8 replies to this topic

[austinkiker]

Hello all,

 

I have been an avid amateur photographer for the past 3 years and have fumbled my way through using the D5300 to the point to where I've become quite proficient with it.  I'm an avid wildlife photographer and also thoroughly enjoy landscape photography.  I'd say my photography is made up of 60-70% wildlife and 30-40% landscape.

 

That said, here's my million dollar question (don't look for a check in the mail if you give your opinion!).  I've become use to the crop factor on my DX D5300 and with my 600mm lens it really packs a punch when I'm in the woods shooting wildlife.  I use an 18mm-55mm for landscape and also tinker with a 55mm-300mm on occassion.  I'm torn at losing that crop factor with an FX body but would love the extra detail   I feel I could probably crop my way to glory with the D810 but the fps and other features on the D500 has me drooling when it comes to BIF and general wildlife.

 

Most of my wildlife photography is executed at long distances.  I am no animal whisperer so rarely am I right on top of my subject.  But I'd also like to see the vibrance and depth of field that an FX camera offers in my landscape photos....and wildlife for that matter

 

I guess my biggest question is...can the D810 perform in a wildlife photography setting?  I've seen what it can do for landscapes.  A counter point is, can the D500 be used as an effective landscape camera?

 

Price point isn't really a factor here.  I have the money for the D500 now and I'll save up the extra dough to get the D810, I'm a patient fellow.  What I don't have is money for both...it's an either/or situation.

 

Your thoughts are welcomed.

[Jerry_]

The question that is likely influencing the choice which of the two camerabodies you would like to get, D500 or D810, is on glass (i.e. lenses)

With a share of 2/3 for wildlife and 1/3 for landscapes, the D500 will be better fitted, even so having less pixels than your D5300 (which could become your landscape camera). Also the D500 will allow you to use all of your current lenses.

Moving up to a D810 will give you all the pixels that this camera can offer, but not the speed (buffer) of the D500 while also likely be beyond the possibilities of (some of) your lenses (both because of the number of pixels as well as the larger sensor of the full frame).

If you want to have a compromise between buffer and full frame, the D750 might be a better choice - even so not as good in the respective fields as the D500 or the D810.

[ScottinPollock]

Age old question! 

 

Bigger format: more dynamic range, bigger angle of view, shallower depth of field, more expensive (cameras AND glass).

 

Smaller format: higher pixel density (usually), crop factor, deeper depth of field, lower cost, smaller rig.

 

The former is better for landscape and portraiture, the later sports and wildlife. I actually see the APS-C format as in the middle between M43 and FF 35mm, so it can do everything well. If I were a serious portrait photographer I might go FF as it just makes things that are kinda tough with APS-C a lot easier... and that would probably be the only reason I would go full frame. With a lot of good UW glass for APS-C, and HDR techniques, landscape is still very doable without much fuss.

[austinkiker]

Thanks for your insight.  I have been struggling with this for quite some time.  If I went with the D810 I would have to update all my lenses which would hurt my wallet but is something I'm willing to invest in over time.  With my main focus being wildlife it sounds like the D500 is for me.  I typically only take landscape photos when I travel over the weekends or take vacations so it's not my primary focus.  I've searched online and found some pretty impressive landscape photography that's been taken with the D500 so I'm excited to see what this camera body can do.

 

Jerry_ as you mentioned, my 24mp D5300 could become the landscape camera in my bag.  I have some pretty neat photos of the Grand Canyon, Arches, Zion, and Bryce Canyon with that "entry level" camera.  

 

ScottinPollock: not that I'm an expert or a pro, but it seems the technology is generally there in most DSLR camera's this day in age...it's mostly about the user!

 

Thank you both for taking time out of your day to provide insight.

[ScottinPollock]

ScottinPollock: not that I'm an expert or a pro, but it seems the technology is generally there in most DSLR camera's this day in age...it's mostly about the user!

 

Yes and no. Fast glass is expensive (even on DX), and when you apply the crop factor, 1.8 becomes more like 2.8 (and 2.8 becomes more than 4), and getting the kind of foreground/background separation can become a chore with the distances and focal length necessary to properly isolate your subject in portraits. Whereas F1.2 or 1.4 glass on FF makes this a relative no brainer.

 

I will certainly admit that I have struggled with portraits for these exact reasons, sometimes faking it in post (which is quite time consuming at best). So if I were a pro here, FF has some real advantages. But with that said, the day I go FF and have to buy new glass will probably be the day... better sit down for this... wait for it.... Ok, here it comes... when I finally give up on Nikon to go with Sony. I have been waiting and waiting for Nikon to address its 'behind the 8-ball' position technologically and I just don't see it happening (not to mention their rather proprietary stance as well).

 

With each passing day it seems more and more that Sony is the sensor king, and that their best is not going to be offered up to their competition. I think Nikon still offers the best bang for the buck in the low to midrange, when I start thinking about dropping 2 grand or more for a body it's hard to ignore the tech Sony is bringing at a truly accelerated rate.

 

There... I said it! I think I'm jonesing for an A7.

[MJL]

I use my D800 for still & landscape, D500 for sport, wildlife and stage.

 

Yes, Sony is great and I use them.  But the advantage of a dSLR is that you don't need to turn on the camera (i.e. drain battery) when you are just scouting for wildlife through true optical viewfinder.  Sony batteries are dismal, I can shot ~500 shots with my D500 on one battery instead of ~200 on the Sony.  It is also true that even the a6000 sensor can beat D500 easily IMHO.

 

However, it is very easy to borrow, rent or buy second hand lenses for Nikon.   There are lot less Sony A or E mount lenses "floating" around. 

[austinkiker]

My response, and this is intended to be comical, would be: Do you prefer Ford, Chevrolet, or Dodge? BMW, Mercedes, or Audi? Etc and so forth. I find, in my limited knowledge (only used Nikon) that you can find pluses and minuses with every manufacturer in every walk of life. I like Porter Cable but some of my buddies are DeWalt guys. Ha!

[ScottinPollock]

you can find pluses and minuses with every manufacturer in every walk of life

 

Agreed... but I have been stymied with manual focus on digital, having only used Nikon (for digital). Back in my film days I used Minolta SRT which had real focusing aids (split prism) which are disappointingly absent in digital, and a live view that is (to me) unuseable (shame on you Nikon for your abysmal implementation). 

 

Mirrorless brings that back in the way of focus peaking in insanely high resolution EVFs. I see that as a real step forward, as well as a live view that is actually useable. Couple that with on sensor phase detect and 5 axis stabilization and you have some pretty compelling reasons to think about switching.

 

I know glass is still an issue but is getting better. My point is really about my hesitancy to continue to invest in the Nikon ecosphere when after a dozen years they continue to show me they can't implement new technology, and when they try (Live View, Wifi, SnapBridge), the implementations just suck.

 

Don't get me wrong, I still like my Nikons... I think their ergonomics are best in class. And the image quality has always been up there. But based on their current lineup (and even the rumored new models this year) I think that if I were to invest in a new format it wouldn't be with Nikon again.

[Ron]

When I first moved from Minolta to Nikon, I had the hardest time manual focusing.... the focus rings turned in different directions.

 

Of course there were other little nit pics... but manual focusing was the thing that slowed me down at first.

 

--Ron