Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Other Stuff
Off Topic
Got a dilemma
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="hark" data-source="post: 684328" data-attributes="member: 13196"><p>I remember reading about the issue with some focus points near the edges not displaying so not being able to use them with longer lenses. Some people simply deal with it so I'm putting that issue aside. That is a choice only you can make.</p><p></p><p>I own both the D750 and D7200. Both are incredible, and the sensors of both are excellent. I found the D7200 to have an improved sensor over the D7100. I've used both my D750 and D7200 to take photos during Worship (no flash) so wind up using ISO 5000 or ISO 8000 regularly. And honestly I find it hard to tell the difference. The Sanctuary isn't overly bright which is why I have to go so high with my ISO. So for me, using either for high ISO is fine.</p><p></p><p>Birding isn't my thing so I don't know the differences between buffering. </p><p></p><p>Comparable DX lenses should be less expensive than FX glass and should weigh less, too. If cost wasn't such an issue, the Nikon 300mm f/4 PF lens is very light. Coupled with a 1.4x teleconverter, you'd have some reach, is sharp, and is very easy to handle. I remember reading Jake using his 300mm f/4 PF quite a bit even though he has the Sigma Sport 150-600mm (I think that's the more expensive version over the Contemporary). </p><p></p><p>The Nikon 300mm f/4 (non-VR lens) is also outstanding although it lacks VR. And it isn't nearly as heavy as the 150-600mm zooms. Not sure if you'd be able to handle the weight. It weighs about the same as the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRii. When the non-VR 300mm f/4 is coupled with a 1.4x teleconverter, it too gives impressive results. I think Woody uses this combo occasionally. I still have my non-VR 300mm f/4 but only use my 300mm f/4 PF due to the difference in weight. I'm hesitant to let the non-VR lens go because it is one of my sharpest lenses.</p><p></p><p>In the end, it's going to come down to compromises. Only you can decide which features will be the best options. Good luck with your search. I have limitations due to chronic tendonitis in my forearms as well as trigger finger and trigger thumb. That limits my using BBF. BBF tends to make my trigger thumb issue even worse. Good luck with wading through your choices! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> You have a lot to consider, but in the end, no doubt you'll love shooting with a Nikon DSLR.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="hark, post: 684328, member: 13196"] I remember reading about the issue with some focus points near the edges not displaying so not being able to use them with longer lenses. Some people simply deal with it so I'm putting that issue aside. That is a choice only you can make. I own both the D750 and D7200. Both are incredible, and the sensors of both are excellent. I found the D7200 to have an improved sensor over the D7100. I've used both my D750 and D7200 to take photos during Worship (no flash) so wind up using ISO 5000 or ISO 8000 regularly. And honestly I find it hard to tell the difference. The Sanctuary isn't overly bright which is why I have to go so high with my ISO. So for me, using either for high ISO is fine. Birding isn't my thing so I don't know the differences between buffering. Comparable DX lenses should be less expensive than FX glass and should weigh less, too. If cost wasn't such an issue, the Nikon 300mm f/4 PF lens is very light. Coupled with a 1.4x teleconverter, you'd have some reach, is sharp, and is very easy to handle. I remember reading Jake using his 300mm f/4 PF quite a bit even though he has the Sigma Sport 150-600mm (I think that's the more expensive version over the Contemporary). The Nikon 300mm f/4 (non-VR lens) is also outstanding although it lacks VR. And it isn't nearly as heavy as the 150-600mm zooms. Not sure if you'd be able to handle the weight. It weighs about the same as the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRii. When the non-VR 300mm f/4 is coupled with a 1.4x teleconverter, it too gives impressive results. I think Woody uses this combo occasionally. I still have my non-VR 300mm f/4 but only use my 300mm f/4 PF due to the difference in weight. I'm hesitant to let the non-VR lens go because it is one of my sharpest lenses. In the end, it's going to come down to compromises. Only you can decide which features will be the best options. Good luck with your search. I have limitations due to chronic tendonitis in my forearms as well as trigger finger and trigger thumb. That limits my using BBF. BBF tends to make my trigger thumb issue even worse. Good luck with wading through your choices! ;) You have a lot to consider, but in the end, no doubt you'll love shooting with a Nikon DSLR. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
Off Topic
Got a dilemma
Top
