Posts for: moosus
Jun 30, 2022 16:01:33 #
cjc2 wrote:
Others have made suggestions. I would not expect the issue to be with the lens or body, but it's not impossible. Check your focus, shutter speed, aperture and ISO. The 300/4 PF is a superior lens, but it must be used properly. Practice, practice, practice. Adequate light is important to focus speed and accuracy. Best of luck.
Yeah, I'm re-reading parts of my Dave Bosch's D7200 manual and re-searching on YT. It's probably me. I just couldn't believe the "soft-focus" images I was seeing on my computer were made by a brand new, off-the-shelf, Nikkor lens. I am mentally paying more attention to how I physically execute the shot. Thanks.
Jun 30, 2022 15:28:42 #
cjc2 wrote:
FWIW, I own this lens and find my copy very sharp, very light and very useful. YMMV. Best of luck.
Thanks for the input. I just couldn't believe the soft focus, on most of the images, I got from that new lens. I'm thinking more and more that it's either me or my D7200 that might be having some issues. I'll see. Thanks.
Jun 30, 2022 15:21:45 #
camerapapi wrote:
I hope it is clear to you that you need this lens.... (show quote)
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I've always used a CPL for what I perceive as color enhancement but just as importantly, for me, protection for the front element. I have recently focused the lens on a tripod using the "live view" method I saw on YT, with all the protocols in place (no VR), etc. and the images seem somewhat sharper. And your buy a lens useful for (my) needs makes good sense. I'm going to try and limit my F/stop to around 8 as suggested and pay closer attention to shutter speed other things related to personal technique. Thanks for your POV.
Jun 30, 2022 14:55:34 #
PHRubin wrote:
1) If you clicked "Quote Reply" under the post you are replying to as I did here, we would know what it was.
2) Let me add my voice to those that already said "Stop it down, try f/8". Wide open gives little depth of field.
2) Let me add my voice to those that already said "Stop it down, try f/8". Wide open gives little depth of field.
10-4. I've already set the F/stop to 7.1 and/or 8 and am out testing the lens with a few other suggestions from the Hog crowd. Thanks to all.
Jun 30, 2022 12:23:09 #
That's what I was wondering, if perhaps the camera was having issues with the lens. A hogger yesterday suggested fine-tuning with "live view", without filters, no VR, and on a tripod, which I did. That seems to have helped sharpen the image output. It's been suggested loose the filters, at least while fine-tuning the lens. I figure it's on me, Nikkor lenses are pretty reliable. Thanks for ur input.
Jun 30, 2022 11:38:55 #
Jun 30, 2022 11:32:46 #
Thanks to all who have volunteered responses. Some information I knew but a lot was new to me. I see many explanations for my questioning why the sharpness of "GORDON" was less than I expected. I was wondering about my technique as well—lots to consider. I especially like the responses that say if you are not happy with it, don't buy it. A realistic approach. Many thanks.
Jun 29, 2022 08:26:36 #
Jun 29, 2022 08:26:11 #
Jun 29, 2022 06:53:34 #
Jun 29, 2022 06:44:39 #
I'm not sure if this is the right place for this question. I imagine Admin. place it where it needs to go. I'm going to try to store the original so you can see the settings. I'm thinking about buying this Nikkor 300mm 1:4E PF ED VR lens. I'm in the middle of the two-week trial period. To get to the point, I'm not impressed with the sharpness of this lens: Shouldn't "GORDON" be sharper even though I focused on the statue? I haven't been impressed with any of the images I've gotten with this lens. Am I expecting too much? I took it back to the camera store before I took this pic, where they adjusted it some. I ended up substituting a CPL filter I bought with the lens with a B&W UV-Haze filter which seemed to help a little. The camera's got about 30K clicks or so. This pic was hand-held. For two grand, I ain't impressed. Am I expecting too much or am I being overly critical? Your opinions, please.
May 26, 2022 04:22:44 #
Dan' de Bourgogne wrote:
img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (show quote)
Not a clue. It was one of those "historical picture" sites where they show all kinds of weird photos from the past.
May 25, 2022 16:39:13 #
RCJets wrote:
That can't be real. Can it? Where would you find film that large? It would have to be at least three feet wide! And imagine the developing process. WOW! Are any prints available?
When I lifted that picture, if I interpreted the text correctly, that camera actually worked. I was wondering about the plate of glass they used with those cameras, ala Ansel Adams, in the back of that (those) old cameras?
May 24, 2022 22:18:54 #
Jan 19, 2022 06:08:12 #
