Low light performance options

[ruley74]

OK, been doing a bit of overthinking....

So, with my recent commitment in the 600mm lens, I was originally going to sell my 400/2.8 but got me thinking about low light options which for me includes rainforest environments.

With my current bodies in the D850 and D500 the 2.8 comes in handy but... DOF suffers if you need to shoot wide open to keep ISO in check. I've been considering a low light option camera for a little while and possibly sell my D500 (which i may regret but alas). So, the other option is move the 400/2.8 on and use the cash to get a D5 etc given the ISO handling as with the longer lens cropping isn't as much of a factor. Shooting wide open at F/4, filling the frame with 600mm at maybe ISO12800 with the D5 vs 2.8, not quite filling the frame at ISO 6400...

Options:

1, Keep the bodies i have and the 400
2, Sell 400 and get D5
3, Shut up, stop thinking too much and sell the 400 and recover some cash you fool!

I love first world problems

 

[DRwyoming]

2, Sell 400 and get D5

Personally that would be my approach.

No doubt the 400mm f/2.8 is a stellar lens but realistically I wouldn't go into the field very often with both the 600mm f/4 and the 400mm f/2.8 as it's hard enough to travel with one super telephoto and the remaining kit. So unless you have specific shooting projects where you'll leave the 600mm at home and given that you previously owned just the 400mm and felt the need for more focal length to the point of investing in the longer lens I'd suspect that more often than not the 400mm will sit at home and not get a lot of use.

Sure with unlimited budgets you'd keep the 400mm for just those projects where it gave you enough reach or you needed the low light gathering. Selling the 400mm f/2.8 might finance a new D5/D6 if your lens is a G or E lens in good to great shape or would easily finance a used, low mileage D5/D6 and maybe even leave enough spare cash for something like a used 300mm f/2.8 VR if you really want a low light lens for relatively close low light wildlife work (e.g. rain forest work).

Of course a lot could be said for option 3 if indeed the 400mm will mostly sit on a shelf...

 

[ruley74]

Personally that would be my approach.

No doubt the 400mm f/2.8 is a stellar lens but realistically I wouldn't go into the field very often with both the 600mm f/4 and the 400mm f/2.8 as it's hard enough to travel with one super telephoto and the remaining kit. So unless you have specific shooting projects where you'll leave the 600mm at home and given that you previously owned just the 400mm and felt the need for more focal length to the point of investing in the longer lens I'd suspect that more often than not the 400mm will sit at home and not get a lot of use.

Sure with unlimited budgets you'd keep the 400mm for just those projects where it gave you enough reach or you needed the low light gathering. Selling the 400mm f/2.8 might finance a new D5/D6 if your lens is a G or E lens in good to great shape or would easily finance a used, low mileage D5/D6 and maybe even leave enough spare cash for something like a used 300mm f/2.8 VR if you really want a low light lens for relatively close low life wildlife work (e.g. rain forest work).

Of course a lot could be said for option 3 if indeed the 400mm will mostly sit on a shelf...

Thanks, yeah the 600 would stay at home if i was using the 400. Funny enough in the rainforest I've found the 400 to be ample in focal length... it is a big heavy bugger though and I'm only in the rainforest about 10-15% of the time.

I think i will advertise my 400 FS either way and see how i go.

 

[Thern]

Well I guess you can simplify the question to
‘Is it a good idea to ditch a D500 in favor of a D5 for lowlight conditions?’

Simple question, simple answer..
Yes it is, it nets you an extra 2 stops.
(But ONLY because you have the focal length to compensate for the loss of resolution!)

Just beware of some facts
DOF with a 600 F/4 is narrower than with a 400 F/2.8
(For FX at 100ft 3’ 2,30” vs 1’11,91” for the 600mm)
This COULD mean you find yourself in need of having to stop down even more..... (or use focusshifting, which you can’t do with a D5, so you’d have to do that ‘by hand’)

Than, especially in a dense forest there maybe the possibility to have to much focal length..

 

[ruley74]

Well I guess you can simplify the question to
‘Is it a good idea to ditch a D500 in favor of a D5 for lowlight conditions?’

Simple question, simple answer..
Yes it is, it nets you an extra 2 stops.
(But ONLY because you have the focal length to compensate for the loss of resolution!)

Just beware of some facts
DOF with a 600 F/4 is narrower than with a 400 F/2.8
(For FX at 100ft 3’ 2,30” vs 1’11,91” for the 600mm)
This COULD mean you find yourself in need of having to stop down even more..... (or use focusshifting, which you can’t do with a D5, so you’d have to do that ‘by hand’)

Than, especially in a dense forest there maybe the possibility to have to much focal length..

Funny you mention the DOF reality, I was just playing with the figures and yep. it seems you have to go up an F stop for every 100mm focal length to maintain the similar DOF.

Realistically I'll be waiting to understand more of what the imminent releases are coming up for Nikon, one of the other things I wish for is better live view which the D5 nor D6 deliver... that's why I was hoping the gen II Z's may have been better.

 

[Thern]

Funny you mention the DOF reality, I was just playing with the figures and yep. it seems you have to go up an F stop for every 100mm focal length to maintain the similar DOF.

Realistically I'll be waiting to understand more of what the imminent releases are coming up for Nikon, one of the other things I wish for is better live view which the D5 nor D6 deliver... that's why I was hoping the gen II Z's may have been better.

Yup that’s one aspect people do overlook with more focal length.

I think it’s a good idea to hold your horses right now (if you can withstand the urge LOL) and wait a few months.
Hopefully Nikon will release their action mirrorless in time for the upcoming Olympics.

Nevertheless If the 400 is payed for and you don’t have to sell it, I’d keep it for that 10-15% of the time shooting scenario....
A F/2.8 lens with a D5/D6/Z? would be the best option for those lighting conditions.

 

[KimM]

Ive' been around your over-thinking block. Sold the 400 f2.8 for a 600 f4. That one was a never looked back decision. I will always keep this lens for blind and shooting from the car. The front end weight of the 400 makes the 600 much easier to trundle along in the forest mounted on a tripod. That has become increasingly difficult to do so I purchased the 300 f2.8 VRII for those excursions. Mounted on a monopod with a TC 2.0 it works pretty well for the longer hauls and is mobile enough. And I can hand hold this one for BIF when needed.

At that time nearly a year ago, I had two D850's and decided to sell one to fund a D5 for better low light capability. That one has had a few look back moments. But it was mostly when I wanted to 2 cameras with different lens for landscape. The fps with the D5 is just fantastic for BIF. I can crank that ISO when no other options are available. If Nikon wasn't left so soundly in the mirrorless dust, I would have waited. Sony gives me shivers when I see what many of my friends do with it. But I will wait for some of the dust to settle with fingers crossed.

 

[ruley74]

Ive' been around your over-thinking block. Sold the 400 f2.8 for a 600 f4. That one was a never looked back decision. I will always keep this lens for blind and shooting from the car. The front end weight of the 400 makes the 600 much easier to trundle along in the forest mounted on a tripod. That has become increasingly difficult to do so I purchased the 300 f2.8 VRII for those excursions. Mounted on a monopod with a TC 2.0 it works pretty well for the longer hauls and is mobile enough. And I can hand hold this one for BIF when needed.

At that time nearly a year ago, I had two D850's and decided to sell one to fund a D5 for better low light capability. That one has had a few look back moments. But it was mostly when I wanted to 2 cameras with different lens for landscape. The fps with the D5 is just fantastic for BIF. I can crank that ISO when no other options are available. If Nikon wasn't left so soundly in the mirrorless dust, I would have waited. Sony gives me shivers when I see what many of my friends do with it. But I will wait for some of the dust to settle with fingers crossed.

Thanks Kim, it's funny, I didn't want to head down the Sony path either for some reason that's why I went with the Nikon DSLR's when I did. Love the Idea of the R5/6 but for me they don't have any lighter telephoto's that interest me. That 100-500 @ F/7.1 once announced is what tipped me to leave Canon completely. For 500-600mm zoo/budget options you have third party, Nikon (and future 200-600Z) or Sony to start building on as a kit IMO. Further, here in Oz the Canon and Sony 600 primes are 4-5k more expensive that what I got the Nikon for so it would have been hard (or harder!) to justify as a hobbyist.

I think I'm almost settled on the D5/6 as with that I can still have the option of the lighter lens attached with decent results.

 

[fcotterill]

The Shooting Envelope concept is useful to compare suitability of different cameras, and equally a rig for birds vs mammals etc wrt Telephoto Reach, DoF as well as IQ in lowlight.

 

[R.Philip]

Some recommend Ruley selling of the 400MM 2.8. Where do you guys sell your gear when you do sell?

 

[Calson]

In my opinion the gain in high ISO performance with a D5 or D6 does not compensate for the loss in dynamic range and greatly decreased effective image size from their 20MP FF sensors. I get the same effective image size with the 500mm mounted on the D850 as I do with the 600mm on the D5. I have used the D5 and appreciate that in a few situations its autofocus will outperform the D850, but too few for me to carry one around.

Having shot with film where ISO 160 was the best I could do with color emulsions, having usable ISO 6400 is a very big deal and not at all a handicap. Think about all the remarkable images from people like Art Wolfe and Tom Mangelsen and Franz Lanting and many others, that were all shot on film.

I have slowly learned that what I see on the camera's LCD display or with the histogram is not necessarily indicative of an image that lacks sufficient exposure to produce a print after post processing. It is worthwhile with any new camera to take a little time and see how low an exposure can be recovered successfully so as tnot to set artificial limitations when out in the field.

 

[ruley74]

Some recommend Ruley selling of the 400MM 2.8. Where do you guys sell your gear when you do sell?

Here I've had good success selling through Gumtree, i also feel i price realistic watching what actually turns over vs does not and judging pricing, so that may help. The other option is FB Nikon buy/swap/sell aust only.

 

[flyguy]

Sounds like I am not the only one who stays up late at night overthinking a photography gear matter. Had 90% plus convinced myself I needed a Z 6II; got one from B&H, had it about a week to ten days; just did not like it nor the thought of having to use that FTZ adapter with my small selection of Nikkor lenses, both FX and a few old manual focus primes. Returned the Z 6II to B&H in exchange for a D780; the Z 6II had never been turned on. Mounted both a 28mm and then a 50mm old manual focus prime on the D780 and weighed the combo; a whopping 2.5 pounds. Took some shots of holidays decorations after dark using the 28mm manual focus prime, which brings me to my real dilemma; I have wanted an AF-S Nikkor 28mm f/1.4 pro grade prime for a couple of years; 28mm is my personal favorite focal length for land and sea scapes as well as for shooting after dark. That old 28mm f/2.8 prime has performed nicely on my D850 especially after dark. The only way to resolve this matter for me will be to eventually shoot both the old prime and the AF-S pro prime side by side. Hey, Santa, are ya paying attention??? HO! HO! HO!

 

[ruley74]

In my opinion the gain in high ISO performance with a D5 or D6 does not compensate for the loss in dynamic range and greatly decreased effective image size from their 20MP FF sensors. I get the same effective image size with the 500mm mounted on the D850 as I do with the 600mm on the D5. I have used the D5 and appreciate that in a few situations its autofocus will outperform the D850, but too few for me to carry one around.

Having shot with film where ISO 160 was the best I could do with color emulsions, having usable ISO 6400 is a very big deal and not at all a handicap. Think about all the remarkable images from people like Art Wolfe and Tom Mangelsen and Franz Lanting and many others, that were all shot on film.

I have slowly learned that what I see on the camera's LCD display or with the histogram is not necessarily indicative of an image that lacks sufficient exposure to produce a print after post processing. It is worthwhile with any new camera to take a little time and see how low an exposure can be recovered successfully so as tnot to set artificial limitations when out in the field.

Thank you, I understand and respect the past WRT what was had and images created however for me, with technology comes further opportunity. To go deeper, darker, faster etc. and, opportunities become a little more frequent. I'm on the side of the fence when it comes to ISO that is not concerned to go higher that some. I've been quite happy with the ISO performance of the D850 overall, particularly ensuring you fill the frame.

All part of trying and learning for me really... and I like toys!

 

[flyguy]

For some, photography is literally "for the birds"....!!!

 

[ruley74]

For some, photography is literally "for the birds"....!!!

Unsure what may be implied with the comment but yes, being in nature including photographing it is about the enjoyment, sharing, learning and educating. A stunning or a well executed photo certainly assists in those things if there's respect on how it's achieved. We help others (and ourselves) look closer and take notice, and once people take notice they tend to appreciated and respect it more and more.

But, let's not kid ourselves, we do ot because we want to, it pleases us

 

[O]

Personally that would be my approach.

No doubt the 400mm f/2.8 is a stellar lens but realistically I wouldn't go into the field very often with both the 600mm f/4 and the 400mm f/2.8 as it's hard enough to travel with one super telephoto and the remaining kit. So unless you have specific shooting projects where you'll leave the 600mm at home and given that you previously owned just the 400mm and felt the need for more focal length to the point of investing in the longer lens I'd suspect that more often than not the 400mm will sit at home and not get a lot of use.

Sure with unlimited budgets you'd keep the 400mm for just those projects where it gave you enough reach or you needed the low light gathering. Selling the 400mm f/2.8 might finance a new D5/D6 if your lens is a G or E lens in good to great shape or would easily finance a used, low mileage D5/D6 and maybe even leave enough spare cash for something like a used 300mm f/2.8 VR if you really want a low light lens for relatively close low light wildlife work (e.g. rain forest work).

Of course a lot could be said for option 3 if indeed the 400mm will mostly sit on a shelf...

I have done the 600 f4 and eery where inbetween, I found the 200-500 gets me some nice results (not a 600 F4 or teh $$$$$)

I have a 300 2.8 VR II that when the light gets challenging simply smokes the F4 PF range or f5.6 products.
It works exceptionally well with a 1.4 convertror. It works great on a 2x III convertror if needed.
For many reasons I prefer full frame slrs that always have that slight edge over cropped sensor cameras.
Its not that heavy but much lighter than 400, 500, 600mm F2.8 F4 lenses. It really depends on your application.

Only and Opinion

 

[ruley74]

Well, the 400/2.8 sold yesterday... new delima...

Do i add the 500pf instead of a D5 to the kit... not a low light option but a great addition to the kit... and my low light is software

 

[O]

Ive' been around your over-thinking block. Sold the 400 f2.8 for a 600 f4. That one was a never looked back decision. I will always keep this lens for blind and shooting from the car. The front end weight of the 400 makes the 600 much easier to trundle along in the forest mounted on a tripod. That has become increasingly difficult to do so I purchased the 300 f2.8 VRII for those excursions. Mounted on a monopod with a TC 2.0 it works pretty well for the longer hauls and is mobile enough. And I can hand hold this one for BIF when needed.

At that time nearly a year ago, I had two D850's and decided to sell one to fund a D5 for better low light capability. That one has had a few look back moments. But it was mostly when I wanted to 2 cameras with different lens for landscape. The fps with the D5 is just fantastic for BIF. I can crank that ISO when no other options are available. If Nikon wasn't left so soundly in the mirrorless dust, I would have waited. Sony gives me shivers when I see what many of my friends do with it. But I will wait for some of the dust to settle with fingers crossed.

Hi Kim, wonderful venues in the Fall 2020, really enjoyed viewing, nicely executed.
May I ask what is your kit consist of.
Kindest regards Oz down under

 

[O]

OK, been doing a bit of overthinking....

So, with my recent commitment in the 600mm lens, I was originally going to sell my 400/2.8 but got me thinking about low light options which for me includes rainforest environments.

With my current bodies in the D850 and D500 the 2.8 comes in handy but... DOF suffers if you need to shoot wide open to keep ISO in check. I've been considering a low light option camera for a little while and possibly sell my D500 (which i may regret but alas). So, the other option is move the 400/2.8 on and use the cash to get a D5 etc given the ISO handling as with the longer lens cropping isn't as much of a factor. Shooting wide open at F/4, filling the frame with 600mm at maybe ISO12800 with the D5 vs 2.8, not quite filling the frame at ISO 6400...

Options:

1, Keep the bodies i have and the 400
2, Sell 400 and get D5
3, Shut up, stop thinking too much and sell the 400 and recover some cash you fool!

I love first world problems

I was of the opinion that F4 on a 600mm was basically not any better than 2.8 on a 400 or 300 2.8, if anything the 600 has a shallower DOF wide open at F4 compared to 2.8.
Overthinking is a problem for many of us.

OZ down under

 

[ruley74]

I was of the opinion that F4 on a 600mm was basically not any better than 2.8 on a 400 or 300 2.8, if anything the 600 has a shallower DOF wide open at F4 compared to 2.8.
Overthinking is a problem for many of us.

OZ down under

Agreed, i think i may have mentioned that in the thread previous. I did look at it and every 100mm FL you need to back one F stop to maintain DOF (or there abouts) that's why i was thinking that the high ISO capable camera may be a better balance while still maintaining reasonable DOF.

 

[O]

Well, the 400/2.8 sold yesterday... new delima...

Do i add the 500pf instead of a D5 to the kit... not a low light option but a great addition to the kit... and my low light is software

I hear you, the 500pf is nice and light etc, many birders i know here say its great but not a huge diffrence to the 200-500, if versatility is not somthing you need then yes, i chose the 200-

Agreed, i think i may have mentioned that in the thread previous. I did look at it and every 100mm FL you need to back one F stop to maintain DOF (or there abouts) that's why i was thinking that the high ISO capable camera may be a better balance while still maintaining reasonable DOF.

I recall that once you get much over 1200 iso you fall into the equivalent of 12 bit there after as you scale up the iso its at the cost of dynamic range even more so, I guess its that crazy trade off, I looked at thousands of my images and found in my case I wouldn't shoot more than a had full over 6400, hence I pulled the equity out of the D4s and D5 and went D850 x2.
The industry has us over a barrel, they make it that we never will get exactly what we want say like a D850 with 500 fps 3 billion iso and 1000 MP LOL because we will still be comparing LOL.

 

[ruley74]

I hear you, the 500pf is nice and light etc, many birders i know here say its great but not a huge diffrence to the 200-500, if versatility is not somthing you need then yes, i chose the 200-


I recall that once you get much over 1200 iso you fall into the equivalent of 12 bit there after as you scale up the iso its at the cost of dynamic range even more so, I guess its that crazy trade off, I looked at thousands of my images and found in my case I wouldn't shoot more than a had full over 6400, hence I pulled the equity out of the D4s and D5 and went D850 x2.
The industry has us over a barrel, they make it that we never will get exactly what we want say like a D850 with 500 fps 3 billion iso and 1000 MP LOL because we will still be comparing LOL.

Honestly I'm really happy with my 200-500 in the IQ, it's the weight reduction and faster AF that the 500pf gives me. And yeah, we all want everything in one body but hey, a cross section of two bodies will do... or three I've got 14 day exchange at the store so I may go with the D5 and try it for a weekend, check the files and if I'm neither here nor there I'll return and grab the 500pf!

 

[KimM]

Hi Kim, wonderful venues in the Fall 2020, really enjoyed viewing, nicely executed.
May I ask what is your kit consist of.
Kindest regards Oz down under

Landscape I assume from this question: Tamron 24-72 G2 does the heavy lifting (the one I tested against the Nikon version was sharper and cheaper), Nikon 16-35 when I am needing to shoot faster or travel lighter, Nikon 14-24 when I can lug the filters without breaking them and have the time, and the Nikon 70-200 f4. Occasionally, I use the 300mm f2.8 for panos or reaching across the pond. This can double as a bird lens. Or trade this out for the Nikon 500mm PF for lighter hiking to a waterfall. Much of my landscape stuff involves water so I need the filters. The D850 does the landscape work with the D5 for birds...or left behind due to weight and change out the lens on the D850. I actually like the 500mm PF on the D850 better than the D5. Thanks for stopping by for a look!

 

[O]

Landscape I assume from this question: Tamron 24-72 G2 does the heavy lifting (the one I tested against the Nikon version was sharper and cheaper), Nikon 16-35 when I am needing to shoot faster or travel lighter, Nikon 14-24 when I can lug the filters without breaking them and have the time, and the Nikon 70-200 f4. Occasionally, I use the 300mm f2.8 for panos or reaching across the pond. This can double as a bird lens. Or trade this out for the Nikon 500mm PF for lighter hiking to a waterfall. Much of my landscape stuff involves water so I need the filters. The D850 does the landscape work with the D5 for birds...or left behind due to weight and change out the lens on the D850. I actually like the 500mm PF on the D850 better than the D5. Thanks for stopping by for a look!

Thanks for the feed back, interesting, the 14-24 has its place it seems, may I ask what filters do you use for it.
Why the D850 over the D5 for the 500 PF ?
I recently got the 70-200 FL Just Breathtaking.........hand held at 1/10th of second F2.8 tack sharp.
That's the end of my questions LOL