Sevenoaks Wildfowl Reserve

[GrahamL]

Many thanks Rose, great place. Drove past the entrance many times without even realising it was there!

Here's best of the less blurred pictures I took. My 2x extender on a Tamron 300mm zoom + half frame D7100 body sort of worked. But the f-number requires manual focus, which with for a '900mm' depth of field merits better eyesight and more delicate handling then mine. A longer lens with working autofocus would have been better, sadly cost and weight is a consideration. I also lack the patience...

GSL_4348_1024px.jpg (125.46 KiB) Viewed 6045 times

GSL_4350_1024px.jpg (184.76 KiB) Viewed 6045 times

GLA_2903_768.jpg (218.92 KiB) Viewed 6045 times

[Iggy]

Finally sorted out the Lumix fz1000 camera images.
Please find attached a few images. Two of them were also shoty with my Canon + sigma 70-300mm lens.
I would be grateful for your comments regarding these two sets of images.
Unfortunately did not take images of the goose with the Lumix.
Any other comments would also be helpful.
Thanks,
Iggy

2-Weeping Willow Temple 219.jpg (216.84 KiB) Viewed 6045 times

2-Lakeside Wide view 178.jpg (209.13 KiB) Viewed 6045 times

[Iggy]

Moved the 2 sets of images for critique to the Critique Image Forum.
Please take a look.
Regards,
Iggy

[Mike Farley]

Here's best of the less blurred pictures I took. My 2x extender on a Tamron 300mm zoom + half frame D7100 body sort of worked. But the f-number requires manual focus, which with for a '900mm' depth of field merits better eyesight and more delicate handling then mine. A longer lens with working autofocus would have been better, sadly cost and weight is a consideration. I also lack the patience...

Rather than go all out for for telephoto firepower, you might be better off opting for a shorter focal length and cropping. The D7100 has a 24 MP sensor, so you could easily discard half the image or more and still have enough left to make an A3 print. If you are going to use the images for DPI, then you would be able to reduce the image still further. As previously described, when putting my kit together I went for a longish prime lens which I could boost with a 1.4 extender if needed and still retain AF. Coupled with the telephoto boost of a crop sensor, the strategy has worked well for me.

As for hanging around waiting for something to happen, on Sunday we had the twin benefits of the social aspects of being in a group and the enjoyment of a sunny day. For me, that more than made up for the relative lack of action.

[Mike Farley]

As an addendum to my previous post, Nikon users have another option to boost the telephoto effect of their lenses in the form of the Nikon 1 system. An FX lens can be attached with an adapter which allows AF and the small sensor gives a 2.7 crop factor boost. The problem with the Nikon 1 has never been image quality, but Nikon's insane marketing which has valued the camera more highly than its low end DSLRs. There are indications that this strategy is changing with the recent release of the J5, which has a more reasonable price point than its forebears.

[Mike Farley]

An addendum to my addendum? Here goes.

One of the advantages of using a lens designed for a larger format on a smaller sensor is that only the centre part of the lens, which tends to be the sweet spot, is used. This avoids issues with aberrations at the edges, which is one of the issues with which designers have to contend. When you are spending lots of money on an optic, this is one of the benefits you are buying.

Another plus is that weight/bulk and expense are both reduced. Shortly after I acquired my Canon 300 f/4 I went to a members' evening at the British Wildlife Centre. It's an occasion when if you are taking photographs, possession of a white lens is more or less obligatory. One person I met had just bought himself a Canon 500 f/4 which he had mounted on a 1Ds II and the whole caboudle was balanced on a monopod. Total new cost of of his kit would have been north of £10k.* By comparison, my 300 lens was attached to my cheap and cheerful Canon 400D, a much less expensive and far more wieldy combo. Taking into account the 1.6 crop factor, the FOV of both would have been similar. Maybe the results the other guy was getting would have been superior technically, but I would be very surprised if the gains were in line with the difference in the cost of the two systems.

* And that was a few years ago when £10k really was worth £10k.

[GrahamL]

Hi Mike,

I didn't mention all of the pictures were cropped to some degree. I didn't try was simply using the full frame D810 with the 300mm zoom and simply cropping from that. Suspect given the distance the result would have been no better sharpness-wise, but maybe not... There would certainly have been many more shots in sharp focus.

I did evaluate the 2x converter before purchase. It did degrade the image quite a bit, but for this particular lens the image was still ok. i.e. a 1:1 view in lightroom still looked ok, while only the 1:3 didn't. The issue was more associated with the 2 stop shift in light and the sensitivity of manual focus at an effective 900mm using the half-frame. Good point of the half frame using only the centre. I have an ancient Tamron 300mm semi-macro lens that works a treat with the half-frame, but sadly not so well with the D810.

Cheers,

Graham

[Iggy]

Here are a few images of CCC members enjoying themselves at the Sevenoaks Wildfowl Reserve!
See you tonight,
Iggy

Iggy

2-CCC-6 166.jpg (197.21 KiB) Viewed 6037 times

2-CCC-3 247.jpg (130.05 KiB) Viewed 6037 times

2-CCC-2 269.jpg (182.64 KiB) Viewed 6037 times

[Mike Farley]

Hi Mike,

I didn't mention all of the pictures were cropped to some degree. I didn't try was simply using the full frame D810 with the 300mm zoom and simply cropping from that. Suspect given the distance the result would have been no better sharpness-wise, but maybe not... There would certainly have been many more shots in sharp focus.

I did evaluate the 2x converter before purchase. It did degrade the image quite a bit, but for this particular lens the image was still ok. i.e. a 1:1 view in lightroom still looked ok, while only the 1:3 didn't. The issue was more associated with the 2 stop shift in light and the sensitivity of manual focus at an effective 900mm using the half-frame. Good point of the half frame using only the centre. I have an ancient Tamron 300mm semi-macro lens that works a treat with the half-frame, but sadly not so well with the D810.

Cheers,

Graham

I guessed that the shots were cropped simply because even with the equivalent of 900 mm available, the action being as far away as it was meant it would not be possible to get that close.

In terms of a 300 lens on a Nikon D810, to get a similar subject size you would have to crop two thirds of the image, which would effectively leave you with around 12 MP* which would still have to be cropped further. With the converter and D7100 combo, your starting point is 24 MP before cropping, so I would expect that to be the better option. Even putting the zoom and converter on the D810 would still yield 24 MP after cropping, so you would be starting at the same point whatever you used.

I would be interested to know your shutter speed settings as camera shake and/or subject movement might account for the lack of sharpness rather than focussing issues. In the main I was shooting at between 1/1000 and 1/2000 in a bid to ensure my shots were sharp.

* At school, I was notoriously bad at maths** and that remains the case today, so if anyone knows different do feel free to correct my calculations which are more based on logic than actual mathematical reckoning.

** Algebra and calculus were particular bugbears. Ughhh!***

*** Apologies to anyone who is particularly fond of these forms of maths.

[Mike Farley]

Here are a few images of CCC members enjoying themselves at the Sevenoaks Wildfowl Reserve!
See you tonight,
Iggy

Thanks for posting, Iggy. I am glad that someone got shots of the group.