Posts for: Rick from NY
Mar 20, 2024 16:19:21 #
bwana wrote:
Or add a LensBand to hold the zoom location...
bwa
bwa
Had never thought about that solution, but as a matter of fact, the lens is so new to me that I wasn’t yet aware it had a zoom lock. So far, my copy hasn’t crept on me. I’ll be looking out for that.
Mar 20, 2024 16:16:23 #
How about we ignore the “600mm” RX10 nonsense in my thread? My post has nothing to do with any Sony or any other brand. It was written to alert Nikon shooters that the all purpose Z super zoom is a giant improvement over its dslr versions.
You want to argue about that camera’s focal length, start a separate thread.
You want to argue about that camera’s focal length, start a separate thread.
Mar 20, 2024 11:42:59 #
BobHartung wrote:
Be sure to lock the lens when carrying as it has a tendency to "auto zoom" , i.e. extend under it's own weight.
Thx
Mar 20, 2024 09:30:56 #
dpullum wrote:
Rick from NY said: "I’m 76 and leaving for a... (show quote)
Appreciate the thoughts, but perhaps I should have been clearer in my original post. I already own a Sony A6700 and some good glass to go with it. As I said originally, I tried that combo as a replacement for my regular gear on a 2 week vacation to Spain. As excellent as that camera kit is, overall I was disappointed in the overall results. Got some great shots - sometimes - if lighting was right.
I also own a Sony RX100 v7. The rx100 is always in my pocket. No matter what other gear I’m carrying. But not yet that feeble that it would be my only camera. Clarifying my point, while I am 76 and looking to pare down weight and bulk for “vacation” pics, I am not close to giving up on my FF Nikon gear yet.
I have sung the praises of both of my Sonys often in this and other forums, but for me, as good as they are for many situations, they don’t hold a candle to my “real” FF gear. And - only part of that is due to the physical characteristics of the 1” sensor. It has to do with muscle memory. I can shoot my Nikons in my sleep. I spend too much time remembering how to change settings with the Sony menu system.
So while I’m aware of physically smaller alternatives, until I cannot carry even my Z8 with the 24-200, I’m sticking with FF and what I know will give me the results I want 99% of the time.
Mar 20, 2024 01:36:15 #
Mac wrote:
You made a good choice with the 24-200mm lens i have it and use it a lot on my Z 6II. In case you haven’t seen it, here is a link to Ken Rockwell’s review of the 24-200mm lens. He is very complimentary of it. https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/24-200mm.htm Enjoy!
Appreciate the link to KR review. I confess the I’m not usually a fan of his reviews and often disagree with many of his conclusions/recommendations, but as I read his review of this lens, I found myself nodding in agreement often. Especially by his rave about the len’s macro capabilities. The sample butterfly shots I posted were all “macro” shots.
He’s more gushingly positive about the lens than I am. His numerous and impressive sample photos do indeed show of the capability of the lens when shooting stationery objects, but as I mentioned, I won’t be using that lens for sports or critter gigs. He alludes to not needing 2.8 glass which strikes me as hyperbole. While I do find the lens to be a very capable option when I can’t carry my 2.8 gear, for me, the 24-200 is never going to my first choice for gigs that count. It was satisfying to read that another respected photographer found the lens to be a keeper.
And the sale price of $700 (200 off of 900) made it downright inexpensive compared to the other glass on my shelves.
Mar 20, 2024 00:55:02 #
Wallen wrote:
I used to have a similar setup with 2 lenses, cove... (show quote)
I think you missed the point of my post. My goal was to reduce the weight I’m carrying on vacation, not equip myself for every focal length eventuality. I went that route for the past 55 years, but will not going forward when shooting for my own enjoyment . And the lenses you mention will do me no good on my FF Z8 and D850.
As for needing wider than 24 or longer than 200 - sure there might be a few times when I’d prefer my 14-24/2.8 or my long “bazooka” fast glass, but once again, on vacation shooting for personal reasons, I’m not carrying my full kit. My guess is that during my 2 week holiday in France, other than if I happen to spot Yeti swimming a couple of hundred yards away down the Sienne with the Loch Ness monster under his arm, I’ll wager that I’ll never feel cheated at being restricted to only 200mm.
Apples and oranges I’m afraid.
Mar 19, 2024 18:25:39 #
imagemeister wrote:
The best super zoom on the planet is 24-600mm on the RX10m4. If you are serious about lighter weight travel, the RX10 should be your next camera.
I am always amused by people on web sites stating absolutes. As a matter of fact, I disagree with you. I have used the RX10v4 extensively (my non - pro buddy has one) and the weight of the Sony is 2.41lbs. The weight of my z8 and 24-200 is 3.24 lbs. Sony is only marginally lighter in weight, the same physical size (actually bulkier) than than the Nikon and while it will take an outstanding image if the light is good and the subject is stationery, the Sony is a 1" sensor compared to FF, not especially forgiving in poor light, has the tortuous Sony menu system (as opposed to the Nikon menu system that is baked into my muscle memory) making switching most setting far more time consuming , is SD card only and is far less competent at tracking moving subjects. Other than that, I guess the Sony is the "best superzoom on the planet."
This was taken with the Sony. Fabulous image - sharp as hell, great color and contrast. But shot in perfect light when cat was frozen in place. I'll take the Nikon rig for the more frequently common conditions I meet in the real worls. If that cat were running across the plain, nailing it with the Sony would have been pure luck, not skill on my part.
Mar 19, 2024 18:04:49 #
Thought it might be useful to post several examples of the lens I referred to in my original post. I unexpectedly found myself in a butterfly exhibit cage on Sunday without my macro gear. The photo ops were great and I was bemoaning the fact that all I had was my Z8 and 24-200/6.3. Fortunately, the lighting and backgrounds were good enabling me to hand hold some shots at high shutter speeds at 200mm stopped down pretty far. Noise reduction and sharpening was applied of course.
I was surprised at the results in terms of color, contrast and sharpness. Very pleased with this lens for times when I need to go small and lightweight (well....relatively small and lightweight)
I was surprised at the results in terms of color, contrast and sharpness. Very pleased with this lens for times when I need to go small and lightweight (well....relatively small and lightweight)
Mar 19, 2024 17:44:49 #
I’m a Nikon shooter and had tried out several “super zooms” over the years for my various F mount bodies and never satisfied enough with the sharpness and resolution especially at the long ends to buy one. Instead, I made do with carrying my 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. Fast forward to today where I own a Z8 and the same two lenses in Z mounts. Both of those lenses are sensational in image quality - better even than my beloved F mount versions. But I’m 76 and leaving for a 2 week vacation abroad and simply cannot haul my fast Z lenses. I tried a Sony 6700 with some Zeiss glass which is significantly lighter and smaller on a 2 week trip to Spain, but I just wasn’t consistently thrilled with results.
So, based on my extraordinary fast Z glass, I took the plunge and picked up a Z 24-200/6.3 lens on sale for $700. Glad I did. The lens on my Z8 is a surprisingly good performer. It is manageable on a Black Rapid sling strap, both from size and weight point of view, and while the images at 200mm will not cause me to give up my 2.8 version, the all in one lens is surprisingly good both in IQ, color and contrast. Yes it’s f6.3 at much past 50mm, but the excellent Z8 sensor together with the available, magical noise control software, I can live with the slow speed.
As I said, I’m using this rig for vacation pics and I’m happy to have a credible option for lighter weight travel.
So, based on my extraordinary fast Z glass, I took the plunge and picked up a Z 24-200/6.3 lens on sale for $700. Glad I did. The lens on my Z8 is a surprisingly good performer. It is manageable on a Black Rapid sling strap, both from size and weight point of view, and while the images at 200mm will not cause me to give up my 2.8 version, the all in one lens is surprisingly good both in IQ, color and contrast. Yes it’s f6.3 at much past 50mm, but the excellent Z8 sensor together with the available, magical noise control software, I can live with the slow speed.
As I said, I’m using this rig for vacation pics and I’m happy to have a credible option for lighter weight travel.
Mar 19, 2024 11:13:14 #
selmslie wrote:
Are you speaking for yourself?
There are actually a lot of members here who are knowledgeable and well educated, engineers and scientists. They probably don't see any point in responding because it's unlikely that they would disagree with what I have posted.
I created the thread for the benefit of others who are curious enough to want to learn more.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself why you engaged?
There are actually a lot of members here who are knowledgeable and well educated, engineers and scientists. They probably don't see any point in responding because it's unlikely that they would disagree with what I have posted.
I created the thread for the benefit of others who are curious enough to want to learn more.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself why you engaged?
I engaged because you’re is a troll trying to elicit clicks.
Mar 19, 2024 10:15:43 #
Why is anyone bothering to engage with this guy? He knows he’s right and we are all physics 101 morons. Replying to him is what gets him off.
Mar 17, 2024 13:59:04 #
Ava'sPapa wrote:
Whoa, not a Testarossa but a 328GTS. Around $70,000. 
One’s a FERRARI, the other is Fiat with a yellow and black prancing horse sticker on it. Sort of like the Porsche 914 was just an expensive and ugly VW. 😎
Mar 17, 2024 12:23:38 #
Ava'sPapa wrote:
It took practice, but after playing around a little I found that by swinging both of my legs out at the same time, it's much easier for me to get out. My buddy has an older Ferrari and I find that more difficult to get in and out of. Can you imagine that I said that out loud...that I'd rather have a Miata over a Ferrari? Shame on me.
Not an issue for me to obsess about. I can afford a Miata. Not so the Testarossa. (Well - maybe I could if I sold all of my Nikon gear, but then I read on UHH that resale values suck! ). 😎
Mar 17, 2024 11:00:17 #
Ava'sPapa wrote:
At 76, I'm selling all of my Canon gear and putting the money into a Miata..
Love it!! I’m your age and envious of the fact that you can get out of a Miata. I find I can fall into my buddy’s Corvette with ease, but climbing out is another story. Good for you to recognize that quality time with your granddaughter is more important than accumulating “gear”.
Mar 17, 2024 06:55:51 #
Look here at #’s 16 and 17
https://www.astronomy.com/observing/20-of-the-best-places-to-view-the-2024-great-north-american-eclipse/
https://www.astronomy.com/observing/20-of-the-best-places-to-view-the-2024-great-north-american-eclipse/