Jump to content

Nature Unlimited, 10 February 2023


Dieter Schaefer

Recommended Posts

This is the additional weekly image thread for the Nature Forum. While images posted to this thread should still be nature in theme, it may contain a small amount of human-made objects and therefore less restricted than the Monday in Nature threads. Please see this discussion for more details: Alternative weekly thread in Nature forum

Each participant please post no more than just one image per weekly thread. Many members will appreciate any information you are willing or able to provide regarding location, shooting process, exposure settings, equipment, and information on the subject(s), including scientific and/or common names.

Pacific Brown Pelican over La Jolla Bay.

When the light's nice and in your favor but the background is definitely not. At this particular location (Goldfish Point) facing East yields a lot of "hand of man" in the background. Lots of pelicans and cormorants with very easy access along La Jolla Cove. But just like other places in California that I am familiar with, one finds oneself often on higher ground than the birds. Also, there's no access to some prime shooting locations. Some of the good ones though has one facing the ocean which often yields a very nice background. And with wind from a favorable direction, bird-in-flight photography is supreme.

La Jolla Cove

 

Edited by Dieter Schaefer
  • Like 7
  • On Point 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typically I don't have any issues with the Nikon PF lenses, as I happen to have all three models Nikon has produced, but occasionally I notice some unusual background rendered, especially when there are bright areas.

Sorry I need to add an image for comparison. I captured this one way back in 2007 with a Nikon D300 and an old 300mm/f2.8 AF-S lens, also at La Jolla Cove (near San Diego in Southern California). Still, this background is not as busy but has some bright areas.

This is how a conventional lens renders: 300mm/f2.8 AF-S @ f4, 1/3200 sec and ISO 400 on the Nikon D300, whose base ISO is 200. December 27, 2007, when the D300 was brand new.

_DSC3513.jpg.a89b8eabb7a44d40c8f351f010bb8ae0.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ShunCheung said:

but occasionally I notice some unusual background rendered, especially when there are bright areas.

I haven't paid particular attention to the difference in background rendering between the 500PF and the 200-500 (mostly used at the longest focal length setting); both have the same maximum aperture of f/5.6 and hence DOF effects are eliminated. I shoot the 500PF mostly wide open and usually had the 200-500 1/3 or 2/3 stops away from maximum. OOF specular highlights with the 200-500 have a lot of internal structure too and hence are equally distracting as those rendered by the 500PF. The AF-S 80-400 seems to render a bit smoother but I have pretty much given up on using that lens as - especially towards the longer focal length - it is not as sharp as the 200-500 or the 500PF.

I have not used the 200-500 at La Jolla even though a zoom would come in very handy at that location. It's just that I can't turn the zoom ring of the 200-500 fast enough to adjust the focal length while panning with a bird in flight; the angle of rotation to go from maximum to minimum focal length is just too large and requires to change ones grip on the lens at least once.

At La Jolla, focal lengths from 80 to 800 mm can be used and are useful; even having 1200mm can come in handy on occasion. I hope Nikon's Z-mount 200-600 will function similarly to the Sony one and have IF and a short throw for changing focal lengths. Maybe it even comes with a PF element which would be more than welcome to keep the size and weight down - but would certainly drive the price point up.

Edited by Dieter Schaefer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...