I don't need to defend Tony, he is one of the most skilled and talented wildlife photographers we have here at FM. Given the circumstances of the image capture it is a good example of what I am sure Tony was trying to demonstrate which is the capabilities of the V1 and this lens. I don't find the image to be anything you stated Flypenfly.
Obviously not saying anything about the capabilities of the photographer.
However, just speaking from a file quality point of view, it doesn't seem good? It doesn't seem as good as an iPhone 4S in terms of just the quality of the file.
Of course I'm sure I couldn't take a photo of a bird that closely with an iPhone 4S.
It's the same processed plastic look as in the chickadee photos in the 300mm f/4 thread. Tony's demontrated the V1's capabilities well enough for me, I'm not interested.
I guess decision whether this shot is "yawn" or "wow" depends on what you are looking for. Image quality overall is so-so. Image quality for 1/50s 810mm handheld - wow! It beats the classic handheld exposure time rule (<1/focal distance) by 1620%.
Bottom line - with this little camera you'll be able to pull off at least so-so shots even in the most difficult conditions!
IDK about 1/50 sec (I usually run into subject motion problems) but I've regularly used 1/125 sec and occasionally 1/60 sec with a 560mm lens on a 1.37x crop camera (same field of view as 767mm on a full-frame camera) using a shoulder stock & monopod and the results at 16" x 20" look like a photograph full of detail, not processed plastic. I'm not interseted in so-so shots.
millsart wrote:
Ah....got to love the alternative forum for always missing the forest for the trees.
Most people see an image of a bird, alt forum sees a bunch of pixels they need to over analyze.
Isn't this thread about the capabilities of a particular piece of equipment? The title of the thread is "Nikon 1 V1 & 70-300" not "Pileated Woodpecker".
Well, from any given photo you can only conclude that the capability of the equipment is no less than what you see. More photos are needed to show how high it can go.
Doug, you can look elsewhere, this isn't going to be DMR+280/4 territory, but it could make some people happy
carstenw wrote:
Well, from any given photo you can only conclude that the capability of the equipment is no less than what you see. More photos are needed to show how high it can go.
Doug, you can look elsewhere, this isn't going to be DMR+280/4 territory, but it could make some people happy
Yes it could make some people happy, but some perspective would be good too. I have to wonder how many reading this forum have seen a good paper print.
A fun, small camera, sure. Producing good quality results, that's not what I've seen so far.
I have seen some quite good results with it, but nothing mind-blowing. It is a fun second camera for us enthusiasts, and possibly a very good first camera for someone with somewhat lower standards. It is way above any P&S and about equal to the current MFT cameras, the OM-D excluded.
The V1 with your 280/4 would be an interesting test.
alemmo wrote:
Sure but with all due respect you are coming across as a bit of a pompous.....
I don't think so. Doug is just putting everything on the same scale, instead of keeping a separate scale for cheaper/smaller cameras. This is just as valid a viewpoint. Clearly the V1 is not going to replace any good DSLR, like the DMR or some of the high-end Nikons, but it can pull off some very decent shots if you lower your standards a bit.
carstenw wrote:
The V1 with your 280/4 would be an interesting test.
It would be better IMHO to use a lens designed for the smaller format. Much of the 280's spectacular image quality is its consistently high MTF curves all the way to the edge of the 24x36 frame and most of that would be thrown away on this camera.
Given, but in the centre it is still going to be a better lens than the competition right now. It wouldn't make sense to buy such a lens for this camera, but if you had the lens for other reasons, it would be interesting to see how it could perform in a V1.
