NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Frode on January 25, 2017, 07:26:12
-
Having trouble getting sharp pictures with D4s and AFS 400 2.8 VR when photographing BIF. Portraits get sharp, though, so I'm thinking it's my technique and/or my AF- settings....? Nikon, as far as I can tell, don't offer any suggestions when it comes to BIF (the pro PDF cover different sports, though).
Trying to keep my shutterspeed at or faster than 1/1000 and f/2.8- 4 (20- 30m distance). Golden eagle / goshawk etc. The backgrounds are often relatively distant. Using back focus button. Tripod /or solid base in hide.
Any suggestions regarding technique and settings (group/dynamic, focus- lock on etc)?
-
Difficult to make differntial diagnosis what actually might be your problem
Did you check your rig (Tripod/head) whether it is stable enough for the increased requirements of dynamic action? Have you replaced the original tripod foot of the lens with a proper one (RRS or such)?
Did you switch VR off?
-
Difficult to make differntial diagnosis what actually might be your problem
Did you check your rig (Tripod/head) whether it is stable enough for the increased requirements of dynamic action? Have you replaced the original tripod foot of the lens with a proper one (RRS or such)?
Did you switch VR off?
Thank you for your reply 🙂.
Yes, the tripod/ballhead or gimbal set up should be stabil enough.
I've replaced the original tripod foot with a Wimberley.
Very seldom use VR, and when I do, it's never with faster shutterspeed than 1/500 (portraits).
-
BIF: "Birds In Flight" I guess. There are a some very reputable BIF photographers around. I can only share my experience as racing car sport photographer. I have the habit to use VR throughout almost everything I shoot; with speeds going from 1/60 (speed blur) through 1/8000 (freeze). My pictures are very sharp, with negligible fallout. I would say: if it doesn't good, it doesn't harm. This is my personal experience; I know, some photographers are more reluctant to use VR. The particular circumstances are: focus: 300, 400 and 600mm (all Nikkor); body: D4s and D5.
I'm not sure if this might help.
-
Thank you for your reply 🙂.
Yes, the tripod/ballhead or gimbal set up should be stabil enough.
I've replaced the original tripod foot with a Wimberley.
Very seldom use VR, and when I do, it's never with faster shutterspeed than 1/500 (portraits).
Well then there is the tripod foot left
When I replaced the nikon native foot of my AF-S 600/4 VR against a Wimberley replacement it turned a (despite stellar optics) nearly unusable lens (2/3rds of the shots unsharp) into a usable one
-
Notwithstanding operator error or tethering limitations.
And as you are achieving critical focus on portraits which rules out camera operating errors but leaves a question mark on the lens Fine Tuning.
Couple of non sharp sample pics will help if you can post.
Most of the time BIF shooting failures come down to camera settings.
Let me know the following:
1- All the picture is not sharp or the desired focus area is not sharp?
2- Do you shoot BIF with fixed or tracking movement?
3- What parameters are you using for:
- a3
- b5
- AF-Area Mode
-
BIF: "Birds In Flight" I guess. There are a some very reputable BIF photographers around. I can only share my experience as racing car sport photographer. I have the habit to use VR throughout almost everything I shoot; with speeds going from 1/60 (speed blur) through 1/8000 (freeze). My pictures are very sharp, with negligible fallout. I would say: if it doesn't good, it doesn't harm. This is my personal experience; I know, some photographers are more reluctant to use VR. The particular circumstances are: focus: 300, 400 and 600mm (all Nikkor); body: D4s and D5.
I'm not sure if this might help.
Thanks, MFloyd!
Hmm, maybe I should test it, then. I`ve followed Nikon`s advice regarding 1/500...
-
Notwithstanding operator error or tethering limitations.
And as you are achieving critical focus on portraits which rules out camera operating errors but leaves a question mark on the lens Fine Tuning.
Couple of non sharp sample pics will help if you can post.
Most of the time BIF shooting failures come down to camera settings.
Let me know the following:
1- All the picture is not sharp or the desired focus area is not sharp?
2- Do you shoot BIF with fixed or tracking movement?
3- What parameters are you using for:
- a3
- b5
- AF-Area Mode
Thanks, Ethan!
1. sometimes all pictures are blurred, sometimes the desired focus area are not sharp.
2. Both, but almost always on tripod/hide. Most often tracking movement, I will say.
3. a3:tried off, 1,2 and 3 / b5: on / area mode: afc + group or dynamic 9 (not so often 21).
Oh, and yes, I`ve got a feeling this is a combination of bad technique and not optimal settings used... :-).
I'll try to post a couple of pictures tomorrow.
-
BIF is one of the most critical aspects of bird photography.
I have seen some people in a hurry of taking BIF and don't take enough care and touch a lot the focus ring of the lens, you know what that lead...
If we exclude all gear issues, you need a lot of practice. Practice following the bird and shoot during the panning and DON'T STOP panning after the shots. Follow-through is critical here.
Now the gear
Lens
1. AF tuning (portraits are closer than BIF, so try to AF tune at the expected distance (I do mine at around 50M))
2. With the 400 f2.8 use at least f5.6 until you reach good in focus picture, than start to go up (in speed) as you get better or respective to wich effect you are looking for
3. Upper than 1/500 VR off. Ok, it should always be off, because I recommend to shoot at around 1/1000 (start at day light to exclude other issues like slower speeds and open fs)
4. Don't lock the lens foot, but use it snug
5. Don't touch the lens, use only one hand in the camera body
Camera
1. AF-button
2. AF-C
3. Focus priority (to begin and learn, later you should have shooter priority)
4. Focus group (dinamic later on)
5. Focus on hold slow (to fight busy backgrounds)
6. High speed shots (use short burst 1~2 seconds)
BIF approach
1. Spot the bird
2. Start to follow it
3. Understnad where it should go
4. Start against blue sky (exposure ~+1)
5. Shoot and enjoy
-
I have found that birds that change direction ralidly confuse VR. I switch it off for BIF.
Agree with f5.6, otherwise fhe DOF is too nardow to hadle changes in approach speed due to direction changes.
I would also recommend faster shutter speeds if possible. I find my keeper rate definately goes up as the shutter speed does, although i shoot smaller birds than you.
-
BIF is one of the most critical aspects of bird photography.
I have seen some people in a hurry of taking BIF and don't take enough care and touch a lot the focus ring of the lens, you know what that lead...
If we exclude all gear issues, you need a lot of practice. Practice following the bird and shoot during the panning and DON'T STOP panning after the shots. Follow-through is critical here.
Now the gear
Lens
1. AF tuning (portraits are closer than BIF, so try to AF tune at the expected distance (I do mine at around 50M))
2. With the 400 f2.8 use at least f5.6 until you reach good in focus picture, than start to go up (in speed) as you get better or respective to wich effect you are looking for
3. Upper than 1/500 VR off. Ok, it should always be off, because I recommend to shoot at around 1/1000 (start at day light to exclude other issues like slower speeds and open fs)
4. Don't lock the lens foot, but use it snug
5. Don't touch the lens, use only one hand in the camera body
Camera
1. AF-button
2. AF-C
3. Focus priority (to begin and learn, later you should have shooter priority)
4. Focus group (dinamic later on)
5. Focus on hold slow (to fight busy backgrounds)
6. High speed shots (use short burst 1~2 seconds)
BIF approach
1. Spot the bird
2. Start to follow it
3. Understnad where it should go
4. Start against blue sky (exposure ~+1)
5. Shoot and enjoy
Wow, thank you, PedroS 😀!
I'll follow your steps, and take it from there😃👍!
Regarding f/- number; at such distances, isn't the DOF relatively big even at f/2.8? Of course, blending down to f/5.6 will give me more.
-
I have found that birds that change direction ralidly confuse VR. I switch it off for BIF.
Agree with f5.6, otherwise fhe DOF is too nardow to hadle changes in approach speed due to direction changes.
I would also recommend faster shutter speeds if possible. I find my keeper rate definately goes up as the shutter speed does, although i shoot smaller birds than you.
Thanks, Peter!
I try to keep shutterspeed at 1/1600 or faster, but have 1/1000 as a minimum.
Hmm, looks like f/5.6 is the place to start 🙂.
Yes, I'll keep my VR off, then 😊.
-
Good luck, and don't forget to show us the results!
-
Hi Frode,
May I suggest a change from a multi point Dynamic range AF to a single point AF.
If you are going to capture a sharp image, this is the AF setting that will do it.
When you have a image you are pleased with, then return to your Dynamic Range AF, starting at the lowest amount of focus points, and working through to the higher amount of focus points.
You may witness at times your AF does not respond, if this happens return to single point and attempt a refocus, the AF will work immediately.
Losing your AF when using multi point dynamic range usually means there is a lack of contrast in the frame and the AF system, shows a shortcoming.
To maximise your dynamic range AF and have a regular success with a sharp image, a good contrast between subject and back drop is important.
I have experienced a non reactive Dynamic range AF using a 400mm f2.8G and a 600mm f4G
-
also had in mind to suggest single point AF, sometimes this is more useful than the multi point+ "overkill"
-
Yes, but hard to keep where you need...
-
Yes, but hard to keep where you need...
Sure Pedro but sometimes better compared to the complex AF modes going crazy
in the current case it appears as if a lot of things need to be tested out and the simple mode might be a useful contribution. AF tuning comes first IMHO
We still dont know which kind of unsharpness Frode is facing, maybe we will see some future results.
-
My suggestion to use single point was to use the single point AF to help identify when dynamic range AF is failing to focus due to lack of contrast in the frame.
When the correct scenes are worked out to make the dynamic range AF consistently function, then a consistent subject sharpness in the frame will be seen.
Dynamic Range AF is a very good option, when the photographer has developed a confidence in how to get the best from it.
I myself am working towards this, as I want the best from a 400mm f2.8G experience.
-
Hi Frode,
May I suggest a change from a multi point Dynamic range AF to a single point AF.
If you are going to capture a sharp image, this is the AF setting that will do it.
When you have a image you are pleased with, then return to your Dynamic Range AF, starting at the lowest amount of focus points, and working through to the higher amount of focus points.
You may witness at times your AF does not respond, if this happens return to single point and attempt a refocus, the AF will work immediately.
Losing your AF when using multi point dynamic range usually means there is a lack of contrast in the frame and the AF system, shows a shortcoming.
To maximise your dynamic range AF and have a regular success with a sharp image, a good contrast between subject and back drop is important.
I have experienced a non reactive Dynamic range AF using a 400mm f2.8G and a 600mm f4G
Thanks John!
I don`t question your experience, not at all, it`s just that I don`t understand how a single focus point may be more effective than f.ex. dynamic 9 point AF - aren`t they both dependent on contrast between subject and background in order to be able to focus? I can see that the dynamic setting might be more exposed for focus for the background if the object is small in the viewfinder, but should`nt it also be more likely to catch any contrast (when the object is large)?
Interesting!
-
Will show three pictures taken in a burst of three pictures. Settings: 1/1250, f/2.8, iso 6400 and dynamic 9 (centerpoint). I think the focus lock- on was set to 3, not sure, though!
NB! Capture NX- D did not show focus point on screen on the first picture. The second picture the focus point is on the center of the bird and the third the focus point shown i Capture NX D is off the bird.
Taken from a hide - controlled environment.
Used ballhead connected to a solid bench.
All pictures adjusted with same values (no NR, Standard mode).
-
2/3
-
3/3
-
Settings here: 1/1600, f/3.5, iso 3200 and dynamic 21 (not sure what focus lock- on). Center focus point at upper chest according to Capture NX- D.
Taken from a hide, controlled environment.
-
,,,,,
Used ballhead connected to a solid bench.
,,,,
I would recommend to use a large gimbal head for moving subjects and such a lens!
Please note that for such a sharp lens there will be a huge difference in sharpness, ie the part of the image that is within depth of focus versus depth of field
-
You seem to be a fast learner ;)
Nice pictures.
-
You seem to be a fast learner ;)
Nice pictures.
Hehe, thank you Bent!
Though, these pictures are supposed to show unsharp pictures and illustrate my problem.... :-). I set the pictures to 2mp, maybe that isn`t enough to see how unsharp they are?
-
I would recommend to use a large gimbal head for moving subjects and such a lens!
Please note that for such a sharp lens there will be a huge difference in sharpness, ie the part of the image that is within depth of focus versus depth of field
Thanks Erik!
I use a gimbal head at the golden eagle hide, also mounted on a solid bench (very solid), but I agree that a ballhead might not be ideal for this lens :-). Though, same sharpnes issues.
Some say that the afs 400 2.8 VR is supposed to be almost as sharp etc. as the afs 200 2.0 VR. I can`t say that my copy is that (owned the 200 before).
-
The 400mm 2.8 is super sharp,,, no need to compare it to other lenses or saying it's less sharp than a 200mm 2 - doesn't make sense,,, even MTF don't lie on that account, don't put the lens down.
The only way to show sharpness online is a 100% crop - Browsers up downscale uncontrollable.
-
The later versions of the Nikkor 400/2.8 are in terms of sharpness at least the equivalent of the 200/2 AFS. The latter, however, is not a flat-field lens like its longer sibling.
-
BTW:
How much are you sharpening? The D4s has quite a strong AA filter in front of the sensor, so I found that the files needed quite a lot of sharpening for viewing on a screen,,,
You could also switch to a Fluid head :)
-
Both dxomark and lenscore list the VR 200/2 II as a bit sharper than the VR 400/2.8. However lenscore do list the new FL 400/2.8 E as sharper than the VR 200/2 II. Practical issues such as focus, camera support etc may well have a greater impact than small (10%) differences in MTF or resolution measured in the lab. These tests do not, to my knowledge, compensate for field curvature by refocusing so any field curvature would reduce the test score.
-
Hi Frode
I have seen your images on my phone, will look at them on laptop later
You have great opportunities to capture great subjects.
Question everything, a satisfactory outcome will arrive.
I had been given a explanation, as to why a lack of contrast in the chosen frame will effect final subject sharpness.
When you put a single point AF on a subject and keep the subject in focus as the shutter is released, the camera is working only on information supplied from one focus point,so does mot have any confusion in how it processes the supplied capture.
In dynamic range AF the camera will track the subject using multiple focus points, what the photographer thinks is the in use focus point does not mean the camera is selecting that point.
The more there is a lack of contrast in the frame, the more the focus points will hunt, trying to find a focus, so a image can be captured that can appear soft, a image can be captured that is sharp, or the camera may retire itself from trying to AF. The more contrast between subject and backdrop the more the camera understands how to track the chosen subject.
As I have said I am working towards maximising my 400mm experience.
My explanation to you is the result of some other my own recent raised questions.
Another small thing that might be of interest to you, is using a tripod in a hide.
If the hide has a internal bench of about 800-900mm in height with the viewing hatches above the bench
A tripod can be set up with two of the legs spread to a V, left at their shortest adjustment.
The two legs can be rested on the bench with the feet resting on the wall.
The single remaining leg will have the foot on the floor. The leg can be height adjusted, until the mounting plate is horizontal. This makes a rigid support, and will usually project the objective lens slightly outside of the hide.
-
The 400mm 2.8 is super sharp,,, no need to compare it to other lenses or saying it's less sharp than a 200mm 2 - doesn't make sense,,, even MTF don't lie on that account, don't put the lens down.
The only way to show sharpness online is a 100% crop - Browsers up downscale uncontrollable.
Yes, I also believe that it`s "up there" with such lenses as 200 2, but I don`t get those results with it. Might be that I`ve got to send both D4s and the lens in for adjustment. Though, I still think it might be user error......like so often before ::)
I`m not satisfied with the lens so far - I`m convinced it can perform better. Thankfully I`ve got this great society to help me :-).
I`ll try to add some 100% crops of the previously pictures within the weekend.
Oh yes, I`ll keep the lens, it`s mye "dream lens".
-
The later versions of the Nikkor 400/2.8 are in terms of sharpness at least the equivalent of the 200/2 AFS. The latter, however, is not a flat-field lens like its longer sibling.
Thanks Bjørn!
That`s why I`m a bit frustrated, because I dont`t get i to perform like it obviously is capable of.
-
BTW:
How much are you sharpening? The D4s has quite a strong AA filter in front of the sensor, so I found that the files needed quite a lot of sharpening for viewing on a screen,,,
You could also switch to a Fluid head :)
Hmm, interesting, Erik. Because this is something that I`ve been wondering about, but forgot to ask: do the D4s need more sharpening than, let`s say the D3s?
Samples above have got sharpening set to 3 (Standard profile) in Capture NX- D. Not extra sharpening for screen.
-
Both dxomark and lenscore list the VR 200/2 II as a bit sharper than the VR 400/2.8. However lenscore do list the new FL 400/2.8 E as sharper than the VR 200/2 II. Practical issues such as focus, camera support etc may well have a greater impact than small (10%) differences in MTF or resolution measured in the lab. These tests do not, to my knowledge, compensate for field curvature by refocusing so any field curvature would reduce the test score.
Thanks Ilkka!
I`m hoping (and think) it`s the "operator" and not the gear :).
-
Hi Frode
I have seen your images on my phone, will look at them on laptop later
You have great opportunities to capture great subjects.
Question everything, a satisfactory outcome will arrive.
I had been given a explanation, as to why a lack of contrast in the chosen frame will effect final subject sharpness.
When you put a single point AF on a subject and keep the subject in focus as the shutter is released, the camera is working only on information supplied from one focus point,so does mot have any confusion in how it processes the supplied capture.
In dynamic range AF the camera will track the subject using multiple focus points, what the photographer thinks is the in use focus point does not mean the camera is selecting that point.
The more there is a lack of contrast in the frame, the more the focus points will hunt, trying to find a focus, so a image can be captured that can appear soft, a image can be captured that is sharp, or the camera may retire itself from trying to AF. The more contrast between subject and backdrop the more the camera understands how to track the chosen subject.
As I have said I am working towards maximising my 400mm experience.
My explanation to you is the result of some other my own recent raised questions.
Another small thing that might be of interest to you, is using a tripod in a hide.
If the hide has a internal bench of about 800-900mm in height with the viewing hatches above the bench
A tripod can be set up with two of the legs spread to a V, left at their shortest adjustment.
The two legs can be rested on the bench with the feet resting on the wall.
The single remaining leg will have the foot on the floor. The leg can be height adjusted, until the mounting plate is horizontal. This makes a rigid support, and will usually project the objective lens slightly outside of the hide.
Thanks again, John!
It seems I`ve got to do some seriously testing regarding AF- settings/modes.
I`ll look into your suggestion regarding hide/tripod.
Appreciate your effort :).
-
Both dxomark and lenscore list the VR 200/2 II as a bit sharper than the VR 400/2.8. However lenscore do list the new FL 400/2.8 E as sharper than the VR 200/2 II. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
This is splitting hairs, I sure hope everybody understands this,,, There are so many variables that can go either way.
-
,,,,,
Samples above have got sharpening set to 3 (Standard profile) in Capture NX- D. Not extra sharpening for screen.
You should really look into this since I think we have the reason for the softness you see. You need to actively use sharpening in PP for these to make them shine, search for sharpening in your preferred software on how to do it best, then go have a try, always look at 100% to see the effect fully.
I use Photoshop for sharpening, D3 or D4 doesn't matter so much; Sharpening is not a default setting! You have to work at it.
Also, did you read the dept of focus part?,,, it is much more narrow on the super sharp lenses that ordinary glass, the transition from sharp to unsharp is very abrupt!
Haze and or dust also come into play for these long distances
-
Same pictures, only 100% crop. Sharpened in adobe camera raw.
-
2/3
-
3/3
-
Last one :-).
-
BIF settings: 1/3200s f/8 auto-iso, aperture priority, 9pt center AFC or 25pt center AFC for newer cams D5, etc.. handheld is preferable, center weighted average metering.
-
BIF settings: 1/3200s f/8 auto-iso, aperture priority, 9pt center AFC or 25pt center AFC for newer cams D5, etc.. handheld is preferable, center weighted average metering.
Well you have often demonstrated that these settings work!
And this would remove motion blur and enable adequate depth of field which seems to be what's missing, I'm sure there is even more to get from working even more with the RAW file in PP
-
BIF settings: 1/3200s f/8 auto-iso, aperture priority, 9pt center AFC or 25pt center AFC for newer cams D5, etc.. handheld is preferable, center weighted average metering.
Thanks Bob :)!
What focus tracking with lock- on setting do you use?
-
What focus tracking with lock- on setting do you use?
turn it off. it just adds delay
-
turn it off. it just adds delay
Consider it done :).
Thanks!
-
on my D5 my auto-iso max is usually 5000=ISO... so with aperture priority at times you could run slower shutter speeds. 1/2000s is adequate but may not freeze wingtips at times.. higher the better
1/3200s
http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/164774539
http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/164772243
1/2000s
http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/164760438
-
Bob, outstanding images!
Unfortunately the link is just rather small jpg files, the file you have posted earlier have shown the details much better.
-
Bob, outstanding images!
Unfortunately the link is just rather small jpg files, the file you have posted earlier have shown the details much better.
hmmm... when i click on those images they bring up the entire page from the web site.. including the entire image
1/3200s
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fbobfriedman%2Fimage%2F164774539%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=ef7c4e4e5dd96fc0a91ccd2df7d5b1260ca31abc)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fbobfriedman%2Fimage%2F164772243%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=bf6add5e0899ea58d5033b2d60ab54334b588696)
1/2000s
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fbobfriedman%2Fimage%2F164760438%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=51899b840dca33c7859905c34f211c757df1bdbb)
1/1250s
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fbobfriedman%2Fimage%2F162242250%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=34bb5b73d43babe8ce5566f5f6b953b4c070c863)
and sometimes you could use more than 1/3200s
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fbobfriedman%2Fimage%2F164772241%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=96dd3baada6df3e70d8a3d5b1768e35fa69c7ee4)
-
could have used more than 1/2000s in these two..
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fbobfriedman%2Fimage%2F164764795%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=34e62d763cbc2fe176a71e026b390fec20215c0a)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fbobfriedman%2Fimage%2F164764938%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=6d6486c2588b935cdf1d9efb6551da655c35e31c)
-
hmmm... when i click on those images they bring up the entire page from the web site.. including the entire image
1/3200s
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fbobfriedman%2Fimage%2F164774539%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=ef7c4e4e5dd96fc0a91ccd2df7d5b1260ca31abc)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fbobfriedman%2Fimage%2F164772243%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=bf6add5e0899ea58d5033b2d60ab54334b588696)
1/2000s
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fbobfriedman%2Fimage%2F164760438%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=51899b840dca33c7859905c34f211c757df1bdbb)
1/1250s
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fbobfriedman%2Fimage%2F162242250%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=34bb5b73d43babe8ce5566f5f6b953b4c070c863)
and sometimes you could use more than 1/3200s
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fbobfriedman%2Fimage%2F164772241%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=96dd3baada6df3e70d8a3d5b1768e35fa69c7ee4)
[/
Great pictures, Bob!
Impressive how you manage to nail focus!
Looks like f/2.8 sometimes might be enough for portraits, bit With BIF I've got to change my practice; blend down :).
Thanks once again.
-
Bob, these are simply breathtaking!
-
Thanks for posting the images here again!
Just amazing -
Moderator note: Really appreciate to see the images here! as to having to click and follow the link. We prefer this here on NG ;)
-
amazing pics Bob
Sometimes it is better having the wingtips not sharp imho
-
Moderator note: Really appreciate to see the images here! as to having to click and follow the link. We prefer this here on NG ;)
ok... i didn't want to detract from someone else's thread.. i posted for educational content not competition.
-
Sometimes it is better having the wingtips not sharp imho
yes... true enough... in fact the one that i posted at 1/1250s in my opinion looks more interesting that way...
the point is having the control to apply the appropriate technique to achieve the desired end product
-
ok... i didn't want to detract from someone else's thread.. i posted for educational content not competition.
Your contribution are most welcome, Bob :).
Thank you!
-
Hi Frode
Have you had a chance to put any of the suggestions to a test ?
Have you seen any improvement ?
-
Hi Frode
Have you had a chance to put any of the suggestions to a test ?
Have you seen any improvement ?
Hi John!
No, I haven't yet, but I'll let you "hear" how it goes as soon as I've tried'em out.
Must spend some time with the wife and kids also 😄.
-
Yesterday I got a loaner (AF- S 400 2.8 ED IF II) from my local store (just received it), in order to make a comparison (non- scientific, autofocus/sharpness) between my own VR- version and II- version.
One of my kids running forward, straight towards me. Same distance and about the same speed.
Tried dynamic 9 and 21 focus points with focus tracking with lock- on set to either normal or off.
II- version:
Dynamic 9, focus lock- on normal: 10 out of 18 sharp.
Dynamic 21, focus lock- on normal: 7 out of 17 sharp.
Dynamic 9, focus lock- on off: 11 out of 15 sharp.
Forgot to try 21 and off.
VR- version:
Dynamic 9, focus lock- on off: 14 out og 15 sharp.
Dynamic 21, focus lock- on off: 11 out of 12 sharp.
Dynamic 9, focus lock- on normal: 13 out of 16 sharp.
Dynamic 21, focus lock- on normal: 8 out of 12 sharp.
On a static target they were about equally sharp, both impressive.
Thoug: the II- version lacked the stick in filter (the holder was in place, not the filter itself), which I understand is supposed to be there. This might have influenced the performance of the lens?
Anyway, another lesson learned: my lens is sharp as it should be and its AF- performance is just fine. Focus lock- on set to Off....oh yes :D
I`ve got to get my act together when it comes to long- lens technique.....especially my panning technique which obviously is not good enough, yet.
Thanks for all your help :).
PS! I`m heading out to the hide on friday, and if I`m lucky the raptors will show up and I might post a picture or two.