Tue 05-Jun-12 06:06 PM | edited Tue 05-Jun-12 06:08 PM by Gerard Pas
Aah shucks, I'd kiss you if didn't have a beard Richard; hahaha
Don't hold your punches on me, even if I seem to be a bit touchy as I work through these issues with the D800. It's back in the saddle or lay on the ground moaning; I'd rather moan while going somewhere instead of lying there not doing much more. To quote the great American bard or is that beard "Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." - Will Rogers
EDIT *** I've had to change my work flow entirely with this new rig and am still learning. ***
I learned the large D800 NEF (7,360px X 4,912px) 45MB has too much data to shrink to a very small JPEG at 1/10th of its size or 780px X 520px. I now resize a copy of the original NEF first before any conversion to JPEG. I also learned that with all this data in the RAW file that very little if any sharpening can cause problems of compression, JPEG Artefacts, "rim lighting", so there is very little sharpening at all, at most maybe 12% in the original full size NEF and then another 2% when reduced to JPEG. The rest of my workflow remains the same as before. It’s going to take me a bit more work in PP before I’m totally happy for posting to the web but it’s a start.
I did not buy the D800 with the web in mind but rather to print large size images and with all that data it works very well the other way in enlargement for print.
Jim, I'm waiting for you to get a 600mm or Gary Irwin to get a 800mm Canonoodle (as he says he plans to change his rig for wildlife shooting(?) One way or another your right, I do need a 500mm! The loss of crop factor from DX to FX is hard on me, the birds aren't letting me get closer "Oh look he's shooting in FX and wearing a St. Francis of Assisi T-shirt, let him get 5 metres closer.": if only life were so simple. In the meantime I'll make lemonade with the 300mm TC1.7 combo. Maybe I should be using my TC2.0 more?
I haven't "talked" with Gary lately, but we're on the same wavelength. If I'm forced to FX I want an 800 f5.6, and I think Nikon's must be close. The Canon weighs only 9.9 pounds, but with their autofocus it's manual with a converter. Heck, if you could live with that (and a 7 meter MFD) you could pick up a Sigma 800 f5.6 for $6500. With Nikon's new autofocus we'd get full functionality with a TC-14E!
By the way, even with an 800 f5.6 I'd shoot the D800 in 1.2x crop mode much of the time.
Another couple great shots, Gerard. MY preference is for the first, but that may be because I'm partial to animals-in-their-habitat type of shots (maybe because the 300 f/4 is the longest lens I own). Still, the composition and combination of colours in #1 really "speaks" to me. Thanks for sharing. Take care, CK Nikonian in Ontario, Canada
Gorgeous shots Gerard! Your use of flash is perfect, as neither has the look of "Flash". A pleasure to view. Thanks for posting.
I'm glad to hear you found a way around the rim lighting issue.
Do you ever use the latest 2X telconverter with the 300mm on the D800? I have read mixed reviews, and some feel it is still softer than the 1.7X, although a lot better than the previous model, but I'm not sure I agree. I now use it with my 300/f2.8 nearly all the time. (The 1.7X now lives in a drawer somewhere.)
Thanks Paul, that's the trick with a flash being very constrained to only get a little more detail from the dark areas. I'm planning on trying my TC2 in the days to come and I'll let you know how it goes.
I enjoyed your two images very much. I am curious on the use of the flash. How far was the bird from the flash? What do you mean about flash extender tripod? Does this mean that the flash itself was closer to the subject than the Camera position.