RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

[quote=Cdouthitt]What camera are you shooting that you can use both a nikon and panasonic lens? I'm a assuming it's a panasonic body.

The Panasonic 100-300 version 1 is known to be a little soft on the

Wrong post

jlvia33

The shutter speed should be the reciprocal of the focal length of the lens—or faster. For example, if you are using a 400mm lens, you should be shooting with a shutter speed of 1⁄400th of a second or faster to get a sharp picture. If you are using a 500mm lens with a 1.4x teleconverter, then according to this guideline the shutter should be at least 1⁄700th of a second. Because the shutter speed is so critical to getting sharp images, the maximum lens aperture is a vital part of the equation. Even a one stop difference in speed can mean that your pictures will be tack sharp as opposed to disappointingly soft.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

[quote=RichardSM]

me or you?

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

quick answer YES....

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

My mistake

Linckinn Loc: Okatie, SC and Edgartown, MA

Thank you all for your thoughts. Many good ideas and some here-to-fore lacking new knowledge. Don't have time to post example pictures now, but I think the drift of the comments is accurate without actually seeing them; maybe I'll post tomorrow.

Let me respond randomly to some of the questions asked: Morrison 1116- I am not still getting soft at high shutter speeds, so I think focus is fine. Also, it is excellent with other lenses and shorter focal lengths on both cameras. Brucej67- I like the confirmation that your combination works. Several people- Thanks for the thought that IS is actually counterproductive at high shutter speeds; I was unaware of that. Cdouthitt- Thanks for your thoughts; I use an old Nikon 5100 and a Panasonic GX8, which takes fantastic pictures most of the time. It is the 100 - 300, which does seem to be a little soft anyway at the long end. I have some very sharp pictures with that lens at shorter lengths. That is part off the dilemma...do I buy the quite expensive 100 - 400, which is apparently fantastic. I wouldn't mind the expense if it produced the desired result, but sure would feel stupid spending the money if I still couldn't get the shots I want. I will probably rent it somewhere along the line and see.

Again, thank you everyone. I appreciate the help.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

This thread may help you decide on the 100-400:
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/panasonic-leica-100-400mm-f-4-6-3-dg-vario-elmar.84433/

For me, since I owned the EM1ii, I opted to go with the 150mm f2 and the EC-20 to get a 300mm f4 lens.

Linckinn Loc: Okatie, SC and Edgartown, MA

Thanks, Cdouhitt. Fabulous pictures. That's my other thought is the EM1ii. Problem is I like the GX-8 so much I want to keep shooting with it. Other than my problems addressed in the thread, it produces fantastic pictures. We'll see what happens.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Yes, thank you for the lecture on the basics of IS, a subject I am quite familiar with, and I do apologize for omitting the common sense instruction, turn it off.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Do you mean 1/300? As photogreg said, you must first use a tripod under controlled conditions and see if there is any softness in the images. I doubt you can buy your way to sharper images.

Very good article on stabilization.

http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm

h2odog Loc: Brooklyn NY

The 100-300 benefits greatly by using a tripod and not extending it all the way to 300mm but bringing it back a bit to 280mm.
Check out this YouTube video from almost four years ago. It may be still relevant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgzLfLa2acA

When I had the 100-300, I used it a Lumix GX85 with dual IS and the lens performed well.
It was just too heavy for me to use, so I sold it.

DRG777 Loc: Metro Detroit

If you are zooming in for the shots then you may be pushing the IS more than it can handle.

Linckinn Loc: Okatie, SC and Edgartown, MA

Thank you Jerry. Very eye-opening article. I think for me, who seems to have enough shake to affect longer focal lengths, fast shutter speed with no IS is the way to go. The pictures I took 2 days ago at 3000+ were very sharp, and now I'll try IS off.

Two other comments: I meant not 1/300, but 1/ effective 35 mm equivalent, which would be 1/450 on the Nikon 300 and 1/600 on the Panasonic. Second, it was the very notion that trying to "buy my way out of it" wouldn't work that lead me to experiment with the high ISO & focus and post this thread in the first place. As I said I don't mind spending the money if it solves the problem, but would feel very stupid if it didn't.

Thanks for the comments and insight. Sure has changed my understanding of VR.

machia Loc: NJ

70% keepers ? That's phenomenal .
I shot live concerts for a band here in NJ for several years in the 1970's before they got super big . Keeper rate was 30% . But that of course was with film . What am I missing , if anything ?
No IS . ASA 64 chrome with flash or 400 negative film ( pushed to 800/1600 ) for available light . Prime and zoom Rokkor lenses . Manual focus . Some studio work shot with ASA 25 chrome with tripod .

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

Thanks for that answer - you anticipated the question I was just asking myself. I think I will assign IS to that button I don't use very often on my A6000 so I can easily switch it on or off.

But that raises the question in my mind of why Sony does not automatically shut off IS when the exposure time is short. Or maybe they do and I just don't know it.