arbitrage wrote:
No I did mean the 500PF because around here I certainly can't get within the 500PF's MFD. If the warblers in your area allow you to get that close then the 300PF/1.4 or bare 300PF would be my choice. I still have my 300PF...can't bring myself to sell it even though I don't use it very often anymore.
It was my first time specifically shooting warblers. I do not know yet if it was normal for them to come that close or not. I'm also shooting on a crop sensor with the D500. I did find it easier to get better angles closer-up at 300mm or 420mm (w/ 300mm PF) than farther away at 600mm (w/ a Sigma S 150-600mm). One could argue I could just use the 150-600mm at 300mm or 420mm, but then that's where the MFD bites you.
I think I'll be holding onto my 300mm PF even after I finally get my hands on a 500mm PF. They just compliment each other so well, IMHO.
dan.h wrote:
I don't disagree with you, and I value my monopod greatly. However, while not as encumbering as a tripod, the monopod is still more encumbering than handheld.
That's true. It just seems like folks at FM go directly from handheld to tripod without considering the intermediate step.
Lance B wrote:
One would hope that these flowers weren't "stinking".
Great color contrast photos.
Thanks Lance. no, they were quite fragrant actually.
I thought the bokeh in the first sample wasn't too bad. I'm looking forward to shooting butterflies in the garden with the 500PF+extension tube this summer. The little 500PF may yet satiate my interest in a 500E.
I spent an amazing Saturday afternoon and evening at Crex Meadows in NW Wisconsin. While I normally visit this refuge in autumn, spring has some amazing biodiversity, light, and weather. I have barely scratched the surface from the evening, but thought I'd share a few.
Given the strange discourse that has flooded this thread in which some want to discuss what the 500PF can't do, I thought I'd show what it can. For each of these pictures, I was shooting a different camera (Z6) and lens (200-400VR or 24-70S) mounted to a tripod. While my mind was elsewhere, the goose and goslings in one instance, and the backlit deer in another, entered my peripheral vision.
W/ the D500 mounted on the 500PF, I was able to quickly leave one set up to pursue another... both are handheld and were made nearly 1/2 miles from where I left the tripod and other gear behind...
Flexible and accurate... the lens is a dream for those seeking mobility.
cheers,
bruce
OwlsEyes wrote:
I spent an amazing Saturday afternoon and evening at Crex Meadows in NW Wisconsin. While I normally visit this refuge in autumn, spring has some amazing biodiversity, light, and weather. I have barely scratched the surface from the evening, but thought I'd share a few.
Given the strange discourse that has flooded this thread in which some want to discuss what the 500PF can't do, I thought I'd show what it can. For each of these pictures, I was shooting a different camera (Z6) and lens (200-400VR or 24-70S) mounted to a tripod. While my mind was elsewhere, the goose and goslings in one instance, and the backlit deer in another, entered my peripheral vision.
W/ the D500 mounted on the 500PF, I was able to quickly leave one set up to pursue another... both are handheld and were made nearly 1/2 miles from where I left the tripod and other gear behind...
Flexible and accurate... the lens is a dream for those seeking mobility.
cheers,
bruce...Show more →
"Flexible and accurate..." you hit the nail smack on! Let's add impressive Acuity :-)
Over the past few days, I've been staking out a patch of flowering aloes for visiting sunbirds, which the iridescent male Sunbirds defend as territories. Here they intercept females. 400 f2.8 with D850 setup on the gimbal on big tripod covers the flowers. The Z7 with the 500 PF covers almost any eventuality that might pass by, as I can react swiftly (and almost silently) to a subject if it passes by in the vicinity.
I'm also shooting on a crop sensor with the D500. I did find it easier to get better angles closer-up at 300mm or 420mm (w/ 300mm PF) than farther away at 600mm (w/ a Sigma S 150-600mm). One could argue I could just use the 150-600mm at 300mm or 420mm, but then that's where the MFD bites you.
no, they were quite fragrant actually.
