Trying to ignore GAS and still be happy

[cutterpup]

My gear list speaks to what I own. Lately I have been starting to photograph insects as I walk around my yard. Although I do own two macro lenses, 90mm and 150mm, for these walks I prefer a zoom.

I hadn't used my 70-300mm DX lens since I bought a 100-400mm. Some recent threads had me considering, briefly, getting the 70-300mm FX lens. A comparison showed that a FX70-300mm falls between the 100-400mm and the DX 70-300mm in terms of weight and closest focusing distance.

I did some stagnant tests with both lens that I already have, with and without a 20mm extension tube. I then went back out side. I "think" I might have cured myself. For the times when my hands really hurt, the lighter weight of the DX70-300 helps.


100-400mm


70-300mm DX with 20mm ET

 

[2sealsonwheels]

Can you please tell me EXACTLY what extension tube you used with the AF-P 70-300 DX...I'm interested in trying an extension tube...thanks

 

[cutterpup]

Can you please tell me EXACTLY what extension tube you used with the AF-P 70-300 DX...I'm interested in trying an extension tube...thanks

Kenko (made in Japan) for N/AF DG. I bought the three tube set 12mm, 20mm, 36mm, from a fellow camera club member. As of last year, when I did a price compare, B&H had them for sale.

 

[tripleC]

I bought a generic extension tube set for my Nikon 70-300 zoom from Amazon. Works very well. Just make sure you get a set that has electronic contacts so it will autofocus with your lens.

 

[Peter in Canberra]

nice shots. The AF-P 70-300 DX focuses fast and accurately so is a good option I reckon. It was the lens i had the most success with trying to photograph hover flies (hovering). (tried 85 micro and G1 Tamron 70-200 F2.8)

 

[GarysInSoCal]

For the times when my hands really hurt, the lighter weight of the DX 70-300 helps.


100-400mm


70-300mm DX with 20mm ET

That lens is no mistake... love my DX 70-300... great lightweight lens for carrying up and down the beach in Laguna.




Shot of Baylee taken with the 70-300!

 

[TheSoaringSprite]

My gear list speaks to what I own. Lately I have been starting to photograph insects as I walk around my yard. Although I do own two macro lenses, 90mm and 150mm, for these walks I prefer a zoom.

I hadn't used my 70-300mm DX lens since I bought a 100-400mm. Some recent threads had me considering, briefly, getting the 70-300mm FX lens. A comparison showed that a FX70-300mm falls between the 100-400mm and the DX 70-300mm in terms of weight and closest focusing distance.

I did some stagnant tests with both lens that I already have, with and without a 20mm extension tube. I then went back out side. I "think" I might have cured myself. For the times when my hands really hurt, the lighter weight of the DX70-300 helps.

Another way to cure some GAS for cameras and lenses (although it does involve some spending, just nowhere near as much), is to try new post-processing software like DxO PureRAW 4. I found that it breathes new life into all my RAW files, no matter what camera or lens I was using. The noise reduction, lens profile and sharpening can do absolute wonders for most photos, especially where fine details matter.

 

[GarysInSoCal]

My gear list speaks to what I own. Lately I have been starting to photograph insects as I walk around my yard. Although I do own two macro lenses, 90mm and 150mm, for these walks I prefer a zoom.

I hadn't used my 70-300mm DX lens since I bought a 100-400mm. Some recent threads had me considering, briefly, getting the 70-300mm FX lens. A comparison showed that a FX70-300mm falls between the 100-400mm and the DX 70-300mm in terms of weight and closest focusing distance.

I did some stagnant tests with both lens that I already have, with and without a 20mm extension tube. I then went back out side. I "think" I might have cured myself. For the times when my hands really hurt, the lighter weight of the DX70-300 helps.

Another way to cure some GAS for cameras and lenses (although it does involve some spending, just nowhere near as much), is to try new post-processing software like DxO PureRAW 4. I found that it breathes new life into all my RAW files, no matter what camera or lens I was using. The noise reduction, lens profile and sharpening can do absolute wonders for most photos, especially where fine details matter.

Totally agree... utilizing some quality software applications can indeed breath new life into some of your older images... even if the software is not new. Trying something new can make a difference.

Here's something new & almost free: http://www.mediachance.com/pbrush/index.html

 

[3Percent]

My gear list speaks to what I own. Lately I have been starting to photograph insects as I walk around my yard. Although I do own two macro lenses, 90mm and 150mm, for these walks I prefer a zoom.

I hadn't used my 70-300mm DX lens since I bought a 100-400mm. Some recent threads had me considering, briefly, getting the 70-300mm FX lens. A comparison showed that a FX70-300mm falls between the 100-400mm and the DX 70-300mm in terms of weight and closest focusing distance.

I did some stagnant tests with both lens that I already have, with and without a 20mm extension tube. I then went back out side. I "think" I might have cured myself. For the times when my hands really hurt, the lighter weight of the DX70-300 helps.

Another way to cure some GAS for cameras and lenses (although it does involve some spending, just nowhere near as much), is to try new post-processing software like DxO PureRAW 4. I found that it breathes new life into all my RAW files, no matter what camera or lens I was using. The noise reduction, lens profile and sharpening can do absolute wonders for most photos, especially where fine details matter.

Silly question because this is system dependant, but how fast is DxO PureRAW 4? I have used so many other raw photo apps and they are so slow compared to elements that I've been using for over a decade now. Happy to try something else but the slow processing time (no matter what computer I use, even fast ones) has always turned me off on others. Time is valuable, workflow needs to be reasonable.

 

[cutterpup]

TheSoaringSprite, post: 67976963, member: 2120868"]Another way to cure some GAS for cameras and lenses (although it does involve some spending, just nowhere near as much), is to try new post-processing software like DxO PureRAW 4. I found that it breathes new life into all my RAW files, no matter what camera or lens I was using. The noise reduction, lens profile and sharpening can do absolute wonders for most photos, especially where fine details matter.

[/QUOTE]
Too late. I went to pure Raw a few years ago and quickly went on to the full DXO suite.

 

[TheSoaringSprite]

Another way to cure some GAS for cameras and lenses (although it does involve some spending, just nowhere near as much), is to try new post-processing software like DxO PureRAW 4. I found that it breathes new life into all my RAW files, no matter what camera or lens I was using. The noise reduction, lens profile and sharpening can do absolute wonders for most photos, especially where fine details matter.

Silly question because this is system dependant, but how fast is DxO PureRAW 4? I have used so many other raw photo apps and they are so slow compared to elements that I've been using for over a decade now. Happy to try something else but the slow processing time (no matter what computer I use, even fast ones) has always turned me off on others. Time is valuable, workflow needs to be reasonable.

An old version of Elements vs. new AI-powered software,.. naturally the AI stuff requires more processing power. It will tax an older system for sure.

It's one of those things that can either be a set-it-and-forget-it thing until it finishes processing all your selected photos, or if you're doing each photo individually, for me it takes anywhere between 10/15/20 seconds per photo. I'm processing 45 megapixel photos (Nikon Z8) on a MacBook Pro, which I purchased at the beginning of this year. If you're processing smaller files, it'll be faster, or about the same amount of time on an older computer. You can download a 30 day free trial and test it for yourself, see if it's worth it to you.

Of course now DxO has released PhotoLab 8, which has the slightly improved DeepPRIME XD2s noise reduction and gives us the ability to use it without the DNG conversion part. That one also has a free trial available

Oh, and I recently decided to give Adobe Lightroom Classic a try and found that their AI noise reduction has improved enough to where it's hard to decide between using DxO PL8, or LRC when processing high ISO images. I still prefer the PL8 colors, but there are some things Lightroom does better IMO.

 

[3Percent]

Another way to cure some GAS for cameras and lenses (although it does involve some spending, just nowhere near as much), is to try new post-processing software like DxO PureRAW 4. I found that it breathes new life into all my RAW files, no matter what camera or lens I was using. The noise reduction, lens profile and sharpening can do absolute wonders for most photos, especially where fine details matter.

Silly question because this is system dependant, but how fast is DxO PureRAW 4? I have used so many other raw photo apps and they are so slow compared to elements that I've been using for over a decade now. Happy to try something else but the slow processing time (no matter what computer I use, even fast ones) has always turned me off on others. Time is valuable, workflow needs to be reasonable.

An old version of Elements vs. new AI-powered software,.. naturally the AI stuff requires more processing power. It will tax an older system for sure.

It's one of those things that can either be a set-it-and-forget-it thing until it finishes processing all your selected photos, or if you're doing each photo individually, for me it takes anywhere between 10/15/20 seconds per photo. I'm processing 45 megapixel photos (Nikon Z8) on a MacBook Pro, which I purchased at the beginning of this year. If you're processing smaller files, it'll be faster, or about the same amount of time on an older computer. You can download a 30 day free trial and test it for yourself, see if it's worth it to you.

Of course now DxO has released PhotoLab 8, which has the slightly improved DeepPRIME XD2s noise reduction and gives us the ability to use it without the DNG conversion part. That one also has a free trial available

Oh, and I recently decided to give Adobe Lightroom Classic a try and found that their AI noise reduction has improved enough to where it's hard to decide between using DxO PL8, or LRC when processing high ISO images. I still prefer the PL8 colors, but there are some things Lightroom does better IMO.

You've answered my question, and thanks . I have fast systems here at home. I just don't like waiting for every adjustment to catch up before I make another. Impatient, maybe, spoiled, probably, hard to say