Reading mode: Light Dark

D500 300MM PF and 1.4X

Go to last post
Some great shots there ! That's a combo I'd like to add to my kit in the future.
 
Keefy said:
Shutter speeds and ISO and aperture are a compromise for given light conditions when shooting BIF. Here in northern England the sun barely reaches 14 degrees above the horizon in mid winter and the limited light means that practical shutter speeds will be much lower than your suggested minimum 3200. To shoot at the shutter speed you suggest you would have to push ISO to unacceptable limits, resulting in noisy, mushy pictures.

As others have indicated, technique comes into play in these conditions. I rarely bother to take the d500 out on dull days in winter, full frame fares a little better.

--
Click to expand...
Indeed!

And it is worse in Scandinavia.
 
Jimusny said:
I have the 80-400 G but haven't used it once since I got the 300 PF.. probably will sell it off, it is no where near as good at AF lock and tracking and I get 20 more MM with TC and at distance is much sharper, I think its a toss up at 400MM at close distance which is sharper..
Click to expand...
Jim,

That's very interesting info. I am very happy with the 80-400g in the 5-50 yards distance but it does loose sharpness at longer ranges. Your shots show you are getting some really good detail. I am very tempted to switch! Have you tried it with the 1.7TC - cant remember if you have posted info on that before?
 
Keefy said:
Shutter speeds and ISO and aperture are a compromise for given light conditions when shooting BIF. Here in northern England the sun barely reaches 14 degrees above the horizon in mid winter and the limited light means that practical shutter speeds will be much lower than your suggested minimum 3200. To shoot at the shutter speed you suggest you would have to push ISO to unacceptable limits, resulting in noisy, mushy pictures.

As others have indicated, technique comes into play in these conditions. I rarely bother to take the d500 out on dull days in winter, full frame fares a little better.
Click to expand...
Keefy

I'm interested to hear where you think the 'crossover' is for the D500 in respect of the light. I assume you are looking at the respective IQ's balancing cropping (of the FF) vs reach (of the Dx). I am down in Cardiff and missed the two sunny days this week and we are now back to the gloom of previous weeks. At iso 2000, the FF is certainly the choice for IQ - but you have obvioulsy used the D500 a lot more than me. Any more detail you can give?
 
Keefy said:
As others have indicated, technique comes into play in these conditions. I rarely bother to take the d500 out on dull days in winter, full frame fares a little better.

--
Click to expand...
I'm thinking you must be referring to the King, the D5 because I'm finding out of camera JPG's better from the D500 than the D610 at high ISO.

Not BIF but just as an example here are a couple, the first at ISO 3600( with a fairly heavy crop) and the second at ISO 9000 (lightly cropped). Not exactly great photos but I would say the noise is perfectly fine for posting on the web.

73f446771f4440bb9592e48e2cd64c8e.jpg

1/1000 @f2.8 IS03600

1/3200 @ f5.6 ISO 9000
1/3200 @ f5.6 ISO 9000
 
Last edited:
Dr Bob said:
Jimusny said:
I have the 80-400 G but haven't used it once since I got the 300 PF.. probably will sell it off, it is no where near as good at AF lock and tracking and I get 20 more MM with TC and at distance is much sharper, I think its a toss up at 400MM at close distance which is sharper..
Click to expand...
Jim,

That's very interesting info. I am very happy with the 80-400g in the 5-50 yards distance but it does loose sharpness at longer ranges. Your shots show you are getting some really good detail. I am very tempted to switch! Have you tried it with the 1.7TC - cant remember if you have posted info on that before?
Click to expand...
 
Jimusny said:
Dr Bob said:
Jim,

That's very interesting info. I am very happy with the 80-400g in the 5-50 yards distance but it does loose sharpness at longer ranges. Your shots show you are getting some really good detail. I am very tempted to switch! Have you tried it with the 1.7TC - cant remember if you have posted info on that before?

--
Andy

http://andyburnsphotography.zenfolio.com/portfolio/h1adb969c#h2aa43d19
Click to expand...
I just ordered one Yesterday, I was debating just buying a good used one for half the price but I had 439 dollars in points from Newegg Tamron G2 purchase and may as well get it as a freebee from that purchase and just went for it new, with New years coming it probably wont arrive till mid week.. I dont know how well it will work on the PF but I have seen some good shots with the combo.. so as soon as I get a chance I will post some results.. but I will have the 1.4X in my pocket just in case :)

Not sure exactly what the widest Aperture will be with it on the PF F4, a half stop over 5.6 is 6.7? so it may slow things down enough I wont want to use it..

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jimusny/
Click to expand...
I just bought mine used on ebay, it should arrive in the next 10 days or so. The aperture is going to be 6.7 with my 300mm PF. I don't expect miracles in AF or image quality, but am hoping that both will be decent enough for daylight static or slow-moving objects.
 
Last edited:
bayareaphoto said:
I just bought mine used on ebay, it should arrive in the next 10 days or so. The aperture is going to be 6.7 with my 300mm PF. I don't expect miracles in AF or image quality, but am hoping that both will be decent enough for daylight static or slow-moving objects.
Click to expand...
Hah your probably who out bid me :) I put a low bid on a couple, but a soon as I was out bid I went for the new one.. Had I had anything else in mind I needed I would have used it for that and got one used so you can get most of your money back if you end up not liking it.. Now I gotta figure out what lenses I am going to keep and what ones I will sell, and what one I will buy next :) If I have to use a tripod I may as well go for one of the big guns.. but waiting to see how the new Sigma 500MM is rated before I decide anything.
 
Jimusny said:
bayareaphoto said:
I just bought mine used on ebay, it should arrive in the next 10 days or so. The aperture is going to be 6.7 with my 300mm PF. I don't expect miracles in AF or image quality, but am hoping that both will be decent enough for daylight static or slow-moving objects.
Click to expand...
Hah your probably who out bid me :) I put a low bid on a couple, but a soon as I was out bid I went for the new one.. Had I had anything else in mind I needed I would have used it for that and got one used so you can get most of your money back if you end up not liking it.. Now I gotta figure out what lenses I am going to keep and what ones I will sell, and what one I will buy next :) If I have to use a tripod I may as well go for one of the big guns.. but waiting to see how the new Sigma 500MM is rated before I decide anything.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jimusny/
Click to expand...
Wow, a prime 500mm is way beyond my budget... or need for that matter :) I've tried the 200-500mm f/5.6 zoom, and found it too unwieldy.
 
Last edited:
bayareaphoto said:
Wow, a prime 500mm is way beyond my budget... or need for that matter :) I've tried the 200-500mm f/5.6 zoom, and found it too unwieldy.
Click to expand...
Yeah a new one maybe, but if I add up all the money I spent on trying to find cheaper alternatives I could easily have gotten a used 500MM F4
 
Rodenmg said:
Keefy said:
As others have indicated, technique comes into play in these conditions. I rarely bother to take the d500 out on dull days in winter, full frame fares a little better.

--
Click to expand...
I'm thinking you must be referring to the King, the D5 because I'm finding out of camera JPG's better from the D500 than the D610 at high ISO.

Not BIF but just as an example here are a couple, the first at ISO 3600( with a fairly heavy crop) and the second at ISO 9000 (lightly cropped). Not exactly great photos but I would say the noise is perfectly fine for posting on the web.

73f446771f4440bb9592e48e2cd64c8e.jpg

1/1000 @f2.8 IS03600

1/3200 @ f5.6 ISO 9000
1/3200 @ f5.6 ISO 9000
Click to expand...
Rodenmg

Yes nice shots for the high iso. I like them.

This comparison that I think keefy is making (and I would make) is the capability of FF to give a better IQ in low light (despite the 'reach' effect of the dx)- not just noise but feather detail etc. This second shot is quite soft with a lot of feather detail lost but at iso 9000 what can you expect! I never go over iso 6400 with my 800E. It is not just about noise. The dx image degrades in sharpness as iso increases - and I guess more than on a FF.

My experience is that the 800E will outperform the dx on IQ in these circumstances and more than likely give sharper shots than you have achieved. I certainly would not be comparing out of camera jpg's as when you get to this level of comparison. I have no interest in using camera jpg's. The ultimate detail comes from Raw - and when you spend $10K on kit to extract that extra little performance, it makes no sense to fall back to jpgs.

Not sure if the 800E would have nailed the focus as well as the D500 would do though!

--
Andy

Loading…

andyburnsphotography.zenfolio.com
 
Dr Bob said:
Keefy said:
Shutter speeds and ISO and aperture are a compromise for given light conditions when shooting BIF. Here in northern England the sun barely reaches 14 degrees above the horizon in mid winter and the limited light means that practical shutter speeds will be much lower than your suggested minimum 3200. To shoot at the shutter speed you suggest you would have to push ISO to unacceptable limits, resulting in noisy, mushy pictures.

As others have indicated, technique comes into play in these conditions. I rarely bother to take the d500 out on dull days in winter, full frame fares a little better.
Click to expand...
Keefy

I'm interested to hear where you think the 'crossover' is for the D500 in respect of the light. I assume you are looking at the respective IQ's balancing cropping (of the FF) vs reach (of the Dx). I am down in Cardiff and missed the two sunny days this week and we are now back to the gloom of previous weeks. At iso 2000, the FF is certainly the choice for IQ - but you have obvioulsy used the D500 a lot more than me. Any more detail you can give?
Click to expand...
 
Keefy said:
Dr Bob said:
Keefy said:
Shutter speeds and ISO and aperture are a compromise for given light conditions when shooting BIF. Here in northern England the sun barely reaches 14 degrees above the horizon in mid winter and the limited light means that practical shutter speeds will be much lower than your suggested minimum 3200. To shoot at the shutter speed you suggest you would have to push ISO to unacceptable limits, resulting in noisy, mushy pictures.

As others have indicated, technique comes into play in these conditions. I rarely bother to take the d500 out on dull days in winter, full frame fares a little better.
Click to expand...
Keefy

I'm interested to hear where you think the 'crossover' is for the D500 in respect of the light. I assume you are looking at the respective IQ's balancing cropping (of the FF) vs reach (of the Dx). I am down in Cardiff and missed the two sunny days this week and we are now back to the gloom of previous weeks. At iso 2000, the FF is certainly the choice for IQ - but you have obvioulsy used the D500 a lot more than me. Any more detail you can give?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Jimusny said:
Dr Bob said:
Jimusny said:
I have the 80-400 G but haven't used it once since I got the 300 PF.. probably will sell it off, it is no where near as good at AF lock and tracking and I get 20 more MM with TC and at distance is much sharper, I think its a toss up at 400MM at close distance which is sharper..
Click to expand...
Jim,

That's very interesting info. I am very happy with the 80-400g in the 5-50 yards distance but it does loose sharpness at longer ranges. Your shots show you are getting some really good detail. I am very tempted to switch! Have you tried it with the 1.7TC - cant remember if you have posted info on that before?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Great images!

The D500 + 300mm f/4 PF + 1.4TC is a great combination. But I find myself reaching for the Sigma C 150-600 more often since 420mm just isn't enough a lot of the times (for me).
 
I've really enjoyed and got a lot out of this thread, so thank you Jimusy!

The image quality of the Harriers is very good, but what you've have demonstrated is that tracking ability and auto-focus speed can be more important than absolute magnification - at least that offered by the present range of budget long zoom lenses.

Very interesting that you've found that the Sigma c series and the Tamron 150-600g2 could not keep track and focus quickly enough to deliver the number of keepers your getting with your nikon 300mm combi.

I think, the conclusion of contributors to this thread is that whilst the quality of glass in the 'budget' zooms is getting better, the autofocus components cannot match Nikon's p300 speed performance.

My experiences with Sony A6300.. ..as a BIF alternative
This thread has all but convinced me to switch to the Nikon system which is going to be an upheaval, as all my gear has been Sony A-mount and more recently E - mount.

I cannot recommend my present system – the sony a6300/tamron 150-600 plus sony e - mount converters. With good light and slow moving subjects results are fine, but for demanding work in low light with distant moving birds of prey there's no chance of tracking and sharpness and my keeper level is very low. I have toyed with upgrading to the updated Tamron 150-600g2 or waiting for the distant day that sony MIGHT release a true e-mount version of their 100 - 400mm lense, but it would appear judging by what the nikon d500 and the 300 f4 + tele converter combination has delivered here, this might just be the best 'budget' system that delivers fast autofocus and good image quality.

Regards,

Nick
 
I used to own 200-500mm f/5.6 lens. With D500 it is pretty sharp, but AF is just too slow to get a good hit rate for BIF. Since switching to 300mm f/4 PF, I am finding the AF speed and accuracy with D500 to be a quantum leap. The 300mm f/4 with 1.4x Mk3 is sharper than 200-500mm f/5.6 @ 420mm. Stopping down to f/5.6 (f/8 with tele), the combination is exceptionally sharp. I cannot be happier with this combination for wildlife. It is so small and light, and yet so powerful.
 
Last edited:
Like your good confident comments on the difference of the the 200-500 zoom and prime +tele. I fear every time I return to this thread, I'm another step closer to ditching my Sony system and another step closer to getting the Nikon combi :). Please feel free to post some images of what you're achieving - (keen to see more BIF'S).

Thanks,

Nick
 
NickGreen said:
Like your good confident comments on the difference of the the 200-500 zoom and prime +tele. I fear every time I return to this thread, I'm another step closer to ditching my Sony system and another step closer to getting the Nikon combi :). Please feel free to post some images of what you're achieving - (keen to see more BIF'S).

Thanks,

Nick
Click to expand...
D500 300 PF w14TCii- Nice combination . . .



1f514071da6a46e3a9c47064b5c85b6b.jpg



1d73c978408e4ba1a6d4c3181eccf5be.jpg



eb4eee08cab2409cb164e2125696e504.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top