ilkka_nissila
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #5 · the WH-200 vs MH-100 vs ball head vs hand held d500with 500pf combo | |
There are other reasons why one may want to use the 500 PF than hand-held usage (which is a benefit, but not a requirement for the lens to be useful). One may not have the money for an f/4 lens that costs three times as much. Yesterday my backpack was 9.7 kg and tripod 2.5 kg when I was walking through forests and hills for 40 min (including some swamp and some climbing, a good sweat) before I reached my shooting location. Replacing the 500/5.6 with 500/4 would have necessitated the use of a larger backpack, and a bit heavier tripod head than what I use with the 500/5.6. That would have put me at a total weight of about 15 kg, which is too much for me. Why was my backpack so heavy? I had macro and landscape gear with me also, as I am not a single-subject photographer. Landscape photos after sunset in the subarctic summer would typically lead to long exposures in seconds so the tripod was a requirement. Also, my landscape subject required a panoramic approach, so the rail was included as well. The light was too harsh until the sun got behind the treeline, and after that, taking photos of divers taking off, I wanted to practice panning with a slow shutter speed so that I get the wing movement blurred but try to get the head of the bird as sharp as possible, and for that I need a tripod. I also cannot pan at the slow speed required for this without jerkiness using my Arca head with Sidekick gimbal, so the fluid head is the only one that both supports and does not get in the way of the situation. I am still working on my technique and have gotten good results at 1/400s and 1/200s but at 1/100s I run into some difficulty, could be due to the mechanical shutter, perhaps a slower speed such as 1/20s ... 1/50s would work better, but for that I need really precise panning. (1/1600s in the subdued light just after the sun is at the treeline or slightly below, would have put me at ISO 9000, which leads to tonal quality compromises although sharp images of some kind would result - I have done that as well.) So far I have gotten the best results using my fluid head.
I'll just show a few examples of what others have done in the field:
https://suomenluonto.fi/uutiset/nousee-suomalainen-luontokuvaaja/
http://www.vuodenluontokuva.fi/vlk/default.asp?iId=GGLLLG
I think at least the first one is a film shot, so in those times the slow shutter speed might have been the only option available. Now, someone who is using a 600/4 may just use that for these kinds of shots and suggest that the 500/5.6 PF is not needed. That may be right for you, but I have occasional back pain from being foolish enough to carry too much gear. I imagine there are a lot of people who want to do some bird and wildlife photography but cannot for some reason use a 600/4 or similar lens, be it for financial or weight reasons, or because they want to hike longer distances (some go hiking for weeks). At least for me the tripod is the foundation of nature photography, and I'm used to having my landscape shots and macro shots at the quality level of the tripod. Using a tripod makes stitching and exposure blending (if needed) much easier, and applying tilt for close-to-far shots yields more precise results than when hand-holding. For long lens photos, it ensures that all my shots taken with it are precisely level so the horizon is not tilted.
What the 500 PF has allowed for me is the addition of wildlife photography to my nature photography in such a way that it doesn't hurt my back and doesn't cause severe compromises in other areas of my photography, and it is the only lens that has been able to do that. A 600/4 might be better for most shots that I do with the 500 PF, but if that had been the only option, I would never have gotten started with wildlife or birds, I would have simply regarded them outside of the scope of possibility for me.
Here is one from Saturday, at 1/400s, f/5.6, ISO 2500:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/50005285752/
Now, the change I want to accomplish is more wing movement blur while keeping the head sharp. Another issue I have here is that I shot this from a height of 150cm as it is easier for me to wait and follow a fast-moving subject in a standing position rather than go down into the swamp. Yesterday I shot from a lower (50cm) height and the blurring of the water was effective but it was harder for me to follow the movement the lower I go, and sinking into the swamp is also slightly unpleasant. ;-) From the low position I lost yesterday's best opportunity because the camera picked up focus on some grass in the foreground just before the bird took off. The bird was really close that time, and I blew it. (I know I have a lot of practice ahead of me before I get it right.) However, I got other subjects, one of which was a close-up of a dragonfly in backlight and that might not have been possible with an f/4 lens because of a longer minimum subject distance.
Now, it may well be that for the majority of people, hand-holding the 500 PF is preferred, I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong if that's what you find to work best for you. I hand-hold it for images of deer and moose. However, for birds, in general, I prefer to use it from a tripod.
|
