D600 vs. D7100 for Wildlife

G

globeglimpser

Senior Member
Hi all.

Situation:
I am looking for a suitable camera to couple with my soon to be Nikkor 80-400mm (F4.5-5.6D ED VR) and Nikon teleconverter (1.4x). I will the make the purchase around July-September and want the camera for my 3 month trip to South Africa - ie. for wildlife photography (mammals and birds). I currently own a D5100, 18-55mm, 55-300mm

Options:
A) I buy a D7100 as a primary body, then in a year or so replace the D5100 with a currently unreleased full frame which becomes my primary
B) I buy a D600 as a primary body and make no other body upgrades in the forseeable future

My thinking:
I think I may get more use out of a D7100 for wildlife photography. The crop and tele factors mean that I will have 400 x 1.5 x 1.4 = 840mm equivalent zoom on a 24MP sensor as opposed to 400 x 1.4 = 560mm on an equivalently sized sensor. Equating these two means that 840mm can be achieved on the DX portion of the D600 sensor which is only 10.4 MP. Based on this I am assuming that I will be able to get a greater reach and higher quality (at say 600mm) with the D7100 than the D600.

My Questions:
Is my logic flawed?
Does anyone have experience relating to this?
Have I missed any key differences between the cameras and frame sizes?
Is there anything helpful you could add?
Which option would you chose and why?
 
G

gqtuazon

Gear Head
Are you expecting to shoot smaller birds?

Your plan sounds good although I have not read any sample tests if you use a Nikon 1.4x TC with the new 80-400mm lens.

If you are just looking for an extended reach to shoot birds, have you considered the smaller Nikon V1/J1, J2 or J3 + Nikon FT-1 + Nikon 80-400mm = 216 - 1080mm FOV. Now that's thinking outside the box.

The overall cost will be much cheaper and lighter.
 
G

Geoffc

Senior Member
For crop the D7100 will win. For shutter speed the D600 will win as you can use higher ISO and get quality results.

You then get into AF on the 7100 being better, but the buffer is small etc etc.

Personally if I was buying for wildlife I would get a DX, unless I could afford to get some big serious glass.
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
The more I play with an FX camera using the DX crop the more I'm convinced that I made the right decision going that way instead of the D7100. Not that it's not a good camera, but unless you want to print large you're going to be far happier with the IQ that a sensor like the D600/800 gives you. Reach is a myth of sorts and there are plenty of posts about it here, including a post on FX vs. DX for Wildlife from the folks at Mansurov that explains in detail what I'm saying. So unless you plan on taking those crops of birds and making poster prints, or need a second's worth of 6fps burst, go FX now.
 
AC016

AC016

Senior Member
I am thinking these days that FX may be the better choice for wildlife, just because of the IQ you get with the sensor. When i shoot birds, i shoot them so that i can "virtually" get up close to them so i can see them in detail. Forget about the whole "reach" thing. With a 24mp FX sensor, you can crop the photo a bit and - i don't think - lose much IQ. Even with my D5100, i can crop and not really lose any IQ. At this point in time, if i was able to swap either of my cams for an FX cam, i would do it without hesitation. Just my amateur opinion ;)
 
D

Deezey

Senior Member
The key words for me were buy a D600 and not do a body upgrade in the future. I vote FX on that alone. Sounds to me like even if you purchased the D7100 you will still be looking to upgrade the FX at some point.

Might as well go big now....instead of spending twice the amount of money later.......

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
AC016 said:
With a 24mp FX sensor, you can crop the photo a bit and - i don't think - lose much IQ.
Click to expand...

You lose absolutely no IQ with cropping ... ever. Where you will potentially lose IQ is in resizing. You have what you have, and with the D600 (vs. the D7100) you have less than 1/2 of the MP's when shooting in DX mode (which you don't have to do). But the (literal) bright spot is that each of those pixels is much larger and allows so much more light in, reducing noise and grabbing that much more light information. So unless you need pure image size, the image quality is bound to be better all other things being equal. The only time the number of pixels might help is when the size of your crop is so small that even within DX mode you start worrying about resolution in terms of "pixels per bird".
 
G

globeglimpser

Senior Member
Hi All

If you are just looking for an extended reach to shoot birds, have you considered the smaller Nikon V1/J1, J2 or J3 + Nikon FT-1 + Nikon 80-400mm = 216 - 1080mm FOV. Now that's thinking outside the box.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I am actually interested in birds but am more concerned with getting a leopard in a tree 50m off the road. This is the Kruger National Park and you can't leave the road...

Secondly, I have the V1 and F Mount which is something I was hoping and excited to try: 400 x 2.7 x 1.4 (if it works) = 1512mm

Personally if I was buying for wildlife I would get a DX, unless I could afford to get some big serious glass.
Click to expand...

Is the 80-400 not big enough... I was going to be so proud of owning it :confusion:

Reach is a myth of sorts and there are plenty of posts about it here, including a post on FX vs. DX for Wildlife from the folks at Mansurov that explains in detail what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

I have read this post before whilst researching. Note that the example camera is a D800 with 15.4MP DX. In other words a shot taken at 400mm and cropped will still have some decent resolution. The D600 has only 10.4 MP. When you are shooting a leopard in a tree 50m away and want to further crop even a DX shot - pixels start to help. If the D800 was an option than I probably would not have any second thoughts. The D600 on the other hand, I feel that if I am going to go full frame - I would want a better option in terms of my needs.

When i shoot birds, i shoot them so that i can "virtually" get up close to them so i can see them in detail. Forget about the whole "reach" thing.
Click to expand...

I wish I could but this is not a private reserve where I can drive closer. I have often found myself limited until one day an acquitance let me use their D7000 and Sigma 150-500. Based on that I realised that the reach helps me get animal portraits that my own gear makes look like landscapes :p

Might as well go big now....instead of spending twice the amount of money later.......
Click to expand...

My thoughts are that the D600 is the first consumer grade full frame. It is a starting point which will be followed by a Canon consumer full frame, then a better Nikon and so forth. The D7100 is a top grade camera - one I would keep as a backup until it died on me. Based on that I see the D7100 as having more use now and in the future. I see myself possibly trading my D600 for a better full frame in time...

But the (literal) bright spot is that each of those pixels is much larger and allows so much more light in, reducing noise and grabbing that much more light information.
Click to expand...

Low light is definitely something I did not consider here and will be a key factor. Can anyone input on the differences between the two camera's higher ISO handling as well as focusing systems while you are at it ;)
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
globeglimpser said:
Hi All

I have read this post before whilst researching. Note that the example camera is a D800 with 15.4MP DX. In other words a shot taken at 400mm and cropped will still have some decent resolution. The D600 has only 10.4 MP. When you are shooting a leopard in a tree 50m away and want to further crop even a DX shot - pixels start to help. If the D800 was an option than I probably would not have any second thoughts. The D600 on the other hand, I feel that if I am going to go full frame - I would want a better option in terms of my needs.

...

I wish I could but this is not a private reserve where I can drive closer. I have often found myself limited until one day an acquitance let me use their D7000 and Sigma 150-500. Based on that I realised that the reach helps me get animal portraits that my own gear makes look like landscapes :p

...

My thoughts are that the D600 is the first consumer grade full frame. It is a starting point which will be followed by a Canon consumer full frame, then a better Nikon and so forth. The D7100 is a top grade camera - one I would keep as a backup until it died on me. Based on that I see the D7100 as having more use now and in the future. I see myself possibly trading my D600 for a better full frame in time...

...

Low light is definitely something I did not consider here and will be a key factor. Can anyone input on the differences between the two camera's higher ISO handling as well as focusing systems while you are at it ;)
Click to expand...

Outside of the possible, possible exception of trying to pixel peep a leopard that is further away than your equipment will allow for, there's nothing here that screams to me DX over FX. Unless your only true concern is pixels per animal and enlarging your prints beyond an 8x10, then there's nothing that the D600 won't win on - in my experience at least. Plus you make it sound as if the D7100 is a pro level DX while the D600 is just a decent consumer grade FX. I've got news for you, they're practically the same body - both are based on the D7000 and consumer grade bodies of almost identical construction.

And the idea of "reach" is really a fallacy. What you're calling reach is really just a 1.5 pre-cropping. So your real question is not about reach it's about resolution. Otherwise a D800 would have more "reach" than the D600, which would have more "reach" than the D700. The differenceis not reach, the difference is pixel density post-crop. Period!!

I'm not saying that's not important, but I would ask how often will pixels per animal be your criteria for a shot and not all the other factors that go into IQ - like low light performance, light information per pixel and all those other things that pixel density buys or costs you? I have not shot with the D7100, so I can't comment on what I see from it. But I have shot plenty of wildlife with the D7000, D600 and D800. I can't see myself owning another DX camera with the possible exception of an IR conversion.
 
G

gqtuazon

Gear Head
globeglimpser said:
Hi All
Firstly, I am actually interested in birds but am more concerned with getting a leopard in a tree 50m off the road. This is the Kruger National Park and you can't leave the road...

Secondly, I have the V1 and F Mount which is something I was hoping and excited to try: 400 x 2.7 x 1.4 (if it works) = 1512mm
Click to expand...


I wouldn't add another TC over the FT-1. If you are shooting with good light, you might be able to pull it off. The IQ starts to suffer as you add more lens/ filter, or TC.
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
globeglimpser said:
So from what I am picking up: the D600 is better than the D7100 for my requirements?
Click to expand...

I am saying that the D600 is likely the better camera for the majority of your requirements. That's almost always the case with a single body as it's rare that one will be your best choice in every situation. What you need to decide is which of your requirements are critical, which are important, and which are nice to haves, see which camera handles each of the critical & important ones, and use that to make your decision. If pixels per animal is #1, then even though the D600 may rank above the D7100 for 8 of the next 10, if the difference is marginal then you may be best served by the DX body. However, if that's an important nice to have, but IQ across the range is paramount then I would shove you towards the D600.

I just got my D600 back from Nikon and I'll take the next opportunity to shoot some yard birds and animals in DX mode so you can get a feel for how that looks.
 
G

globeglimpser

Senior Member
Thanks for all the input guys

You have convinced me not to buy the D7100! However, I have also decided not to buy the D600 either. Instead I am going to keep my D5100 and get the Nikon 80-400 F4.5-5.6G instead of D along with the teleconverter (if compatible).

A year down the road or when ever I am then able, I will purchase the D600 or any other better available full frame Nikon
 
Top