There is no way to upload my raw files to the forum until I get home. This worked yesterday, but the network connection here at my brother’s home is ridiculous.
I will wait until Monday to do so; for now, it’s not possible…
@sgospodarenko can you tel me why my post is waiting for approval for more then one day?
Is someone looking at it anyway or is it delayed for infinity?
(ps i @ you because i don’t know who else i would ask.)
Regards Peter
26042024
thanks
Pissing against the pole of teleconverters. 
fz200 and a c180 1.7x
wide open lens
mind that bridge in the far distance.
now fz200 in Izoom which is a rawfile cropped. 600 optical to times is 1200mm and then a 1.7x c180 cheap teleconverter on that.
looks like this at 100% left the 600mm plus c180 (12Mp) right the inscamera cropped 1200mm plus c180.
focus points
Did have als oa 100-300mm aka g80’s 200-600mm zoomlens but can’t find (quick) my test with that one on the same spot .
But that fz200 plus 1.7x does a 2040mm cropped rw2 file!
in the real world that c180 is crap!
see this compare between 140mm lens and c180 and the 140mm lens and 1.4 ezoom on my g80:
So what does this mean?
fact one the c180 1.7x teleconverter front lens is cheap for a reason 
fun to have 2040mm EFL posibility but it needs heck of clear cold weather so no air polution. a tripod or a very fast shuttertime.
do you get usefull images? well for the purpose of better a bad image then no image yes.
Which zoom is cheaper and better?
one for fact your feet!
some real world images made with my 100-300mm lens:
the DoF is around the swan.
a bit oversharpend:
well find the subject:
And this i needed to use 1.4EZ to pin focus better on the eagle:
i remember the scene but no real image to view:
same as this one:
would be a great image if i was in range and shot at 200-250mm OFL (after 250mm the 100-300mm softens a bit.)
But if you get close enough and use silentmode then you can get this out of a 100-300mm and 16Mp.
But damn it’s difficult to keep the DOF ánd focus point right when you shoot from the hip:
i had few seconds to aim , focus and click it was gone again:
but when you keep an eye for detail this could be yours to:
i think super tele and m43 ,this is an old 16Mp g80 and consumerlens 100-300mmii, but a new G9 or its succesor 20Mp and higher and there pro lens 100-400mm ( leica) or the zuiko’s version 150-400mm is very compatative with FF chimney’s when you on the move.
weight and size is then a advantage is aiming speed and lugging.
Peter.
The reason for that was when we use some of the Sony-adapters that is compatible with mechanically driven AF-A-mount lenses. These adapters like LAEA2, which I had myself and LAEA4, had both an AF-motor and a translucent fixed mirror that gave it exactly the same focusing problems that the DSLR:s still have. Of that reason they also had to include the micro adjustment system from the DSLR:s. That system is not active if you don´t use the adapters. Mirrorless cameras have no use of micro adjustment what so ever since the hybrid AF unlike the phase detect AF will automatically find its equilibrium in focus with the main sensor instead of with a separate focusing sensor.
Of AF-compatibility reasons there is absolutely a good reason to add micro adjustment as long as there are users that want to use old lenses on the mirrorless bodies.
1 Like
Could you explain? In Nikon 1 (which was their first mirrorless system) there’s no microadjustments in the menu, but there are adapters from Nikon 1 camera mount to F-mount lenses. So, if there’s a real problem (and not only a forgotten menu topic) with F-mount lenses adapted to Nikon ML bodies, this should also exist in the older 1 system.
Now the question is, what does AF micro adjustment affect? Correct a lens behaviour (AF motor too slow or fast) or correct a slight displacement of an SLR AF module? So far, I do believe the second.
I did explain. What is it you have problem with?
Maybe this explanation is not compatible with Nikon 1 - don´t know that system. This is when using an adapter with a built in AF-motor to support old lenses with mechanical driven AF that originally needed an AF-motor in the camera itself to function.
Phase detect AF has to be “calibrated/microadjusted” in both DSLR-cameras and Sony-mirrorless using the LAEA2 or LAEA4-adapters which both use a separat AF-sensor since they in reality turn a mirrorless into a an older type of camera using Phase detect AF.
When using a separat AF-sensor like the DSLR-cameras and the Sony-camaras with fixed translucent mirrors the system searches and finds focus equilibrium not against the cameras main sensor but instead the separat AF-sensor. If that system is not properly tuned that focus egilibrium might differ from what would be the focus against the main sensor in the camera. In a case like that either the camera and lens have to be properly calibrated together. Secound best is using the “microadjustment-system” but it only works properly with prime lenses.
Of that reason
Now it’s me who knows nothing about SONY adapters. The Nikon Adapters FT1 (F-lens on system 1) and the first version of FTZ (F-lens on system Z) are “simple” distance rings with all electric contacts, but no internal ADF motor, so only G-lenses will AF, but the older D-lenses can’t be used with AF. That was a big downside for some users of these old designs.
Also, there’s no AF unit inbuilt in any of these adapters. As the AF is only using the sensor’s AF capabilities, I don’t see a reason for additional microadjustments on Nikon mirrorless systems. When I asked a Nikon rep, the answer was a very general “Fine-tune focus for different lens types. Use only when required”. Which was a quote of the manual. And says nothing specific. But it’s included not only in the old Z 7 and Z 6 (first versions) but also in Zf manual and Z50. I recall a couple of reviews complaining about “eyelash in focus, eyeball out of it” but I don’t recall other situations of front- or back-focus when I used the Z’s and thought the eye detection is just a bit poor.
I think this kind of adjustment in Nikon Z is just useless. There was some talk about it on DPReview but no explanation.
That is so true, for all of us I guess. It’s not a “job”, and it’s not a “contest”.
Other than for a miserable (practically non-existent) internet connection, I had an interesting time at my brother’s house, returning this past Sunday. Now that I’m home, I can check out the editing I did on my 14" MacBook, now that I have my 27" ASUS connected to it.
Here are the two photos, duck, and dragonfly, from earlier:
780_4714 | 2024-04-24.nef (28.2 MB)
780_4714 | 2024-04-24.nef.dop (13.7 KB)
780_4737 | 2024-04-24.nef (26.8 MB)
780_4737 | 2024-04-24.nef.dop (13.5 KB)
Sure thing - and that’s “me”, always trying to figure out what the photo was of. Two of them made sense to me, and the first one was a puzzle. Knowing now that it was intended as “abstract art”, I understand you - but that wasn’t obvious, as the other two images looked “real” more so than abstract. Yeah, you’re right though - guilty as charged!
Knowing nothing about Sony, I can’t comment, and while motorized Nikon lenses are supposed to work fine on Nikon cameras, the ML Nikons don’t have the “drive screw” so the lenses become manual focus lenses. Most of my “better” Nikon lenses have built-in motors, so no problem on most Nikon cameras, but my older lenses have the “drive screw” mechanism, which I read is incompatible with Nikon’s ML cameras. At least that is what I read.
After my experiences with the D780 and my new “P” series 70-300 lens, I have no desire to buy anything new, other than a longer lens, perhaps up to 600mm.
As I was sneaking up to a duck for a photo (where it fills half the screen), a large bird flew out of a nearby tree, went over the pond, and came back, with me tracking it all the way with my camera in high-speed burst mode. The may or may not satisfy others, as the bird did NOT fill the screen, but I thought it was “close enough”.
The bird flew past me, and was staring at my brother as it went past him.
This was the first, and only, time I felt I really needed a longer lens. I was shooting, hand held, with my “P” 70-300.
I figure it will fail the QC people here, but the captured image put a huge smile on my face anyway!
780_4928 | 2024-04-27.nef (31.7 MB)
780_4928 | 2024-04-27.nef.dop (13.8 KB)
During my visit, I saw dozens, perhaps hundreds, of dragonflies, which seemed to be munching away at some tiny “buds” (not sure what they were. I carefully got closer, and the 300 lens found it easy to focus on them (which I did not expect. This is perhaps my favorite shot, which amazed me, as while didn’t bother the insect, I thought the sound of my camera might do so.
Between this and my duck photos, I have accepted that the D780 camera is perhaps the best camera for me. The D850, with twice the resolution, might be even better. Based on what I’ve tried, or seen, there is no way I would even consider a swap for a ML camera.
Not sure if it’s the camera, or the lens, or maybe both, but camera movement never seemed to be an issue.
780_4865 | 2024-04-27.nef (27.3 MB)
780_4865 | 2024-04-27.nef.dop (13.8 KB)
Last photo from my trip:
I took a photo of the moon on the day I thought it was supposed to be a special full moon, but the “left” edge of the moon didn’t look right. Turns out I was two days too early. So I tried again, and this is the best I could do, with my 300 and the camera resting against a tree for stability. I deliberately under-exposed, as I thought I needed to, but that was a mistake. @Joanna would have yelled at me that it is in bright sunlight, dummy, but two days earlier I had been over-exposing. For better or worse, this is the result. Also, since I don’t know what color the moon really is, I left that alone. There are a lot of things I might do to make the photo prettier, but I didn’t try, as I’m not sure how the moon is supposed to look. (If it’s a choice between under or over exposing, I always pick “under”.)
It was a fun experience anyway. Oh, and it was great to be shooting in a naturally dark area, not having to fight all the lights from Miami. There was supposed to be a meteor shower, but I couldn’t spot any of them.
Even a 600mm lens wouldn’t be enough, but that might be better for me for bird photography.
780_4694 | 2024-04-23.nef (23.5 MB)
780_4694 | 2024-04-23.nef.dop (14.4 KB)
Just finished going through my photos - this is probably my favorite for the whole trip. I think I got this uploaded last week, but I don’t remember getting the .nef file uploaded, it always timed out. I guess technically, this photo too should have been shot with a longer lens, but again, all I had was the 300.
Being in a sneaky mood, I put the duck behind a tree, and sneaked up to the tree. As the ducks swam out, I got only one shot where I liked the water, and the “wakes” the ducks were leaving behind them.
Many of my friends are happy just to capture the bird, but I want to show the surrounding area too.
I’m still trying to figure out the sexes of them I think males are supposed to be more colorful, but only the bird in front has a bright blue area. I’ve decided the upper duck is the “Mr.” of the pair.
780_4714 | 2024-04-24.nef (28.2 MB)
780_4714 | 2024-04-24.nef.dop (13.7 KB)
It’s been a while since I calibrated my ASUS 27" display - need to do that again. I don’t dare use my MacBook Pro, as it is still configured to adjust for room lighting. I’ll calibrate it also, for viewing images correctly.
As soon as I can afford it, I plan to buy the Apple 27" display.
One last photo I want to post. This was near the end of my visit, and after walking all around the pond, I found a perfect place to shoot from, and waited, and waited, and waited some more, and eventually one of the ducks came in of a landing. Camera was ready, I already had the scene all set up, and as the duck swam to where I hoped it would go, I took three quick images.
I didn’t expect the duck to be swimming so fast, making all the beautiful waves, but 90% of my concentration was on keeping the focus aimed at the duck’s head. After this shot, the duck flew off, and I headed back “home” for dinner.
I suppose I could erase the junk at the bottom, but without it, the photo looked “top heavy”. As it is, if I printed my photos, I certainly would print this one. When I stare at it, my eye gets trapped going round and round on the waves. Maybe all the surroundings could be cropped out, but as it is now, it shows the complete scene, something I have learned to do.
Oh well, this trip is over, and since my brother and his wife are moving, this is likely my last visit to this location. I will miss it.
Advice and feedback is welcome, and I’m curious as to how others here might edit this image. For better or worse, this is the best I can do… and I got lucky too!
780_4777 | 2024-04-25.nef (28.1 MB)
780_4777 | 2024-04-25.nef.dop (14.0 KB)
So, a 24Mpx camera, with a 300mm lens at full stretch and you still had to crop down to just over 5Mpx for the duck and 3Mpx for the dragonfly to get a reasonable framing???
The duck…
19Mpx wasted and the rear duck is out of focus. Why didn’t you stop down further than f/9?
The dragonfly…
21Mpx wasted and there aren’t enough pixels left to see the facets on the eye…
This is how you take a photo of a dragonfly…
Taken by my friend Bruno, with a Pentax K-5, 16Mpx APS-C sensor and a 100mm macro lens, cropped to 4Mpx and, if I zoom in…
… the facets are clearly defined because there are enough pixels.
The bird…
I’m sorry but this ended up being a vicious crop down to less than 2Mpx, where, like the dragonfly, there are not enough pixels to render any detail. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - if it’s that far away, occupying so little of the frame, forget it - especially against a blank white sky.
2nd dragonfly…
Only 7Mpx left after the crop, wasting 17Mpx. Zooming in, we can see that the eye is not in focus when compared with where the wings leave the back.
The moon…
You do know it is best to disable VR when stabilising the camera against something solid?
How soon you forget. Ansel Adams took his picture of the moon without a light meter, simply by remembering the Sunny 16 rule and then opening up 1 stop. Or, you could have used spot metering on the moon and opened up 2 stops…
The EXIF doesn’t show what metering mode you were using (spot, centre-weighted or matrix) but it does show that you ended up auto-focusing at only 47m, which gives you a DoF at f/11 of only 40m to 57m - so, only 384,400 km out of focus 
And you would be right. The colour of the moon, as perceived from Earth, varies according to atmospheric pollution. What you got is perfectly acceptable and I see that you shot at 5600°K, which is as neutral as you can get.
You can see that you still under-exposed…
The histogram is all down the bottom end and, if you calculate the exposure from the Sunny 16 rule, at 1000 ISO you should get 1/1000 sec @ f/16. Allowing for the light reflected from the moon being 1 stop darker, would give you 1/1000 @ f/11. But you used 1/2000 sec, so you were 1 stop underexposed if you were exposing for 0EV.
But, to make the moon appear bright and not grey, you would need to up the exposure by a further 2 stops.
Here is my version, worked two ways…
-
by increasing the exposure by 3 stops, then applying a Tone Curve…
-
by just using a Tone Curve…
Using a longer lens will not give you that much more detail unless you also up the pixel count. Here is a shot, taken with my D810 (36Mpx) and my 80-400mm lens at full stretch, and converted to B&W ,of a partial moon…
And, if I pass it through Topaz Photo AI, at 4x magnification with a bit of lens sharpening, I get a 20Mpx image that looks even better. Here’s a screenshot taken from Topaz at 67% zoom…
I suppose I could have rented a boat, or waded out into the pond, but unless/until I find a longer lens that I can shoot with, it’s a matter of “do the best you can with what you’ve got”.
First question - for this, would need a macro lens. Awesome photo of the head of the dragonfly, but most of his photo is way out of focus. I captured the whole dragonfly, getting most of it reasonably in focus. …second question, how do you suggest I get that close to a dragonfly, as if I moved another foot forward, it moved to another flower, further away? Was Bruno doing this “in the field” or in a confined enclosure?
Or, a better question - how do you suggest I improve? Should I set up a “cage”, insert a plant, and a dragonfly, and wait with my camera only inches away?
This sort of depends on the purpose of the photo - is it going to be printed quite large, or viewed on an iPhone? Everyone I’ve sent it to loves it. Of course you are right, but knowing the limitations, I shot it anyway; for email, it is better than I expected. I wasn’t expecting it, I was preparing to take a photo of a duck when it flew out of the tree, and I looked up.
As to the dragonfly, I prefer my photo to the one captured by Bruno, as one of my goals was to capture the whole dragonfly, and another was to capture its legs wrapped around the delicious dinner - and this is the one image out of many that had the wings in a photogenic orientation… along with multiple “flowers” or whatever they are.
How do you suggest I focus on the eyes? I set the focus on the middle of the dragonfly. Maybe I should have tried Nikon’s LV configuration, which I never even thought to do. Hmm, you feel I should have done “better”, while I was amazed I even got it this good. Also, how do you suggest I get a dragonfly to pose?
The “support” tree branch I rested my camera against was nothing like a tripod, but it did help me keep the camera a little more still. I didn’t bring my tripod with me, as I wanted to see if the lens would correct for any body movement on my part. In retrospect, the mistake I made was not to select “bracketing”, allowing me to select the best image later. Had I used a tripod, I’d have turned off the stabilizer on the lens. Not sure what to do in the future, when/if I use a monopod. …and yeah, if I want to take good moon photos, I ought to buy an old manual focus, long focal length lens, which should be quite affordable. But considering that I take moon pictures only every one or two years, I really need a longer lens for bird photography a lot more.
Now, THAT is spectacular. 400mm + 36 megapixels + @Joanna. WOW. Perhaps I should be looking for a used D850 along with a 600 mm lens. That, and fly you to Miami to help me. 
I ain’t never going to catch up with you, not gonna happen. But I can try.
Thank you!!
What is more important - the overall image, or the detail?
Are photos worthless, if they don’t show the detail?
I guess the answer depends on the purpose of the photo. Lots of people photograph animals, birds, reptiles, and so on - but are all those images worthless if they don’t also capture the details? …and how much detail is necessary? …which goes along with what is the purpose for the photo?
That of course assumes that the overall image is so good that detail is secondary. It really comes down to your personal expectations and the compromises you are willing to make.
If you’re happy with less detailed results and those you show the images to like them, keep on doing what you’re doing. However if your goal is capturing high quality detailed images, you need to use the right equipment for each situation. Anything less is a compromise.
If you want to capture insects you need to go where the insects are and learn the best techniques and best equipment to use to get a high level of detail. For me, insect photography is all about detail. Anything less is a compromise.
If you want to capture highly detailed birds either statically or in flight, you need to go where the birds are and you need to use the right lenses and cameras to capture them. Again, anything less is a compromise.
Mark
1 Like
You are SO right.
For me, anything and everything is a compromise, and will likely be that way forever.
Long ago, when I was working, I could and did buy Corvettes, and $5,000 cameras, and since I was working on the side for five or six magazines, who paid me for my articles and photos, I mostly had whatever I needed. Being a “professional”, for me, meant I had an income from my photography. I did what I did as well or better than the other people doing the same thing, and I could write long stories with all the detail people wanted to read.
Now I’m an 80+ year old retiree, with “enough” income, but not enough for what I’ll call “toys”.
On this last visit, I expected to find lots of birds, like in the past, but I mostly had to satisfy myself with ducks and dragonflies.
At 80, am I still as good as before? Probably not, for lots of reasons. The last image I posted is my favorite from this past trip. One way or another, it speaks for itself. It’s “real” and not “manipulated” (much). Joanna didn’t criticize it (yet) meaning maybe she thought it acceptable.
The best thing for me is the very useful feedback I get here. I’d rather read ways in which I can improve, than “wow, isn’t that pretty!”
How do I feel about detail? Well, I’ll put it this way. Comparing the dragonfly image Joanna’s friend posted, and my latest dragonfly images, I prefer my image to the “professional” image, and my image shows exactly what I hoped it would show. Of course it can’t show the tiny detail from a macro lens, but I wanted the entire bug, especially head and wings.
My friend Ray Schneider captures bird photos that are incredible, the detail, the color, the timing, and so on. Not only can’t I do that, I don’t have the huge lenses that he uses, and I suspect his ML Nikon Z8 is better than my D780 - but the BIG difference is between me (amateur, with minimal gear) and my friend who does this every week, and has the very best gear.
While I agree with you, I’ll continue to do the best I can, with what I’ve got, until I (hopefully) get better, and I get the necessary tools to do so. Thanks.
Or you could have waited until a duck was closer to you.
Not necessarily. Your 70-300mm has a minimum focusing distance of 1.2 metres, but my 28-300mm focuses down to 0.5 metres which, at 300mm, means you can fill the frame much better.
Of course. DoF with the 100mm lens, at something like 0.5 metres, f/8, he would only have had around 10mm. At 1 metre, that increases to 43mm, which would be just about enough, depending on the size and angle of the dragonfly.
Whereas, with your 70-300mm lens, at f/9, which is what you used, its minimum focusing distance of 1.2 metres, you only get 6mm DoF which, if you look at your photo is obvious since only the front edge of the wings is in focus. Everything behind that, like the body and, in front, the face, are out of focus. Added to which, as I mentioned, there are simply not enough pixels to show the kind of detail one would expect in the eyes, without horrendous pixelisation.
And it is no good looking at longer lenses either. The Nikon 200-500mm has a minimum focusing distance of 2.2 metres, so you would be even further away but, once again, at 500mm, with a very restricted DoF of only 4mm at f/16.
Yet another reason I use the 28-300mm lens. Taken at 0.5 metres distance, 300mm focal length, f/22, I took this of my mat board cutter…
Focus point was on where the left of the black handle meets the aluminium slope. The front is sharp and it only starts to lose sharpness about 60mm from the front edge (the full depth of the tool is 75mm).
Patience dear boy, patience. And the Nikon 28-300mm zoom
“In the field”, or at least in his garden.
Maybe your friends are simply being kind hearted.
Maybe you caught the entire creature but it is missing the detail one would expect, like facets on the eye and clear detail in the wings.
Place the focus point on the eyes and press the back button.
You haven’t got time to start messing around changing modes.
Whether it be a bird or the moon, you are going to need a similar focal length.
The D850 I would agree with, simply because you need the extra pixels. The 600mm lens, I’m not too sure about - I certainly haven’t got a use for one barring the odd occasions, but I slap myself in the face and return to sanity.
Both. Without the detail, the image becomes just a blob of indistinct pixels.
That depends. But lack of detail lends to abstract, which you claim you don’t “get”.
I photographed every duck that day, that I saw, three or four in all, and none of them got close to me - and while I could have walked to the water’s edge, they would have avoided me, as in the days before. Only once did a duck (two of them) get closer to me, and that was when I was hiding behind a tree!!!
If I was a more experienced duck photographer, and there were more ducks, of course your advice would be good, but every time I photographed a duck, I got more experienced at doing so, so it was worth doing anyway, just for the experience.
…I know, excuses, excuses, excuses. I guess should have crawled up to them on my belly, and maybe then they would have ignored me?
What focal length do you recommend, in mm?