| Joined: | Thu Apr 19th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4424 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
I should also have said that the reason for me going for the 200-500 was I missed too many shots as things came too close and I couldn't move. So it was either two camera bodies with a prime on one and a 80-200 on the other or the 200-500.
Yes that's the trade off of course. I think if you are a dedicated wildlife shooter, as Robert said 'fieldcraft' would mean you were 'in the know' ....which is short for 'closer than most other people get to the bird'.
I cannot remember a time when I didn't need to crop a bird image. Suggesting I've never been too close for my lenses.
I cannot see myself dedicating the time, frequency and enthusiasm to bird photography like I used to do 35years ago! Apart from anything else, 20years of sitting on a soft computer chair has poorly conditioned my backside for long sits on those hard wooden hide benches.
I could take a cushion ....if no one was watching
I think I will try a 300 with the tc on my 750. If the IQ looks good, then adding the D500 would give me the extra 1.5x.
I instinctively feel that my wildlife shooting will be a lot more serendipity....out for a walk, visiting a garden or wildlife park...rather than setting out with a day's birding in mind, like the old days.
That being the case, the lighter the load the more likely I will carry it with me ...just in case.
If I do get the bug again...I can always add or replace it with the heavier zoom. The first check is to see what the tc does to it.
____________________
Eric