D7200 or 1.7x?

Thinking it wasn;t getting used that much, I sold my D7200 a couple weeks ago in anticipation of the D500.  Well, that has turned out to be a very bad move on my end.

I shoot a lot of waterfowl and have been using my D750 and 500/1.4x combo over the last 2 weeks.  What I have learned is that I am cropping, sometimes a lot, sometimes marginally.  I am also running into some AF issues because the birds are too small under the AF pattern for it to pick up and lock on to without getting confused on the background.

Obviously, the answer would be to get closer.  Unfortunately, I am shooting from the banks of a frozen river and getting closer is not a safe or viable option.

So, my options at this point are another used D7200 or a 1.7x TC.  Both have their good and bad - the D7200 gives better reach, but the ISO performance, while better, isn't full frame quality.  The 1.7x gives more but marginal reach at a lesser cost at the expense of half an f-stop and there are inconsistent reviews on whether there is a slight to strong loss in IQ or focusing speed (I would have to think the AF speed is reduced, but how much?).

Suggestions?

Shoot the D750 in DX mode +/- the 1.4 teleconverter until you get your new D500. You indicated that you weren't using the D7200 much anyway. I hope I understood your dilemma correctly, or is it that you are disappointed in the megapixel count, etc. of the recently announced d500? I don't own the 1.7, but the consensus seems to be that it isn't great, most Nikon teleconverters just aren't except perhaps the 1.4.

The 1.7x and 500 is a terrible combination in my opinion from an image quality standpoint. Even if you can get it well calibrated, it still is optically poor. For not much more than a 1.7x you could pick up a used D7100. Then if you need to you can shoot that in crop mode and get 15 megapixels at nearly 1000mm effective focal length from a field of view perspective. Add a 1.4x and get even more (again needs to be well calibrated but the result is still decent optically).

Until I get a D500...I use a D300s + 300mm f2.8 VR I + 2Xt.c. III......very, very good for birds !

E.J. Peiker wrote:The 1.7x and 500 is a terrible combination in my opinion from an image quality standpoint.  Even if you can get it well calibrated, it still is optically poor.  For not much more than a 1.7x you could pick up a used D7100. Then if you need to you can shoot that in crop mode and get 15 megapixels at nearly 1000mm effective focal length from a field of view perspective.  Add a 1.4x and get even more (again needs to be well calibrated but the result is still decent optically).

1.  +1.... because it is a smart option and cheap money for now.

This option will get you through the winter, until the D500 begins trickling out in March.  

2.  Here's an idea:  Do E.J.'s suggestion, buying the D7100 from B and H, at the same time putting in an order for the D500.......and asking them to put all the money from the D7100's return toward your new D500 when they get it in.  How's that?  You may be surprised how they will work with you.  Hope they have a D7100 though.  Just checked and B and H has three used D7100 right now.  Nobody knows how long they will last.

3.   Just curious:  Who says the TC 1.7 is good on the 500 ?  Everyone I have read is down on it.  Based alone on E.J.'s repeated reports on this, I  would not think of touching it.

4.   BTW, you mention high ISO noise.  About a month ago i was shooting this new D7200 on overflying waterfowl and opened a topic here on that first experience.   The light was fading at the time; it was just before sunset, as the waterfowl were leaving from a close-in feeding area, to the openness of their roosting area...   Well, you will have to read this link if interested.   

Because I knew high ISO noise would occasionally be a problem with this D7200 (and at Mike In O's suggestion) I purchased DXO Optics Pro 10 and found it to "eat noise for breakfast."    If you want to kill noise, the Prime option (I believe only in DXO OP 10's Elite version), is a great option.  But of course, I have not tried any other de-noising software, as others here have.

Robert

Work on learning how to get closer or scout out new locations while you wait for the D500. Sometimes it's just learning how to use the equipment you have effectively rather than trying to force the equipment to compensate for less than ideal conditions. I was constantly pushing a D7100 (with converter) on trips to Africa. Last trip, I only traveled with FX cameras and I came back with better pictures since I didn't waste time on iffy situations.

Exactly what Tony says. Find locations and situations where you can either get closer, or do a closer setup. In time you learn to not bother with the situations that are beyond your reach and work on the locations that are. Trying to pull in from distances with a 1.7x or 2x, is not the answer.

The 1.7x can work quite well on the f/2.8 teles, or where you can get really close. If you are working at any significant distance (say beyond 100 feet), then forget the 1.7x. I did extensive tests with my 500 VR and 300 f4 afs without converters, with the 1.4x and with the 1.7x, but these tests were done from within 5 to 50 feet. In my tests, and at those short distances, I actually have frames with the 1.7x that are easily as sharp and detailed as the 1.4x. In the end though, I decided to sell the 1.7x and just use a DX crop with the 1.4x as my longest combo.

I owned two D7100's and could not get rid of them fast enough. Everyone has different experiences and needs, but for my needs I could not shoot with the D7100. It is possible that I was extremely unlucky and got two bad copies, but that was enough for me. I ended up buying the D7200 and could not be happier. I would avoid the D7100 and just get the D7200. You may find (like me) that the D7200 does everything you need and you will not need to spend the extra $$$ for a D500

I had good results with my D300 +600f4 +1.7x, By good i mean that they looked sharp on screen, Agency's accepted them and they looked good in print, That was with a 12mp camera, I did not find the results acceptable to me with higher MP cameras and sold it due to lack of use, I cannot remember the last time i used a 1.4x but would if needed, Like Tont says find a place where you can get closer, I have never been a fan of cropping (big) and if a subject is too far out i will wait or not bother

Dave

Thanks guys. I have a spot I can get much closer, but then all my image look the same - same light, same background, so on. I'm still pretty new out here so doing the best I can.

The guy who bought my D7200 is letting me have it back, as he had decided to wait and get the D500. Should have it back in hand by end of the week.

Now that I read what Dave wrote it reminded me that my tests of the 1.7x were with the D300 and D700. It was when I got the D800 that I could no longer use the 1.7x and sold it.

Remember that with the D500 you are giving up a few MPs from the D7200. I would use and enjoy the D7200 and only upgrade if you need any of the specific features the D500 offers. For me it really offers nothing unless the higher ISO performance is "significantly" better.

My 500VR+TC17EII worked quite well on my old 12MP D300 when viewed on "standard" resolution monitor. But on higher density bodies (think D800/D7100) that combo was terrible (similar to Dave C's experience above). But since the D750 has LARGER pixels than the D300, the TC17EII might, in fact, work reasonably well as long as you're printing and/or not viewing with an uber-high resolution monitor. Your least expensive option might be to locate a used TC17EII and continue to use your D750, then jettison the TC when you get the D500. I have no arguments with the advice to "get closer", but of course that's not always an option.

The guy who bought my 7200 decided to sell it, so we'Re just going to undo the transaction. Guess I'll redo the AF tune and start again. Better reach with the bare lens than the d750, lens and TC.

bradipock wrote:The guy who bought my 7200 decided to sell it, so we'Re just going to undo the transaction.  Guess I'll redo the AF tune and start again.  Better reach with the bare lens than the d750, lens and TC.

Good plan   Also, my D7200 works very well with the 500 VR and 1.4x up to about 100 feet. Beyond that all Nikon lenses suck. Although I can't speak for the new lighter FL tele versions.

Tim Zurowski wrote:

bradipock wrote:The guy who bought my 7200 decided to sell it, so we'Re just going to undo the transaction.  Guess I'll redo the AF tune and start again.  Better reach with the bare lens than the d750, lens and TC.

Good plan   Also, my D7200 works very well with the 500 VR and 1.4x up to about 100 feet. Beyond that all Nikon lenses suck. Although I can't speak for the new lighter FL tele versions.

Older Nikon f/4 super teles aren't very good at long shooting distances.  Nikon makes many lenses from ultra wide to ultra long.  Out of those a small number that they used to make "suck".  The only lens in the current Nikon lineup that underperforms at distance is the 200-400 II.  The older 500mm f/4G VR that was replaced with the 500mm f/4E VR also does not perform well at long shooting distances but it is a bit better than the 200-400.  The older 600 f/4G VR is again a bit better than the 500 f/4G.  Beyond those three lenses there is no issue.