sebastianmoran

Friends - Bringing back a very old thread. Surprised to find that it was 2015, seven years ago, thinking about D7200 and the 200-500 Nikkor. Update: That rig has served me well for the past few years. I don't mind carrying the 200-500 when I'm out specifically for birds; of course it's not a "casual carry" rig. Images at 24MPx are very satisfying. Compared to the very latest gear, the reach is fine, other bodies have higher frame rate and I think better focus tracking of moving object (as birds in flight). On a recent bird photography workshop with some heavy hitters, the consensus was in favor of the Sony A1 body (50MPx, electronic shutter gives 30 fps, great AF tracking) and the Sony 200-600mm lens. This: February 2022 at Sebastian Inlet, FL. Big waves crashing on the jetty, Pelicans hovering in the wind and updraft, diving into the surf. My D7200 and 200-500 Nikkor. Thanks again for the helpful comments above.

Rodeo Joe -- Sony mirrorless are great. Here's what I like: 1. Bodies are small and work great. I have the A6000 and A6500. Differences are correctly described above. 6000 is a great entry point for the system. AF, viewfinder, all are great. OSS image stabilization in Sony lenses is good. The A6500 has in-body stabilization that works with all lenses, including legacy manual focus lenses. Works very well. 2. Sony lenses are not bad. Including the 16-50 for small size, but I prefer the 18-55 for handling. Note they are doing software distortion correction which works quite well in the body. Lightroom's distortion correction for these lenses is good. 3. The real prize is the Zeiss glass. 24 f/1.8 E lens (i.e. APS) and 55 f/1.8 FE lens (portrait lens for APS, normal on a full-frame A7) 4. Sony is the universal digital back for all legacy lenses. Converters available for everything. Sony's focus peaking and magnification work well for MF. I like it better than Fuji's. Hope this helps. I don't know about or have experience with the 16-70 Zeiss, the 70-200 or the more expensive G Master lenses.

No circular artifacts in this top-hat photo, despite the backlighting. Bjorn Rorslett did some tests, said the fresnel artifacts are hard to find, and posted an example shot (link)

I like the Green Heron image. I shot this lens quite a bit on a wildlife trip and was very pleased with the results. Neither I nor anyone else noticed any fresnel artifacts.

D500 is great for wildlife with long lenses. On a bird workshop, guy next to me made me a little jealous with his D500, compared to my D7200. Hope you enjoy it!

Quite happy with Sony mirrorless, both APS and full frame. Autofocus on the A6000 is very good, MF works well with focus peaking. Zeiss lenses are terrific, Sony lenses have image stabilization. I think this technology is mature and ready for serious use. I'll keep using DSLR for long-lens work, but mirrorless for most everything else.

<p>I'm using Sony APS for compact size and I think it's quite mature.</p> <p>For portraits, I use an A6000 with a 50mm lens. The alternative would be an FX Nikon and 85mm lens. Here's the comparison:</p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/170131-SonyAPS-NikonFX-Size.png" alt="" /></p>

<p>If the question is, "Do you need a scan?"</p> <p>As David said, just above, most likely the local lab will scan in order to feed their machine. In your own darkroom, you might use an enlarger and make a wet print, but most labs won't. </p> <p>My additional answer is that scanning gives you a digital representation that's easier to adjust. Software, IMHO, gives more control more easily than dodging, burning, and darkroom contrast adjustments.</p>

<p>So, how does this compare to digital? I can make a much larger sharp print from 24mpx digital. The tonality is slightly different, but it's a good print.</p> <p>I think you'll need more than an Epson flatbed to compete with today's good digital captures. The V600 is about the same, the V750 somewhat better.</p>

<p>I did some careful tests with a very good medium format rig (Mamiya Press with the superb 100 f/2.8 lens, with tripod), scanning with the Epson V500.</p> <p>My conclusion: I can make a very good 12x18" print from a V500 scan of 6x9 medium format film, shot with a good rig. I like a sharp print, one I can bring right up close to my eyes.</p> <p>Samples and discussion in <a href="/film-and-processing-forum/00W7Rk">this thread</a> -- look for my posts there.</p> <p>Here's the sample image: <br /><br /><img src="http://2under.net/images/100201-Mamiya-100-f28-Cheers-Img6-v500-Scr.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p> <p>And, this <a href="http://2under.net/images/100201-Mamiya-100-f28-Cheers-Img6-v500-12x18.jpg">link to my scanned file</a>, ready for printing at 12x18.</p>

<p>Derek, sky behind dark branch is tough. That's where I see purple fringing with wides an zooms, and I have trouble getting rid of all of it. </p> <p>Yours is a nice shot, and even in the full image I can see the purple hue in the upper left corner.</p>

<p>Thinking about my older digital cameras, here's my conclusion: The big steps have been megapixels and low-light performance. </p> <p>If you are happy with the megapixels and are OK with being constrained to shooting in good light, I think the older DSLRs from Nikon and Canon are OK.</p>

<p>FWIW, the DJI 4K models have produced really good video and stills for me.</p> <p> </p>

<p>KP, 3038 is nothing. Enjoy your camera. I'm using a D7200, it's a great camera.</p>

<p>Kendra, talk him into getting you a prime lens, might be a macro or a tele or a wide angle. All of these will be more fun than the front-of-lens accessories.</p> <p>That said, I have seen some front-of-lens macro supplemental lenses that get you closer and still have good image quality.</p>