Nikon Upgrade advice

heapeywildlife

heapeywildlife

Suspended / Banned
Messages
522
Name
Len
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently have a Nikon D80, a Sigma 400 F5.6 (for birding - 80% of my usage), a Tokina 12-24 for landscapes, a Tamron SP 90 F4 (manual focus - for macro) and a Nikon 18-135 (for anything inbetween).

I am not happy with the results I get from the Sigma (possible front/backfocus issue) and am looking to upgrade to a Nikon F4 300 with 1.4TC, all the other lens's perform well with the D80.

I also want to upgrade my camera to either a Nikon D300 or D7000 (or even a D400 if it eventually arrives and is affordable) but am torn between replacing the lens or changing the camera first.

Any advice is welcome please on which camera would suit my needs best and if I should change the camera first or the lens first.

Len

P.S. If I change the camera first I wondered if it may be possible to adjust the focus on the Sigma lens using the camera's fine tuning option (not available on the D80)
 
Hi, I used to own Sigma lenses but like you, I'm not happy with the results.. What I did was sell all my Sigma lenses and bought all Nikon brands (as my camera). Then now I'm happy!!
 
\Got any examples with the Sigma, exif intact?
 
change the lens then wait for the D400 to arrive

that is of course if its your lens thats giving you poor results
 
In your case I would go for the glass first. If the sigma looks naff on the D80 it isn't going to look any better on a new higher resolution camera.
 
Thanks for the advice guys, here's a photo shot from a sturdy tripod with a manfrotto 393 head at about 30ft.

DSC_4901-1.jpg


19 Feb 2012
1323×1066 pixels – 922KB
Filename: DSC_4901-1.jpg
Camera: NIKON CORPORATION
Model: NIKON D80
ISO: 280
Exposure: 1/125 sec
Aperture: 7.1
Focal Length: 400mm
Flash Used: No

Camera is set on single point with AF-c using aperture priority ISO automatic

Len
 
I totally agree with Nawty! It's not the camera mate, it's the lens.. :)
 
henri said:
I totally agree with Nawty! It's not the camera mate, it's the lens.. :)
Click to expand...

30 feet away with a 400, subject in shade, no contrast, but the lens is at fault?

Stopped down by 1/2 with a crap shutter speed?

Totally agree, equipment must be at fault, surely not user error..................zzzzzzz

It amazes me how much naff equipment there is in comparison to world class faultless photographers, or maybe the inverse is true?
 
Last edited:
1/125 sec on the 400mm is pretty slow to behonest. Altho you on a tripod but a little movement on the subject will cause abit blur ....... their is alot of factor to cause the image not sharp.

Maybe you want to do a proper test on a object that doesn't move to see the sharpness.
 
Thanks for the comments. When set on AP with a Fstop of 7.1, I get a shutter speed of 1/125. The next shot was at a distance of 15ft in manual mode. Focus point was on the gulls eye. Camera on bean bag from car window

DSC_4979-1.jpg


24 Feb 2012
3872×2592 pixels – 5983KB
Filename: DSC_4979-1.jpg
Camera: NIKON CORPORATION
Model: NIKON D80
ISO: 100
Exposure: 1/4000 sec
Aperture: 8.0
Focal Length: 400mm
Flash Used: No

This is as good as it gets.

As you can see the lower half of the body is in better focus.

Len
 
That looks pretty sharp to me once brightened, although hard to see definitively from such a small image. That is quite a lot under exposed.

f7.1 is a bit forgiving though as far as focus is concerned. :shrug:

I'd do some tests with a wider aperture on a static subject (in good light ;)) to check for focus issues.
 
Len, on the first one you say the subject is about 30 feet away, the photo displayed is a big crop then? Could you post the original?

The second one just needs a bit of PP work, literally 15 secs to do this:

LenPoxoon.jpg


The original is under exposed and needed a little sharpen.

Don`t blame your kit instantly, sometimes it is user error. That is not having a pop at you, we all do it..........:thumbs:
 
Any comments welcome. I would rather get it right with the kit I have got, before I upgrade.
Thanks for the PP work on the gull shot, it looks much better. What adjustments did you make?

I have attached the original of the house sparrow, most of my shots are heavily cropped, the gull photo was an exception as it was so close.

DSC_4901.JPG


Len
 
The gull, I upped the exposure by 1.2, something like that,can`t remember now. Then sharpened it using the lab sharpen method:

If you have Photoshop, this is how I do it, just create an action.


Sharpen.jpg



The problem you have with the sparrow is that you have had to crop so much that you are losing definition in the remaining pixels. Basically, you don`t have enough pixels left to show any detail on the bird, thus it is not as clear and as sharp as you would wish.Lack of light on the subject is not helping either. I`m sure others can explain it better than I, but that is about the crux of the problem.

Two ways around that, either get nearer the subject or spend a lot on a longer lens...........:D
 
Thanks Fracster, I dont have Photoshop, only Lightroom.

A longer lens would be nice. But I am going to Australia in September and have decided that a Nikon F4 300 with TC is the largest practical lens for walking about with, I don't like the idea of lugging a tripod or monopod with me, which is what I would need with anything bigger.

A new camera say D7000 would give me more pixels to play with, but a D300 seems to have other advantages, such as better AF and of course price (second hand).

Len
 
300 with the 1.4 or 1.7 TC is a great combo.........;)

Work on getting closer to the subject, cheapest way mate............:thumbs:
 
I just bought another D300 ( sold my first a couple of years ago) and am very pleased with it. I did consider a D7000 for a while but I prefer the more substantial feel of the D300 and the button layout.
If you still in the market for a camera, there is a nice D300 going over on another forum with a low shutter count (6500 ish) and even lower price ( £450!)
Look over at avforums ( can I say that?)
Its nothing to do with me, just pointing the way...
Allan
 
allanm said:
I just bought another D300 ( sold my first a couple of years ago) and am very pleased with it. I did consider a D7000 for a while but I prefer the more substantial feel of the D300 and the button layout.
If you still in the market for a camera, there is a nice D300 going over on another forum with a low shutter count (6500 ish) and even lower price ( £450!)
Look over at avforums ( can I say that?)
Its nothing to do with me, just pointing the way...
Allan
Click to expand...

Whether you can say that or not Alan....bargain IMO :thumbs:
 
Allan, when choosing a D300 over a D7000 did you determine which was best in low light conditions?
Thank you both for the AV forum tip, I will take a look at it, it's not a forum I am familiar with.

Len
 
heapeywildlife said:
Allan, when choosing a D300 over a D7000 did you determine which was best in low light conditions?
Thank you both for the AV forum tip, I will take a look at it, it's not a forum I am familiar with.

Len
Click to expand...

i have both and i shoot with the D300 over the D7000. That explains is not all about high iso performance.

Their are times where the D7000 is much more prefer then the D300 in low light but in general the D300 iso performance is good enough. The handling and AF performance i get on the D300 is better then the D7000. Only real time when i use the D7000 is extream low light shooting when flash is not allow or a travel/walk around camera.

I don't want to carry the D300 + nikon 28-70 f2.8 as a walkaround. The D7000 with a small zoom will do me :)
 
Thanks Badboy. Is it the weight of the combination that puts you off the D300/28-70 as a walkaround? I am considering a D300 or D7000 with a F4 300 as a walk around for a forthcoming trip to Australia as I dont want to miss any bird shots that present themselves.

Len
 
I use grip on my D300 and when when the 28-70 attached it is damn heavy. During photo shoot it don't feel a thing since is mostly click click click but walk around i like the d7000.

If you don't mind the weight for walk around the d300 wit hte 300mm f4 prime is damn good for bird stuff.
 
heapeywildlife said:
Allan, when choosing a D300 over a D7000 did you determine which was best in low light conditions?
Thank you both for the AV forum tip, I will take a look at it, it's not a forum I am familiar with.

Len
Click to expand...

Can't speak for Allan, but for me there was no reason to use a D300/s. The D7000 AF has practically the same frame coverage (slightly wider spaced points but missing 12 peripheral points) and is just as quick right down to EV0. The D300 is less finicky at those light levels (more forgiving of low contrast) but the D7000 is so much better IQ wise in low light that I'd rather just take more care in selecting AF target.

8FPS (gripped + D3/AA batteries) might be nice for some, but for my uses neither 6 (ungripped D300 and D7000) nor 8 FPS is enough to use framerate to substitute for timing to capture peak action. Plus I think grips are a waste of weight and space so compare 6 and 7 FPS (D300s has 1FPS over the D300).

As for the images, the others have covered that nicely. Some work on technique will give tons of improvement :)
 
Thanks Ausemmao, for bird shots I use a single point focus (and metering), so the advantages of the extra number of focus points on the D300 wont give me any benefit.

Len
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top