Dieter Schaefer

f/9 is were one ends up when adding the 1.4x TC to a 600/6.3 or 800/6.3 creating lenses 840/9 and 1120/9, respectively. I have used the 800/1.4x combo and it works OK as long as it isn't too dark out. So attaching a 1.4x to the 600/6.3 or the 180-600/5.6-6.3 evens things out with the Canon zoom at the long end.

I am still using a little program Downloader Pro to rename the image files while importing them from the card to the computer. For each of my cameras, I changed the usual DSC prefix to something camera-specific - like Z9A or D5B. Upon import, I created the filename from the date of the shoot, the camera-specific prefix and the actual number of the shutter count to arrive at something like 2023-10-12-Z9A-79584.NEF. Always a unique filename, never an issue with files being imported out of order (like I heard from several others being an occasional issue when importing into certain software).

This is the additional weekly image thread for the Nature Forum. While images posted to this thread should still be nature in theme, it may contain a small amount of human-made objects and therefore less restricted than the Monday in Nature threads. Please see this discussion for more details: Alternative weekly thread in Nature forum Each participant please post no more than just one image per weekly thread. Many members will appreciate any information you are willing or able to provide regarding location, shooting process, exposure settings, equipment, and information on the subject(s), including scientific and/or common names. Great Egret at Scarborough Marsh

It does as one of its primary functions is to protect the eye (while still maintaining vision). Another is to keep the eye moist. When observing ospreys this year, I noticed that they deploy their nictitating membrane quite often - interestingly about every time during a large head turning movement.

Basic Guidelines: In the strictest sense, nature photography should not include "hand of man elements". Please refrain from images with buildings or human made structures like roads, fences, walls. Pets are not permitted. Captive subjects in zoos, arboretums, or aquariums are permitted, but must be declared, and must focus on the subject, not the captivity. Images with obvious human made elements will likely be deleted from the thread, with an explanation to the photographer. Guidelines are based on PSA rules governing Nature photography which also cover the Nature Forum. Keep your image at/under 1000 pixels on the long axis for in-line viewing. Note that this includes photos hosted off-site at Flicker, Photobucket, your own site, etc. Each member please post no more than just one image to this weekly thread per week. If the information is available, many members appreciate information on your approach to making the image and the names, both common and scientific, of the subject(s). However, while encouraged, these are not required as a component of your contributions. Great Blue Heron enjoying a snack

First time out with the Z9 after the 4.1 firmware update using the new bird subject detection setting. Not quite sure what to make of it. In some scenarios, the AF appeared to be better than before, in others, worse. To my surprise, performance improved when I switched from 3D to Auto. 3D kept failing on an egret some 200ft away (finally found out that all it took to reveal the distance information in the Z9 Exif was updating ExifTool ) while Auto did not have that issue and performed flawlessly. It was strange that in 3D mode failure of the AF led to the disappearance of any of the AF indicator boxes - can't recall ever having seen that before.

The timing of the 600PF release appears somewhat off to me following so closely to the release of the 180-600. If I was still at my old stomping grounds in California, I'd agree with that. However, here in Maine, 800mm comes in very handy. While I like the size and weight of both the 400/4.5 and 600PF, I will stick to my 300PF and 500PF for a while longer. Not the least because I can use them on both F-mount and Z-mount bodies and both work quite well using the FTZII on the Z9. The 400 would not quite match some of the applications I use the 300 for now and the 500PF to me seems like a better fit in my lens lineup than the 600PF (which to me feels like too close to the 800). Before mirrorless and the smaller and lighter teles we can get now, 500/4 was a sweet spot because it was the longest focal length one could comfortably travel with; 600/4 and 800/5.6 were exotic behemoths destined to spend most of their time on tripods and close to home or a car. Nowadays, the price of the latest superteles puts them out of reach for many and I applaud Nikon for finally reading the market right and bring out a very good selection of "relatively affordable" lenses that even many pros will add to their bag when they tire of carrying the 400/2.8 and/or 600/4.

This is the additional weekly image thread for the Nature Forum. While images posted to this thread should still be nature in theme, it may contain a small amount of human-made objects and therefore less restricted than the Monday in Nature threads. Please see this discussion for more details: Alternative weekly thread in Nature forum Each participant please post no more than just one image per weekly thread. Many members will appreciate any information you are willing or able to provide regarding location, shooting process, exposure settings, equipment, and information on the subject(s), including scientific and/or common names. Ring-billed Gull at Scarborough Marsh

Z9, 800PF

That's exactly how I ended up with my Sony mirrorless system. Initially, more than a decade back, I got the NEX 6 to use some inherited Leica M-mount lenses. Turned out not to work too well - so I got some more modern Voigtlander M-mounts instead. Then the A7 appeared on the scene and it looked promising to move from DX to FX. Played with adapted lenses for a while and then lost interest, replacing them with native E-mount AF lenses. Got a nice little system aimed at mostly travel photography. Kept the Nikon DSLRs for the wildlife photography as well as some general photography. Considered moving fully to Sony just at the point when Nikon finally went FX mirrorless as well - with a not very convincing Z7. I realized that trading my Sony system for an "equivalent" Nikon system wasn't getting me anything better - it would just cost a lot (and take some time until Nikon released the equivalent lenses). Now I have pretty much relegated the Nikon DSLRs to occasional duty only, doing my wildlife photography with the Z9 and all the rest with Sony. Bound to stay that way for some time to come.

Basic Guidelines: In the strictest sense, nature photography should not include "hand of man elements". Please refrain from images with buildings or human made structures like roads, fences, walls. Pets are not permitted. Captive subjects in zoos, arboretums, or aquariums are permitted, but must be declared, and must focus on the subject, not the captivity. Images with obvious human made elements will likely be deleted from the thread, with an explanation to the photographer. Guidelines are based on PSA rules governing Nature photography which also cover the Nature Forum. Keep your image at/under 1000 pixels on the long axis for in-line viewing. Note that this includes photos hosted off-site at Flicker, Photobucket, your own site, etc. Each member please post no more than just one image to this weekly thread per week. If the information is available, many members appreciate information on your approach to making the image and the names, both common and scientific, of the subject(s). However, while encouraged, these are not required as a component of your contributions. Osprey landing on the nest

This is the additional weekly image thread for the Nature Forum. While images posted to this thread should still be nature in theme, it may contain a small amount of human-made objects and therefore less restricted than the Monday in Nature threads. Please see this discussion for more details: Alternative weekly thread in Nature forum Each participant please post no more than just one image per weekly thread. Many members will appreciate any information you are willing or able to provide regarding location, shooting process, exposure settings, equipment, and information on the subject(s), including scientific and/or common names. Wonder where she is now - she left Portland, Maine about a month or so ago.

Z9, 800PF

Indeed that is a major issue. My largest bag is a ThinkTank Harddrive - and it is filled to capacity with the 500PF (with FTZII), TC-14EIII, Z1.4xTC, Z9 with 800 PF attached, spare Z9 battery, card wallet. I could possibly manage to squeeze the 300PF in there but it'll be tight. Before I owned the 800PF, that backpack held the 500PF attached to the Z9, the 300PF attached to the D850, TC-14EIII, spare batteries for the D850 and Z9, card wallet. And still had space for one more lens - like the F-mount Tamron 35-150/2.8-4 or the Z-mount 24-70/4. Travel with the 800PF will be tough as I will have to limit my choices. The same would apply to the 400/2.8 or 600/4 I suppose. I can't say what I would pack for a Safari trip. I definitely would want two camera bodies and would like to keep lens changes to an absolute minimum. Probably the D850 with the 35-150/2.8-4 and the Z9 with the 180-600.

Wouldn't that leave you short on reach? My situation is a bit similar to joseph_smith3: I have a Z9, D850, and D500 - though the latter two haven't been used since I got the Z9. I no longer use the 200-500; it has been replaced by the 500PF for many years now. On the Z9, I can use it with the TC-14EIII - that had been a rather futile undertaking most of the time on the D850 and D500 because AF performance degraded too much. Both the 70-200/4 and the 300PF see the occasional use, as does the AF-S 80-400. My new (since earlier this year) workhorse is the 800PF, sometimes even with the 1.4x TC. I have no plans to get either the 100-400, 400/4.5, 600PF, or the 180-600. I am glad Nikon released the 600PF after the 800PF - otherwise I might have fallen into the trap of getting the 600 instead of the 800. The 400/2.8 TC and the 600/4 TC are not even on my radar screen; they are far out of what I am willing to spend. I do see myself getting rid of the D850 and D500 at some point and replace them with a Z9 (or likely, its successor). Now, if I were to start fresh with lenses, it would be a tough choice. I would not get any of the F-mount lenses - and the first choice would be between the 400/4.5 and the 100-400. Not much of a fan of zooms in this focal length range anymore - so the logical choice would be the 400/4.5. The only thing that speaks for the 100-400 is its close-up capability - not sure it would win me over though. I would still get the 800PF - which kind of eliminates the need to have the 600PF or 180-600. Though that leaves me with a rather large gap between 400 and 800 - probably closed by adding the 1.4x behind the 400mm lens. But likely be eyeing a 600PF if it turns out that I need that gap closed with a better performer. I need to add that I have the 100-400mm range covered within my Sony system.

Basic Guidelines: In the strictest sense, nature photography should not include "hand of man elements". Please refrain from images with buildings or human made structures like roads, fences, walls. Pets are not permitted. Captive subjects in zoos, arboretums, or aquariums are permitted, but must be declared, and must focus on the subject, not the captivity. Images with obvious human made elements will likely be deleted from the thread, with an explanation to the photographer. Guidelines are based on PSA rules governing Nature photography which also cover the Nature Forum. Keep your image at/under 1000 pixels on the long axis for in-line viewing. Note that this includes photos hosted off-site at Flicker, Photobucket, your own site, etc. Each member please post no more than just one image to this weekly thread per week. If the information is available, many members appreciate information on your approach to making the image and the names, both common and scientific, of the subject(s). However, while encouraged, these are not required as a component of your contributions. Short-eared Owl. One from the archives - March 2021. D500, 500PF with TC-14EIII. That's 700mm focal length - or the FX FOV equivalent of 1050mm. And still cropped from there. Nowadays, I would use the 800PF with the 1.4x on a Z9 for this kind of scenario: 1120mm. And would still crop from there.

I have that lens - though not in Z-mount but in E-mount for my Sony A7RIII. I didn't have much luck with Nikon's 50mm offerings and had settled for the behemoth Sigma 50/1.4 Art - until the Apo-Lanthar appeared on the scene. I like the absence of chromatic aberrations but haven't really paid attention to edge sharpness. Looking at the lenstip review results, there should be little to complain about: https://www.lenstip.com/613.4-Lens_review-Voigtlander_Apo_Lanthar_50_mm_f_2_Aspherical_Image_resolution.html These images were taken with that lens: Manual focus doesn't bother me either. And I sure like that the lens isn't as large and heavy as the Sigma 50/1.4 Art. The fact that it is "only" f/2 isn't a deal breaker either. And it costs only 1/20 of the Leica Apo-Summicron 50 ASPH - while not giving up anything in terms of performance.

This is the additional weekly image thread for the Nature Forum. While images posted to this thread should still be nature in theme, it may contain a small amount of human-made objects and therefore less restricted than the Monday in Nature threads. Please see this discussion for more details: Alternative weekly thread in Nature forum Each participant please post no more than just one image per weekly thread. Many members will appreciate any information you are willing or able to provide regarding location, shooting process, exposure settings, equipment, and information on the subject(s), including scientific and/or common names. Double-crested Cormorant

Both my Tamron 90mm and my Sigma 150mm macro lens have focus limiters with three settings: just close-up (range from about 1 to 2 ft), from about 2ft to infinity, and finally full. I don't have the Nikon 105VR pictured above - it's minimum focus distance is about 31cm, not 0.5m as the focus limiter seems to indicate. Isn't a third setting implied: if the focus distance is set to below 0.5m, isn't the AF then restricted to within 31cm and 0.5m?

I was so used to having a 500mm lens on a D500 - which equates to a 750mm-equivalent FOV. Using the same lens on a D850/Z9 meant quite a big loss in FOV - which was made up by the higher MP count and thus the ability to crop back to D500 dimensions. Not ideal though - why use expensive FX bodies and the shoot only DX? So the 800mm simply re-established the previous DX FOV now on FX - with a 2.25x higher resolution. I had hoped for 40MP+ FX sensors ever since the early days of digital - just to eliminate the need to deal with DX bodies.

Well, the 300/4 VR was introduced in 2015. Last time was in January at La Jolla where it came in very handy. It often isn't long enough but I do enjoy using it every time when the situation warrants it. I would have found the same had the D850 handled the 500PF/TC-14EII combo better. When we moved from California to Maine and after I got the Z9, it was pretty much 500PF/TC-14EII all the time. So the 800PF was the right decision for me as well. It works quite well with the Z 1.4x too😃 I am very mildly tempted by the 100-400 but can't justify the expense really. I haven't done much close-up work in the past few years - and either the 300PF will have to suffice or I just grab the A7RIII with the 100-400GM. It appears that I will eventually use Nikon for wildlife and Sony for anything else. Currently, I still have quite a few F-mount lenses and D500 and D850 to mount them on - but eventually those will go away.

I wouldn't want to carry that thing - and much less trying to hand-hold it. No such issue with the 800PF. Though the weight and bulk of the 600PF are substantially less. I can barely fit the 300PF, 500PF, and 800PF into a backpack - and that's already heavier than I'd like to lug around, even without a 2nd camera body.

You aiming at getting all of them?

The price at introduction was $3250, not $4250. I had expected $4499 - $300 less than the actual asking price. Realistically, the F-mount 300/4 and 500/5.6 will go away at some point (if production has not stopped already). I regard the Z-mount 400/4.5 as the 300PF replacement and the new 600/6.3 replaces the 500PF. So compared to the F-mount line-up (excluding $10k+ superteles)): 300PF, 80-400, 200-500, 500PF, the current Z-mount line-up consisting of 400/4.5, 100-400, 180-600, 600/6,3, and 800/6.3 only adds the later. And there isn't a 300/2.8, 120-300/2.8 or 180-400/4 equivalent in Z-mount. Wondering whether Nikon will offer any 300mm prime lens in Z-mount. The new 600/6.3 looks like an awesome performer - but I doubt I will trade the 500PF for the 600PF any time soon. Having the 300PF, 500PF, and 800PF feels like a good spread in focal lengths. A short while back, Nikon USA offered refurbished ones at a huge discount - can't recall how much exactly but believe the price dropped below the $10k mark. Refurbished 800/6.3 ones were offered for just under $5k.

A little wander through the archives (2021). Nikon D850, 500PF. At the time my favorite camera/lens combo. Nowadays, the Z9 has surpassed the D850 by a wide margin. The 500PF still does very well though my new favorite now is the 800PF.