The Fast Glass TRAP - 2 HUGE MISTAKES!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2024
- Are you using your F/2.8 lens the right way for wildlife photography? In this video, we take a deep dive into the common misconceptions photographers have when it comes to fast glass like the 70-200mm F/2.8 vs. long lenses like the 600mm F/6.3. We’ll bust some major myths around depth of field, low-light performance, and lens choice for wildlife photography.
Should you rely on your 70-200mm F/2.8 for those wildlife shots, or is a longer lens really the better option? I’ll walk you through side-by-side comparisons, covering how aperture, focal length, and cropping affect image quality, noise, and background blur. If you want to improve your wildlife photography gear setup, this is a must-watch.
Stay tuned to the end for an eye-opening lens comparison, and don’t forget to subscribe for more in-depth wildlife photography tips and gear reviews. Whether you're a beginner or a seasoned pro, you'll learn something new about choosing the right lens for your next wildlife adventure.
Newsletter, site, forums, and more!
backcountry-ga...
#WildlifePhotography #F2_8Lens #LensComparison #DepthOfField #LowLightPhotography #FocalLength #WildlifeGear #PhotographyTips #LongLenses #PhotographyMyths
F/2.8 lens myth
Wildlife photography lenses
70-200mm vs 600mm lens
Depth of field comparison
Fast glass photography tips
Wildlife photography gear tips
F/2.8 lens for wildlife
Lens aperture and depth of field
Cropping wildlife photos
600mm vs 200mm lens
Low light photography lenses
Focal length and aperture explained
F/2.8 vs F/6.3 comparison
How to choose a wildlife lens
Photography lens comparison
Noise in wildlife photos
Long lenses for wildlife photography
ISO and noise in photography
Understanding lens focal lengths
Best lenses for wildlife photographers
A question / statement that keeps coming up is that most people would not really be comparing using a 70-200 2.8 vs a 600mm for wildlife work. However, I get the question all the time, but it's more like a chain of thought where someone has long glass but it's on the slow side, like a 600 6.3 of coms flavor. The light gets dim or the background is too busy and they start thinking that maybe they should opt for the faster 200mm 2.8 or 300mm 2.8 instead of the slower 600mm 6.3 since the 2.8 is so much faster. It's not so much that people are trying to use a 200mm 2.8 for general wildlife work instead of the 600mm; it's that they have both optics and the low light or busy backgrounds make them start to think about that F/2.8 sitting in the bag.
Gotta remember the next time I'm out photographing grizzlies, use the 70-200 and move 3 times closer..............no, wait, keep using the 400 or 800 6.3.
Excellent Steve, thanks !!!
LOL :)
Hi Steve, I knew a lot of what you taught in this video. But I enjoyed watching it and the way you explained everything. RUclips needs more no nonsense photography educators like you who know how to make beautiful images and also the technical aspects of the craft. I just subscribed to your channel.
Awesome, thank you!
Got it right Steve because as you and others have pointed out in the past, and my own subjective observations to some extent, the longe lens compression wins even with considerably narrower apertures. Not having to crop, or nearly as much, is also a plus.
This one video... I was awaiting this for years. So many people claiming 2.8 is the grail... I own a 500 pf and I am very happy with it. Thanks Steve.
A F2.8 remain an F2.8. An F4 remain an F4. 2 different apertures independently to the focal lenght. Made 2 different things.
@@julieng1312 I think Steve you’ve created a bit of confusion here by pushing a 70-200 f2.8 into what it’s not designed for. This video will be the most commented on & the most confusing to lots of people. @julieng1312, unfortunately an f2.8 will remain a reining king, while your & my 500mm f5.6 PF is a beauty but no match to 400mm f2.5 TC -Nikon engineers & all photographers know that
Pay them no mind. They would enjoy spending your money, probably more than they enjoyed spending their own. "Misery loves company", especially when the bills come in.
Thanks for explaining this Steve; very informative and it now makes me understand the high noise I get from cropping. Thanks again!
Great video Steve! You clearly explained (and demonstrated) why 2.8 fast glass isn't always a better choice over longer slower glass. That's great information to know when selecting lenses to bring along on a photo trip!
Another thing that Steve didn't reminded us on this video (but he mentioned in the past) is that these expensive long primes, are designed to be super sharp wide open (when ofter one needs to 'stop down' the aperture at least 2 stops to increase sharpness, usually). This means that act f/4 a 600 prime lens, will be way better than a 200mm (zoom) at f/2.8 anyway... aka - La PutiPompa if you don't stop down on a zoom.
Wow, outstanding. Didn't know this, but it makes sense. Steve, i really appreciate how you educate us. Thanks, Bill
Excellent video as always Steve! Great reminder why filling the frame as much as possible is the way to go.
The low-light situation as how I would apply it is to take photos of amphibians / insects at night time at close ranges. I would never shoot with the 200mm at the same distance at a 600mm but this was a good review / comparison none the less. Thank you for this.
This all makes perfect sense, but the 70-200/2.8 has huge portability and versatility advantages over a 600/4. When I’m travelling I’ll take the smaller lens any day of the week and accept the loss of resolution.
Thanks for the great video Steve! A add-on to the same topic regarding tele converters would be awesome! ❤
one missing factor is the shutter speed. the longer length lens will need a faster shutter speed to overcome shake for handheld. a faster shutter speed limits your light. so the shorter focal length may also have another light advantage being able to drop the shutter speed. or when keeping the shutter speeds the same between the two lenses, the shorter focal length has the potential for a sharper image minus the resolution loss if you have to crop.
i was desperately looking for this comment. Leaving the shutter speed out of the equation is like not telling the whole truth, kinda disingenuous imo
Use a tripod or some other support - it's the best way to get around the problem and have the best overall image quality.
@@backcountrygallery yeah and politely ask the animal to stay still :)
At 1:48 I got the answer correct. I took 600/200, we know that's 3.0. So then I multiplied 2.8 x 3.0 and got 8.4. The bokeh when cropped in 3x on that 2.8 will be more like 8.4, so I knew the lens with the lesser bokeh was the 70-200. Didn't know about the comparative ISO bit. Amazing video, loved it!
I find this comparison pretty strange. For one thing you are assuming that 600 mm would fill the frame where as 200 mm won’t. For a seasoned wildlife photographer, especially those shooting mammals, 70-200 is probably a more important lens owing to the field of. View and the perspective. The compressed look of long tele although providing background separation is cliched. The field of view of short tele is more unique. Unless one is always shooting portrait, the shallow depth of field is often more detrimental than not as it obscures the habitat of the subject. The way the video is pointing out, it would actually encourage amateur wildlife photographers to shun the shorter lenses when actually they should be embracing it. These lenses are tools and by using them one would learn which situation call for which. I am myself a wildlife photographer who has won several awards in highly acclaimed international contests and my super teleshots have produced 4-5 times less award winning shots as compared to wide angle and short tele 😂. Steve i adore your videos especially the technical ones but sorry i don’t agree with the way you present the facts here. Ciao.
Well said. Perception of depth in a picture and some context about the place the subject is shot in is much more interesting than a shot of a subject in a sea of blur.
4:47 this is incredible informative! No fillers either, this is genius! Great tips!
This video has such practical importance for Wildlife Photographer. Thank you for making it!
Keep the 70-200mm for environmental shots & not push it for headshots unless close enough. That’s why you have a wider telephoto lens to begin with
And no need for them for environmental shot because you will need a smaller aperture to ensure the whole scene is in focus
@@MrDaveB123 Are you referring to the f2.8 lens is not useful for environmental shots? You’ve got it wrong, the fast f2.8 lens allows the sensor to focus more accurately. It closes to f11 (or whatever you set it up) millisecond before actually clicking the short so that you get your composed hyperfocal shot. This lens will be far superior than an f4 or f5.6 lens for that reason & of course if you need subject isolation in an environmental shot you’ve got beautiful bokeh to play with -not all environmental shots have to have everything in pin sharp focus like your phone camera. Hence the price you pay. All photographers & lens manufacturers know this…I thought
My example... I bought the (Z) 100-400 when it first came out, and it has been an amazing tool, illustrating your points exactly, even creating convincing "macro" shots. (My 70-200 2.8 is a great lens, but I use it less often, because of that.) We are all so lucky to have these tools today! :)
Your production values are getting better and better!
Nice and concise, good video!
Moonpie
Another great video, Steve. Thank you! This is not something that is obvious to most amateurs, despite some of the comments. This is something that must be taught (or learned the hard way!). Thanks for teaching it in a clear, concise way. You're the best!
Why do i always get the idea from comment sections on vids dealing with the '2.8' topic that there are all these people out there just dying for reasons to put fast glass down? Let me hazard a guess... deep down you'd love to have a bag stuffed full of the stuff, but the real-world you knows that you'll likely never be able to justify the investment? Does that cover 90% of the people who collect reasons for bagging fast glass? Mr Perry has presented a video that argues that in certain carefully constructed scenarios fast glass will provide no advantages. Mr Perry is also perfectly capable of doing similar to illustrate a range of scenarios where fast glass will get you results that no amount of tinkering with slower lenses will yield. Ultimately, for every stop you drop there'll be images you can't get - fast glass maximizes photographic opportunity. If those - call them 'images at the edge of possibility' - are not part of your repertoire, then having the fastest glass is of no consequence, but if those images are actually where you spend your photographic life, then fast glass is the making or breaking of what you do. Finally - if fast glass isn't a tool you need for your photography, i envy you.
While I can't speak to any of the motivations of the commenters, I can say my purpose for this video was simply to address the countless e-mails and comments I see where people think they can use a 200 2.8 or even 300 2.8 and overcome any low light or tangled background obstacle in their path. As you say, there are plenty of times a 2.8 lens is perfect and I own a bunch of them because they re advantageous. However, I see a lot of people mismatching their tools, so I wanted to help that segment :)
@@backcountrygallery Your teaching is a tremendous help to many - to me too as critters is just something I do i'm while waiting for some change in the sky for the shot i'm there to take. There was no criticism of what you're saying - the advantages of fast glass are wholly contingent on what you shoot - but some people take the 'you can do x,y,z with a 4' as a universal, and jump to coding fast glass packers as poseurs, wannabes, or dentists with a hobby (which some of us are). I listened closely to your presentation, hoping for a way out of the expense of fast glass that still allows me to make the most of the opportunities I chase. Sadly, no magic bullet - I hold the Laws of Physics and my preferred aesthetic responsible, not you. Thanks for all your valuable work - have a great day! Cheers.
@@luzr6613 Thanks for the kind words :)
Despite having only 1 cup of coffee this morning, this is good information. Fill the frame or go slow.
Wow, i have never thought about that in theory! But in practice I have seen the result when cropping in from shorter, faster glass. I use my 180-600 on my Z6iii about 90% and only occasionally use my old 300/2,8 when I can get really close and "need" the f 2,8. Thanks for a great eye-opener!
Excellent video Steve! So many photographers out there who do not understand the physics of optical systems.
Very helpful for deciding which lens to bring.
Thanks Steve for the very enlightening video. No longer will I worry about using my Canon RF100-500 at the long end with an aperture of f7.1 and wishing I had got something faster.
Don't take the wrong lesson here though - fast glass under the right circumstances is GREAT!
@@backcountrygallery Certainly , without a doubt Steve.
And THIS is why I rented a 400mm 2.8 with built in 1.4 TC when I went to Africa. Using my shorter fast lenses made zero sense. Now if only I could afford to buy that lens….. 😂
The 400 2.8 is pretty sweet :)
Same here. But I really like my 70-200 f2.8 for non-wildlife…
Great video and a very practical way you compare long lenses
I actually use this approach to compare camera and lenses with different crop factors. The m43 and APSC folks hated it, but it's accurate and effective.
Now this is a perfect video in the truest sense, kudos to you!
One of the best videos I've seen this year, Steve, and I've been taking pictures with interchangeable lenses since 1969. This makes it seem like spending $8,000 to $14,000 for a 400mm f/2.8 has some benefit. :) I would still take the 70 to 200 f/2.8 with me if I could.
I do a lot of pet photography so I can easily fill the frame with the 70-200 f/2.8. For wildlife I would rather use the longer lens as you said unless I was doing more of an environmental shot. Thanks for the video!!! This is great information!!!
This is so true and perfectly explained and demonstrated! Indeed, some of the most common mistakes. The same logic (or a lack of it) extends to how many people, even pros, talk about teleconverters: TC costs you F stops, you lose light. But no, compared to cropping, you don't! A true measure of how much light the lens collects per subject (given the subject is at the same distance) is the diameter of the lens front element - 600mm 6.3 is much wider than 200 mm 2.8, so it gathers more light. The big 400 2.8 and 600 4 are still in another category which is immediately obvious from how fat they are at the front. Funny, I've been to one French ornithological park recently where the openings in the hides were just wide enough for my 600 6.3 - so the big GM glass has no advantage there!
A lot of photographers only think one dimensionally - DoF is determined by BOTH focal length and f stop. Couldn't agree with you more. Save the 70-200 2.8 for interior or closer up photography.
And distance too, so there are three factors to depth of field.
Thanks, Steve for a really interesting video.
Well illustrated Steve !
Every video brings me new insights! Thanks, Steve.
Steve, do you like your Sony 300mm f/2.8 for wildlife or do you find that it never "fills the frame" ?
It depends what I'm shooting - the two shots towards the end of the video were both full frame shots with the 300 2.8 and I have others as well. When I'm within range, it's the best. I don't use it all the time, but it is handy for some situations. Plus, it takes TCs really well so that's something to consider too.
I am from India & you are truly an amazing person. Appreciate your work🙏
That's a great explanation of the image quality. I wonder if the faster glass does help with other things like (mainly) autofocus? Probably harder to test, and maybe smaller subjects (relative to the frame) negate the advantage of more light to work with?
It can, but keep in mind that the larger your subject is in the viewfinder, the easier it is for AF to grab focus. At the end of the day, it's probably a wash most of the time.
Mind blowing.... thanks for some very valuable information!!! You're awesome!!
Thank you Steve! Easy to understand and really important info. Common sense, surely, but now it is proven. Thanks again.
Really interesting (and I even understood the math!) Explains a lot - thank you
Excellent video! It makes me feel even better about not wanting to acquire the Fuji 50-140 2.8.
I currently have a Fuji 70-300 (w/ a 1.4 TC when needed) and a Tamron 17-70 2.8. Would you say that's good enough for most safaris Steve?
I should mention I do a lot of video as well as photos and collecting nice footage will probably be my biggest priority to make a short film. I don't know if that helps your answer, but if so, awesome!
It's tough to say - every safari is different. For the most part, I think yes, it'll work fine. However, it really depends on how close your driver can get you to the target. My most used focal lengths in Africa for big game are between 400 and 600mm full frame. So, the FoV of the 70-300 gets you in that ballpark.
@@backcountrygallery thanks for such a quick response and very good extra info 👍
I always assumed it was obvious but alot of people don't seem to realize this. my 300 2.8 doesnt even go out unless I can get real close to my subjects
Yes but, your 300 2.8 prime will tolerate tele converters far better than any zoom. So you effectively have a 420 (?) f4 and a 600 f5.6. Although granted, that's not as convenient as turning a zoom ring. In fact, it's a real PitA.
Thank you Steve! Very interesting...and educational.
Absolutely brilliant… Knowledge and experience both at play (for which there is no substitute)… a differentiating factor from the up and coming young RUclips crowd…
Very true Steve,
I used to use an old EF400mm f/2.8 mostly with a 1.4x T.C attached to give me 560mm f/5.6 but after buying the RF 200-800mm f/6.3 - f/9 zoom I sold both my 400 2.8 and 300 2.8 as although sometimes the big primes had an advantage especially in a dark forest their minimum focus distance, size and weight meant I was missing too many shots and the freakish low light/high ISO performance of my Canon R6 ii means that even shots taken at ISO 12,800 or higher are plenty usable especially after running through DXO pure RAW 4. I also like to take my 135mm f/1.8 portrait lens along if there's a possibility of some extreme close ups of birds who tolerate or even welcome your presence.
I do miss my big primes at times but my budget is limited so they had to go
Cheers
Noel
Thx again Steve, great info... several yrs now i use the Nikon 200-500 f5.6 and it is by far the best lens i ever had. Sharp as a razor and a steel at under 2k. its 5.6 @ 500mm is magic. Cropped to 750 the loss is marginal. Though its a heavy beast and u need muscle on a field day, but u get used to it and its not bad on a mono or tripod. The lens weight i compensated with light but strong carbon support gear....anyhow would luv 2 see more about this lens from you. cheers buddy
Hi Steve that was awesome, never thought about that thanks for sharing love your videos. I am thinking of buying the 300mm f2.8 Nikon or the 500mmPF f5.6. I will be pairing either lens to my Nikon D500.
Very clear explanation. I'd only toss out, if the math is still a bit complex, you could just consider the front element size as a proxy for the math. The bigger one should give you less noise and a softer background, assuming you will be taking the photo from the same spot. A 400 f/2.8, 600 f/4, 800 f/5.6 are all the same basic front element size. A 600 f/6.3 is slightly smaller than a 300 f/2.8 but larger than a 200 f/2.8. If you have both lenses, you can just look at them or put them next to each other to figure out which is larger.
For completeness, this doesn't work at shorter focal lengths where the limit on the aperture is something other than the front element (like a 70-200 f/2.8 at 70). But long focal length lenses, that's pretty much what it is. And of course you might lose pixels w/ one choice vs another even with the same glass size (like 400 f/2.8 vs 800 f/5.6)
Great explainer Steve! Thank you as always.
Great video Steve, Have you tried the Z 400 f2.8 with the 2x tele? I hear it works pretty good.
Hello Steve! Great video ❤. Between just wish to ask one question as you speak about longer focal length then-
Do MFTs lenses like Panasonic 100-400 mm f4-6.3 have an advantage?
I understand in FF terms it’s 200-800 f8-12.6
Awesome as always 😊👍👌
The 200mm focal length at f/2.8 has an aperture of 71.4mm, while the 600mm at f/6.3 has an aperture of 95.2mm. so as expected the larger aperture has the shallower depth of field.
Our host says @2:42 "Focal length as much on your on your depth of field as aperture, and that is the critical thing to remember." No, the critical thing to remember is that aperture is in millimeters. For the 600mm lens to get the same aperture as the 200mm at f/2.8 we would stop it down to f/8.4, and that will produce the same depth of field in this kind of test, that is tests of the same scene and camera position and we will crop and enlarge to the same field of view at the same display size.
I started photography two years ago but I knew that F2.8 is just hyped up for no reason. Thank you so much Steve for this video
You are wrong, your human eye have around F/2.0, and anything below have less light gathering capability and do worse image by definition, so usual "almost perfect" desire is F/1.8 lens. Disadvantage is it huge heavy and $10000 range especially long focal distance, 800mm F1/8 must have obviously at least 800/1.8 = 444 mm diameter ! F/2.8 is only 2 times worse, and you seems to say it hype? You argue for 4x times worse solution like F/5.6? Aand I do not talk about resolution limit of diffraction (depend on aperture only, it is more astro topic but obviously affect crispness of any image)
@@AABB-px8lc Sigma produced a 200 to 500 mm f2.8 zoom. The only drawbacks were a 22K price tag, plus it weighed 34 pounds! I imagine not that many sold.
One of the best things I've learned since starting photography 6 years ago. I have not moved to mirrorless yet. Still shooting my D500 with my longest lens being a 300-800mm f5 6 13#monster. Lol. But I have a big gitzo tripod and gimbal to make it usable. This is not the best thing I've learned from you. It's the best thing I've learned PERIOD!!! Thanks Steve. Still a star in my opinion.
Ooh, was hoping you'd do the 400 2.8 vs 600 f4! Great video Steve
It's one I've been wanting to do for a long time - I have BOTH Nikon and Sony sets now!
I got it right! But I understand how depth of field works lol and how it’s not just about your aperture but distance and focal length.
Great video, thank you Steve! What's the math on the 70-200 f2.8 with a 2.0 TC?
I use a 70-200 mm on an APS-C camera to good effect when the light is so low that focus lock with slower lenses is unobtainable. The field of view is 320mm. Always in places that allow me to get reasonably close to the subject.
Very interesting analysis and very helpful.❤
Good information to know, a slower lens in the field that has the reach you need is often better than a faster lens without the reach.
wow i've learned so much today. thank you
Yes I got your 2.8 / 6.3 test right because I know (and it seems that some don't, hence this video) that aperture isn't everything when it comes to getting a "cleaner" out of focus background (that's not distracting). FL along with distance to the subject although sometimes that cannot be controlled as much with certain animals -- particularly getting in closer.
I can see why now some companies like Nikon, have not released say a 300 f/4 lens for example, and people wonder why. One reason might be that the 400 4.5 might be a better option that can fill the roll of a 300 f/4 and also other roles. Plus, with the higher-end 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4x TC you can get close enough probably in terms of image quality to a 300 f/4.
Great video as always !! Short question, would the same kind of math apply if we consider different sensor size? So a 70-200mm f/2.8 mounted on an APS-C sensor would be equivalent to 200mm x1.5 = 300mm, f/2.8 x 1.5 = f/4.8 and same math for ISO? Assuming we fill the frame in the same way on a full frame and APS-C sensor.
It mostly applies- but technically differences in sensor performance might make minor differences here and there for ISO performance.
That is CRAZY Steve!! Math is not my strong suit but I follow. Thank you so much for sharing this. Get closer is the point.
LOL, not mine either, I had to check this thing against all sorts of sources!
Excellent advice!
Love that math!... Very nice computations... focal length and a good technique as well good ISO management at camera will help along the road!
Don't forget today's image stabilization. At 400 mm+... tripod, what's a tripod?
Thanks for the video. It's seeming to me that carrying around giant expensive glass just to get blurry backgrounds is getting less worth it, with what photoshop can do. Though sure, there are other reasons for fast lenses
Thank you. very helpful
Great video as usual. The only thing you did not mention is that the focus ability and speed may be better with the 2.8 lens. That advantage may make the 2.8 lens the correct choice.
I think it depends - my 600PF is pretty quick and I don't think it would make much of a difference. Other glass, maybe, maybe not - too many variables :)
Provided you keep to frame filling shots. Don’t masquerade it like a big prime lens which I am sure most of us don’t
No if you can not fill the frame 2.8 does nothing. what is wrong with a tad higher ISO with modern day cameras and software?
All your comments imply that you are after wild portraits, thats when the shallower depth of field comes into play. Not many photographers would use a 200 mm photo and then crop it to 600 mm equivalent to get a tight portrait. That would be suicidal. The short tele has its own significant place in wildlife photography. One has to know when to use it. Sometimes a subject is so far away that even a long tele shot cannot fill the frame and then the arguments put forward in this video about short tele applies to the long tele as well. A photographer by experience develops a notion of when to photograph and when not to.
Lens math in the morning = rewatch for me. I expect your view count will double here 😆
Helpful info as always, thanks Steve! 👏🏻
Meh, forget the math and just use the bottom line - use longer, slower glass unless you can fill the frame (fairly well) with the 2.8 stuff :)
I love my 400 2.8, never regretted that purchase.
It's a great lens - I have both the Nikon and Sony versions. I don't use it all the time, since a lot of what I shoot is at a distance better suited for a 600F/4, but man, it's a sweet lens.
A 70-200/2.8 vs. a 600/6.3 comparison was the first thing that came to mind in response to the notion that the faster aperture would be better for low light. Only if the frame is being reasonably filled out with a 200mm FoV.
Of course if you take a 400/2.8 vs that same 600/6.3 I know which lens I'd rather be using.
Same :)
I agree and as I get older I apricate or maybe it is don't mind having a smaller lens that does not weigh so much. It is easier to haul around as well.
Great video !
I have nikon 80/400 AFS on crop camera. The back ground can look very nice to me even at f5.6 I think most pros know about the affect of zoom lens. Great vid thanks.
And learning is half the battle. Yo Joe!
I consider a 70 to 200 mm f2.8 as my "Normal lens". However, it's almost completely useless at the local wildlife refuge. So yeah, I sprang for a 100 to 400 f4.5 to 6.3 zoom.. It's much better by most metrics for wildlife. However, at the local zoo, where you can "get close", the 70 to 200 is indispensable. "Horses for courses", and all that. Even at said zoo however, I find the need to carry a 16 to 80 along, for when the longer zoom is, "overkill". (Yes, all my bodies are APS-C)
One equivocation here, as a "normal lens", the 70 to 200 is better on film or FF DSLR.
Very nice and useful video, however, I noticed a small mistake: to get an equivalent ISO for cropping, it's not 2 to the power of cropping ratio, but rather the cropping ratio to the power of 2 (simply a ratio of the areas). Cropping 200 to 600 gives 9 instead of 8, not a big difference.
Thanks for the all the calculations. I have been using a Nikkor 500mm pf 5.6 with a Nikon D850 for about a year and I love the lens and camera combo. Just wondering if there is any real reason to upgrade to a Z8? Any comments on that subject would be appreciated.
Personally, it's only worth it if you want to take a video seriously or you feels your hitrate bothering you.
Other than that, D850 is still a tank and can serving you so many years ahead.
I had same gear,after I got a Z9,my D850 collects dust.20 -120Fps,silent shutter,pre capture made a huge improvement on my BIF photos,as well as real time exposure in the viewfinder .Still think D850 images are cleaner, but use Dxo pure raw with Z 9, and perfect. Depends alot on what your subjects are.
the lowlight comparison is important for everybody to remember when comparing full frame to e.g. aps-c as well, where a similar misconception exists.. if you have two cameras identical in every way except one has a full frame sensor and the other has aps-c (but sensor technology the same. and pixel pitch the same), and you take a photo of a subject that is small enough in the frame to fit in the aps-c frame, then you will not have any better lowlight performance in the full frame camera. so for birding, where we rarely fill the frame, full frame wont give you better lowlight performance. it is only when you can actually fill the full frame taht you will gain lowlight performance over smaller sensors
One solution to this would be to carry the shorter, faster glass, say a 300mm f/2.8, with an excellent quality matching teleconverter. That would give you the 600mm reach with a f/5.6 aperture, and you would save some weight as well. The quality degradation would certainly be less than having to crop the shorter glass to that extent.
It’s a great way to go.
The (relatively) new CameraRaw/LR Blur function can move some of this discussion to post.
A 70-200 makes a dandy macro. And, yes, sometimes I use f/2.8 for this work.
Very informative ❤ Steve do you recommend using a Teleconverter , 1.4 , with Z180-600 f/6.3 lens on a Z9 ?
It's kind of a wash I think. The 180-600 in my experience doesn't seem to like TCs all that much. So, although I don't really like to crop, I think it works out better with that particular lens. At least, IMO
@@backcountrygallery Thank you so much ❤️
@@backcountrygalleryyou can always crop in camera by flipping to DX mode. With 45MP to play with, I don't see a problem with cropping, it's almost a given when photographing small birds.
All good, thanks. But isn't shutter speed and motion blur a factor?
It can be, but it depends on why you're using the F/2.8 lens - for better ISO or better shutter speed. However, it's easy to keep things stable and even the playing field using a long lens. Motion blur from the subject side is the same regardless of shutter speed, although possibly not as noticeable with a shorter lens.
I got it right. I could tell this was the case, after buying a modern super tele zoom 150-600. That depth of field gets THIN out there at 600 and F5 in my lenses case. I didn't focus so much on the background, I looked for all the high end prime attributes than zooms just can't match, to see the left was the higher end photo. There's a lot more to photos than background blur and even sharpness.
the shorter faster lenses give the image a bit more 3D look, show the natural habitat more while nicely softening it. In contrast, long glass the way it is often used compresses the hell out of everything producing a 2D shot, obliterates backgrounds into nothingness.. obviously most of wildlife situations ask for long glass, but if someone can utilize wider angles such as 300,200 or less, the engaging results convey more real life perspective.
This video is about to save a lot of ppl a lot of money.
Steve, normally I can follow you with great enthusiasm and understanding. But (there’s always a “but”, isn’t there?), this video covers so much information in such a fast 7 minutes, I have to watch 5 times and pause every 15 sec to grasp the intensity. Thanks as always for sharing your depth of field,, er I meant your depth of knowledge with us. tomcat
I honestly tired to talk slower with this one and we slowed the teleprompter speed down and everything. I only put in the math to show my receipts - the takeaway is simply that you're almost always better off with slower, longer glass and not cropping than using faster short glass and cropping the heck out of a shot :)
@@backcountrygallery Same here, Steve. My wife says the undertaker (where did that word come from?) will have to wire my jaws closed. I get going like a 4 year old on a Skittles high
When DOF is small relative to subject distance, then DOF is proportional to f-stop, 1/(focal length)^2, and distance^2. In the first example, distance rains constant, focal length decreases by three fold (600 -> 200) and f-stop is reduced by 2.25x 6.3 -> 2.8). DOF is predicted to increase by 4 (3*3/2.25).
I found very early that a 200mm lens isn't really a very good long range lens. It's great for outdoor portraits. 300mm on a crop sensor is about minimum for wildlife.
I got it right (B). Yes, good question: how often can you get that close with a 200mm? The thing is that these days (I'm told) when you go and shoot at a safari, animals tend to get really really close and perhaps the option of being able to be 'short' (or even shorter going down to 100 mm) could help... at 2.8 even better if you can naturally (without cropping) fill the frame, right?
Yes and no. If you bang away at f2.8 close in, you might only get the elephant's eyes in focus, but not much else. Not to mention the fact that if you're in the middle of the savanna, at noon, on a sunny day, you'd likely be close to pegging the shutter at 1/8000, and still overexposing. So yeah there are ND filters available, but seriously, wouldn't that defeat the purpose? One qualifier here. I usually set ISO @400 to 800 to keep shutter speed at 2x the focal length. IDK off the top of my head the EV would be at ISO 100.
@@captaincrankysdock9730 I hear you, but my point was a different one. These animals are getting so used to humans that they're approach us more and more, if you have a 500 or a 600, there could be situations where you would capture a head only instead of a full lion as they're too close for such long lenses. Then you can stop down a couple of stops if needed...
@@enricomarconi8358 Well no, I based my response on using a 70 to 200 f28. Given the lighting conditions and creature proximity, a 70 to 200 f4 would work just as well, at half the price. The only possible advantage that the 2.8 lens would have is faster AF lock on, and these days, even that's debatable. And yes, the f2.8 lens would have to be stopped down. But, wouldn't the f4 version do some of that for you? I never intended to imply or suggest the use of a much longer lens. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
@@captaincrankysdock9730 I get you, yes if one has to buy a new one, can save some $$$, on the other hand, many of us have already a 70-200 f/2.8 (you can buy it used and also save some money), and the extra stop sometime can come in handy. In any case, considering some animals' behaviour, having a shorter lens could be beneficial at times...
great vid, thanks!
well explained