Not certain, but wondering if it the same phenomenon we get when shooting a flash off a hotshoe; e.i. with the very strong and low sunlight *directly behind* the camera.
bs kite wrote:
Not certain, but wondering if it the same phenomenon we get when shooting a flash off a hotshoe; e.i. with the very strong and low sunlight *directly behind* the camera.
I'm not sure it's traditional "red eye", because that's usually a really deep blood red and this fella looked the same in every shot of this particular goose - both eyes. Other geese did not come out this way.
EyeSpyEagle wrote:
Not sure what causes a pupil to look like that. It was this way in several (all of this goose) shots, and both eyes were the same......
cvrle59 wrote:
Anyone in Canada hungry for this lens....
It looks like, there is an open box at Henry's Mississauga, nicely discounted.
Does anyone know if an open-box item will still carry the Nikon warranty?. I snagged an open-box from Crutchfield, and they insisted that Nikon will honor the warranty. Crutchfield is in their authorized dealer list, so thats probably a good sign..
+1 fully agree
The Lenscoat camo covers are a farce at the high price. The sloppy stitching starts to unravel, and the exposed rubber edges are left unprotected i.e. not stitched overcast/overedge.
Once they disintegrate too much, I plan to replace my current Lenscoats with UK kits from Outdoor Photography Gear. I have one the 80-400 G and it's well made with tidy stitching. The neoprene is corrugated on the inside so grips lens barrel better, with double-overedge stitching of all exposed seams. Obviously, they've designed these to hold up better to the outdoors and constant handling.
They also replied promptly to a recent email enquiry about making a lenscoat for a newly released lens. This normally involves "a schematic being sent to you with around 12-15 measurements for you to record for us...."
They also make excellent hides in different styles, patterns etc
You have to MF the lens to just about perfect and then the AF can take over and track. Once that happens I would get a lot of sharp shots in a row. Trying to let the lens AF from even a few centimetres in front or back of your target either never moves or moves so slowly it can take a couple seconds till it gets to the target and starts focusing. The 300PF works much better.
A member on here has told me that on the A9II the 500PF actually worked okay but I haven't got to try it on that body yet.
MedicineMan has been posting a number of A7RIV and 300PF shots in the A7RIV thread so I think that combo is working well for him....Show more →
Do you like this combo than 200-600? I'm very curious about that lens. I have no plan to sell 500 PF. But want to try 200-600 on a9. What do you think about sharpness and AF tracking? I have a9 and 100-400. Also have D500 and 500 PF for longer reach. Only one complaint about A9 so far is the wake up time. Few occasions camera could not be ready to shoot when I saw something..
Jemini wrote:
Do you like this combo than 200-600? I'm very curious about that lens. I have no plan to sell 500 PF. But want to try 200-600 on a9. What do you think about sharpness and AF tracking? I have a9 and 100-400. Also have D500 and 500 PF for longer reach. Only one complaint about A9 so far is the wake up time. Few occasions camera could not be ready to shoot when I saw something..
Jemini wrote:
A9+500 PF... Was wondering why didn't u use 200-600 with A9? Is the Nikon prime sharper?
The 500PF seems somewhat sharper to me but it isn't a huge difference. I really only tried it with the A9 to jog my memory of how bad the AF is If the AF was as good as an adapted Canon lens then I'd certainly use the 500PF on the A9 for a lightweight carry around setup when not aiming for BIF. But the 200-600 on A9 gets me the extra 100mm with only 1/3 stop penalty and the zoom versatility and blazing fast and accurate native AF. Only small downside is it is heavier and larger to pack.
I'm hoping I will be able to do a quick test of the 500PF on the A9II and see if it does have better AF as has been reported to me by a member on here. I know one person with the A9II so next time I see him I will see if I can do a quick test. But even if the 500PF works reasonably well on A9II I don't think that would be enough of a reason for me to upgrade from my A9.
Anyways, right now my attention has been drawn back to the light with the EOS R5 rumors
...
If the AF was as good as an adapted Canon lens then I'd certainly use the 500PF on the A9 for a lightweight carry around setup when not aiming for BIF. But the 200-600 on A9 gets me the extra 100mm with only 1/3 stop penalty and the zoom versatility and blazing fast and accurate native AF. Only small downside is it is heavier and larger to pack. 