Moving on: Better lenses for D500 or going mirrorless?

[Tom Reynolds]

Hut2,

Excellent first try. Both very good but think 500pf slightly sharper. I notice that ISO is II00 on Nikon vs. 1600 on Sony.

 

[vulpess]

Hi again to everybody! And again thanks for the numerous helpful comments. Also glad that my thoughts and questions have led to a few sidetracks that hopefully will be helpful to others as well

First things first, costly solutions like to A1, new A9s, R5 or the coming Z9 are simply not in the equation for me at the moment.
If I would choose to switch to mirrorless now, it would be either to the A7 IV, a used A9 or a R6. However, the Canon is basically out of the question due to the limited lens selection at the moment, which would leave the two Sony solutions. After reading all the comments, I highly doubt that I will make a switch in the nearest future. The cost involved seems to be too high for the benefits. That leaves the question whether I want to invest in some better glass.

I will talk about some of my problems a little later and include some example images as well. Otherwise, I have my Instagram handle in the signature which might give some impression of what kind of images I shoot.

Many zooms lose sharpness at max reach. When shooting over long distance, there are many things that can impact image quality. I don’t feel your gear is a limiting factor. You may also want to share some photos in the presentation forum and critique forum to get some feedback.

Yes, I am aware of the problems of both shooting at the long end of a zoom and shooting distance subjects. The frustration that made me start this thread, however, is not due to these issues, as I am generally speaking really happy with the optical features of my lens if the focus hits. See some more explanation at the end of this post

The best value today for the money in mirrorless is probably the A9 with the 200-600. They all have some compromises as well. My overall recommendation is be patient for now.

I sort of came to the same conclusion about the A9/200-600 combination. But in a way, I would prefer to go for a speculative Z6 III / Z500 or something along those lines if Nikon closes the AF gap to Sony and Canon. In other words, sitting still is probably the sensible way to go.

Length and D500. The D500 is lightning fast focusing with the 500pf. Absolutely no issues.

Thanks Ralph! Another point in the book for the PF.

There is a lot of good advice, but the bottom line is you may need to work on technique with your current gear, and develop more reasonable expectations for distant subjects. If you have unlimited money, you can substitute gear for technique, but it's on the margin and won't make a dramatic difference. Save your money.

Thanks for kind words, Eric! I agree that I certainly will have some improving to do on the (field) technique side of things. As mentioned above, distant subjects are not really the issue here.

You might start by viewing some of Steve's videos on action photography and how to focus. Then post some images that are successful - and some that did not work as expected so you can get feedback on your progress. Be specific about where you need help so there is not a lot of discussion about secondary issues.

I think I have seen most of Steve's videos (which were one of the main reasons I went for a D500 last year!) and read both the Nikon AF and BiF e-book. But watching videos and reading books are only one thing, trying and improving is another.

If you are getting soft images in af-c what group and focus point are you using. I have my D5oo set up with my PV button set to single point af-c my joystick set to group autofocus at a small focus area and my ae AF lock button set to area focus at a medium size focus area. If you are using group or area autofocus the camera maybe focusing on a wingtip instead of the head or eye. I advise you read Steve's book on Nikon autofocus system's and his bird in flight book. The D5oo is very capable of taking excellent pics usually beyond the skill of most photographer's.

I mostly use Single Point AF for stationary subjects. Pressing the joystick gives me Group AF for moving subjects and I sometimes try to use Dynamic AF. And as mentioned earlier, I have read both books which have been really helpful in setting up the camera, albeit, that surely does not mean that I know perfectly how to use the different AF modes.

best tip I ever had is to clean your contacts on your lens and camera frequently. I use BD Alcohol Swabs ... fold up and squeeze the excess fluid out and then carefully wipe the contacts in one direction. You can also use Deoxit or other similar cleaner with a little dab on a micro fiber cloth. I have had photographers say they needed to have their lens/camera repaired and I cleaned their contacts for them and the camera and lens then worked great. Does not work every time but more often than not.

Thanks for an unusual but hopefully helpful tip, Ken! I will try this out

Okay, so time for some actual photos. I uploaded a burst of 19 images to a Flickr album that you can find here. The series was shot within four seconds, Single Point AF and I used a monopod with Sidekick gimbal (full EXIFs are one Flickr). The photos were exported from Lightroom only with standard screen output sharpening applied.

Of these 19 images, I found 7 to be completely out of focus and only one to be perfectly in focus (#9852) a couple more images are acceptable in terms of focus but still seem worse compared to that one where the lens shows its potential. I know that there are other factors here and a few images were compromised by the bird moving, however, also in these the focus is simply not quite there (bird movement was restricted to the head moving).

All in all, maybe quite tough test circumstances (quite high ISO, quite slow shutter speed, close distance, backlit subjects), but these are real life conditions which I think are more telling lab tests.

So over to you guys again: Am I expecting too much? Talking about technique, are there any glaring errors from my side? Would you reckon that a faster first party lens (300 2.8, 500 PF) could yield better results in this scenario (and better=more sharp images, I don't have any issue with the sharp photo!)?

Thanks again that you take your time to answer me! And thanks for keeping the discussion nice and friendly, I am more used that such threads end in a bitter brand war where arguments don't matter. This is a nice change

Lukas

 

[EricBowles]

Okay, so time for some actual photos. I uploaded a burst of 19 images to a Flickr album that you can find here. The series was shot within four seconds, Single Point AF and I used a monopod with Sidekick gimbal (full EXIFs are one Flickr). The photos were exported from Lightroom only with standard screen output sharpening applied.

Of these 19 images, I found 7 to be completely out of focus and only one to be perfectly in focus (#9852) a couple more images are acceptable in terms of focus but still seem worse compared to that one where the lens shows its potential. I know that there are other factors here and a few images were compromised by the bird moving, however, also in these the focus is simply not quite there (bird movement was restricted to the head moving).

All in all, maybe quite tough test circumstances (quite high ISO, quite slow shutter speed, close distance, backlit subjects), but these are real life conditions which I think are more telling lab tests.

So over to you guys again: Am I expecting too much? Talking about technique, are there any glaring errors from my side? Would you reckon that a faster first party lens (300 2.8, 500 PF) could yield better results in this scenario (and better=more sharp images, I don't have any issue with the sharp photo!)?

Thanks again that you take your time to answer me! And thanks for keeping the discussion nice and friendly, I am more used that such threads end in a bitter brand war where arguments don't matter. This is a nice change

Lukas

These are a lot better than you think. Take a look at the little bit of lichen on the branch just right of the bird. It looks pretty sharp and has good detail. The lichen is very close to the AF plane of the bird's eye. Your subject is in dim ight with very little contrast, and it looks like you are shooting through a branch of some sort. I don't think the issue is focus but rather shooting conditions and the out of focus obstructions.

Backlit subjects are challenging under the best of circumstances because you lack contrast on the near side of your subject. On top of that, the shadow area is so dim that your image is going to lack detail - and often detail is what makes an image look sharp. Glancing light or angled light is exactly how you bring out detail and texture - and your photos have almost no contrasting light at all on the subject.

The reason I suggest a proper test is because it controls variables and can be repeated as many times as needed.

 

[Ralph]

These are a lot better than you think. Take a look at the little bit of lichen on the branch just right of the bird. It looks pretty sharp and has good detail. The lichen is very close to the AF plane of the bird's eye. Your subject is in dim ight with very little contrast, and it looks like you are shooting through a branch of some sort. I don't think the issue is focus but rather shooting conditions and the out of focus obstructions.

Backlit subjects are challenging under the best of circumstances because you lack contrast on the near side of your subject. On top of that, the shadow area is so dim that your image is going to lack detail - and often detail is what makes an image look sharp. Glancing light or angled light is exactly how you bring out detail and texture - and your photos have almost no contrasting light at all on the subject.

The reason I suggest a proper test is because it controls variables and can be repeated as many times as needed.

I agree with Eric. The poor lighting will result in lack of detail. Sometimes it’s not possible but try to keep light behind you or at least to either side.

 

[Tiago C]

If I would choose to switch to mirrorless now, it would be either to the A7 IV, a used A9 or a R6. However, the Canon is basically out of the question due to the limited lens selection at the moment, which would leave the two Sony solutions.

EF lenses can be adapted to Canon RF very successfully.

 

[bleirer]

EF lenses can be adapted to Canon RF very successfully.

Some food for thought on the RF lenses for Canon.

Canon Zoom Lens Reviews

The-Digital-Picture.com is your source for clear, concise and complete Canon Zoom Lens Reviews

www.the-digital-picture.com