sebastianmoran

<p>Steven has the right idea. Then, take your image and apply "Auto Levels" or equivalent in any editing program. Hope it all works. If not, the newer Sonys are even better. A6000 should be cheap now.</p>

<p>Vic Falls is a scenic situation; you probably know what gear for the people photos and Vic Falls.</p> <p>For animals in Chobe, I wanted and needed some reach. 400 mm equiv was VERY nice to have, also ISO 800+ (my trip was back in the films days, so that was a stretch). To me the big question is handling of the mirrorless with a really long lens. I haven't tried it. I would take a Nikon DX body with the 300 f/4.</p> <p>Enjoy your trip!</p>

<p>My sharpening guru is still Bruce Fraser in <em>Real World Sharpening in Photoshop CS2</em>. Yes, CS2. This book is truly a bargain, used, these days.</p> <p>Capture sharpening.<br> Content sharpening.<br> Output sharpening.</p> <p>All different. All relevant. Book is a little out of date but still has the right stuff.</p>

<p>All these Sony cameras are great. </p> <p>With a limited budget and desire for FF, the A7 is an obvious choice. I have this camera, it's great. The II, as Lou wrote, has IBIS and the shutter button is moved. It's also heavier and bigger. </p>

<p>Here is a sample shot from the 200-500mm Nikkor. Some post processing. Shot at 280mm, wide open f/5.6, reasonably close to the bird.</p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/160207-GBH-Wakodahatchee-D721089-Scr.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>And, here is <a href="http://2under.net/images/160207-GBH-Wakodahatchee-D721089-Max.jpg">link to the full-resolution file</a> (jpg, 5MB)</p>

<p>And, I'll add that any of the 300 f/4 lenses are very good. Before the 200-500, I used the oldest 300 f/4 AF and was very pleased.</p>

<p>Same question, zoom lens for DX body.</p> <p>I second the redo for <a href="http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#anchor_2015_GearStuff">Brad Hill's excellent reviews</a> comparing the Nikkor 200-500 and the Sigma. (Use the link and look for posts Sept-November 2015).</p> <p>I went with the 200-500 Nikkor and I am extremely pleased. Sharp wide open at f/5.6 and 500mm. VR works well. This is about the longest I want to handle on a DX body. I'll post a sample shortly. </p>

<p>How about a photo of the front of the lens.</p>

<p>John, I like the Sony A6000 a lot. I tested this and the Fuji, and I like the focus peaking on the Sony better for working with MF lenses. </p> <p>This camera is already a bargain, and with the announcement of the A6300, should go lower.</p> <p>Good shooting whatever you choose.</p>

<p>Friends -- It's all in the EXIF.</p> <p>Canon EOS Rebel T4i. EF-S 18-55 lens. Shot at f/8 (good!) and 1/200. Looks like full-auto. Flash was on and fired.</p> <p>Lousy photographer. We need to know what we are doing before doing precious photos for pay.</p>

<p>D7200 is a very nice up-step from the D300. 24MPx helps a lot, another couple of stops of high ISO. I like it a lot.</p>

<p>Friends -- </p> <p>Just wanted to update based on my experience with the lens. I now have some experience with the lens in the field. I find it plenty sharp (after using a 300 f/4 for years). The AF is fine, and VR works well. The only complaint I have is the zoom ring has a long twist to go from one end to the other.</p> <p>Here's a sample shot at Wakodahatchee, D7200, ISO200, 1/500th, f/5.6, tripod, some post.</p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/160207-GBH-Wakodahatchee-D721089-Scr.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>It's still on, as of Wed noon, for $190.</p>

<p>Mukul, yes, exposure blending. Photomatix has an option for this, capture the whole range of tones. Seems to me it amounts to compressing the tonal range over most of the image in order to include the extreme bright and dark. </p> <p>Can certainly be interesting in some instances. In general, I prefer in shots with very high tonal range to use HDR which makes area adjustments to preserve local and micro contrast. </p>

<p>I tested the 200-500 and bought it for birds (Florida, mostly perched, some BIF). Looks like a winner to me. </p>

<p>Yes, the sample image is ugly. As others have suggested, some problem in converting the RAW file. I suggest getting a good raw conversion program (Capture NX2, the Adobe products, or just open the file on a Mac). Let us know what you find.</p> <p>The sample you posted definitely has an ugly cast. My conversions from Nikons certainly don't have that problem.</p>

<p>Shun thanks for this:</p> <blockquote> <p>New York photographer Todd Owyoung was a beta tester for the D500. Here is his impression on the new camera. Obviously Nikon paid him to test and capture images with the new D500 for Nikon's marketing, so don't expect Owyoung to have anything negative to say about the new camera:<br /><a href="http://www.ishootshows.com/2016/01/05/shooting-impressions-on-assignment-with-the-nikon-d500-and-sb-5000/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(link)</a></p> </blockquote> <p>I thought the comments were quite good. New items for me, maybe I missed them elsewhere:<br> - 100% viewfinder<br> - tap the touch screen to shoot (I had noticed tap-to-focus)<br> - automatic flicker reduction in 50/60Hz lighting (camera shoots at brightest moment)<br> - his very positive comments about low-light shooting (he shoots music gigs)</p> <p>Yes, he was Nikon-sponsored, but I commend this review to anyone interested in the camera.</p>

<p>For birds and telephoto, the D500 sounds great: AF points, spread all over the frame, fps, higher usable ISO. And, I like the pro-body aspects (e.g. 10pin connection). I'm still using D300 for this, so the D500 offers a real step up.</p> <p>For portraits and general use, I've pretty much shifted to Sony, but this body might be competition.</p>

<p>Sanjeev, your images look pretty good. Photography is subtle. Keep at it! The kit lens is actually pretty good, in my opinion.</p> <p>For a next lens, my favorite on a DX body is a 50mm lens. The 50 f/1.8G would be perfect, but all of the 50's are very good. With this lens you can do indoor portraits without flash.</p>

<p>Hello All -- First time here, as I've been shooting and posting Nikon for a while, shifting this year to the terrific Sony mirrorless cameras.</p> <p>Here's the last sunrise of the year, December 31st, on a lake in NH. Notice there is still open water, never before this late in December.</p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/151231-Sunrise-DSC2371_2_3_tonemapped_PSd3-Scr-MM.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p> </p> <h4>Sony A6000, Sony/Zeiss 24mm f/1.8, PhotoMatix and Lightroom</h4>

<p>Just checking my understanding: A RAW file contains<br /> - The raw sensor data, basically realized photon counts at each sensor site (I say realized because not all photons are counted)<br /> - A rendered JPG. How big? Full resolution, same as the camera jpg?<br /> - Other data about the shot, some that all our programs can read (e.g. exposure, info about the lens and camera, etc.) and some that is proprietary (maybe the focus point). Programs other than from the manufacturer may not be able to make sense of the proprietary data.</p> <p>Have I got it about right?</p>

<p>Hello All -- Here's a Great Blue Heron, shot a couple years ago at Wakodahatchee.</p> <p>My best to all!</p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/nw/120401-GBH-Wakadohatchee-C029014-Scr.jpg" alt="" /></p> <h4>Great Blue Heron, Wakodahatchee, FL -- D300, 300mm f/2.8 @ f/5.6, morning light</h4>

<p>From that era:<br> - 50-135mm <br> - 25-50mm<br> - and I had good results from a Vivitar Series 1 28-105mm lens, push-pull zoom.</p>

<p>Two sweet lenses for birds and wildlife:<br> - 300 f/4, any of them. The AF-S is quite good, under $1000 US, new PF sounds good at $2k.<br> - 200-500 f/5.6, that's what I'm going with after some testing. $1400 roughly. A bargain.</p> <p>I have no comments on the Tamron or Sigma 150-600 zooms. </p>

<p>Carla --</p> <p>My advice for portraits (dogs, people, whatever), here's what's worked for me:<br> - Portraits -- You can't beat a 50mm lens. For lower light, fast AF, it's a short telephoto on your camera, you'll be able to shoot indoors without flash. Any of the 50mm AF lenses will be fine, but the 50 f/1.8G is a sweet spot.<br> - I don't have a strong recommendation for landscapes. I find the kit zoom actually pretty good.<br> - For longer, you could do one of the zooms that go to 300. I went to a 300 f/4 which is quite a long lens on your DX camera, but of course that's not a general purpose carry-around lens.</p>