This is a fairly large crop... final is an 8MP crop out of a 20MP D500 image.
I agree with Geoff w/ regards to converters... I would rather crop deeper into my D500 files rather than give up the AF speed and reduced accuracy that comes with the addition of a 1.4x.
OwlsEyes wrote:
This is a fairly large crop... final is an 8MP crop out of a 20MP D500 image.
I agree with Geoff w/ regards to converters... I would rather crop deeper into my D500 files rather than give up the AF speed and reduced accuracy that comes with the addition of a 1.4x.
regards,
bruce
But what if you had to crop even more, say to 4MP? Is there some point when have a TC would be worth it? That is the question I struggle with. For example, we have peregrine falcons nesting on the cliffs over the ocean near us. You can't get any closer since they don't let you (and it would be dangerous). I could buy the 800mm lens but the cost and weight is definitely not appealing (I actually rented a couple times). The 500mm f/5.6 with a 1.7TC gives you an 850mm light weight combo, and for the nest, still have to crop significantly. I am sure the sharpness takes a hit, but the fog and/or heat waves radiating off the rocks also compromise the sharpness.
OwlsEyes wrote:
I agree with Geoff w/ regards to converters... I would rather crop deeper into my D500 files rather than give up the AF speed and reduced accuracy that comes with the addition of a 1.4x.
Right. This is a BIG advantage of mirrorless. My Z7 has difficulty AF'ing in low contrast situations ...and don't get me going about its dynamic AF performance...the word "joke" comes to mind. But when it DOES lock it's seems to be bang on...TC or not. I sure hope Nikon fixes some of these AF issues with the upcoming firmware update. I also love how my Z7 is 1/2 the weight of my gripped D850...hauling around the 600mm is noticeably lighter with the Z7 attached.
Gary Irwin wrote:
Right. This is a BIG advantage of mirrorless. My Z7 has difficulty AF'ing in low contrast situations ...and don't get me going about its dynamic AF performance...the word "joke" comes to mind. But when it DOES lock it's seems to be bang on...TC or not. I sure hope Nikon fixes some of these AF issues with the upcoming firmware update. I also love how my Z7 is 1/2 the weight of my gripped D850...hauling around the 600mm is noticeably lighter with the Z7 attached.
Agree completely! I think you've seen me write it before on that other forum,.. my 200-400VR has never been as sharp @400mm as when it is attached to my Z6. Not only does it make the most of the lens, but it allows me to hike farther and shoot at higher ISOs with confidence.
I am looking forward to seeing if the firmware upgrade translates into real AF improvements, as I would prefer to put my next camera dollars into a Z7 rather than the D850.
AvianScott wrote:
Beautiful! Creamy bokeh even with a TC. Screw needing f/4
Thanks. All one needs for creamy bokeh is a background many times further behind the subject than you are to the subject.
Wider apertures can sometimes save a background that is "too close" but one stop doesn't create miracles
I think for my photography, a TC would be beneficial. I shoot with a D4 (which doesn't produce the huge files that the newer cameras do) and I am shooting for prints. I have always been a heavy cropper, but as my business has taken off, I am realizing that I need as big of file as possible for when I print. When the 500 PF finally comes in, I think that I will invest in a TC as well. I am regularly having to crop in big with my 200-500, and that just makes it too difficult to use the images for large prints.
arbitrage wrote:
Thanks. Here are the originals for both shots so you can see how much is cropped. I'm not always convinced that the TC adds much vs a deeper crop without it. But I continue to use TCs a fair amount. The AF takes a big hit with this combo...I notice a lot less consistency in perfectly focused shots when the TC is on.
Thanks for that, Geoff. If the AF did not become that slow, I might consider the 1.4x. I enjoy the AF speed of the bare lens, so I think I will delay that purchase. Still, the IQ is very good.
We had a rare late-April snowstorm on Saturday. It was a great opportunity to find birds in the snow that are typically more difficult to find during "normal" winter.
fpoet wrote:
Thanks for that, Geoff. If the AF did not become that slow, I might consider the 1.4x. I enjoy the AF speed of the bare lens, so I think I will delay that purchase. Still, the IQ is very good.
Despite the slowdown of AF, it can still get the job done for flight shots but the consistency won't be there like it is with the bare lens.
I use the original Nikon foot with a Kirk plate to mount to tripod/monopod. For hand held shooting I take the tripod foot off. I find the foot would get in the way of switching between horizontal and vertical shots when hand holding. For tripod use the foot is great, I really appreciate the improvements Nikon have made since the VR 70-200 II.
bs kite wrote:
I am curious what each of you are using as a foot replacement (or if you are).
I often use a long lens' foot as a handle, but always have it attached to a body strap when in the watercraft.
How does the lightweight of the 500 5.6 play into the balance and carrying?
Right now I'm just using the included (tiny) foot. I do hold it from that foot sometimes but it is not great being so short. I have attached a plate to the foot for a better carrying experience but recently have taken that off to reduce weight.
I've considered buying the Hejnar foot (http://www.hejnarphotostore.com/product-p/h129-asterisk-.htm) as it screws directly in and there have been reports of stock foot loosening and the release button being inadvertently pushed causing the lens to drop to the ground (notably Steve Perry had this happen).
Although my stock foot has been rock solid and every time I think to check the tightness it has remained as tight as I can make it.
The Hejnar is the most reasonably priced replacement foot that I've found and is one of the longest.
