ilkka_nissila wrote:
The problem is that you are comparing numbers for the first months of sales of the 500 PF against multi-year averages for the other lenses. It is typical that sales peak in the first months after release and then decline. Thus a reasonably realistic comparison of sales based on the user-reported serial numbers would take place several years from today, in the absence of detailed (by month) Nikon data.
It does seem the 500PF is popular for such an expensive lens, and quite many copies have been shipped to users.
In the case of this unique lens, I wager the proverbial glass is half full. We should see total sales getting close to those of the 300 PF. Higher possibly. Despite the higher price.
Why?
Wildlife photography is big business. Birding is far bigger, and many twitchers want to take high quality images with relative ease. Both are growing markets
chambeshi wrote:
In the case of this unique lens, I wager the proverbial glass is half full. We should see total sales getting close to those of the 300 PF. Higher possibly. Despite the higher price.
Why?
Wildlife photography is big business. Birding is far bigger, and many twitchers want to take high quality images with relative ease. Both are growing markets
What is a 'twitcher' Something I need to worry about being/becoming
MedicineMan404 wrote:
What is a 'twitcher' Something I need to worry about being/becoming
From Wikipedia.... "Twitchers' vocabulary is the set of jargon words used by twitchers (committed birdwatchers who travel long distances to see a new species to add a species to their "lifelist", year list or other list)."
Don't have a lifelist. No list with little checkboxes at all.
Could probably identify 20 bierds now without help.
I thought it had to do with say going from Canon to Nikon or Nikon to Sony; in which case I'd be in
Well, OK, end of month I'll be driving an hour to a WMA where I've found Barn Owl pellets Putting on a ghille, and sitting out in a field.....
I make a big distinction distinction between wannabe bierd photographer and a 'bierder'. Made a mistake and signed up for a birding tour in Panama. They'd quickly set up the scope and 'score' a Kestrel on a crap perch in crap light. Next day another Kestrel with snake in beak, perfect perch and gorgeous morning light.....they had no interest saying 'got that one yesterday'.
chambeshi wrote:
In the case of this unique lens, I wager the proverbial glass is half full. We should see total sales getting close to those of the 300 PF. Higher possibly. Despite the higher price.
Why?
Wildlife photography is big business. Birding is far bigger, and many twitchers want to take high quality images with relative ease. Both are growing markets
So are the markets of older and female photographers..
I just don't see that many people spending >> 1000€ for a non-essential item used basically to have fun. Maybe living in the US gives a different perspective to that.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
I just don't see that many people spending >> 1000€ for a non-essential item used basically to have fun. Maybe living in the US gives a different perspective to that.
I finally got a chance to use it with the TC-14E III. I was not disappointed. AF was difficult being in the shadow of the tree (it's difficult as it is with the 1.4x) and I haven't AFMA'd the combo yet.
Two from yesterday around sunrise...
While their population is fairly large, river otters are challenging to spot let alone photograph near my home along the St. Croix Valley. This little one was fishing as I was heading to work yesterday morning. Being within 5 minutes of home, I sped home grabbed the lens and made it back to the fishing hole before it left... These are fairly large crops leaving me with a 12MP file from the D500.
For those who use a TC14III, I wonder if the converter would have been able to focus and pull out better detail than the crop. Most (if not all) of the TC14III shots shared are in good light with relatively close subjects, these are not the conditions in which I typically see or shoot.
OwlsEyes wrote:
Two from yesterday around sunrise...
While their population is fairly large, river otters are challenging to spot let alone photograph near my home along the St. Croix Valley. This little one was fishing as I was heading to work yesterday morning. Being within 5 minutes of home, I sped home grabbed the lens and made it back to the fishing hole before it left... These are fairly large crops leaving me with a 12MP file from the D500.
For those who use a TC14III, I wonder if the converter would have been able to focus and pull out better detail than the crop. Most (if not all) of the TC14III shots shared are in good light with relatively close subjects, these are not the conditions in which I typically see or shoot.
I think the 1.4TCIII would have been better than the crop but probably not at the size posted here on the web. The IQ is very good with the TC. I had to give mine a good dose of AFMA to maximize IQ. The AF takes a noticeable hit though but for this otter would be totally fine.
I think the 1.4TCIII would have been better than the crop but probably not at the size posted here on the web. The IQ is very good with the TC. I had to give mine a good dose of AFMA to maximize IQ. The AF takes a noticeable hit though but for this otter would be totally fine.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Geoff...
I have seen a lot of nice images with the TC14III and 500PF, but there have not been many shared in the marginal light that I shoot. In addition, I do most of my wildlife with the D500 and not an D850. As a result, when I crop from 20MP to 13-14MP, it is not nearly as extreme as when a D850 is cropped to that size. The question for me relates to detail loss due to the teleconverter vs detail loss due to increased perceived noise in the crop.
As for these shots, they are sharp enough to count whiskers and strands of fur, though this is lost in the heavy jpg "re-compression" on FM.
cheers,
bruce
OwlsEyes wrote:
For those who use a TC14III, I wonder if the converter would have been able to focus and pull out better detail than the crop. Most (if not all) of the TC14III shots shared are in good light with relatively close subjects, these are not the conditions in which I typically see or shoot.
cheers,
bruce
I just got my 500PF yesterday, and found that in the closing hour of light as the Arizona sun was setting, my D500 struggled to focus with the TC14III in the mixed shadowed/lighted areas of our trees and brush. I’ll do more shooting this weekend under better light and expect less autofocus hunting. Best shot I could get before the sun set was this mourning dove sitting on our roof enjoying the last light of day.
OwlsEyes wrote:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Geoff...
I have seen a lot of nice images with the TC14III and 500PF, but there have not been many shared in the marginal light that I shoot. In addition, I do most of my wildlife with the D500 and not an D850. As a result, when I crop from 20MP to 13-14MP, it is not nearly as extreme as when a D850 is cropped to that size. The question for me relates to detail loss due to the teleconverter vs detail loss due to increased perceived noise in the crop.
As for these shots, they are sharp enough to count whiskers and strands of fur, though this is lost in the heavy jpg "re-compression" on FM.
cheers,
bruce...Show more →
I put the 1.4TC away in marginal light...as light drops and ISO needs to climb and/or SS has to drop the benefits of the TC diminish fast. Also the AF suffers more as expected.
Since the TC loses you one stop and we assume one is already maximizing the aperture and SS then ISO is one stop worse so it is a good question as to whether the deeper crop (emphasizing noise say at ISO 1600) is better or worse or equal to less crop at ISO 3200??
Something I need to worry about being/becoming 
