arbitrage wrote:
More sad news reports for Canada supply...I think Brad is a little off here as he orders from TheCameraStore and as far as I understood from them it was their store that only got one lens, not all of Canada....still....with NPS orders all taking priority I don't think a 500PF is in my future....basically if SONY announces what I want, Nikon will lose a $5K sale that they otherwise would have had.....
http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html :
"What about the 500mm f5.6 PF? Man, am I ever getting a pile of email about this one - and most emails are expressing hope that I will be reviewing the lens. So...
• Yes, I am getting a 500mm f4E PF and YES I will be doing a full review of that lens. But...
• It appears that Nikon's production schedule for this lens doesn't match demand for the lens too well. In Canada the "scuttlebutt" (2nd hand and I can't vouch for its accuracy) is that only ONE 500mm f5.6E PF will be shipped into the country in 2018. IF that's true, you can probably bet that lens won't go to me - as unbelievable as that seems! ;-)
Note that Nikon Canada does have a Priority Purchase Plan for NPS members for the 500mm f5.6E PF and I AM on that list. So as soon as I can lay my hands on a 500 PF I will begin testing it. But no promises when that will be...your guess really is as good as mine!"...Show more →
Wow, this is either a big eff up by Nikon Canada or a big eff you by Nikon Global. Or maybe a bit of both. One lens for a whole country? How the hell does that happen?
The difference between left and right 1/100s is that the left one is shot with silent shutter or E-shutter.
Seems that it is the mechanical shutter that is having the resonance problem with VR on 500PF, perhaps?
Right, this is what is causing the dip in sharpness at around 1/80s or 1/125s in the PF 300 as well, though it varies between lens and camera combinations.
Mirror slap, shutter shock. I hope Sony makes work of that "mini A9", the APSC high end camera that should solve issues like these. Nikon will no doubt follow suite if Sony gets it right: fast sensor readout, blackout free viewfinder, A9 level tracking AF, 24mp BSI, low weight, compact but with dedicated battery grip. This 500mm PF lens would fit such a camera very well.
ChrisMak wrote:
Mirror slap, shutter shock. I hope Sony makes work of that "mini A9", the APSC high end camera that should solve issues like these. Nikon will no doubt follow suite if Sony gets it right: fast sensor readout, blackout free viewfinder, A9 level tracking AF, 24mp BSI, low weight, compact but with dedicated battery grip. This 500mm PF lens would fit such a camera very well.
While avoiding mirror and shutter vibration helps at certain shutter speeds, those shutter speeds still make the photography vulnerable to movement induced blur and if at all possible, I would prefer either to use a tripod or fast shutter speed, or both. If fast shutter speed cannot be obtained using an f/5.6 lens, then shoot in brighter light, or use an f/4 or f/2.8 lens, and a tripod to minimize residual vibration from hand shake.
Fully electronic shutter in a mirrorless camera permit silent photography, which I do consider advantageous. However, silent shutter has its own downsides: either rolling shutter or a high cost, low resolution sensor. I think at the present time most people prefer small pixel DX or FX sensors for wildlife photography, given the choice. So the ideal camera from that perspective doesn't quite exist yet. Once it appears, if there is a loss in base ISO dynamic range then will people consider it an acceptable compromise to get access to the rolling shutter free silent shutter?
Yes, base ISO DR is meaningless for me as a bird/wildlife shooter....I’ll take that hit for a high pixel density A9 tech camera whether it is FF or APS-C.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
While avoiding mirror and shutter vibration helps at certain shutter speeds, those shutter speeds still make the photography vulnerable to movement induced blur and if at all possible, I would prefer either to use a tripod or fast shutter speed, or both. If fast shutter speed cannot be obtained using an f/5.6 lens, then shoot in brighter light, or use an f/4 or f/2.8 lens, and a tripod to minimize residual vibration from hand shake.
Fully electronic shutter in a mirrorless camera permit silent photography, which I do consider advantageous. However, silent shutter has its own downsides: either rolling shutter or a high cost, low resolution sensor. I think at the present time most people prefer small pixel DX or FX sensors for wildlife photography, given the choice. So the ideal camera from that perspective doesn't quite exist yet. Once it appears, if there is a loss in base ISO dynamic range then will people consider it an acceptable compromise to get access to the rolling shutter free silent shutter? ...Show more →
xGumbyx wrote:
Wow, this is either a big eff up by Nikon Canada or a big eff you by Nikon Global. Or maybe a bit of both. One lens for a whole country? How the hell does that happen?
Rumour in S Africa is only 3 copies of the new 500 f5.6 are being shipped in this month.... Surprising if it's true!
chambeshi wrote:
Rumour in S Africa is only 3 copies of the new 500 f5.6 are being shipped in this month.... Surprising if it's true!
Surprising indeed. Nikon let Z7 preorderers know that all preorders won't be fulfilled in the first shipment, why not with this lens I wonder. I guess communication isn't their strong point.
xGumbyx wrote:
Surprising indeed. Nikon let Z7 preorderers know that all preorders won't be fulfilled in the first shipment, why not with this lens I wonder. I guess communication isn't their strong point.
Sounds like devious marketing by Nikon. Saying that product X should be available by a certain date encourages a lot of Nikon users that may be thinking of changing to Canon or Sony to wait a little longer because product X will be arriving soon.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
While avoiding mirror and shutter vibration helps at certain shutter speeds, those shutter speeds still make the photography vulnerable to movement induced blur and if at all possible, I would prefer either to use a tripod or fast shutter speed, or both. If fast shutter speed cannot be obtained using an f/5.6 lens, then shoot in brighter light, or use an f/4 or f/2.8 lens, and a tripod to minimize residual vibration from hand shake.
Fully electronic shutter in a mirrorless camera permit silent photography, which I do consider advantageous. However, silent shutter has its own downsides: either rolling shutter or a high cost, low resolution sensor. I think at the present time most people prefer small pixel DX or FX sensors for wildlife photography, given the choice. So the ideal camera from that perspective doesn't quite exist yet. Once it appears, if there is a loss in base ISO dynamic range then will people consider it an acceptable compromise to get access to the rolling shutter free silent shutter? ...Show more →
Personally, yes absolutely I will take the hit in DR, as I intend to use a crop camera exclusively for birding and wildlife. I have the Sony A7rII for all else. The A9 does not have a global shutter yet, but a very fast readout time (1/160s I believe). That should allow for silent shooting in almost all scenarios.
Regarding resolution: to me 21-24 mp is fine on a crop body. The biggest question I have about the upcoming "mini A9" (well, I have many actually), is: how many mp will it be. I would have no interest in 16mp, but anything above 20mp will do.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
While avoiding mirror and shutter vibration helps at certain shutter speeds, those shutter speeds still make the photography vulnerable to movement induced blur and if at all possible, I would prefer either to use a tripod or fast shutter speed, or both. If fast shutter speed cannot be obtained using an f/5.6 lens, then shoot in brighter light, or use an f/4 or f/2.8 lens, and a tripod to minimize residual vibration from hand shake.
Fully electronic shutter in a mirrorless camera permit silent photography, which I do consider advantageous. However, silent shutter has its own downsides: either rolling shutter or a high cost, low resolution sensor. I think at the present time most people prefer small pixel DX or FX sensors for wildlife photography, given the choice. So the ideal camera from that perspective doesn't quite exist yet. Once it appears, if there is a loss in base ISO dynamic range then will people consider it an acceptable compromise to get access to the rolling shutter free silent shutter? ...Show more →
Personally, I don't think I ever use SS less than 1/200 with super tele for animals, mostly in the 1/500 and up anyhow. The only time I intentionally used 1/100 for animal that I can think of was when I was shooting
a Blue Pitta, even with F4, and 1/100, I was up to iso 9000 at the time
I did not really think that this whole experiment would affect my usage much but was just curious to see what was going on and to know limitation. I mention this to my local dealer who is currently with Nikon at Photokina and said that he would pass the info along to Nikon and see what they have to say.
Actually, I quite like Z7/500PF combination. EVF is good enough to let me pan the camera and AF is fast enough for a more stationary object but may not be good enough if you want to chase an animal in a hunt or erratic bird in flight. Make it a relatively small and lighter combination for a long hike.
Although D850 is only 300g heavier with better buffer (at least for now, will have to see how much of a difference CFExpress card made) and better AF.
After reading all these posts......I’m starting to wonder if it’s photography that were talking about.
Think I’ll take my Nikon FG out and shoot some film. I’ll get back to you with some comparisons.
ChrisMak wrote:
Personally, yes absolutely I will take the hit in DR, as I intend to use a crop camera exclusively for birding and wildlife. I have the Sony A7rII for all else. The A9 does not have a global shutter yet, but a very fast readout time (1/160s I believe). That should allow for silent shooting in almost all scenarios.
Regarding resolution: to me 21-24 mp is fine on a crop body. The biggest question I have about the upcoming "mini A9" (well, I have many actually), is: how many mp will it be. I would have no interest in 16mp, but anything above 20mp will do....Show more →
The A9 is already pushing a 24MP file so no reason it can't push a 24MP file in an APS-C body...a 24MP file is a 24MP file...doesn't matter what size of sensor it is on when looking at throughput.....I can't see them doing less than 24MP APS-C. Now an A9R is the bigger question....ie how high can they push the MP limit and still give A9 type features (I'm assuming it won't be 20FPS but would still want a fast sensor readout to allow e-shutter all the time).
arbitrage wrote:
The A9 is already pushing a 24MP file so no reason it can't push a 24MP file in an APS-C body...a 24MP file is a 24MP file...doesn't matter what size of sensor it is on when looking at throughput.....I can't see them doing less than 24MP APS-C. Now an A9R is the bigger question....ie how high can they push the MP limit and still give A9 type features (I'm assuming it won't be 20FPS but would still want a fast sensor readout to allow e-shutter all the time).
Absolutely. It does mean though that a 24mp "mini A9" will be an expensive camera, which is fine with me. I'd rather pay more for a 24mp 1/160s readout camera with 60 scan/s AF, than pay less but face the need to upgrade in 2 years. The A9 is a compelling camera, and I would welcome an exact APSC clone. Because of the sensor size, it is going to be more affordable anyhow, than the a9FF with its undoubtedly very expensive stacked BSI sensor.
I decided to try out all 3 Nikon teleconverters on the lens, so I printed a target on a 13x19 sheet. The smallest lines are tiny, even standing right up to the target. I was going to do the AF auto fine-tune, but it was a bit windy. Camera on tripod, VR off, manual exposure with auto-ISO so it's more a typical shooting condition comparison than an ultimate sharpness test. I backed up each time until the target filled the frame. I'd estimate the distances were around 25 feet for the bare lens up to 50 feet for the 2x converter. The 1.4x and 1.7x AF did slow down some, but were still plenty fast. With the 2x TC, Live View hunted quite a bit, but finally did lock focus. In practice it's definitely manual focus only. No crop, 50% LR unsharpened resize 85% quality of SOOC JPG-Fine. I'd have no hesitation in using TCs on this lens.
ELinder wrote:
I decided to try out all 3 Nikon teleconverters on the lens, so I printed a target on a 13x19 sheet. The smallest lines are tiny, even standing right up to the target. I was going to do the AF auto fine-tune, but it was a bit windy. Camera on tripod, VR off, manual exposure with auto-ISO so it's more a typical shooting condition comparison than an ultimate sharpness test. I backed up each time until the target filled the frame. I'd estimate the distances were around 25 feet for the bare lens up to 50 feet for the 2x converter. The 1.4x and 1.7x AF did slow down some, but were still plenty fast. With the 2x TC, Live View hunted quite a bit, but finally did lock focus. In practice it's definitely manual focus only. No crop, 50% LR unsharpened resize 85% quality of SOOC JPG-Fine. I'd have no hesitation in using TCs on this lens.
Thank you Erich, this really gives some much needed analysis of the lens with TC. will take some time to digest it, but the results are very acceptable with 1.4 and 1.7.
