aboutthelight wrote:
As a long time Canon shooter the Nikon gear feels like cheating. Especially the 500 PF. You get great image quality and auto focus.
Don't be sayin' that! It's gonna cost me a bunch of money!
Colin F wrote:
Don't be sayin' that! It's gonna cost me a bunch of money!
Excellent images!
Thanks and it is true. There is a big difference in auto focus and image quality. And Canon can not touch the 500 PF. Well I guess you could spend twice as much on the 400 DO is ii and a converter. It is also heavier. But then you are stuck with the inferior Canon auto focus and image quality. I would say that if you know someone who has the gear then play with it a bit and compare to what you have. I did and sold my stuff on the spot and without regret. I should add that when viewing the downsized and compressed images you may not see the differences as much but when viewing the full res files on my 5k Imac there is a major difference. My Canon files are muddy in comparison. And I do not want to make this a Canon vs Nikon thing. Just being honest about my findings and thought process.
It took lot’s of work to develop the skills for this.
Will be looking forward to more of your work
Robert
Thank you Robert. I got all the flight images on the Barnegat jetty. I have spent about 18 hours there this year just sitting and waiting for flight opportunities. All the best images came in a 15 minute window and the rest of a time was a bust with lots and lots of good but not great images (aka deletes) . Kind of takes a small miracle to get everything lined up perfectly. I have some really nice Harlequin flight images with perfect wing position and exposure and where the birds were just off the sun angle and there is a tiny bit too much shadows on the rear wings. Had the bird been 3 feet over they would be killer. But guess I need to go back for more chances at them. So 18 hours yielded 2 images I am really happy with and the Scoter which is good but wish it were a male! Thanks again for the compliment.
