Lens or Camera? (Page 2): :sm24: :sm24: :sm24:...

jackpi Loc: Southwest Ohio

Joe Blow wrote:

The Tamron 150-600 is not known for sharpness at it's extreme ends.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Xpozr wrote:

Thanks, bkyser; that's a good point. The LensAlig... (show quote)

I love my D-500. I haven't loved a camera body since my D-200. After that, they just went back to being tools. The D-500 settings are just so intuitive and easy to access. No digging through menus for the most common items. Just press a button, or spin a dial without taking the time to dig and try to remember which function is hidden in what menu. It actually made me enjoy reading books about it, and watching tips and techniques again.
Is it for everyone? I would certainly say no. But for me, it's going to be the last body I need until I wear out the shutter, or drop it (like I did my D200) off a ladder. Long sad tale. I still wake up screaming sometimes. HAHA

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

You might also consider performing the same experiment using manual focus in both live view and using the OVF. If you can achieve sharp focus manually, but not with auto focus, then you might need to have your camera serviced.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

dsmeltz wrote:

As I often say, if I were starting out today, I would go mirrorless. The advantages just keep stacking up.

Have you seen the A7m3? Dual slots even!

r.grossner Loc: Rockford IL & Sarasota FL

agillot wrote:

the original tamron is ok up to 550mm , after that it looses sharpness .the G2 does not .

Agree. My G2 is better at 600 than a G1 or a Sigma C

Xpozr Loc: Mesa, AZ

r.grossner wrote:

Agree. My G2 is better at 600 than a G1 or a Sigma C

Thanks, r.grossner. I splurged on the D500 yesterday, so after my wife gets over that expenditure, I'll look at acquiring the G2. With a limited budget, I have to take baby steps! :-)

r.grossner Loc: Rockford IL & Sarasota FL

Xpozr wrote:

Thanks, r.grossner. I splurged on the D500 yesterday, so after my wife gets over that expenditure, I'll look at acquiring the G2. With a limited budget, I have to take baby steps! :-)

The G2 is also scary sharp at 150mm. This GBH was trying to steal my bait shrimp while I was fishing so I grabbed the G2 which was at 600mm and got a head shot. Full auto Jpg no PP hand held. Missed the eye focus by a smidge in my haste.

(Download)

Xpozr Loc: Mesa, AZ

r.grossner wrote:

The G2 is also scary sharp at 150mm. This GBH was trying to steal my bait shrimp while I was fishing so I grabbed the G2 which was at 600mm and got a head shot. Full auto Jpg no PP hand held. Missed the eye focus by a smidge in my haste.

Still a great shot though!

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

OddJobber wrote:

... First you should know that contrast detection (live view) is more accurate than phase detection (viewfinder).
...

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

OddJobber wrote:

You might just be screwed. First you should know that contrast detection (live view) is more accurate than phase detection (viewfinder).

Second, whether you or someone else adjusts your camera/lens combo, it will be adjusted ONLY for that lens/camera combination and any other lens you mount on the camera may be soft focused.

I don't particularly like this solution, but your best bet without AF fine tune may be a viewfinder loupe, such as by Hoodman.

Question from an old fart who doesn't use live view. Is "first" always true, or generally true? I would think that in a shot that has less light or less contrast, that phase detection would be more accurate.

Yours was a good answer, and I'm not trying to start an argument. It just made me wonder, so I figured I'd ask someone who uses it.
bk

Xpozr Loc: Mesa, AZ

bkyser wrote:

Question from an old fart who doesn't use live view. Is "first" always true, or generally true? I would think that in a shot that has less light or less contrast, that phase detection would be more accurate.

Yours was a good answer, and I'm not trying to start an argument. It just made me wonder, so I figured I'd ask someone who uses it.
bk

Hi, bkyser; I can tell you that since I noticed soft focus shots on both my Tamron 150-600mm G1 and a rented Sigma 150-600mm Sport lens, I've been testing shots at 100-150 yards extensively (the most common distance when I'm shooting wildlife), and contrast detection (Live View) has consistently yielded better and WAY sharper results phase detection (viewfinder). Since the main camera sensor is being bypassed in contrast detection mode (and i'm assuming the sensor is off in my D5600), I've learned that until my new D500 gets here, I'll have to shoot via live view when I'm out in the field if I want sharper images.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Xpozr wrote:

Hi, bkyser; I can tell you that since I noticed so... (show quote)

I guess I will end up having to test it. My D-500 focuses amazingly fast in low light, where the D-7100 sometimes just wouldn't lock on. I was mostly wondering if in low light/low contrast if contrast detection would still be better (although slower, but brides typically don't move as fast as an antelope) More so, that I could possibly get shots with the D-7100 when the light is too dim for the phase detection. Again, the D-500 is insane, and I'm only guessing, but I see a second one in my future. (only an idiot would shoot a wedding with no back up)