2nd try

On 8/6/2014 4:11 PM, M-M wrote:
In article 2014080313352695711-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Peter is on a quest for the magnificent accident shot

What a great term, Savageduck!

I would love to see some of those kind of shots from other users.

Here's mine:

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/d80/DSC_8893ff.jpg


Accident, or not, its a nice capture.

BTW I was in your area a few weeks ago. Went to Longwood Gardens for the
fireworks show. Longwood is a beautiful place. I could see myself
spending a lot of time there. But this trip was a family viewing trip,
not qute the same as a photography trip.

--
PeterN

On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 10:59:06 -0400, PeterN wrote:

On 8/5/2014 11:57 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

Sandman:
If you use VR, you can lower the shutter speed somewhat if needed,
but in this case it wasn't. Set your aperture to f4 if you fear
that not enough of the subject will be in focus, and your shutter
speed to 1/200 at 200mm.

As Ken Rockwell said: "If you can't get sharp photos with this
lens, you are a sad excuse for a photographer."

When I get a chance I am going to see if there is a hardware issue.
Very few take Ken Rockwell literally.

Very true, but sometimes he gets some things right. Probably by accident

Sandman:
His words, not mine. This is an *awesome* lens and there is no
reason what so ever that these picture shouldn't be needle sharp.

Footnote: The VR II of the 70-200 claims four stops of
improvement, but that's in ideal conditions, and I'm assuming here
that Peter may be a bit shakey to begin with, so I stand by the
shutter speed of 1/focal length in spite of the VR II.

A little more than I used to be. VR should not be the issue because
I used strobe with this set. I did not with the original, and
someone was kind enough to point out that the blur looked ike motion
blur. I suspect the real issue was shooting through a greenish glass
window, and light scatter caused by small scratches in the glass.

Ah, there's your problem then. No flashes when shooting through glass.


Almost. One of my friends was standing next to me and shooting with
flash. He had no issue. The difference:
He was using a better Veamer, and his flash was mounted much closer to
the glass. I suspect that light scatter was the issue.

I suspect it was light scatter and multiple reflection within the
glass.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 8/7/2014 6:47 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 10:59:06 -0400, PeterN wrote:

On 8/5/2014 11:57 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

Sandman:
If you use VR, you can lower the shutter speed somewhat if needed,
but in this case it wasn't. Set your aperture to f4 if you fear
that not enough of the subject will be in focus, and your shutter
speed to 1/200 at 200mm.

As Ken Rockwell said: "If you can't get sharp photos with this
lens, you are a sad excuse for a photographer."

When I get a chance I am going to see if there is a hardware issue.
Very few take Ken Rockwell literally.

Very true, but sometimes he gets some things right. Probably by accident

Sandman:
His words, not mine. This is an *awesome* lens and there is no
reason what so ever that these picture shouldn't be needle sharp.

Footnote: The VR II of the 70-200 claims four stops of
improvement, but that's in ideal conditions, and I'm assuming here
that Peter may be a bit shakey to begin with, so I stand by the
shutter speed of 1/focal length in spite of the VR II.

A little more than I used to be. VR should not be the issue because
I used strobe with this set. I did not with the original, and
someone was kind enough to point out that the blur looked ike motion
blur. I suspect the real issue was shooting through a greenish glass
window, and light scatter caused by small scratches in the glass.

Ah, there's your problem then. No flashes when shooting through glass.


Almost. One of my friends was standing next to me and shooting with
flash. He had no issue. The difference:
He was using a better Veamer, and his flash was mounted much closer to
the glass. I suspect that light scatter was the issue.

I suspect it was light scatter and multiple reflection within the
glass.


I owuld limit that to scatter, as I don't undefstand how a single pane
of glass can be multi reflective.


--
PeterN

On 2014-08-08 00:53:18 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/7/2014 6:47 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 10:59:06 -0400, PeterN wrote:

On 8/5/2014 11:57 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

Sandman:
If you use VR, you can lower the shutter speed somewhat if needed,
but in this case it wasn't. Set your aperture to f4 if you fear
that not enough of the subject will be in focus, and your shutter
speed to 1/200 at 200mm.

As Ken Rockwell said: "If you can't get sharp photos with this
lens, you are a sad excuse for a photographer."

When I get a chance I am going to see if there is a hardware issue.
Very few take Ken Rockwell literally.

Very true, but sometimes he gets some things right. Probably by accident

Sandman:
His words, not mine. This is an *awesome* lens and there is no
reason what so ever that these picture shouldn't be needle sharp.

Footnote: The VR II of the 70-200 claims four stops of
improvement, but that's in ideal conditions, and I'm assuming here
that Peter may be a bit shakey to begin with, so I stand by the
shutter speed of 1/focal length in spite of the VR II.

A little more than I used to be. VR should not be the issue because
I used strobe with this set. I did not with the original, and
someone was kind enough to point out that the blur looked ike motion
blur. I suspect the real issue was shooting through a greenish glass
window, and light scatter caused by small scratches in the glass.

Ah, there's your problem then. No flashes when shooting through glass.


Almost. One of my friends was standing next to me and shooting with
flash. He had no issue. The difference:
He was using a better Veamer, and his flash was mounted much closer to
the glass. I suspect that light scatter was the issue.

I suspect it was light scatter and multiple reflection within the
glass.


I owuld limit that to scatter, as I don't undefstand how a single pane
of glass can be multi reflective.

With a single pane of glass you have two reflective surfaces. In the
case of this thick glass wall/barrier you have the surface on the
outside closest to you and you have the interior surface. Then there is
the refractive glass between those two surfaces. The angle of incidence
with the interior surface is not going to be the same as the one you
are facing. Any light coming back through from the subject to your
camera has to take a second trip back though the refractive field of
that single pane of glass.
That glass barrier is a problem you have to tackle to get acceptable images.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 20:53:18 -0400, PeterN wrote:

On 8/7/2014 6:47 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 10:59:06 -0400, PeterN wrote:

On 8/5/2014 11:57 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

Sandman:
If you use VR, you can lower the shutter speed somewhat if needed,
but in this case it wasn't. Set your aperture to f4 if you fear
that not enough of the subject will be in focus, and your shutter
speed to 1/200 at 200mm.

As Ken Rockwell said: "If you can't get sharp photos with this
lens, you are a sad excuse for a photographer."

When I get a chance I am going to see if there is a hardware issue.
Very few take Ken Rockwell literally.

Very true, but sometimes he gets some things right. Probably by accident

Sandman:
His words, not mine. This is an *awesome* lens and there is no
reason what so ever that these picture shouldn't be needle sharp.

Footnote: The VR II of the 70-200 claims four stops of
improvement, but that's in ideal conditions, and I'm assuming here
that Peter may be a bit shakey to begin with, so I stand by the
shutter speed of 1/focal length in spite of the VR II.

A little more than I used to be. VR should not be the issue because
I used strobe with this set. I did not with the original, and
someone was kind enough to point out that the blur looked ike motion
blur. I suspect the real issue was shooting through a greenish glass
window, and light scatter caused by small scratches in the glass.

Ah, there's your problem then. No flashes when shooting through glass.


Almost. One of my friends was standing next to me and shooting with
flash. He had no issue. The difference:
He was using a better Veamer, and his flash was mounted much closer to
the glass. I suspect that light scatter was the issue.

I suspect it was light scatter and multiple reflection within the
glass.


I owuld limit that to scatter, as I don't undefstand how a single pane
of glass can be multi reflective.

Backwards and forwards and backwards and forwards and .... until it
dies out. Don't forget it hasn't got an antireflective coating.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-08-08 02:48:51 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 20:53:18 -0400, PeterN wrote:

On 8/7/2014 6:47 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 10:59:06 -0400, PeterN wrote:

On 8/5/2014 11:57 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

Sandman:
If you use VR, you can lower the shutter speed somewhat if needed,
but in this case it wasn't. Set your aperture to f4 if you fear
that not enough of the subject will be in focus, and your shutter
speed to 1/200 at 200mm.

As Ken Rockwell said: "If you can't get sharp photos with this
lens, you are a sad excuse for a photographer."

When I get a chance I am going to see if there is a hardware issue.
Very few take Ken Rockwell literally.

Very true, but sometimes he gets some things right. Probably by accident

Sandman:
His words, not mine. This is an *awesome* lens and there is no
reason what so ever that these picture shouldn't be needle sharp.

Footnote: The VR II of the 70-200 claims four stops of
improvement, but that's in ideal conditions, and I'm assuming here
that Peter may be a bit shakey to begin with, so I stand by the
shutter speed of 1/focal length in spite of the VR II.

A little more than I used to be. VR should not be the issue because
I used strobe with this set. I did not with the original, and
someone was kind enough to point out that the blur looked ike motion
blur. I suspect the real issue was shooting through a greenish glass
window, and light scatter caused by small scratches in the glass.

Ah, there's your problem then. No flashes when shooting through glass.


Almost. One of my friends was standing next to me and shooting with
flash. He had no issue. The difference:
He was using a better Veamer, and his flash was mounted much closer to
the glass. I suspect that light scatter was the issue.

I suspect it was light scatter and multiple reflection within the
glass.


I owuld limit that to scatter, as I don't undefstand how a single pane
of glass can be multi reflective.

Backwards and forwards and backwards and forwards and .... until it
dies out. Don't forget it hasn't got an antireflective coating.

....and internal reflection between the two interior non-air surfaces +
the refractive properties of that glass.
Consider we don't know the thickness of that glass, or if it might be
laminated (that would add two more surfaces and the refractive index of
the laminating material). I would imagine a laminated glass wall for a
zoo enclosure would be anywhere from ¼'' to 3/4'' thick.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , PeterN wrote:

Sandman:
His words, not mine. This is an *awesome* lens and there
is no reason what so ever that these picture shouldn't
be needle sharp.

Eric Stevens:
I have the f/2.8 VR and from my experience,
tests and what have read, it is sharper at the shorter
focal length. I've never tried it with a teleconverter.

nospam:
it's pretty good but any teleconverter will have an
impact on quality.

Sandman:
There is a place for a TC, but Peter's images rarely
is that. Since he is shooting with a D800, there is no reason
to go from 200mm to 220mm using a TC.

PeterN:
The 1.7 goes from 200 to 340

Sandman:
Yes, but one of the images was shot at 220mm, so the TC was wholly
unneccessary.

For that shot. for thoers in that day, it was necessary.

No, a TC is pretty much never necessary for you. You lose quality and you
have a D800, so you have 36 glorious megapixels to crop from.

Now, putting a TC on a fixed 600/4 lens to get greater reach is one thing,
but on an already excellent 70-200 lens to just make it perform worse is
another.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 8/7/2014 9:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-08-08 00:53:18 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/7/2014 6:47 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 07 Aug 2014 10:59:06 -0400, PeterN wrote:

On 8/5/2014 11:57 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

Sandman:
If you use VR, you can lower the shutter speed somewhat if needed,
but in this case it wasn't. Set your aperture to f4 if you fear
that not enough of the subject will be in focus, and your shutter
speed to 1/200 at 200mm.

As Ken Rockwell said: "If you can't get sharp photos with this
lens, you are a sad excuse for a photographer."

When I get a chance I am going to see if there is a hardware issue.
Very few take Ken Rockwell literally.

Very true, but sometimes he gets some things right. Probably by
accident

Sandman:
His words, not mine. This is an *awesome* lens and there is no
reason what so ever that these picture shouldn't be needle sharp.

Footnote: The VR II of the 70-200 claims four stops of
improvement, but that's in ideal conditions, and I'm assuming here
that Peter may be a bit shakey to begin with, so I stand by the
shutter speed of 1/focal length in spite of the VR II.

A little more than I used to be. VR should not be the issue because
I used strobe with this set. I did not with the original, and
someone was kind enough to point out that the blur looked ike motion
blur. I suspect the real issue was shooting through a greenish glass
window, and light scatter caused by small scratches in the glass.

Ah, there's your problem then. No flashes when shooting through glass.


Almost. One of my friends was standing next to me and shooting with
flash. He had no issue. The difference:
He was using a better Veamer, and his flash was mounted much closer to
the glass. I suspect that light scatter was the issue.

I suspect it was light scatter and multiple reflection within the
glass.


I owuld limit that to scatter, as I don't undefstand how a single pane
of glass can be multi reflective.

With a single pane of glass you have two reflective surfaces. In the
case of this thick glass wall/barrier you have the surface on the
outside closest to you and you have the interior surface. Then there is
the refractive glass between those two surfaces. The angle of incidence
with the interior surface is not going to be the same as the one you are
facing. Any light coming back through from the subject to your camera
has to take a second trip back though the refractive field of that
single pane of glass.
That glass barrier is a problem you have to tackle to get acceptable
images.


Agreed. Dealing with it would be simple if the glass was analytically
clean and had no scratches on either side.

the scratches cause an effect similar to shooting through a wire cage.
If the lens is close enough to the cage the circle of confusion from the
wires would not significantly interfere with the image. If I use a flash
the light scatter from the flash may very well significantly interfere
with the image, unless the flash was smack arainst the wire.

--
PeterN