I have not seen this question brought up before but I have been wondering about it for a few weeks now.
"Why does it seem that the V1 handheld at 300mm with my 300 f/4 and my TC17-EII...equiv to 1350mm per the exif data...seem to be so steady at low shutter speeds?....and the 300 f/4 does not have VR"
I shot this at 1/125th sec, f/6.7, ISO500 hand held!! It is through a window so not the best image but used it as a test. I also use the 55-300VR (VRII they say) and also get very good results hand held (no monopod either).
Does the V1 have some sort of advantage over the D800?? My technique can NOT be getting that much better...but these shots ARE repeatable.
Probably just weight and balance. The V1 weighs over 1-1/4 pounds less than the D800. Also, because the camera is so light most of the weight is in the lens. If you hold the lens near the center of mass of the camera/lens combination, you are less likely to introduce motion by moving the end (the camera) when the end is lighter.
Ultimately I think it's due to several factors. One is that the lens is still the same focal length with a higher crop. So the "effective" focal length isn't really a factor. Another is that the V1 is much lighter and I think it causes us to hold the camera/lens differently. The D800 isn't small to say the least. So you're holding less bulk which factors in.
And, honestly, because with the FT1 you only have AF-S single point focusing you are probably forcing yourself to get a good focus lock whereas we tend to use DSLRs differently. In other words, we are more loose with DSLR focus because we can be.
>Ultimately I think it's due to several factors. One is that >the lens is still the same focal length with a higher crop. So >the "effective" focal length isn't really a factor.
I don't agree. Camera-shake motion blur is a matter of how much change of the framing of the scene is caused by a given amount of camera movement, and that's determined by the field of view. The narrower the FOV, the more prevalent is camera shake. The FOV, in turn, is determined by both the focal length of the lens and the size of the sensor -- in other words, the "effective" focal length as we use the term here.
To demonstrate this is easy. Here's a shot I took at 1/100 with a 300 f/4 and a D3:
Not too bad. Maybe a small amount of visible camera shake, but a usable image.
Now I'll crop that very same image to the size of a Nikon 1 sensor:
Whoa! Camera shake city. Note that this is effectively the image a V1 would have recorded under the same conditions, including the same amount of camera shake. So the size of the sensor really does matter when it comes to camera shake. "Effective focal length" is a convenient way of expressing this.
>I think it's about pixel density, not the mere impact of the crop factor.
Not really. The example I posted above was from a 12-megapixel camera, but the images would have looked the same if I had used a D800 or D600 instead of a D3. Note that these are not 100% crops -- they are resized for Web display, and the downsampling obviates sensor pixel-density differences. Only the "sensor" size is different.
Thanks.....that sort of makes sense. But I agree with Jon that I thought that the FOV would make the image area more sensitive to camera movement.
I have seen some discussion about whether Nikon would make a DSLR like the D800 or D600 with a high crop factor for wildlife shooters. Seems to me that Nikon could just add another option to the "Image Area" selections that include 2.0 crop on the D800 like they have for the 1.2 crop, DX, etc.
Dan (Nikon D800,V2,Sony HX400V,Lumix ZS40) "I don't read, I just look at pictures" - Andy Warhol
The point of the crop modes in the larger cameras is to help you frame the scene for the image size you'll be using. The problem with adding a 2.0-crop mode to a full-frame DSLR is that the resulting part of the viewfinder that contained the image would be so tiny that framing would be really difficult. (The D2X contains such an option, called "high speed crop" mode. I hardly ever used it.)
Nice to see that you are still honing your V1 skills. Spring won't be long and hopefully I can get out with both my 300mm f4 and 70-200VR on the V1.
Am I correct in that you took the shot with the 1.7TC? Looking at the Exif data it looks like you did at a focal length of 1350mm (although I calculate 1377mm)! I am a bit confused that the data says the image was captured at a focal length of 500mm and where this is arrived at is a mystery to me
Anyway, not withstanding the Exif data quandry, this is a really credible capture Dan. I firmly believe if no one looked at the image data you could say it was taken with either a D7000 or D800 and no one would be the wiser.
Nice one and more images please, as I find your work very encouraging.
>Nice to see that you are still honing your V1 skills. Spring >won't be long and hopefully I can get out with both my 300mm >f4 and 70-200VR on the V1. > >Am I correct in that you took the shot with the 1.7TC? Looking >at the Exif data it looks like you did at a focal length of >1350mm (although I calculate 1377mm)! I am a bit confused that >the data says the image was captured at a focal length of >500mm and where this is arrived at is a mystery to me > >Anyway, not withstanding the Exif data quandry, this is a >really credible capture Dan. I firmly believe if no one >looked at the image data you could say it was taken with >either a D7000 or D800 and no one would be the wiser. > >Nice one and more images please, as I find your work very >encouraging. > >Richard
Thanks for the kind words Richard.
Yes, I used the 300 f/4 with the 17TC-EII. I cant't explain the exif data. I tried to figure it out and it must be rounding or something (300mm X 1.7 is 510mm and 500 X 2.7 is 1350mm). But, like you, I was expecting 510mm and 1377mm total FOV. Maybe someone else can chime in and explain it...but it's close enough for me.
My images still are not what I want ... but I think the window takes some away from the IQ. Will have to wait till it's warm enough to set-up outside.
I hope your experiences with your 70-200VR1 are better than mine. In my tests the IQ at distances, where I had to crop the frame, lost detail due to the crop and my tests were better with the extra reach from my 55-300VR...which is my default go-to lens for distances without a tripod. I will keep you posted.
By the way... I got a small gift card for Christmas and just ordered a Manfrotto 361 Monopod Shoulder Brace. It really looks interesting. It attaches under the monopod ball head and hangs down along the monopod leg until it is used..then you just pick it up and put it to your shoulder like a rifle stock. It provides support against your body to help stabilize the camera/monopod combo. I got it at Adorama for $25. It is aluminum and seems to be made well and work well from the reviews I saw.
Here is a link to B&H where they also have it ...if you want to take a look.
The combination of the 300 f/4 and TC-17E II gives an EXIF focal length of 500 on every camera I've used that combination on. I don't know for sure, but I suspect Nikon's lens interface doesn't report focal length in units of mm but rather as one of a set of tabular focal-length values, and 510 mm just isn't in the table. Anyway, it's consistent from one camera model to the next.
And of course, 500 x 2.7 = 1350, so the EXIF 35-mm equivalent focal length is consistent with the 500 mm reported actual focal length reported by the lens/TC.
<<My images still are not what I want ... but I think the window takes some away from the IQ. Will have to wait till it's warm enough to set-up outside.>>
I often take through glass because of the weather and in my view it does make a difference especially when using auto focus, albeit it's minimal. The trouble is, that unless the bird is hanging around a while, manual focus is not convenient.
I shall have a look at the Manfrotto brace myself. The weather here today was a balmy 32-34 deg C (0-2 deg C) and so dull one really needs a tripod. Oh, roll on spring!