alastair_anderson

<p>Lilac-breasted roller<br>

Kruger National Park, South Africa</p><div></div>

<p>White-fronted bee-eater</p><div></div>

<p>Taken in the Kruger National Park, South Africa.<br>

Blue-headed lizard</p><div></div>

<p>Double post</p>

 

<p>Last try:</p><div></div>

<p>I'll try again.</p><div></div>

<p>Sorry; thought I'd cropped that :)</p>

<p>I'm going to be using the 80-400 AFS-G in the Kruger National Park next week. Here's a hand-held shot of the moon sharpened in Iphoto on my MacBook Air. (D800, f8, 1/500th, I think VR was on - to hold the subject still!)</p><div></div>

<p>I agree with Wouter. I have the new 80-400 and it's a great lens but the 70-200 is more practical unless you need the longer reach regularly. 'How occasional is the bird shooting?' is exactly the right question. I personally wouldn't want to part with the faster, fixed aperture zoom.</p>

<p>Thanks, Joseph. I'll check for the update. I'm not good with such things. I believe my camera firmware is one update behind too. In any event Capture NX2 seems to be working ok now.</p>

<p>The card reader may have been the problem. The glitch seems to have gone. I had to reboot my Mac. but the programme is reading the files now. Sorry about that. Thanks for the incredibly prompt replies. Love photo.net!</p>

<p>double post.</p>

<p>I was opening the file(s) straight from a card reader. I've now moved them to my desktop. I'll try again.</p>

<p>I would be surprised if I don't have the latest version because I only downloaded it a few weeks ago. Mine is version 2.4.2</p>

<p>Hi everyone, I bought Capture NX2 recently but haven't got around to using it until today. I'm a little surprised to see that it is not reading my D800 raw files. Have I missed something here? Do I need ViewNX?</p>

<p>Thanks, Dave. That all makes sense. Puts was writing about shooting with Leicas (M and R system), so he wasn't taking VR/IS into account. I've been amazed at the sharpness of pictures taken with my 80-200 VR II at 1/15th. Very cute raccoon - it's the paws that make the picture!</p>

<p>Andrew, I do take your point about distortion, and yes, I suspect that you are paranoid! Surely it can't be significant other than in exceptional cases. I wasn't thinking straight when I suggested that shooting faster than the flash sync. might not have any effect on camera shake. By the way, this is what Erwin Puts says, "The classical rule that the lowest possible shutter speed for hand-held picture taking is the reciprocal of the focal length is nonsense.... Statistically it is not possible to get fine imagery below 1/250th (a big chance factor is involved when shooting that slow). At 1/250th to 1/500th the chances of a good quality picture are higher but it is not fully secure...." He recommends taking a rapid series of pictures to improve the odds of getting a good one if you have to use slower speeds. As Siegried suggests, shoot until the buffer fills.</p>

<p>Andrew, thanks. And yes - it is a (very expensive) new toy. At the very least it will be a huge aid to bird identification.</p>

<p>Mmm, some conflicting ideas! Lots of recommendations for using a tripod, although that wasn't really answering my question. I'm not suggesting that those answers are not relevant; after all the title of the thread is telephoto technique. However, I know that given good light, adequate depth of field, good focus etc., using a solidly mounted camera will yield sharp pictures. What I'd like to know is whether that can be matched by upping the shutter speed. Stephen Lewis addressed the question directly and I think you're probably right, Stephen. I've also read Erwin Puts. I wonder whether the increase in shutter speed that he recommends is linear or exponential. In other words if 1/500th of a second is adequate for a 50mm lens, will 1/4,000th be enough for 400mm or does one need to go higher? I think Andrew's point is pertinent here. Because the whole process takes 1/250th anyway, possibly there's no benefit to going above a certain speed; you may be stopping subject motion but not camera shake.<br /> David Stephens, I agree. I need to get closer. I wonder why the red kite didn't come a little lower, after all it travelled a long way to have its portrait taken. I was truly surprised to read that you do better without the tripod, and your duck certainly backs that up.<br /> Robert, I love your duck too, and thanks for the setting suggestions.<br /> There doesn't seem to be any consensus about whether to have VR on or off. I agree that it's helpful for composition, but it may very well be working against you above a certain speed. (Wouter, thanks for the input. I'll take a look at Thom Hogan's article.)<br /> I was thinking that the 80-400 is probably a better bet than the 300 f4, not only for the reach, but because I wouldn't want to carry a big f4 lens around with me all day long in the game reserve. Turns out though that the 80-400 is heavier than the 300!<br /> In the end I've decided to keep the zoom, for much the same reasons as Kent. I need it because it's a zoom. VR is nice if you have to (and are able to) use slow shutter speeds but I don't think we've heard the last word about it yet.</p>

<p>These pictures were taken with VR off. If I have missed the focus, it's no fault of the lens. My D800 was one of those with the left focus point issue and that may still be a problem. I had it attended to, but the 'fix' wasn't entirely adequate. It seems the centre focus point is slightly off at the moment. I intend to take the camera back to Nikon within the next couple of weeks for a service before I go to South Africa.</p>

<p>I'm a little disappointed with the sharpness, hence my question. It may be, however, that the focus is slightly out. On the other hand this bird was very high in the sky. Perhaps I should be satisfied and shouldn't expect more for that reason.</p><div></div>

<p>Thank you, everyone. First I should mention that, like Lex, my hands are somewhat shaky. Basically I'm trying to decide how important VR really is for pictures towards the long end of the 80-400 focal range. I currently have a copy of the new zoom and I'm about to decide whether to keep it or not. Yesterday I was standing around in my garden (near Luton in the UK) hoping to catch some birds in flight. Word must have got out because before long a raptor appeared in the sky, circled my house and then returned, presumably to Northamptonshire. I'll post two shots. The first is what I could see in my viewfinder with the lens zoomed to maximum. The second is an enlargement. (I must apologise in advance. This was a quick fix done in iPhoto. I believe I ought to be able to do a better job with Capture NX2, but it's not loaded on my laptop and I haven't got around to it yet.)<br>

The photographs were taken with a D800.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks very much for the answers. I really appreciate the quick responses. But I'm hoping for a few more, after which I'll explain why this is relevant to my decision.</p>

<p>Just a quick question which is relevant in helping me decide between the 80-400 zoom and the 300 f4. For those who know the answer this is probably elementary; I genuinely don't know the answer. The question is this: Will a high enough shutter speed eliminate camera shake? In other words, if the shutter speed is sufficiently high (say 1/4,000th+), will one get as good an image as can be achieved with a properly supported camera and lens?</p>

<p>Actually going by what Ilkka said about preferring a native 400mm lens and taking into account Dave Wilson's comment above, the 400 f3.5 sounds like an excellent buy for birding, but I think for my needs the new VR zoom is the way to go.</p>