Good photo from 80-400 VR1 lens

[daniel_smithson]

<p>What is scene capture mode normal? I typically use sport or landscape, I might have used the green setting for this shot that came out very nice <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/136279335@N04/23012965225/in/dateposted-public/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/136279335@N04/23012965225/in/dateposted-public/</a> I edited this shot to this <a href=" The thing is that I was at a 210mm zoom, I wanted 400 but had a mountain at my back. So my lens can take a useable photo after all, but I still miss every shot at 400............WTF times 10<br>

Also what Nikon or other software should I be using to do the initial view of my photos, where I can get all the photo data with the photo at he same time such as camera, lens, and all the exposure and scene program data</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>Nikon's View NX2 and Capture NXD both will give you at least most of the EXIF data you seek. For some reason neither will give you the shutter count for the camera, but otherwise they are pretty complete.</p>

<p>A really fast and convenient program for viewing photos is the freeware Irfanview. With the right computer codec loaded it will read Raw files as well as JPG and just about anything else, including movies, and will save files in any of a number of forms. Very quick resizing, batch operations, etc. as well, and very minimal post processing, though there's a little bit. It includes a "photo information" screen that gives you a good readout of EXIF and other data. For just leafing through a bunch of pictures, this is much faster than the Nikon programs. This is the best program I've found for bulk conversion if you want, for example, to create a CD from a selection of images.</p>

<p>There's another freeware program called "Faststone Image Viewer," which does much the same thing as Irfanview. I find its interface less convenient and fast, but it does a couple of things better. It has a very good full screen view, a very nice cropping mode allowing you to select different preset aspect ratios, and is the only program I have found that alters the code for a vertical image such that every other program will always open it correctly.</p>

<p>You can also get info on the camera, if you select the appropriate playback display option (in the playback menu). There is one option called "overview" that gives you a small image, a histogram, and basic EXIF info all on one screen. You can enable any and all of the options in the menu, and then when you're playing back a photo, use the up and down arrows to cycle through the different screens.</p>

<p>edit to add: I assume in the post above, you're asiking about "normal" picture control. If you want to compare the picture controls, the best way to do this is to shoot the image in Raw form, and open it in either View NX2 or Capture NXD, which allows you to shuttle between them. You can then see just how the different color sets compare. "Normal" is what Nikon considers a more or less natural color set, which some people find a bit lacking in snap, but is less saturated than "vivid" and more saturated than "neutral." Landscape mode is a bit more saturated in some areas, especially greens. </p>

<p> </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>

<p>but I still miss every shot at 400............WTF times 10</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, part of it may be AF tuning, but the older 80-400 was not at its best at 400mm. Nor were its contemporaries, like the 150-500 Sigma or 200-500 Tamron, all that good at the long end. Even the 200-400 f/4 is reportedly not that sharp at long range. The latest batch of telephoto zooms - the new 80-400, the even newer 200-500 Nikkor, the latest -600mm zooms from Tamron and Sigma - appear to be stronger at the long end, especially the "Sport" Sigma and the 200-500 Nikkor. Or you could get a 400 f/2.8...<br>

I do initial editing in DxO, which has quite a lot of EXIF data; so does Photoshop. On Linux, I use ImageMagick's "identify" command (with -verbose). I'd use the same under CygWin.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Shooting at 400mm or above with any lens, even those with VR, requires good technique and proper exposure settings (with regard to shutter speed) in order to achieve good results.</p>

[daniel_smithson]

<p>The VR option is marketed to require less technique, as it enables hand holding according to the sales pitch. My camera settings are engineered by Nikon, not chosen by me, that said if they do not work, Nikon is to blame. People with this lens just believe that the other guy who takes stunning photos is a better photographer than they are, when in reality all that matters is that the lens that they have should work. Thus the photos of others are meaningless, that is like saying the other guys new car ran well, so your new car has no guarantee of fitness for purpose.</p>

[johnr78735]

Hello Daniel,

 

Let me first say that I previously owned the first generation Nikon 80-400 VR lens (now sold), now I own the new Nikon

80-400 VRII and also the Nikon 400 f2.8 VR. I shoot 2 Nikon D800 bodies. The first gen 80-400 performed well enough

for me once I learned that my best photos above 200 mm were always at 1/1,000 sec or higher and at f8 or higher. To

expect more from this lens is a prescription for heartburn. The new 80-400 is very, very good at 400mm...good enough

that I am seriously considering selling my 400 mm f2.8 VR. I shoot mostly wildlife, particularly big game and my grand

kids tennis, soccer and swimming with the 80-400 and love it. I am always after the image I want and shoot high iso's

freely to get what I want...the D800 bodies allow me to shoot at iso's of 6400 regularly with very good results. My

suggestion to you is to dial up your iso, shutter speed and f stop, get on a good tripod and shoot away. I hope your

results will be much improved.

 

Best regards,

John Rogers

Austin, Texas<div></div>

[Peter_in_PA]

 

<blockquote>

<p>The VR option is marketed to require less technique, as it enables hand holding according to the sales pitch. My camera settings are engineered by Nikon, not chosen by me, that said if they do not work, Nikon is to blame.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Daniel, a poor workman blames the tools. And a poor salesman (imho) makes promises that can't be kept by the products he sells. And it's very important to know that product claims in advertising are not designed to inform you, but rather to get you to buy the product.<br /><br />Any lens, especially a zoom that is f5.6 at the long end, will have compromises, normally at the most extreme end (longest f.l. for a tele zoom, shortest f.l. for a wide/ultra-wide zoom). That is to be expected. Even some very expensive zooms suffer at those extremes in one way or another (sometimes mitigated by stopping down 2 stops).<br /><br />And what Elliot says about very long focal lengths is inescapable. On a DX camera, if you shoot anything moving (or not even) with a 400mm lens, any exposure below 1/600 can be problematic, especially if your technique isn't really great. VR helps a little (and the 80-400 uses first gen VR if you have the old one, so it's less useful than VR II), but helps the least at extreme focal lengths and in extreme situations.</p>