Thanks for all your input. I appreciate the candor from all the members of this forum. Y'all pretty much confirmed my suspicions about the capabilities and reach of the lens. First of all, for the time being, it is all I have to work with. I inherited four Nikkor lenses from my dad used with his Nikon F film camera which I had converted to work with the d750. I agree with trying to get closer but the opportunity presented itself as the eagle did not stay long. I do intend to upgrade to modern lenses with better optics and zoom capabilities but doing so is cost prohibitive at this time.
I understand the lenses I have are manual focus only but I use the Back Button Focus as an aid to easier focus the lens until the white (not green) dot appears in the viewfinder.
Once again, thanks to all!

Yes the file was cropped. The original is attached.

(Download)

I did a BBF prior to taking the original photo. On the test with the tripod I used the LCD screen to focus on the limbs.

I am using a 1950's vintage NIKKOR-Q 200mm f/4 prime lens designed to be used on a Nikon F full frame camera which was modified for use on a Nikon d750. The attached photo shows A Bald Eagle photographed at
approximately 120 yards. The photo was shot at aperture priority, f/8, ISO 200, 1/400 sec. The camera was handheld but braced against a railing. Needless to say I am disappointed with the quality/sharpness of the photo. I re-created the shot using a tripod (focusing on the branches) and had the same results.
My question has to do with the quality of the lens. To members with experience using prime lenses, especially those with knowledge of older lenses, is this lack of clarity/sharpness/quality the best I can expect from this lens at similar distances?

(Download)

Make sure you get a tempered glass protector and not plastic.

The camera is a d750.
I'm not sure I would want to take the chance with the touch screen. Being that it is just that I'm sure the repair costs would be much greater than a standard LCD. The protector should be similar to that of a smart phone where the capacitance of the screen can be detected through the screen protector. Screen protectors are not that expensive and well worth the investment.

This topic may have been discussed before but I would like to reiterate the importance of screen protectors. Especially for those who believe they are careful and will never need one or those who are new to photography and are not aware of their effectiveness.
I was on a recent photography expedition and at the last minute decided to attach my wrist strap to my camera. Being in somewhat of a hurry I attached the strap at only one attachment point. The environment was in western Washington on one of its rocky beaches. At one point I let go of the camera thinking the strap would would hold it only to see it slip out of the strap and onto the rocks on the beach. Upon inspection I thought the LCD panel had been cracked only to realize I had mounted a screen protector to it. Lucky for me the repair only cost me a few bucks for a new glass protector. It could have been much worse where it was the lens that hit and not the back of the camera. From now on I will make doubly sure the camera is secure in whatever strap I am using. Similar to the old woodworking adage "measure twice, cut once". Lesson learned.

In the first photo the Eye Cup was not attached so the camera hit flat on the screen.
The second photo is a close-up of the crack and the third photo shows there was no damage. Dodged a bullet there!

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

When I first got serious about photography and learned about PP I was dubious about enhancing my photos...until I was going through an art course and discovered the preeminent American artist, Normal Rockwell, would photograph different subjects and merge them into his finished painting. PP at its finest. The more I learn about PP the easier it is to discern the good (subtle) from the bad (overcooked). On a side note my wife states that all women look better with a little (emphasis added) makeup. There is the subtle makeup and the overcooked makeup.

When I first started taking photos on a decent camera setup I received many compliments and always attributed it to the camera. I even considered calling my business/website "It's the camera, stupid". You have proved that is not the case. You definitely have an eye for composition. Great Photographs! I am envious it appears to come so naturally to you.

Thanks for clarifying the dpi versus the ppi. I will take that into consideration and look at how I created the logo. I inserted it as a .png so it would overlay the photo.

As I pointed out in my post: "My understanding is that On1 does not just increase the size of the photo or increase the resolution by adding pixels but uses algorithms and fractals to increase everything as if the scene was photographed at the desired resolution." I'm still learning about On1.

I put the logo in the middle of the picture so the view could compare the logo versus the clarity of the photo. This photo was shot 13 years ago when 4 mp was pretty standard for a small cybershot camera.

This is done in Affinity Photo as a layer. I have not seen anything in Affinity Photo where the layer resolution is different that the base image. I will have to research that. Thanks for the idea.

Here is a situation I am having a hard time understanding. I took some photos years ago with a Sony 4 mp camera (I believe it was a CyberShot model. All I know is that is was 4 mp). The photos came out super sharp. I would now like to use one of those photos and add my signature & logo. It was originally shot at a resolution of 72 dpi. Using On1 Photo Raw I increased the size and the resolution to 300 dpi and exported it as a .jpg. My understanding is that On1 does not just increase the size of the photo or increase the resolution by adding pixels but uses algorithms and fractals to increase everything as if the scene was photographed at the desired resolution. I opened the photo in Affinity Photo with the intent to add the logo also at 300 dpi. The inserted logo was very pixelated and difficult to read (I added the logo in the middle of the building to show the clarity of the original photo along with the pixelation of the logo). Adding the logo to a photo shot on my Nikon full frame at 300 dpi is no problem. The logo looks very sharp and legible.
Can someone explain why the pixelation, even though the base photo, though originally shot at 72 dpi, is now at the desired resolution? Thanks!

(Download)

I currently have 4 Non-AI Prime lenses synced to my D750. I borrowed an Autofocus Zoom for an upcoming trip to minimize having to constantly change lenses. Do I have to wipe out the Non-AI settings on my camera before I can use the Autofocus lens or can I set an unused Non-AI setting, let's say 'No. 5' with no parameters and use that when the Autofocus lens is attached? I have only used the Non-AI primes with this camera so I am unsure. Thanks for your reply!

I am trying to get a better grasp of long exposure photos with regards to camera and lens settings. I have a Nikon D750 with non-AI prime lenses. After watching a video in which the camera and 55 mm lens were set to ISO 200 at an f16 aperture for 42 seconds I tried to duplicate the results using my 50 mm lens with the camera and lens set accordingly. The details of the photo in the video were super sharp and crystal clear. My photo was over exposed and completely washed out. It is obvious I am missing something in the setup. I appreciate your answers. Thanks!