p.15 #1 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
Like many other people here I follow these threads regularly although don't often comment. I'm always interested to see what others are doing and how new equipment is performing in order to assist in making buying decisions. The above attacks are why I rarely comment The tailspin to childishness is sadly predictable. Anyone who thinks that eagle pic is "tack sharp" is either drunk, high, clueless, or has no idea what they are talking about. Buying new equipment is the first part of the equation. Too many people think it ends there. The personal attacks by the overly sensitive OP are uncalled for and juvenile. If you can't handle any form of criticism perhaps you shouldn't be posting your amateurish photos on a photography forum where they can be viewed by people who know what to look for in a decent image. You can either take something from that criticism or you can remain delusional and keep blaming your equipment. Here's a big crop taken by a "know nothing", "armchair quarterback", "hardhead" with a lowly third party superzoom for comparison sake. I would have liked to have posted a static shot in poor light on a terrible perch for a true comparison, but I deleted all those. And judging by your posting, face reality sir, you do need some lessons from somebody. Have a great day
p.15 #3 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
sum1sgrampa wrote:
tack sharp
At the risk of alienating folks .. the phrase "tack sharp" is thrown around quite loosely around FM
There are threads in many forums where hyperbole clouds actual evidence .. people posting VGA resolution
photos that are clearly not in focus and then saying that particular camera/lens is a gift from the gods.
Mysteriously enough, even though the accompanying pics are often clearly not focused, or blurry, the hyperbole
is enough to make many others click the Like button. If you call them out, it's all out war.
1 example is the Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 GM ii lens thread.
I'm interested in that lens because of its specs and awesomeness on paper, but so far in that thread, there are maybe 4 or 5 good samples.
Most of the others are mediocre to decent images, that you can take with much cheaper lenses.
But, I didn't say it there because that would break the magic spell and I'd become the target of their ire.
In short .. when folks post images that to your eyes, are clearly not in focus, blurry, taken in harsh light etc ..
but accompany them with phrases such as "tack sharp", "amazing", "excellent" and so on, it's best to let them be.
Either those who say this or click Like on such posts .. have a different standard, or are under the magic spell.
To date, I wouldn't call ANY of the photos I've clicked .. tack sharp. Sharp yes, tack sharp would be quite a different level.
p.15 #4 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
All that ranting to post some blurry, overly noise reduced pictures that don’t even look sharp on my little iPhone
I never said my eagle was tack sharp btw. I said it’s properly in focus, which it is.
sum1sgrampa wrote:
Like many other people here I follow these threads regularly although don't often comment. I'm always interested to see what others are doing and how new equipment is performing in order to assist in making buying decisions. The above attacks are why I rarely comment The tailspin to childishness is sadly predictable. Anyone who thinks that eagle pic is "tack sharp" is either drunk, high, clueless, or has no idea what they are talking about. Buying new equipment is the first part of the equation. Too many people think it ends there. The personal attacks by the overly sensitive OP are uncalled for and juvenile. If you can't handle any form of criticism perhaps you shouldn't be posting your amateurish photos on a photography forum where they can be viewed by people who know what to look for in a decent image. You can either take something from that criticism or you can remain delusional and keep blaming your equipment. Here's a big crop taken by a "know nothing", "armchair quarterback", "hardhead" with a lowly third party superzoom for comparison sake. I would have liked to have posted a static shot in poor light on a terrible perch for a true comparison, but I deleted all those. And judging by your posting, face reality sir, you do need some lessons from somebody. Have a great day ...Show more →
p.15 #5 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
I didn't mean anyone in particular in this thread, by the way
That was an observation from seeing such posts in many camera or lens related threads in different forums.
I used to find it weird too, that folks were referring to clearly out of focus and blurry images as "tack sharp".
But now I just let it be and look elsewhere for better samples.
p.15 #6 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
saaketham wrote:
At the risk of alienating folks .. the phrase "tack sharp" is thrown around quite loosely around FM
There are threads in many forums where hyperbole clouds actual evidence .. people posting VGA resolution
photos that are clearly not in focus and then saying that particular camera/lens is a gift from the gods.
Mysteriously enough, even though the accompanying pics are often clearly not focused, or blurry, the hyperbole
is enough to make many others click the Like button. If you call them out, it's all out war.
1 example is the Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 GM ii lens thread.
I'm interested in that lens because of its specs and awesomeness on paper, but so far in that thread, there are maybe 4 or 5 good samples.
Most of the others are mediocre to decent images, that you can take with much cheaper lenses.
But, I didn't say it there because that would break the magic spell and I'd become the target of their ire.
In short .. when folks post images that to your eyes, are clearly not in focus, blurry, taken in harsh light etc ..
but accompany them with phrases such as "tack sharp", "amazing", "excellent" and so on, it's best to let them be.
Either those who say this or click Like on such posts .. have a different standard, or are under the magic spell.
To date, I wouldn't call ANY of the photos I've clicked .. tack sharp. Sharp yes, tack sharp would be quite a different level....Show more →
So, you wouldn't qualify most recent Lance's images to be tack sharp, if I understand your comment?
p.15 #8 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
cvrle59 wrote:
So, you wouldn't qualify most recent Lance's images to be tack sharp, if I understand your comment?
It doesn't matter what I think of them. If you find them tack sharp, and like them, who cares what others think of them?
I was just telling sum1sgrampa that it's not worth fighting about, as this phenomenon exists all over FM, not just in this thread.
As for Lance, I really respect his skills and have seen wonderful images from him, including some in this thread,
especially the bunny pic he posted a few days ago (Cinnamon bun).
"Tack sharp" though - I'd reserve that phrase for a different level.
For me this is how it goes (and all are acceptable for various uses)
- blurry
- sharp enough
- sharp
- tack sharp
- razor sharp
p.15 #10 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
To my eyes, images on this thread are tack sharp. Your definition may not and does not have to match mine.
You may think these are not sharp at all, or may call them razor sharp.
My point is .. if you like a certain image, then good - it doesn't matter who else calls it good or bad.
p.15 #11 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
That's funny, you guys get all kinds of cool birds down South, but a nuthatch is exotic! Congrats on finding a rare bird! Can you please send some of your cool shorebirds up here? We still have open water by our dams....
p.15 #12 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
saaketham wrote:
To my eyes, images on this thread are tack sharp. Your definition may not and does not have to match mine.
You may think these are not sharp at all, or may call them razor sharp.
My point is .. if you like a certain image, then good - it doesn't matter who else calls it good or bad.
There is a level of detail and acuity that is the result of strobes. I wonder if that is part of Ronny's process that sets them apart in this series. His images are generaly top level with all subjects. Strong images strobes or not.
p.15 #13 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
1bwana1 wrote:
There is a level of detail and acuity that is the result of strobes. I wonder if that is part of Ronny's process that sets them apart in this series. His images are generaly top level with all subjects. Strong images strobes or not.
I sure wish I knew how Ronny does it. His work has always amazed me. That is one class I would surely sign up for
p.15 #14 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
mikedit wrote:
For amateurs such as myself, I would be truly interested in your comments on what the issues are with the eagle photo.
It's all relative I guess. I suppose I'm just spoiled by endless hours of viewing photos on N&W by members I aspire to. The only thing I will add is I strongly believe 'sharpness' is the single most overrated factor of a quality image. Which makes these conversations even more pointless.
p.15 #15 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
saaketham wrote:
I think you're silly .. but I am too much of a peace-loving FM-er to state it
Kidding .. yes, it's a 4x zoom and a compromise lens and should not be compared to f/4 super-tele primes and such.
But then I never complained about this lens, did I?
Something sets those images apart - lighting, background, focus on point, sharpness .. I find Ronny's macro shots delightful
I'm not sure if I would bring macro images here to use them as reference for telephoto lenses.
I've seen tons of macro images from different cameras and different lenses, just as sharp as those.
Macro is completely different animal.
p.15 #20 · Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S images thread
Macro lighting is a complex and fascinating topic. I encourage anyone who hasn't taken a serious run at macro photography to give it a shot. You can make all kinds of DIY diffusers and flash brackets and do some really fun stuff. It's a really fun learning experience. It's like carrying a whole studio lighting kit with you for every photo.
I like twin lights best, and I'm on my fifth (and hopefully final) twin light system now. Once the bugs arrive here in the Spring, I'll definitely be chasing dragonflies with my 100-400:
Here's the kit (1.4x included):
Here's my test subject, clearly feeling some angst that people will accuse him of owning a blurry face due to my sloppy backfocus:
I measured the horizontal frame coverage at ~65mm with the 1.4x, or roughly 1:1.8. Not quite as close or usable as a 200/4, but a ton more working distance than my 105 gives me!
The tailspin to childishness is sadly predictable. Anyone who thinks that eagle pic is "tack sharp" is either drunk, high, clueless, or has no idea what they are talking about. Buying new equipment is the first part of the equation. Too many people think it ends there. The personal attacks by the overly sensitive OP are uncalled for and juvenile. If you can't handle any form of criticism perhaps you shouldn't be posting your amateurish photos on a photography forum where they can be viewed by people who know what to look for in a decent image. You can either take something from that criticism or you can remain delusional and keep blaming your equipment. Here's a big crop taken by a "know nothing", "armchair quarterback", "hardhead" with a lowly third party superzoom for comparison sake. I would have liked to have posted a static shot in poor light on a terrible perch for a true comparison, but I deleted all those. And judging by your posting, face reality sir, you do need some lessons from somebody. Have a great day 
