Danpbphoto wrote:
Kathy, not knowing what your settings were, the end of the wing spans seem OOF or soft. The face on seems fine.
Dan
I corrected it to add settings. Too slow of shutter speed for the shot. I was totally unexpecting her to swoop in. I was shooting her mate on the limb. She had been in the nest and tag teamed him to relieve her. I didn't have time to move my finger over to track her. She was just suddenly in my viewfinder. It's far from perfect, I just shared for the look on her face and their connection.
Kathy White wrote:
Taken today today while out testing my camera.
What was your distance to the Eagle/how large of a crop? You had bad conditions with them being so backlit. I don't think this is optimal performance? Since the camera is fixed maybe you should try a different 200-600mm? I don't know, no one else said anything about it so maybe it's fine and I'm being crazy
Leah Hallett wrote:
What was your distance to the Eagle/how large of a crop? You had bad conditions with them being so backlit. I don't think this is optimal performance? Since the camera is fixed maybe you should try a different 200-600mm? I don't know, no one else said anything about it so maybe it's fine and I'm being crazy
Leah
Its the uncertainity and questioning the factors that influence the end result that frustrate me. Is it me? Is it the environment? Is it camera/lens? Especially when the camera has been in for service and you have no definitive confirmation that the fix is in!
Crazy Leah? I think with all the above factors in the equation....."crazy uncertainity" is a better question. It's like the olde time Laurel & Hardy joke.."Whose on 3rd"?
Dan
Yes, I was pleasantly surprised at how well they turned out. I’ve been spoiled by the ridiculous level of sharpness obtained from my 135mm f1.8 GM and Sigma 35mm f1.2 FE lenses, and also the sharpness and color rendering of my Otus 85. It’s not fair to always be comparing any new lenses I get to those three, but I can’t help it; they’ve spoiled me!
Danpbphoto wrote:
BEAUTIFUL>>SHARP>>DETAILED!!!!
Dan
Working in little light and mentally comparing the Nikon 500PF via Commlite I shot with yesterday vs. the 400DOii+1.4TCiii on the A7riv. The 500PF set up light and nimble with sucky AF. The Canon set up big and bulky but with good AF. Not a great test for me since today's Sun was nowhere to be found.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Working in little light and mentally comparing the Nikon 500PF via Commlite I shot with yesterday vs. the 400DOii+1.4TCiii on the A7riv. The 500PF set up light and nimble with sucky AF. The Canon set up big and bulky but with good AF. Not a great test for me since today's Sun was nowhere to be found.
Nice details. But any reason to bother using 400DOII/1.4TC instead of the 200-600? Same weight (2-6 actually a little lighter once TC is on the 400DOII), better AF on the 200-600. Focal length and f-stop are very close.
Unfortunately once resale price starts falling it's often the beginning of a slippery slope. Lens technology seems to me to have taken a bit of a leap in the last couple of years, possibly because of improved software utilisation, and this can make it more difficult for older glass to compete.
and mentally comparing the Nikon 500PF via Commlite I shot with yesterday vs. the 400DOii+1.4TCiii on the A7riv. The 500PF set up light and nimble with sucky AF. The Canon set up big and bulky but with good AF. Not a great test for me since today's Sun was nowhere to be found.
and the real reason, resale of the DOii is crap!