heimbrandt

This is not unique to the Z7. There are no specific advantages to using uncompressed RAW. Compressing without compromising on image quality (lossless compressed) reduces file size, which increases buffer size, frames per second and reduces the time it takes to clear the buffer (writing to the memory card).

 

This is a good and informative article on the subject:

Compressed vs Uncompressed vs Lossless Compressed RAW Options - Photography Life

Flying egret.

Nikon D850, AF-S300/2.8VR, TC-20-EIII

October and a friendly reminder that winter is coming:

Nikon D800E, AF-S300/2.8VR, TC-20EIII

Yes, Illka is right, tighten the screw knob on the foot and verify that the lens will not slide off if you press the lever. I doubt a replacement foot will use another locking mechanism.

Dieter, of the three you have posted, I like the last one more.

Wayback Wednesday? Ok, here is another one from Italy earlier this year.

Nikon D800E, AF-S16-35/4VR

Used D700 are not that difficult to find. Personally, I would keep looking for one that is in a better condition and comes with a warranty (if i would be in the market for a used D700 from a dealer). If I would look at what private sellers offer, I would only look for one that looks very nice and has a lower shutter count.

Regarding the tripod foot on the 500PF, I believe it uses the same foot as the 70-200E FL.

If you like the focusing system on your D7200, you will not be disappointed with the AF on the D810. It improves on what you have by adding a new mode called Group Area AF. Basically, it is a single sensor mode where the sensor is a composite that also is using the four surrounding AF sensors, thus creating a larger single sensor. This is highly usable for tracking moving subjects.

 

I prefer to use single point AF for portraits and manually select an AF point close to the subject's eye, so I need to recompose as little as possible.

Considering the price you paid, I would send it in for adjustment. Then it would still be a lens that has not cost too much, but it will have a more uniform performance. Then you may be perfectly happy with it for years.

 

You may be able to live with it as it is, but why if it is easily fixed? If you see it already in the first photos you have taken with it, there is a chance it will start to annoy you to the point that you may no longer like the lens at all.

A heron fishing:

Nikon D800E, AF-S 300/2.8VR, TC-14EIII

You could try the free Adobe DNG Converter to convert your RAW files to the DNG file format, which I believe PS 6 will open. If not, check the conversion setting and if that stil does not work, at least it has not cost you anything. If it does, well, it will add an extra step to your workflow but buy you time to consider your upgrade options if you do not want to use NX2 or start a new Adobe subscription.

 

While I understand that you want a card reader, you can still connect the camera via USB (or even ethernet as your D4 supports it) to your computer and download them while the cards are still in the camera.

Why not use the free Adobe DNG converter fo convert RAW-files to DNG, which older versions of Ps and Lr can work with? That is a simple way to keep using an older version of Lr/Ps even if the RAW-converter does not support the new camera you are considering.

Rick, the MB-D200 for the D200 did take two EN-E3e batteries in the grip, so there is no need for that idiot hat of yours.

 

I use the battery in the grip first and consider the one in the camera a backup. However, I do use the camera quite a lot without the grip too. If you want, you can use the D8X0 cameras without a battery in the body. If you do, make sure the grip is firmly mounted as a power glitch from a loose grip could wreak havoc with the photo you happen to take when it happens. I have not used the D810 that much, but I have understod it was significantly easier on the batteries than the D800.

 

Now, what about Nef file access?

Here are some of the test photos I took with the 500/5.6 PF and the D850. The last two are with the TC-14EIII.

 

Please note

All are taken for my personal evaluation of the lens, they have no artistic merits. I wanted to test for ghosting but also to get a sense for what it could deliver when ghosting is not an issue. Except for the one I recovered in post, no settings were adjusted in post. I only cropped the handle of the Vespa, all other photos show the entire FX image area. Photos without the TC are taken at F5.6 and the two with the 1.4 TC are taken at F8.

 

Below is with the sun to the right, outside the frame:

Below is with the sun outside the top left corner the left taken with the sun at the same distance from the edge of the frame as the previous photo:

Below is with the sun just above the image:

This is what I could rescue in post:

 

Having that horrible ghosting out of the way, I want to show what I liked about the lens. Here is a photo taken with the TC-14EIII at F8 (700 mm, handheld):

And here it is at 100 %:

 

Below is a candid photo taken with TC-14EIII, also at F8 (700 mm handheld):

 

To conclude:

I am confident the 500/5.6 PF will produce excellent results, as long as you can control the ghosting.

Illka, while I agree with you in part, the HB-48 hood that Nikon Supplied with the 70-200/2.8 VRII begs to differ. Same goes for the HB-23 that comes with the 16-36/4VR and the DX 12-24 and 10-24 (and probably other lenses too). (I use the HB-29 hood from the first version of the 70-200/2.8 on my VRII because the HB-29 is longer and allows me to put the camera down on the lens - which I know you should no, but I often do.)

 

Shun, there are several inches between the reversed hood and the tripod foot on the 500 PF. Same holds true for the 300PF with a mounted tripod collar, there is lots of room for a longer lens hood.

Yes, the PF's lens hood is made of plastic.

 

Illka, I think all customers prefer cheaper lens hoods. I am not saying it needs to be a carbon fibre and metal one, just a longer one.

It is the same when I compare the hood that comes with the 300 PF to that of the 300/2.8. That PF hood is roughly about half the length of the 2.8 lens hoods.

 

I understand why Nikon has made the hoods shorter on the PF lenses, maneuverability and price. However, just like several super teles come with two tripod feet (a normal and a short one for monopods), it would have been nice for the PF lenses to come with full length lens hoods as well.

Sorry to hear about your misfortune Shun.

 

Off topic:

Hm, perhaps there is a market for exporting Nikon from Sweden after all... We had a D850 shortage when it was launched, but that settled after a month or so. It has been in stock just about everywhere here since and we got to try the Z6 and Z7 hands on at the very same minute Nikon started the press conference in Tokyo. The 500 PF is already in mounted on some customers' cameras here.

Illka, the PF's excellent image quality makes the case for the E FL weaker in terms of bang for your buck, whereas the PF's poor resistance to flare may be a dealbreaker that makes the case for the much more expensive E FL stronger (or at least less weak), since the E FL has no problems shooting against the sun.

 

mike_halliwell, all of Nikon's 500 mm primes are FX lenses. Thus, their angle of view should be the same, therefore they could all use equally deep lens hoods. I pointed out that the lens hood on the 500 F4 lenses are about twice as deep as the one on the new 5.6 PF lens. I would not go about making a DX hood for the PF, but look into a hood that is as deep as this lens's bigger siblings' as that would still allow for FX coverage. Naturally, you may make a hood that shields so much that it even shields part of the FX image area, but that may be overdoing it unless it will only be used on a DX body.

 

Shun, NPS users here have already taken first delivery of the PF.

I think most people will call this new lens 500PF and the F4 version 500E and the previous F4 model 500G, but all three of them are G type lenses too...

 

I only tried the lens on a D850 with MB-D12, powered by an EN-EL18. My guess is that most 500 PFs will be used on the D500, D5 and the D850. Nikon did bring the Z6 and 7 and the adapter too, but I did not test other combinations. I did not get the impression that AF accuracy would be an issue. AF speed is something you should try to make sure it fits your needs. I would definitely try it for tracking birds and Lance B's post shows that it can keep up with the faster predators.

 

The 500PF has an optical lens at the front, like most lenses. As it takes 95 mm filters, it is not really a negative, but I have come to like the idea of a meniscus front element on Nikon's super teles.

It got to try it out yesterday on my camera.

 

When looking at photos of it, it does look like a baby version of the 500-600 mm super telephoto lenses. When I picked it up, I used too much muscle strength to lift it up. It really is that lightweight. Once mounted on the camera and ready for shooting handheld, I noted the downside of its design. It is meant for handholding (or at least its weight encourages you to do so, even though its F5.6 may not), but its shape does not work that well in its smaller package. The tripod foot can rest in your palm but given the narrow field of view, it is a bit too close to the camera for optimum stabilization. You can hold the lens by the hood/front of the lens and have your pinky by on of the four buttons on the lens barrel. Being used to so with the heavier 300/2.8, that is what I ended up doing. However, the G and E super teles have carbon fiber lens hoods with metal locks on them, so you dare hold it by the lens hood. This has a very short and plastic lens hood, with a spring lock made out of metal, just like on the 70-200/2.8 or 300 PF. I really do believe one shoAside from the hood, built quality felt excellent, on par with the 500/4E. The tripod foot looked like the one from 70-200/2.8E and its low weight made me think about balancing the lens on a gimbal. I fear you would end up very close to the camera, especially with a gripped camera/full sized camera.

 

Focus response was good, but I would still say my 300/2.8 VR with the TC-20EIII is a tad faster. The penalty when using the TC-14EIII was not as evident as I expected on the D850. I only tried to track pedestrians, cyclists and cars, but it felt usable. Initial lock to a bit longer time than without, but that is expected.

 

Sharpness is really good, as is contrast. You do not need to stop down to increase it. It sure makes the argument for the 500E much weaker. The PF element did show its ugly face once pointed even near the sun. Ghosting was a real concern, even when the sun was not in the frame. Depending on the angle, the same distance to the sun could result in normal photos or nearly completely washed out photos due to ghosting. The case for the 500E is not that much weaker, in fact ghosting may definitely be a dealbreaker for some. I have not really tried the 300PF, so I cannot compare the two in this regard. But, given that ghosting was such a problem well before the sun entered the frame I would really like to re-test the 500PF with a longer lens hood. I do think third parties will look into this and hopefully make a better lens hood that shades more.

 

Looking at build and image quality, It is reasonably priced in relation to the 200-500 and the 500E.

Please note that ISO does not have an exact linear relationship to dynamic range. A 2/3 lower ISO does not automatically translate into 2/3 stop extra dynamic range. According to Photonstophotos.net and their data on photographic dynamic range versus ISO setting the difference between the D800E and D810 is 0.14 stop to the D810's advantage at ISO 64. I know it is measurable, but I doubt it will be noticeable in that many photos.

 

The D810 manages a dynamic range of 11.60 at ISO 64 and the D800E manages 11,46 at the same ISO. In the range from ISO 80-12 800, the D800E actually manages a slightly (again, measurable, but doubtfully noticeable) dynamic range than the D810 does. (Same holds true for the D850, which also falls behind the D800E at ISO 80 but catches up at ISO 400).

 

That is why I did not see ISO 64 and the increased 0.14 stop in increased dynamic range as one of the biggest improvements. (The D850 manages a dynamic range of 11.63 stops at ISO 32 and 64, which is more of an improvement over the D800E as it also features a higher resolution.)

When I was out shooting herons not too long ago, the noise from my camera's mirror made this fellow curious. So no, a loud camera is not always something bad.

Nikon D800E, AF-S 300/2.8 VR, TC-20-EIII

To me the big difference between the 2 is where they were made.

I choose to interpret such a comment like it does not matter; there is no big difference between the two.

 

Personally, I would rather compare the D800E to the D810. I have used both the D800 and D800E only to find that it was worth getting the D800E. In terms of IQ, I completely agree with Shun's comment above. Group AF, chosen AF sensor can be orientation dependent, a noticeably more quiet mirror mechanism and the extra frame per second are what I consider the D810's strongest improvements.