NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: chambeshi on February 23, 2018, 10:56:54
-
I have finally finalized and published a series of Blog posts. These 6 pull together some ideas I've developed over the past couple of years on what's good, missing, and achievable in telephotos in performance on the best Nikon DSLRs. Although purely Nikon-centric, the principles are much broader. I ended up scoping out a summary of how I see the specs of the Optimal Telephoto len(ses). The TCF concept is key - the Teleconverter Factor. It's just a simple calculation of 2 key variables - T Score (Telephoto-Gain) and C (Converter-Scope).
Obviously, this is a personal view but I find it useful to explain my thinking on the design space and functionality of telephotos for FX Nikon DSLRs. I also see a streamlined Internal TC System holding great promise in future lenses. All the better as a bespoke design dedicated for high optical performance with 1 or 2 models of a light-weight compact telephoto. It's clear a growing market sector (birders etc) will welcome the lens with the best optimal merging of ergonomics, function into a package of a 400 f3.3 and/or 500 f3.3.
Why f3.3? It is intriguing to discover a threshold in telephoto lens design of how TCF [ie T3C2.75] relates to maximum lens aperture. This f3.3 Rule reflects how lens diameter (i.e. f3.3 widest lens aperture) is the optimum where flexible AF Performance meets Teleconverter Design. This allometric constraint also reflects the importance of ergonomics and costs of production and market realities. Smaller f-stop? - lens too heavy! Increase f-stop? Lens gets dinky (yes, great) but it kills off AF flexibility with TCs (bad).
Here's the link - all the essays are cross-linked.
https://chambeshiphotographyblog.wordpress.com/2018/02/17/the-tc-factor-with-telephoto-lenses/ (https://chambeshiphotographyblog.wordpress.com/2018/02/17/the-tc-factor-with-telephoto-lenses/)
this Post is the focus https://chambeshiphotographyblog.wordpress.com/2018/02/20/optimal-telephotos-the-optical-space-race/ (https://chambeshiphotographyblog.wordpress.com/2018/02/20/optimal-telephotos-the-optical-space-race/)
kind regards
-
I think it weakens the analysis to base it on focal length, rather than angle of view, or, even better, pixels on the subject.
One problem with focal length is that angle of view is inversely proportional to focal length, so that the 100mm difference between 200mm and 300mm is a lot (10.3 degrees horizontal AoV vs 6.9) but the 100mm difference between 400mm and 500mm is much less (5.2 degrees vs 4.1). A 1.4 TC gives you the same reduction in AoV on a 200mm as on a 400mm lens, although the increase in focal length on the 400mm is twice as great.
Where focal length is seriously misleading - as is AoV - is when cameras have different pixel density, which is why you need pixels on the subject. A 40cm duck at 10m subtends 2.8 degrees, so on a D850 a 200mm lens has 1122 ppd (pixels per duck), a 300mm has 1675, a 400mm has 2222 and a 500mm has 2819. A D5 does much less well: for the same focal lengths it has 756, 1129, 1499 and 1901 ppd. The D500 does slightly better than the D850 at each focal length: at 200mm it has 1163 ppd, at 300mm 1732, at 400mm 2292 and at 500mm 2887. To make a best quality 8 x 10 print you need 3000 x 2400 pixels (if your output is screen you need, as of now, fewer pixels - but soon you will need more). The utility of a TC is completely different on the D850, the D5 and the D500 and is not constant at different focal lengths: putting a 1.4TC on a 200mm lens on the D5 to photograph the duck is pretty much useless but you might just get away with it on the D850 and the D500; conversely, at 500mm the 1.4TC makes the D5 useful but gives minimal advantage on the D850 or the D500. And if you want to print larger - or smaller - the relative merits of the TC at varying focal lengths are different again. So whether it is a good thing if a lens can be used with all three TCs depends on both lens and camera.
The DX advantage is not illusory for subjects that occupy only part of the viewfinder at the focal length you have available. But if the subject fills the FX viewfinder at (say) 300mm - ie, a 2.4m object 10m away - and so the DX viewfinder at 200mm there is no DX advantage in pixels on the subject. Of course, that is a lion-sized animal 10m away, so it will be not very common in wild mammal photography and rare in bird photography.
-
Thanks for the contributions to this discussion. It is always good to have several Superteles available, then there is less need for the use of Teleconverters ;-)
-
... pixels per duck ...
Thanks for making my morning ;D
-
In your blog post, you said,
This nonsense of a DX camera “magnifying” the “reach” of a lens has become widely believed. It’s fanned in forums by the self-anointed ‘egg-spurts’. Moreover, even paid photography gurus and photographic companies perpetuate the myth. Indeed, these myth-makers trumpet this “DX benefit” in their official marketing – that a 300mm prime becomes a real 450mm, or a 600mm becomes the definitive 900mm! Plain wrong!
First of all, why all the excitement and exclamation points?
Second, as Les Olson points out, a Nikon D5 and D500 have virtually identical MP sensor sizes (albeit one full frame, the other crop).
Whatever you want to call it (be it magnification, or "reach," or whatever), the D500 puts more pixels onto the subject with the same lens.
Sure, if you can get close enough to 'fill the frame' with the D5, it will take better photos than the D500. However, if you can't, or (worse), if you're cropping-in a little with the D500 (which I do all the time), then you're going to be really cropping-in with the D5, which at the end of the day means the D500 will be putting more pixels on the subject than the D5. Hence the D500 image will be better than the D5 image.
As Les boils down into pixels, the D5 only puts 1901 "pixels per duck" (lol, still makes me grin) where the D500 puts 2887 pixels on the same subject.
Now, if you don't feel comfortable calling this "magnification," or "reach," that is your idiosyncrasy.
But, whatever you want to call it, the end result is an advantage.
-
Interesting critique :-) Introducing PpD [Pixels/ per / Duck ;D] as the additional variable is a useful way to consider the dilemma of choice of the optimal telephoto to invest in. If we introduce choice of camera - recording device - in comparing telephotos. Then ISO - wrt sensor-noise - becomes yet another factor to consider for the best combination of camera and lens.
My comparisons of DX vs FX assumes the same sensor resolution, which obviously is not always the case. Provided one is able to afford 2 cameras and can carry them 'Out There'
Then we have to consider ISO performance wrt to the camera. I find too often ISO has to increase in poorer lighting conditions to maintain minimum shutter speed-speed where one is handholding the rig and/or moving subjects. Where choice of camera is possible, the D500 does have the edge in higher resolution. Based on your example this is 3.7 to 2.5% more pixels with a 200, 300 ,400, 500 lens and the subject of the exemplar Duck.
many thanks of all the feedback.
I think it weakens the analysis to base it on focal length, rather than angle of view, or, even better, pixels on the subject.
One problem with focal length is that angle of view is inversely proportional to focal length, so that the 100mm difference between 200mm and 300mm is a lot (10.3 degrees horizontal AoV vs 6.9) but the 100mm difference between 400mm and 500mm is much less (5.2 degrees vs 4.1). A 1.4 TC gives you the same reduction in AoV on a 200mm as on a 400mm lens, although the increase in focal length on the 400mm is twice as great.
Where focal length is seriously misleading - as is AoV - is when cameras have different pixel density, which is why you need pixels on the subject. A 40cm duck at 10m subtends 2.8 degrees, so on a D850 a 200mm lens has 1122 ppd (pixels per duck), a 300mm has 1675, a 400mm has 2222 and a 500mm has 2819. A D5 does much less well: for the same focal lengths it has 756, 1129, 1499 and 1901 ppd. The D500 does slightly better than the D850 at each focal length: at 200mm it has 1163 ppd, at 300mm 1732, at 400mm 2292 and at 500mm 2887. To make a best quality 8 x 10 print you need 3000 x 2400 pixels (if your output is screen you need, as of now, fewer pixels - but soon you will need more). The utility of a TC is completely different on the D850, the D5 and the D500 and is not constant at different focal lengths: putting a 1.4TC on a 200mm lens on the D5 to photograph the duck is pretty much useless but you might just get away with it on the D850 and the D500; conversely, at 500mm the 1.4TC makes the D5 useful but gives minimal advantage on the D850 or the D500. And if you want to print larger - or smaller - the relative merits of the TC at varying focal lengths are different again. So whether it is a good thing if a lens can be used with all three TCs depends on both lens and camera.
The DX advantage is not illusory for subjects that occupy only part of the viewfinder at the focal length you have available. But if the subject fills the FX viewfinder at (say) 300mm - ie, a 2.4m object 10m away - and so the DX viewfinder at 200mm there is no DX advantage in pixels on the subject. Of course, that is a lion-sized animal 10m away, so it will be not very common in wild mammal photography and rare in bird photography.
-
In your blog post, you said,
First of all, why all the excitement and exclamation points?
Second, as Les Olson points out, a Nikon D5 and D500 have virtually identical MP sensor sizes (albeit one full frame, the other crop).
Whatever you want to call it (be it magnification, or "reach," or whatever), the D500 puts more pixels onto the subject with the same lens.
Sure, if you can get close enough to 'fill the frame' with the D5, it will take better photos than the D500. However, if you can't, or (worse), if you're cropping-in a little with the D500 (which I do all the time), then you're going to be really cropping-in with the D5, which at the end of the day means the D500 will be putting more pixels on the subject than the D5. Hence the D500 image will be better than the D5 image.
As Les boils down into pixels, the D5 only puts 1901 "pixels per duck" (lol, still makes me grin) where the D500 puts 2887 pixels on the same subject.
Now, if you don't feel comfortable calling this "magnification," or "reach," that is your idiosyncrasy.
But, whatever you want to call it, the end result is an advantage.
"the D5 and D500 can have virtually identical MP sensor sizes (albeit one full frame, the other crop)." Nearly similar numbers of pixels yes, but of distinctly different sizes - hence the significant differences in ISO and sensor-noise. Again, it is obvious that choice of camera changes the resolution obtained with a lens, but the questions as to choices of telephotos and TCF remain.
Resolution and Magnification are two different properties of the image projected on the DSLR Sensor of a camera. Keeping the camera constant, you can project the same sensor through a 400 or 600 lens but it's the same respective magnification regardless of how it is cropped. As Les Olsen points out the numbers of pixels of the image focused through a 400 or 600 lens can have a different Resolution BUT this is contingent on what Sensor.
We can try and avoid using Focal Length as the variable here, but this is the universally used proxy for lens magnification. Yes, with a 400 or 600 lens, you can crop the respective Image on to the 20mp in a D500 or the DX crop mode on a 45 mp sensor in a D850. And we can crop the same projection using the in-camera controls in the D850 to 1:1 etc. So a 1:1 frame would complement the options as I tried to summarized in the graphic.
Each of the 3 Teleconverters on the lens enlarges the image by its set factor of Magnification, and the image can be cropped to the dimensions of DX or 1:1 on a FX. Or the same TCs and lens can magnify the same image on to a DX sensor - cropped - at its respective Resolution. I do not see any idiosyncrasies.
The distinction between Magnification and Resolution - and more - was debated at quite some length a while back in this Thread http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3972.0.html (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3972.0.html).
As we have been discussing constructively on other threads, it is not always possible to hike with the biggest of lenses on a DSLR on a tripod or monopod, plus an alternative rig of 2nd DSLR and smaller lens. My interests are toward a better understanding of the optimal telephoto lens, which permits the most flexibility of use in outdoor photography. Teleconverters are vital and invaluable accessories in such situations (besides reducing costs). It's a trade off. But the new 180-400 f4 TC14 Nikkor points to what the potential holds to integrate TCs into future telephotos....this will arguably minimize the penalty of image quality. And the concept of the TeleConverter-Factor - imho - shows up how well (and not) the extant telephoto design-space serves us - especially where you cannot take it with you - http://www.vividlight.com/articles/403.htm (http://www.vividlight.com/articles/403.htm)
thanks
-
"the D5 and D500 can have virtually identical MP sensor sizes (albeit one full frame, the other crop)." Nearly similar numbers of pixels yes, but of distinctly different sizes - hence the significant differences in ISO and sensor-noise. Again, it is obvious that choice of camera changes the resolution obtained with a lens, but the questions as to choices of telephotos and TCF remain.
Translation: In the end there is no "one," magical, silver bullet :)
There are times where the reach is going to favor a D500, times where the high-ISO is going to favor the D5, and times when the high-res, great base ISO will favor the D850.
Which brings us back to what Wolfgang said, on my 400/600mm thread, to compensate for this ... he forsees himself buying all 3 bodies ;D
Unfortunately, I do too :-\
Resolution and Magnification are two different properties of the image projected on the DSLR Sensor of a camera. Keeping the camera constant, you can project the same sensor through a 400 or 600 lens but it's the same respective magnification regardless of how it is cropped. As Les Olsen points out the numbers of pixels of the image focused through a 400 or 600 lens can have a different Resolution BUT this is contingent on what Sensor.
In the end, pixels on the subject may be the best way to look at it.
If the pixel density is equivalent, the FF sensor advantage becomes relevant.
If the pixel advantage of the DX is significantly greater, however, this becomes the relevant determiner.
Further, nowadays, the better our sensors become, the more and more birders are migrating toward the D500, especially with small birds.
(The D500 rates better than the Canon 1Dx (https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D500-versus-Canon-EOS-1Dx___1061_753) of a few years back.)
The D500 has optimal reach, superior AF coverage across the frame, and the second-best tracking of any camera on the planet (behind only the D5).
We can try and avoid using Focal Length as the variable here, but this is the universally used proxy for lens magnification. Yes, with a 400 or 600 lens, you can crop the respective Image on to the 20mp in a D500 or the DX crop mode on a 45 mp sensor in a D850. And we can crop the same projection using the in-camera controls in the D850 to 1:1 etc. So a 1:1 frame would complement the options as I tried to summarized in the graphic.
Not sure I follow as none of these are 1:1 (macro) in magnification/reproduction ratio.
Each of the 3 Teleconverters on the lens enlarges the image by its set factor of Magnification, and the image can be cropped to the dimensions of DX or 1:1 on a FX. Or the same TCs and lens can magnify the same image on to a DX sensor - cropped - at its respective Resolution. I do not see any idiosyncrasies.
You're losing me on the 1:1 statement ...
The distinction between Magnification and Resolution - and more - was debated at quite some length a while back in this Thread http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3972.0.html (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3972.0.html).
Thanks for the link.
Interesting (albeit painful) reading :)
I get that focal length = focal length. (A tautology.)
Notwithstanding the dissenting opinion of certain curmudgeons (;)), the attempt to describe "equivalent" focal length merely has to do with framing ... not with any attempt to 'change the focal length' of the lens.
The real subject of concern is FRAMING: we are trying to frame our subjects adequately when we purchase (or fantasize about) super-telephoto lenses 8)
So, how do we get the framing ... without losing quality?
That said, with our current choices, the optimal image possible would be via the D850, perfectly-framed, with no cropping, at base ISO.
(None of the others, neither the D5 nor the D500, could compare.)
The trouble is, unlike with landscapes, when we encounter wildlife, we are faced with different distances, different lighting conditions, and (often) with various degrees of movement.
And, at the end of the day, there is no 'one' way to deal with all of these variables optimally with 'one' setup (camera + lens) :-\
There are arguments to be made for all 3 cameras, but Nikon prices the D5 at the summit simply because it handles two of these items (movement, low-light) better than the other two.
The D850 is second in price, simply because (properly-framed, in good light) it renders the best images.
The D500 isn't really the best at anything (neither base ISO nor movement/low-light) ...
However, the D500 is freaking close to handling movement like the D5, and it does give the most 'reach' (or magnification, or 'pbd'—pixels-per duck—lol) at the long-end of any lens.
The D500 is, in essence, "a built-in teleconverter" with any lens, in a small, dexterous, very capable body.
Where reach is paramount, the quality of the D500's images is "good enough" for most applications. Indeed, the quality from the D500 is indistinguishable from the other two cameras in the majority of instances, especially where it has the reach advantage. (It can very often be superior to the other two in these instances.)
As we have been discussing constructively on other threads, it is not always possible to hike with the biggest of lenses on a DSLR on a tripod or monopod, plus an alternative rig of 2nd DSLR and smaller lens. My interests are toward a better understanding of the optimal telephoto lens, which permits the most flexibility of use in outdoor photography. Teleconverters are vital and invaluable accessories in such situations (besides reducing costs). It's a trade off. But the new 180-400 f4 TC14 Nikkor points to what the potential holds to integrate TCs into future telephotos....this will arguably minimize the penalty of image quality. And the concept of the TeleConverter-Factor - imho - shows up how well (and not) the extant telephoto design-space serves us - especially where you cannot take it with you - http://www.vividlight.com/articles/403.htm (http://www.vividlight.com/articles/403.htm)
thanks
I appreciate your passion.
IMO the D500 + 400mm f/2.8 + TCs will provide the most flexibility in a single choice (or, possibly now, the 180-400 f/4 + 1.4 TC).
I can't imagine any other single choice handling more options than the described.
But there will always be specific instances were other choices are more optimal (600mm, 800mm ... D850/D5) ... and that will always be the case, regardless of any choice we make.
Even with these other choices (an D850/800mm combo, e.g.,), there will be times where these are not the right tools for the job.
The takeaway here is no single choice we can make will ever be 'the' optimal choice for every possible encounter.
Cheers :)
-
As we have been discussing constructively on other threads, it is not always possible to hike with the biggest of lenses on a DSLR on a tripod or monopod, plus an alternative rig of 2nd DSLR and smaller lens. My interests are toward a better understanding of the optimal telephoto lens, which permits the most flexibility of use in outdoor photography.
No: it is always possible to carry two cameras and half a dozen of the biggest lenses made. All you need is a well-designed backpack and a good breakfast. You don't choose to, and neither do I, but saying it is not "possible" is giving a false appearance of objectivity to a mere preference. In the same spirit, you write about "the optimal telephoto lens, which permits the most flexibility of use". If flexibility is the highest priority, of course the number of TCs a lens can use is important: but why is flexibility the highest priority? It is not that you are making an unreasonable choice, but that presenting a choice as a given creates a circular argument.
-
Which brings us back to what Wolfgang said, on my 400/600mm thread, to compensate for this ... he forsees himself buying all 3 bodies ;D
Unfortunately, I do too :-\
Well actually I already use all three types of systems in all sort of combinations (currently the D4S which i still see highly competitive, the D500 and now the D850)
It started with the D700/D300 combo, D800E added FX highres and took the role of the DX body from D300 until D500 took it again. I dont want to pursue every upgrade so I left the D810 until the D850 came and I bought the D4S a year before the D5 entered the stage, so sooner or later there will be a better version of the topspeed, high iso FX body available and make it into my bak.
I am sure any FL series Supertele that is currently on the list will still be top-line, when all the camera bodies we are talking about now are already "outdated"
-
No: it is always possible to carry two cameras and half a dozen of the biggest lenses made. All you need is a well-designed backpack and a good breakfast. You don't choose to, and neither do I, but saying it is not "possible" is giving a false appearance of objectivity to a mere preference. In the same spirit, you write about "the optimal telephoto lens, which permits the most flexibility of use". If flexibility is the highest priority, of course the number of TCs a lens can use is important: but why is flexibility the highest priority? It is not that you are making an unreasonable choice, but that presenting a choice as a given creates a circular argument.
Some contradiction: The posibility to lug around or handle Supertele Equipment is depending on physical consitution and fitness - that can be trained but it remains that some people have better preconditions for that than others. There are people that can use them freehand, even for a longer period of time, others get tired soon or even fail,
climatic factors, nutrition water supply and lung capacity also play a role and a good backpack can help. I have already carried a Kiboko with a 600/4 (or 800/5,6) plus 200-400/4 plus 2-3 heavy bodies accessories and a Sachtler tripod and moved the thing over distances further than three paces from a car (that i dont own), (need to regain fitness for repeating an undertaking like that) - there were even people climbing high mountains with a 600/4 in the Backpack which seems to be beyond my range for the rest of my life.
Short answer: Yes i agree it is possible but not for everybody and not at any given point of time
-
No: it is always possible to carry two cameras and half a dozen of the biggest lenses made. All you need is a well-designed backpack and a good breakfast. You don't choose to, and neither do I, but saying it is not "possible" is giving a false appearance of objectivity to a mere preference.
If you're traveling by boat, or by vehicle (or are operating from a blind), I can see the point.
However, on a nature hike?
No, it is not possible to carry "half a dozen of the biggest lenses made," on a long, challenging hike. Period.
You could not physically do that, I don't care what backpack you purchased ... or what you had for breakfast ::)
I'd like to see any photographer tote an 800mm lens, a 600mm lens, a 400mm lens, and a 200mm lens on a mountain hike (and that's just 4 lenses :).
Further, a person's budget might render purchasing "half a dozen of the biggest lenses made" impossible as a target as well.
Either reality creates the desire to blog about 'getting the most' from a single lens investment.
In the same spirit, you write about "the optimal telephoto lens, which permits the most flexibility of use". If flexibility is the highest priority, of course the number of TCs a lens can use is important: but why is flexibility the highest priority?
It's quite obvious why considering flexibility (getting the most from one lens) is so important: cost and weight, not to mention having the most options with one lens, so you don't have to carry/switch lenses if a moment presents itself.
For example, if you're shooting an antelope with a 400mm lens, and suddenly need 800mm for a bird, it's a lot easier to leave the 400mm lens mounted on the tripod, remove the camera, and quickly add an 11 oz (330g) 2x teleconverter that you pull out of a front belt-pouch ... to achieve a very nice 800mm (1200mm equiv. framing on a D500) ... than it is to take a remove the the entire 400mm lens + camera from the tripod, then take your horrifically-heavy backpack off, place it on the ground, then carefully pull out your $16,000, 10-lb (4.6 kg) super-tele out ... mount this to your tripod ... then carefully place the 400mm in the pack, remove the camera, and then re-attach the camera to the 800mm. Your moment is likely gone, your back is likely broke ... all so you can do what? Possibly get a slightly-nicer image?
Doesn't make any sense.
The only way two+ super-telephoto lenses make sense is to operate from a blind, or a safari vehicle (so you're not walking for miles burdened this way), and with each having a camera already on it, both also mounted on a tripod at the-ready.
It is not that you are making an unreasonable choice, but that presenting a choice as a given creates a circular argument.
I'd say you're the one who made an unreasonable counter point.
No one on earth is going to hike with "half a dozen of the biggest lenses made," and not many can afford them either.
And even among those fortunate few who can afford several super-telephotos, they don't bring them 'all' with them on a nature hike ;)
-
The 400/2.8 FL with D810 and TC-20EIII has center MTF50 of 2000 (lw/ih) at f/5.6, whereas the 800 FL gives 3441 lw/ih (photographylife reviews). So you get a lot more detail on the duck with the 800mm prime. Even at f/8 the TC provides 26% lower score than the 400mm prime without TC. So at most you get detail comparable with a 600mm prime, when mounting the 2X on the 400. So based on those results the 400+2X is not that good an 800mm.
I would think that if flexibility in framing while retaining the highest level of detail on the subject is the goal, the D850 with 600/4 would work better than the D500 with 400/2.8. The full recorded image in each case has the same framing but the former setup provides more detail by virtue of the longer focal length and high pixel count. You don’t have to take off the TC or put it on, and still should get similar detail even on a deep crop than the 2X+400, or better wide open. Which probably explains a part of why the D850 is in high demand.
Personally I find TCs quite time consuming to put in (remove TC front cap, store the cap, take off the camera, mount TC, take off the rear cap of the TC, store the cap, mount the camera body all the while making sure that no dust, sand, rain, snow, or other dirt gets inside the camera, the lens, or on the TC, periodically clean the caps and TC etc.). And then you lose so much image quality unless you can stop down to f/8... I think it may be just more pragmatic to use a high pixel count camera to gain the flexibility and speed of framing (just shoot and crop in post) and much better quality when using the whole image or cropping just a bit. If flexibility and ease of use of use in the field (and avoiding loss of subject while switching focal length) are the goals.
Now I do get it that the D500+2X+400 shows a larger subject in the viewfinder than the D850 + 600. But it may be a legitimate question to ask which setup will give better subject detail. My guess is that the longer primary lens wins at least when shooting wide open.
-
My two cents again:
it is possible to afford several superteles without being rich - buying them second-hand or doing without a car can help.
It hardly makes sense to bring more than two for a shooting (except you fill up your car and stay in the vicinity)
I can carry the big package for a significant while (for instance to get to a location in the woods) but doing it only when I have got an idea where my shooting opportunity is, not for random events. A full day hike would be too much by far. Dont forget you not only need to carry it but keep the agility to shoot it. Being exhausted and tired (also in your mind) does not help.
I once bought the 200-400 because I realized changing Teleconverters is just not fast enough to react to birds of different size on a location, Switching form FX to DX and back on a camera is much faster if the setup is properly done. I frequently have a longer supertele on a tripod and a shorter one lying on the backpack below to quickly adapt.
It is fine to do careful technical quality comparisons for all sorts of options but IMHO that does not give you the best options, for me its depending on the situation, my mood how I feel in shape to make the choice. Sometimes it turns out that a 200-500 or 80-400 is the better choice though not providing equal technical quality but I might get images i cant have take with the big glass on that day (and vice versa)
-
The 400/2.8 FL with D810 and TC-20EIII has center MTF50 of 2000 (lw/ih) at f/5.6, whereas the 800 FL gives 3441 lw/ih (photographylife reviews). So you get a lot more detail on the duck with the 800mm prime. Even at f/8 the TC provides 26% lower score than the 400mm prime without TC. So at most you get detail comparable with a 600mm prime, when mounting the 2X on the 400. So based on those results the 400+2X is not that good an 800mm.
There is no question a bare 800mm will produce a cleaner image than a 400mm with a 2x TC.
The trouble is "flexibility" ... which the 800 isn't and the 400 is.
I can shoot both 400 and 800 with the latter + TC, but in no event can I shoot 400mm with an 800.
I would think that if flexibility in framing while retaining the highest level of detail on the subject is the goal, the D850 with 600/4 would work better than the D500 with 400/2.8. The full recorded image in each case has the same framing but the former setup provides more detail by virtue of the longer focal length and high pixel count. You don’t have to take off the TC or put it on, and still should get similar detail even on a deep crop than the 2X+400, or better wide open. Which probably explains a part of why the D850 is in high demand.
Interesting point :)
I happen to take 2 bodies with me, typically (D500 / D810), and so a 400 would be a 400 on the D810 and the (dare I say it?) "equivalent" to a 600 on the D500.
Do I really need to print anything bigger than what I can get with a D500? No, I don't (and I doubt most people need to print to the full capacity of D850's ability).
You're also forgetting weight + Af acquisition + buffer, where the D500 has the edge and the D850 not as much.
Further, downloading 1000-2000 rapid-fire D850 files is a long, arduous hassle ... compared to D500 files.
But, hey different strokes.
I might wind up with a 300 f/4 E PF on my bare D500 + 1.4 TC (600mm equiv), holstered in a Cotton Carrier, and a second D500 with a 600 mm + 1.4 TC (~1200mm equiv) on a tripod over my shoulder.
Lots of options, and the weight of the PF on a chest holster is negligible.
Personally I find TCs quite time consuming to put in (remove TC front cap, store the cap, take off the camera, mount TC, take off the rear cap of the TC, store the cap, mount the camera body all the while making sure that no dust, sand, rain, snow, or other dirt gets inside the camera, the lens, or on the TC, periodically clean the caps and TC etc.). And then you lose so much image quality unless you can stop down to f/8... I think it may be just more pragmatic to use a high pixel count camera to gain the flexibility and speed of framing (just shoot and crop in post) and much better quality when using the whole image or cropping just a bit. If flexibility and ease of use of use in the field (and avoiding loss of subject while switching focal length) are the goals.
I don't.
TCs are a thousand times easier to carry (plus take-off, put-on) than super-telephoto lenses.
You also will not get the same benefit cropping as with a TC. Steve Perry proves that in his videos.
Lenses with TCs built-in would be the best solution IMO ... would be ecstatic if Nikon began implementing this technology in their primes ...
Now I do get it that the D500+2X+400 shows a larger subject in the viewfinder than the D850 + 600. But it may be a legitimate question to ask which setup will give better subject detail. My guess is that the longer primary lens wins at least when shooting wide open.
I would be curious to learn this as well, but I would bet the D500 combo is better.
The D500 + 2x + 400mm is the equivalent of 1200mm.
The D850 + 600mm is 600mm.
If you had to crop-in to half the total image size with the D850 ... to achieve what the D500/400mm/2x TC would achieve "filling the frame" ... no way is the D850 image going to be comparable.
The D850/600mm + 2x extender would be a better comparison. Same "equivalent focal length," but here the D850 would have more pixels on the subject ... and, both have the same "hit" with a 2x TC.
I would imagine the D850 wins, hands-down, here ...
All that said, at some point, one has to stop "measurebating," and just shoot :)
Whether you have a D500 + 400 + 2x ... or a D850 + 600 + 2x ... you're going to get some good shots, and miss some others.
If you don't mind missing some AF moments, and lots of huge, time-consuming files being downloaded at the end of the day ... to be rewarded with an occasional 'perfect' shot taken in a great file size ... the D850 is for you :)
However, if you want to have better AF, and smaller (less space-wasteful) files streaming onto your hard drive ... and don't really need to make 30" prints with your best images ... the D500 would be the way to go.
-
No, it is not possible to carry "half a dozen of the biggest lenses made," on a long, challenging hike. Period.
Further, a person's budget might render purchasing "half a dozen of the biggest lenses made" impossible as a target as well.
It's quite obvious why considering flexibility (getting the most from one lens) is so important: cost and weight, not to mention having the most options with one lens, so you don't have to carry/switch lenses if a moment presents itself.
How do you think people took nature photographs 100 years ago? They carried view cameras in wilderness. Ansel Adams made most of his best known photographs with very heavy gear carried on his back: eg, Monolith, the Face of Half Dome was made with a "61/2 x 81/2 Korona view camera, with two lenses, two filters, a rather heavy wooden tripod, and twelve [...] glass plates" which Adams carried over very rough ground including a 1200m altitude gain (Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs, p3). The camera weighs about 6kg, and his glass plates weighed about 1kg each, so his total camera gear must have weighed 25kg. Edward Weston, on the other hand, said "Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn’t photogenic". Which is fine - but it is not a fact, it is a choice.
It is not that everyone - Adams included - would not rather carry less and spend less but that where an individual draws the line between "possible" and "impossible" is a unique, personal choice. The second highest step is the same distance from the top of every ladder, but not the same distance from the bottom.
-
How do you think people took nature photographs 100 years ago? They carried view cameras in wilderness. Ansel Adams made most of his best known photographs with very heavy gear carried on his back: eg, Monolith, the Face of Half Dome was made with a "61/2 x 81/2 Korona view camera, with two lenses, two filters, a rather heavy wooden tripod, and twelve [...] glass plates" which Adams carried over very rough ground including a 1200m altitude gain (Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs, p3). The camera weighs about 6kg, and his glass plates weighed about 1kg each, so his total camera gear must have weighed 25kg. Edward Weston, on the other hand, said "Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn’t photogenic". Which is fine - but it is not a fact, it is a choice.
It is not that everyone - Adams included - would not rather carry less and spend less but that where an individual draws the line between "possible" and "impossible" is a unique, personal choice. The second highest step is the same distance from the top of every ladder, but not the same distance from the bottom.
There are distinct genres of Nature photography. Ansell Adams was photographing landscapes that have that useful tendency to hang around, albeit the uniqueness of the scene is all about the weather and time of day etc - and not least the person making the image. the focus of this thread is on the most cost-effective and ergonomic solution to secure the best possible images of organisms - small bodied and mobile - exemplified in smaller birds especially. These are elusive subjects for which a camera & telephoto on a tripod too often slows one up capturing the moment.... Handholding works best as does the ability to be free to move relatively quickly.
It's true that a great many excellent wildlife photos are captured from set hides and mobile hides (vehicles) where lugging in 2+ DSLRs and 2 or more big lenses AND more gear is so feasible over those well trodden steps between hide and home.
For the past 3+ decades l have often had to carry heavy packs all day in tropical climates and over rough country. On occasion over 30kg of gear for camping out - mainly food and litres of water. It is no fun. Grueling after a while. On a couple of these trips my companions gave in in exhaustion, and they were regular runners....the heat and the loads and the gradients take no prisoners. A conspicuous cohort in the generations I was privileged to grow up in Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) through the 1960s into the 1980s took such conditions as the means to the ends... But quite a few refused to go to such lengths of backpacking so much gear to enjoy the gains "Out There". (In fact, the strategy of very heavy backpacks was tried and proven in the counter insurgency bushwar.)
The lesson in the preceding paragraph is only a minority of us can carry such heavy loads and even fewer can put the core equipement to speedy use when the event of the moment happens..... Moreover as one ages this ability to perform at the margins declines...
My Nikon gear was too often part of the payload. I have learnt by first hand experience that keeping camera + lenses under 10kg pays dividends in mobility and the ability to capture the proverbial moment. Under 5kg is even more optimal for mobility etc = DSLR + 3kg telephoto with TCs is barely optimal IMHE.
It is hard to imagine an extreme photographer fitter and better capable to capture the moment in mountains than Galen Rowell, where it was not unknown for him to run up slope etc to get the shots. Quite a few of these shots were taken at altitudes several kms above sea level eg his Tibetan Rainbow capture. This context of light gear for outdoor photography underwrites Rowell's adage - "when you can't take it with you" - link above. (Even though he had a full house of Nikon bodies and glass - he got to know firsthand what optimal system worked for his more extreme conditions.... In my book his little bundle of gear sets the tight bracket on optimal photo gear for Nature photography and his was mainly landscapes. Too often we need the exotic telephotos for wildlife! As the options stand today, this is 3-4kg.
There's also the irritating facts of fiscal stricture as to how many telephotos can be purchased, or even loaned ::) Costs and Logistics plus ergonomics squeeze the choice too often to a single telephoto. This choice hangs over many travelers, pertinently bird photographers who fly to the tropics and poles and elsewhere.
The 6th post in the series on my blog frames the more technical aspects of my argument in the market forces I see are driving the changes to more lighter ergonomic telephotos - in the tradition of the 300 f4 PF Nikkor. And Teleconverters are all the more central to this solution -as reiterated by John Koerner above....Especially on hikes where 2 telephotos is 1 too many! Yes, it's the trade off for ergonomics to get the images but we still strive for the best IQ that's possible.
And all the better if the telephoto one invests in the future will be (hopefully) enabled with integral bespoke TC(s). What a Game changer! sales of such optics will accrue provided not overpriced. As with what's been achieved in space science, IT and genomics etc, the more audacious suggestions and demands for innovative solutions are first treated with voluble pessimism. But history tells us technology so often triumphs, where after the doom-and-gloom brigade pretends they were believers in any case..... Just a decade back, who would have believed if a forum post had postulated the mass production of the Dinky phase-fresnel telephoto prime (that overcame the glitches of the Canon)? ;D ;D
While my long term interests in choosing the optimum camera gear are to meet my own peculiar needs, I've tried to understand what factors and demands are changing the overall market, not least the potential that is possible today thanks to new technologies in materials and innovations. One has to consider where markets are improving, and for telephotos the needs of nature photographers on the move are swelling in numbers.
This is excellent for several reasons, and more will benefit where technology delivers innovative solutions. IMHO, the telephoto design space has only begun to acknowledge the keystone role of the Humble Teleconverter :-)
-
My Nikon gear was too often part of the payload. I have learnt by first hand experience that keeping camera + lenses under 10kg pays dividends in mobility and the ability to capture the proverbial moment. Under 5kg is even more optimal for mobility etc = DSLR + 3kg telephoto with TCs is barely optimal IMHE.
It is hard to imagine an extreme photographer fitter and better capable to capture the moment in mountains than Galen Rowell, where it was not unknown for him to run up slope etc to get the shots. Quite a few of these shots were taken at altitudes several kms above sea level eg his Tibetan Rainbow capture. This context of light gear for outdoor photography underwrites Rowell's adage - "when you can't take it with you" - link above. (Even though he had a full house of Nikon bodies and glass - he got to know firsthand what optimal system worked for his more extreme conditions.... In my book his little bundle of gear sets the tight bracket on optimal photo gear for Nature photography and his was mainly landscapes. Too often we need the exotic telephotos for wildlife! As the options stand today, this is 3-4kg.
Yes, it's the trade off for ergonomics to get the images but we still strive for the best IQ that's possible.
Galen Rowell's idea of "light", however, was very different to yours: for running he carried an N75, a 20/4 or 24/2.8 and a small telephoto zoom - either the 75-150/3.5 or, later, the 80-200/4.5-5.6, plus a small flash - around 1kg total. In Mountain Light he says that when climbing in the Karakoram he carried an F3 with a 24, 35, and 75-150 - around 2.5kg total. In both cases, much less than your 5kg limit.
For every person willing to carry 3kg but not 5kg who can use the 300/4 plus the TCs, there is someone who is willing to carry 5 - 10kg who can use the 600/4, and there is someone only willing to carry 1kg who has to settle for the 70-300 AF-P. For every person who can "only" afford $3000 for a 300mm f/4PF plus a TC14 and a TC20 there is someone who can afford $12000 for a 600mm f/4 and doesn't need TCs and someone else who can only afford $400 for the AF-P DX 70-300 and can't use TCs.
That is, when you and John say that TCs are useful, you are saying they suit a very particular set of preferences and capacities: willingness to spend enough money and carry enough weight to make TCs useful but not so much as to make them superfluous.
If exotic telephotos are necessary for wildlife, how come Mountain Light has a photograph of a lynx (!) and one of a mountain goat, both taken at 200mm and one of bighorn sheep taken at 300mm? Because Rowell spent a lot of time in the wilderness, and time is a very effective substitute for focal length. As is patience: the most cost-effective and ergonomic approach to wildlife photography is not TCs, it is sitting still. If you sit still long enough, 300mm on a D500 is ample and carrying a TC saves neither weight nor money. If you sit still even longer, you can use 300mm on the D850. That is why integrated TCs on telephotos are a terrible idea: if you don't need it you still have to carry it around.
-
For every person willing to carry 3kg but not 5kg who can use the 300/4 plus the TCs, there is someone who is willing to carry 5 - 10kg who can use the 600/4, and there is someone only willing to carry 1kg who has to settle for the 70-300 AF-P. For every person who can "only" afford $3000 for a 300mm f/4PF plus a TC14 and a TC20 there is someone who can afford $12000 for a 600mm f/4 and doesn't need TCs and someone else who can only afford $400 for the AF-P DX 70-300 and can't use TCs.
Yeah, but Les, what you're now describing is a far cry from your original, ridiculous posit of carrying "half a dozen of the biggest lenses made" ... after "a good breakfast" ::)
Again no one can, or ever will be able to do this.
"Half a dozen" of the heaviest lenses made today would basically be Nikon's entire super-tele line: 800mm, 600mm, 500mm, 400mm, 300mm, 200mm.
No one is going to go hiking carrying a load like this, so please just retract your original ridiculous statement.
You've now tried to reduce everything to a single super-tele plus a zoom.
That's more realistic ;)
I hike many places with with 2 bodies (D810/D500), a 300mm VR II (+2x), tripod, a CV 125, Zeiss 15mm, and 4 AI-S lenses.
Either a 600mm, or a 400mm, are going to replace the 300mm ... or maybe the 300mm f/4E PF + TCs will suffice.
If I like the image quality of the 300 PF, I may leave it at that, to lighten my load. (In fact, many users remark this lens gets them better, closer shots "than 10-lb lenses"--because of its small size and lack of need for a tripod. They're able to get closer to their subject, because they're no longer toting a 'rocket launcher' on their backs anymore, but instead enjoy a smaller, lighter lens unobtrusively held against their chest as they navigate through the woods.)
With an apparent (albeit not-yet-acknowledged) agreement that only one super-tele is realistic for hiking (plus a few smaller, support lenses), the question defaults back to Chambeshi's (as well as my own) topic: which one, plus TCs, offers the most flexibility?
-
I certainly hope you don't expect me to retract the advice to have a good breakfast. "Half a dozen of the biggest" might have been the teensiest exaggeration, but you are carrying seven lenses and two cameras, and not the smallest. What does that weigh? 10kg?
The single telephoto plus TCs was your suggestion, not mine. I was simply pointing out that it is no more natural or less a niche suggestion than any other - no different to saying that an alcoholic is someone who drinks more than his doctor.
-
I certainly hope you don't expect me to retract the advice to have a good breakfast.
Cute ;D
"Half a dozen of the biggest" might have been the teensiest exaggeration, but you are carrying seven lenses and two cameras, and not the smallest. What does that weigh? 10kg?
Teensiest exaggeration?
I don't think you've hiked with 'a' super telephoto lens, let alone 'many,' based on this statement.
It's no fun to do. You also can't keep "many" super-telephoto lenses in a backpack; even ONE won't fit into most.
The weight of my gear? I'd say 10 kg is about right, give or take.
The single telephoto plus TCs was your suggestion, not mine. I was simply pointing out that it is no more natural or less a niche suggestion than any other - no different to saying that an alcoholic is someone who drinks more than his doctor.
Not sure about your new example, except it may explain some of your 'points' ;)
A single telephoto + TC (and a few smaller, supporting lenses) is all anyone is going to carry. Your other example of Adams' large format camera usage is itself childs-play compared to trying to tote 'half a dozen' super-telephoto lenses.
My suggestion is you actually try to hike for 6 hours (not stand in a blind with your lens on a tripod, but hike) with one super-telephoto + tripod slung over your back ... and come back to report on the idea of carrying two on a hike the next day :o ;)
The desire to "get the most flexibility from one" will become much, much more dear to you then ;D
-
The six Nikkors from 200/2 up to 800/5.6 add up to a tick over 18kg. I have often carried 20kg long distances over rough country, and, no, a super-tele was not part of the load, but I have never heard that 18kg is heavier when it is lenses than when it is tents and food and water. Nepali porters routinely carry loads equal to 100% of their body weight (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/308/5729/1755.full) - and that's without a good breakfast - so six 800s is easily within their physical limits, if not yours and mine. As for not fitting in "most" backpacks, a 600/4 is 43cm long, and an 800/5.6 is 46cm long: a standard - 70-75L - backpack is 75 to 90cm long, so both fit perfectly well.
You are quite willing to carry 10kg? Well, the 800/5.6 + 600/4 + 300/4PF add up to 9.2kg. You could carry all three, even without testing your physical limits. Of course, you could not also carry "two bodies (D810/D500), tripod, a CV 125, Zeiss 15mm, and 4 AI-S lenses".
Which is fine - the problem is not making choices, it is making choices appear "obvious" by assuming the outcomes of other, unstated choices - in your case the choice to carry two bodies and all those other lenses but to carry only 10kg.
-
I am told that for trekkers, 20-25kg weight in the backpack is normal. However, packing six fast superteles safely would require some special bag and it is probably not practical (the bag would have to compartmentalize the lenses and that would be difficult to accomplish). I personally am in the 10kg camera gear is ok to carry, have carried 15kg but it was for me a bit much. But I am no athlete.
I know some carry 300/2.8 and 500/4 at the same time. I personally think one always makes choices as to what is important. I might choose to carry a 24-70 and 200/2 (or 35, 85 and 200) and take those shots I can with that gear, instead of insisting on having every focal length available. Sometimes it’s good to work with a single lens or focal length for a while.
-
Les and Ilkka, there is a difference between trekking and hiking ... between carrying gear (like a pack animal), and hiking with your gear at-the-ready.
A photographer carrying all his gear to "a spot" (blind, getaway home, excursion point, etc.), with all his gear wrapped-up, is entirely different from hiking and wanting all your gear immediately available as you hike.
Further, the "possible" weight a person can carry also has to do with the objects' size, fragility, weight displacement, etc.
Carrying a 20 pound soft tent feels good on the back, the object is not going to break, and it also has even weight displacement. That's easy. However, carrying two $12,000 hard-as-rocks, extremely fragile, 10-lb lenses is going to feel like shit, and require specialized equipment. There is no such equipment for hiking, let alone for six lenses.
Further, hiking with a bunch of gear "contained" is much different from hiking with gear that is "immediately available." You cannot hike with two super-teles immediately-available.
The closest approximation you could make would be to have one super-tele over your shoulder, on a tripod, and the other carried in a specially-configured backpack, such as the below:
(https://static.bhphoto.com/images/images750x750/1442430349000_1146753.jpg)(https://static.bhphoto.com/images/multiple_images/images750x750/1442430103000_IMG_534686.jpg)
But two things are true: (1) such a configuration is not "immediate availability," and 2) you only have one back and one additional telephoto that could be carried as such.
There is no way in the world to backpack with six separate super telephoto lenses, at all, let alone with "immediate availability, sso let us not digress any further into fantasyland, as no photographer would do such a thing. It's unrealistic.
Two super telephotos on a hike? Okay maybe.
But six super telephotos on a hike? GTHOOH ::)
-
This is a fun debate. I lean toward Les' position because "never say never" and just about anything is possible. Also I agree with the advice to start the day with a good breakfast
-
This is a fun debate.
:D
I lean toward Les' position because "never say never" and just about anything is possible.
As the saying goes, "Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself." ;) ;D
Also I agree with the advice to start the day with a good breakfast
Hey, at least there is something upon which we all can agree ;D
-
As the saying goes, "Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself." ;) ;D
There is also the saying that goes something like this: "If I can't do it, nobody can do it."
-
There is also the saying that goes something like this: "If I can't do it, nobody can do it."
There is also the reality that some things really are impossible.
I defy you to show me one, single scenario/configuration, where six "of the heaviest super-telephoto lenses made" can be carried by a single person "in a backpack," on a hike ... at all ... let alone be immediately available at the ready.
As the final saying goes, "Put up, or shut up." ;D
It's not up to 'me' to be everywhere in the universe, at once, to "prove unicorns don't exist" ... the reality is, if you claim unicorns exist, then it is up to you to produce one.
Therefore, by your own example, or by linking me to one, show me 'how' this is possible ... or admit it is not ;)
-
It seems this interesting discussion is now more about who is right or who is wrong than about a realistic or unrealistic scenario :'(
What about a more common, regular setup like the 2.8 holy trinity plus 2 bodies (e.g. 850/810 & 500) weighing in at 5.5 kilograms.
IMHO that's a good baseline a lot of people carry around daily.
-
It seems this interesting discussion is now more about who is right or who is wrong than about a realistic or unrealistic scenario :'(
Agreed, Wally, will not debate this nonsense anymore ... the perpetrators either need to produce the Unicorn or admit it doesn't exist :)
What about a more common, regular setup like the 2.8 holy trinity plus 2 bodies (e.g. 850/810 & 500) weighing in at 5.5 kilograms.
IMHO that's a good baseline a lot of people carry around daily.
Agreed again.
I am right now envisioning myself carrying a D500 + 600mm E FL ED + 1.4 TC (1260mm equiv. framing), on a tripod over my shoulder ...
While carrying a D500 + 300 f/4 PF + 1.4x TC on the chest slot of a Cotton Carrier (https://www.cottoncarrier.com/collections/all/products/new-grey-camera-harness-2) (630mm framing) ...
Finally with a D810 + CV 125 macro holstered on my hip with the same Cotton Carrier.
All of these instruments/lenses are immediately deployable ...
Meanwhile, my Zeiss 15mm + my Nikkor 20mm, 28mm, and 50mm AI-S lenses are carried on a shoulder pouch (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/981165-REG/ruggard_psb_136b_commando_36_dslr_shoulder.html), plus a 2x TC/Kenko extender also available, with said container resting on my front/left hip.
(No sense of urgency with landscape-type lenses.)
The translation means ALL of these cameras/lenses/accessories are in the front of me, immediately-accessible (as opposed to being 'behind me, in a backpack' that I have to stop what I am doing and take off), with a 15mm - 1200mm range in possibilities "at the-ready" 8)
-
Check out this guy...
-
Check out this guy...
Cute :D ;D
Yeah, but (1) that's standing still on the sidelines of a park ... after a 100-ft walk from his parked car, and (2) only one of those lenses is a super-telephoto.
Like to see that guy hike a mountain trail for several hours like that, or navigate his way through bramble undergrowth like that :)
But, hey, he's got a lot of cameras/lenses "at the ready" ;D
Okay ... now, back to reality, this is how I roll 8)
-
In the above image, I actually had a 300mm mounted on a tripod on my shoulder.
No camera/lens was mounted on my chest bracket.
D810 +15mm Zeiss was mounted on my right hip.
Four AI-S lenses were contained in the pouch, slung over my shoulders, resting on my left hip.
....
However, the green labeling represents my future vision.
I'm going to change the D500 + 300mm VR II (pictured) into a D500 + 600mm + 1.4 TC FL ED (1260mm envisioned).
The empty slot in my Cotton Carrier chest harness (https://www.cottoncarrier.com/collections/all/products/new-grey-camera-harness-2) will be occupied by a D500 + 300mm PF + 1.4 TC (630mm envisioned).
The right hip slot will have my D810 + CV 125mm.
The side pouch will contain 15mm, 20mm, and 28mm landscape lenses, and a 50mm portrait lens + a 2x TC and Kenko Tubes as accessories.
I can walk around with all of this crap for a whole day ;D
(I won't say it'a "no problem," but it's nothing a cold beer and good long massage by my Thai girlfriend won't cure ;D 8) )
Anyone who says you can add five more super telephoto lenses to this setup is daft, and has never actually carried around a lot of gear on a nature hike.
I have absolutely zero extra room for another super telephoto lens. Even the 300 PF, mounted on my chest bracket, maybe the proverbial straw on the camel's back.
I don't want an extra telephoto on a backpack, either.
After spending two years hiking with the equipment as featured (everything in front of me, at the ready), I am confident I can make the following changes (in green) and 1) be able to handle the load, and 2) feel fully-equipped to deal with whatever nature throws my way.
-
Yeah, but (1) that's standing still on the sidelines of a park ... after a 100-ft walk from his parked car, and (2) only one of those lenses is a super-telephoto.
Okay ... now, back to reality, this is how I roll 8)
I think you will find that guy covered 18 holes on golf course for a minimum of three days.
Your reality ...as a skinny older guy, is not everyone's reality.
-
I think you will find that guy covered 18 holes on golf course for a minimum of three days.
Golf? Are you kidding me?
That involves standing a lot at each hole, shade, water (help, if necessary), and your car readily available.
Totally the opposite of walking purposefully, for hours, in mountain/desert terrain ... with no amenities in sight.
Your reality ...as a skinny older guy, is not everyone's reality.
5' 10", 195 isn't skinny.
Do I really look that old? :'( ;D
In all seriousness, most really large men don't have too much "all day stamina" ... the biological reality of trying to oxygenate mass.
But hey, I'd like to see how you handle the conundrum of having super-telephoto (all the way down to landscape) gear immediately available.
Or are you just a theorist with an opinion?
-
Yeah, but (1) that's standing still on the sidelines of a park ... after a 100-ft walk from his parked car, and (2) only one of those lenses is a super-telephoto.
Two, on the right side there appears to be something like a 300/2.8 and a longer tele on the back.
Here is another:
https://petapixel.com/2012/04/23/nikkor-1200-1700mm-the-mother-of-all-super-telephoto-nikon-lenses/
Carrying two big teles at the same time seems to be quite possible, not necessarily comfortable. Les already admitted six big teles was an exaggeration, so why not let it go?
As for having gear immediately accessible, why is there such a requirement? I would never walk or even move the camera attached to a tripod simply because it could be damaged in the process, and it's harder to control what your lens hits if it is dangling from a tripod behind your shoulder. When I move in the forest, I carry the camera and lenses in a backpack and tripod in my hand. If I fall and fall down (quite easy to happen on snowy/icy hills) the only thing that will be damaged is likely to be the tripod and it is likely not damaged to such a degree that its use would be affected. I don't consider climbing or hiking in a forest with climbs and falls while dangling a camera or lens around my neck to be safe for the gear, either, and certainly not two cameras. Taking some time to set up after arriving to the location is normal and I don't mind it at all.
-
It seems this interesting discussion is now more about who is right or who is wrong than about a realistic or unrealistic scenario :'(
What about a more common, regular setup like the 2.8 holy trinity plus 2 bodies (e.g. 850/810 & 500) weighing in at 5.5 kilograms.
I don't think it is about what is unrealistic vs unrealistic. I agree that hiking with six exotic telephotos is ridiculous, but I think that hiking with two cameras and seven lenses is also ridiculous and that the difference in ridiculousness between carrying six exotic telephotos and carrying two cameras and seven lenses is not that great.
I mentioned carrying six exotic telephotos because it is physically possible but photographically ridiculous, to make the point that what you carry is a matter of photographic choice, not physical capacity. A decision to carry the three f/2.8 zooms, instead of the 16-35/4 + 70-200/4, or the Sigma f/1.8 zooms, or a 24/1.4 + 105/1.4, or to go the full Christmas Tree like JKoerner007, needs to be explained not by the size of your bag, but by the photographic reasons you want all the focal lengths between 14mm and 200mm and f/2.8 but not f/1.8 or f/1.4.
-
Check out this guy...
I can't see any guy... :o :o :o
-
Two, on the right side there appears to be something like a 300/2.8 and a longer tele on the back.
Here is another:
https://petapixel.com/2012/04/23/nikkor-1200-1700mm-the-mother-of-all-super-telephoto-nikon-lenses
I could post a photo of me carrying a 200 lb person over my shoulders, but that doesn't mean it's physically-possible to carry the same load for several miles in the CA desert/mountains ...
Nor is it desirable as a 'routine' even if Rasputin could do it ;)
Les already admitted six big teles was an exaggeration, so why not let it go?
If people like you would stop commenting, I would.
How about repeating your question in a mirror :P
As for having gear immediately accessible, why is there such a requirement? I would never walk or even move the camera attached to a tripod simply because it could be damaged in the process, and it's harder to control what your lens hits if it is dangling from a tripod behind your shoulder. When I move in the forest, I carry the camera and lenses in a backpack and tripod in my hand. If I fall and fall down (quite easy to happen on snowy/icy hills) the only thing that will be damaged is likely to be the tripod and it is likely not damaged to such a degree that its use would be affected. I don't consider climbing or hiking in a forest with climbs and falls while dangling a camera or lens around my neck to be safe for the gear, either, and certainly not two cameras. Taking some time to set up after arriving to the location is normal and I don't mind it at all.
You must be a landscape shooter.
If you're shooting birds, or other wildlife, your moment is lost 9x out of 10, if you have to "stop, unpack, attach camera to tripod, focus, shoot."
(Not a very smart strategy if you're looking for Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster ... lol)
Similarly, if I see a rare bird, that I've never seen in my life, or some other fleeting moment, the last thing I want to do is start unpacking my gear in order to be able to capture that moment.
You're talking about a totally different genre.
That is why ONLY my landscape lenses are in a pouch (I can take all the time I want then).
But I always want my wildlife lenses immediately available, lest I miss the moment of a lifetime.
-
You're talking about a totally different genre.
That is why ONLY my landscape lenses are in a pouch (I can take all the time I want then).
But I always want my wildlife lenses immediately available, lest I miss the moment of a lifetime.
We are all talking about our own ways of shooting.
I never carry a long lens mounted on my camera.
Doesn’t make me right, doesn’t make me wrong.
Enjoy and celebrate the different ways we all work.
-
Memorizing the angle of view of a 90mm lens on five formats is too much for me. I have decent idea of what 90mm means to a 4x5, 6x9, 6x7, 6x6 (645 with a mind operated rotating back), 36x24, 24x16; I think that was fives so I'll stop.
I think most know what they mean when they say such a lens has more reach on such a format. I'm reaching for my mouse and I'm not checking for typos. I'm going to click the post button even if I should not.
Dave Hartman
-
And all the better if the telephoto one invests in the future will be (hopefully) enabled with integral bespoke TC(s). What a Game changer! sales of such optics will accrue provided not overpriced. As with what's been achieved in space science, IT and genomics etc, the more audacious suggestions and demands for innovative solutions are first treated with voluble pessimism. But history tells us technology so often triumphs, where after the doom-and-gloom brigade pretends they were believers in any case..... Just a decade back, who would have believed if a forum post had postulated the mass production of the Dinky phase-fresnel telephoto prime (that overcame the glitches of the Canon)? ;D ;D
While my long term interests in choosing the optimum camera gear are to meet my own peculiar needs, I've tried to understand what factors and demands are changing the overall market, not least the potential that is possible today thanks to new technologies in materials and innovations. One has to consider where markets are improving, and for telephotos the needs of nature photographers on the move are swelling in numbers.
This is excellent for several reasons, and more will benefit where technology delivers innovative solutions. IMHO, the telephoto design space has only begun to acknowledge the keystone role of the Humble Teleconverter :-)
We are all talking about our own ways of shooting.
I never carry a long lens mounted on my camera.
Doesn’t make me right, doesn’t make me wrong.
Enjoy and celebrate the different ways we all work.
Yes exactly. Good point
And this is a diversity of Genres to be respected. There are many able to succeed with wildlife shooting only from within Hides and Vehicles (the Sherpa-trekker too) enjoy their optimum choices of optics.
The shooter on the move seeks their operational minimum of gear, where flexibility is enabled by not only zooms but equally packing along one, or more, Teleconverters to increase the range of focal lengths. The mountaineers tend to take this to the extreme with the lightest system they have found works for them. This is why I often highlight Galen Rowell's argument. Their are good reasons why Rowell packed his light solution, but he was the first to admit it was a compromise. He did now lack for choice. And by the way, his daughter recounted (in the commeraotive tribute) how her father photographed the lynx stalking the rabbit from within his truck :-)
So it's plainly obvious that there are variations from the many lenses etc packed on a mule (biped or quadruped) in a pack of 20kg (and heavier) along the continuum to the smallest optical system, which all fits snugly on belt and\or harness. Some of us subscribe to a DLSR based system, others may well choose a mirrorless solution. Accessibility to shoot with the minimum of delay is all too often a prerequisite. The latter cases seek the singular telephoto BUT with the maximum of flexibility. Hence the f3.3 Threshold in Telephoto Design Space, where the shooter carrying their single long lens has more choices in capturing and composing their photographs.
After all, GAS notwithstanding, there are good reasons why the Nikon system presents so many choices in lenses (as do the other systems).
kind regards
woody
-
[...] his daughter recounted (in the commeraotive tribute) how her father photographed the lynx stalking the rabbit from within his truck :-)
Rowell himself tells the story in Mountain Light, where the picture is reproduced - for people who don't have the book it is here (http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-lynx-in-alpine-flowers-teklanika-river-alaska-range-alaska-9520494.html). There are a number of aspects of the story relevant to this discussion.
He already knew that lynxes were hunting in daylight, and approaching human habitation, because his daughter had seen one near park headquarters. He knew why: the snowshoe hare population in Denali had collapsed and the lynxes were starving. Snowshoe hares are active at dusk and are often seen along roadsides. He had put a 200mm lens on the camera because it was nearing dusk and he knew he could not possibly use anything longer because he had already set the exposure for the prevailing light.
He was hoping to photograph relatively large animals, relatively close (200mm isn't going to work for anything else), standing still (what else at 1/125? He saw the lynx take the hare, but at 1/125 there are no photographs of that part). He was not just cruising along waiting for "whatever nature might throw" at him.
The same is true of other Rowell photographs - including the famous one of the rainbow over the Potala palace in Lhasa. He did not just stumble across the picture, he made it happen. Because he knew that each end of a rainbow is 42 degrees from the antisolar point, he knew precisely where he had to be to make a rainbow intersect with the Potala - plus he could run hard enough at 3600m altitude to get there in time. He set out with one lens - a 75-150/3.5 - because he knew the picture he wanted, and he knew where he was, so he knew the angle of view he would need before he got there and looked in the viewfinder.
-
Yes, the loss of Rowell and his wife in the light plane crash was a tragedy. I have his "Galen Rowell's Vision". His books are essentially a collection of photographic essays in which he comments on subject material and related issues, frequently sharing how he has solved photographic problems. Well worth tracking his books down.
-
We are all talking about our own ways of shooting.
I never carry a long lens mounted on my camera.
Doesn’t make me right, doesn’t make me wrong.
Enjoy and celebrate the different ways we all work.
Fair enough and well said.
-
I also never carry a long lens on my camera
I feel it much wiser to carry a long lens with my camera mounted on it ;-)
-
I also never carry a long lens on my camera
I feel it much wiser to carry a long lens with my camera mounted on it ;-)
Yes, much easier.
-
I would even suggest it is best to disengage body and heavy lens for transport rather than carry them attached. If the body and lens fall and the body comes down first, there will not be left much to repair.
-
In my Kiboko bag lenses and Cameras are transported disengaged, in the Lowe long lens trekker engaged, in the Lowe Flipside AW both but mostly disengaged.
when I carry the equipment outside its mostly engaged.
Beware that a camera body can disengage from it s own (and fall down) when only the lens is carried. I had that happen with my D700, fortunately it was equipped with the MB-D10 so it had no damage otherwise it would have had.
-
Hi all.
A most interesting discussion. Everyone seems to have different use cases so of course their solutions are going to differ as well. Speaking only about the Nikon long lenses I find that I generally don't break out my 600 unless I am not hiking too far between shots. The lens is just so heavy (13 lbs for the non-VR version) that I just don't trust it slung over my shoulder on the tripod and I don't like to break it down and carry it separately although I do. If it is only 10 or 20 yards between shots I lift the whole rig (Series 5 Gitzo with Wimberley gimbal) straight up and rest the tripod base on my shoulder with two legs front and back and one out to the side (more difficult to describe than to do). If I am hiking more than a mile to shoot a Bald Eagles' nest and I need the length because of the swamp between me and the nest (obviously not a hypothetical) then I carry the lens in a case, the camera on my hip and the tripod through the loop on my back.
If I am hiking quite a bit I will usually use my 500 f/4 on a series 3 Gitzo with the Wimberley gimbal. At 7.5 lbs (non-VR) I just fold up the legs and throw that rig over my shoulder without a care. The 500 f/4 is a minimal hassle lens to use. The 400 f/2.8 at 10 lbs (non-VR) is in between and is marginal on a series 3 gitzo with Sidekick and I would never sling that over my shoulder. I will often just carry my 200-500 and D500 on a BlackRapid strap especially for scouting trips.
Again there are so many use cases that there is no one size fits all solution.
JIM
-
Hi all.
A most interesting discussion. Everyone seems to have different use cases so of course their solutions are going to differ as well. Speaking only about the Nikon long lenses I find that I generally don't break out my 600 unless I am not hiking too far between shots. The lens is just so heavy (13 lbs for the non-VR version) that I just don't trust it slung over my shoulder on the tripod and I don't like to break it down and carry it separately although I do. If it is only 10 or 20 yards between shots I lift the whole rig (Series 5 Gitzo with Wimberley gimbal) straight up and rest the tripod base on my shoulder with two legs front and back and one out to the side (more difficult to describe than to do). If I am hiking more than a mile to shoot a Bald Eagles' nest and I need the length because of the swamp between me and the nest (obviously not a hypothetical) then I carry the lens in a case, the camera on my hip and the tripod through the loop on my back.
If I am hiking quite a bit I will usually use my 500 f/4 on a series 3 Gitzo with the Wimberley gimbal. At 7.5 lbs (non-VR) I just fold up the legs and throw that rig over my shoulder without a care. The 500 f/4 is a minimal hassle lens to use. The 400 f/2.8 at 10 lbs (non-VR) is in between and is marginal on a series 3 gitzo with Sidekick and I would never sling that over my shoulder. I will often just carry my 200-500 and D500 on a BlackRapid strap especially for scouting trips.
Again there are so many use cases that there is no one size fits all solution.
JIM
Appreciate your info, Jim.