Are you staying with dSLR's? No mirrorless?

Z6 and my Gen 1 300/2.8AFS

Although the Z6's IBIS won't help for subject motion, how does the 300mm 2.8 AFS behave regarding camera shake reduction?

I have tried this using a Nikon 300/4 AFS on a Sony A7Rii. Assuming the Z7 is comparable to a Sony A7xxx, in-body stabilization can be used with a non-IS 300 mm lens, hand held down to 1/30 second, only if you rest the lens on something solid. Unsupported at the nominal minimum speed of 1/300, you will see doubling in a 45 MP image. Higher shutter speeds don't necessarily help, because the IS takes a little time to react to camera motion, adding its own version of camera shake. It's a lot better than nothing, but a tripod will give better results.

LOL, my Gen 1 300/2.8 AFS has its own version of VR...It is so heavy that it can't shake much. F=MA stuff. I always use it on a monopod to save my back and arms!

 

The lens is super sharp and renders very well, especially for people. It almost has too much saturated colors.

 

I had not given much thought to the Z6 IBIS while shooting the kickball game, but it probably contributed to the very detailed looking photos I got at the game. This photo is at 1/640, getting the shutter speed at around 1/1000 or higher helps, also. I changed to 1/1250 later. The lens works well at f/2.8, but using 3.2 gets a little extra DOF so that more of a person is in focus.

Although the Z6's IBIS won't help for subject motion, how does the 300mm 2.8 AFS behave regarding camera shake reduction?

 

IBIS is GREAT.

I put a 500mm mirror on my Olympus, press the shutter to activate IBIS and . . . WOW :D

The shaking is still there, but MUCH reduced, to the point that I feel comfortable hand holding it.

This setup is 20x magnification, like a 1000mm lens on a FF camera.

It is still going to require good technique, but it pushes the limits out.

LOL, my Gen 1 300/2.8 AFS has its own version of VR...It is so heavy that it can't shake much. F=MA stuff.

 

:-) I found the same when I first tried a 135mm DC. I sometimes wonder whether my 200/2 actually has VR, or is just labelled as such. (I guess there should be an FL version in planning by now; my mk1 is about 3/4 of the weight of a 400mm FL.)

 

This setup is 20x magnification, like a 1000mm lens on a FF camera.

 

Well, a bit. The D850 has almost exactly the same pixel density as my old micro 4/3 GF2 (admittedly, only a 12MP body). I get worried about people using focal length equivalence to calculate reach. You'd get about the reach from a 20MP Micro 4/3 body (say the latest catchy OM-D E-M1X) with a 500mm lens as from a D5 with a 1000mm (or 800mm + 1.25xTC). Which isn't to say that IBIS isn't useful or that micro 4/3 isn't useful, or that "equivalence" isn't a thing, it's just that I've seen too many 16MP bodies with "3000mm" zoom lenses, when you capture more detail with a "2400mm" 800mm + TC20 on a D7200 (and remembering this). Not all pixels are equivalent either, but they count if we're talking reach.

 

Come winter I must find time to try my 1200mm (or 10", measured the other way) Dobsonian with my D850. For short exposures, obviously. I didn't do all that well trying to get Saturn with a 200-500 and a TC14 last time; I'm not going to let P1000 owners have all the fun, just because they can take the shot in less than half an hour...

:) I found the same when I first tried a 135mm DC. I sometimes wonder whether my 200/2 actually has VR, or is just labelled as such. (I guess there should be an FL version in planning by now; my mk1 is about 3/4 of the weight of a 400mm FL.)

 

 

 

Well, a bit. The D850 has almost exactly the same pixel density as my old micro 4/3 GF2 (admittedly, only a 12MP body). I get worried about people using focal length equivalence to calculate reach. You'd get about the reach from a 20MP Micro 4/3 body (say the latest catchy OM-D E-M1X) with a 500mm lens as from a D5 with a 1000mm (or 800mm + 1.25xTC). Which isn't to say that IBIS isn't useful or that micro 4/3 isn't useful, or that "equivalence" isn't a thing, it's just that I've seen too many 16MP bodies with "3000mm" zoom lenses, when you capture more detail with a "2400mm" 800mm + TC20 on a D7200 (and remembering this). Not all pixels are equivalent either, but they count if we're talking reach.

 

Come winter I must find time to try my 1200mm (or 10", measured the other way) Dobsonian with my D850. For short exposures, obviously. I didn't do all that well trying to get Saturn with a 200-500 and a TC14 last time; I'm not going to let P1000 owners have all the fun, just because they can take the shot in less than half an hour...

 

Any chance you sell your GF2 cheap?

Well, a bit. The D850 has almost exactly the same pixel density as my old micro 4/3 GF2 (admittedly, only a 12MP body). I get worried about people using focal length equivalence to calculate reach. You'd get about the reach from a 20MP Micro 4/3 body (say the latest catchy OM-D E-M1X) with a 500mm lens as from a D5 with a 1000mm (or 800mm + 1.25xTC). Which isn't to say that IBIS isn't useful or that micro 4/3 isn't useful, or that "equivalence" isn't a thing, it's just that I've seen too many 16MP bodies with "3000mm" zoom lenses, when you capture more detail with a "2400mm" 800mm + TC20 on a D7200 (and remembering this). Not all pixels are equivalent either, but they count if we're talking reach.

 

Come winter I must find time to try my 1200mm (or 10", measured the other way) Dobsonian with my D850. For short exposures, obviously. I didn't do all that well trying to get Saturn with a 200-500 and a TC14 last time; I'm not going to let P1000 owners have all the fun, just because they can take the shot in less than half an hour...

 

I prefer magnification ratio based on the normal lens.

To me, magnification is less confusing than equivalent FL.

 

Agree on the glass making a difference.

I put a Nikon 70-200 on my D7200 and while I was expecting it, I was still amazed at how much more IQ I got out of the camera, at the same FL. I don't need a FF/FX camera, I need better lenses to make the most out of what I have.

 

I have yet to try shooting the sky with my wife's reflector. I've been thinking about it for a LONG time, just never got beyond the thinking part.

Not as big as your Dob. I "think" it has a 5 inch mirror.

City has bad light pollution for sky shooting. Then my wife lost interest in astronomy, in favor of needlepoint stitching.

Do Nikon 'allow' the 500mm PF on the J5 mirrorless?

You can attach your camera to an astronomical telescope very cheaply and easily. For a 5" reflector, you probably have a 1-1/4" eyepiece tube. No eyepiece or lens is used, just the main telescope tube, at whatever the focal length and aperture it has. The following are well-made and all metal. This is my setup for Nikon, Canon and Sony (different T adapters).

 

Celestron SLR (35mm OR Digital) Camera Adapter for All Refractor and Reflector Telescopes which Accept 1.25" Eyepieces - Requires Camera-Specific T-Mount Adapter

Vixen Optics T-Mount SLR Camera Adapter for Nikon F-Mount Cameras

Do Nikon 'allow' the 500mm PF on the J5 mirrorless?

Don't think so. J5 uses Nikon N1 lenses. Will need lens mount adapter such as the FT-1 mount adapter.

Don't think so

You misunderstand!

 

Nikon deliberately made it so if you mounted, say, the Nikon 200-500mm, to the j5 (via the FT-1) it would show an 'error' message saying you can't use this lens.

 

The theory was it prevented legal claims that fitting eg. a 600mm f4 and picking up the combo via the J5 body, broke the body mount. No kidding! The J5 is no bigger than a back-cap really!

 

I wondered if, as the PF is much smaller and lighter, it's 'allowed'?

 

They had a 'disallowed' list somewhere, but I can't seem to find an updated version!

You misunderstand!

OK, no need to yell. Sorry I didn't know you were asking a tricky question. Since no no one responded, thought I was just helping out. :(

Sorry I didn't know you were asking a tricky question. Since no no one responded, thought I was just helping out. :(

According to Nikon USA, this 500mm f/5.6E PF lens can be used on the N1 J5. (See link - - Scroll down to the bottom of the page belowr "Technology"). Hope this is the appropriate answer?

Edited August 11, 2019 by Mary Doo

Sorry Mary, I thought BLOCK CAPITALS were shouting...:confused:

 

Thank you, that's the link I was after. I couldn't seem to find it on Nikon Europe.

Any chance you sell your GF2 cheap?

 

You make it sound so tempting. :-) That's the problem - they're not worth much money, but I do have a couple of lenses for mine, an F mount adaptor that I've used, and a case and so on. So it's value to me is marginally more than I can imagine it being reasonably worth to someone else. Plus the recent announcement of a 4mm extreme fish-eye (210 degrees) is mildly interesting.

 

But it's 12MP of pretty ancient sensor tech on a relatively large body. It was at the balance point of having relatively complete physical controls and also a touchscreen, but we've got back there with the latest generations. It's not much of an aspirational body. It'll just about fit in a large coat pocket with the 14-42PZ on it, but the RX100 will take better photos in less space.

You can attach your camera to an astronomical telescope very cheaply and easily. For a 5" reflector, you probably have a 1-1/4" eyepiece tube. No eyepiece or lens is used, just the main telescope tube, at whatever the focal length and aperture it has. The following are well-made and all metal. This is my setup for Nikon, Canon and Sony (different T adapters).

 

Celestron SLR (35mm OR Digital) Camera Adapter for All Refractor and Reflector Telescopes which Accept 1.25" Eyepieces - Requires Camera-Specific T-Mount Adapter

Vixen Optics T-Mount SLR Camera Adapter for Nikon F-Mount Cameras

 

At the risk of not knowing what I'm talking about, I would expect a 1.25" eyepiece to vignette on a full-frame sensor - fortunately there's also a 2" standard for larger scopes, but obviously crop sensor systems won't have this problem. The problem I've met instead is that some scopes don't have much slack in the focusser, such that the flange distance of the F mount can cause a problem - something that mirrorless bodies suffer less from. IIRC I'm just about okay on my Skywatcher, but there isn't much slack.

 

It's often easier to focus (and position) a scope by live view than with an optical finder - you want pixel-perfect sharpness anyway. So arguably a dSLR doesn't have much of an advantage, although I'm not sure an EVF is much better than the rear screen except when it comes to not blinding other photographers; you're moving the camera to track and focus, so the head position moves.

 

Having the sensor completely open to the sky for extended periods is a little unappealing to me; mirrorless bodies tend to be a little easier to sensor clean afterwards, but even so. I've been tempted to stick a teleconverter in the way just to block dust. I do, fortunately, have a light pollution reduction filter that screws into the end of the eyepiece, and also blocks dust.

 

I long ago decided that a big tracking scope was going to be a lot of money and effort to produce images a lot worse than Hubble, especially since I have so much light pollution. A Dobsonian is a lot of light gathering for optical astronomy (there's something to be said for seeing things yourself) per unit money, although it would help if I were better at navigating the night sky. More light gathering, be it via a larger aperture or longer exposure, doesn't help me much for astrophotography: I just saturate the sensor with light pollution, even with a filter (and I'm interested in deep sky objects, so star clusters hold limited interest). A relatively small lens (300/4, may yet try my 200-500) on a cheap tracker is about as far as I'm prepared to go, and I've not even processed those images yet. For those who enjoy the processing and don't live under large amounts of urban light pollution, more dedicated set ups are, I'm sure, more rewarding. Planetary photography is a bit more amenable to street lighting, although I believe many use a web cam to capture a lot of images and try to eliminate atmospheric disturbance.

You make it sound so tempting. :) That's the problem - they're not worth much money, but I do have a couple of lenses for mine, an F mount adaptor that I've used, and a case and so on. So it's value to me is marginally more than I can imagine it being reasonably worth to someone else. Plus the recent announcement of a 4mm extreme fish-eye (210 degrees) is mildly interesting.

 

But it's 12MP of pretty ancient sensor tech on a relatively large body. It was at the balance point of having relatively complete physical controls and also a touchscreen, but we've got back there with the latest generations. It's not much of an aspirational body. It'll just about fit in a large coat pocket with the 14-42PZ on it, but the RX100 will take better photos in less space.

 

I intend to use the 17mm on it.

I intend to use the 17mm on it.

 

I suspect a Coolpix A will take better photos in less space, although it's still not exactly tiny. :-) (Update, Nikon?) They don't look expensive on eBay, though.

I suspect a Coolpix A will take better photos in less space, although it's still not exactly tiny. :) (Update, Nikon?) They don't look expensive on eBay, though.

 

Quality? Not as important as I think the GF2 was still made in Japan.

Quality? Not as important as I think the GF2 was still made in Japan.

 

I've not used by GF2 for a little while, but if you mean construction, the GF2 and Coolpix both seem fairly robust; if anything, the Coolpix A has a little more wobble in its buttons, but they're solid (as is my RX100). I'm surprised to see DPReview complain about the clickable dials in the GFX-100; I really like the GF2's version (being used to it, I guess, from my old Sony-Ericsson P800) to the extent that I'd like Nikon to adopt it (with two dials), at least as an option: you'd be able to adjust exposure and ISO without having to take a finger off the shutter. I don't really know how Nikon have forgotten the goal of "always being ready to shoot while adjusting exposure controls" from the F5 period.

 

Image quality: the Coolpix has the sensor from the D7000, IIRC - and that sensor was the point where Sony sensors started being isoless, so base dynamic range is very good. It's been a while since I edited a GF2 image, but dpreview used words like "venerable" even when it was launched, so I wouldn't expect much. I've not pushed the lens of the Coolpix far - I usually tend to use it stopped down a bit anyway for street shooting, although it's at least "okay" wide open. The 14-42PZ isn't all that special; the 20mm prime isn't all that hot wide open either. I've not tried a 17mm, but reviews I think prefer the 20mm?

 

Online reviews will probably be better than my hazy memories, though. When I want to use the GF2, it's nice to have - but if it were my go-to body I wouldn't be lurking in the Nikon forum.

I shoot film and digital so I like camera systems that make that sandbox easy to play in. That being said, I have found Nikon mirrorless cameras to be outstanding in terms of producing great images and especially the Z lenses, just spectacular. I have one D850, two Z6 and one Z7 body, the 850 will likely be my last DSLR.

Regarding OP's question, I have no plans for mirrorless, as much as I might enjoy such a system. I am just now in the process of upgrading from a D40(!) to a D7100, allowing me to more effortlessly use my manual focus lenses and my one AF-D lens. The AF-D lens came free with an N90s, which I'm also enjoying.

 

Moving from early 2000s technology to 2013 technology will give me much better low light, flashless capability, at half the cost of my original D40 purchase.

The only think tempting me to go Nikon FX mirrorless at the moment is 'in body VR' for my non-VR long teles.

 

However, I guess they will (could!) build this into the next high-end DSLR?

 

...along with pixel-shift too.

The only think tempting me to go Nikon FX mirrorless at the moment is 'in body VR' for my non-VR long teles.

 

However, I guess they will (could!) build this into the next high-end DSLR?

 

...along with pixel-shift too.

 

Pixel shift I'd like. It wouldn't hurt to have in-body VR, although it obviously won't help the viewfinder view unless something weird is done with the mirror. I assume Nikon are now over the "it makes the sensor too fragile for cleaning" thing? All the mirrorless stuff is still useful for live view (and therefore video) shooting on a dSLR, it's just whether you have the OVF there as well. And I'd still like an optional additional focus confirmation pass once the mirror lifts (admittedly, this probably means the aperture has stopped down); currently that would be contrast-detect, but I miss enough with f/1.4 glass that a final correction would be helpful. I have mild eye-detect envy, but I don't do enough portraiture for it to be limiting.

 

They need to fix the buffer (easy) and viewfinder black-out (slightly harder, at least the metering got IIRC fixed) before I don't feel I can track wildlife better with the D850, though - at least with the grip. Plus I have screwdriver lenses. Only a couple, but still.

I still shoot the D800E--a lot--but once in a while I want something lighter and so use my D7100 with a DX 17-55 f/2.8 or occasionally one of the 70-200 VR variants, or something else. I still have the D3s but have not shot it in a long time.

 

I have bought a lot of used things out of curiosity and tend to use them for specific applications. I shoot on the fly with my phone a good bit (Google Pixel 2), but I also have a Sony A6000 (mirrorless) as well as an Olympus OM-D E-M5 (mirrorless), which I shoot solely when I want to hike in the mountains and use it with a Panasonic 100-300mm so that I can have up to 600mm (effectively) in a very light package. I also have an old beater Canon 6D for low light, and I tend to keep a beater EF 24-70 f/2.8 on it expressly for that purpose. With such an array, I see no particular reason to put more money into mirrorless.

 

So, I have a lot of rigs for specialized applications, but the old D800E is pretty much what I grab before I go out the door. At seventy-four, I expect what I have will outlive me. I really am not interested in learning another system at this point. If all of the above sounds like an indulgence, well, it has been an indulgence, but I think that the D800E was about the last big thing I bought new--back in October, 2012. It's all been fun, and it still is. My Nikon stuff (except for the D3s) all runs off the same model battery and charger--I'm not totally indifferent to the virtue of simplicity, in spite of the varied collection which I have

 

I have yet to try to sell any photos. I'm saving that for my old age.

 

--Lannie

Edited August 31, 2019 by Landrum Kelly