Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: IDguy
Page: <<prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 412 next>>
Dec 26, 2022 11:46:32   #
Here is a lesson I learned with Christmas pictures. I rarely use flash but have a nice one: Nikon SB700. I decided to use it on my (new to me) Nikon Z72 for Christmas pictures.

I often use auto ISO which works fine for most of my images outdoors: wildlife and landscapes. I mistakenly left it on and didn't check. When using auto ISO, even with flash, the camera evidently sets the ISO using metering before the flash. So many of my images used quite high ISO: some over 10,000. As you can imagine those show quite a bit of noise even though I used flash.

So next time with flash I will deliberately turn off auto ISO. When I do that in dim settings I can set the viewfinder to show a bright view even though the light is low. I know that setting exists and just need to find it.

Lesson learned.
Go to
Oct 6, 2022 20:35:12   #
amfoto1 wrote:
While I agree that the Tamron is a nice lens, just to clarify... there is no "100-400mm G2". There has only been the one, original version of that lens, so far.

That said, yes it would be a bit lighter weight option... Lighter than the Nikkor 80-400mm and a lot lighter than the Nikkor 200-500mm!

Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD weighs approx. 2.5 lb. That's a full lb. lighter than the Nikkor 80-400mm (3.5 lb.)

I like that the Tamron 100-400mm can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring. That's sold separately for an additional $129 and, of course, will add a little weight, but is something I'd want on a lens that reaches 400mm.

The Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM weighs the same 2.5 lb. and costs the same $799 as the Tamron lens. HOWEVER, the Sigma does not have the same option of fitting a tripod ring AND the Sigma is a "dimmer" lens.

While the Sigma is only 1/3 stop dimmer f/5 at 100mm, it drops to f/5.6 very quickly, at 112mm, and further to f/6.3 at 234mm and beyond.

For comparison the Tamron starts out 1/3 stop brighter at f/4.5, drops to f/5 at 137mm, drops further to f/5.6 at 181mm and finally to f/6.3 at 281mm and beyond.

The Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR is also f/4.5 up to 134mm, but it maintains f/5 from 135mm to 249mm and is f/5.6 the rest of the way from 250mm to 400mm. (Tripod ring included.)

Canon's EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM zoom weighs approx. 3.5 lb. and is f/4.5 from 100mm to 134mm, f/5 from 135mm to 311mm, and f.5.6 at 312mm to 400mm. (Tripod ring included.)

In comparison, the Nikkor 200-500mm that the original poster already has weighs about 5 lb. and is f/5.6 through it's entire zoom range. (Tripod ring included.)

A final comparison, for their mirrorless R-series Canon has recently announced as light and affordable as possible RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM that weighs under 1.5 lb., sells for $500 and doesn't have option for a tripod ring.

Personally I have 1.4X and 2X teleconverters, but only use them with select lenses and really don't see the OP's need for them. Unless they have some other problems, it seems to me they are pretty well set with 70-300mm and 200-500mm lenses, as well as both full frame and APS-C (DX) cameras to use them upon. The DX is effectively a "free 1.5X teleconverter", where "free" means no loss of light... as with the one stop a 1.4X "costs" and the two stops lost to a 2X. Between the various combinations of lenses and cameras, they have telephoto coverage equivalent to everything from 70mm to 750mm on full frame (FX). Might just want to get a little closer. Or wait for that upcoming Nikkor 200-600mm. Or get the Tamron 150-600mm or one of the similar Sigma lenses.
While I agree that the Tamron is a nice lens, just... (show quote)


Thanks for your thoughts,
Go to
Oct 6, 2022 19:23:30   #
imagemeister wrote:
1. If you are doing MOVING subjects AF will matter and if AF matters, stick with Nikon lens.
2. Stay away from TC's if at all possible.......consider cropping with pixel enlargement.
3. KEEP the FX 70-300 and loose the DX version !
4. Be happy with 200-500 !
.


Thanks. Mostly where I am at.

My DX 70-300 is grey market. Paid $200. Unlikely it will fetch much…albeit excellent lens.
Go to
Oct 6, 2022 19:20:32   #
Grahame wrote:
I'm using the 80-400 G (F mount) with 1.4 TC111 along with the FTZ on the Z6 primarily for cricket.

Here's an example of the combination. 560mm (max FL), ISO 1800, 1/1600s, no PP, std camera profile, with crop not reduced in size. As with everything it depends upon final use required, this example would have minor PP undertaken and reduced down to about 1800 to 2048px wide for social media sharing. The Z version is most likely to be better with respect to image quality and AF response.


You seem to be doing fine!
Go to
Oct 6, 2022 19:19:25   #
gwilliams6 wrote:
Option #1, use what you have and wait to see how Nikon prices the coming 200-600mm.

Sony was the first major brand to offer a 200-600mm with excellent image quality, superb sharpness, INTERNAL ZOOMING, great quick autofocusing, short zoom rotation, superb balance (hand hold-able),OSS and more . I absolutely love it for sports, action and wildlife and it is reasonably priced at $2000 vs the amazing Sony 600mm f4 GM which is $13K USD and out of most photo budgets. .

I am sure Nikon will do likewise and aim to match that for its loyal Nikon users. The Sony 200-600mm lens has been a smash hit and huge seller for Sony, and likewise the Nikon version should be a winner also.

Hang tight and wait for that lens and its pricing, IMHO.

Cheers and best to you. FYI, I was a Pro Nikon and Canon user for four decades, both brands.

Sony A1, Sony 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 lens. A Great White Egret bends it neck to clean its feathers on the Caribbean Island of Sint Maarten/St. Martin. 600mm, ISO 1600, f6.3 ,1/2000 sec. handheld. First the full frame , then a tight crop from the same shot.

Sony A1, Sony 200-600mm lens. A Snowy Egret takes off from its watery perch in Sint Maarten/St. Martin. 391mm, ISO 1600, f6.3, 1/4000 sec.

Wild Iguanas getting cozy together in Sint Maarten/St. Martin. Sony A1, Sony 200-600mm lens, 400mm, ISO 800, f6.3, 1/2000 sec.

At a Wild Elephant Seal Rookery along the Pacific Ocean, California. A young pup squeals as it tries not to get crushed by a 5000 pound amorous bull going after one of its cows. This time this pup survived, they dont always. Sony A7RIV, Sony 200-600mm , 600mm, ISO 400, f6.3, 1/1000 sec, handheld.

Brookings Lake, Manistee National Forest, Michigan. Kids get pulled by fast speedboat. Sony A1, Sony 200-600mm lens, 600mm, ISO 800, f8, 1/2000 sec. This is about a 30% crop. I own and use my 1.4X and 2X Sony TCs and they work well with this lens, but in this instance I wanted to save the light. Frames are frames one and two of a 30fps burst.
Option #1, use what you have and wait to see how N... (show quote)


Awesome images! Thanks for sharing.

Your advice is where I’ll likely end up. Would I pay $2k for the Z 200-600? Unlikely. The exception will be based on specs and performance. I find it unlikely they’d price it below the 100-400.

I’ll likely end up with Tamron Z mounts.
Go to
Oct 5, 2022 22:06:23   #
Grahame wrote:
If you don't want to lug around and handhold the 200-500 only you can determine if the 0.8kg weight advantage of the 80-400 is beneficial with respect to cost and handling for something you are not going to use often.

As for the 80-400 I'm using one with the Z series along with the 1.4 TC at times and it's not a bad combination.


Good to know the TC works with it. 2# is good. Is that net of FTZ?

I’ll compare it to the Z 100-400,
Go to
Oct 5, 2022 21:18:27   #
ClarkJohnson wrote:
Did you consider the F-mount Nikon 80-400? Also usable with the FTZ and with Nikon's F-mount (not Z-mount) TCs. Used prices are coming down. For lighter weight, the Tamron 100-400 G2 is also a nice lens.


Thanks. I’ll check it out. Likely refurbs available. It might do better than the Tamron or Sigma F mount options.
Go to
Oct 5, 2022 21:16:23   #
Grahame wrote:
If you aren't going to use the range much why not just use a monopod to make things easier for what you already have, the 200-500?


You still need to lug it. I have a nice tripod and a monopod. I rarely use either. But I do have a F mount 1.4 TC, and it does work with the 200-500. I recently acquired a gimbal head for the combo with Z50 bit have yet to try out.

This thread is for handheld.
Go to
Oct 5, 2022 20:12:20   #
bdk wrote:
im using the 150/500 sigma lens with my z9 and FTZ does pretty good and focus fast enough to shoot birds in flight I have no complaints. I know you didnt ask about that lens but its just my 2 cents....


I had that lens before my Nikon 200-500. I agree it is a good lens but I find the Nikon 200-500 better on VR and image quality. That Sigma isn’t a candidate here but is one of several reasons I have positive feelings towards Sigma. Well after warranty Sigma upgraded the firmware for my D5300 at no charge. They even covered shipping,p.
Go to
Oct 5, 2022 19:53:39   #
Addressing range of 100-400. Most of you know Nikon has a nice new Z lens of this range. But the price is beyond what I am willing to spend on a lens I won’t use that much.

I have the AFS F mount 200-500. It is an excellent lens and I can use it on Z7 with FTZ (which I have several). I hope to replace it with the Z 200-600 if that ever happens and the price is reasonable (doubtful). So I’m looking for something less massive for Z7 for the interim.

I mostly use the 200-500 for wildlife and therefore mostly use it on my Z50. If Nikon does the Z 200-600 it will also work on the Z50.

I have two AF 70-300s: FX and DX. I also have an F mount 1.4 TC. It works with the 200-500 but not with the 70-300s.

So here are some options I’m considering:

1. Get over GAS: do nothing. Includes waiting to see how Nikon prices the Z 200-600.
2. Get a Tamron or Sigma F mount 100-400.
3. Check if the (also very expensive) Z TC works with the 70-300 on FTZ.
4. Wait for Tamron (most likely) or Sigma to get out their Z mount 100-400.

I’m probably getting rid of the FX 70-300 in all cases as I use the DX one on the Z50. Both have VR. Hopefully can trade it on a replacement for the Z7.

Thoughts?
Go to
Oct 3, 2022 17:10:32   #
Nice images. Too bad they decimated the elk herd with the Canadian wolves. Nice Bison images.

A few of them have a blue cast. Likely a white balance adjustment.
Go to
Oct 2, 2022 10:53:28   #
My half case didn't allow me to get the SD card out. The shape didn't allow opening the compartment enough to get it out. So I made a little modification so it works. Something to check if you decide on a half case for either of the Zs with both cards.
Go to
Oct 1, 2022 00:34:54   #
Grahame wrote:
It's making the decision on 'exposure' for you but it can also allow you to alter the chosen A and S values. E.g. if the camera suggests 1/60 at f/8 you can rotate the control and change that to 1/30 at f/16.


Yes and it allows to change all other settings.
Go to
Sep 30, 2022 19:03:30   #
BebuLamar wrote:
bring the camera to brighter place.


Both tested in various lights.
Go to
Sep 30, 2022 18:47:55   #
BebuLamar wrote:
Which lens did you have on? I think you're it shows max aperture and a shutter speed equals to the focal length of your lens. Bring the camera to some place brighter and it would work.
In auto ISO the camera priority is to have the lowest ISO so it would slow the shutter speed and open up the aperture before increasing the ISO. Also when auto ISO is on the shutter speed doesn't go down very slow. It limits to the 1/focal length speed.


Actually tested on both Z7II a d Z50. Both stick at min fstop w auto ISO.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 412 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.