Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 24, 2006, 12:11 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 245
Default

So, this weekend, my good friend Royce10 invited me to go out "birding" with him. I always wanted to, but the 18-135 kit lens really isn't enough for wildlife/birding. Luckily, I had my yet to be wrapped for myself 70-300 VR sitting in my room :lol:

Here are a few of the pictures. Unfortunately, because I only have a 2gig card, I decided I needed to switch from RAW+JPG to JPG only. I honestly can't imagine some of these shots coming out any better than they did...but, I know what RAW can do compared to JPG. See for yourself...









Needless to say, i was very impressed with the performance of this lens as I did not need to correct for CA or vingetting.And though this was a "birding" event, the couple shots I had that could have shown distortion, didn't (or showed very little).

Higher res and Exif data can be found on the flickr sitehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/swgod98...7594435360598/

swgod98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 24, 2006, 12:56 PM   #2
rey
Senior Member
 
rey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 949
Default

nice shots! so far i've been impressed with pics i've seen taken with this lens.

rey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 2006, 7:02 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
DocX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 114
Default

Real nice shots man! Ill be looking to that lens.
DocX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 2006, 7:26 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
tcook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,703
Default

Very nice shots, the lens and you did well. I have been considering this lens also but am not sure if it has enough reach. I have the sigma 70-300mmD APO DG macro and I like the lens but I feel it could be a bit sharper. If it were a little sharper I might not feel the need for the extra reach. Would you mind sending me a couple of your unprocessed files of the smaller birds and note the approximate distance you were shooting so I could play around with them. My Email is tlc9@cox.net. If you are unable to do so that's OK I understand.
tcook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24, 2006, 9:52 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 245
Default

tcook wrote:
Quote:
Would you mind sending me a couple of your unprocessed files of the smaller birds and note the approximate distance you were shooting so I could play around with them.
I put a few up on my site. If you want to download them and play with them...have at it...

http://www.danshobbyshack.com/temp/d80/birds/DSC_0947.JPG
http://www.danshobbyshack.com/temp/d80/birds/DSC_0973.JPG
http://www.danshobbyshack.com/temp/d80/birds/DSC_1032.JPG
http://www.danshobbyshack.com/temp/d80/birds/DSC_1145.JPG

Unfortunately, I do not remember how close I was on these...Your guess is as good as mine: (in order)close (say...30 ft?), far (~100), far (100+), close (~20)
swgod98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2006, 1:56 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
tcook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,703
Default

Thanks a lot, I appreciate you posting those for me.
tcook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2007, 5:30 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
The Scubbler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 294
Default

A picture IS worth a thousand words ! I've been lusting after this lens for a few days now and they arrive locally by the weekend. I'm really impressed by your shots. They look so sharp and vibrant ! Did you hand hold any of them ? The first one has really impressive detail and is exactly what I'd like to produce. I've been shooting some bald eagles nearby for 2 years with my Coolpix 8800 and never had one as sharp as your photo. I did get some decent shots with the 18-135 lens, but more seems better !Thanks for sharing !



Steve
The Scubbler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2007, 11:33 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 245
Default

All of these were handheld. Many of them were cropped (because 300mm isn't enough to get "good" closeups).

I must admit, the "vibrancy" you speak of is partially due to the in camera settings I used. I had copied some guys settingsI saw a while back and they REALLY make the colors jump out. So much so, that I found the same settings to be terrible for indoor shots (of people in particular), especially when the white balance isn't set correctly.
swgod98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2007, 9:00 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
The Scubbler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 294
Default

Mighty fine shots for hand held ! You're making me want that lens ! My wife told me to save the gull head as our desktop....it even looks good from the low res posting.
What camera settings do you mean ? I just got my D80 and was surprised that there doesn't seem to be a separate contrast and colour setting. I found a vibrancy (?) setting and bumped that up a notch as my first attempts seemed a bit flat.

Anyway...nice shots and I hope you post more !

Steve
The Scubbler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2007, 11:01 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 245
Default

I think the setting that made the biggest difference was the "color space". I believe I was using sRGB color space. I also had tone at +1, contrast -1, and sharpening +1. I think those were the settings I used.

The Exif data for one of the pictures is showing:

Color Space: sRGB
Contrast: Soft
Saturation: High saturation
Sharpness: Hard
swgod98 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:57 PM.