High tech gear certainly is awesome and convenient, but I'd argue the gear still needs a photographer. Sports and wildlife photographers did learn to get very good shots in the old days, one shot timed by eye, or natural instinct really. Water drop splashes are much harder, easy using a timer, but some even do that by eye. Trial and error is always involved, but it seems largely dependent on trying to learn. Ten frames per second does not seem even influenced by the photographer, and sure does sound like spraying and praying. My notion is that complaining it can't be done with less than 10 frames per second is just the poor worker blaming his tools. Others certainly seem able to do it with less.
D7200 as a Wildlife camera? Not so much
- Thread starter BackdoorArts
- Start date
High tech gear certainly is awesome and convenient, but I'd argue the gear still needs a photographer. Sports and wildlife photographers did learn to get very good shots in the old days, one shot timed by eye, or natural instinct really. Water drop splashes are much harder, easy using a timer, but some even do that by eye. Trial and error is always involved, but it seems largely dependent on trying to learn. Ten frames per second does not seem even influenced by the photographer, and sure does sound like spraying and praying. My notion is that complaining it can't be done with less than 10 frames per second is just the poor worker blaming his tools. Others certainly seem able to do it with less.
The D7100 buffer is painfully small, I agree. The D7200 is greatly improved. The D7 Mk II and D7200 both fill their buffer after 3 seconds of continuous shooting assuming highest quality RAW. So, again, it's the fps that is the difference. If you need/want 30 shots in that 3 seconds as opposed to 18, then the Canon is the winner for you. I would never debate that.
My "naked eye" can certainly see the difference in 2.8 EVs of dynamic range, and the D7200 scores that much better than the D7 MkII. The D7200 also scores 250 ISO better in low light response according to DXO Mark scores. The bottom line here, is that the D7200 has a better sensor/processor for image quality than the Canon.
Again, I know what many people were hoping for was a bulkier, more heavy duty Nikon with a great DX sensor, a zillion focus points, and 10 fps or even more. I agree that it would be totally cool. I really hope Nikon comes out with just that camera! People seem to think that Nikon is simply "denying" us this camera. Maybe the engineers at Nikon simply haven't got the tech assembled for such a camera yet.
I think the idea that the D7200 is somehow an inferior camera that is not worthy of being called a good wildlife camera is off base. Even my D7100 with it's buffer limitations is a great wildlife camera. I've got a hard drive full of pictures to prove it. The main limitations I face are my own as a photographer, not due to any specs that my camera doesn't live up to.
Again, guys, these are just my viewpoints. I hope this post doesn't come off as confrontational or anything. I really respect everyone's opinion here.
I've just been taking pictures of badgers with the quiet mode on the D7100, they could hear it but weren't spooked by it. Had one come to about 5 or 6 yards. Will posts pics shortly. I'm sure FX would've given me better images in the light, don't know about Canons but I was glad to be using my new D7100 and not my D3200. My main regret is having the 70-300 on and not a 50 1.8. Could never have guessed they'd get close enough for that.
I'd have to check the stats of the D7200 but I tested my cam to see how bad things are.
I set to manual 1/2000s and shot until the cam called it quits. FX full RAW, lossless uncompressed. That's some 70-80Mb each.
It fired 19 shots from 22.50.57.06 to 22.51.00.63. There's about 5 shots a second while each shot is only exposed around 1/250s. But the mirror need to get up and down, the diaphragm open and close and also some focusing has to be done between shots.
I assume the D7200 to do better than this.
I set to manual 1/2000s and shot until the cam called it quits. FX full RAW, lossless uncompressed. That's some 70-80Mb each.
It fired 19 shots from 22.50.57.06 to 22.51.00.63. There's about 5 shots a second while each shot is only exposed around 1/250s. But the mirror need to get up and down, the diaphragm open and close and also some focusing has to be done between shots.
I assume the D7200 to do better than this.
I think it's funny. The guy in the article expects machine gunning the camera to do his job for him. He'd be totally out of luck back in the days when film frames were advanced by hand.
Since they were able to capture absolutely stunning shots in the old days, it goes to show that technique and knowledge are necessary. Perhaps they didn't wind up with as many stunning shots in one photo shoot, but they also didn't drastically raise the shutter count either.
Spray and prey is often used as a derogatory phrase by photographers that post very little in the way of the difficult wildlife and sport pictures with fast moving subjects,the phrase is actually a load of crap,spray and prey sounds like you just point your camera and press the shutter while on continues high,well i will let you into a secret its not,its another tool in the armory that has a place.
The wing beat of a small or even largish fast flying can hardly be detected by the human eye and to conclude you can judge the exact moment to press the shutter is a sign of lack of knowledge on the subject,even if you could the shutter lag as small as it is is would cause you to miss the moment you want.
We do have at least one member that takes one picture at the moment he wants and gets some unbelievable results but to be fair they are mainly static subjects.
Should we put high frame rate in with hand held meters and manual focus lenses and conclude all modern technology is cheating in some way,i dont think so.
Its not a slow frame rate or the small buffer on the d7100 that causes me problems its the lack of F8 focus points,if i use more than center point on the D7100 for BIF i find the camera gets confused trying to focus a 600mm F6.3 lens quickly with focus points that as far as i can tell are F5.6.Nikon most likley know this and are saying quietly you should use one of our fast primes,what a joke if the only people that bought nikon cameras where the people that could afford the expensive Nikon lenses then Nikon wouldn't be around long.
The wing beat of a small or even largish fast flying can hardly be detected by the human eye and to conclude you can judge the exact moment to press the shutter is a sign of lack of knowledge on the subject,even if you could the shutter lag as small as it is is would cause you to miss the moment you want.
We do have at least one member that takes one picture at the moment he wants and gets some unbelievable results but to be fair they are mainly static subjects.
Should we put high frame rate in with hand held meters and manual focus lenses and conclude all modern technology is cheating in some way,i dont think so.
Its not a slow frame rate or the small buffer on the d7100 that causes me problems its the lack of F8 focus points,if i use more than center point on the D7100 for BIF i find the camera gets confused trying to focus a 600mm F6.3 lens quickly with focus points that as far as i can tell are F5.6.Nikon most likley know this and are saying quietly you should use one of our fast primes,what a joke if the only people that bought nikon cameras where the people that could afford the expensive Nikon lenses then Nikon wouldn't be around long.
Last edited:
It'll be worse on the D7100 but I got more focus points and still struggle with the Tam. It's a slow lens to focus and during bursts, tracking has to catch up on the subject in between the exposures for which she simply isn't the perfect lens. Especially not in the paradise of light we are living.
The longer the burst, the easier she loses track. It is possible worse for you since the sensor size gives you less room for error.
The longer the burst, the easier she loses track. It is possible worse for you since the sensor size gives you less room for error.
Last edited:
If you think its slow try the 50-500
not knocking it after all it is a lot older design but it needs all the help it can get,if i lose focus with it on a BIF i cant pick it up again but with the Tamron i often can.If you think its slow try the 50-500
I occasionally can too but when I shoot the Tam f/2.8, or the Tam f/6.3, the speed of focus is clearly seen in the accuracy during bursts. Even when staying on target as good as I can, I see when the big Tam loses it during a burst and how long it takes before she's on it again. The direction of the bird has also something to do with it but her f/6.3 focus is slow on any cam.
My macro f/4 is even slower but for her, it's the focus range that works against me.
It's the good light part of the year now but during the bad part, I hardly use the Tam.
Last edited:
Yeah, Mike, I hate the phrase "spray and pray" as well. I agree that it is used in a derogatory manner at times when people don't understand the usefulness of continuous shooting in certain situations. There are doubtless people out there who hope that by keeping the shutter release down and hammering away they will magically get a great shot, and I'm sure that's where the term originated. That doesn't change the fact that in sports, certain wildlife and other action situations continuous shooting is a great tool.
Back in my college days I made some money on sports photography. I had to advance each frame manually and my longest lens was 135mm on a 35mm SLR. I managed to get the job done most of the time, but I would have loved even a couple of frames per second. Of course, I would have run out of film pretty quickly.
If I could get 10 frames a second instead of 6, I would certainly take it for birds in flight and certain sports sequences. 6 per second fine, though.
BTW, I often fire off 3 or 4 continuous shots on a static subject if it is at a distance and I am using a long lens when it's hard to get a steady shot. Almost every time, one of the sequence is in slightly better focus than the others.
Back in my college days I made some money on sports photography. I had to advance each frame manually and my longest lens was 135mm on a 35mm SLR. I managed to get the job done most of the time, but I would have loved even a couple of frames per second. Of course, I would have run out of film pretty quickly.
If I could get 10 frames a second instead of 6, I would certainly take it for birds in flight and certain sports sequences. 6 per second fine, though.
BTW, I often fire off 3 or 4 continuous shots on a static subject if it is at a distance and I am using a long lens when it's hard to get a steady shot. Almost every time, one of the sequence is in slightly better focus than the others.
Yeah, Mike, I hate the phrase "spray and pray" as well. I agree that it is used in a derogatory manner at times when people don't understand the usefulness of continuous shooting in certain situations. There are doubtless people out there who hope that by keeping the shutter release down and hammering away they will magically get a great shot, and I'm sure that's where the term originated. That doesn't change the fact that in sports, certain wildlife and other action situations continuous shooting is a great tool.
Back in my college days I made some money on sports photography. I had to advance each frame manually and my longest lens was 135mm on a 35mm SLR. I managed to get the job done most of the time, but I would have loved even a couple of frames per second. Of course, I would have run out of film pretty quickly.
If I could get 10 frames a second instead of 6, I would certainly take it for birds in flight and certain sports sequences. 6 per second fine, though.
BTW, I often fire off 3 or 4 continuous shots on a static subject if it is at a distance and I am using a long lens when it's hard to get a steady shot. Almost every time, one of the sequence is in slightly better focus than the others.
When i was researching using a long lens hand held i came across this advice, as the second shot is often sharper than the first,also the first shot can perk a bird up makeing it look better in the second or third shot,it has no downing effect on me others opinions as to how i should do things,i listen to good advice and good crit but ignore the rest and carry on being a happy photographer.
adityasoman
Senior Member
Nikon doesnt even have good budget friendly lenses..say like the Canon 400 5.6 costs around $1200 or so
All the cross type points are jammed in the centre..why not spread them across..
Sent from my GT-I9070 using Tapatalk 2
All the cross type points are jammed in the centre..why not spread them across..
Sent from my GT-I9070 using Tapatalk 2
I often use a 2-3 burst even when shooting statics. I learned doing that while shooting macro with the D3300. The first shot always suffers a bit of the button press no matter how careful you are while the second, or the third, is free of that.
adityasoman
Senior Member
Using the Not So Much
Just take a quick look at the newly launched Canons 750D and 760D..a look at 760s and I went like why nikon why :/
As against D5500
Sent from my GT-I9070 using Tapatalk 2
Just take a quick look at the newly launched Canons 750D and 760D..a look at 760s and I went like why nikon why :/
As against D5500
Sent from my GT-I9070 using Tapatalk 2
A professional sports photographer told me that this camera is a POS...And yes he owned it..Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review: Digital Photography Review
10fps, 1090 jpeg buffer, 31 raw buffer. 65 AF points, all cross type. Center AF double cross type. Now you're talking
Last edited:
AC016
Senior Member
I can't even believe you posted this. So, one guy says it's crap and what, all of a sudden it's an absolute and no one should buy it? Get real. People have said the D800 was crap. What does it mean? It just means they have an opinion.
Don't shoot the messenger..Im not saying it is..But there may be some truth to it..He complained about the focusing system not being that accurate as well as noise in using higher ISO's...