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>

<p>Back to the kit lens 16-50mm -- Planning a recent vacation trip, I tested this against the excellent 24mm Zeiss and the also vs. the very highly regarded 55mm f/1.8 Sony/Zeiss.</p> <p>At f/8, the kit lens is just fine. To me, this makes it an excellent lens for "walk around" in daylight, typical vacation pix. Indoors, portraits, or seeking background bokeh, that would be another story. But, outdoors at f/8 it will give excellent results.</p>

<p>Two comments:</p> <p> 1. At a recent event, the pro was shooting the A7R-II with the AF adapter and Canon glass. Excellent results.</p> <p> 2. My own tests with an A7-II show no problems with SLR lenses, including good Nikon 20mm and 18-35mm lenses. Specifically shots with the A7-II were just as good as images from Nikon D600. I do understand the cover glass can create problems with RF wides.</p>

<p>A couple quick comments:</p> <p>1) the 55-200 consumer zoom is quite excellent, if that focal range is what you need. On the other hand, I had one get bumped and the image quality went to hell, easily seen in comparison shots.</p> <p>2) On a recent bird shoot, (Nickerson Beach, shooting black skimmers, many reasonably close), while most of us had longer lenses (200-500 f/5.6 and bigger) on tripods or monopods, the pro carried a 70-200 f/2.8 with a multiplier on a DX body. She got excellent shots with her very hand-holdable rig. I'm suggesting 70-200 f/2.8 with a multiplier is an option for longer shots.</p>

<p>Image: Sure looks like sensor dust to me.</p> <p>Redirect/Malware: Photo.net, please do not use link skimming services. Period. Another malware cesspool. </p>

<p>There seem to be several versions of this lens. In particular, appear to be:<br> DX<br> DX II<br> VR<br> VR II<br> AF-P G (non-VR)<br> AF-P G VR</p> <p>Do I have this right? Today, B&H has the AF-P non-VR for $196 and the AF-P VR for $246<br> Alan, your image looks excellent. </p>

<p>Flick the aperture open/closed one-hundred times. Then see if it's still a problem.</p> <p>I had a lens with this problem: OK wide open, grossly overexposed at smaller apertures. Removed the rear mount, was discouraged, could see anything to fix. Replace the rear lens mount and all was well. ??? So, try fiddling with things till it's right.</p> <p>Best regards to all!</p>

<p>I like 16Gig of memory. Run Ps and Lightroom at the same time, maybe PhotoMatix and a few other apps. With 8Gig, I had performance problems doing this.</p>

<p>Eric: Have you tried an external Thunderbolt SSD drive?</p> <p>I have not tested the 2016 vs. prior models of MBP. I just know I'm happy with both the 2013 and 2015 MBP for Lightroom and Ps.</p>

<p>Here's one in Africa. Sony A6000 with kit lens.</p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/161030-Acacia-Tree-DSC4468_TMd-1000.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Dave --</p> <p>I'll treat your questions as legit.</p> <p>I use a MacBook Pro 15" laptop all the time, carry it everywhere. I often do my photo post-processing on this machine, but when I'm at my home base, I use a 5K iMac. (My laptop is mid-2015, and the mid-2013 was good as well. I have not tried the new one with the touch bar.)</p> <p>All these laptops are plenty powerful enough for the RAW processing you are talking about. I like to have 16G of memory; things slow down if you don't have enough. I very rarely say, "Oh shit, that's taking too long."</p> <p>I generally put all my current projects on an external disk, a Thunderbolt SSD 256Gig, which is lightning fast. That way, I can switch easily between working on the laptop or the iMac. From time to time, I move project files to a larger hard disk for archival storage. I put the finished images onto a Dropbox folder which I can access from anywhere and selectively share to convey finished images to others.</p> <p>DropBox sync is fast, transparent, and reliable. On the other hand, I might have 15Gig of files on a project; I don't want to try to sync this much data on DropBox. Hence, my use of a portable hard drive for all the RAW's and Lightroom catalogs, and DropBox for the finished images.</p> <p>Macs are secure. Just take the Apple and Adobe updates immediately (I wait till x.x.2 for the major OS versions). </p> <p>I use the Adobe photography program (Lightroom and Photoshop). </p>