What are your thoughts on this....

[editorial_use_only]

It weighs the same as the Nikon 300mm f/4 (non-VR) which was too heavy for the chronic tendonitis in my hand.

Sorry to hear about your tendonitis. I don't really have a suggestion better than what you are doing now, but maybe just two thoughts.

There is a superzoom body, like the Nikon Coolpix P1000. It's like a 500mm on a small sensor, so the crop factor is what gets you to 3000mm equivalent. By reputation the image quality is not going to compete with your DSLR. But possibly that is a smaller lighter kit with a longer focal length.

And, my recollection of hand and wrist injuries is that a rotation changed some activities from problematic to tolerable. Like, there was a difference between holding a dumbbell flat versus vertical. You might find that you could carry a lens on a monopod over your shoulder for example. That's a chore to hike with but when you are ready to shoot you just set the monopod and let it take the weight. Not sure if that's what you already tried but that's typically how we roll. A 500 or 400 on a monopod, slung over your shoulder, hike into position.

 

[mikew_RIP]

Sorry to repeat this but AF fine tuning may not be a thing of the past just because you use mirrorless, unless we think Nikon included it because it was a slow day and they had nothing to do.

From the Z50 manual and i think its the same in the 6 and 7

 

[BackdoorArts]

The only way you really get apples to apples is same scene same settings. A bump in shutter speed in the latter could definitely make a difference particularly given that you were only at 1/500s in the originals with an effective focal length of 750mm on the DX camera. That said, I wouldn't b upset with that level of sharpness.

 

[hark]

View attachment 329476

I had someone in a Facebook group comment that it looked like the hawk has lashes after posting the above image.

When I shoot, my 2nd slot is set to jpeg. Instead of editing a RAW file, I simply cropped out more than half of the following SOOC jpeg to zoom in on the eyes from a different image. There isn't any editing done to the following pic at all other than to crop and resize the jpeg.

Not sure why there is a fine white halo line along the top edge of the hawk since I didn't edit the file.

 

[mikew_RIP]

Could be a contrast thing

 

[BackdoorArts]

Not sure why there is a fine white halo line along the top edge of the hawk since I didn't edit the file.

What JPEG mode do you shoot in? Ever one has a level of sharpening that it applies, some higher than others. So even though you didn't sharpen the camera did.

 

[hark]

Could be a contrast thing

No contrast applied, Mike.

What JPEG mode do you shoot in? Ever one has a level of sharpening that it applies, some higher than others. So even though you didn't sharpen the camera did.

Ahh...okay. The ONLY setting I make to jpeg files in camera is to choose Standard and bump my sharpening up to #6. That must be the reason. :encouragement: The default sharpening for SOOC jpegs is too soft. But I now I understand how in camera sharpening can adversely affect images. Didn't know that and wouldn't have even thought about it.

 

[JoeIskor]

Yes the pictures look amazing. I love them. I in general really like birds and I often study them. It's not like I am a avid ornithologist or anything but I do like to hike and I usually take my camera with me on those hikes and take pictures. I have a giant collection of those already. The main problem is that when I am trying to work with hem a lot of views don't open them because my camera automatically converts them to RAW format instead of JPEG. I have been looking for a decent convertor for a while now and I did find one that I liked that was not too expensive or ruin the quality of my pictures. It's called Softorbits (you can check it here:[FONT=&quot] [url]www.softorbits.com[/URL][/FONT]). I really like it. In case you need a good convertor this one is amazing

 

[hark]

View attachment 329476

Above was one of my first images taken with the D7200 and the refurbished teleconverter on my 300mm f/4 PF. Back when I compared this refurbished TC with the first preowned TC, I swapped them out to make sure the refurbished one was the one I wanted to keep.

Ever since I have had no end of soft photos. The level of sharpness that it produced initially is gone. I've been using the Shake Reduction feature in PCC because it's as if every photo displays a slight blur.

I still have more testing to do - and I'll even test the lens without the TC to see if anything is going on with it. I cleaned the contacts on both the TC and the lens and used a rocketblower on the body to remove any loose debris that might have been present. After I test the lens alone, I will try the combo on my backup D7200 to see if that makes a difference.

I put the lens/TC combo on my D750 since the focus is spot-on and the body allows a greater amount of cropping without losing sharpness. This is a little better, but images taken with the D7200 are lackluster. :hurt:

 

[hark]

I've decided I need to remove the TC and mount the lens directly onto the camera. I'm wondering if the VR is starting to not work properly. I purchased the lens as preowned but only ran into problems after I switched the TC's when testing them. I've mounted the lens and TC combo on 3 different bodies and had soft photos with all of them. At least if I only shoot with the lens, I will be able to tell if it is the VR.

Normally I shoot with Active VR. When I tried out Normal VR, the pic shifted upwards and froze in my viewfinder. When I took the next image, the pic shifted downwards and froze. Hence my theory it might be the VR. Of course we are in for at least 2 days of rain. :sorrow:

 

[hark]

I'm still trying to identify the cause of my slightly soft images. Even when shooting a stationary subject in continuous (before my buffer fills), most images in the series seem to miss focus. I'm lucky if 1 in 10 photos is in focus. It definitely isn't the camera body. This happens on 3 different bodies all when shooting AF-C and the 300mm f/4 PF coupled with the Nikon 1.7x teleconverter. Even some images shot with AF-S are slightly off. Unfortunately I deleted all the out-of-focus squirrel photos from the other day.

Here is one from this afternoon. The first image is the SOOC jpeg that was only lightened and resized. No sharpening was applied. The second image was the edited NEF. The crops aren't exact since they were files from different SD cards.

Any suggestions will be appreciated.

SOOC jpeg from the second card slot - only adjusted the exposure

Edited NEF with Shake Reduction applied in PCC

 

[hark]

I am still trying to identify the cause of the soft focus. Today I had an amazing opportunity to photograph a red-tailed hawk with its prey. I was literally 20 feet or so away and shot well over 100 images. I'm lucky if I have 5 in focus enough to salvage. This image is cropped quite a bit.

It is one of the five that was slightly soft - and I used PCC's Shake Reduction as none were sharp enough straight out of camera. At least the Shake Reduction feature in PCC does a good job.

Prior to going out, I used a rocketblower on all the contacts. The VR definitely seemed to engage properly. My next test will be to swap out the 1.7x TC with the 1.4x and see if the problem continues. If it does, then most likely the issue is with the lens. If not, then it will be the teleconverter. It's definitely not the camera since this happened with 3 different bodies.

 

[hark]

Due to my frustration yesterday, I guess I hadn't looked through the entire folder of images very carefully. At some point, I vaguely remember changing my settings - one of which was switching to AF-S with single point. That made a noticeable difference although there were still a few photos here and there with soft focus. At least the VR seemed to be working properly after using a rocketblower on the contacts. That was causing some of the problem.

Here are the remaining images I've edited.

 

[hark]

I am very disappointed with this 1.7x teleconverter. Today I used it to photograph the Blue Angels - although they were pretty far away. All of the images wound up being very soft. A little bit of a crop to this image along the same lines as other crops I've done. Not even Shake Reduction could make the images better. Here is the best one.

Yet here is one taken with the same lens and body but with the 1.4x teleconverter instead of the 1.7x. No Shake Reduction was necessary. The issue is definitely the 1.7x TC.

 

[Whiskeyman]

Is the 1.7x new? Have you done an AF Fine Tune with it? And what was the weather like for the shot of the Blues? Was the camera mounted on a tripod? It appears that you shot it at a distance where atmospheric conditions can effect an image.

WM

 

[hark]

Is the 1.7x new? Have you done an AF Fine Tune with it? And what was the weather like for the shot of the Blues? Was the camera mounted on a tripod? It appears that you shot it at a distance where atmospheric conditions can effect an image.

WM

Originally I purchased a used TC, but that one turned some blues to purple and had quite a bit of front focusing. So I purchased this refurbished one and compared them. This one was excellent when I got it and had amazing detail, but after switching them, something happened to this one. Now everything is soft. When I bought it, I also purchased a Square Trade warranty. So I will have to follow up with them to see what needs to be done.

 

[Whiskeyman]

Originally I purchased a used TC, but that one turned some blues to purple and had quite a bit of front focusing. So I purchased this refurbished one and compared them. This one was excellent when I got it and had amazing detail, but after switching them, something happened to this one. Now everything is soft. When I bought it, I also purchased a Square Trade warranty. So I will have to follow up with them to see what needs to be done.

Have you tried a static subject under controlled conditions to compare your results? Do this and try stopping your aperture down for all lens and TC combinations and see where that leads you.

WM

 

[hark]

Have you tried a static subject under controlled conditions to compare your results? Do this and try stopping your aperture down for all lens and TC combinations and see where that leads you.

WM

No, I haven't done that yet. I've used the exact same settings as when it first arrived. This is from the very first time I used it.

And in the one below, I opened up all the way. It still shows a great deal of detail. But lately I've been discarding almost everything I shoot with it even when I've close like this.

 

[Whiskeyman]

I'm anxious to see what you can get out of it with it mounted on a tripod with the VR off. Start it at maximum aperture and stop it down three or four times, with a shot each time. Then we should be able to determine if you need to fine tune the AF.


WM

 

[hark]

I'm anxious to see what you can get out of it with it mounted on a tripod with the VR off. Start it at maximum aperture and stop it down three or four times, with a shot each time. Then we should be able to determine if you need to fine tune the AF.


WM

It's just that images were amazingly sharp with lots of details visible when I first got it. Then I removed it to compare against the used TC before remounting it back on the lens/body. That's when the quality of my images changed. But I will take some photos mounted on the tripod with the VR off.