Upvote
0
Beautiful, Impressive (you can change the order by your taste)!!!Great pictures from you guys recently, Alan, henry, & usern4cr. This is a Snowy that I took last mo in Fla who was defending his nesting site. I just love those guys--they're such divas when they are courting and nesting. Converted it to BW in LR because it got rid of the busy background.
We're leaving this week to photograph courting and nesting flamingo on the Yucatan peninsula (it should be insufferably hot and humid--ugh) so hope to have some of those to post soon. R5 + RF 100-500
CatherineView attachment 197120
I shot at at 1/2500s from exactly the same distance and took many shots of each - I often compare use of tripod and hand holding in my frequent testing and there’s no difference for me at high shutter speeds. The !00-500 eyeAF was on the eye in each case whereas the Nikon was just pointed at the eye, which is how I shoot in practice. I’ve compared the lenses on chart targets with similar results to these here but I wanted to try on a real bird target. As you say, the nice thing about the 100-500mm, is it’s light compared with the Nikon 200-5.6. Actually, the 500PF is so sharp at its mfd of 3m, it’s great for close ups of butterflies etc as the dof is better at 3m than 1.2m and getting closer than 3m scares the skittish insects.I would say the upper photos are slightly better but: as I know you are not shooting from tripod - hard to say if it's the same focus accuracy/stability (if we are comparing just the lenses, if we are comparing the systems the variables are getting even more).
I'm not guessing witch one is the prime and witch one is the zoom. They are pretty much comparable in this case (and I'm sure it's what you are saying here).
And it's my dilemma: when I go traveling (I hope it will happen sooner than later) which lens to take with me: 200-500 (at 500 not as sharp as the prime but just go on/under let say 400... and it's something: huh - in picture quality and unfortunately in the weight) The distance to the object also plays - in favor to the prime for bigger objects and in favor to the zoom for closeups like insects - go figure!). It seems with yours 100-500 there is not much of that dilemma!
Female blackbird.
200-500 with it's 2.20meters MFD is better (at 500mm!) for small insects (in comparison to the 3.00meters MFD of the 500PF). For some bigger butterflies/insects at less than 500mm focal length it's simply superior. It seems just 80cm less air to the object are making visible difference (at least for the conditions that I have on Hawaii). For small birds 500PF is better - hands down!!! For birds of the size of the Night Heron with 200-500 I have to go closer (and go down from 500mm) for somewhat similar results but I prefer the 500PF for these - it's just better! I still have to see how it looks for bigger birds (like the Gray Heron etc). In generally if there is not much heat diffraction I would expect significantly better photos from 500PF. In case of such a diffraction, and if I can get closer to the object (to eliminate or reduce the diffraction) I would expect better results from 200-500 (at less than 450-400mm focal length).I shot at at 1/2500s from exactly the same distance and took many shots of each - I often compare use of tripod and hand holding in my frequent testing and there’s no difference for me at high shutter speeds. The !00-500 eyeAF was on the eye in each case whereas the Nikon was just pointed at the eye, which is how I shoot in practice. I’ve compared the lenses on chart targets with similar results to these here but I wanted to try on a real bird target. As you say, the nice thing about the 100-500mm, is it’s light compared with the Nikon 200-5.6. Actually, the 500PF is so sharp at its mfd of 3m, it’s great for close ups of butterflies etc as the dof is better at 3m than 1.2m and getting closer than 3m scares the skittish insects.
These are nice photos, usern4cr, but if you're looking for ways to improve image quality, they look too dark to me. I'd increase exposure or blacks and probably decrease contrast or saturation a bit. It depends on your monitor setup, of course, but I recall that I didn't have this impression when I saw your cat photos. Also, I think that #2 is out of focus, which to me always means the picture "goes to the basket without parole". These are just my criteria to select good photos.These are the start of the (hopefully) better backyard photos from my big file on the big Winter ice storm we had in Kentucky.
(a few of them in the file were previously shown for consideration in a show, but are included here for completeness)
(R5 & RF 100-500L)
View attachment 197125
View attachment 197126
( is it just me, or does this look like he's got a "smoking habit"? )
View attachment 197127
View attachment 197128
View attachment 197129
Cheers!
That heron's just not putting his heart into it like those egrets do! There's no one who can outdo an indignant egret! But you got great photos of the "quiet stalker type" guy!And not to be like some one who has just an opinions: these are from the last Sunday. I went there to say "good buy" to that Wandering Tattler (any way my first acceptable photos of that species in breeding plumage!). Got also a Heron (almost the same as Catherine's egret! Well, the Night Herons are not doing the same displays. All the effects are from the wind. It was really windy that day. Catherine Egret is much, much better!
Yes, #2 is somewhat OOF but I liked the background effect enough to tolerate it to show to others - but not good enough to frame.These are nice photos, usern4cr, but if you're looking for ways to improve image quality, they look too dark to me. I'd increase exposure or blacks and probably decrease contrast or saturation a bit. It depends on your monitor setup, of course, but I recall that I didn't have this impression when I saw your cat photos. Also, I think that #2 is out of focus, which to me always means the picture "goes to the basket without parole". These are just my criteria to select good photos.
You got it in the right moment! I like it!Wood duck on Lake Mendota, Madison, WI.View attachment 197147
That heron's just not putting his heart into it like those egrets do! There's no one who can outdo an indignant egret! But you got great photos of the "quiet stalker type" guy!
!
: "Oh, and the crummy animal eye AF wouldn't grab the eyes!" May it could be because of too many eyes? And I don't want to ask about the distance! Seriously - are all that white dots on the first photo Snows (nice photo BTW)?! Few years ago when I met my first 3 (in group) I was so happy. Later (next year I think I met 2-3 more. Happy again.My first day with the R5 and I'm pretty disappointed in ... my performance. I couldn't remember where buttons were or what I had programmed them to. I couldn't get the AF switched when I needed to and I totally forgot to bump up my shutter speed above 1/800 with 400X2. Never the less I was thrilled because this is my first experience with Snow geese and it was amazing as you can no doubt imagine. Oh, and the crummy animal eye AF wouldn't grab the eyes!
Jack
View attachment 197150View attachment 197151