Beautiful shots as usual Christian. Here's my contribution and new classification. BBBL That's -
Boring Birds in Bad Light
My old AF-I still produces some pretty sharp images.
I am in no way looking to start a battle over "does gear matter" or any such argument. If money was no object I'd certainly plunk down the cash for the latest and greatest. But $$ is an object and I've come to the conclusion that an upgrade in lens is very far down on my list regarding obtaining "better" photographs. Shooting in better light, finding more interesting subjects and interactions, and most importantly, learning how to get closer to my subjects will be the determining factors. So my AF-I is not going anywhere in the near future. It certainly has it's faults, but so do I.
sum1sgrampa wrote:
I am in no way looking to start a battle over "does gear matter" or any such argument. If money was no object I'd certainly plunk down the cash for the latest and greatest. But $$ is an object and I've come to the conclusion that an upgrade in lens is very far down on my list regarding obtaining "better" photographs. Shooting in better light, finding more interesting subjects and interactions, and most importantly, learning how to get closer to my subjects will be the determining factors. So my AF-I is not going anywhere in the near future. It certainly has it's faults, but so do I. ...Show more →
That sounds about right. I would add only that the newer coatings of the 500 G, E, and 200-500 let you get away with shooting in somewhat poorer light than the older glass could handle. Improved micro-contrast and rendering of fine detail extend what you might consider acceptable light, if only by a little. For someone stuck in dreary places like Iceland or the UK, this may be a meaningful difference.
The capacity to shoot fast-moving songbirds handheld is likely the most significant departure from the pre-VR generation 500s.
Christian H wrote:
That sounds about right. I would add only that the newer coatings of the 500 G, E, and 200-500 let you get away with shooting in somewhat poorer light than the older glass could handle. Improved micro-contrast and rendering of fine detail extend what you might consider acceptable light, if only by a little. For someone stuck in dreary places like Iceland or the UK, this may be a meaningful difference.
The capacity to shoot fast-moving songbirds handheld is likely the most significant departure from the pre-VR generation 500s.
Christian
"improved micro-contrast and rendering of fine detail". That could be the issue, right ? It's easy for me to say no need to upgrade when I don't really know what I'm giving up. Viewing images on the web is not really a good indicator when one is trying to compare because so much relies on shooting conditions. A quick look at the 500 PF thread bears this out. There are some stellar images posted there and some, not so much. I've been tempted many times to rent a new 500 f4 just to see for myself how much of a difference there really is but I'm afraid I won't want to give it back.
The thing I find interesting is when I go to a place like Conowingo Dam, I'll carry both my 500 f4 and my Sigma 150-600 S. I shoot there sunrise to sunset all through the day. I start out and end the day with the f4 just because of the dimmer light and switch to the zoom when things are brighter for the longer reach and I find it easier to lock onto my subject by zooming out to acquire. Now, it can be argued that the Sigma has the same or some say even better IQ than the 200-500. When I am editing for my keepers I have no idea which lens was being used as I switch back and forth throughout the day. However, when I am done with all my editing I find that the majority of my keepers come from the old 500 AF-I. So, the question remains; do I prefer the prime's images simply because I am using it in better light ? Or is it possible that even this 20 year old lens is producing more pleasing images ?
You touched on an interesting topic for me. Vr and pre-VR. I have tried both methods and much prefer shooting from a tripod. I prefer staying in one spot and letting subjects come to me. letting my tripod and gimbal do all the heavy lifting works for me. So, I have very little doubt that the newest 500 E would be a considerable upgrade, but if I was to do anything it would probably be a pre-VR model. And I'm not so sure that would be worth it.
I typically shoot an hour, maybe two after sunrise or before sunset. On clear days with low humidity there's about an hour with good light; humidity buys a little more time, but it won't change the angle of the sun. There's a little more time in the winter, of course.
I don't have much experience shooting outside those times, just enough to say I don't like the results.
Christian H wrote:
I typically shoot an hour, maybe two after sunrise or before sunset. On clear days with low humidity there's about an hour with good light; humidity buys a little more time, but it won't change the angle of the sun. There's a little more time in the winter, of course.
I don't have much experience shooting outside those times, just enough to say I don't like the results.
Well, you've obviously got it figured out and it's working very well for you. I don't even need to see your watermark and I can tell a shot is one of yours as soon as I see it. Thanks for the input Christian, much appreciated.
Gary
brian_sp wrote:
Thanks Bruce
spring? whats that? not even close, song birds are dead slow to arrive, i have yet to see even a yellow rump
Wow... it was late for us, but crazy late for you.
Last week there was a flood of two weeks ago we had the hermit thrush flock pass through, last week it was the yellow-rumps and kinglets, and this week I'm seeing a lot of herons and hearing the loons. Sadly, there's a cooling trend for this week... this might either stall the migration in MN or keep the birds south.
Another weird and unpredictable weather year in these parts!
OwlsEyes wrote:
Wow... it was late for us, but crazy late for you.
Last week there was a flood of two weeks ago we had the hermit thrush flock pass through, last week it was the yellow-rumps and kinglets, and this week I'm seeing a lot of herons and hearing the loons. Sadly, there's a cooling trend for this week... this might either stall the migration in MN or keep the birds south.
Another weird and unpredictable weather year in these parts!
sure is another strange one, one day it will be summer like, next few days back to winter, they are even calling for some snow this afternoon.
even waterfowl is slow this year, if it wasn't for buffleheads i'd be having a tough go of things, yesterday at one of the ponds i go to there was maybe a half dozen ducks where usually it is full, lucky i got the buffleheds and the harrier on another pond, the day before just as the sun broke through the clouds for the evening, soon as i head out the clouds and rain move back in for the rest of it, the day before all day long i fought foggy conditions
