@adamz: What zoo did you take these in? Nice natural looking scenery. The 80-400VR I am waiting for is the upcoming one.....not the current model which I believe you refer too. I used the current Nikkor and decided I liked the 70-300VR (we own more than one....) better. I THINK the new one will be way better....NOAA local weather says we have an ice storm coming which in the tree farm business is our worst nightmare so I have to leave NR to go say my prayers. I don't get worried about upcoming Nikons like what could happen weatherwise in my life.....Happy Thanksgiving to you all!!!

NikoDoby said:
... now you know the D4X is going to be announced next week ;^)

Now that's how the real rumors get started.

My best,

Mike

thanks for the kind words Davey, as for N80-400vr it's an exceptional lens in terms of IQ, the only drawbacks are the lack of AF override (due to the lack of AF-S) and the fact it's a little bit dark. If You planning to use it on tripod than remember to get the Kirk Photo replacement collar as it adds a lot to stability of this lens.

@adamz: I live in the mountains where wildlife photo opportunities abound. I have equipped myself with good photo gear to record it. But the photos you have presented shows my remote setting has it's limitations. I don't have a zoo anywhere within many country miles of me. Looks like you have a LOT of reasons not to need to go on expensive safaris to the dark continent! Very nice shots! Also nice comparison of the Nikon DX and FX and well controlled comparable lens choices. Thank you! I myself am looking out for Nikon's 80-400VR intro and wondering if it will be available before I go to Alaska this August and September? I expect that I'll have my D7000 by then......But sure not a FX D700 upgrade with video onboard.

SkintBrit said:
Just a thought, I'm sure it's easier to do this at home in front of the computer, but I'm interested to know if anyone uses the in camera editing options to do this (or other tweaks post capture)? Is it just a wasted feature on most peoples cameras?

Those are wasted features for me. I prefer to shoot raw and edit on PC than limit potential options. They should give out all options so you can download what you want and what buttons/menus you control it with/put it in - but that's a whole 'nother thread.

adamz said: all pictures unedited in any way, just import to aperture, and export in jpg in smaller width (800px).

Just a thought, I'm sure it's easier to do this at home in front of the computer, but I'm interested to know if anyone uses the in camera editing options to do this (or other tweaks post capture)? Is it just a wasted feature on most peoples cameras?

Sure Drab. I said that because we had a marathon crop sensor versus 35mm size thread here a while ago and those pics would have been very usefull then.

spraynpray said:
The DoF is fairly constant and the bokeh too. Interesting to see, thanks.

That is because the lens used,the distance to subject, and the distance to background didn't change.

The arguments for better-bokeh-with-FX all boil down to the fact one uses longer focal length lenses to achieve the same framing from any given distance when one shoots FX, and therefore one gets the thinner DoF:f-stop raio inherit in using a 50% longer lens.

Or the fact one must walk closer to the subject if using the same lens, and therefore one has changed the subject distance to background distance ratio, putting the background relatively further out of the focal plane than if one were shooting DX, again thinning the DoF and isolating the subject better.

Those are a useful bunch of pictures for the DX/FX apparent magnification/crop thread. The DoF is fairly constant and the bokeh too. Interesting to see, thanks.

I know its fixable, I was just make a casual observation about the results. Nothing else really stood out to me from the comparisons, at least at the size that you presented the photographs.

squamish - I haven't fixed any colors on that one, indeed they look more washed out and colder than the one from d3s, but that's easy fixable.

The colors look terrible on the D300s shot.

so I finally get couple minutes of free time and relatively good weather, and managed take snaps with both d3s and d300s. the lens was mounted on a tripod and I was using the N70-200vr + TC17. all pictures unedited in any way, just import to aperture, and export in jpg in smaller width (800px).

D3s - FF

D3s - crop 1.2

D3s - crop 1.5 (DX)

D300s - DX

all pictures on iso 640, wide open lens (f4.8)

To Adamz: Read your post on zoo photographs and wild area photos for lions and tigers. I do agree with your thoughts there and to go to places where wild animals truly exist.....is either expensive in time or money or both. And I do not want to attack the whole zoo issue. You also live where there are zoos and I do not. You are lucky to live where there are good zoos. Yet every good zoo I know is in a big population center to be able to afford to run the zoo. And even a number of "wild" animals in designated wilderness areas still have exposure to humans so that is a extremely valuable point you have made. To PM PB: I have met many wildlife pros who use FF DSLR (both Canon and Nikon) and generally they are FX people, not DX photographers. Moose Peterson I have never met but I have read his articles or publicity and I am certain that he has a great system. It is also not quite as portable as what I use now. Since great wildlife shots are defined by being in the right place at the right time......that tips the balance greatly in favor of guys like Moose Peterson and not me. If I had my choice of gear without cost and mobility considered I would take FX. But DX has taken 100% of my best wildlife shots since i switched from film. My D700 is not as good with the lens I have for the range I am shooting. I also have the prejudice that DX wildlife video would not much different than FX video. It also seems like a long shot for me to ever afford FX video capable Nikon gear.

Pierre said:
Perhaps, in the near enough future, manufacturer will be able to pack FF quality in a P&S, in which case we would look quite stupid walking around with our body building equipments wrapped around our neck, don't you think?

Well there are rumors of an EVIL Nikon camera with a 2.7-3X crop ;^)

I would say that the main difference between wildlife and zoo photo has to do with the chances an animal has to escape or eat you. Beside, I wonder in which zoo I would have a chance to photo lions going for a zebra kill. For me, wild cats are just out-of-reach. I appreciate both, zoos and the work of those in the field.

Perhaps, in the near enough future, manufacturer will be able to pack FF quality in a P&S, in which case we would look quite stupid walking around with our body building equipments wrapped around our neck, don't you think?

We have to suffer heavy weight stuff just because of current technology limitations and our desire for the best, which is apparently FF for the time being.

adamz said:
On dx it was easy - just fill the frame with animal

What an odd thought. Anyway, I never thought of it that way. When shooting wildlife, I usually take a few closeup shots and try to include more of the environment in the rest of the shots.. easier to accomplish with DX (& same focal length) as you are less likely to disturb the animals and scare them off when quietly moving away from them.

With FX you have to either haul really heavy glass OR get really close and be a Ranger or Navy SEAL..

My answer to the DX vs FX question is to carry both in a comfortable backback currently new Domke 3. My tele is on the 300s and my wide angle is on the 700. The 300s plus shorter tele weight easily beats putting the bigger, heavier tele on the 700, enough so the extra body in the pack is immaterial. And, I'm quicker on the draw for the shots I want.

And what's the weight difference between d300/d700 with battery grip and d3 - IMHO too small to bother, so I'm with PB PM on this.

DaveyJ - I'm shooting animals in both natural and artificial environment, each has it cons and pros, but one con above all is practice. I know that there are purist among us, who think that zoo photography is trash, for me it's an opportunity to study animals behavior. As for Your comment on wild lions and tigers... well have to disagree with You, especially about lions. The biggest difference between shooting candid photos of lions in the "wild" and in zoo is the price difference. On one hand You have ridiculous high fees for safari lodging ($300 & up for night) on the other hand You have $5 for zoo ticket... which one is more affordable and which animal is less wild, the one who lives in african parks or the one in zoo... ok, maybe I overexaggerate but my point is that there are not too many truly free and wild animals around the world. Anyway, what matters in the end is the satisfaction of capturing the moment - and I hope we both agree on this point.

DaveyJ, if you think DX is the only way to go for wildlife, don't talk to Moose Peterson, who shoots wildlife exclusively with a D3.

As for weight, the D700 doesn't weigh much more than the D300, maybe 100g at the most. Hardly anything noticeable, and I carry my D300 around with my 300mm F4 AF-S for hours. Of course I wouldn't do any serious hiking with that combo, but I did do some a few months ago, and I hardly noticed the gear at all.

@ Pierre: I am going to say that your comment on the D700 hike was very excellent and my post above really did not add anything to this FX versus DX discussion. Let me just echo Pierre's sentiment to say this.....at 66 years old when I do go fro a hike and I know it is going to be a physical test I do not want to be dominated by a camera system. But if some wonderful scene presents itself I don't want a P&S to try to record it. That to me is one reason DX is so right at times. It is also why a one lens zoom is also a very good option. If your only mission was a photo for sale.....maybe then the heavy gear (FX 35mm DSLR) is justified.

I shoot wildlife photos almost everyday. I own a D300 and a D700. I rarely if ever use the D700 on wildlife despite the fact that I have very good glass for FX photography. Also Adams comment on seeing the setting for an animal better in DX versus FX. Hmmmm....when I photograph I make sure what angle of view I want and zoom accordingly. Fact is I see no reason that FX is superior for wildlife photos to DX. Another issue....I don't class zoo animals as wildlife, some people do. I am not shooting zoo animals. If I was I'd pick the rig for the task. Wild lions or tigers do not have human owners. If they have human owners they are very far from wild. I have been many times in places where there are wild animals and enough DX and FX gear in use to see what results the photogs were getting. I truly wonder what an FX camera with a 600mm lens will get unless it was shot supported from a blind. I do not photograph that way and if I did that would be a good way to go. But when I look at images shot that are very good of real wild animals they were either done by someone who had very exclusive access to those places, or was someone using more lighter gear and being in the right place at the right time. Also a great shot on DX is better than a so-so shot on FX. I do think the FX versus DX debate is not a very useful one. Both DX and FX has its place and will last for years as a viable format.

@Pierre : LOL I think the gear is just an excuse ! Heh! ...

Hmm ... time for me to get some exercise too ... where is that beer ...

I did a walk up a small mountain last week and my D700, its 2 lenses and my tripod adding 10% over my own weight, plus some water and lunch, boy did I felt like being a work horse 3 hours in the walk. Now mountain photo seams less appealing to me for some reasons. There is surely a cost to FF beside money.

for sure in pounds hearty - I'm going to get the 600vr monster, played with it couple of times, and it's so damm heavy. but like You said this combo produces wonderful images (with a little help from the photographer :D)