Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: retlaw
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13 next>>
Oct 14, 2014 11:04:19   #
jerryc41 wrote:
Here are several links. There are detailed directions and focusing charts.


Thanks for the links, Jerry; as always, you do your research. I have actually seen a few of these sites but will do more reading. I was hoping to see something about my suspicion that the lack of filters on the D810 may cause a moire situation perhaps rendering the LensAlign approach inappropriate for that camera. I am probably wrong and just had a bad day when I was trying to check the AF tune.
Go to
Oct 13, 2014 09:04:15   #
Greetings,

Has anyone used the LensAlign on a Nikon D810? I am having trouble focusing on the LensAlign pattern and I thought that it may be due to the lack of any filters in the D810. I have used the LensAlign on a D300s and a D800 with decent success.

I have also posted this on their site but thought I'd try here too.

BTW, can anyone recommend a better way to fine tune AF on the D810?

Thanks in advance.
Go to
Oct 5, 2014 15:26:14   #
imagemeister wrote:
It is a shame Nikon does not make a 400 ( OTHER than f2.8) !
Being on Canon, I would be using the 400 f4 DO with 1.4X ...... to save size and weight over the 300 2.8 with 2X - IF- I had the money to spend.....


You're right although I do use the 300 2.8 with the 1.7x for 510 mm with really good results.
Go to
Oct 5, 2014 11:12:12   #
snowbear wrote:
He has learned to get close to his subjects, and is very patient. he says fieldwork is everything.


I have learned this as well -- and it takes discipline, as you know. I find that the quality of my photos are inversely proportional to the distance from the subject. Obviously the closer you are, the less focal length you need. This is part of the reason for my seemingly stupid indecision; ie: perhaps a 500mm is a better choice over a 600mm lens; it will force me to narrow the distance to my subject. (It will also save $$ and weight.) Distance to subject is probably a more important consideration in improving image quality than is a longer focal length prime lens.

(Tilting toward the 500. :))
Go to
Oct 4, 2014 13:23:56   #
bcheary wrote:
Sent to me by an octogenarian friend. So true. :lol: :lol:

I was recently asked if I tweet. I answered, "No, but I do fart a lot."



LMAO :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Go to
Oct 4, 2014 12:50:27   #
imagemeister wrote:
I use the Canon 300 2.8 with 2X on crop frame. - and, that is what I recommend for you if you stay with the 300mm - instead of DX - though I'd rather be using the Sony A77II. BIF is all about lens mobility, management, and focus speed/accuracy - something very difficult to obtain with 500/600 f4's or bigger ! The use of a zoom is also highly beneficial with initial focus aquisition - preferably a non extending one - the Sigma 120-300 sport comes to mind or maybe, the new Sigma 150-600 sport. Ultimately, the most successful BIF's will come from hand holding or from a "bodypod".
I use the Canon 300 2.8 with 2X on crop frame. - a... (show quote)


Thanks imagemeister. Went to your website -- BEAUTIFUL photos!! You really get great results with the 300 + 2x! Like I said elsewhere, I have a long way to go.

Do you also use a medium format camera bird shots?
Go to
Oct 4, 2014 12:34:04   #
cjc2 wrote:
I have both the Nikon 300/2.8 and the 400/2.8 and both the 1.4 and the 2.0 TCs. I have not used them for BIF, but I plan to get into that for personal fun. I am a sports shooter. For most outdoor games, I use the 400 with the 1.4 TC about 50-75% of the time. If I don't need the reach I use the 300, but usually don't use a TC on this lens as I have the 400. I purchased the 2.0 TC specifically to reach outfielders in baseball simply because it was less expensive than purchasing a longer lens. I currently shoot with a D4s, but have shot with every pro version, and others, back to the F5, except for the orig D series. In my opinion, using the 2.0 TC does contribute to a noticeable, but not unusable, loss of sharpness. The 1.4 is pretty close IMHO. The reason I answered this is because I have a Sigma 150-600 sport on order. I will be using that for paid work as well as my own BIF. Obviously I can't say much about it as I have only seen photos of it. I've even talked to Sigma and they can't (or won't) tell me much. I hope to have one end of month or soon after. I plan to use this for both my paid and unpaid work. I have tried out the Tamron 150-600 on my D4 and decided to wait for the Sigma. If it's near as good as advertised, it might just fit the bill for what you want. Hope my long rant has helped!
I have both the Nikon 300/2.8 and the 400/2.8 and ... (show quote)


Thanks CJC2. I am curious what your opinion of the Sigma zoom will be. I should wait to see the reviews on that one.
Go to
Oct 4, 2014 12:17:19   #
snowbear wrote:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/coastalconn

One of the best amateur bird photographers I've seen; he's using a Tamron 150-600mm f/2.5-6.3.


Thanks for this -- he is a great photographer and his work does inspire me to do better (I have a long way to go)

Since the Tamron 150-600 is a new lens, I would like to know what he used for most of his work. In any case, I think you are suggesting a long zoom. I had a Nikkor 200 to 400 for a while and was not happy at the long end, which is where I used it most of time. (Not meant to insult anyone -- the 200 to 400 IS a great lens, just not for me.) I understand that the Tamron is a bit weak at the long end as well (Typical of such zooms I guess.)
Go to
Oct 2, 2014 17:45:22   #
birdpix wrote:
We should all have that problem!

I can't be of help with those specific lens/TC combinations. I am a Canon shooter using a 7d. My gut feeling is that you would be better off with the 600mm and the 1.4 simply from the standpoint of getting as close as possible with the base lens and modifying it the least.

I don't know of anyone on UHH who is using those combinations, either. My suggestion would be to rent those lenses/TCs and test them yourself.

Have you considered the Sigma 300-800 f/5.6?


You might PM MTShooter and ask him as he is a Nikon Dealer.
We should all have that problem! br br I can't be... (show quote)


Thanks for your response Birdpix, I appreciate the input. It is a tough problem but having saved my pennies, I need to relieve my GAS. :)

I am also leaning toward your gut feeling on the 600mm. You are also right about the rent/ test idea.

The Sigma zoom is another good idea which I did briefly entertain but after some thought decided to stay with the prime Nikkors. I will check in with MTShooter as suggested.

Thanks again.
Go to
Oct 2, 2014 12:10:51   #
Greetings,

After having read many pros and cons, I would really appreciate the hands-on opinions of fellow hogs; people who have used these lenses to photo BIF and other fast action, and who have specifically used them with teleconverters. Currently I am shooting with a Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 on a D810, primarily using a TC-20E III and a TC-17E II. My BIF results with the TC-17E II is excellent and is pretty good with the TC-20E III. Shooting stationary subjects with the 300mm + TC 20 combination produces very, very good results – I am happy with those – but I shoot mostly BIF. Now I am seeking improvement at the 600mm range and farther, therefore considering the new lens.

I am working on improving my technique to correct the slight softness with the 300mm + TC 20E combination BUT the cause MAY be more the result of using a teleconverter in which case I need to stay with a 600mm plus a new TC 14E to get max range and sharpness. Of course my human nature will force me to put the TC 17 and TC20 on the 600mm lens so I am wondering how those results will be – can I really get a sharp BIF photo at 1200 mm, f/8? Anybody happy with their results using this combo?

The D810 is supposed to autofocus down to f/8 BUT I do notice the autofocus already slowing down with the TC20 on the 300mm f/2.8 bringing it to only f/5.6. Accordingly, I wonder how even a half- stop increase will affect autofocus. This is important when I think about limiting myself to not using the TC 20E at all and not going out that far. This would bring the choices to the Nikkor 500mm with a TC17 or the Nikkor 600mm with a TC14 for 850mm and 840mm respectively with only ½ stop difference in favor of the 600mm. (I do not want to spend $12000 on the new 400mm f/2.8 lens, but would that be a smarter choice for 800mm using the TC20 at an f/5.6, same as the 600mm plus TC14?)

Thanks in advance.
Go to
Aug 28, 2014 18:19:20   #
sailorsmom wrote:
Thank you, retlaw! I agree and also wonder why...but at the same time, I'm just sooo happy to have a picture of mine published! :)


Thank you Sailorsmom; you have given me my answer. The answer is that apparently most photographers are soo happy to be published, they would give it away for nothing or close to it. I think that your work has more value.
Go to
Aug 26, 2014 15:45:45   #
TheDman wrote:
So? You can't find a Blockbuster Video anymore either. Delivery of digital content is evolving everywhere. It's not just something Adobe dreamed up as part of some diabolical plan to screw the world.


You’re right; Adobe did not dream it up. Actually digital delivery of “boxed” software has been around for a long time. I have been buying the downloaded, “boxed”, version of TurboTax for many years. Now you can also do your taxes on their site and pay as you need it. There are countless other examples including most of the software you download to your phone. Again I was too subtle on my point, sorry but I will not explain now – splitting head ache. Bye
Go to
Aug 26, 2014 15:34:30   #
minniev wrote:
This is ONLY my humble opinion:
1- Yes. Though they had targeted this for business/industry where there would be many licenses sold at whatever price, they had not reckoned on the amount of fuss we photographers put up. We balked. We may have hurt them more on the PR side than in the pocketbook. Many well known pros were outspoken about their unwillingness to buy into CC at the bloated price first announced, which made Adobe look bad. There were hard feelings inside Adobe with some of the people who write the software that had objections. There was even talk that one of them might write an alternate program "for photographers" to do what lightroom couldn't. (Maybe he is working on in secretly)

2 - Not very fast. They made enough messes the first time and looked like fools. They tested out various special plans until they found our price point. Because they already know what we will do, they won't risk having to do all that again quickly, though probably eventually they (foolishly) will. Hopefully by then, the other companies who are surely working on alternatives will have something to show for it and the market will take care of itself.
This is ONLY my humble opinion: br 1- Yes. Though ... (show quote)


Thanks for your informed response -- I appreciate it.
Go to
Aug 26, 2014 15:29:55   #
sailorsmom wrote:
Total surprise! I can't even remember what photos I've submitted to them, but I honestly am surprised that they'd choose this one for their fall issue; the leaves aren't even turning! I'm sure I submitted better fall photos than this!


Congratulations!! I am happy for you but I have a question which I hope does not detract from your success:

Why do publishers pay so LITTLE for a photograph?? It does not seem to matter how good the photo is, they just do not value it above $25 or $35. Should we photographers hold out/ ask for more payment?? Scarcity will increase value.
Go to
Aug 26, 2014 15:20:35   #
TheDman wrote:
How fast will the price of bread increase?


While the two items listed in your reply are not comparable, I get your point: we can’t predict how any price will increase.
Unfortunate for you, you cannot lease a loaf of bread.

Perhaps I was too subtle in making my point; and that is, IMHO the cost of leasing the software will eventually cost more than buying – same as for cars, etc. It may not be today, but it will be tomorrow. Once the CC system is established you will not be able to find the boxed version.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.