p.66 #1 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
That's true .. you're limited to 90mm or so with scopes, but they're much more compact, cheaper and usable in a lot more spaces than a 800mm + camera + TCs.
With a 2x TC, you're at f/13 with a 800 PF.
p.66 #2 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
saaketham wrote:
That's true .. you're limited to 90mm or so with scopes, but they're much more compact, cheaper and usable in a lot more spaces than a 800mm + camera + TCs.
With a 2x TC, you're at f/13 with a 800 PF.
The 800pf is f6.3.
In comparison the Kowa Prominar TSN-99A is f6 (600mm focal length / 99mm objective).
The problem is there's no easy way to magnify the spotting scope image and fully illuminate an FX sensor. Anyway, there are many other trade-offs with digiscoping (believe me I've looked into it).
p.66 #3 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
saaketham wrote:
I'd think it'd be better to use a good spotting scope and digiscoping kit instead of TC on a 800mm lens
From my testing in Yellowstone with wolf dens about a mile out, it wasn't the case.
At the time I was using Canon, and the R5 + RF 600 F4 + RF 2x produced significantly better images than any of the spotting scopes + phones did.
And we tested with some spotting scopes that cost more than the entire camera setup did
When using a dedicated camera with the scope, the results are better, but still weren't impressive
Gary Irwin wrote:
AFAIK you can't stack TCs directly -- there's no room for the "nose". Maybe with tubes, but that would play havoc with the focus.
yes that was the same issue with the Canon system, but easily overcome with extension tubes. didn't change anything with focus. still had MFD all the way to infinity
hoping Nikon has similar results
Gary Irwin wrote:
The 800pf is f6.3.
In comparison the Kowa Prominar TSN-99A is f6 (600mm focal length / 99mm objective).
The problem is there's no easy way to magnify the spotting scope image and fully illuminate an FX sensor. Anyway, there are many other trade-offs with digiscoping (believe me I've looked into it).
This sentiment matches my experience as well. Tried digiscoping many times and wanted to fall in love with it, but it's significantly more difficult and annoying to setup, and the results were often worse than a long prime and a 2x (or multiple 2x)
p.66 #4 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
Competition for a fish. (the guy in the front has it, incoming guy wants it!). Hauraki Gulf, Auckland from Kayak. I find 800mm, whilst bobbing about on the ocean in a small Kayak, pushes the limit of the VR system. Even at 1/3200 I sometimes see a little motion blur. Good fun though!
p.66 #5 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
nmerc_photos wrote:
some of my first shots with the 800 6.3
gotta say, I am way more impressed than I expected to be
coming from the R5 + RF 600 F4 + RF 1.4x combo at 840mm f5.6 and costing around $20K, the Z9 + Z 800 f6.3 blows the other combo out of the water for around $10K.
lighter weight, shorter, half the price, and very similar if not better IQ
Oh man, those Green Heron files are gorgeous! If I was starting all over, I would definitely be looking at Nikon. But as I am extremely invested in Canon, I won't be making the EF 800/5.6 ----> Nikon 800PF switch. But what I must ask you, since I see you have owned an RF 400/2.8, is how well the RF400 + RF 2x compares? It wouldn't cost me *too* much to make the EF 800 to RF 400 swap, and I already have both RF extenders, an R5, and tons of Canon glass. The RF 400/2.8 isn't as light as the 800PF, but about as long with an extender on, and one advantage it does have is 400/2.8 and 560/4. I wouldn't miss 800 + 1.4 as I only used a tc on my ef 800 once or twice (I'm not sure why?) but damnit....I need the 400 to be sharp with the 2x!
Sorry if this is hijacking an 800PF thread! You can always pm me if you'd like
p.66 #6 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
jaredmizanin wrote:
Oh man, those Green Heron files are gorgeous! If I was starting all over, I would definitely be looking at Nikon. But as I am extremely invested in Canon, I won't be making the EF 800/5.6 ----> Nikon 800PF switch. But what I must ask you, since I see you have owned an RF 400/2.8, is how well the RF400 + RF 2x compares? It wouldn't cost me *too* much to make the EF 800 to RF 400 swap, and I already have both RF extenders, an R5, and tons of Canon glass. The RF 400/2.8 isn't as light as the 800PF, but about as long with an extender on, and one advantage it does have is 400/2.8 and 560/4. I wouldn't miss 800 + 1.4 as I only used a tc on my ef 800 once or twice (I'm not sure why?) but damnit....I need the 400 to be sharp with the 2x!
Sorry if this is hijacking an 800PF thread! You can always pm me if you'd like
p.66 #7 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
I appreciate there are those amongst us who do not care for midge hawking Swallow sequences and they should look away now. But they are one of my favourite subjects and I find the 800mm to be quite well suited to their capture so here goes!:
