I don't argue with you or anyone, nor do I blindly quote DXO, nor do I need to sugarcoat anything. I find out for myself by actually shooting with the lens for months. This is what I wrote earlier in this thread:
Someone might say, "But I don't seem to have the same observations." And I would fully respect that statement. No problems at all, because what am I to know any better, I'm just a slave to the Japanese masters.
No worries, Kaso...I believe we're on the same page.
I completely agree. Well said.
Thank you for the excellent information, Inlawbiker. I am going to print it out and have it right next to my camera.
And I didn't say, you were wrong - just that I can't find test-result showing, that the lens should perform significantly better with smaller apertures at the long end. Actually - in Thom's review he notes, that, at 300mm it is best wide open - just opposite to your experience.
Thank Gerald, That gives me a little encouragement.
Thank you for all the good information, Antoineb, I will copy it and have it near my camera.
Please check my updated photos using what you kind people have taught me today, posted with Geraldhines. There is room for much improvement on my part, but thanks to all of you, I am on the right track.
Please check my updated photos using what you kind people have taught me today, posted with Geraldhines. There is room for much improvement on my part, but thanks to all of you, I am on the right track.Well Ken - that Little bird is not that bad at all with that lens, I would say. But it is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, as others have already said.
I found a compare to the Nikon 70-300 and the Tamron 70-300. As the Tamron is not tested on a 16MP camera, the compare is made on the D300.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...mm-F4-5.6-Di-VC-USD-Nikon___324_0_262_0_281_0
Go to "Measurements", "Sharpness" and "Fieldmap" - choose "300mm" and look at the (huge) difference - and I can assure you, that this difference is even "huger" on the D7000.
Sadly enough, the 55-300 doesn't seem to get any better stopped Down a bit.
But look at this:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...mm-F4-5.6-Di-VC-USD-Nikon___324_0_262_0_281_0
and look at 200mm - then you speak sharpness. The 70-200 f:4 is about the double Price as the 70-300 - and you'll have to get closer - looking at your Eagle - I would say that it is worth it.
Just a kick of input
BirgerH.
Please check my updated photos using what you kind people have taught me today, posted with Geraldhines. There is room for much improvement on my part, but thanks to all of you, I am on the right track.Unfortunately, that's about as good as I would expect that bird to be on that lens at 300mm with that much crop. You've essentially gone from 16mp down to 0.5mp, removing 97% of the pixels.
I also see that your shutter is 1/200 which is on the slow side for that lens. However, in this case I don't think it contributed significantly to the poor IQ.
The other image is sharper, but only because the subject is 6-8X larger and the in-camera sharpening appears to be doing more work.
Here's your same image with only a hint of extra sharpening applied via Aperture, I'm sure someone with some expertise and a slightly better starting point could do better. This does show that with that lens/body combo you can likely achieve some stellar images with some minor post-capture processing.
Sharpening added: Intensity: 0.4 Radius: 2.36
You will significantly increase your IQ output by 1. Getting closer to your subject (I know, not always easy for birds) 2. Cropping less (need bigger subject to work with) 3. Some minor post-capture processing to increase sharpness. 4. Faster shutter speeds (stick with 1/zoom length or faster for handheld, but even much faster for BIFs).
Nice captures though, I like the first one. I just don't have the patience for birds but have attempted it a few times.
Good luck!
Please check my updated photos using what you kind people have taught me today, posted with Geraldhines. There is room for much improvement on my part, but thanks to all of you, I am on the right track.
Please check my updated photos using what you kind people have taught me today, posted with Geraldhines. There is room for much improvement on my part, but thanks to all of you, I am on the right track.Well, that label bears some truth but is incomplete -- soft at 300mm at which apertures? In competent hands, that lens is no "trash" and can perform well in certain conditions.
Same can be said about "kit" lenses. I happen to have received extraordinary copies of kit lens with my camera bodies.
I have taken three more photos of the same subjects with the same equipment but using the improvements that you good people here have given me to try.
I have taken three more photos of the same subjects with the same equipment but using the improvements that you good people here have given me to try.
I have taken three more photos of the same subjects with the same equipment but using the improvements that you good people here have given me to try.
I have taken three more photos of the same subjects with the same equipment but using the improvements that you good people here have given me to try.
I have taken three more photos of the same subjects with the same equipment but using the improvements that you good people here have given me to try.
I have taken three more photos of the same subjects with the same equipment but using the improvements that you good people here have given me to try.Well Ken - that Little bird is not that bad at all with that lens, I would say. But it is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, as others have already said.
I found a compare to the Nikon 70-300 and the Tamron 70-300. As the Tamron is not tested on a 16MP camera, the compare is made on the D300.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...mm-F4-5.6-Di-VC-USD-Nikon___324_0_262_0_281_0
Go to "Measurements", "Sharpness" and "Fieldmap" - choose "300mm" and look at the (huge) difference - and I can assure you, that this difference is even "huger" on the D7000.
Sadly enough, the 55-300 doesn't seem to get any better stopped Down a bit.
But look at this:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...mm-F4-5.6-Di-VC-USD-Nikon___324_0_262_0_281_0
and look at 200mm - then you speak sharpness. The 70-200 f:4 is about the double Price as the 70-300 - and you'll have to get closer - looking at your Eagle - I would say that it is worth it.
Just a kick of input
BirgerH.
I have taken three more photos of the same subjects with the same equipment but using the improvements that you good people here have given me to try.Unfortunately, that's about as good as I would expect that bird to be on that lens at 300mm with that much crop. You've essentially gone from 16mp down to 0.5mp, removing 97% of the pixels.
I also see that your shutter is 1/200 which is on the slow side for that lens. However, in this case I don't think it contributed significantly to the poor IQ.
The other image is sharper, but only because the subject is 6-8X larger and the in-camera sharpening appears to be doing more work.
Here's your same image with only a hint of extra sharpening applied via Aperture, I'm sure someone with some expertise and a slightly better starting point could do better. This does show that with that lens/body combo you can likely achieve some stellar images with some minor post-capture processing.
Sharpening added: Intensity: 0.4 Radius: 2.36
You will significantly increase your IQ output by 1. Getting closer to your subject (I know, not always easy for birds) 2. Cropping less (need bigger subject to work with) 3. Some minor post-capture processing to increase sharpness. 4. Faster shutter speeds (stick with 1/zoom length or faster for handheld, but even much faster for BIFs).
Nice captures though, I like the first one. I just don't have the patience for birds but have attempted it a few times.
Good luck!
I have taken three more photos of the same subjects with the same equipment but using the improvements that you good people here have given me to try.Well, that label bears some truth but is incomplete -- soft at 300mm at which apertures? In competent hands, that lens is no "trash" and can perform well in certain conditions.
Same can be said about "kit" lenses. I happen to have received extraordinary copies of kit lens with my camera bodies.
