LEO for Phil-D

Blame me............blame the fact there was only one out...............blame the fact he didn't show that well ..........infact, blame it on anything.............

.... 'cos you daren't blame it on that that expensive equipment :p:LOL:
 
:LOL::LOL::LOL: ^^^^

Mike what gear is this taken with please? Just interested,I thought you were going to nik, Maybe not the best shot it would probably be a cool start for many of us.;)

stu
 
Phil-D said:
Blame me............blame the fact there was only one out...............blame the fact he didn't show that well ..........infact, blame it on anything.............

.... 'cos you daren't blame it on that that expensive equipment :p[emoji38]
Click to expand...
Funnily enough, I was talking to Lynne yesterday evening she kept using the phrase 'it's not what you've got it's what you do with it'.

[emoji1787][emoji1787]
 
Stuart Philpott said:
:LOL::LOL::LOL: ^^^^

Mike what gear is this taken with please? Just interested,I thought you were going to nik, Maybe not the best shot it would probably be a cool start for many of us.;)

stu
Click to expand...

Cheers Stu, hopefully it is just a starter shot - all depends on time available and weather conditions.

Gone to Nikon now - got a great deal on a 600mm (relatively speaking of course!) and going to build up the kit now. I needed to re-hash and update the bag, and it worked to cheaper this way. Focussing is supposed to be better than Canon for tough subjects - we'll see - but I doubt I'd be able to tell much difference in IQ between the 2 brands on 2 identically well focussed shots.

Anyway, this was with a d500, 600mm + 1.4x, 1/2500th f5.6 ISO 1000. I let the bird drift off the AF points, hence the drop in detail and I had to add canvas to the right for framing

Mike
 
Ahh ok , so you have gone for the crop body Mike, and 600 wow that's some reach You have always shot with 500/ff haven't you mate? Well since we have talked care to elaborate a tiny bit more if not no probs. I'm actually incredibly curious as to your opinions in how the sensors differ as you go along Mike. Personally i'm happy enough not thinking of changing ha I'd have love to have nabbed some of your kit but sadly the timing wasn't quite right, So i'm not musing changing just curious tis all:)


Mate you have this deep love of UW what's you thinking there? What tools are you after?

I hope you both get to have a ball with the owls Mike. and you with the new tools Grats buddy

'Ere:), one last one did nik match that 1.4 to the 600 ?,do they do that as a package? .. I might of misread something somewhere, .


huge grats on the tools ,,hope it works like you envisage
 
Stuart Philpott said:
Ahh ok , so you have gone for the crop body Mike, and 600 wow that's some reach You have always shot with 500/ff haven't you mate? Well since we have talked care to elaborate a tiny bit more if not no probs. I'm actually incredibly curious as to your opinions in how the sensors differ as you go along Mike. Personally i'm happy enough not thinking of changing ha I'd have love to have nabbed some of your kit but sadly the timing wasn't quite right, So i'm not musing changing just curious tis all:)


Mate you have this deep love of UW what's you thinking there? What tools are you after?

I hope you both get to have a ball with the owls Mike. and you with the new tools Grats buddy

'Ere:), one last one did nik match that 1.4 to the 600 ?,do they do that as a package? .. I might of misread something somewhere, .


huge grats on the tools ,,hope it works like you envisage
Click to expand...

Hi Stu,

Actually, the change was for a couple of reasons. First up I wanted a crop sensor for underwater (first love but not enough time or money!). Crop underwater has a few advantages over FF, as well as a couple of disadvantages, but a big advantage is the availability of fisheye zooms, which are a massive plus, especially when you can add the kenko 1.4x with minimal IQ loss. To get a similar field of view with FF I'd need to get the Nauticam WACP port - about £4k and a big weight penalty which is a travelling pain.

I was getting frustrated with some of Canons AF failures with tough subjects. I've lost track of the relatively easy subjects such as incoming gannets in good light where I've nailed my part but the AF was lagging giving me nice sharp feet instead of heads. I wasn't a fan of the 7d2 for underwater, so had gone with the Nikon D500. Arash, Artie, Dave etc were all raving about Nikons superior AF so I thought I'd give it a go.

Funnily enough, Sony has now overtaken Nikon in the AF stakes - even Arash has just had his 600mm f4 delivered - but no way I can afford their 600mm. If I was just sticking with mammals I'd probably have stayed with Canon. I wanted to upgrade my gear as I was on the original Canon 500mm and I got a better deal on the Nikon than I could get with Canon. I had to get the Nikon 1.4x separately.

I now plan to add a FF camera. I was torn between the D5 and the D850, but will probably save a bit extra for the D5 and use the D500 when I need the extra pixel reach, as the D5 has better high ISO capability than the D850.

Bit gutted about losing the Canon 100-400. I didn't use it much, but I thought the IQ on my lens was outstanding. The Nikon 80-400 and 200-500 get decent reviews but not quite as well regarding as the Canon. 1st world problems eh?!

Mike
 
Mike thank you....especially the details within your reply. I know your first love is the UW stuff Mike,I think you probably told me;), I have no knowledge of the subject bar talking to you.really So the outlines about why you have chosen crop,are now much clearer. . Ahh, so you will still add an FF body . I saw abit about Arash and Artie switching because of the Nik AF,it's seems to me quite remarkable what Sony have accomplished recently Mike,although i'm not really keeping up with everything, development wise.

Funny I very nearly bought the 100-400, sadly it was a bit too much of a punt,for me while things are so unsettled,so I went for the little 100mm is macro( if I'd have had the pennies i'd have taken both of you . The DO ii MFD is 3.3m, so I've been finding I'm stuggling now and again with small subjects. especially .. I don't expect to get seriously into macro,but I do have a room full of incredibly beautiful and photogenic frogs, (we keep dart frogs Mike),so have a tonne of subjects to play with.. But the 100-400 is ii will probably always be on my radar, Seems like canon really nailed that lens it's so versitile, I do have slight concerns though about how much use it would get me already having 400mm on a prime.

Thanks mate very interesting and as above all the luck in the world with it all. It will be fascinating to see how it all works out as you move forwards.

cheers

stu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top