500mm f/4.0P ED-IF (AI-P) vs AF-S 200-500mm f/5.6 ED VR

[Gary Naka]

... anyone know when, ie what focal length, a non-tracked rig needs to start upping the shutter speed for subject movement NOT camera movement?

 

 

I just shoot the moon at 1/1000 sec (or faster) with my 300mm lens, and don't worry about subject or camera movement.

[Andrew Garrard]

I just shoot the moon at 1/1000 sec (or faster) with my 300mm lens, and don't worry about subject or camera movement.

 

That does reduce some of the blur due to atmospheric shimmer (so long as you're not stacking). I suspect you'll be starting to lose ISO, though, depending on aperture (with a 300 f/2, sure). I believe the preferred way to moon image is to track back and forth with a webcam (which tends to have tiny pixels) and merge the result - with enough shots to play "pick the clearest" in each section.

 

With the 500mm I could easily believe that 1s would be pushing my luck. If I do more experiments, I'll try to test this. I was close to ISO64 with 1/125s at f/5.6 in my experiments, although that suffered from being hand-held.

[mike_halliwell]

If the sky clears I'll have a play this evening. Mind you, I think battery life may be a bit short tonight!

 

I guess Lunar movement is linear (NB Pedants, you know what I mean!) and camera shake is random - circular vibration?

[Andrew Garrard]

I think it's at least due to be clear tomorrow night, assuming we're close enough together that the weather report is similar. Orion's up, so I might have another go with a tripod. I might even try the tracking mount, but I'll probably run out of time and energy. This evening I'll be having fun because I made the mistake of not realising that the requirements on electronically-submitted passport photos are different from printed ones, and I suspect I'm a little too-tightly cropped - so for the second time this week (and this year) I'll be breaking out the flash guns. At least I'd already tidied the room this time. Must remember that I find photography to be fun...

[Gary Naka]

That does reduce some of the blur due to atmospheric shimmer (so long as you're not stacking). I suspect you'll be starting to lose ISO, though, depending on aperture (with a 300 f/2, sure). I believe the preferred way to moon image is to track back and forth with a webcam (which tends to have tiny pixels) and merge the result - with enough shots to play "pick the clearest" in each section.

 

With the 500mm I could easily believe that 1s would be pushing my luck. If I do more experiments, I'll try to test this. I was close to ISO64 with 1/125s at f/5.6 in my experiments, although that suffered from being hand-held.

 

I start with a full daylight exposure, 1/ISO @ f/16. Then do the equivalent exposure to get to 1/1000 sec.

• At ISO = 200, 1/1000 @ f/8
  
• At ISO = 64, 1/1000 @ f/4
  

From here I go up or down as I want the moon brighter or darker.

[Andrew Garrard]

I start with a full daylight exposure, 1/ISO @ f/16. Then do the equivalent exposure to get to 1/1000 sec.

• At ISO = 200, 1/1000 @ f/8
  
• At ISO = 64, 1/1000 @ f/4
  

From here I go up or down as I want the moon brighter or darker.

 

That's with "sunny 16"; with the equivalent "rule" for the moon's surface, "looney 11", you need to lose a stop. So you'd be at ISO 200-ish at f/5.6, and ISO 400 at f/8. On the shots above I seem to be getting on for a further stop behind that (ISO of roughly 1/shutter speed at f/8) , but I did have a small amount of high haze. I didn't do hugely better in my post on Nikon Wednesday this week with a clearer sky, but the moon was lower, so there was probably some more atmosphere affecting it. I'm quite paranoid about trying to stay as near ISO 64 as I can for dynamic range reasons, so I wouldn't tend to go above 1/1000s unnecessarily. Not that it hugely matters unless you're doing the kind of extreme processing I did with one of my Wednesday images. :-)

[Gary Naka]

Now that I have a longer lens, I got to try the "looney 11".

I shoot at 1/1000 to try to eliminate camera movement, since I am usually firing the camera on a tripod, but holding the camera vs. cable release.

[Andrew Garrard]

Now that I have a longer lens, I got to try the "looney 11".

 

I think it's a "rule" like sunny 16 is a "rule" - more of a guideline. :) (I qualify all this by not claiming to know what I'm doing, as most around here know...)

 

I shoot at 1/1000 to try to eliminate camera movement, since I am usually firing the camera on a tripod, but holding the camera vs. cable release.

 

That's a commendable attempt to get rid of vibration, given that I was shooting hand-held at 1/250s (with VR)! The worst camera-induced vibration is normally in the 1/10-1/100s range, I believe; I'd be surprised if you couldn't drop it a bit without seeing an effect, but I'm prepared to be proven wrong. You'll probably cut out a bit more atmospheric wobble with a high shutter speed than I was doing, though.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Andrew Garrard

[WAngell]

"Of course the fast AF of the D500... " With the 200-500?

 

I get extremely frustrated with the slow AF of the 200-500 on my D5 and want to pull my hair out with my D800. I think the D500 s/b the same as the D750 which is the same as the D5?

[ilkka_nissila]

The D500, D850 and D5 AF have Multi-CAM 20k series AF modules though the selection of available AF area modes varies from model to model and there are reports of the D5 being faster in some tasks (3D Tracking). The D750 and D7500 should be similar to each other (Advanced Multi-CAM 3500 II) but use a different AF sensor module than the D500/D850/D5.

 

I have only used the 200-500 with the D810 which is not as fast as the D5 though in my experience the advantages of the latter are pronounced when using fast lenses. For example with an f/5.6 lens the cross-type points are limited to the center area.

 

In my experience the 200-500 autofocus doesn't work all that well for close-by subjects (within a few meters, say 2.5 to 5m) but at longer distances (tens of meters) it seemed to autofocus acceptably on the D810. However, I only used the lens for a brief time. The 300/4 PF focuses faster and more reliably in close range than the 200-500 but of course is only a 300mm. With TCs the AF on the 300 becomes progressively less reliable as the TC factor increases. I guess my recommendation is to use the 200-500 for more distant subjects and the 300 PF (if available) for the close range.

Edited December 12, 2017 by ilkka_nissila

[Andrew Garrard]

I've used a 200-500 on a D500 and D810. I've struggled in low light with the D810, but that may not be a surprise. I found focus speed to be acceptable with both when at distance, but it's certainly not as fast as, say, a 70-200 f/2.8, and certainly not my 200 f/2. I don't think the body made a vast difference to the speed - I suspect it's cranking the AF elements over quite some distance.