My "keeper rate" for ground-to-air aviation images -- which generally means 500mm to 700mm and 1/100 shutter speeds -- is about 1%. I don't spray-and-pray, but I can still come back from a two-day airshow with 7,000 captures.
Yep... f/8 and be there... again and again and again...
The capture was a piece of cake. Aperture priority wide open, ISO high enough to get a good shutter speed, pan with the airplane, shoot. He was approaching at an angle but not too far from head-on, so panning was easier than usual. And because of the very gray day and low clouds, he was closer to the ground than usual. Anyone standing next to me could have gotten the same shot. The fact that I clicked the shutter in the half-second it takes that condensation cloud to form and then dissipate is more luck than skill... I've been trying to get that shot for years.
The secret to getting that shot? Being there, and the fact that I've been trying to get that shot for years. Nothing else. It was 50F, windy, low clouds, close to 100% humidity, a slight drizzle at times... an utterly miserable day that made a great argument for staying inside. On such a day, one can be almost certain that the images are going to suck: no contrast, no real distance, no vertical component... but there's a slight chance that the weather will give you that one sunbeam, or dramatic backdrops, or something that'll make a great image.
And I'm stubborn. So I stayed out there, along with a bunch of my friends and fellow shooters. And that one shot was worth the whole trip. But it's not skill, mostly... it's stubbornness and enjoying even the process of trying to get the image as much as the final image itself.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
My "keeper rate" for ground-to-air aviation images -- which generally means 500mm to 700mm and 1/100 shutter speeds -- is about 1%. I don't spray-and-pray, but I can still come back from a two-day airshow with 7,000 captures.
Yep... f/8 and be there... again and again and again...
Rodolfo / Steve and the rest of you,
Stubbornness isnt the right word. Patience would be more accurate. every good photographer I know, whether they shoot air to air, nature, landscape, portraits or weddings, the great shots always seem to be the result of supreme patience
I can speak with great authority on this subject because my greatest impediment is lack of patience
So to all you guys who get the great shots, even if your keeper rates are only 1 in a 100
There is no point in my posting pics using my 500vr since they would not hold up well against the amazing images already here. Suffice it to say that the 500vr is a great lens. I bought it as I wanted as much reach as I could get while hand holding the lens. The 600vr is a lot heavier and while I guess some people hand hold it on occasion, it is definitely harder to use without a support. I probably take about 90% of my images hand held with the 500vr so for me it was definitely the right choice. I find that for the shooting that I do that there just aren't that many occasions when I have the time to set up, or I have hiked somewhere and I need to be able to get the camera shooting quickly. Do I miss the added reach of the 600vr--absolutely, but the 500vr is an acceptable compromise, if you want to call it a compromise.
Sometimes luck is on our side also, I hadn't even fully setup when this Osprey dropped in.I was still fumbling with my settings and was lucky to get three decent frames of the action.
cohenfive wrote:
There is no point in my posting pics using my 500vr since they would not hold up well against the amazing images already here. Suffice it to say that the 500vr is a great lens. I bought it as I wanted as much reach as I could get while hand holding the lens. The 600vr is a lot heavier and while I guess some people hand hold it on occasion, it is definitely harder to use without a support. I probably take about 90% of my images hand held with the 500vr so for me it was definitely the right choice. I find that for the shooting that I do that there just aren't that many occasions when I have the time to set up, or I have hiked somewhere and I need to be able to get the camera shooting quickly. Do I miss the added reach of the 600vr--absolutely, but the 500vr is an acceptable compromise, if you want to call it a compromise. ...Show more →
Having shot the 500VR for several years and the Canon 800L continuously for several months last summer, I have to agree completely with cohenfive -- the extra reach of a 600 or 800 is always nice to have, but the versatility and handholdability (that's a mouthfull!) makes the 500 my favourite lens by far.
colincarter46 wrote:
...and one with the 1.7xTCII. The 1.4x and 1.7x TC's are nearly invisible on the 500 and with the D800, the detail is incredible.
Colin, wonderful shots (as usual). I never liked the TC17EII on my 500 but one look at that shot has spurred me to check the MA and give it another go.
cohenfive wrote:
There is no point in my posting pics using my 500vr since they would not hold up well against the amazing images already here. Suffice it to say that the 500vr is a great lens. I bought it as I wanted as much reach as I could get while hand holding the lens. The 600vr is a lot heavier and while I guess some people hand hold it on occasion, it is definitely harder to use without a support. I probably take about 90% of my images hand held with the 500vr so for me it was definitely the right choice. I find that for the shooting that I do that there just aren't that many occasions when I have the time to set up, or I have hiked somewhere and I need to be able to get the camera shooting quickly. Do I miss the added reach of the 600vr--absolutely, but the 500vr is an acceptable compromise, if you want to call it a compromise. ...Show more →
I actually sold my first 500vr and went to buy a 600vr. After trying it i bought another 500 and have not regretted the decision at all.
the increased weight, increased minimum focusing distance, the stupid 2 part lens hood and the front mounted tripod foot just put me right off. With cameras increasing in resolution all the time, i cant see the point in the 600 anymore for what i shoot anyway. The 500 is so much nicer to travel with and just have ready on your car seat next to you to grab when your out driving.
ScottSchupbach wrote:
Colin, Amazing shot of the Sparrowhawk!
Sometimes luck is on our side also, I hadn't even fully setup when this Osprey dropped in.I was still fumbling with my settings and was lucky to get three decent frames of the action.
thanks Scott and i will repay the compliment on your osprey shot, its superb, great timing.
Gary Irwin wrote:
Colin, wonderful shots (as usual). I never liked the TC17EII on my 500 but one look at that shot has spurred me to check the MA and give it another go.
thanks Gary, much appreciated.
I usually take the 1.7xII out with me in place of the 1.4xII as I find mine to be the equal of my 1.4x, IQ wise. Definately give it another go or try another one, i know a few other people who have the same opinion as you about the 1.7x but i find it to be the best one of the 3 for me. I also know alot of Canon shooters who are jealous of the Nikon 1.7x and wish Canon made one.
Keep shooting and having fun, i always like to see your shots posted, great stuff.
best wishes
Colin
here is one from when i had a D3, 500vr and 1.7x TC, large crop (not quite 100%)
More fantastic shots Collin and Scott ! Collin you are just killing me with the shots taken with the 1.7TC. I can't get the 1.4 to give me a decent shot . The 1.4 works great on my 300 f/4, but not on the 500 f/4 VR. I have tried it on 2 cameras, D7000 and D800. I might just have to get a 1.7 and see what happens
Birdie - There must be some variance in tcs, that's all I can think. My 1.7 + 500mm wasn't very good, but my 1.4TC was fine (still not as good as the naked lens, but useable)
That's a great shot Steve! Loss of acuity when I use the 1.4TC on my 500 is horrid. It works well on the 300 f/4. Go figure. I have even sent my TC into Nikon . They advise it is within specs. I'm terrified with the thought of sending the 500, D800 and TC into Nikon . I keep reading all the horror stories about Nikon repair.
Thanks for the kind words The little owl was actually pretty easy to get (a nice change!)
@Birdie - Had that problem with my 1.7TC - just sort of "smears" a little too much - no acuity. Got rid of it and just use a 1.4 now and 2x now (although that one doesn't get used very much - effective F8 hurts too much!). Bad as it sounds, if you go for another TC, I'd buy one, test it, and if you're not happy, send it back and try another one until you get one that you do like. That's what I plan on if it comes down to it in the future.
birdied wrote:
More fantastic shots Collin and Scott ! Collin you are just killing me with the shots taken with the 1.7TC. I can't get the 1.4 to give me a decent shot . The 1.4 works great on my 300 f/4, but not on the 500 f/4 VR. I have tried it on 2 cameras, D7000 and D800. I might just have to get a 1.7 and see what happens
Birdie
Thanks Birdie, I would definitely give the 1.7x a try, I love mine and on the d800 the af is still very quick and accurate
Steve Perry wrote:
Birdie - There must be some variance in tcs, that's all I can think. My 1.7 + 500mm wasn't very good, but my 1.4TC was fine (still not as good as the naked lens, but useable)
