Camera upgrade?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

MikeA

MikeA

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
Hi, I’m Mike, happy to be here and have been following all the great advice from Steve, news, books etc. to start to make wildlife photos of birds along with my older hobby of astrophotography. Some of my first amateur shots of birds are on my website, if anyone is interested. I still have a lot to learn as you can see...

http://androsch.info/birds.html

I have been using a Nikon D7000 for a long time now and am considering an upgrade to maybe a D5 or D6. Will this really make a large improvement worth the investment, or should I continue on my learning curve on focusing correctly etc.? I am using a Sigma 150-600/5,0-6,3 DG OS HSM Sports. If I remember correctly, the smaller chip in the D7000 is not really negative, because otherwise I might even need to crop more or use a teleconverter? Will the upgrade give me much more detail and is focusing with a D5 or D6 so much easier?

Best,

Mike
 
Member's gallery
Hi Mike,

You will find the biggest change will be going from DX to FX (full frame) format, regardless of camera. I personally am a big fan of FX, since most of my work is for publication, and I need as many pixels and as much resolution as possible. The tradeoff is that your 150-600mm lens will be exactly that in FX, while in DX format it is the equivalent of 225-900mm. You can always set most of the FX cameras to use a smaller sensor area, duplicating FX, but why bother? You get more reach from a long lens, but sacrifice resolution and cropping ability. I have never used a D5 or D6, both being well out of my budget. Many of the accomplished wildlife photographers I've seen swear by the D850, which is roughly half the price of a D5 or D6. Also, keep in mind that a D5 weighs 44.6 oz., a D850 32.3 oz. Any additional weight adds up over time, especially when using long lenses. I am not a tech guy when it comes to cameras, so perhaps some other forum members can give you a more technical comparison of the D series to your D7000 and more learned recommendations. Personally, I would opt for a D850, which you will find to be a remarkable DSLR, and save that extra money for another really high quality long lens. Camera bodies come and go, lenses should last for years or even decades. I have an ancient manual Nikkor 55mm Micro f3.5 that I still use for closeups and product photos. I've gotten my money's worth out of that. For me, the difference in cost vs. a D850 will buy a lot of gas, go a long way toward additional glass, and probably do more than you would ever need. Good luck.
 
Member's gallery
Thank you very much, I thought so too concerning focal length trade-off. On the other hand in lower light at longer focal length I do not really like to go over 1600 ISO with the D7000 due to the noise I would otherwise get. That seems to limit me more often than not concerning the non obtainable lower shutter speeds and therefore sharpness. Is the D850 a real improvement over the D7000 concerning lower noise at higher ISO too and getting tack sharp pictures due to improved focusing a little bit easier?

...maybe more important to work on my skill anyway, since the additional focal length with the smaller chip is worth a lot too and changing all my glass for the larger format - my wife will not forgive me for all the spending.

Best

Mike
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
As for picture-making ability, there is enough new technology in the D850 to make it superior in every way compared to the D7000. As for handling noise, yes, the D850 is much better at high ISO than the D7000. In my opinion the D5/D6 cameras are more suited for journalistic pursuits. Built like a tank to be able to take a beating, lower density sensors for smaller files and awesome for capturing fast action. A news photographer's dream. What the D850 has going for it is a high density sensor that allows large pictures. This allows for significant cropping while still leaving enough resolution behind to print a picture of a decent size. That becomes more important as you lose the reach of long lenses when switching from DX to FX. D850 also has a much larger buffer and higher frame rate than the D7000, that's important for action shots of fast-moving animals.

I used DX cameras for years (D70S, D7000, D7100, and now D7500). The D7500 is also much better for wildlife than the D7000. Faster frame rate, larger buffer, more advanced focusing modes, less noise at high ISO, etc. Having said that, one of my best wildlife pictures ever, even today still, was made with a D7000. The difference is that the tech improvements in the newer cameras make it possible to take more pictures in more challenging conditions than would be possible with older cameras. One reason I did not want to use FX cameras was the fact that they were larger and heavier, and of course, more expensive. Not so great to travel with or walk long distances. Plus the DX cameras had the reach with long lenses that FX cameras don't have. That changed for me with the introduction of the Nikon mirrorless bodies. Suddenly they are smaller and lighter than my D7500. So last December I bought the Z6. That was my first FX digital camera, and I love its image quality. It's better than that of the D7500 due to its better dynamic range and better bokeh due to shallower DOF when shooting small birds from close distances. I am now considering getting a teleconverter to improve the reach of my long lens. The 24 MP of my Z6 does not allow for much cropping. The 46 MP sensor of the Z7 will allow much more cropping but I wasn't ready to spend an extra $1000 plus for that body.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Mike,
A lot of great advice above. If you're itching for a camera update I'd suggest taking a good long look at either the D500 or perhaps D850 if your emphasis is on birds, particularly birds in flight.

Looking the images in the link you posted a lot of those images are portraits where most modern cameras would focus just fine and a lot of your current subjects are pretty small where DX with your current lens will likely give you better results than a full frame sensor. If you'll pursue larger birds or find ways to get closer or invest in even longer(or faster) glass or if your interests extend to other subjects that will fill the frame then a move to FX could make a lot of sense. But if you'll shoot FX and crop heavily (perhaps well beyond the DX crop factor) for smaller birds then I'd suggest staying with a DX body until you can find you can frequently fill the frame with your preferred subjects.


Just my 2 cents but I'd take a good look at the D7500 and D500 as DX body upgrades or if FX format really appeals to you the D850 before laying out the cash for a D5 or D6.
 
Member's gallery
BirdDogDad said:
Hi Mike,

"You will find the biggest change will be going from DX to FX (full frame) format, regardless of camera. I personally am a big fan of FX, since most of my work is for publication, and I need as many pixels and as much resolution as possible. The tradeoff is that your 150-600mm lens will be exactly that in FX, while in DX format it is the equivalent of 225-900mm".


It won't be the "eqivalent" of 225-900mm except in the field of view. Magnification will not change a jot. The lens was, and will remain, 150-600mm in terms of magnification of the objective. Amazing how many people still don't understand this.
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
Thank you lots for all the advice!!! I guess since this is really a hobby for me and next to my Job, I only really have time for small birds in my garden and Astrophotography at night - sticking with my DX might be best then. That might chage with pension and more time in a few years. For my "normal" photography, for travelling and family, I do not really want to additionally get all the new glass either. I might consider a DX body upgrade as a next step.
 
Member's gallery
The next logical upgrade would be the D500. You get a good frame rate and buffer, better AF than the D7000. A D850 is nice, but to get the max frame rate you need to add the grip. The D5/D6 are the AF kings but neither light weight nor inexpensive. The D500 AF is just slightly better than the D850 AF. The D500 does ok at higher ISO's but you must expose properly. One option is to rent any body you are thinking of purchasing, it allows you to see if it will suit your needs before investing lots of money. I own and shoot all the bodies mentioned except the D7000.
 
Member's gallery
Also check out the D7500. It has the same sensor as the D500. If money is a concern the D7500 merits consideration. Alhough scaled down from all the capabilities of the D500, it does have many of the same or similar features found in the D500 at a lower cost. A very capable camera for a hobbyist.
 
Member's gallery
My thought...it depends on what you are doing with your output. While the FX sensor does have a slightly better IQ and high ISO performance...they are only marginally better at output that will be primarily used on a screen as opposed to print or sale. Given that...in my view the “most pixels on target” number is very important as well, and I would need at least 38MP in an FX to put more pixels on the target over my 7500. Distant wildlife is almost always going to be cropped, making pixels on target even more important. I have considered the FX upgrade myself but the 38MP number severely limits the choices and IMO pixels matter more than a little better IQ unless your type of shooting means high ISO and you are not happy with what you are getting. Weight plays a role as well assuming you are hiking to your wildlife. Mirror less are currently (at least on the Nikon side) not as good as a DSLR for BIF.
 
Member's gallery
True...but making sure focus is good I’m taking for granted...and in that case more pixels on target is better I believe for screen usage. If you’re cropping a Dt file to 1MP...there is going to be a loss of detail, the image can be sharply focused but that doesn’t overcome 10 pr 15 or whatever pixels on the eye Lack of detail. I generally don’t close crop if I have to go that small on cropping due to subject distance...better to have a scene type shot than a low detail closeup at least to my taste.
 
Member's gallery
OohMatron said:
I crop D5 files to below 1 MB without a problem. Accurate focus matters far more than pixel count. 38-50MP out of focus is useless, whatever the file size is cropped to.
Click to expand...
Agreed, with one caveat: A 1 MB image displays quite nicely on a computer screen, even down to 72 dpi. You can't expect to make a decent print of something like that any bigger than probably 4"X6".
 
Member's gallery
Rassie said:
Agreed, with one caveat: A 1 MB image displays quite nicely on a computer screen, even down to 72 dpi. You can't expect to make a decent print of something like that any bigger than probably 4"X6".
Click to expand...
Yeah...it will display and if I had to I would consider it...but the detail won’t be what you want so unless it was the only shot you got of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker or whatever I would go for the wider scene shot. A polar bear or lion kill...yeah, use the closeup but a black bear, deer or something common...not so much.
 
Not a pro here. I own a D500 and a D850. I like all the technical advice being given above. I just want to add a simple thing that might matter to you, since you mention astrophotography. I bought my wife a D7500 and we go out at night together. She is really coming along btw. That said, when I need to go assist her setup I am annoyed at the lack of lighted buttons and the need for a flashlight all the time. Once your eyes are adjusted and you can see shapes outdoors it's a bummer to turn on a flashlight imho.
*Now that I have viewed your web page I see you are on a different level of astrophotography so this may not pertain to you. Nice work.

I just about always prefer my D850 to the D500.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Member's gallery
I think I will most of all now consider an upgrade to a D500. Thank you for all the comments and help. Sorry this thread kind of turned in a direction I did not wish for.

Best,

Mike
 
Member's gallery
Mike, sorry you experienced that but the good advice you got should make up for it. I have the 500 now with the heavy 200-500, I've gotten some great shots from the 500 but as you increase the ISO the correct exposure becomes even more important as stated by others.

Most importantly, get out and shoot and enjoy. Stay safe
 
Member's gallery
I decided today and just ordered my new D500, should come next week. I can’t wait to try it out in comparison to my D7000!! Thanks again for your advice. Greg, what did you exactly mean concerning exposure, exact focus? I am hoping for much better Autofocus performance at long focal lengths. Or did you mean something else?

Promapper said:
the correct exposure becomes even more important
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
The D500 is a great choice for dynamic work, the 153 point AF system performs better than the 51 point version in the D7500. Also, if you want to wring out every last bit of AF performance, you can add the grip and EN-EL18 battery. No improvement in FPS but certainly makes AF snappier, that big 18 mAh battery seems to move the heavy glass in fast primes that bit quicker. I'm regularly using a pair of D500's alongside the D5 and whilst the D5 has the edge on AF acquisition and tracking, the D500 isn't far behind. I'm sure you'll love it (y)
 
Member's gallery
MikeA said:
I decided today and just ordered my new D500, should come next week. I can’t wait to try it out in comparison to my D7000!! Thanks again for your advice. Greg, what did you exactly mean concerning exposure, exact focus? I am hoping for much better Autofocus performance at long focal lengths. Or did you mean something else?
Click to expand...
Good lighting seems to make all the difference with my 500 and the 200-500 lens. I know it sounds obvious but I seldom if ever take out the 200-500 on a cloudy or diffused light day. The focus is just all that much tighter. I think the focus is faster. sorry I can't be more specific but maybe someone can help me out here. Come to think of it I t6hink Steve has a couple of videos on the 500 and 200-500. I am pretty sure he addressed the focus in those.
 
Member's gallery
Promapper said:
I seldom if ever take out the 200-500 on a cloudy or diffused light day.
Click to expand...


Thank you, I really have to check that out. I always thought diffuse light makes better images due to better color, no stark contrast etc. I thought it was the other way round...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top