Beginner D3200 - Bird/Wildlife photography

TheWonkyLens1

TheWonkyLens1

Messages
27
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
No
i have been taking pictures for a few years now, and have a decent knowledge of light, shutter speed etc. I have taken interest in wildlife photography, mainly birds. I am currently using a D3200 and a tamron 70 300 Di Vc Usd f4-5.6. I am finding it a bit restricting, mainly for AF and lens reach, i looked into teleconverters but i am worried about increasing the largest f stop.

Im looking for advice around bodies with better auto-focus points, and also lenses to help with bird photography.

Thanks in advance
 
Personally I would focus all of your money on lenses - splitting the budget will end up in compromise.

For a lens, the Tamron 150-600 seems well rated although do be aware that these long lenses are massive - sling them over your shoulder to carry size - which means unless you are specifically going out to shoot birds you will find it a bit of a drag.
 
Difficult to advise with out knowing your budget,bird photography can be an expensive mistress,so take your time with gear selection and talk it through on here.
 
I have the tamron but with a d7100 personally it's a great lens, I also just bought a tokina 80-400 for £120 a bargain and a bit of extra reach , now I'd love the better lenses but they're very expensive and for the time I get for wildlife photography I can't justify spending that kind of money that I don't have anyway:-( . Different if your a pro or even travel a lot and get to more exotic places, there's a lot of things you need to consider but that depends on you.
 
From a body point of view, you can't go far wrong with either a used D7100 (or even a D7000 if you are on a really tight budget), there are a fir few of us on here shooting wildlife with the D7100 (myself included)

But as above, lenses are where its at

I had both versions of the Tamron 70-300, but eventually upgraded to the Nikon 300mm F4 as it allowed me the use of teleconvertors (i highly doubt the 70-300 will work very well, if at all, with a TC), also using a prime lens the focus speed is drastically improved and the IQ is vastly improved due to not having the compromises involved in a zoom lens
 
Tcs won't work with the 70-300, the 300 f4 is something I'm thinking about its a little more affordable.
 
Last edited:
be careful with lens choice as some of the smaller bodies don't have inbuilt a/f motors and if they work at all are very slow ,d7000 are cheap as chips even new now s/h a giveaway .the 300f.4 d7000 and 1.7 tc give you a handholdable 500mm rig that will close focus enough for macro work and then still do long range birds
 
It very much depends we'd all like better gear the tamron is a very good lens and for the moment it does me fine, be careful not to buy more than you really need, it depends on you really but as said can't advice that much without knowing more, I find the af pretty good on the tamron, capture bif without a problem so is it gear or you? Just a thought, if it's reach your looking £7-800 unless you get an older 500mm
You're definitely better off with a d7000 body wise
 
Last edited:
Also the d7100 has a crop factor mode which will gives the field of view of 600mm on a 300 lens, just another thing to consider
 
Last edited:
the black fox said:
.the 300f.4 d7000 and 1.7 tc give you a handholdable 500mm rig that will close focus enough for macro work and then still do long range birds
Click to expand...
Surely with the crop factor that's 765mm?

I use the 300 f4 with a 1.4 tc on a d7100 and I'm finding I need high shutter speeds (1/1000-1/1250) to reduce camera shake to acceptable levels...sometimes!
 
guess&press said:
Surely with the crop factor that's 765mm?

I use the 300 f4 with a 1.4 tc on a d7100 and I'm finding I need high shutter speeds (1/1000-1/1250) to reduce camera shake to acceptable levels...sometimes!
Click to expand...
well of course you will as you have now made it a f6.3 lens ,but surely its easier to simply increase the iso and deal with noise (if any) in p.p . the one thing i really miss about nikon as opposed to canon is it variable i.s.o levels all you have to do is put in a minimum shutter speed and the camera will do the rest ,i.e 300mm plus 1.4 tc = 500mm x 1.5crop = minimum shutter speed of 1/750th sec so set that as your base level due to the lens having no i.s .
one of the better functions on nikon cameras and as opposed to canons poor version one and one that actually works
 
the black fox said:
well of course you will as you have now made it a f6.3 lens ,but surely its easier to simply increase the iso and deal with noise (if any) in p.p . the one thing i really miss about nikon as opposed to canon is it variable i.s.o levels all you have to do is put in a minimum shutter speed and the camera will do the rest ,i.e 300mm plus 1.4 tc = 500mm x 1.5crop = minimum shutter speed of 1/750th sec so set that as your base level due to the lens having no i.s .
one of the better functions on nikon cameras and as opposed to canons poor version one and one that actually works
Click to expand...
Surely 300mm + 1.4x tc = 420mm (not 500mm) Jeff also it would make it a f5.6 lens and not f6.3. - just saying
 
Depends on many factors it doesn't have to be expensive
 
Roy C said:
Surely 300mm + 1.4x tc = 420mm (not 500mm) Jeff also it would make it a f5.6 lens and not f6.3. - just saying
Click to expand...
my mistake roy i meant to put 1.7tc which makes it 500mm at f6.3 .in actual fact the d7000 and the d300s would both take a 2x tc and still a/f quiet quickly ,wish i had bought the one i was offered
 
OP I've just bought the Tamron 150-600mm and can whole heartedly recommend it, check out the thread on here to see shots it's capable of. For birding I think the AF system on the D3200 is a bit limiting tbh and I think you'd be better off with something like the D7100/7200 depending on budget. Of course, money no object you could get a FF body to help combat noise that will creep in from using high ISO ;) You would lose reach, but if you have something like the D810 there's more scope to crop. To spend your money further, and to give you Popeye arms you could always buy the Sigma 150-600mm sport ;)

Sorry, getting a bit carried away, but without knowing your budget it's difficult to suggest what would be best ;)
 
Not sure he's getting back to answer anything?
 
Don't blame them but then why ask in the first place?
 
Maybe he'll check up on responses in a day or two?
 
This day and age does it take that long??? Ipads, phones etc etc
 
petert said:
This day and age does it take that long??? Ipads, phones etc etc
Click to expand...
No idea, just suggesting reasons why he might not have responded. It's only been a day and I know some folk only check in on forums once per week or even less frequently.
 
guess&press said:
I use the 300 f4 with a 1.4 tc on a d7100 and I'm finding I need high shutter speeds (1/1000-1/1250) to reduce camera shake to acceptable levels...sometimes!
Click to expand...

the black fox said:
well of course you will as you have now made it a f6.3 lens ,but surely its easier to simply increase the iso and deal with noise (if any) in p.p . the one thing i really miss about nikon as opposed to canon is it variable i.s.o levels all you have to do is put in a minimum shutter speed and the camera will do the rest ,i.e 300mm plus 1.4 tc = 500mm x 1.5crop = minimum shutter speed of 1/750th sec so set that as your base level due to the lens having no i.s .
one of the better functions on nikon cameras and as opposed to canons poor version one and one that actually works
Click to expand...

I've no knowledge of Canons so I'm amazed they don't have an auto iso function like this! I rely on it, which might mean I'm still on the nursery slopes as I'm happy to admit, but the alternative seems to involve a heck of a lot of twiddling.

Your calculation that 1/750 sec is the minimum for this setup is noted, but I'm a fair way from being able to get that with any reliability.

(Mine is an f5.6 setup, as has been agreed. I think the issue arose because an earlier post mentioned a 1.7 tc and I introduced the 1.4.)

Finally, I do find noise an issue above iso 400 but scaling to realistic sizes seems to get rid of most of it without fuss or mess.

I hope the OP finds all these responses useful at some point!
 
Last edited:
guess&press said:
I've no knowledge of Canons so I'm amazed they don't have an auto iso function like this! I rely on it, which might mean I'm still on the nursery slopes as I'm happy to admit, but the alternative seems to involve a heck of a lot of twiddling.

Your calculation that 1/750 sec is the minimum for this setup is noted, but I'm a fair way from being able to get that with any reliability.

(Mine is an f5.6 setup, as has been agreed. I think the issue arose because an earlier post mentioned a 1.7 tc and I introduced the 1.4.)

Finally, I do find noise an issue above iso 400 but scaling to realistic sizes seems to get rid of most of it without fuss or mess.

I hope the OP finds all these responses useful at some point!
Click to expand...


Noise is only a problem if you don't know how to get rid of it .some canons do have auto ISO but nikons work far better .
 
the black fox said:
.some canons do have auto ISO but nikons work far better .
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean here Jeff, with modern Canon's inc the 7D2 In Av mode you can set auto ISO, and also set a minimum shutter speed for it to use - is this not the same as Nikon, how are Nikon's far better ?
 
Last edited:
When I had canon they all had auto iso? Now with nikon, can't tell the difference
 
Roy C said:
Not sure what you mean here Jeff, with modern Canon's inc the 7D2 In Av mode you can set auto ISO, and also set a minimum shutter speed for it to use - is this not the same as Nikon?
Click to expand...

Same for Nikon. I usually set my D750 for max 1600 ISO and min SS of 1/800 if aperture mode, but I mostly shot in manual now, so control them myself to suit the situation.
 
Last edited:
Swanseajack said:
Same for Nikon. I usually set my D750 for max 1600 ISO and min SS of 1/800 if aperture mode, but I mostly shot in manual now, so control them myself to suit the situation.
Click to expand...
I also shoot a lot in manual mode but I was just trying to work out why Jeff said that Nikon's are so much better than Canon's for Auto ISO - from what I can see they both work the same and it seems as if you are confirming this.
 
Roy C said:
I also shoot a lot in manual mode but I was just trying to work out why Jeff said that Nikon's are so much better than Canon's for Auto ISO - from what I can see they both work the same and it seems as if you are confirming this.
Click to expand...

Looking back at the posts, he's maybe referring to the older Nikons, D7000 & D300 and Canon didn't have auto ISO on there bodies at the time, or not as good as Nikon at the time????????? Perhaps he will confirm later.
 
I have a D3200 - the four limitations are AA filter, preventing full use of pixel density, noise about ISO 800 starts to impact dynamic range, The Viewfinder is small and dark, and the Autofocus system leaves a lot to be desired.

The D7100 solves all those problems apart from the noise above ISO 800.

The Nikon 300F4 AF-S + TC 1.4II is a best value Nikon birding rig right now, and also has great magnification for detail shots.

However, I do have to point out that Canon's 7D MK II has better autofocus and better fps/buffer, and they tend to have a wider array of quality telephoto's available secondhand.
 
natureiser said:
I have a D3200 - the four limitations are AA filter, preventing full use of pixel density, noise about ISO 800 starts to impact dynamic range, The Viewfinder is small and dark, and the Autofocus system leaves a lot to be desired.

The D7100 solves all those problems apart from the noise above ISO 800.

The Nikon 300F4 AF-S + TC 1.4II is a best value Nikon birding rig right now, and also has great magnification for detail shots.

However, I do have to point out that Canon's 7D MK II has better autofocus and better fps/buffer, and they tend to have a wider array of quality telephoto's available secondhand.
Click to expand...
But is the 7DII better than the D7200 as that would be a fairer comparison? I doubt it is, and the D7200 has better DR, better noise handling and is £400-500 cheaper.
 
snerkler said:
But is the 7DII better than the D7200 as that would be a fairer comparison? I doubt it is, and the D7200 has better DR, better noise handling and is £400-500 cheaper.
Click to expand...
Might as well get a d7100 it is better at lower iso the 7200 is noisier and holds less detail that's the expense people pay because they wanted better high iso imho it's not much of an upgrade and not worth the extra money, there's a good youtube video showing the d7100 showing much more detail at lower ISOs which to.me is more important unless you shoot in the dark all the time, in which case get a flash.
The 7200 has a couple more pointless bells and whistles but is not a better camera
 
Last edited:
Imo yes the 7d ii is the better choice but I think it's over priced at the moment
 
Last edited:
If you could put the D7100's DR and the D7200 high iso sensor into a 7D II body it would be perfect. For some reason Nikon don't want to make the D400 everyone is crying out for. I would say the 7DMKII has "enough" DR and iso performance to make some very nice pics and autofocus and burst/buffer tends to make a lot more difference for birds in flight than DR or high iso does.
 
The pefrect camera will never happen :-(
 
Swanseajack said:
Looking back at the posts, he's maybe referring to the older Nikons, D7000 & D300 and Canon didn't have auto ISO on there bodies at the time, or not as good as Nikon at the time????????? Perhaps he will confirm later.
Click to expand...
yes i was was simon ,you can only speak from personal experience ,i do remember when i had the d7000 and d300s the iso numbers came up exactly as what was needed i.e if it needed 658iso thats what it used and recorded ,canons efforts at the time where far cruder and lacking ,things may well have changed by now though .
 
the black fox said:
yes i was was simon ,you can only speak from personal experience ,i do remember when i had the d7000 and d300s the iso numbers came up exactly as what was needed i.e if it needed 658iso thats what it used and recorded ,canons efforts at the time where far cruder and lacking ,things may well have changed by now though .
Click to expand...
So when you said "some canons do have auto ISO but nikons work far better" you did not really mean that then Jeff ;) . I was trying to figure out exactly how Nikon's could be far better for auto ISO but it seems as if they are very similar nowadays.
BTW I think I will bow out of this thread now before it deteriorates into a full blow Canon v Nikon rubbish thread
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top