I need more reach

treeman

treeman

Messages
4,094
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
I need to get more reach out of my 300mm. I'm considering the various options and wondered if anyone has done the same thing.

1. Use my FX body in DX mode
2. Shoot DX but crop in processing
3. use a 1.5 convertor (loss of a stop and a half could be a problem though)

My query is, which one of the above options will give the optimum quality?
 
Well I'm completely with you on the needing more reach issue, but there are so many variables in deciding which is the best way to go for you.

Generally speaking, you'll get the best reach from any lens when used with a high density pixel crop sensor. This will allow for maximum cropping ability while still retaining decent image quality.

A crop sensor can still effectively outreach a larger sensor even one used with a longer lens than you use. It all comes down to pixel density and the number of pixels retained after cropping, but you really need to do some simple tests of your own to prove that this really is the case.

Converters are best used behind a prime lens and even then there's bound to be a slight drop in IQ. You can expect more of a drop in IQ using a converter with a zoom lens, but having said that a 1.4X converter used with a 70-200 lens may produce acceptable results and the trade off could be worth it for the reach gained... A 2X TC would be pushing it a bit.

I think you'd only lose 1 stop btw with a 1.5X TC?
 
Thanks CT, I was wondering if the only way would be to do some tests, in relation to crop modes as opposed to post cropping. I'm not keen on the convertor idea, so might knock that on the head anyway.

Wondering if I should of hung on to my D300 :bonk:
 
I'm not really 'up' on Nikon gear Mark, but there's certainly a case for hanging onto your D200, although I think that the D300 is your best Nikon option at the moment?

I posted this yonks ago to show the pixel density advantage, which is very real when it comes to reach. Each example represents the maximum size you can reproduce that bird in the full size file from each camera. Obviously it would be bigger in each case, but it's pretty well to scale, although I don't claim 100% accuracy - it's not far away.....

3887659806_596eb8dc3a_o.jpg


Sorry mate I misread your post - I see you had the D300. Yep you should oughta have kept it. :D Then again - it depends what you shoot - the D700 will be better for other stuff. Two bodies would give you the best of both worlds obviously, but it's finding that elusive wonga I know.
 
As an update, i bought a 1.4 for the 300 mm 2.8 making it 420mm, but still not long enough. Can't afford another long fast lens so a cheaper option looks likes getting a crop body, efectively giving me something around 630mm and retaining pixel density.
 
Mark, I do a lot of wildlife with mainly two lenseszzzz...(just for the spelling Police).

The 300-800 is far better on the D700 for AF, yet with the D300 it has a lot more range.The 120-300 with/out 1.4 TC is awesome on either body. Only you know what you want or can afford.

I prefer to have both bodies and both lenses at all times...........JMO.
 
treeman said:
As an update, i bought a 1.4 for the 300 mm 2.8 making it 420mm, but still not long enough. Can't afford another long fast lens so a cheaper option looks likes getting a crop body, efectively giving me something around 630mm and retaining pixel density.
Click to expand...

The D300 or the D300S are really the weapons of choice for reach in the Nikon stable.
 
Thanks for the input folks.
Having had a bad Polo game today where everything was going on at the other end of the field, I've decide I really need to do something!
I'm going to see if my local dealer will let me put my lens on a D300s take a few shots and whilst there do the same shots on my D3s and then blow up the D3s shots so they're the same size as the D300 pics, and see if I can spot the difference.
In theory, if you're correct, I should see some differences at some point, shouldn't I? :shrug:

A new body is going to be a lot cheaper than a new lens :)
 
Yes it looks like a crop body is the Answer for you and thats the reason I kept with canon.
 
CT, that comparison line up 7D-1DM2 is a great illustration. Thanks for posting.
 
And there I was thinking about going full frame, now I'm not so sure :)

edit: great illustration CT :thumbs:
 
Well - it's down to what you shoot. The crop advantage for maximum reach is very significant, and getting more so with the increased pixel densities of the latest sensors. If on the other hand you like using wide lenses it becomes a disadvantage. If the stuff you shoot is very varied you can argue a strong case for having both formats. There's still no such thing as the perfect body - not until the dual format sensor anyway. :D

Couple of good articles on the advantages and disadvantages of crop sensors...


http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrsensors/dslrsensors.htm

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml
 
CT said:
Well - it's down to what you shoot. The crop advantage for maximum reach is very significant, and getting more so with the increased pixel densities of the latest sensors. If on the other hand you like using wide lenses it becomes a disadvantage. If the stuff you shoot is very varied you can argue a strong case for having both formats. There's still no such thing as the perfect body - not until the dual format sensor anyway. :D

Couple of good articles on the advantages and disadvantages of crop sensors...


http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrsensors/dslrsensors.htm

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml
Click to expand...

Thanks for those articles, I'll have a read later. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top