My "Like" button finger has been kept busy lately as the participants here continue to demonstrate that the need to manually focus a lens is no obstacle to great photography!
Here are a few more images from the Qualicum car show, all taken with the 35 f/1.4 N on my Fuji X-T4.
You might think you're rock steady, but you don't feel your motion. The longer lenses amplify it though. While I do get handheld shots with silly shutter speeds (1/15, 1/30, ) a good tripod is an asset and something you should definitely have.You want something that will hold a good amount of weight for its rating (30 pounds and up) and something, since you are taller, with at least 65 inch height.
I'm about to give a recently acquired 600mm some tests, but it's AF, so not eligible here.
jimmuller wrote:
I appreciate the responses. I certainly don't claim to be a champion camera handler and admit that my vision isn't as good as it once was. But I'm skeptical. For this study I was seated on the bench of a solid, wooden picnic table, body leaning against the tabletop, both elbows solidly on the table, eyepiece pressed against my face. The slowest shutter speed was 1/2500 sec, the fastest 1/8000 sec, and the Z5ii has good IBIS. (That's the same hardware, Z5ii, FTZ, 300mm, no TC, I used for the hand-held-while-standing moon shot I posted a month or two ago.) Of course there is no mirror shake in a mirrorless camera. Well, there is some shutter movement. As always, I focused by using the viewfinder magnifier. Short of using a very good tripod and the foldout screen instead of the eyepiece so my progressive glasses don't interfere, there isn't much I could do to improve stability, and a poor tripod might be worse. The apertures for the 300mm shots were 8, 5.6, 4.5. Of course the TC shots would be effectively smaller by one click. I suppose I could have done this with smaller apertures. I did botch the second of three for the 300mm sequence, I think I nudged the focus ring when shifting my hand for stability. Finally (though I didn't show it), except for that botched shot the general detail was consistent for each lens. If I mishandled the camera then I did it consistently for each lens, and I would expect the 300 x 1.4 shots to be worse than the straight 300 shots. Ever so slight difference in camera balance? I'm skeptical.
One thing I think I imagine I believe I suspect I've observed is that the 300mm by itself works better in medium light than in hazy bright light. I'm not sure why, perhaps it's something related to contrast (Active D-Lighting?) in the camera settings. The lens is clean with no blemishes and almost no internal dust. It has a NISI (1395 Angstroms) UV-C filter. Or perhaps it's the glass itself. Brightness dependency is not a feature I've studied; it just seems that whenever I've been disappointed in a shot it was in a very bright setting.
NightOwl Cat wrote:
You might think you're rock steady, but you don't feel your motion. The longer lenses amplify it though.
...
I'm about to give a recently acquired 600mm some tests, but it's AF, so not eligible here.
Thanks for the note. (Is "I feel your motion" like "I feel your pain"? ) If the lower IQ from the 300 alone was due solely to motion, then it should be worse with the TC attached. Now, it's possible that the different focus ring position with or without the TC made me nudge one consistently but not the other. I do have a good tripod which I don't typically carry but could use for a test here at home.
Regardless of all that, I think it was impressive that the weathered lettering of the manufacturer's name was recognizable from that distance.
I would very much like to see any results you get from testing a 600mm. Let us know where/if you post them. Not that I'm looking to buy one any time soon.
I was not enthusiastic about the recent lunar eclipse because it would not be total and the brightness of the sunlit portion 'eclipses' the darkened red moon, besides, it was going to be cloudy.
But out came the 800mm 5.6, the laptop, and nikon camera control pro. With control pro I need not touch the camera on the tripod and avoid vibration in long exposures, I have learned how to do dark dark moon shots.
This is what a full lunar eclipse looks like, but before my learnings on exposure, from 2022.
jimmuller wrote:
I would very much like to see any results you get from testing a 600mm.
Jim, Just pointing out there are manual focus 600mm Nikkors. Rafael's 800mm examples are wonderful, and I have over 20K images with and without teleconverters. If you are into tinkering, you can modify a Nikon TC-16a to give partial AF to a manual focus lens. You get it close by hand, then the TC has elements that are driven by the camera to fine tune the focus (F mount only). Or, you can use a focus confirmation adapter on many bodies.
Another monochrome, though this one is a required B&W conversion IMO due to the large amounts of LOCA from shooting the 85mm f2.0 AI wide open into a side-lit steel fence.
James Markus wrote:
Jim, Just pointing out there are manual focus 600mm Nikkors. ...
I hear what you are saying but I have no intention of acquiring another lens in the near future! If I did it would probably be a modern AF zoom, though I have no justification for it. I'm just doing this for the fun anyway.
Yesterday I repeated that FL comparison, shot a series with the 200, 300, and 300 x 1.4, at least three apertures each (5.6, 8, 11). I mounted the camera on a heavy old-school Manfrotto tripod, target was a lawn chair about 100 meters away. (With the high viewfinder magnification the tripod was surprisingly jiggly with a high oscillation frequency than if I were hand-holding it.) The light was bright but variable due to swaying tree shadows. I cropped them to the same subject matter, about 1465, 2200, and 3100 pixels, re-zised them to 1200, the applied PaintShop Pro's Sharpen filter.
I won't show any pics but here are my impressions. At the smaller apertures the 300 and 300x1.4 were nicer than the 200 because processing artifacts were apparent in the 200. When the 300 combos were wide open the 200 was equal or a bit better for clarity. When the light happened to be more direct on the target the 300 and 300x1.4 pics seemed better than when the light was diffuse because there was more obvious contrast between shadow and lit areas.
Under these circumstances the longer FL's were better but I'm still impressed by the old 200mm f/4. For printing or display on a larger screen the differences would likely be more pronounced.
Now back to your regularly scheduled picture display.
jimmuller wrote:
I hear what you are saying but I have no intention of acquiring another lens in the near future! If I did it would probably be a modern AF zoom,..........
Jim, that's a terrible attitude. Now that I think of it, a double terrible attitude.
---------------------------------------------
serge07 wrote:
Ray, excellent B&W processing.
It looks like a great area for photography, nice bridge in the first photo.
Serge
Thanks Serge. I don't make it there often enough in any kind of decent light, and many times it's deserted enough that the risk of being harassed for money limits my desire to be there. Perhaps the new work being put into the area will truly attract more usage and add more consistent life to the area.
serge07 wrote:
Richard, thank you for the excellent article.
I have looked at 8.5cm f/2 LTM many times but the Leica crowd keeps the price on the steep side of the equation. The build quality on the 1950s era lenses is amazing.
Happy September, everyone. August ended up with too much stuff on the calendar. I have been carrying a camera occasionally but not taking many pictures. I've been enjoying seeing everyone else's pictures.
Ray, you know that line is the weakest defense. Sooner or later he'll crack....
pbraymond wrote:
Jim, that's a terrible attitude. Now that I think of it, a double terrible attitude.
---------------------------------------------
Thanks Serge. I don't make it there often enough in any kind of decent light, and many times it's deserted enough that the risk of being harassed for money limits my desire to be there. Perhaps the new work being put into the area will truly attract more usage and add more consistent life to the area.
Well, there is some shutter movement. As always, I focused by using the viewfinder magnifier. Short of using a very good tripod and the foldout screen instead of the eyepiece so my progressive glasses don't interfere, there isn't much I could do to improve stability, and a poor tripod might be worse. The apertures for the 300mm shots were 8, 5.6, 4.5. Of course the TC shots would be effectively smaller by one click. I suppose I could have done this with smaller apertures. I did botch the second of three for the 300mm sequence, I think I nudged the focus ring when shifting my hand for stability. Finally (though I didn't show it), except for that botched shot the general detail was consistent for each lens. If I mishandled the camera then I did it consistently for each lens, and I would expect the 300 x 1.4 shots to be worse than the straight 300 shots. Ever so slight difference in camera balance? I'm skeptical.
) If the lower IQ from the 300 alone was due solely to motion, then it should be worse with the TC attached. Now, it's possible that the different focus ring position with or without the TC made me nudge one consistently but not the other. I do have a good tripod which I don't typically carry but could use for a test here at home.
