixels at the SAME size image area, which is what people mean "more reach"...the image quality is higher with the D7100 on a DX frame.

 

[tirediron]

The D7100 is one of Thom Hogan's favorite safari cameras, even though he has access to the 36MP FX Nikons. The APS-C sensor puts more pixels on the subject than cropping down a D800 frame...the D800's 36 million pixel sensor gives you about 15 million pixels left when cropped to DX size; the D7100 has 24 million pixels at the SAME size image area, which is what people mean "more reach"...the image quality is higher with the D7100 on a DX frame.

Exactly - I may have jumped to the wrong conclusion here, but I find that a LOT of people believe that because a lens is referred to as having an apparent 1.5x increase in focal length due to the crop factor that it "magnifys" that to that degree as well.

 

[Derrel]

I think you are correct Tirediron, I too think that many people think of the "1.5x FOV factor" of the DX sensor as if it were a 1.5x telephoto converter, in effect actually increasing the magnification of subjects. But that's NOT the way the DX sensor versus FX sensor deal actually works. In BOTH sensor formats, a 300mm lens will produce a subject that is the SAME, exact height and width in the center of the frame. If we take a photo of a 2-liter soda bottle from 20 feet away with an FX format and a DX format Nikon, using the same exact lens, BOTH cameras will create an image of the soda bottle that is the EXACT, same,identical dimensions.

What will be different though is that in the FX frame, there will be a lot of empty area around the outside of the frame. The bottle will be surrounded by a lot of empty space. In the image made with the DX camera, the bottle will appear to occupy more of the frame; there will also be several million more pixels making up the image of the bottle.

So, if we shoot a picture of an owl perched on a limb 40 feet away, using FX camera and a DX camera, each with a 600mm lens, the owl will be the EXACT, identical height on the sensor...but with the FX camera, there will be a lot of empty space around the bird, while on the DX camera, the bird will fill more of the picture's area, more of the frame. If we want to then crop off the empty outside area in the FX camera's shot, the amount of pixels making up the image of the bird will be much,much lower in the FX camera's cropped-down image than the DX camera, with its 24 million pixels over the whole frame's area.

So--the FX versus DX is NOT at all like a "1.5x telephoto converter" effect, although I suspect many people think of it that way!

 

[Raj_55555]

So--the FX versus DX is NOT at all like a "1.5x telephoto converter" effect, although I suspect many people think of it that way!

Guilty as charged! Yet another thing I learned here.. Thanks to both of you guys

 

[CmazzJK]

The D7100 is one of Thom Hogan's favorite safari cameras, even though he has access to the 36MP FX Nikons. The APS-C sensor puts more pixels on the subject than cropping down a D800 frame...the D800's 36 million pixel sensor gives you about 15 million pixels left when cropped to DX size; the D7100 has 24 million pixels at the SAME size image area, which is what people mean "more reach"...the image quality is higher with the D7100 on a DX frame.

I've never heard it put that way, it clarifies a lot.

 

[greybeard]

I have stayed with a crop frame (D7000 for now) because I shoot a lot of bugs with a 105mm macro hand held. FX offers no advantage to me at all no matter how close I get. 1:1 is still 1:1. In your situation I would get a D7100 and a Tamron 150-600.

 

[greybeard]

One thing I've always wondered about is the 1.5 stop low light advantage of the D810 over the D7100. Does it hold up when cropped down to APS-C size?

 

[D-B-J]

One thing I've always wondered about is the 1.5 stop low light advantage of the D810 over the D7100. Does it hold up when cropped down to APS-C size?

Artificially cropping (or digitally cropping) has absolutely no effect on ISO ability or anything relating to the sensor. All the DX crop mode does is to save a "cropped" image rather than the FX image, thus saving space and having smaller files (mb wise) which allows the buffer to handle more.