Re: "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread
kbarrera wrote: OwlsEyes wrote: kbarrera wrote:
I know I’m going to catch a lot of flack for this, but a lot of the photos that were recently posted on this thread, are not what I would call “ Super Sharp”
ps. I am one of those who pre-ordered this lens and spent a lot of time shooting with a Canon 600 mkII and a few 500’s V1’s
Al
Al,
I'd like to know if the deer pics that I posted appear sharp to you? It is really tough to stay within FM's resolution parameters and display a "sharp" image....
bruce
Bruce
Personally I think this thread is getting a little derailed. It looks to me like things are getting a bit over analyzed. I’m not one to engage in technical points on Forums. All I know is.....I bought this lens and I’m expecting it to do exactly what I need for it to do. I shoot a lot of BIF and have no doubt based on the professionals that reviewed it and their results that I won’t be disappointed.
When I first got my 600 mkII I had spent a lot of time previously shooting with a 500v1. It took two years before I got the results that I was happy with.
I’m one of those believers that the ultimate results depends on the user. I meant no disrespect, but I don’t think I’m not the one who should critique your images. There are guys like Geoff, or Arash or even Tony Markle who are better qualified.
I do know one thing. No matter what......if I’m hand holding a 500 or better, I better have some damn good technique to get what could be called “super sharp”. This will be my last comment on the subject. Thank you for the respectful retort and I know that ultimately you’ll see some great results with this lens.
Regards
Al
Al,
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I hope you know that I took offense by the statement you made. Many images posted on threads like these are superb, some are average, and others are below that standard. My question about the pics I posted was purely out of curiosity. We all have our own standard for what is sharp. For me, content, composition, and mood are more important than overall sharpness. I like a dark moody image with implied mystery over portraiture and natural history-style images. As such, I often soften pics with a glow or orton effect instead of sharpen them
My question about my pictures were more related to how I chose to process them for web output. I have been going with smaller pictures (1200px on landscapes and 800px for verticals all @72dpi) and I can't tell if they have enough resolution for those viewing them on their devices... The pictures I posted look sharpe to me on my monitors, but could look like crap to others... this was I asked the follow-up.
As for the thread... well these tend to become a rambling wreck as people dig their trenches and defend their purchases. Needless to say, I am excited by the 500mm PF... it is better than I expected, but it is a $3600 (US) lens, not an $11,000 lens. My expectations are with this reality in mind.
I think that anyone looking for a smaller alternative to a 500mm f/4 will find the lens refreshing.
thanks for your thoughtful response,
bruce
Sep 23, 2018 at 11:53 AM
Previous versions of OwlsEyes's message #14606197 « "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread »
