This is why you need 20 FPS

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

MJR

MJR

Active member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
Its not just for wing position that you need 20 FPS. This sequence was shot from start to finish and this is the only frame that captured this image. Had I been shooting at 15 FPS I don't think it would have captured the shot. The fog was rolling in and PS to the rescue. Not a wall hanger but it does illustrate the need for speed.
Brown Pelican with pouch full of fish copy.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Amazing capture. I just recently got a Z9 and used it on a trip to Sri Lanka. I agree, that 20 fps comes in handy. I especially found it helpful to find which photos were the sharpest . I used the 500 PF, mainly hand held because the vegetation did not lent itself to using a monopod often. I found that the VR was not adequate and so now am thinking of getting a Z lens for much better VR. One I'm considering is the 100-400 but if you put a 1.4 TC on it, it becomes f8. That is a real disadvantage. The other one I'm considering is the 400 f4.5 because of its size and light weight. What's been your experience with the 100-400? I am not considering the 180-600 because of the size and weight and I'm not a serious enough birder.
 
Member's gallery
Butlerkid said:
I have both the 100-400 and 400 f4.5. I like the 100-400 - even with a tele. But for serious work, I LOVE the 400 f4.5 - with or without the tele!
Click to expand...
I'm intrigued by your distinction between serious and not so serious work. Can you explain? Is the 100-400 the only zoom you have? I have the 70-200 FL E and rarely use it.
 
Member's gallery
JHALL you said on your 500 PF "I found that the VR was not adequate and so now am thinking of getting a Z lens for much better VR". Do you have it set to sport mode ? I find my VR works better on normal mode than Sport mode VR. Check it out yourself and see. Your right the 100-400 with TC is at f8 at 400mm. Depending on the light of course, I don't find it a disadvantage at all in decent light . I often shoot at f8. I like the zoom over the fixed 400, its much more versatile when the action is changing in front of you like close in diving Terns or Pelicans. Again your right the 180-600 is too heavy to handhold for any lenght of time like the earlier 200-500. I now have the Z 600 PF and it replaces my favorite lens the 500 PF. Yes its pricey but worth it .
 
Member's gallery
jhallettbc said:
I'm intrigued by your distinction between serious and not so serious work. Can you explain? Is the 100-400 the only zoom you have? I have the 70-200 FL E and rarely use it.
Click to expand...
If I can use a tripod - or will be shooting from a bean bag in Africa, I will use the 100-400 as my mid-range zoom and my 600mm TC as my long lens.

If I HAVE to hand hold and shoot BIF's, I will probably select the 100-400 - with our without tele. If I have to handhold for all wildlife, I will use the 400 f4.5 - with or without tele.
 
Member's gallery
MJR said:
JHALL you said on your 500 PF "I found that the VR was not adequate and so now am thinking of getting a Z lens for much better VR". Do you have it set to sport mode ? I find my VR works better on normal mode than Sport mode VR. Check it out yourself and see. Your right the 100-400 with TC is at f8 at 400mm. Depending on the light of course, I don't find it a disadvantage at all in decent light . I often shoot at f8. I like the zoom over the fixed 400, its much more versatile when the action is changing in front of you like close in diving Terns or Pelicans. Again your right the 180-600 is too heavy to handhold for any lenght of time like the earlier 200-500. I now have the Z 600 PF and it replaces my favorite lens the 500 PF. Yes its pricey but worth it .
Click to expand...
I have tried both sport and normal and couldn't see much difference. It was a real challenge hand holding because so many birds were up high and I found it's much harder to keep the lens still when that's the case and often you are standing on uneven ground to make it worse. When I used DX or the 1.4 TC the problem was worse. One time I actually fell over. Made me decide I want the best VR possible.
 
Member's gallery
Butlerkid said:
If I can use a tripod - or will be shooting from a bean bag in Africa, I will use the 100-400 as my mid-range zoom and my 600mm TC as my long lens.

If I HAVE to hand hold and shoot BIF's, I will probably select the 100-400 - with our without tele. If I have to handhold for all wildlife, I will use the 400 f4.5 - with or without tele.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying. It's making me think that I can't possibly figure out where I'l be going over the next few years and hence I can't decide now what lens/lenses will be best for me over the next few years. I don't have an African trip planned but am going to Queensland in February. I should do a post asking what Aussies recommend. I know a friend who has a brother in Queensland and is very happy with his 100-400. However I'm drawn to the lighter weight and smaller size of the 400 4.5 and I noticed that you said if you are hand holding for all wildlife, you will use that lens.
 
Member's gallery
jhallettbc said:
Thanks for clarifying. It's making me think that I can't possibly figure out where I'l be going over the next few years and hence I can't decide now what lens/lenses will be best for me over the next few years. I don't have an African trip planned but am going to Queensland in February. I should do a post asking what Aussies recommend. I know a friend who has a brother in Queensland and is very happy with his 100-400. However I'm drawn to the lighter weight and smaller size of the 400 4.5 and I noticed that you said if you are hand holding for all wildlife, you will use that lens.
Click to expand...
The 100-400 is 3.2 lbs and the 400 f4.5 is 2.7. I shoot either one hand held. The .5 lb isn't that noticeable because the lens balances so well.

The distinguishing characteristic is that the 100-400 is a zoom..........! That offers a lot of flexibility to choose various subjects.

The 400 f4.5 is a fixed focal length.....good for subjects further away or smaller.
 
Member's gallery
MJR said:
Its not just for wing position that you need 20 FPS. This sequence was shot from start to finish and this is the only frame that captured this image. Had I been shooting at 15 FPS I don't think it would have captured the shot. The fog was rolling in and PS to the rescue. Not a wall hanger but it does illustrate the need for speed.
View attachment 73755
Click to expand...
Good capture!
What’s the main dish? The side dish?!
 
Member's gallery
Butlerkid said:
The 100-400 is 3.2 lbs and the 400 f4.5 is 2.7. I shoot either one hand held. The .5 lb isn't that noticeable because the lens balances so well.

The distinguishing characteristic is that the 100-400 is a zoom..........! That offers a lot of flexibility to choose various subjects.

The 400 f4.5 is a fixed focal length.....good for subjects further away or smaller.
Click to expand...
Do you notice much difference in sharpness between each one using the 1.4 TC? I love the sharpness of the 500 PF and don't want to get a lens where there is a noticeable loss of sharpness in comparison.
 
Member's gallery
20 FPS is great, 30 FPS would be even better for just the correct composition. I have thought about shooting 8K 60FPS video but setting the shutter speed for stills, not video. Video would look jerky but I might be able to extract stills from (granted at a different axial ratio). If anyone has done this and can share their experience (tools, techniques, ...) that would be much appreciated.
 
Member's gallery
jhallettbc said:
Do you notice much difference in sharpness between each one using the 1.4 TC? I love the sharpness of the 500 PF and don't want to get a lens where there is a noticeable loss of sharpness in comparison.
Click to expand...
I'm the wrong one to ask! LOL! I had a 500 PF and didn't like it. GASP...................... I find both the 100-400 and the 400 f4.5 better for me - with or without the 1.4 tele.

On SmugMug, click on an image to view it full screen. Then look in the upper left corner and click the "i" icon.....which will tell you all about the image! ;)

Z 400 f4.5 + 1.4 tele

Z100-400 + 1.4 tele - BIF
 
Member's gallery
Butlerkid said:
I'm the wrong one to ask! LOL! I had a 500 PF and didn't like it. GASP...................... I find both the 100-400 and the 400 f4.5 better for me - with or without the 1.4 tele.

On SmugMug, click on an image to view it full screen. Then look in the upper left corner and click the "i" icon.....which will tell you all about the image! ;)

Z 400 f4.5 + 1.4 tele

Z100-400 + 1.4 tele - BIF
Click to expand...
Thanks. :):)
 
Member's gallery
Butlerkid said:
I'm the wrong one to ask! LOL! I had a 500 PF and didn't like it. GASP...................... I find both the 100-400 and the 400 f4.5 better for me - with or without the 1.4 tele.

On SmugMug, click on an image to view it full screen. Then look in the upper left corner and click the "i" icon.....which will tell you all about the image! ;)

Z 400 f4.5 + 1.4 tele

Z100-400 + 1.4 tele - BIF
Click to expand...
I had a look. Very helpful. What was interesting is I could always tell the 600 without looking at the information. However the other lenses are sharp enough for me. Have doubts about the 100-400 and TC in low light.
 
Member's gallery
Unless you go with an f4, the ISO will increase more quickly in low light. But nowadays NR s/w is soooooo good, I no longer obsess over high ISO's. I shoot auto ISO with no max. BUT - I still use the lowest ISO possible. If a once in a life-time shot requires the max ISO, I will shoot it! After all, if I don't like it once I process it, I can always delete it. The only other option is to NOT take the shot. I'd rather take the shot and have a chance that it will be good enough.

100-400 @100mm @ ISO 18,000 and cropped a bit
 
Member's gallery
Those are all good points. I use Topaz DeNoise and it gives amazing results, especially with the sharpening. Yes, I should stop being so worried about high ISO. The other point is that with 5-6 stops extra with VR on a Z9, I can use a much lower shutter speed reducing the ISO. With the 500 PF in Sri Lanka, I never dared to go below 1/200 and usually kept it at a minimum of 1/320.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top