BIF - settings with D4s

[PedroS]

Yes, but hard to keep where you need...

[MILLIREHM]

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.

[John G]

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.

[Frode]

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!

[Frode]

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).

[Frode]

2/3

[Frode]

3/3

[Frode]

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.

[Erik Lund]

,,,,,

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

[Bent Hjarbo]

You seem to be a fast learner
Nice pictures.

[Frode]

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?

[Frode]

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).

[Erik Lund]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Erik Lund]

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