Hi Guys,
If I got a D800 with its 36mp, am I able to crop enough so I don't need a 500f4?
For example, I only have an AF-S 300 f4 with A 1.7TC, I can get sharp images at 100% crop but not over 100%
If I bought a 36mp D800, would the "crop ability" save me the thousands of dollars on a 500f4
Our estuary crocodiles will let me get close enough but I would rather "crop the croc" than "cop the croc"
Regards,
Gary

My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Let's imagine you can get close enough to the croc with your D700 and 300mm lens for it to cover 1000 pixels horizontally in the frame.

At that same distance, replacing the 300mm on the D700 with a 500mm would allow the same croc to cover about 1670 pixels. On the other hand, by keeping the 300mm and replacing the D700 with a D800, the croc would cover 1730 pixels, so purely in terms of number of pixels you'd be slightly better off getting a D800 than a 500mm.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

Of course, if the D800 has a 500/f4 mounted on it, you'd be looking at what, 7200 pixels horizontally?

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

>Let's imagine you can get close enough to the croc with your
>D700 and 300mm lens for it to cover 1000 pixels horizontally
>in the frame.
>
>At that same distance, replacing the 300mm on the D700 with a
>500mm would allow the same croc to cover about 1670 pixels.
>On the other hand, by keeping the 300mm and replacing the D700
>with a D800, the croc would cover 1730 pixels, so purely in
>terms of number of pixels you'd be slightly better off getting
>a D800 than a 500mm.

Tks Brian,
Actually I should study the math to get a better grip on this,
Price for a 500 f4 in my country is around $10000,
Not sure about D800 yet?
Small birds are the real issue, they just fly away when you get too close
Stealth may just be a lot more economical
Regards,
Gary

My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Basically the greater pixel density will allow you to crop further, but it will also put greater requirements on your glass and your technique. Which is to say, 300 f/4 + 1.7TC might not allow you to take advantage of all those pixels.

D7000 has nearly the same pixel density as D800 and comes pre-cropped for a couple thousand dollars less and is available today. You could test your theory with a rental of that camera. If your only purpose to buying the D800 is to crop your crocs, then just buy the D7000 and save thousands twice over. DX shooters have been shooting these kind of pixel densities for a couple years. Nikon V1 allows even greater pixel density than either of these cameras.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

I am doing much the same for sports photography. The numbers work out well for me. The D7000 is an option certainly, but the D800 has better low light performance, so I get twice the bonus.

------
Webpage: http://www.ptfphoto.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Our estuary crocodiles will let me get close enough but I
>would rather "crop the croc" than "cop the croc"



It was not a crocodile, just a relatively harmless alligator - happily shot in Florida from a very close distance with D70 + AF-S 18-70. She did not run away, because her attention was occupied more with the racoon than with the photographer

Vladimir
Russian Nikonian in Switzerland

Autofocus capability would be the only advantage to the D800 - likely not a big issue with crocs.

Jim

Also the D7000 would allow to frame the shot with bigger/100% coverage OFV versus smaller shaded area ~%95 coverage in a D800 in DX mode... Being as how shooting crocs, I would think most shots would be in good lighting so the iso performance of the D7000 wouldn't be an issue, correct me if I'm wrong on that last point... Also your 300mm would equal 450mm field of view on a D7000.... plus the 1.7TC would equal 765mm field of view on the D7000... Best of luck with decision....

Chris

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Gary...grab the croc and rub its belly to mesmerize it. You'll be able to get much closer, and will save a lot of money on a camera and shorter focal-length lens.
Cheers,
Dave

"You can learn a lot from Lydia..."

Http://bellnier-photos.smugmug.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Tks for the replies Guys,
Guess there is no option but better glass,
That might just have to wait
Regards,
Gary

My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

We just had a long thread, where Neil's advice remained that based on his experience with D2H 4mp and D200 10mp, that if you needed the reach the long glass was more of a IQ increase than was adding the extra 200% of pixels (going from 12mp to 36mp). And speaking from experience for small birds you need the 500mm on a D400 not the D800 and buy a blind and a song playback device while you are at it

Best regards, SteveK

'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
My Nikonians gallery
My Nikonians Blog

Tks Steve,
I'm sure Neil is on the money here,
To pony-up for a 500f4 is, in reality, just a dream for me,
Looking at a local price for pre-order on the D800 here in Australia at $3900 has made me stop and think, (with the strong AUD, you would think we are getting ripped!)
Might just have to sit back and save for some new glass instead
Regards,
Gary

My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.