xPhoenix

xPhoenix

Joined on Nov 10, 2017

xPhoenix's recent activity

  • Looks reasonable, but without being able to see full res, no way to know.  Also, he doesn't say how many tries it took him to get a sharp shot.  The VR does work at 1/80. The problem is, it's not ...
  • That's fine.  Do whatever works for you.  I've found it's very possible to shoot a perched bird at 1/100.  If it's not moving, there's no worry of motion blur.  Just fire off a burst, and no ...
  • Yes, I was assuming the eye was the focus point.  To me, the feathers on the wing closest to the camera look slightly sharper than the eye.  I would say this is very minor and only noticed at 1:1.
  • That looks slightly front-focused to me.  I personally don't do any fine-tuning at first.  If it needs it, it'll be clear after a bit of shooting.  Nice shot, though.  Looks good with the TC,
  • briantilley wrote: Dude, you are on my ignore list.  Stop wasting your time replying. @Bing  The best case scenario for me is handheld.  I will never shoot it from a tripod, so I don't really care ...
  • If I really wanted a 300mm to use only at high SS, I'd buy the older non-VR 300 and save a crap-ton of money.
  • I don't think it's just the weight.  It has to be something related to the Fresnel design.  My 70-300 AF-P is even lighter than the 300PF, yet the VR does not act up.
  • I think comparing sharpness based on a sample size of one doesn't mean much.  It's likely that I just have a very sharp copy of the 200-500.  Back when I compared the 300PF + 1.4TC to my 200-500, ...
  • Here are my quick observations of the lens: (1) it's lighter and smaller than the 200-500 (2) VR is not good at speeds where you really need it.  It has a ...
  • I tried in quiet mode, too (and EFC was enabled), but results were still poor.  Maybe silent shooting in LV would be better, but that's of no use to me.
  • Yes, I expect VR to work at 1/80-1/125, even at 750mm eff. FL.  My 200-500 can do this just fine on every camera I've used, including DX.  Even on DX, 1/100 is only about a 3 stop improvement. On ...
  • Maybe.  My opinion is this PF is not worth 3x the price of the 200-500.
  • If I get a chance, but I think I will leave that for someone else to do.  I never shoot my tele on a tripod, so it would be pointless for me.  I know my tests aren't precise and scientific since ...
  • Briantilley is apparently obsessed with me, even though he's on my ignore list, so I can't see his posts.  He needs to stop replying to my posts unless he likes talking to a wall. Regardless of ...
  • Here's a few random shots from the real world bad good And here, in a burst of 3 shots, only 1 was moderately sharp And some more from a pole in my back yard.  I braced myself against the wall of ...
  • I know, it does seem crazy to me. I guess all these stock sites have different rules.  I will try the orange thing, haha.
  • If it's anything like the 300PF, the really low speeds, like 1/50, 1/40 and lower are OK, but the range around 1/100 is poor.  This is what I'm seeing, unfortunately.  Here are some examples.  ...
  • My point is, VR is not working.  Sure, your VR ON shot was better than with it off, but it certainly wasn't acceptable. Why the hell can't Nikon get VR right on these PF lenses?  It works great on ...
  • Here's the thing, though....VR is a selling point.  Where are you going to use VR?  Not a high shutter speeds.  We need it at low speeds, and that's precisely where it's not working.
  • Well, I shoot a lot at 1/80 with my 200-500.  I find that I can still get sharp shots of animals that aren't moving.  This evening, I took a shot of a squirrel under tree cover in the shade.  At ...
Activity older than 12 months is not displayed.
xPhoenix has not added any gear yet.
Total messages 1344
Threads started 78
Last post 56 min ago
Total comments 374
Total likes 1013
Last post 2 days ago
Total reviews 0
Entries 0
Votes cast 8
Photos uploaded 1
Last upload 1 week ago