selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

It looks lie you have some diffraction at f/11 softening the image.

Below is not exactly a fair illustration of what can be done in daylight at longer distance but it is a good indication of the sharpness potential when there is no diffraction.

I used a Z7 and a Dx crop and a Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 G2 mounted on a monopod set to 500m (750mm equivalent).

I took 6 high speed continuous shots in dim light from 12½ feet. Two of the six looked great, this one was best.

Two things surprised me - the lack of noise at ISO 1600 and the ability to focus that closely.

ISO 1600 1/5s @f/6.5 - uncropped 5408x3600 pixels(19.5MP)

(Download)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

This image would be a reject for me. It is not BAD but neither is it GOOD - I think you have a ways to go yet - it looks to me like some motion blur ......I may have to question 1/500 @ 700mm. You could have been 1/1000 @f8.

When you say manual mode please qualify it by saying FOCUS or EXPOSURE ! 8-)
.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

As luck would have it the weather looks pretty grim today and for the next week. There is no bright sunlight and the light is about 3 stops darker than broad daylight. The ducks are scarce and even the dog doesn't want to go out.

Here is a subject about 65 feet away just to show that my previous example wasn't a fluke. That's about far enough for me since anything further away would require cropping and loss of sharpness.

The lens was wide open. It might have been a little sharper at f/8 but I would not used a smaller opening because f/8 is the diffraction limit for a full Dx image, especially for the Z7.

Z7 Dx crop, Tamron zoom at 500mm 1/250x f/6.3 ISO 400

(Download)

Grahame Loc: Fiji

My first impression is that the image lacks sharpness and detail definition. But, the degree upon which this is measured by a viewer will be dependent upon what size they view it.

This raises the question as to what the purpose of your images are and what size do you want them produced to look good to you. You are 'pushing the limits', very long focal length and not being able to fill the frame. In this there is so much against you, camera movement, wind affecting subject, mirror slap, softening due to higher ISOs necessary and they all have a cumulative affect on the final result.

Back to the image, what we don't know is the amount of cropping and post processing undertaken. I wonder if your post processing is not the best possible for the final size you want?

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Cool 🤍🌿🌿🌿🤍

alphadog

Ok, agreed... will keep working on it. I checked the body setting today and believe the camera tech ONLY fine-tuned it without TC. I tried to redo this myself w/the TC aboard, but did not get much better results.

M = EXPOSURE mode, I am using AF

I will keep trying, and see what happens.... thanks, Richard

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Well, that's a problem...

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

A mirrorless sensor does not need to be fine tuned. It focuses with whatever reaches the sensor whether or not you use a TC.

Maybe it's time to consider a mirrorless sensor to replace the 800e.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Maybe it's time to give up on this failed Nikon experiment?

alphadog

Yes, will keep at it... every day is a challenge. thanks

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The problem is not with Nikon. It with any DSLR.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Problems arising from shooting at long distances with long focal lengths and then cropping deeply are not technology dependent. They just arise from an almost impossible overall situation.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

True but the need to fine tune the focusing is because of the way DSLRs are designed.

If it’s any consolation, the way rangefinders are designed they are even worse.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

A few areas raised in this thread have been, the possible negative affect of the use of a TC, the negative affect of diffraction and the option of using the DX format on a FF camera. Being stuck indoors due to foul weather I set up a test to try and show some comparison results with specific intent to show 'difference' at sensible viewing size with a subject that has fine detail as one would hope to capture on a small bird.

Not having a willing bird I used my favorite 5 inch high test subject, Z8, Nikon 80-400mm at 400mm and the Nikon TC 1.4iii. I framed the subject to be approx half frame height as was my limit specifically with macro hairy critters with my now sold D800.

Cropping the images tightly I downsized two to the pixel height of the smallest of the three. This has given me 3324px height (11" print height) of the cropped subject.

The individual images are taken at, (note this is in no specific order);
400mm 1/4s, f/8, ISO500, FX format
400mm 1/4s, f/8, ISO250, DX format
560mm 1/4s, f/16, ISO1400, FX format, using TC 1.4iii

Test on tripod with 5s shutter delay and f/16 example when using the TC because the f/8 one was soft for some reason. No processing other than standard ACR default other than a very minor tweak of exposure to balance them. The first image is simply to show the full framing at 400mm.

So, which shot was A, B, and C, and is degradation due to TC or diffraction difference between f/8 and f/16 something we should really be considering when viewing flat soft pictures as opposed to camera movement, mirror slap e.t.c.?

(Download)

alphadog

My latest attempt tonight. Sunset light.

D800e + Nikon 500mm PF with NO TC, manual exposure

1/2000, f5.6, iso 400, in DX CROP mode ...

pic ONE - cropped image to this size and did my normal processing.

pic TWO - Raw, unprocessed, reduced size to fit UHH

NO TC in place.

(Download)


(Download)