Anyone using the 3Ds+600mm VR for birds/wildlife? doubt on setup for 600mm lens and camera

Hi all,
I am scrutinizing my options for buying into a 600mm and new camera kit, to the extent that it gives sleepless nights… my main doubt is that I am currently using the Nikon D700 with battery grip with the 1.4X and 200-400 for all my bird-wildlife photography, my longest lens. I personally find it very challenging when going for the small critters

I have decided on investing into a 600 mm + new camera, right now my thoughts are either the D3s w nikons 600mm VR or the canon MKIV w 600mm IS. I want a pro+body as I always use my D700 with the grip and would like to have the improvements on speed for either going to the 3Ds or MK4

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]So why is this so difficult to choose from these.... well with the current setup I am still needing a lot of cropping in many situations as I cannot get close enough o the subjects, I am living in Brazil and going to places as Pantanal requires many times that I cannot get too close before the birds fly away, so with the Nikon D700 and 560 mm 200-400 + 1,4 I am only at 560 mm, with the Nikon 600 mm it would be the same without the converter. I have never used these kind of lenses so I have no Idea of if I would be satisfied with the Nikon setup but I guess I would be using the converters most of the time…, I know that I can throw in the 1,4X or 1,7X which I already have, but somehow the canon setup feels more appropriate for the task with the 1,3X build in factor.

What would you recommend in my situation? and is there any of the Nikon D700-D3-D3s users with the 600mm VR that could chip in your experience with this setup?

Also I find that the 200-400 starts to be limited on sharpness at subject distances above 30 meters when using the 1.4 teleconverter, just back from a trip to pantanal and I am really in doubts now about what to go for..

Any inputs are really appreciated

Thanks Ben

If you already have a D700 I wouldn't add a D3 or a D3s as the sensor in the D700 is basically the same as the one in the D3. I'd try the 600 on your D700 first. Since you seem to need more reach you may want to consider a D300 since it is a 1.5 crop factor body and is also a 12MP body. I use a 600 (non VR) with the D300 with and without converters. I've also used it with my D700 but for birds I almost always use the D300 for the additional reach.

The best way to get reach is to buy a d300.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil Seu

The best way to get reach is to buy a d300.

---

Exactly!!! The D700 is a fine camera just add a D300s. I love my D300!

Another vote for D300s :)

Ben,

There is some confusion in this thread regarding crop factor. I assume by your post that your subjects are small in your frame due to being focal length limited. You talk about needed to crop the image. Cropped sensors are no different. If you want more pixels on the subject and you can not move closer then the key parameters that give you more pixels on the subject are more focal length and smaller pixels. You want:

pixel size (pixel pitch) / focal length

to be as small as you can get it. Then of course smaller pixels collect less light so show more apparent noise. Bigger lenses are heavier to carry and cost more.

The pixel sizes are:
D3s = 8.46 microns
D3 = 8.46 microns
D700 = 8.46 microns
D300 = 5.5 microns.

So changing between D3s, D3, and D700 will not change pixels on subject for a given lens. The D300 will give 8.46/5.5 = 1.54 more pixels on subject.

Switching to a 1D Mark IV, which has 5.7 micron pixels so will give slightly fewer pixels on subject than the D300 with the same focal length lens. But the 1DIV would give 8.46/5.7 = 1.5 times more pixels on subject than the D3 etc cameras.

More on crop factor and pixels on subject at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/cropfactor/

Roger

Hi,

Thanks for the elaborate answers, I will buy the 600mm VR and then consider the D300S as backup and for bird photography, because I already sold my D700+grip for a good price....basically same price as I paid in Aug 2008 due to the change rate of USD against BRL at that time. I will then still go for the 3DS as I still need the FF for the rest of my lenses and for the low light wildlife stuff.

I think what I was really searching for was the D2X replacement a D300S but in a pro body. Is there anyone who would have an idea of when Nikon likely would replace the D300S?

Roger, thanks for the clarification of crop vs. pixel on subject, exactly what I am looking for, and interesting comparison of different camera models you have your homepage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BRKnudsen

Hi,

Thanks for the elaborate answers, I will buy the 600mm VR

---

Be prepared for a possible long wait, it took me nearly 6 months of searching just to get my 500VR and the 600 is even harder to track down.
Good luck on you quest.;)

Cheers
Marc

Hi Marc, yes true, very difficult to come across.... I was following BH stock for the 600 VR for a while but gave up, but now I am back to the spending and I was lucky that a Nikon in Denmark has one reserved for me + the 3Ds, so I hopefully will be able to pick it up beginning of May. :)

That is why I switched to Canon. For the same price as a Nikon 600mm f4 VR available who knows when, I got an 800mm f5.6 IS available immediately, as are all Canon supertelephotos. I have NO regrets.

The Nikon D3 and VR 600mm works wonders for me. The AF is lightning-fast with and without the 1.4 TC.

I also love my D300, bit the AF is not nearly as fast, especially with the 1.4 TC on board.

Image quality is superb with both bodies.

I migrated from the Canon 1D,1Ds Mark III and 500 mm last year, so I have experience with both systems.

Yes, the Canons are all available right now.

I prefer the 1.6 crop of the 7D, combined with the EF 500mm f/4L, plus the 1.4TC. That gives you 35mm-equivalent field of view of 1120mm. If you "must have" a big body, then the 1D MkIV ain't bad either.

Congrats at unloading your Nikon at a wash price.

There are a whole bunch of other issues about Canon vs. Nikon that you'll have to personally consider, but the ready availability of high quality super-teles is a big plus on Canon's side.

Yes most Canon glass is readily available, but then I am also thinking about that Canon probably is going to replace the 400, 500 and 600 mm within short time I guess 1-2 years, was released in 1999, and this kind of purchase is for me a long term "investment". What I am saying is that both C and N are more the good enough, but the N 600 VR was released in 2007, so it will probably not be updated for the next 5 or more years and would be easier to sell if necessary.

The grass is always greener.....As I already have invested in Nikon better continue down that path....and the lenses are not bad at all.... it really makes sense to get the D300s as suggested by several posters, I moved from a D80 to D700 in 2008 but did not have the 200-400 at that time, so never tried the D80 + 200-400 combo....

I will try to borrow a D300 or D90 to experiment with the crop factor and the tele-lenses, and then consider if I should go for second camera.

What I think is sweet right now is the C 1D mk4 due to the fast AF, crop factor and relative high pixel density, but that might change when we see the next D400 what ever released....

Thanks for all the inputs and considerations for choosing your setups.

Wow. :D

The D300s does have faster AF than the D300...I have shot both extensively.

The 300s has more processing power and gives both faster acquisition and better tracking.

500VR's are no problem to find. 600's are a whole different story.

A 500 and with a little crop in PS and you have a 600 on a D3, or, a 900 on a D300.
After that, perhaps the Hubble telescope will be up for sale one day :)

Tom

Hi,
I am using D3 and D300 with 600VR for the last two years.

Advantages of D3 over D300 - Faster AF, Higher ISO and that extra something in picture when printed. :)
Advantages of D300 over D3 - 1.5 crop is just like having a free 1.5xTC at f4. Great for small shy birds.

Wish they had a real fast AF DX camera that can shoot well upto 1600 iso.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anilnediyara

Hi,
Advantages of D300 over D3 - 1.5 crop is just like having a free 1.5xTC at f4. Great for small shy birds.

---

A technical point here (I guess I will be the squeaky wheel that squeaks). It is not the croip factor that gives the apparent more real between these two cameras, it is the pixel pitch. The pixel spacing is:

D700 = 8.46 microns
D300 = 5.5 microns.

So the imrpovement of more pixels on a small subject is 8.46/5.5 - 1.54x. It is coincidence that the crop is 1.5. For example, I have a canon 30D (1.6x crop) and 5DII (full frame). Both produce the same pixels on a subject using the same focal length lens because the pixel pitches are the same (6.4 microns). This is shown at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/cropfactor/

Crop factor only applies to field of view.

Roger

Keep squeaking Mr. Clark :) it makes sense. I guess that right now the sensor that will get you the most pixels on the subject considering a fixed focal length is the 7D or 550D with their 4.3 micron pixel size. And getting even 1.3 X pixels on the subject compared to the D300....not considering any other pros and cons for the two systems.

Hi,
You are right Mr. Clark, isnt it same, the higher pixel density of D300 format allows you to crop the farme and still have enough pixels :).

I belive that your effort is to set right the general misconception that crop factor is not what helps you in getting more pixel on the subject area.

A Nikon D3x with same lens will give you similar result as D300 when shooting in DX mode.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BRKnudsen

Keep squeaking Mr. Clark :) it makes sense. I guess that right now the sensor that will get you the most pixels on the subject considering a fixed focal length is the 7D or 550D with their 4.3 micron pixel size. And getting even 1.3 X pixels on the subject compared to the D300....not considering any other pros and cons for the two systems.

---

Ben,

Yes, that is correct, but there is another subtlety that depends on the capability of the body. I'll give a canon example because that is what I know. For example, if you have a 500 f/4 lens, then the max TC you can use is a 1.4x and still have AF, But with a 1D camera, you can use a 2X TC and still have AF. So which gives more pixels on a subject, 7D + 500mm + 1.4x TC versus 1D Mark IV + 500 +2x?

To find out we must compute the angular size of a pixel:

= pixels size / focal length.

7D = 4.3 micron pixels = 0.0043 mm
1DIV= 5.7 micron pixels = 0.0057 mm

The equation above gives the angular size in microradians. If you are more familiar with arc-seconds we can multiply by 206265 arc-seconds/radian to get arc-seconds. There are 60 arc-minutes per degree and 60 arc-seconds per arc-minute, thus 3600 arc-seonds per degree. The Moon appears about 1800 arc-seconds in diameter. If you've ever looked at Jupiter through a telescope it appears about 40 arc-seconds in diameter; Saturn about 40 arc-seconds for the long dimension of the rings. A bird half filling the frame on a full-frame body in portrait mode at 700 mm appears a little smaller than one degree: 3536 arc-seconds, but some feather detail will be smaller than an arc-second.

7D + 500mm +1.4x TC = 0.0043 / 700 = 6.4 microradian = 1.27 arc-seconds/pixel

1DIV + 500 mm + 2x TC = 0.0057 /1000 = 5.7 microradians = 1.18 arc-seconds/pixel.

So the 1DIV 1.27/1.18 = 1.08 times more pixels on a subject (linear dimension).

The Hubble space telescope, for comparison, has a 0.05 arc-seconds with the wide-field planetary camera.
This is called the plate scale, a term originating in the photographic glass plate era. SZee:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance...ra_for_Surveys
This illustrates how close we are to Hubble, only about a factor of 20 different. It also illustrates how close we are to physical limits (diffraction) and to get more detail on the subject we'll need bigger lenses. Hubble is a 90-inch diameter aperture versus a 500 mm f/4 at 5-inches, a ratio of about 20.

What are the AF capabilities of different Nikon bodies and TCs with an f/4 lens? That can influence what you can achieve when photographing small birds or other small subjects. Of course, then what comes into the equation is what combination actually resolves more smaller pixels with a 1.4x TC or larger pixels with a 2x TC? That needs actual testing. For example, the blur filters may be different enough to influence the result. I'm testing that now for my Canon gear and will report when complete.

Roger

Shouldn't we also have to consider how we want to present the final images before we determine what kind of resolution, pixel size/density, etc., needed? I mean, given a certain amount of details recorded, our eyes will not be able to appreciate them in a small print than in a larger one (relatively speaking), right?

Desmond - of course you are 1000% correct. It's only with our hobbies (like photography) that we can afford to ignore reality :)
Tom

Desmond,
I agree. But even if for web use only, having more reach gives you more opportunities to get the image you want.

Roger

And, if all you need is web images at 1000px, 500KB images, you can use a 500mm lens and crop it to look like a 1200mm. Or some similar combo. I think that is what Desmond is trying to get at.
Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Graham

And, if all you need is web images at 1000px, 500KB images, you can use a 500mm lens and crop it to look like a 1200mm. Or some similar combo. I think that is what Desmond is trying to get at.
Tom

---

Then I disagree. Cropping does not add pixels or detail to your subject. If your subject is too small, there are only three things that will improve the situation: 1) get closer, 2) use longer real focal length, and 3) use a camera with smaller pixels (assuming the lens can deliver the detail to those smaller pixels).

Roger

Right, cropping certainly does not add detail.
The question is - how much detail do you need/require for your use?
Is the required detail in the original image the same whether you are making a 4x6 print or a 16x20 print? So, depending on the size of print, web usage, etc, will determine the amount of detail required for a good looking image. Agreed? And the amount of detail in the image will depend on the original and the crop. I may be able to do a lot of cropping and get a good looking web image at 800px - but it would not hold up for large print.
Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Graham

Right, cropping certainly does not add detail.
The question is - how much detail do you need/require for your use?
Is the required detail in the original image the same whether you are making a 4x6 print or a 16x20 print? So, depending on the size of print, web usage, etc, will determine the amount of detail required for a good looking image. Agreed?

---

Tom,
I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Graham

And the amount of detail in the image will depend on the original and the crop.

---

But I'll disagree with the above statement. Detail does not depend on crop, whether you crop an image, or use a cropped sensor. It may be semantics, but people (and I include people publishing books, photography magazines, web articles, and many posts here on BPN) are very confused about cropped sensors. Crop only affects field of view, not image detail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Graham

I may be able to do a lot of cropping and get a good looking web image at 800px - but it would not hold up for large print.
Tom

---

I agree.

Roger

I said - "And the amount of detail in the image will depend on the original and the crop."
And I agree that is -wrong-. The detail is the same after you crop, crop affects only the field of view, as you say Roger. Don't know what I was thinking of because that is just opposite of what I first said!!! Thanks the time to work through my "logic"(?)!!!
Tom

No problem, Tom. But what we could say is that for a given space, cropping an image to fit within that space will enable more detail to be seen in the presented image. For example, a bird small in the frame, crop close to the bird so it appears larger in the print/web image.

Roger