Getting reach (distance) out of FX

Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
2,078
Location
SE Wisconsin
I'm seriously looking at going FX. On one hand I want the wider angle, and higher ISO that FX offers but I lose my reach for distance.

On my D80 my 300 mm is basically a 440mm. How do I gain that back on FX? One of the lens on my wish list is the 300 f2.8. Would I need to use that with the 1.4 tele convertor? If so what image quality do I lose? I don't believe that dropping 8-10k on a 500mm lens is in this lifetime.

I know that with FX the trade off is you lose the distance factor. I have heard that if you crop the image though due to a higher quality picture to begin with you can crop it to get that reach back. Not sure what truth there is to that.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
3,063
Location
Mohawk Valley, New York , USA
I know exactly where you're coming from ....
had a D300 when I got my D700 .... I just wanted a full frame and I'm very glad I purchased the D700 ...
however I soon realized that you do lose that "long end" when I wanted to photograph nature, wildlife etc ....
I looked at various options -- Nikon 80-400 was one but it's certainly not a fast lens nor perfect on the long end from alot of reviews/opinions I"ve seen and it's not a cheap lens either ..... rented a Tamron 200-500 and it was okay and that's about it .... the 200-400 f4 was definetly out of my price range ....
Knowing I had a 70-300VR that worked great on my D700 I decided I had 2 options ...
1. Buy the expensive 80-400 that I know I would'nt use an awful lot and pay in the $ 1500.00 range or --
2. Buy the new D7000 to get me back to the 450mm range plus have extra mps so I could crop even more and that would be in the $ 1200 range ...
I went the D7000 way and am very happy with it ..... I recently picked up a used 300f4 AF (not AF-S) and with my 1.4 xtender I can now reach out 600+ MM .....
so for me spending $1200 on a crop camera that would get me more reach plus having a extra available body was the way to go ....
Recovering reach with a FX body is most definetly going to be expensive especially if you want a really good quality lens ....
Don't know if all this rambling is any help but that's there's my 2 cents ---

ron
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
4,922
Location
Valley Forge, PA
A 300 2.8 with a 1.4 is still a great performer. I do not see any IQ loss with mine when I use the 1.4 TC. AF remains fast and accurate.

IMO, the loss in "reach" is outweighed by the stellar low light performance. Others may have a different view. It all depends on what you shoot.

To Ron:
I am using a friend's 80-400 for a bit and on my D3 it is a great performer throughout its range. I would suggest renting one before you make any conclusions about IQ. AF is a bit slow, but with proper technique, that can be overcome to some extent.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
25,044
Location
Orland Park, Illinois
The 300 2.8 is an awesome lens and tolerates the 1.4x teleconverter quite well. Although I use my D700 90% of the time, I kept my D300 as my back up and use it for added reach when shooting wildlife or certain sports.

Glenn
 
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
2,078
Location
SE Wisconsin
I know exactly where you're coming from ....
had a D300 when I got my D700 .... I just wanted a full frame and I'm very glad I purchased the D700 ...
however I soon realized that you do lose that "long end" when I wanted to photograph nature, wildlife etc ....
I looked at various options -- Nikon 80-400 was one but it's certainly not a fast lens nor perfect on the long end from alot of reviews/opinions I"ve seen and it's not a cheap lens either ..... rented a Tamron 200-500 and it was okay and that's about it .... the 200-400 f4 was definetly out of my price range ....
Knowing I had a 70-300VR that worked great on my D700 I decided I had 2 options ...
1. Buy the expensive 80-400 that I know I would'nt use an awful lot and pay in the $ 1500.00 range or --
2. Buy the new D7000 to get me back to the 450mm range plus have extra mps so I could crop even more and that would be in the $ 1200 range ...
I went the D7000 way and am very happy with it ..... I recently picked up a used 300f4 AF (not AF-S) and with my 1.4 xtender I can now reach out 600+ MM .....
so for me spending $1200 on a crop camera that would get me more reach plus having a extra available body was the way to go ....
Recovering reach with a FX body is most definetly going to be expensive especially if you want a really good quality lens ....
Don't know if all this rambling is any help but that's there's my 2 cents ---

ron

I'm laughing at the 2nd camera idea. I'm having a hard time on the replacement for the first! I would like to stay away from 2 cameras.

On the other hand I'm not getting rid of the D80 but yes I'm after and chasing the high quality images.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
323
Location
state college, pa
im waiting for the D4 and D800 to be hopefully 24(16 would almost be acceptable) mp. DX crop at 12-14 mp with the push of a button and turn of a dial to get that extra reach, while still having the yet unseen lot light performance in an image size we all use now
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
863
Location
Bronx,NY
I used to have a D300. I purchased a D700 about 7 months ago.I shoot a lot of wildlife. I dont regret the move. I've been really happy with my used 300 f/2.8 afs I bought about a year ago. I've gotten great results using my various tc's with this lens. I have the 1.4, 1.7 and 2x.
There's always some compromise most people make. Usually its because of the price. The crop mode on the D700 & D3 isnt bad. I use it when I need it. You can always look into a used 300 f/4 afs. I'm hoping in a few years I'll be able to buy a used 400 f/2.8 afs, not the VR.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,552
Location
Los Angeles, USA
After trying TCs and even a D3X, I gave up and just went back to having a DX camera in my kit. A D300/S gives you about the same crop factor as a D3X in DX mode. So if you shoot wildlife you can't beat the cost/performance factor of a DX body when it comes to getting reach.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
684
Location
North of Seattle, South of Canada
For both wildlife and sports photography the DX crop factor can be useful if one needs the apparent reach. However, the improved low light performance of FX is often more useful in those situations, in my opinion. However, if the light is good and you need the reach, DX may suffice. But if the light is poor and you need the reach then FX with a longer lens is going to offer better performance.

That said, in sports photography getting the shot is often what matters and image quality due to noise is often not a great concern. With wildlife photography, however, image quality is of more importance and often the light is poor and one also needs the reach.

Therefore, both bodies are useful, each has a purpose and one is not necessarily "better" than the other.
 
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
4,458
Location
San Jose, California
If it has to be a single camera body, then basically you will need to decide between reach on one hand and low light/high ISO/wide angle performance on the other. I'm happy with FX but it started a serious drain on my bank account (i.e. going from 300 to 500mm for birds). So be careful if reach is important to you. Yes FX usually maintains higher IQ when cropping a bit (at least compared to the older generation DX sensors) but this does not fully compensate for the loss of reach. I've now added a D7000 which is an increadible step up from previous DX bodies. Files are about as clean as from the D700, and I now often go out with that and the 300/4 again and enjoy the light kit yet similar results to my D700+500/4.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,552
Location
Los Angeles, USA
Jonathan F/2, if you're ever around these parts you're welcome to use the one I'm not at that moment. But don't get too far away. That way I can grab it when necessary. :wink:

I'm in love with the 600 VR. I cherish my 400 VR, but the 600 VR is just an exuberant piece of glass I'd love to own, but it's just too much for me to be practical. :frown::biggrin::wink:
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
684
Location
North of Seattle, South of Canada
It's heavy and does require a stout tripod which does indeed make it less practical in a sense since you can't really walk around with it.

Hrm..., street photography with the 'Big Six'. I might have to do that and post the video on YouTube. :wink:

ps: An idea just came to me: Do so on roller blades. :biggrin:
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
3,969
Location
Chicago
They all have an Image area selection in the shooting menu. Or just set up a crop option. Or use the DX for telework. Or just buy a longer lens.

Lose reach? Did you not know this ahead of time?
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom