| Moderated by: chrisbet, | Page:   1 2 |
|
|||||||
| a/f setup - Page 2 | |
Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Fri Sep 6th, 2013 07:00 |
|
11th Post |
Eric
|
blackfox wrote:no real idea jonathon ,as i said its not i.q as at 24 mp the resolving detail of this camera is superb ,i have mainly been using it with the 1.4 tc so far ,going to see what it can do with the 1.7 when conditions/sightings improve as that was my favourite setup before i.e 300 f4 + 1.7tc .even if it means using a mono or tri pod to get the sharpness ,or perhaps thats what it is theres to much detail/sharpness now .its one of those things that i can't really define .might even go back to a d300s .just don't know You know Jeff, you might be getting too hung up on the technique. There is nothing wrong with the images I have seen you present on here...even the new D7100 ones. I just wonder if you are striving for a perfection that's beyond what many of us ever attain...and which might be unattainable? I do not intend to be hypercritical or disparaging but having been through these quality examination processes many times in the past, I come back to the fact that my images are 'good enough'. It's a human trait to want to improve. It's just sometimes the potential for improvement isn't there...or is disproportionately not worth it. I have an old friend who used to shoot Nikon when I shot Canon. We went on a paintball photography jaunt. (we were photographing friends paint balling) While trying to avoid our cameras being painted we hid behind adajacent trees and took a telephoto of each other for fun. For many years I cherished his photo of me. The wife thought it was the best she had seen....I thought it was far better quality than my Canon produced. Until one day recently we had cause to open that photo album in his presence. I remarked how that photo was instrumental in me changing to Nikon when digital came along. He told me he still has the photo I took of him framed on his wall. Both he and his wife felt it was the best quality photo of him or anything they had ever seen. Not sure where I am going with this rabbiting ...except to say, sometimes the rose garden you are in IS really perfect to look at....you just have to smell the roses as well.
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 6th, 2013 07:21 |
|
12th Post |
blackfox
|
possibly right eric ,a couple of things have niggled at me ,one i like to use the 300 f4 with the 1.7tc .as its the ideal walk around combo and according to the pundits when i was having the troubles with the dodgy 7100 ,it was not useable with the 300 f4 on this camera because of pixel density etc ,added to that there has been a distinct lack of subjects in the right range and light etc to put it to the test . however yesterday i bolted on the 1.7 and got a hour in at a local reserve while everything was in place .this is one of the b.i.f shots i got ,and the whole session has helped to re-build my confidence with the system a bit . i think thats the thing i had so much trouble i have taken to analysing my pictures more than is needed .so whats your view on this one  back in the running by blackfox wildlife & nature imaging, on Flickr
|
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 6th, 2013 09:38 |
|
13th Post |
Eric
|
blackfox wrote:possibly right eric ,a couple of things have niggled at me ,one i like to use the 300 f4 with the 1.7tc .as its the ideal walk around combo and according to the pundits when i was having the troubles with the dodgy 7100 ,it was not useable with the 300 f4 on this camera because of pixel density etc ,added to that there has been a distinct lack of subjects in the right range and light etc to put it to the test . Any shot of a gull without a chip or bread in its beak is a winner in my book.  I would be more than happy with the clarity and rendition of that image. Beyond that it's down to Fieldcraft, spectacular lighting or unusual behaviour to make the difference. Non of which is camera dependant. But you know that. You are doing what we all do when changing key equipment, wanting it to behave like the previous gear...but give better results. Nothing wrong with that. You were clearly able to identify a defective body. Trouble is we can end up chasing phantoms. I did exactly the same when I bought a new macro lens. Compared it to my current lens to the nth degree. It was never showing the performance I expected from a super duper improved model. Truth was I already had a good version lens that I knew inside out. The contender was going to have to be outstanding to show an improvement over the current holder.
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 6th, 2013 11:48 |
|
14th Post |
blackfox
|
i take it its alright then i,m sure you have hit the nail on the head .really over the moon when i first got the 7100 then let down with a big bang through the month thinking that due to my mate getting the same results i was doing something wrong then finding out we had TWO duff bodies with the same faults ,but purchased from different retailers ??? sorta dents your confidence .but it will improve and now it looks good with the 1.7 i,m sure it will day by day . you would have thought nikon would have sent me a new lens as compensation for my troubles though 
|
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 6th, 2013 12:07 |
|
15th Post |
jk
|
I think Eric has hit upon something. We all expect better with newer equipment but each better camera unless it is a quantum leap, like D3 over D2X, then the quality increase is reduced. This is why I resisted the move to a D4 but went for the cheaper D800 but now find this has too many MP for me. That D600 looks mighty tempting but with rumors of a D610 coming soon it may be better to hold my money for a while longer. 2014 promises to be a great year for cameras.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 6th, 2013 14:33 |
|
16th Post |
blackfox
|
and i suppose to prove a point ,heres one the wife took on monday with my/our/hers canon 1Dmkii that cost £250 and a sigma 70-300 that cost £60 . the photo is currently featuring on BBC.UK.NATURE website and getting a good response on flickr to url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/31671466@N07/9682352809/]  [/url]long haul training day by blackfox wildlife & nature imaging, on Flickr goes to show .and proves a point
|
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 6th, 2013 14:58 |
|
17th Post |
Eric
|
blackfox wrote:and i suppose to prove a point ,heres one the wife took on monday with my/our/hers canon 1Dmkii that cost £250 and a sigma 70-300 that cost £60 . About 30 million years ago when I made wildlife 16mm films I was doing a film on migration through NNorfolk. Having trudged all over the coastal dunes and heaths chasing key migrants, I returned home. The next day on the school roof opposite our house there started a gathering of house martins. It went on and on for about an hour. There must have been nearly a thousand birds...I kid you not. I managed to get some footage of it but as it was such a surprise I wasnt prepared...and didn't have much film stock left! Never seen it again. In fact I don't recall ever again seeing a single house Martin congregate on that roof. It was as if the bird world was sticking a couple of digits up at me regarding migration. If only I knew it was going to happen in advance I could have been prepared and got some stonking footage. Not to be. Ps ...have you asked your wife to try the D7100 set up? My mate was a wedding tog until his wife bought a small compact slr (think it was a Fuji ?) and accompanied him to weddings to get cadid shots. They were so good all his print orders were coming from her shots he decided to retire. You got to watch these lady shooters ....they can steal the show. 
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 6th, 2013 15:14 |
|
18th Post |
Eric
|
jk wrote:I think Eric has hit upon something. We all expect better with newer equipment but each better camera unless it is a quantum leap, like D3 over D2X, then the quality increase is reduced. This is why I resisted the move to a D4 but went for the cheaper D800 but now find this has too many MP for me. Like I said, in this months Nikon pro magazine, I preferred the D4 images to those taken on the D800....without exception. Maybe that was due to many images being moving subject p biased which the higher pixels couldnt match ? But send the D800 over to me Jonathan, I will give it a good home. 
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 6th, 2013 15:54 |
|
19th Post |
jk
|
If you had a D3X then I'd probably agree to a swap as I have the camera and extra battery pack. The D800 is actually very good but does require a little extra effort. It is absolutely awesome in the studio. It is too good for portrait use without softening.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 6th, 2013 16:27 |
|
20th Post |
blackfox
|
you could always swap it for a d7100 with very nice man i know
|
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| This is topic ID = 693 Current time is 11:29 | Page: 1 2 | |
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Cameras > a/f setup | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Modern editor
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0619 seconds (67% database + 33% PHP). 85 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0619 seconds (67% database + 33% PHP). 85 queries executed.