second body for wildlife D7100? D800? D600?

keithh 15 25.5k 33 Wallis And Futuna
2 Sep 2015 10:36PM
Can anyone remember the hugely expensive original 1Ds.....pixels the size of house bricks in comparison to today's 35mm sensors and pretty crap beyond ISO 400.

As the saying goes "A week is a long time in digital photography"

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

MGJ 11 372 6
3 Sep 2015 12:37AM
The image (size) that the sensor records is projected by the lens. That image size doesn't alter just because you change the sensor. (We are talking of full frame lenses used on crop sensors). The back projected image is of course the same size lens to lens, being matched to the full frame sensor. the lens doesn't "know" what size of sensor it attached to (Within reason because crop sensor bodies tend to require a shorter back focus, so the focussed image does differ slightly, but that is allowing detail to obscure an overall picture).

The FFT effectively permitted the digital revolution, and the problem was to identify noise, and it all really started with the cruise missile and the business of identifying landmarks after long flights over water - before GPS. The original systems basically just planed the bottom layer off the histogram and it all worked moderately well. The real problem to controlling noise as we know it is to identify signal as opposed to noise below the noise threshold and inside the clutter. They have got a lot better at that, but as in all things eventually the geeks run out of ideas.

Don't forget the camera industry is just a microscopic part of the overall use of the FFT, and not all FFTs are the same. Every radar set, every digital temperature sensor, microphones and god knows what else all the FFT in one form or another. So an awful lot of people are trying very hard, and a huge amount of money is being thrown at the problem of identifying noise in various environments. And especially by the military. And yes, gains were very rapid initially, as you might expect. But now, because the FFT is an approximation, and people have been at it for some time, the scope for manoeuvre within the approximation is reducing.

So certainly it would be dangerous to say that one won't see a huge improvement, but the likelihood is that its going to be difficult. There are other routes - more stable sensors, different seeding, and anyone making developments would certainly keep very quiet about it until it was patented.

But the inference remains - had Canon made a development in noise control recently, surely one would have seen the ISO level on the new 5Ds maintained? They haven't been. So one can be reasonably sure, that for the present, higher pixel counts will generally mean greater noise - that is in contrast to the past where each evolution of the DIGIC processor brought an improvement in noise control.

One has to be realistic about these limits - the weeks are definitely getting longer.
keithh 15 25.5k 33 Wallis And Futuna
3 Sep 2015 9:11AM
So after all that we get back to the fact that a 'cropped' projected image is not the same as cropping the photo using software.

I think MFT shows the progress of sensor design probably more than anything else does.
StrayCat 15 19.1k 3 Canada
3 Sep 2015 7:19PM
What about the 1.3X crop feature available in the D7100, and similar features in other cameras? Does this statement still apply:
Quote:So after all that we get back to the fact that a 'cropped' projected image is not the same as cropping the photo using software.

MGJ 11 372 6
3 Sep 2015 8:58PM
Straycat - in the end all you are doing is not collecting a chunk of the projected image. So you have two choices. Bigger sensor bigger file and keep all of the image. Smaller sensor, don't keep all of the image - and file size depends on pixel density. 1.3/1.5 there is not a lot in it.

As for the thing being the same or not the same. Its the pedantic versus the big hand small map approach. Agreed, its not quite the same, but hardly so as ones going to notice. So define "the same". I haven't done the arithmetic caused by the different back focus distance, but as we well know, its not even enough to make a noticeable difference on the lens focus distance scale. So the answer is "Not hardly"

For those who want to work it, its a fairly simple bit of trig. Me - I'm going to tie some fishing flies. Its more productive. Wink

Wait a sec - not being a Nikon man, or being the proud owner of a Canon 5dbrand new very expensive. If you simply deactivate a number of pixels, so you are recording on a smaller effective sensor in the same camera, then the back focus bit doesn't apply. You just prune the edges for a smaller file size. PS will do the same for you. Depends on how industrious you are feeling!!!.

StrayCat 15 19.1k 3 Canada
4 Sep 2015 7:00AM
Don't we get close to a M4/3 size sensor by activating the 1.3X feature, or an effect similar to it?
MGJ 11 372 6
4 Sep 2015 8:49AM
Can't help - don't know.

I understand the new Canons , being full frame allow you to use only a part of the sensor, though what the precise crop factor is I don't know. The idea is I suppose to save storage space, but it seems pretty unuseful to me. Why put good quality glass on the front of a full frame sensor and then be limited by an arbitrary size and make your system very resolution hungry, when more or less the only reason for buying such a camera is the additional resolution. I'd rather crop in PS to the size I want, and set "delete cropped pixels". Better still, since no one nowadays has a storage problem, I'd just buy a 2 or 3 TB drive and shove that in the machine. (plus 1 for autobackup).
peterjones 17 4.9k 1 United Kingdom
4 Sep 2015 5:49PM
My second body for wildlife is the Nikon D7200 which for me is a considerable advance over the D7100 for example a much greater buffer, it doesn't run out of puff after only six shots; the autofocus is significantly faster than the D7100; high ISO performance is far improved as is dynamic range; I am not interested in camera theory but I know what they can do for me ....I do use my cameras!


I can use the sensor crop if I am going to crop anyway, a useful feature to keep files sizes down.

StrayCat 15 19.1k 3 Canada
4 Sep 2015 6:59PM
Not to take away from the D7200, but it is also twice the price of the D7100 right now. I will buy the D7200 when it reaches half its present price.Wink If it takes 4 years, so be it, I have a budget, which I'm sure Andy also has. He just purchased an E-M1 that is the same price, or more as the D7200.
peterjones 17 4.9k 1 United Kingdom
4 Sep 2015 7:43PM
Funnily enough my reply was to the OP annettep38 only but if we are going to waffle and nit pick in true epz style WEX for example list the D7100 at 706 and the D7200 at 849 which according to my maths means that the D7100 is some 83% of the D7200.

Inconsequential waffle and nit pick over, good luck with your choice Annette with whatever you choose.

StrayCat 15 19.1k 3 Canada
4 Sep 2015 9:32PM
My mind was in another thread; of course, get the D7200, by all means.Smile
faulknerstv 15 421 United Kingdom
26 Sep 2015 6:43PM

d300s, sigma 50-500 hand held
annettep38 Plus
8 219 42 Costa Rica
27 Sep 2015 7:35AM
Peter and Mr Faulkner, you have answered my question. Thanks a lot.
Yes, that is what I want to do.

Yes I know what FFT is I am an engineer. So like Peter says that is very interesting but, what counts is the result. Which looks better in the dark areas with a D7200 (see above) than with the D3x Smile
AND yes I like the fact that I'm not lumbered with d800 file sizes only to crop it all away. And to focus on a small hummingbird in the cropped area with my MF lens is very difficult. And yes, a bigger buffer matters.
Birds here sit in trees, the trees being very high. so every bit of reach is welcome.
and if I wnat to take landscapes I have my D3x.

And believe it or not, for once the price here is not higher than in the US Smile, it is the same Grin
fotobee Plus
6 4 3 South Africa
27 Sep 2015 12:00PM
Hi Annette
An interesting fact came to light, while I was chatting to the Nikon people. The D7100 is (so far as I know) the first Nikon to use the Toshiba sensor, all the other Nikon camera`s use ones made by Sony. This may explain the gain in Pixel vs Noise graph, and the Pixel vs Resolution graphs given in the NPHOTO magazine for January 2015, for ISO results between 400 and 1600. To recap, the noise and resolution graphs are more or less the same at 400 and 1600 ISO, but are quite a bit lower if the camera is set on ISO 800. This means you get effectively the same results at ISO 400 and 1600, by arranging for the U1 and U2 buttons to set the ISO automatically from 100 to 320 on U1, and then to jump directly to a manual setting of 1600 on U2. This makes handheld Telephoto results easy, as the shutter speed is effectively 2 stops higher, thereby cutting out "Camera shake". I have no idea who makes the D7200 sensor for Nikon. I also have no idea if it is better or worse for taking bird shots. On the D7100, I reduce the exposure to the 6 mm spot, and the focus to 11 spots, to reduce "hunting" for focus, ie, if there are branches in the way when taking bird shots.

I also erroneously reported the Tamron 150 - 600 lens to be not so good as the old Sigma 150 - 500 lens. This has been fixed up by the Tamron people, who are doing continous upgrades on their lenses for free. Any person who has one of these Tamron lenses, is able to send it in for a free upgrade, via their reputable camera dealer if they are unhappy about their results. I find that the Tamron lens is now better than the old Sigma in all respects, particularly in the speed the VC (Vibration control) takes effect Inevitably, I find that the depth of field has to be stopped down to f9 for roughly the same result as the Sigma at 7.2, but this is the result of the extra length, ie, 600 vs 500 ml. The "Fine Focus" adjustment also has to be set at +15 on the camera, but this should be done on every camera and lens, as all camera`s and lenses are different, due to microscopic variances in the production line. This test should be the first step taken if the results are continously blurred, and will, in 9 cases out of 10, be sufficient to rectify the problem.

My choice remains the D7100 for wildlife photography, (bearing i mind that I have no experience of the D7200) but now with the Tamron lens instead of the Sigma 150 to 500, or 600 one. I have heard that the Sigma is better than the Tamron, but Tamron come out with a dust seal between it and the lens, which the Sigma does not have. One also has to purchase the the programmes to carry out the adjustments to the Sigma lens, if one is able to carry this out, which in my case is doubtful. Budgetary restraints are very much a factor in my choice, as I am retired. I am fully happy with my choice now.
skram 3 5 8 Italy
27 Sep 2015 4:46PM
I've got D800, it's a really great reflex, I use it for landscape and yes, the quality is really amazing, there is only one thing that bother me, I've found the autofocus too slow, (more slow than D300s), maybe for wildlife you need an autofocus more fast....I think D4 is more versatile!

Good light to everybody Smile


Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.