Road Trip - Dragonflies - Photography - Geology

I tried to wrap that in img tags but it won't work. But using that link I can view it on one drive.How can I embed it?Also, what are you camera settings for those images, please?Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.Edited by NosyNed, : I google for one drive help for embedding.

I found that one drive gives a different link for embedding than for sharing. So I don't have to put it somewhere else.This was shot as aiming practice using a D500, 300 mm F/4 PF with 1.4 TC at 1/2000, ISO 900, f/8.
I'm going to experiment with much higher f-stops and slower shutter speeds. I had the speed set for hummingbirds.
Dragaonflies are my favourite insects by a mile.

The D500's new autofocus system is very, very good. I find with a even, blank sort of background that it can look on in autofocus with "auto" select of autofocus points (of the 151 it has) instead of using 3D or group or single point selection.
What I have to do is overide the lens manually to get it a little in focus and then let it track from there. It can hold for 10's of images (at 10 per second) if I can manage to keep the little darling in the frame.The above image is in a darker spot. I used minimum shutter speeds and let the camera pick the needed ISO to maintain it. This one is at ISO 22800 (and f/8 and 1/2000 like the others).At that ISO I get shit if the subject isn't well lit but with a moderate amount of noise reduction in light room I get the above acceptable result in the sunlight.The 300 mm F/4 has a 1.4 meter closest focusing distance and keeps that with the 1.4 x teleconverter turning it into a 420mm so it becomes a sort of long range "macro" with very nice bokeh.I like the idea of having an assisstant (a pretty one ) holding the flash as close as possible and use that to get a short burst of light. I'll have to try your suggestion. In the humming birds I like a bit of blur too but want to make the choice myself shot by shot. /ABE: The 1.4x TC does slow down the focus speed on the lens a lot but it is still ok for a lot of situations. Without it the 300 is damned quick.The drawback (to me ) of the D500 is the "only" 21 Megapixies. I compare it to the D810 and figure the combination of the loss of pixies and the 1.5 crop of the D500 gives me a 1/3 improvement in "reach" (or pixels of subject when comparing the two cameras).
If the D820 comes out next year with the same autofocus system and 75 Mpixels I will get more reach with the full frame and wonder what the value of the D500 is then. But love it now .Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

How the heck did you keep it in frame if it was moving fast? That is what I am practicing to do and find it very hard.I've been looking for an aiming device like "red dot" but there is another one that is just like a little gun sight that goes into the flash mount. I saw it a year or so ago but can't find the thing now.

Even the "red dot" isn't a laser. These devices allow you to sight without looking through the viewfinder. At 420mm the field of view is very, very small.I find that if I keep both eyes open I can see the dragonfly with my left eye and the swivel just a degree or two left and he is in the frame. The "gunsight" one I am thinking about allows you to line the sight up (adjust it for the lens) so if you have the subject in the crosshairs then it is in the center of the frame.The idea is this is easier looking with your eyes full field of view than peering though a tiny hole through the lens.The gunsight one seems simpler (and cheaper and lighter) than the red dot one but they are both operating in about the same way.

"Spray and Pray"

I don't get why higher resolution helps with focus stacking (something I want to try sometime).But if you want a D810 waiting might be a good idea. It is just getting due for a replacement so there should be discounts in a few months (well, early 2017). Then there will be used ones on from those upgrading to a D820 (rumored to be 75 mpixels btw).But I'm wondering if a D500 would be a better fit for you. It is faster focusingas and has a much higher frame rate than the 810. (too bad you aren't going to be through Vancouver or I'd let you try both).You'd sure get more "reach" with the D500! You know they talk about crop factors and such. It is my contention that this isn't what you need to look at.They common saying would be that I get 1.5 times the telephoto "reach" going to the crop frame D500 from my full frame D810. But that ignores the 21 to 36 megapixel difference that allows for cropping.To me, the right answer ignores the sensor size as such. Here's what I'd calculate:
The image a lens casts in the sensor if the same size from you 200mm macro no matter how big the sensor. What you are interested in is how many pixels of subject (read Tanypteryx) you have given that if doesn't fill the any of the sensors you are comparing.This is determined by the pixel density per sq mm. For the D500 it is 40 and or the D810 it is 30 so I get 1/3 more pixels of dragonfly with the D500.I'm estimating that the D700 should be 10 pixels per sq mm. So you will get 3 times "closer" with a D810 and 4 times with the D500. Suddenly your 200mm macro will be an 800! And the D500 is only somewhat more than half the cost of the D810 new.

Trade-offs:
Yea, physics is a bugger.
I have been slowly seduced into another trade-off: when I am not traveling I end up with two cameras hanging on me; D810 with a 24-70 and a D500 with the 420mm combination. Heavy! Expensive!Numbers: Nikon explained skipping the long rumored D400 because the sensors in the D500 and the D5 (and the autofocus) are the same (or close). Now what will they do in 2 or so years when they produce the D6? I already had a D600 so will we get a D600b? Then 2 years later a full frame D7 and a crop frame D700? Confusing.I am also after the opportunity to blow up to big sizes but have as yet only printed on canvas at 3x3 feet (and a bunch smaller).The low noise is partially sensor but also the faster processor and it's algorithms to "fix" things. What you see a lot is that the processor needs photons to work with. If the subject is shadowed you get shit results. Turning the ISO up is NOT like shining a brighter light on the subject. I suspect with lots of experimentation you could begin to guess what the processing is doing.Prices:
Prices have gone way UP in inflated dollars (and in constant dollars) but like cars the technology is hugely more capable. I remember carrying regular film and higher speed film and winding back and counting to note where to reset the film to; putting in the higher speed film; shooting a bit; winding it back and putting the slower cheaper film back in. Now I either roll a dial or just let the camera adjust ISO as need to get the exposure.Besides I'm not sure I'd be trying to practice with tanypterx at 10 fps if I was paying for film!ABE: also the D500 is 4k video (not that I shoot much video at all). I have done some experiments and if you up the shutter speed with video (which isn't recommended because is it supposed to make for a less smooth, real seeming video image) you can pull still from it that are 8meg. (not so far off your D700).Of course, now you have "stills" at 30 fps and will spend the rest of your life picking the ones you want to keep. Edited by NosyNed, : added a bitEdited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

What do you do? You are a pro? Very cool. I have the 50 and the 85. I love the 85 but don't use the 50 as much as I should.