# DX vs. FX for Bird Photography



## PJDPhoto (Sep 28, 2014)

Looking for advice on my next camera purchase. I got back into photography a few months ago, bought a Lumix FX 1000 as my 'starter' camera, and have now fallen head over heels for photography. I'm especially interested in nature and bird photography. I realize I need a DSLR and a long focal length lens (probably 400mm or 600mm to start) to do this well.

First choice would seem to be between FX or DX. My inclination would be to go full-frame for picture quality. But due to the crop factor, and my need for long telephoto for bird pictures, perhaps DX would have some advantages?

Nikon D3300 is supposed to have good picture quality, and would not be expensive....can get a Nikon D3300 with a basic lens for around $500. 

For full frame, the new Nikon D750 seems great; but it costs $2,300.

Another issue this brings up is the compatibility - and desirability - of super-telephoto lenses that would work for both the FX and DX.

I could save the money to buy the D750 if that is the better choice.

I'd appreciate opinions about what you think would be the best decision. Thanks for your help.


----------



## Overread (Sep 28, 2014)

A few thoughts:

1) Modern day fullframe cameras have a lot of mega-pixels which presents quite a significant capacity to crop whilst still retaining a very high quality and usable image. In addition don't most Nikon cameras have a "crop mode" capability?

2) Put the pixels and crop factor aside and have a look at some other features:
a) High usable ISO - because you will be wanting to take the ISO higher on days when its not strong sunlight because wildlife demands fast shutter speeds (if not for an action shot then oft because you've got a long focal length lens in your hands so you need more speed to overcome handshake)

b) Auto focusing - another big area, performance of the AF system is key. So again consider how well the various body types perform focusing wise. In the past fullframe tended to be studio focused and crop sensor action focused - but these days the gap is a lot smaller. 

3) In wildlife the lens is nearly always the most expensive and best thing to put most of your early money into. A high quality lens will make a huge difference over a high quality body (the body just records, is the lens that defines the light itself).
This is especially true of wildlife photography where you'll be wanting at least 300mm and ideally much more


----------



## BillM (Sep 28, 2014)

One thing that is often overlooked in this discussion is buffer. The 7100 is great for birds but the buffer is seriously lacking, but other than that it is a great body for birds. And while the FX bodies do have the ability to shoot in crop mode the DX bodies can also be shot in a crop mode for even more reach. I have never once heard someone complain about having too much reach while shooting birds. And with the new 150-600 offerings out there you can get some serious reach with a DX body. Maybe a Canon shooter can chime in on their offering on the higher end of the DX line, they may have a better buffer ???


----------



## CameraClicker (Sep 28, 2014)

Buffer matters most if you have drive set to high speed instead of low speed or single shot, and you are using slow memory cards.  I just got a couple of 32 Gb Sandisk class 10 cards because they were $26 each at Costco.  I took a 600X Lexar card out of my 5D Mk III and put in the new card.  Shooting raw at full speed, the buffer fills, and it is a long wait for it to completely clear again!  Lexar makes cards that are 1000X.  If your card is fast enough and your body can write at the speed of the card, then buffer becomes less relevant.

A 300 mm lens is pretty short for birds.  Unless you can get close to them 800 mm is still short!  Full frame or crop?  Well, if you have a 12 Mpx full frame 5D, and the person next to you has a 36 Mpx full frame D800, and you both have 600 mm lenses, when you look at the photos on your monitor, at 100%, the Nikon's photos will look like the lens was longer than the Canon's!   Crop or full frame determines how wide the field of view is from a given lens.  Magnification comes from how many photo-sites are crammed into the sensor.


----------



## KmH (Sep 28, 2014)

CameraClicker said:


> Magnification comes from how many photo-sites are crammed into the sensor.


Since the lens projects the image onto the image sensor, which just records how much light falls on the image sensor, please explain how how many pixels there are on an image sensor are able to make that projected image look more magnified.


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 28, 2014)

PJDPhoto said:


> First choice would seem to be between FX or DX. My inclination would be to go full-frame for picture quality. But due to the crop factor, and my need for long telephoto for bird pictures, perhaps DX would have some advantages?
> 
> Nikon D3300 is supposed to have good picture quality, and would not be expensive....can get a Nikon D3300 with a basic lens for around $500.
> 
> For full frame, the new Nikon D750 seems great; but it costs $2,300.



If you are willing to save up and spend for a d750
you should consider the same for a d7100
Just for the improved controls, size and weight with larger lenses I'd look at between the d71000 and d750.

If you plan on alot of low light scenarios, then I'd opt for the d750 just due to the low light advantage it has.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 28, 2014)

Seems like several of TPF's resident bird/wildlife guys shoot the Nikon D7100 due to its APS-C sensor size and 24 million pixel resolution with no AA filter array; even one guy who owns a D800 and some big glass says he reaches for the D7100 more often for his bird photography.

As far as super-telephotos or long tele-zooms: those lenses are all basically capable of covering EITHER the FX or the DX frame. There really are no "super" telephoto lenses designed for only the smaller, APS-C aka "DX" frame. Telephoto lenses that are long, and loooong tele-zooms are expensive lenses, so rest assured, there are not going to be any surprise DX-only lenses in these categories. I don't consider the little 55-200 DX or 55-250 DX kit-speed zooms as super-tele lenses. The new Tamron 150-600mm has quickly established itself as a good seller in the long tele-zoom category, for good price/performance/weight. As you might know, Sigma has JUST announced TWO similar lenses, one in a higher-grade and heavier dress, another more directly aimed at the roughly $1100 Tamron,


----------



## PJDPhoto (Sep 28, 2014)

Overread said:


> A few thoughts:
> 
> 1) Modern day fullframe cameras have a lot of mega-pixels which presents quite a significant capacity to crop whilst still retaining a very high quality and usable image. In addition don't most Nikon cameras have a "crop mode" capability?
> 
> ...




Thanks so much for your response. If I could just summarize to be sure I’ve got your takeaway points correctly:

1)  A Nikon FX can be set for crop mode (as if it were a DX) which would give me the equivalent crop factor in a better camera

2)  High usable ISO and low-light focus capability are likely to be better in a FX than a DX

3)  Good glass rules - regardless of camera body!


----------



## PJDPhoto (Sep 28, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Seems like several of TPF's resident bird/wildlife guys shoot the Nikon D7100 due to its APS-C sensor size and 24 million pixel resolution with no AA filter array; even one guy who owns a D800 and some big glass says he reaches for the D7100 more often for his bird photography.
> 
> As far as super-telephotos or long tele-zooms: those lenses are all basically capable of covering EITHER the FX or the DX frame. There really are no "super" telephoto lenses designed for only the smaller, APS-C aka "DX" frame. Telephoto lenses that are long, and loooong tele-zooms are expensive lenses, so rest assured, there are not going to be any surprise DX-only lenses in these categories. I don't consider the little 55-200 DX or 55-250 DX kit-speed zooms as super-tele lenses. The new Tamron 150-600mm has quickly established itself as a good seller in the long tele-zoom category, for good price/performance/weight. As you might know, Sigma has JUST announced TWO similar lenses, one in a higher-grade and heavier dress, another more directly aimed at the roughly $1100 Tamron,




Thanks, I have heard of all these lenses and and had planned to look into the Tamron 150-600mm and the new Sigma. WIll be harder for the birds to hide from me with those!


----------



## goodguy (Sep 28, 2014)

I wouldnt go for the D3300 or the D5300 but I would seriously consider the D7100 or D750.
Both excellent and from what I understand the buffer is bigger on the D750.
The D7100 is excellent in lower light but still the D750 will be better.
I expect the image quality of both cameras will be extremly close, maybe a bit sharper on the D7100 because it has no AA filter on its sensor.
Remember if you go for crop mode on your FX camera this will mean less resolution, same with the D7100, it has 1.3 crop mode which will take down you MP from 24 to 16 (which is still plenty).
In 1.3 crop mode on your D7100 it will give you 7 FPS and let you shove more pictures into your buffer before it will fill up.
From my experience my D7100 will shoot 6 frames in DX mode before it will fill the buffer.
Another thing you should know the AF system is very important when you track your bird, the 51 AF point on the D7100 is remarcable, when used with good glass this system gives really amazing results, from the few times I used my D7100 for short range birding I got a very good success rate with my shots.
The D750 also has 51 AF system and its even better then the D7100.
I think I would tend to go more with the D7100 and invest with a better glass in the price difference (about 1500$ price difference) and good fast memorry card that will be VERY helpful when clearing the buffer, I think 6 frams is not bad even though more would obviously be better, not sure why Nikon put a rather smaller buffer on the D7100, with a bigger buffer the D7100 would be an excellent camera not just for general use but also for sports and birding.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 28, 2014)

D750 or D7100 or bust


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 28, 2014)

PJDPhoto said:


> Thanks so much for your response. If I could just summarize to be sure I’ve got your takeaway points correctly:
> 
> 1)  A Nikon FX can be set for crop mode (as if it were a DX) which would give me the equivalent crop factor in a better camera


read from this thread post # 13 on as it shows this capability on a FX camera --> f4 zoom lenses at 300 or 400mm ?? | Photography Forum



PJDPhoto said:


> 2)  High usable ISO and low-light focus capability are likely to be better in a FX than a DX


My FX is 2x as good in low light as my DX camera --> Question to those who moved from crop sensor to full frame camera-low light Perf | Photography Forum



PJDPhoto said:


> 3)  Good glass rules - regardless of camera body!


Definitely.


----------



## CameraClicker (Sep 28, 2014)

KmH said:


> CameraClicker said:
> 
> 
> > Magnification comes from how many photo-sites are crammed into the sensor.
> ...



It's why you can use a cell phone camera with a 4 mm lens and super tiny sensor.  I think it's also where the notion of crop factor as magnification came from; the Nikon full frame was the same number of pixels as their APS-C offering.  If the photo-sites are the same size on both full frame and APS-C sensor, then the APS-C will have proportionately fewer photo-sites than the full frame sensor.  If the APS-C has relatively smaller photo-sites, packed more densely, there will be more of them in each row/column.  If you have two full frame sensors with different numbers of photo-sites, or two APS-C sensors with different numbers of photo-sites, it is easy to see the sensor with smaller, but more, photo-sites appears to deliver a bigger image.  Photo-sites range in size.  Played back on a monitor or printer, pixels are all the same size, for that device.  So, if you have more of them because they were packed more densely, the image will be larger, or magnified.

Of course, if you just look at a resized image on your monitor, so the monitor is filled, but nothing more, then you will never see the effect.  If you look at the image at 100%, you will see the effect.


----------



## coastalconn (Oct 1, 2014)

Being a bird photographer, here are my thoughts.  I shoot a D7100 and think it is a great wildlife camera.  If you have the right settings and a Sandisk 95 mb/s card, you actually get 10 shots in the buffer and the camera will shoot at apx 3 FPS afterwards.  Not great, but highly manageable.  The D7100 has a better AF system then the D3K/D5K series and that alone makes it worth it if you plan on shooting BIF.  Compared to the D750 the D7100 has 24 MP where the D750 has about 10.  From my experience the high ISO advantage goes away slightly when you crop to the same size.  (At least it did when I compared it to the D600)  I have the Tamron 150-600 feel free to look through my flickr or FB page and see if the IQ is "good enough" for you..


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 1, 2014)

What are your expectations?
are you shooting birds in local trees or plan on going out in the "wild" to shoot large birds?

You start out stating you could just spend $500 for  a d3300 with a lens.

But with "real" birding you are far away from the subject and you need a lens that will get you close.
That price starts at TWICE your current budget of $500 just for the lens .. just for starters.

Then you may use a tripod with a gimble head, the body, etc.  you'll find yourself THOUSANDS of dollars into it before even taking a shot.

So first tell us what you want to do and how much budget you have for it.


----------



## AlanKlein (Oct 1, 2014)

I'd recommend buying a good tripod, but I'm not a bird shooter unless it's sitting on my hand.  Should bird shooters rely on tripods?


----------



## West - (Oct 1, 2014)

Sounds like your just starting out.  Your best bet is the D7100 for action type shots in jpeg.  You can get away with a cheap combo like a Sigma 18-250 for around $400 and get pretty good results.


----------



## Overread (Oct 1, 2014)

AlanKlein said:


> I'd recommend buying a good tripod, but I'm not a bird shooter unless it's sitting on my hand.  Should bird shooters rely on tripods?



Tripods are great for static wildlife shooting. That is when you've set yourself up in a hide or other position and you're going to sit there for a fair while waiting for the shot to come to you. In that situation they provide an ideal means to holding the weight of your setup and also providing a stable shooting support when the shot comes along. 

When you're more mobile and walking around they can be a hindrance - yes they are giving you that support, but chances are if you're moving the tripod is going to take a few moments to deploy; plus its adding weight so your arms are going to be even more tired (which means you need it deployed all the more). 

Some people drop one leg and use a tripod like a monopod so that it can be used faster; however its honestly easier (if you do this a fair bit) to use a monopod - its quicker to use and a lot lot lighter than a tripod. 


Note a lot of the versatility of a tripod comes from the tripod head. That is why good tripods are sold with a removable head (or no head at all). So that you can change the head for different situations for best performance.


----------



## xzyragon (Oct 1, 2014)

not much experience in birding, but i use my canon 7D for action shots, and the buffer is huge.  At full raw, its 25+ shots at 8 fps before it slows down to 4fps, and once you're at that point, it's continuous.  The Mark II surpasses that and shoots at 10 fps.

But a 7D body refurbed from canon is probably around $700 or $800 right now, so it really depends on your budget.


----------

