Slug69 wrote:
Great Nuthatch shots guys! Can't imagine how often they stay still...
Not very.
I am getting the D7100 in June and have my heart and mind set on the 80 - 400VR2.
You'll love it. Just a tremendous grab-and-go kit. With the pixel density of the D7100 allowing the 2x crop of 15mp, and the 80-400 taking a TC reasonably well, you can potentially have the 35mm FOV equivalent of a 120-1120mm (80mm + 1.5x crop wide end, 400mm + 2x crop + 1.4x TC long end) in a kit you can sling over your shoulder. Not the brightest lens in the world, not the sharpest with the 1.4x, but it's hard to beat that kind of flexibility.
gfinlayson wrote:
David, disregarding AF for the moment, the shots with the 80-400 are much sharper. The Tamron shot, presumably at 300mm? looks just plain soft to my eyes. The 80-400 at 400 is much sharper than the Tamron at 300.
Did you try the 80-400 with better targets for AF to see how it performed?
I'm not trying to be controversial, I'm just concerned you may have returned a perfectly good lens for the wrong reasons.
AF needs a target with a good degree of contrast to be able to pick the sharpest transition from dark to light to be in focus. The moon is not a very contrasty target for the AF system to lock on to.
Also, as a predominantly wildlife shooter, I've found AF accuracy is critical with longer lenses. I've spent a fair amount of time fine tuning the AF to all of my lenses with both the D7000 and the D7100 to get the best out of them. The differences before and after tuning were simply staggering. As a 24MP crop sensor, the D7100 is incredibly unforgiving of AF inaccuracies.
Thanks for the input. I too am not trying to be controversial either, but while below the 300mm mark it did excellent work I purchased that lens for the 400mm too. I tried a series of AF fine tunes and from + to -20, nothing improved it. Might try another one though since everyone seem of the opinion that its a great performer.
I am/have posted a more carefully shot moon from the Tamron along side the 80-400 shot so its easier to see what I see..., and that was out of a series of AF acquired shots, every one of which was clearly sharper due to being in focus.
Again, I may try getting another copy of the Nik as I did like its feel and the VR was great.
Slug69 wrote:
Great Nuthatch shots guys! Can't imagine how often they stay still...
Back to the moon. David, do you have a really good monitor and nicely calibrated? On the Dell 24 inch 2008W model I am looking at, the Tammy shot isn't as sharp or have as much contrast as well as having a faint blue blob/ghost to the right of the moon.
I am getting the D7100 in June and have my heart and mind set on the 80 - 400VR2.
Cheers
Please check out the comp shot I just posted with the 80-400 shot. The 80-400 was sharp enough at 400 IF the subject was well lit, lots of contrast and closer than about 1/8th mile (or so it seemed), but I was sorely disappointed with the moon shots. I have shot the moon with every tele I own to see how it performs.
I have a 23" Cinema Apple display that I calibrate with a eye one pro. I have to imagine that the monitor I am looking at is reasonable for this kind of work. You are right about that shot from the Tamron, but that was posted to show that a single shot with the Tamron was hitting target easily (single shot versus 46 shots). The second shot (posted along side the Nikon 80-400 shot), shows better what I get from the Tamron regularly. Please see if you can tell me the 80-400 beats it.
Slug69 wrote:
Great Nuthatch shots guys! Can't imagine how often they stay still...
Thanks. I find them one of the most difficult birds to photograph due to the fact they never seem to stop moving. They have lightning reflexes too. Even when using flash, I find they have an uncanny ability to take off at the sound of the mirror lifting - by the time the flash fires, they're often half way out of the frame
DavidWEGS wrote:
Please check out the comp shot I just posted with the 80-400 shot. The 80-400 was sharp enough at 400 IF the subject was well lit, lots of contrast and closer than about 1/8th mile (or so it seemed), but I was sorely disappointed with the moon shots. I have shot the moon with every tele I own to see how it performs.
I have a 23" Cinema Apple display that I calibrate with a eye one pro. I have to imagine that the monitor I am looking at is reasonable for this kind of work. You are right about that shot from the Tamron, but that was posted to show that a single shot with the Tamron was hitting target easily (single shot versus 46 shots). The second shot (posted along side the Nikon 80-400 shot), shows better what I get from the Tamron regularly. Please see if you can tell me the 80-400 beats it....Show more →
Cheers for the follow up David.
I can't say that the 80-400 beats the shot you posted no. If you shot raw can you use the exposure slider to show more shadow it just seems flatter than the first pic. (Very little gradient on the edge of the moon compared to the first pic)
BTW, really liked your photo at the top of the page with the moons on it.
DavidWEGS wrote:
Please check out the comp shot I just posted with the 80-400 shot. The 80-400 was sharp enough at 400 IF the subject was well lit, lots of contrast and closer than about 1/8th mile (or so it seemed), but I was sorely disappointed with the moon shots. I have shot the moon with every tele I own to see how it performs.
The exposure is significantly different between the two of them. The Tamron has much less detail than the Nikkor but it's not easy to tell if it's because the Tamron didn't capture it, or if the exposure has just blown it out.
In any event, I haven't taken any moon shots and I can't say I usually shoot targets that are more than a thousand feet away from me. If you're trading in a lens because it doesn't perform well shooting the moon, when your primary target isn't the moon, I'm not sure that's the best place to compare it. If you want something to shoot the moon with, a manual focus 500mm f/4P will do a tremendous job, a lot sharper than anything else for under $3000.
If your targets are not usually as far away as the moon, I think the 80-400 is admirably sharp. I posted this in the 80-400 thread, but since it was with a D7100, I guess it fits here too and it's relevant to our discussion - the full frame, and then an untouched 100% crop from the frame.
I have returned the 80-400. I really think the AF did not work properly at the 400 end for some reason. Tried to fine tune all the way from + to - 20 and it did not improve. I studied the shots of the moon, and frankly it shows less at closer distances, but it consistently seem to have hit just behind the target on every shot I have at that FL. I know the Tamron does not do as good a job and the two shots posted are exposed differently, but it was more about the AF and hitting a target well. I will perhaps try another copy.
Back on track, I have been trying the latest Sigma as my general (walkabout) lens on the D7100 and for most things it is pretty good. I like that it will show some exceptional detail on the end of the FL and wide (f4 ahem) open...
You all convinced me to get a D7100.
First outing with my new D7100. It will need some further tweaking (and understanding ).
So far no problems with the buffer, it gets cleared very quick with SanDisk Extreme Pro (95Mbs).
I had some problems with underexposing what I don't understand yet. A lot of birdpix needed at least +1 stop (using spot meter) which I don't need with the D800E.
Nice, Chris! You're convincing me to get the 500 VR... not that I need convincing, just funds for it
Yes, I find myself regularly +0.3 on this camera, whereas I was regularly a little under with the D300 (I adjusted the B5 custom setting to be under). It definitely meters to preserve highlights a little more.
7100 & 300 f/4, Ibis shot is using 1.4x TC - got some weird color effects on the Ibis feathering. It shows up in several pictures. Not really moire, just oddness...
Hmmm... Is this moire? Some kind of color banding?? (see crop below) This image is not pushed in post processing, actually exposure was dead on and there is no shadow lifting.
Yep, that's nuts. I've never tried removing moire, does Lightroom or something have a filter for it?
Looks like you found the perfect moire test subject. Ever shoot that bird with another camera? It's not just the iridescence either, because I've shot a couple iridescent birds with the 7100 and a sharp enough lens to capture small feature detail. Something about that particular color/pattern - yikes.
binary visions wrote:
Yep, that's nuts. I've never tried removing moire, does Lightroom or something have a filter for it?
Looks like you found the perfect moire test subject. Ever shoot that bird with another camera? It's not just the iridescence either, because I've shot a couple iridescent birds with the 7100 and a sharp enough lens to capture small feature detail. Something about that particular color/pattern - yikes.
I don't know how to remove moire in post, guess it doesn't really matter too much if it just happens once in a blue moon...
I have not tried it with 7D or 1D3. I remember some moire with those camera bodies on feather detail, though. Maybe not quite as attention grabbing as D7100, though.
