Which to upgrade? glass or body?

[Radical]

I've been in photography ( wildlife) now for like four years. I have the Nikkor 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 AF-S, and the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 lens. I was thinking of buying the new Tamron 150-600mm lens to fit on my Nikon D3100 but some one mentioned that maybe I would want to think about upgrading my body first to the Nikon D7100 because of the better AF system.
Imput would help, thanks

 

[goodguy]

The chicken or the egg kind of question.
I bet most would tell you to get better glass and they might be right but I would go for the new body, I vote get the D7100!!!

 

[pixmedic]

I would upgrade the area you feel is most lacking, or that you feel would most benefit your photography.
the D7100 would indeed be a huge upgrade from the D3100, but do you feel you are missing shots because the d3100 isn't focusing?
do you need better low light performance? do you need a better sensor, dual command wheels, top LCD screen, dual card slots, built in focus motor...?
if yes, i would get the D7100 first.
if you need more focal length because you are not getting the shots you want and everything else is fine...get the lens.

 

[Mike_E]

I'd probably get the body first because I'd be afraid that the 150-600mm would break the one you have now due to it's weight.

 

[480sparky42 41]

I'd probably get the body first because I'd be afraid that the 150-600mm would break the one you have now due to it's weight.

The 150-600 has a foot with a ¼" thread on it. So, when properly used, the lens supports the body and not the other way around.

 

[sscarmack]

Which one do you need more?

Is your current camera holding you back? Or are your current lenses holding you back?


This will answer your question.

 

[Derrel]

I would upgrade the area you feel is most lacking, or that you feel would most benefit your photography.
the D7100 would indeed be a huge upgrade from the D3100, but do you feel you are missing shots because the d3100 isn't focusing?
do you need better low light performance? do you need a better sensor, dual command wheels, top LCD screen, dual card slots, built in focus motor...?
if yes, i would get the D7100 first.
if you need more focal length because you are not getting the shots you want and everything else is fine...get the lens.

Yeah...there comes a time when the body becomes a limiting factor. I bought GREAT lenses in the early- and mid-2000's...70-200/2.8, 300 f/4 AF-S, 300/2.8, and so on and more, but the fact was, with the Canon 5D Classic and the Nikon D2x, BOTH of those cameras became liabilities compared to what a D3x body (with a DxO Mark sensor score of like 88) brought to my shooting the very first week I had it. I had been shooting with GREAT lenses since 2002...but by early 2012, my camera models from 2005, D2x 12MP, and 2006, Canon 5D Classic, were really NOT "leveraging" my glass. Lenses are important, but for some uses, some situations, the BODY and the sensor it has, become the deal-breakers or deal-makers.

To me, the new-sensor, 24MP Nikon bodies are the new standard. the D800 and D800 E are at like DxO Mark 98 scores. The D3100 is a simple body with a not-so-great viewfinder. I don't have the D7100, but I SEE HOW AWESOME its image quality is on a daily basis when I see D7100 pictures. Or D600 pictures. Or Canon 5D-III pictures.

I see the D7100 and the other 24MP + Nikons as being tools to "leverage" lenses and flashes. Well worth the money.

 

[Overread18 6]

Honestly - GLASS first in this case.

Your longest lens is only 300mm and your longest good lens is only 200mm. I think that the gain from 300mm to 600mm would be a fantastic boost for someone interested in wildlife as typically you always want more focal length and that lens gives it to you! A better body will help with AF, but I suspect that unless your Steve Irwin good at getting close you'll be cropping shots by a lot - granted newer bodies can crop a lot, but my view is if you're having to crop over 50% most of the time -its time to get a longer lens.

 

[Derrel]

Overread brings up a good point: loooong lenses magnify the image significantly. The 150-600mm is a slow-aperture lens that's got stabilization, but to actually LEVERAGE that looooong, slooooow f/5 to f/6.3 lens, you need a few things:

1) GOOD, bright light levels, like at the lakeshore or seashore, and the warm-weather months, or tropical or south Pacific/island-type light levels. In Seattle or London, f/5.6 to f/6.3 is useless as teats on a boar until you get to ISO 1600 for a full seven months out of the year on ANYTHING that moves...stabilizing system or not. You need a baseline shutter speed of at least the reciprocal of the focal length to stop even moderate movement.

2)Subjects that are slowly moving or still, or that can be panned along with unless the light is bright or the ISO elevated, or both.

3) A SENSOR that allows you to shoot at AT LEAST 1/400 second at f/6.3--, which often means, a sensor that offers Excellent performance at higher-than-normal ISO values.

I do not think the D3100 helps a shooter deal with any of the above criteria.

What the new, no-AA filter Nikon bodies have done in APS-C is to ELIMINATE the former advantage of 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. The new, 24MP sensor bodies, with no AA filter give about 15% higher resolution than the older 24MP cameras AND they have MUCH better ISO performance, up to ISO 4,000. What I see is that the D7100, with 24MP and great high-ISO and NO AA filter, is the tool needed to "leverage" every single lens a guy can own. Especially on something as pokey as a loooong, high-magnifying, shake-shows-up-bad! lens like an f/5 to f/6.3 150-600mm lens used for nature work.

The D7100's sensor and lack of AA filter, high resolution AND high-ISO performance, is why people want a D7100. It makes a teleconverter not needed; it makes every lens "two- to three stops faster" so to speak, and it gives high cropping ability. I have not mentioned AF ability once. I'm thinking strictly in terms of what the D7100 offers that the D3100 does not. More rezz, more ISO capability, more crop-capability, and...better viewfinder,better controls, grip option, more capable AF system. I think the AF system difference is the least-important difference between a D3100 and a D7100.

 

[pixmedic]

I would upgrade the area you feel is most lacking, or that you feel would most benefit your photography.
the D7100 would indeed be a huge upgrade from the D3100, but do you feel you are missing shots because the d3100 isn't focusing?
do you need better low light performance? do you need a better sensor, dual command wheels, top LCD screen, dual card slots, built in focus motor...?
if yes, i would get the D7100 first.
if you need more focal length because you are not getting the shots you want and everything else is fine...get the lens.

Yeah...there comes a time when the body becomes a limiting factor. I bought GREAT lenses in the early- and mid-2000's...70-200/2.8, 300 f/4 AF-S, 300/2.8, and so on and more, but the fact was, with the Canon 5D Classic and the Nikon D2x, BOTH of those cameras became liabilities compared to what a D3x body (with a DxO Mark sensor score of like 88) brought to my shooting the very first week I had it. I had been shooting with GREAT lenses since 2002...but by early 2012, my camera models from 2005, D2x 12MP, and 2006, Canon 5D Classic, were really NOT "leveraging" my glass. Lenses are important, but for some uses, some situations, the BODY and the sensor it has, become the deal-breakers or deal-makers.

To me, the new-sensor, 24MP Nikon bodies are the new standard. the D800 and D800 E are at like DxO Mark 98 scores. The D3100 is a simple body with a not-so-great viewfinder. I don't have the D7100, but I SEE HOW AWESOME its image quality is on a daily basis when I see D7100 pictures. Or D600 pictures. Or Canon 5D-III pictures.

I see the D7100 and the other 24MP + Nikons as being tools to "leverage" lenses and flashes. Well worth the money.

this is something a lot of people miss, or do not understand.
note the time period where Derrel was using the same camera(s). quite a while right? especially by digital standards.
this is where experience, first hand knowledge, and diligent research comes into play in the form of knowing what lenses to buy, how to use them, and
when the equipment becomes the choke point, knowing whether it is lens or camera as apposed to user error.

 

[Overread18 6]

Interestingly I've read that a good many bird photographers use f8 as their working aperture (conditions allowing) because when you're focusing on a far of small subject the depth of field is often quite small - so a slower aperture lens isn't always a disadvantage. Certainly in an ideal world you want camera and lens so that you've got the reach and the high ISO capabilities. In a pinch I'd go for the lens though at this stage. If the OP had 400mm or 500mm reach I'd be more inclined to go with the body upgrade.

 

[nzmacro]

You will see immediately the difference with a longer focal length lens and especially that lens I know what you are after from your shots and the longer reach from a sharp lens will give you one heck of a boost. AF I don't use so I'm no help there. I would actually ask Kris or Jaca on those points. They are the experts with that lens and Kris understands the D7100 extremely well.

Its a bit of a catch 22, you need a darn good sensor to resolve the details from a decent lens and remember, bird shooters HAVE to crop. Good light, a lowish ISO, fast shutter speed and bang !! The need to crop leads to noise issues if we still want high shutter speeds. In other words, we can boost the ISO but pay at the other end when we crop and magnify the noise in a shot. FF shooters can get away with a bit more with noise, but then they also need to crop more than an APS-C sensor.

So there you go, its all a catch 22 at the end of the day. Personally I would go with the lens and work on saving up for the D7100. For bird shooters you simply can't beat that focal length.

All the best and not easy huh.

Danny.

 

[Raj_55555]

with no AA filter give about 15% higher resolution than the older 24MP cameras

I was under the impression that the resolution of an image directly implied the MP count of the camera. So a 24 MP camera would give a resolution of 6000X4000 or similar.
What am I missing here? Could you kindly explain this in details?

 

[Radical]

You will see immediately the difference with a longer focal length lens and especially that lens I know what you are after from your shots and the longer reach from a sharp lens will give you one heck of a boost. AF I don't use so I'm no help there. I would actually ask Kris or Jaca on those points. They are the experts with that lens and Kris understands the D7100 extremely well.

Its a bit of a catch 22, you need a darn good sensor to resolve the details from a decent lens and remember, bird shooters HAVE to crop. Good light, a lowish ISO, fast shutter speed and bang !! The need to crop leads to noise issues if we still want high shutter speeds. In other words, we can boost the ISO but pay at the other end when we crop and magnify the noise in a shot. FF shooters can get away with a bit more with noise, but then they also need to crop more than an APS-C sensor.

So there you go, its all a catch 22 at the end of the day. Personally I would go with the lens and work on saving up for the D7100. For bird shooters you simply can't beat that focal length.

All the best and not easy huh.

Danny.

Your right and I did talk with Kris which brought me to post this question, not that I didn't trust or like what advice he gave me but I really wanted the new Sigma and got sick of waiting and was thinking of purchasing the Sigma 150-500mm and he brought up that maybe I should think about upgrading my body because of AF with using bigger lens.

 

[Radical]

Ok let me ask you all this, if I would go for the body would I be able to use a 2X tele convertor on my 70-200mm Sigma lens and would it turn into a 400mm?