Ospreys at Manasquan Reservoir

Discussion in 'Birds' started by Jeff A, Jul 27, 2008.

  1. There are two nests that are in trees, that fortunately are positioned relatively close enough to land to get some good pictures of. The ospreys are not that shy which makes it even better as they will stay in and around the nest and almost seem like they are posing for you.

    D300 w/ Sigma 150-500 OS (500mm f/7.1 1/1000th sec.)
    2705934620_e85550b9d3_o.

    (500mm f/11 1/400th sec.)
    2705115883_82614a546e_o.

    (500mm f/13 1/400th sec.)
    2705117001_647bd2f6ed_o.
     
  2. Randy

    Randy

    May 11, 2006
    i don't mean to start a war (again) over this lens but my choices are to not post anything or say what I think sooooo

    there is a serious loss of feather detail and a general exposure strangeness to these pics that i have seen from other shooters using the same lens...these pics remind me of what my 50-500 used to produce


    jeff, pls don't let my comments offend you, they were not intended to do so
     
  3. No problem Randy. I don't get offended easily. I wasn't expecting miracles out of this lens, but a 500mm prime or the 200-400 just isn't in my budget right now. I felt that this lens was worth a try to see if bird photography was something that I might enjoy. I have seen some of your work and it is impressive, so I take any comments constructively.

    If I continue to do more of this type of photography, I may invest in one of the better lenses. I primarily do landscape and I am usually at the ultra wide end on my focal lengths.
     
  4. Jeff, a more budget selection, but one that yields quality results, is the Nikon 300 f4 and TC. Not OS or VR, I know, but on a tripod or monopod, is a very good stepup into the world of bird, or wildlife, photography.

    Best
    nancy
     
  5. yamo

    yamo

    Jun 28, 2007
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Jeff,

    Greetings. Hope you don't mind... I wanted to see how much detail there was (at least in the jpeg) vis-a-vis Randy's comment.

    Seems like there is a reasonable amount of detail in the file... I did various contrast and sharpening adjustments in PS:

    [​IMG]

    If I had spent more time I probably wouldn't have sharpened up the nest along with the feathers... but you get the idea. I suspect one could coax out more detail from the RAW file.

    It's pretty hard to evaluate lens quality by jpegs.

    Cheers,

    -Yamo-
     
  6. sjlarue

    sjlarue

    Nov 18, 2007
    OH-IO
    I'm agreeing with Yamo here. What is your sharpening setting on in ACR. With my Tamron, I have it up to between 50 and 75. Maybe that will help.
     
  7. These images were straight out of the camera. All I did was a slight crop and I resized them to upload them to flickr. The sunlight was pretty harsh and I was worried about blowing out the sky so I used Active D-lighting to try and balance things. I don't know if that helped or hurt the image. I shot these as JPEG files (Medium/Fine) just to see what I would get out of this lens without a lot of post processing. I'm also still learning the settings on the D300 which has more menu options than the D70s I upgraded from.

    Yamo, no I don't mind you fiddling with the image. I will post process the original image using selective sharpening and contrast on just the bird, print both the original and the processed image and compare them side by side.
     
  8. sjlarue

    sjlarue

    Nov 18, 2007
    OH-IO
    Same here Jeff what was you D lighting setting...I've found that normal is about as far as I want to go and that's only in harsh light. Personally I don't like it...yet. So I keep it off. And shoot in RAW. I can adjust the exposure there a little and If I still need to warm a picture, I just use the warming filter in PS.
     
  9. I had the d-lighting set to normal. It was the first time I tried it as the first images looked as if the shadows were too dark in the camera LCD. I'll try shooting RAW next time to see how much difference it makes.
     
  10. sjlarue

    sjlarue

    Nov 18, 2007
    OH-IO
    The thing about Raw is that you can overexpose it a little then correct it in ACR. The bad thing is of course. It eats up a memory card super quick. Especially the D300.

    When I shoot with RAW, I get it close with my exposure, and white balance. And then (pardon the pun)focus on getting it as sharp as I can. Then do adjustments in ACR.
     
  11. Randy

    Randy

    May 11, 2006
    actually you want to underexpose it in RAW and then fix in PP
     
  12. sjlarue

    sjlarue

    Nov 18, 2007
    OH-IO
    Yes but if it's overexposed a little, you can reduce the exposure and save the shot as well. You can't recover it if it is way over exposed, just as you really can't recover a shot that is way underexposed.

    I think of it as bracketing with out wasting pictures on my card. There are just so many things that you can do with RAW that you loose with jpg.
     
  13. thrdprophet

    thrdprophet

    684
    May 13, 2007
    Modesto, CA
    This lens seems fitting at under 1000 bucks. How about 649.99 that would probably be a better MSRP price tag.

    Those shots at 500mm weren't that bad, It might look better if it was on a tripod. I wonder how it will look like with a 2X TC.

    That would be great,

    Jeff if you have a 2X TC shoot something at 1000mm F16 and post some shots!!!!
     
  14. Randy

    Randy

    May 11, 2006
    :smile:
     
  15. Randy

    Randy

    May 11, 2006
    contrare(sp)
    you can recover it if it's way underexposed and the details are waiting for you (easy for me to say w/ a D3)
    BUT
    if it's even a little too much overexposed details are usually lost for good
    as a general rule I try to under all the time
     
  16. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:  A 2x is dodgy at best, except on a prime Canon,Nikon, Sigma,Tamron, etc 2.8 piece of glass. Other than those mentioned useless!!

    Nancy
     
  17. Randy

    Randy

    May 11, 2006
    especially on a lens that appears to be mediocre w/o a TC...
    frankly i won't use a TC on any zoom, even the 70-200
    or any prime above 2.8 except the 300/4 (which does very well with a 1.4tc)
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.