Considering changing sides....

[sk66]

This is actually making me re-think my camera choice. As I've mentioned I've been considering swapping my D750 for a D810 for the cropability, but as the D810 puts more demand on the lenses and as there isn't a great deal of difference in framing between FX and 1.2x DX is minimal (the D810 at 12.x DX is 25mp, so pretty much the same as the D750 in FX) I wonder how much benefit I'll see. That being said, with both at 1.5x DX (there's surprisingly far more of a difference in framing from 1.2x -1.5x DX than FX to 1.2 xDX) the D810 is still 16mp yet the D750 drops to 10mp so maybe I will start to se more of a difference. Such a shame Nikon don't provide a try before you buy service, I'm not prepared to pay £200-300 to hire a D810 for the weekend.

I use a D810 and a D5/D4 currently/primarily...

*If I can use it well, I'll choose the D810. Sometimes I'll shoot in 1.5Dx mode for the increased frame rate if the images will be cropped anyway.
But there are definite negatives to it... Anytime you crop an image just about every sensor performance characteristic is heavily reduced. I.e. ISO noise increases greatly, and the D8xx is *not* great w/ high ISO at 1:1. IME, the D810 is *not* as fast/accurate w/ AF as a single digit body is, but it takes a *very* demanding situation to make it apparent. And the D8xx tends to be much more finicky in AF/AFMA in order to get the most out of it. At least with the lenses I tend to use for action/wildlife...
In reality, most of the time there is no benefit to using the D810, and even more often there is no requirement.

And then there are other limiting factors. A huge one is the lens itself... Take the 70-300, it does not matter which FF sensor it is used with, the *most* it will deliver is ~12-15MP. And irregardless of which DX sensor it is used with, the max is 8-10MP... it only goes down from there, to less than half at 300mm. A higher MP count/lack of AA filter gives an increase, but note that the larger format always generates a higher resolution.

Don't get that too twisted though... The COC requirements for "sharpness" only requires < 2MP on a FF... Personally, I think the COC requirements are not critical enough, but even if you use the most critical COC limit possible, the requirement maxes out at 12-14MP (for *any* image that is displayed at ~ 45* AOV). That's probably why DXO's lens sharpness rating chart maxes out at 12MP. What most don't realize is that most of our struggles are only in recording 12MP (usually *much less* is quite acceptable).
To give you an example, I'll use the OP's D300 w/ the 70-300 and *DXO's Perceptual MP measures. At best, at 300mm and around f/11 the system will record about 4MP. Crop that heavily to 50% and at best you'll have about 2MP... those are the kinds of actual resolutions you are seeing in the OP's example images, or even less if the image is soft for another reason (focus/SS). And when you're down here near the minimum MP limits a lens that can deliver even 1 more MP, or better yet one that will eliminate the requirement to crop, can make a big difference.

*(DXO's perceptual MP is a lens' measured MTF/resolution (LP/MM), converted to LP/sensor, converted to recorded MP's)

The highest resolution always comes from the larger (remaining) physical sensor size. A higher MP count w/in that area gives a slight increase and some other benefits, most of which are not typically needed/apparent.

In the OP's case, I believe the best answer is a lens w/ decent sharpness that will eliminate/minimize cropping (in terms of resolution/cost)... I owned a D300, IMO it wasn't bad for AF accuracy/speed. Next best is a FF body (greater recorded resolution but even more cropping), and the very best is a FF body with an even longer lens (most expensive).
Of course, the other answer is to get closer... that minimizes cropping and makes the details physically larger, which reduces the lens sharpness requirement (but it also makes moving things "faster").

In the Nikon lineup, for action/wildlife I *think the best "all around" solution is probably the D500 with the 200-500mm (or maybe a comparable 150-600). If that was the only kind of photography I did, and I could only have one camera w/ a modest budget, that's what I would be using.
(*but I haven't used them to know for certain)

 

[snerkler]

I use a D810 and a D5/D4 currently/primarily...

*If I can use it well, I'll choose the D810. Sometimes I'll shoot in 1.5Dx mode for the increased frame rate if the images will be cropped anyway.
But there are definite negatives to it... Anytime you crop an image just about every sensor performance characteristic is heavily reduced. I.e. ISO noise increases greatly, and the D8xx is *not* great w/ high ISO at 1:1. IME, the D810 is *not* as fast/accurate w/ AF as a single digit body is, but it takes a *very* demanding situation to make it apparent. And the D8xx tends to be much more finicky in AF/AFMA in order to get the most out of it. At least with the lenses I tend to use for action/wildlife...
In reality, most of the time there is no benefit to using the D810, and even more often there is no requirement.

Interesting what you say about the AF performance as the D810 used the same AF system as the D4s so would have thought it would have been pretty similar except for frame rate? I assume noise is only increased due to the fact you're cropping the image making the noise more apparent, much in the same was as if you crop in post to get the same result? I can't see how DX mode would change the fundamental noise characteristics of the sensor?

And then there are other limiting factors. A huge one is the lens itself... Take the 70-300, it does not matter which FF sensor it is used with, the *most* it will deliver is ~12-15MP. And irregardless of which DX sensor it is used with, the max is 8-10MP... it only goes down from there, to less than half at 300mm. A higher MP count/lack of AA filter gives an increase, but note that the larger format always generates a higher resolution.

Don't get that too twisted though... The COC requirements for "sharpness" only requires < 2MP on a FF... Personally, I think the COC requirements are not critical enough, but even if you use the most critical COC limit possible, the requirement maxes out at 12-14MP (for *any* image that is displayed at ~ 45* AOV). What most don't realize is that most of our struggles are only in recording 12MP (usually *much less* is quite acceptable).
To give you an example, I'll use the OP's D300 w/ the 70-300 and *DXO's Perceptual MP measures. At best, at 300mm and around f/11 the system will record about 4MP. Crop that heavily to 50% and at best you'll have about 2MP... those are the kinds of actual resolutions you are seeing in the OP's example images, or even less if the image is soft for another reason (focus/SS). And when you're down here near the minimum MP limits a lens that can deliver even 1 more MP, or better yet one that will eliminate the requirement to crop, can make a big difference.

*(DXO's perceptual MP is a lens' measured MTF/resolution (LP/MM), converted to LP/sensor, converted to recorded MP's)

The highest resolution always comes from the larger (remaining) physical sensor size. A higher MP count w/in that area gives a slight increase and some other benefits, most of which are not typically needed/apparent.

In the OP's case, I believe the best answer is a lens w/ decent sharpness that will eliminate/minimize cropping (in terms of resolution/cost)... I owned a D300, IMO it wasn't bad for AF accuracy/speed. Next best is a FF body (greater recorded resolution but even more cropping), and the very best is a FF body with an even longer lens (most expensive).
Of course, the other answer is to get closer... that minimizes cropping and makes the details physically larger, which reduces the lens sharpness requirement (but it also makes moving things "faster").

Thanks, interesting

In the Nikon lineup, for action/wildlife I *think the best "all around" solution is probably the D500 with the 200-500mm (or maybe a comparable 150-600). If that was the only kind of photography I did, and I could only have one camera w/ a modest budget, that's what I would be using.
(*but I haven't used them to know for certain)

That's my issue, I am a jack of all trades shooter. I do do a lot of wildlife, but I do a lot of other stuff too but can't afford/justify two bodies, at least not two to the standard I'd want. The D750 I have is arguably the best all rounder but I've been thinking more and more about whether I would prefer the D810 and whether it would be as good an all rounder.

 

[sk66]

Interesting what you say about the AF performance as the D810 used the same AF system as the D4s so would have thought it would have been pretty similar except for frame rate? I assume noise is only increased due to the fact you're cropping the image making the noise more apparent, much in the same was as if you crop in post to get the same result? I can't see how DX mode would change the fundamental noise characteristics of the sensor?

I think the AF difference is most likely due to a difference in processors/ram... I've never seen a triple digit camera that quite kept up with it's single digit counterpart even when they have the same "AF system." From what I've heard, the D500 may be the first exception, but I would not be surprised if it isn't. But it's only at extremes where these differences become "apparent," and it's always subjective because there are numerous other things "the misses" could possibly be attributed to in those situations.

Cropping/DX mode doesn't change the fundamental sensor characteristics... but it does change the results. The benefit of the high resolution is either in "oversampling" (combining pixels) for noise/color/DR/etc when comparing "same output." Or it is in larger output with the "same" characteristics. I.e. a 100% view of a D800 image will look pretty much exactly the same as a 100% view of a D7000 image when viewed from the same distance... but the D800 image will be twice the size (i.e. fine art) or it could be cropped to 1/2 (DX).

I haven't used the D750, but my personal opinion is that the D810 is the best general purpose Nikon currently. That's not to say you will always see all of the potential benefits, IMHO you seldom ever will. But you will typically see *some* of the potential benefits (i.e. DR/color). And even if you see none of the benefits (due to cropping/settings/technique/etc) that doesn't mean you are any worse off.
However, there are costs associated... the camera, buffer, storage, processing, etc, etc. IMO, if you don't do large display/print, and you don't do high precision work with optimal technique, and you don't usually have to push edits very hard, then you wont really see a notable benefit. But if you do any of those things, then you will.

 

[snerkler]

I think the AF difference is most likely due to a difference in processors/ram... I've never seen a triple digit camera that quite kept up with it's single digit counterpart even when they have the same "AF system." From what I've heard, the D500 may be the first exception, but I would not be surprised if it isn't. But it's only at extremes where these differences become "apparent," and it's always subjective because there are numerous other things "the misses" could possibly be attributed to in those situations.

Cropping/DX mode doesn't change the fundamental sensor characteristics... but it does change the results. The benefit of the high resolution is either in "oversampling" (combining pixels) for noise/color/DR/etc when comparing "same output." Or it is in larger output with the "same" characteristics. I.e. a 100% view of a D800 image will look pretty much exactly the same as a 100% view of a D7000 image when viewed from the same distance... but the D800 image will be twice the size (i.e. fine art) or it could be cropped to 1/2 (DX).

I haven't used the D750, but my personal opinion is that the D810 is the best general purpose Nikon currently. That's not to say you will always see all of the potential benefits, IMHO you seldom ever will. But you will typically see *some* of the potential benefits (i.e. DR or color). And even if you see none of the benefits (due to cropping/settings/technique/etc) that doesn't mean you are any worse off.
However, there are costs associated... the camera, buffer, storage, processing, etc, etc. IMO, if you don't do large display/print, and you don't do high precision work with optimal technique, and you don't usually have to push edits very hard, then you wont really see a notable benefit. But if you do any of those things, then you will.

Thanks again for your post, I'm really learning a lot of stuff. There are a couple of other benefits of the D810 as well for me, the quieter shutter for wildlife, and the buffer. Whilst a slightly slower frame rate I do believe the buffer can take twice as many shots as the D750 (photographylife website has not been working the last two days for me to check; they have a good table with the buffers for the different cameras.)

 

[sk66]

Thanks again for your post, I'm really learning a lot of stuff. There are a couple of other benefits of the D810 as well for me, the quieter shutter for wildlife, and the buffer. Whilst a slightly slower frame rate I do believe the buffer can take twice as many shots as the D750 (photographylife website has not been working the last two days for me to check; they have a good table with the buffers for the different cameras.)

Oh yeah, I forgot about the quieter shutter... it does (can) make a difference for both wildlife and event (i.e. wedding) photography. There's probably a few other things you might find occasionally beneficial as well, group AF, dedicated AF-on button, quick mode changes while looking through the viewfinder, etc.

But you also loose U1/U2 settings and the flippy screen... I can see both of those being quite useful at times.

 

[snerkler]

Oh yeah, I forgot about the quieter shutter... it does (can) make a difference for both wildlife and event (i.e. wedding) photography. There's probably a few other things you might find occasionally beneficial as well, group AF, dedicated AF-on button, quick mode changes while looking through the viewfinder, etc.

But you also loose U1/U2 settings and the flippy screen... I can see both of those being quite useful at times.

The D750 actually has group AF too but I rarely use it. The AF-ON button is definitely another advantage, but unsure whether the mode changes in the viewfinder would be useful to me. Whilst I have U1/U2 set I don't use these either, don't know why I just find that I alter things each time depending on what I shoot so won't be a big loss. The flippy screen is definitely something I'd miss, and one of the big reasons I'm hesitant to swap.

On another note, I have performed the tests with the D7200 and D750 as I said I would. I can't see any difference in detail with the D750 in DX and D7200 in full res. Likewise if I crop the D750 to 1:1 (1006 x 671 res) and the D7200 to then match the D750 1:1 framing (1566 x 1044 res)) I still can't see a difference in detail. I have to say I have found this most surprising

 

[sk66]

The D7200 is still the most demanding DSLR Nikon makes, it is *very* difficult to get the full resolution out of it... I'm not even sure there is a lens that can. I find it amazing that almost no one ever mentions that.

 

[Hertsman]

This is a very informative thread still, so thanks again everyone.

Ive hired the Sigma 150-600 for Silverstone, so will have to wait and see how it works out.

Im 85% going to stay Nikon, but I think a new(er) body maybe on the horizon....

If I go FF I'll need to change all my glass ;(

D500 is logical step, but wowzer its heavy on the pocket....

 

[snerkler]

This is a very informative thread still, so thanks again everyone.

Ive hired the Sigma 150-600 for Silverstone, so will have to wait and see how it works out.

Im 85% going to stay Nikon, but I think a new(er) body maybe on the horizon....

If I go FF I'll need to change all my glass ;(

D500 is logical step, but wowzer its heavy on the pocket....

Sure is pricey, but it's still new and so assuming the pound doesn't get any weaker I'd expect the price to come down.

 

[sk66]

D500 is logical step, but wowzer its heavy on the pocket....

It's a lot less pricey than a FF body AND longer/all FF lenses... I went FF a long time ago and I tend to stay pretty current (every other release/model) and towards the upper end in quality/IQ. I think my gear is insured for something like $40k...
And no, my images are not miles ahead of when I was using a D300 and a Sigma 50-500...


ok, that's a lie... gear does matter to an extent. But my *talent* isn't much better than it was a decade ago...

 

[Swanseajack]

The D750 actually has group AF too but I rarely use it. The AF-ON button is definitely another advantage, but unsure whether the mode changes in the viewfinder would be useful to me. Whilst I have U1/U2 set I don't use these either, don't know why I just find that I alter things each time depending on what I shoot so won't be a big loss. The flippy screen is definitely something I'd miss, and one of the big reasons I'm hesitant to swap.

On another note, I have performed the tests with the D7200 and D750 as I said I would. I can't see any difference in detail with the D750 in DX and D7200 in full res. Likewise if I crop the D750 to 1:1 (1006 x 671 res) and the D7200 to then match the D750 1:1 framing (1566 x 1044 res)) I still can't see a difference in detail. I have to say I have found this most surprising

The D750 has a 9 point Group AF IIRC and the D810 has 5 point. For the limited BIF I do, I have found the 5 point one on the D810 to be better for locking on and keeping track. As mentioned the shutter is a lot quieter on the D810, when are you going to test one? I may know of one for sale in a few weeks time

 

[PaulButler]

This is a very informative thread still, so thanks again everyone.

Ive hired the Sigma 150-600 for Silverstone, so will have to wait and see how it works out.

Im 85% going to stay Nikon, but I think a new(er) body maybe on the horizon....

If I go FF I'll need to change all my glass ;(

D500 is logical step, but wowzer its heavy on the pocket....

...

 

[snerkler]

The D750 has a 9 point Group AF IIRC and the D810 has 5 point. For the limited BIF I do, I have found the 5 point one on the D810 to be better for locking on and keeping track. As mentioned the shutter is a lot quieter on the D810, when are you going to test one? I may know of one for sale in a few weeks time

D750 is 5 point too. This afternoon, have one lined up already thanks

 

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

The D7200 is still the most demanding DSLR Nikon makes, it is *very* difficult to get the full resolution out of it... I'm not even sure there is a lens that can. I find it amazing that almost no one ever mentions that.

Scould you explain a little more on this?
ThanksK

 

[HoppyUK]

Scould you explain a little more on this?
ThanksK

What Steven might be referring to is the very high resolution demands of the sensor. It's 24.2mp, that equates to 54mp on full-frame, and without an AA filter so it's capable of extracting even more detail from the lens than a Canon 5DSR.

 

[sk66]

What Steven might be referring to is the very high resolution demands of the sensor.

Yup. Pretty much the lens and technique ALWAYS limits actual recorded resolution to something less than what the sensor is capable of. Usually much less... In post 81 I explained how the OP's images probably only have around 2MP actual (and why that's not really a big problem).

I believe the sharpest lens currently available for Nikon is the Zeiss 135/2 APO Sonnar. According to DXO's test measures, when mounted on a 36MP D810 it will deliver ~35MP max. When mounted on a 24MP D7200 it will deliver ~20MP max. BUT it will only do that at f/2, by f/8 it is down to ~10MP on the D7200. And even that is only true if you don't mess up at all with settings/technique.

** Light is sharpest when there is no aperture restriction, but stopping down the aperture corrects for optical errors w/in the lens. So the "best aperture" for a lens is usually a compromise, and an even smaller aperture for increased DOF is an even greater compromise... Not that you are necessarily giving up resolution you actually need though.

 

[sk66]

Here's some examples...

The OP's 70-300 on the D300, ~4MP at 300/11.




The 70-300 on a D7100, ~5MP at 300/11. That would be slightly less on a D500. (D7200/D500 untested yet)



Note that both of the above would result in the same amount of cropping. So the ~1MP difference will be even less. Lets assume a 50% crop... so roughly 2MP on the D300 and 2.5MP on the D7100.


And here is the Sigma 150-500 on the D300 (the Nikon version 150-600's haven't been tested yet).
At 500/11 it is also ~4-5MP...



Lets assume that the numbers are the same for the Tamron 150-600 (I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't actually slightly better). The 600mm lens eliminates the need for the 50% crop, so you wind up with 4-5MP actual on the D300 vs the 2.5MP achieved by upgrading the camera body.

Now, those are maximums... AF and technique can reduce the results, but you have more room for error when you start with the 5MP. And it should also be noted that working at 600mm instead of 300mm is exponentially more demanding, if technique is lacking you still might not see any benefit.



jeeze, I have too much free time....

 

[Hertsman]

Quck question chaps...

Im going to have a look at some different bodies tomorrow.

Would a D7200 be worth buying for 6/8 months until the D500 prices become "affordable", and would it be a worty upgrade from the D300 ?

 

[sk66]

I've never used the D7200, but I was not at all fond of the D7000 (AF/ISO). You would gain some things w/ the D7200 like the benefits of oversampling/higher resolution, but they won't be huge (see above).
I don't expect the price of the D500 to drop far/soon... there's just not much else that can compete with it in the DX/action lineup...

 

[snerkler]

Quck question chaps...

Im going to have a look at some different bodies tomorrow.

Would a D7200 be worth buying for 6/8 months until the D500 prices become "affordable", and would it be a worty upgrade from the D300 ?

Is it a worthy upgrade? Like always it's up to the individual, just like asking whether it's a worthy upgrade changing from the D7200 to the D500. Over the D300 the D7200 has better noise handling, better dynamic range (and therefore better manoeuvrability in post and better shadow recovery), better colour depth, and higher resolution. How much of this you will notice, and how much it bothers you will vary from person to person. From all reviews I've seen they say that the AF system on the D7200 is marginally better. Other things to consider is that the D7200 isn't as well built as the D300, and controls and layout are quite different therefore it's vitally important to get hand on to see if you actually like the camera. For example, I was about to trade in my D750 for the D810 but when I tried it I didn't like the grip and so sticking with the D750.

In terms of tech specs alone the D7200 would be a worthy upgrade for me, but YMMV. I've been using my mate's D7200 this week and it's a very nice camera. My only gripe was that the noise handling wasn't as good as I'd have hoped as reviews etc say there's only about 1 stop difference in noise handling from my D750 but in reality it was starting to get intrusive for me at 2000 ISO, but then I'm spoilt with the D750

 

[Hertsman]

Hmmm.....

Handled a 7200 today and didnt like it tbh. 500 feels like home after the 200 and 300. But is expensive.

Ive spent the whole day on the web today researching things and looking at the options.

I really do like the spec and look of the 7D II.

Ive been toying with trying Canon for more than a few months - maybe as long as Ive had Nikons - I guess there is a large question of "what if I never tried it?"

7dii is at least £500 cheaper, so allows for a decent lens to start,

Ive always thought Canons lens range better than Nikon and that there seems to be a larger used market as well.

There is very possibly a large bit of GAS going on here, but also I do want to try the other side...

Its only money, right ?

And if the only difference is that it makes me use my camera more often, then its still a success isnt it ?

Im sure a number of people will read this and



So, to those that do, I apologise....

We've all been here Im sure.

 

[sk66]

I've *thought about* changing sides many times over the years. But I've never found a reason good enough yet... The 7dII surely wouldn't with the D500 on Nikon's side.

Have a good play with the Canon, if you're used to Nikon's controls/menus you may find it a bit weird.

 

[snerkler]

Nikon D500 is better than the 7D2 in every way. Yes the 7D2 is cheaper now as it's much older, but the release price was roughly the same. Which of the Canon lenses do you prefer over the Nikon?

 

[woof woof]

Hmmm.....

I really do like the spec and look of the 7D II.

Ive been toying with trying Canon for more than a few months - maybe as long as Ive had Nikons - I guess there is a large question of "what if I never tried it?"

There is very possibly a large bit of GAS going on here, but also I do want to try the other side...

As long as you know that this very probably wont improve your photography and is more about playing with different toys, but I suppose there's nothing wrong with that.

I used a Nikon 35mm film camera for decades but when I went digital everyone said that Canon were the best so I went for Canon but these days I think you'd have to be a hard core Canon fanboy to believe that Canon holds a clear lead in image quality and I think that if anyone does hold a lead it's Nikon... probably... possibly... but if you simply must change systems I suppose logic just doesn't factor into it... and once you've tried Canon and are disappointed by the performance of the sensor you can sell up and buy a Sony A7rII

Have fun with your new kit and as someone said in a film I watched recently "Whoever dies with the most toys wins."

 

[Sejanus Aelianus]

And if the only difference is that it makes me use my camera more often, then its still a success isnt it ?.

That's the best possible reason for making the change.

I used to be something of a camera collector but when I decided to stop collecting I stuck with Canon and M43 because those were the designs that suited me best. After all, there's only so much time you can spend choosing which camera to take with you...

 

[Hertsman]

Good chance I may get to play with a 7D2 @ Silverstone in a fortnight - with 150-600 Siggy.

Also, doing the WHF big cat day on Thursday, using my own kit.
Will give me a chance to maybe get my mojo back with current body.........

 

[holty]

it doesn't matter what gear you have its the idiot half an inch behind the viewfinder that makes a difference.
good glass on a camera can improve iq a bit

 

[Hertsman]

Had a day at the Wildlife Heritage Centre in Kent on Thursday. Been on my list for a while, and would thoroughly recommend the day to any togs.

Anyway,I took over 800 and the first sort gave me 225.

Heres one that Im prepared to share :

DSC_2540 by Mark P, on Flickr

Let me know what your thought please gents.

Current thoughts are to try the D7200 as as stepping stone to the D500, mainly because Im still not over happy with the details

 

[Hertsman]

Hmm.
A few thoughts post Silverstone...

Having hired the Sigma 150-600 S for length I figured I may as well add a D500 to the order for a field test....

Id like your opinions on my shots (D500) and the final shot (7DII) , BOTH with the same glass, both shot RAW and both processed by me in LR.....


PPD-5 by Mark P, on Flickr

PPD-7 by Mark P, on Flickr


Canon...

jl7d (1 of 1) by Mark P, on Flickr


I still feel Canon edge it on IQ and punch...
Also, and Im no sheep....I noticed at one corner there were 8 Canons to 2 Nikon.....

 

[sk66]

I think there are too many variables to be that critical. This image you took of the same bike has the same kind of punch (colors) and the same kind of lighting for a "more even" comparison. And I don't see a notable difference at these sizes... it's processed a touch more yellow than the canon shot.

PPD-3 by mark_p99, on Flickr

 

[snerkler]

Hmm.
A few thoughts post Silverstone...

Having hired the Sigma 150-600 S for length I figured I may as well add a D500 to the order for a field test....

Id like your opinions on my shots (D500) and the final shot (7DII) , BOTH with the same glass, both shot RAW and both processed by me in LR.....


PPD-5 by Mark P, on Flickr

PPD-7 by Mark P, on Flickr


Canon...

jl7d (1 of 1) by Mark P, on Flickr


I still feel Canon edge it on IQ and punch...
Also, and Im no sheep....I noticed at one corner there were 8 Canons to 2 Nikon.....

You have to go with what you feel is right. Just be aware that you are kidding yourself though that Canon has better IQ and punch. However, if you prefer Canon that's all that matters.

Canon certainly have the lion's share of the market, and there's numerous reasons for that. A large part of it, especially for pros, is that Canon were leaps and bounds ahead of Nikon in terms of AF once upon a time and there was a mass migration from Nikon to Canon and after that people were too heavily invested into the system to swap. There's no question Nikon have had the upper hand in sensor performance recently, but not enough for most Canon users to warrant dumping all their lenses etc.

 

[petersmart]

Had a day at the Wildlife Heritage Centre in Kent on Thursday. Been on my list for a while, and would thoroughly recommend the day to any togs.

Anyway,I took over 800 and the first sort gave me 225.

Heres one that Im prepared to share :

DSC_2540 by Mark P, on Flickr

Let me know what your thought please gents.

Current thoughts are to try the D7200 as as stepping stone to the D500, mainly because Im still not over happy with the details

Frankly if you're not happy with THAT I would give up and become a plumber!