david_r._edan

Totally agree, however, when shooting stitched panoramas a polarizer is usually out (sometimes it can be used but 90% of the time it will do more harm than good). A UV filter will help a little with cutting through some horrendous haze. I usually have a UV filter with me and I slap it on whenever there's a bunch of haze but only after I've already captured my pano without any filter and if I have the extra time. The improvement over unfiltered images is negligible at best but when the atmospherics are that atrocious - every little bit helps.

We already had this discussion here awhile back (bgelfand gave you the link to it). You can read what I said there about the vignetting (and everything else). Here's what the new Tammy 24-70 G2 looks like compared to the old 28-75: Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens Image Quality • Hover the mouse cursor over the sample to see the older lens. Adjust the focal lengths and apertures to see what you need. Couldn't find the 35-70 Nikkor in the database but here are the vignetting samples in the G2 (in case you missed it in the old post): Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens Vignetting Same thing, you can browse through the different focal lengths and apertures. Enjoy.

Fine by me, man, but this is a discussion in a forum (which involves other people), so, I'm still here to partake (or not, depends on what will be said). I'll do my best not to offend you, that much I can promise.

As far as I'm concerned no one was offending anyone or being offended. I was merely being 'colorful'. I think that you also got it wrong with regards to my current setup which is a D850 as the main body (never owned or used the D500). I myself made a mistake of thinking that you were considering "upgrading" from an "AF-I" to a screwdriver lens. Nevertheless, what I said still holds. And those pictures don't mean anything. I could dig out a couple of keepers from a pile of trash myself. Not saying anything about those photos or your photography, I'm simply illustrating that even if the AF is bad you are bound to get hits if you take tons of pictures. The fact that you're looking to improve your hit rate, shooting perched birds, is indicative of your situation and the very flaw in the system that I was talking about. I'll say it again: getting another "screwdriver" lens is really not the way to go about it. On a side note: I was giving friendly advice (as per your request) which would save you a good amount of time and money, should you choose to follow it. Please, there's no need to get yourself checked in for an observation, I wasn't being literal. Because this is a discussion in an open forum, the information (and advice) posted here has the potential of affecting other people's decisions further down the road. I felt that in 2020, spending actual money on a screwdriver 300mm lens for birding should be strongly discouraged, in general. Hence the colorful wording.

A crop body and a 300mm for birds is not a terrible combination but no VR? (Talking about the 300 AF-S). You will definitely need a monopod, even when bumping the ISO to something undesirable. You see, this lens (as many others) is an f/4 only on paper. In reality it's something like half a stop dimmer than f/4, wide open. I only shoot with it at f/8, f/11 and f/16, because I need the DOF and the reduced vignetting for shooting my panos. And when I said that this lens is "good", that's what I was talking about, not at wide-open. I've shot full-body portraits with it outdoors and even closeups in my studio, most around f/4 and f/5.6. It was OK for that at f/5.6 but the pictures almost looked like they came out of a zoom at f/4. This lens is good for what it is and you'll like the photos so long as you don't expect it to be what it's not. On the plus side, my copy of the 4D AF-S is surprisingly good with a 1.4TC, so that's something. Again, talking about F-8, in that range, have not actually tested it wide-open. Maybe I have but if the IQ was good I would remember. Anyway, if you're already on a monopod, you should be fine stopping down to F/5.6 (=F8), bumping up the ISO and getting a crisp, tight shot with that "630-mm" combo. With stationary birds you should be OK (so long as the squeaky AF doesn't spook them) but to catch anything decent mid-flight you'd have to be very lucky. (Personally, I don't believe in luck) *Set aside those $$$ for fixing the motor when it gives out. PS: If in this day and age, and with a current DSLR body you are even considering a screwdriver tele lens for birds, you need to have your head examined. AF speed isn't even what I'm talking about. Screwdrivers are notoriously inaccurate and because of their inherent inconsistency they are impossible to fine-tune to be within an acceptable margin of error, not with pixel-packed DSLRs. For distant objects (like sports) you could get into the ballpark (no pun intended) but with birds (close focus), at or close to wide-open? On a monopod or handheld? You're in the worst possible scenario, where you will need every bit of accuracy out of the AF. If your "tool" for the job is an old screwdriver, dude, you're "screwed"!

You're happy with the image quality of your current 300mm lens and are considering an upgrade to the 300/AF-S, purely for its better AF which you are well aware of being very dicey? Did I just help you answer your own question? Nonetheless, as an owner of the 300/4D AF-S I feel I should say a few things about the lens. I've had it for about 15 years but don't let that throw you off. I bought it for capturing stitched panoramas and that's what I've been doing with it 99% of the time, which is actually quite rare. Even when I'm out shooting all day and have the lens with me, I might break it out only a couple of times. For each such "occasion" I engage the AF 3-4 times tops... So, very little strain on that motor and the total mileage I have on it must be in the low 3-digits, if we're drawing those parallels. With that kind of use the lens started squeaking on me after only about 2 or 3 years (I bought it new). Today, it doesn't squeak every time but I have a feeling that it isn't long before the motor punches out. For my panoramas: I activate the AF once and leave it there for a long time. With any type of "demanding" or even "normal" AF use you're gonna burn through that motor so fast. If you're, like, shooting birds and what not, you'll run that motor into the ground after a couple of months of everyday use. Some people will disagree but to you it doesn't mean anything. It's a crapshoot with this lens and it's you rolling the dice. Also, optically this lens is good but nothing to write home about. Physically, it's heavy and bulky and the built-in hood is very annoying. The stock tripod collar (foot) is stupid. I actually had it replaced a couple of years ago with something else (much better IMO). For what it is, I like this lens but I don't love it. I would have replaced it with the newer 300mm PF, for its lesser weight and bulk, if nothing else, but that one just doesn't quite cut it optically. It's very close but it's not as sharp as my current 300mm, so, it wouldn't be an "upgrade" by definition. Also, as a bonus, not to upgrade my 300mm AF-S costs me nothing.

I agree. Especially, with a pixel-packed sensor like the one on D800, a defective pixel will produce an artifact which is smaller in size than your typical dust spec. However, there is a chance that that defective pixel will be very pronounced, despite its small 'physical' size. A white (hot) pixel in the night sky, a black dot (dead pixel) in a clear sky... Dust specs are almost never 'black'. Typically they range from bright gray to dark gray and with the right skill set one stands a good chance of physically getting rid of the ones that are currently bugging you, for good. But if those black dots really are dead pixels, you may have to keep living/dealing with them for as long as you're processing the photos out of that camera, unless you decide to immediately replace the sensor, which is unrealistic, or to replace the whole camera. Having a few dead pixels in your sensor is not the end of the world, even if you're stuck with them for good. And, fortunately, more and more "dead pixels" are becoming a thing of the past (and I'll explain), plus, not all dead pixels are actually "dead pixels". There are "stuck pixels", "hot pixels" and who knows what else. Sometimes, stuck pixels can be easily fixed (like, for real) and I remember reading an interesting article or a discussion (can't remember that) where they were talking about a camera's ability to "self-repair" (but, actually - conceal) defective pixels. It works on a similar principle as the Long Exposure Noise Reduction, however, the approach is not quite the same. Bad pixels are permanently mapped and cloned out in every subsequent picture that you take. This approach is also of particular use when it comes to shooting at high ISOs. As the gain is increased, a whole bunch of pixels (and quite shockingly, many more than you know and would like to have) begin 'acting out' by becoming 'hot'. There is no practical way of fixing them, so they're just 'replaced' on the spot. Any pixel has the potential of becoming 'hot' during a long exposure and the way to 'fix' those is to shoot a dark frame and take care of it in post, or let the camera do just that right there and then. However, I am talking about short exposures at very high ISO's, which is something else. Some pixels are just recognized as 'problematic' and get mapped (permanently) by whichever IC that's tasked with doing it. The bottom line is that this is done behind the scenes and we, the users have no way of knowing whether or how many bad pixels each of us actually has in our sensors. *A special test, conducted in a lab setting can reveal any and all 'misbehaving' photosites but it's not something you can do at home. I couldn't tell you how many camera models are concealing bad pixels this way at present, but by now, I would guess that pretty much all of the newer ones. But perhaps someone here knows more about it. At any rate, something like this has next to zero impact on the real-world applications of photography, especially considering the ever-growing pixel count and the ever-diminishing significance of each individual pixel in the frame. But I'll tell you this: I had just remembered something. When I bought my D800 in 2012 I immediately put it through a bunch of tests. In the very first photos that I've captured with that camera I noticed 4 or 5 'colorful' dots (pixels): A few red, green and blue ones. They were just 'normal' exposures, probably around 1/8" or 1/15", on a tripod, at the base ISO, so, naturally, I became concerned. I remember looking it up on Google and at one place it said that the camera should be able to take care of those faulty pixels on its own. I can't remember if it said there that I should let the camera do a sensor cleaning or even if I actually did anything about it. The next thing I knew, those 'dots' were gone, not to return ever again. What I suspected had happened was that the camera came with a few defective photosites in the sensor, and as we know, each pixel is comprised of several of those. So, if at least one photosite is out of commission, the affected pixel will really stick out from the crowd. At the time, it was obvious to me but because I never had to deal with anything like that again I had forgotten all about it and just went on to learn about and enjoy my new camera.

To be fair, Andrew, I skimmed over your post. Yes, all the pieces are there. However, I felt that the OP needed clear instruction on this DSLR 101 stuff. That's why I didn't "catch" what you were saying. Also, I myself agree that fast CF memory cards go nicely with a D800, and they're not expensive as they used to be. However, a word of caution. Back in the day when I was shopping around for an upgrade to my then-current CF cards, I read up that large-capacity (and "fast") memory cards can actually slow down a D800. So, I settled on a 64-GB one, because of that claim which was also backed up by several other parties (and also because it made sense). I ended up buying the Lexar Professional UDMA 7, 1066x, 160 MB/s which I am using to this day with my D800 (but only because I gave it a new life as an infrared camera). With the 77 MB/s, tested, sustained, in-camera write speed, it frees up the buffer really fast, compared to my other two, older 32-GB cards. However, at times I do feel that it makes the camera a little more sluggish at other tasks. Like, for example, it takes the Live View a little longer to come on. Browsing through photos feels a little more laggy (which is not a word, apparently). But let me tell you, I would not want to find out just how much this camera lags with a 256-GB CF card, for example. The number of photos stored on a card is a factor but it is not the only bottle neck with such huge capacities. Nevertheless, not all CF cards are made equal. Actually, to the point that compatibility issues are commonplace. But even when two similar memory cards interface with the camera just fine, the inner workings of such 'compatible' cards can be quite different between all the different brands and makes. I have not researched the subject in several years, yet I remain fairly convinced that in a Nikon D800 the write speed is maxed out at around 80 MB/s but perhaps someone can shed some new, brighter light on the current state of this dying technology. *In this context it would have to be specific to performance of the Nikon D800 camera with a CompactFlash memory card. Also, I (and I assume others too) am interested in the camera's functioning abilities besides photo capture. To make a long story short, large-capacity CF cards are affordable and the fast ones are great on paper but in the actual reality it may be better to buy multiple cards of smaller capacities. It's a jungle out there and without research one risks purchasing a new memory card which will not work at all with an older camera like the D800.

Kinda wondering why nobody is advising this guy to do the simplest of tests... Capture 2 sample photos of a bright wall or the sky, focused at infinity: one at f/22 and the other wide-open. *Adjust the shutter speed to match the exposure. In the stopped-down sample those "dots" should look very distinct while in the wide-open sample they shouldn't be as pronounced (or even non-existent). If that's what you're getting - it's dust. So, yeah, you will have to clean the sensor. If in both samples those dots look about the same then you've got yourself some dead pixels. No need to rush out and buy any rocket blowers, cleaning products won't do you any good. BTW: Dead pixels look almost nothing like sensor dirt at 100%.... If the OP provided a photo of the culprit I'd be able to tell what it is just by looking at it.

Well, I don't see one everyday either but it does happen once in a while. It all depends on the wind conditions and what I'm shooting. If you want, you can see some pictures of black reflectors right now. Just go to B&H's site and type "black reflector" in the search box. Technically, they're named "absorbers" but nobody calls them that. Mine's a triangle. Also, I said 'low light', not 'night'. I know what you meant but I don't want anyone to be getting the wrong picture. When you have a X1.4 TC attached to a 300/4 lens, it becomes an "f-5.6". Now, when you stop that lens down to F-8, it is actually at F-11, in terms of light. It's easy to find yourself in a "long exposure" situation, even when there's still plenty of light left, especially if you're doing an HDR and 'overexposing' for the shadows. Pulling off something like that when there's even a slight breeze is tricky, impossible if not prepared, unless blurry and/or grainy pictures is your goal.

Huh.. saw this old thread of mine bumped. Well, if you don't think that wind is a big a deal, you should try a long lens like a 400mm, in low light and I'm not talking about no large format. How about a 2-second exposure in a 3-mph wind? 3 mph is nothing special but it's enough to make your pictures pretty blurry.... (not really that pretty, actually) and I'm speaking from experience. I don't care what camera or tripod you have, wind and picture-taking don't really mix all that well. In my backpack I always carry a triangular, collapsible black reflector. I can't tell ya how many photos that thing has rescued. And in stronger winds (like 12 mph) having something like that between the wind and camera can make the difference between shooting at 1/125 instead of having to shoot at 1/4000 (that's: ISO 100, instead of 3200). I tied a piece of para-cord to one corner of that reflector and it usually goes around the back of my neck. I then, in my one hand, hold the far side of the reflector, the end of that para-cord and the cable release, while the other hand is free to manipulate the camera. PS: I'm enjoying that tripod (with that awesome Gitzo bubble level) even more, now that I got me a camera phone. Shooting RAW and stitching awesome HDR panos, keeping everything level on steep mountain slopes.

A few more questions: Will Sony continue to manufacture their XQD cards? Could they switch to CFexpress themselves entirely? Are their current XQD cards expected to drop in prices in the following months? Any information on when Nikon are expected to put out the firmware upgrade?

I have the Sony XQD card reader (USB), does anyone know if it's compatible with these new CFexpress type B cards?

I think I read somewhere that the "leader-out" was a modification you had to send your F5 in for, maybe in Thom Hogan's manual? I have it somewhere but can't be bothered to go looking for it. Anyway, back in the day, if you were any kind of "pro", you would go through rolls of film like crazy. I used to hang out with guys to whom 15 rolls meant it was a "light day". They had to carry tons of film with them, so no, each roll was not in its own nice, golden paper box. Now, in that type of scenario, imagine reaching in your bag (almost certainly in a hurry) and pulling out an already-exposed roll of film. If the leader is sticking out you'll have no way of knowing that it already has pictures on it... Guess what happens next.. (Hint: 72 photos from TWO separate shoots are ruined). There's a good reason the leader goes all the way inside the canister and a reason why this behavior is not just a custom setting. Any "working" photogs would rarely develop their own 35mm film (at least back in the 90s), so, pulling the film out of the canister was the lab's problem. Yes, you could buy a retriever to do it yourself and I've owned a few and still probably have a couple laying around somewhere. Using them successfully though, has always been a pain in the rear. That's why I always opted to use the manual rewind with BW film, because I had to develop it myself. As a side note: Reusing "unfinished" rolls of film is actually fairly easy. I used to to do it all the time, with several different camera bodies. Whenever you need to use a different stock, you make a mental note of the frame count, rewind, and write down the "frames exposed" on the canister. *You may choose to leave the leader out. When you want to use up that roll, you pop it back in, set the aperture to smallest, shutter speed to highest, keep the lens cap on and run through whatever number of frames you've written down + 1 or 2. You can then proceed to shooting normally. *You'll get extra scratches this way (at least on the base side) and the lab will probably end up cutting 1 or more photos in half... so, yeah, that's something to look out for. This is actually what prompted me to get a second F5 body.

Haven't been here in quite a while, and really, it's only by chance that I stumbled upon this (recent) post. Not surprised at all by the 'developments', since I haven't seen the focus calibration approached correctly anywhere. period. For many years been meaning to write a comprehensive tutorial, with video demonstration but couldn't figure out how to make enough money off it to make it worth my while. Now, that the reflex cameras are about to become a thing of the past, that type of focus calibration is all but pointless. So, no tutorial, not no more. And speaking of points. Best I can do is provide a few pointers and you'll have to figure out the rest, since I don't have time to teach a free course. 1. The target: must be big enough and bright enough. A good example: A3 or A4 printed sheet of white paper with something distinct for the camera to focus on. Could be a large letter "I" in the center of the page with small text around the edges that progressively decreases in size (all in black for maximum contrast). The printed target can be mounted on a sheet of plywood, taped to a door, etc.. It must be parallel to the image plane of your camera, obviously. 2. You need to be able to tell whether your focus is in front or behind the target. So, you'll need to carefully place a small object in front of your target, not directly in front but just so it appears in the frame and doesn't get in the way of AF. The "object" has to be something with enough features that will easily display if it's getting more in or out of focus. Ideally you would have an additional "indicator" that's farther from the camera than the target. But if your target is taped to a wall, for example, then it would be a no-go, obviously. At any rate, you'll have to figure out where to place those "indicators" (or just the one) in relation to the camera and the target. You may or may not have to reposition them as the focal length is altered. It's not really important where the indicators are, you just need to be able to tell (with a fair degree of certainty) which direction to move the sliders in Tap-In and if you've already overshot your mark 3. You need a control. This is the most important thing in all of this. When you're analyzing your focus tests what are your comparing them to? Or are you just going: "Oh, this looks sharp enough". You need to capture a "perfectly" focused image and you do that by focusing via Live View. You really should capture 3 or 5 of those and pick out the sharpest one (later on). Once you capture that lovely bunch, you switch over to OVF, manually de-focus the lens, reacquire focus via AF (in OVF), capture, de-focus again, re-focus, capture, repeat. You'll need to get a few shots like that for each setting (sample variation). 4. Analyzing the data. You overlay all the images in PhotoShop (load them all in a stack). You select the sharpest one from the LiveView focus samples and throw away the rest. You then begin comparing the rest of the samples to it. If all look "as sharp" then you're done! If not, you figure out if the focus is in front or behind, adjust the slider accordingly (in Tap-In) and have another go at it. Obviously, you'll have to deal with sample variation; AF inconsistency, and outright focus errors. Reading the data correctly, recognizing and disregarding bad samples is key. And you really do need to capture several "identical" samples in each test, otherwise you could end up chasing your own tail. There's a logic to how many samples and at what stage but I couldn't possibly get into it here. I'll give you this though: Too many is better than not enough, at least in terms of end results and possibly even how long it all takes you. A small tip: Sometimes a sample from an OVF focus will be even sharper than the controls that were focused in LiveView. When it occurs (and it will) that sample becomes the control image. (Yes, even in LiveView there will be noticeable inconsistencies in AF behavior). Disclaimer: This is just a rough outline of a fairly complex procedure. There's a million tiny things that have the potential of taking you down the wrong path, especially if you don't understand this. For me, however, it's been very straightforward from the get-go and not hard to do at all, because from the very first attempt at focus calibration I understood what needed to be done. Getting there has always been just a natural process. Your experience may vary. Taming the AF always takes time though, even if you have my understanding and experience. I'm done for today. Best of luck. PS: If someone reading this is at a point in their life where they need to be explained things like: tripods, cable releases, camera shake due to mirror slap, proper lighting and consistent exposure of the target, then, like, just give it up, you're wasting your time trying to figure out WTH I was talking about.