[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by navin_bhp

I'm not interested in dragging this conversation out of purpose.

Well, there are various paths leading to the same destination, only the end results matter. Not interested in getting into an argument, people have different preferences. You have given good advice, I am sure he will benefit. If it were me, with a certain budget, I would go get a great used copy of a Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm C and a good used 7D, or a used D7200 (since the OP's investment in Canon doesn't seem to be high at the moment), and sell off current gear.

Anyway, my perspective is a little different, since I am not a serious birder; I shoot birds only if I find the scene, light or moment interesting. Even if they are ordinary birds that a serious birder wouldn't look at :-)







I haven't used the 400mm f/5.6 but a number of friends have, and I have seen their photos. If I shot Canon, I wouldn't use that lens because my needs (e.g. favouring animalscapes and interesting light situations) are different. I would rather rent the 100-400mm IS2 for my trips, brilliant lens, and almost as sharp. With great stabilization too, unlike the 400mm f/5.6, which many use with a monopod.

[navin_bhp]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

If it were me, with a certain budget, I would go get a great used copy of a Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm C and a good used 7D, or a used D7200 (since the OP's investment in Canon doesn't seem to be high at the moment), and sell off current gear.

I actually have the 7D and 7D2 along with Sigma 150-600mm. Can post some test shots this weekend just for kicks. I live in Bellevue, WA now and the weather is not that favorable to shoot birds last few days.

Here's couple shots with the 7D2.

500f4L



Sigma 150-600

[Gany]

Hi all, I am looking for a DSLR & lens. I had used Nikon F60 film camera with 70-300 years ago and currently using Coolpix 9700. I am casual photographer who is into nature/trees/birds/travel photography etc.

Currently shortlisted D7200/D750 - tending towards 7200 as it is almost half the price!
On the optics front thinking of Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6 E ED & 18-105 mm f/3.5-5.6DX-ED G VR.

Are these good selection or anyone would have alternate suggestion. On the budget front I do want to keep it as low & practical as possible.

[Durango Dude]

Originally Posted by Gany

Hi all, I am looking for a DSLR & lens. I had used Nikon F60 film camera with 70-300 years ago and currently using Coolpix 9700. I am casual photographer who is into nature/trees/birds/travel photography etc.

Currently shortlisted D7200/D750 - tending towards 7200 as it is almost half the price!
On the optics front thinking of Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6 E ED & 18-105 mm f/3.5-5.6DX-ED G VR.

Are these good selection or anyone would have alternate suggestion. On the budget front I do want to keep it as low & practical as possible.

I think a Bridge cam would be the best option for you. Try out the Panasonic FZ1000 or Sony RX 10 III.

[sgiitk]

@Gany; Any specific reason why you want a full frame. Could you not do with a compact SLR like the D7500 or similar. Advantages, smaller and lighter, and almost equally good. These have a smaller sensor 24x16mm in DX as against the 36x24 of the FX series. At the same time the resolution is still 24MP. For a decent A4 print you need only 3MP.

Remember you have to scale the lens by about 1.52 to calculate the equivalent full frame size. This is due to the smaller sensor area. Canon has a slight smaller sensor so the scale factor is 1.6. I went in a for DX Nikon about eight months ago and am delighted with. No regrets. I am sure there must be some missing bells and whistler but have not found any so far.

Considering, I have been serious amateur photography for over half a century I should be knowing a few things.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by Gany

Hi all, I am looking for a DSLR & lens. I had used Nikon F60 film camera with 70-300 years ago and currently using Coolpix 9700. I am casual photographer who is into nature/trees/birds/travel photography etc.

Currently shortlisted D7200/D750 - tending towards 7200 as it is almost half the price!
On the optics front thinking of Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6 E ED & 18-105 mm f/3.5-5.6DX-ED G VR.

Are these good selection or anyone would have alternate suggestion. On the budget front I do want to keep it as low & practical as possible.

It all depends on what sort of low light performance you want, A DX (D7200) sensor has slightly lower performance at high ISO compared to FX (D750). If you are thinking of 200-500 lens then you will need higher ISO as most wild life shots are in a relatively darker light compared to landscapes, so an FX sensor will be better.

In my opinion a D750 coupled with 200-500 is an excellent choice for wild life. To complement it a 24-120 kit is the best option for general photography. You will rarely miss the range from 120 to 200.

By the way Nikon India is having a scheme for lower priced D750, which means that without the scheme you will get lower price from Amazon and other e-tailers.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by Aroy

It all depends on what sort of low light performance you want, A DX (D7200) sensor has slightly lower performance at high ISO compared to FX (D750). If you are thinking of 200-500 lens then you will need higher ISO as most wild life shots are in a relatively darker light compared to landscapes, so an FX sensor will be better.

In my opinion a D750 coupled with 200-500 is an excellent choice for wild life. To complement it a 24-120 kit is the best option for general photography. You will rarely miss the range from 120 to 200.

By the way Nikon India is having a scheme for lower priced D750, which means that without the scheme you will get lower price from Amazon and other e-tailers.

Well said. To the OP: If you can afford it, go for best gear, even if it makes some of us ( including me, lol) envious

Originally Posted by sgiitk

@Gany; Any specific reason why you want a full frame. Could you not do with a compact SLR like the D7500 or similar. Advantages, smaller and lighter, and almost equally good. These have a smaller sensor 24x16mm in DX as against the 36x24 of the FX series. At the same time the resolution is still 24MP. For a decent A4 print you need only 3MP.

Considering, I have been serious amateur photography for over half a century I should be knowing a few things.

I am not sure I agree with this (that small sensor or less MP is fine) . Why don't you post some photos or link to some gallery so that we know where you are coming from? Sure, things could tick the 'adequate' box, but some folks might want to strive for excellence.

The thing is, experience or technical mastery might not have 1:1 correlation with end result (photos). As I said in some other post, there are multiple paths to reach one's goal.

To the OP:
1. Talent + ok gear will take you to a certain level
2. Less talent + top of the line gear will take you to a similar level
3. Talent + top of the line gear will take you to new heights.

Of course, this is assuming basic familiarity re gear and photography. And that effort to learn and improve is maximised.

[badri]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

I am not sure I agree with this (that small sensor or less MP is fine) . Why don't you post some photos or link to some gallery so that we know where you are coming from?

Good article on this topic. With some image comparisons too.
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/...me-debate.html


Another piece of advice by Thom Hogan (even though I'm a Canon user, I follow his blog regularly. Must read for Nikon users I would say)

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/...nswers-to.html

"Should I get a APS/DX sensor camera or a full frame/FX one?
If you have to ask, then APS/DX.

For over a decade I've been writing about DSLRs: "if you can't get a decent quality 13x19" print—the largest the desktop inkjets can generally do—then it isn't the camera that's the problem."

Many of us started getting double-truck (two-page spreads) published in magazines with digital cameras back in the days of 3mp and 4mp DSLRs that were APS/DX. Have things gotten better? Sure. But for both APS/DX and full frame/FX.

There's a difference between the two sensor sizes, sure. But if you're not understanding from the get go what that difference is, you're probably not going to take advantage of it. Save some money, some weight, some size, and get a competent APS/DX camera. At the point where you know what it is that you're missing, then consider upgrading to full frame/FX.

Same answer is true for 1" versus m4/3 or APS/DX, and for full frame/FX versus Medium Format."

[nilanjanray]

Thom is great re technical stuff and industry insight. But he makes things overcomplicated, and 'sweats the small stuff'. Just like many photographers - e.g. those who earn a living by teaching - do.

Photography is much simpler.

Earlier, amateurs didn't have the gear or investment or time to compete with pros. But now, with increasing disposable income, many folks are able to buy good gear. And are serious as well. So how to pros compete? By saying that photography is too complex or technical, and you need to learn from them. Lol. Or having an advantage in terms of marketing, because they started early.

I have seen too many gorgeous photos from amateurs to take posts of most pros without filtering. I know what matters most in my genre. Time spent in the field. How can you compete with someone who does a 3-week trip to Antarctica or Patagonia, when you are slaving your butt off in the office?

Also, know who is the best in your genre. Many Team BHP folks swear by Ming Thein. And then I read a few posts of his re wildlife photography. Lol. No one is that good as to become the master of every genre. The world doesn't work that way, even catering for outliers.

[sgiitk]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

I am not sure I agree with this (that small sensor or less MP is fine) .

Small sensor is not necessarily less MP. Take Nikon both are now 24MP. Reminds me of the arguments a few decades ago between 35mm and 6x6 or 6x9. All redundant now. The champion of 6x6 was the venerable Hasselblad, with the Rolliecord a distant second.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

I

1. Talent + ok gear will take you to a certain level
2. Less talent + top of the line gear will take you to a similar level
3. Talent + top of the line gear will take you to new heights.
.

Gear can never make up for (lack of) talent. Or to put it differently, talent is the thing that matters and what makes the difference between shooting snaps or shooting great photographs.

On the upside, talent can be developed, groomed for those that are seriously into photography. All you need for gear is a (thick) wallet.

Jeroen

[navin_bhp]

Originally Posted by Gany

Hi all, I am looking for a DSLR & lens. I had used Nikon F60 film camera with 70-300 years ago and currently using Coolpix 9700. I am casual photographer who is into nature/trees/birds/travel photography etc.

Currently shortlisted D7200/D750 - tending towards 7200 as it is almost half the price!
On the optics front thinking of Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6 E ED & 18-105 mm f/3.5-5.6DX-ED G VR.

Are these good selection or anyone would have alternate suggestion. On the budget front I do want to keep it as low & practical as possible.

It's hard to suggest any specific gear without knowing more about what you want to shoot. If you could tell us more about what the coolpix is not able to do then we can go from there. Any camera bridge/mirrorless/both aps-c and FF dslr can be used for the purpose you mentioned so I would encourage you to show us what you shot or what kind of shots you are looking to get. It's just about how much money you want to invest.

[badri]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

I haven't used the 400mm f/5.6 but a number of friends have, and I have seen their photos. If I shot Canon, I wouldn't use that lens because my needs (e.g. favouring animalscapes and interesting light situations) are different. I would rather rent the 100-400mm IS2 for my trips, brilliant lens, and almost as sharp. With great stabilization too, unlike the 400mm f/5.6, which many use with a monopod.

Agree that 100-400 IS2 is a killer lens. Paired with 7d Mk2 it's probably as good a kit as it gets in semi pro range. Maybe D500 and 200-500 combo can beat it but not by much. For BIF, the 7D & 100-400 combo may still have the edge in tracking.

I currently use a 7D and 400 5.6 but plan to replace the 400 with the zoom as soon as I can afford it. Renting is ok for 1-2 day outings but can get quite expensive for long trips. On these occasions, I supplement the 400 with a 55-250 STM, it's up there with the biggies in sharpness department and loses out only on bokeh and reach.

That said, the 400 is an awesome lens. I mostly use it with high shutter speed (1/800 and above). My 7D is not good above ISO 800 and it is a constraint to shoot high shutter speeds in low light. Newer cameras (like 80D) should fare much better. Here are some pics with the 400 (all hand held).

[badri]

Here is a pic with 55-250. Have to admit that I've probably lost a couple of good shots while I changed the lens.

By the way, this is Arrowhead, from Ranthambhore. The one in previous post is Pacman, her brother.

[M35]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

I went in a for DX Nikon about eight months ago and am delighted with. No regrets. I am sure there must be some missing bells and whistler but have not found any so far.
Considering, I have been serious amateur photography for over half a century I should be knowing a few things.

Not sure what your experience is, but the files from my D610 [now sold] and D810 look way better at post than from my earlier APS-C bodies, that include a D7000. Apart from the superior image quality, the high ISO + low light performance [at golden hours] and the crop-ability [for composition] are unmatched.
I shoot with my 200-500 f/5.6 almost all the time and the likes of D7200/D500 would do just fine. I know these have better AF for my birding needs, but it is when I shoot with my 85 f/1.4 and 15-30 f.2.8, I realise how better my D810 is, as a single body . And I am sure the D750 is just as good


500mm/f5.6/ISO 1800/ -0.3 exposure bias/ 1/2000s/Handheld