| Joined: | Wed Apr 18th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4186 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
possibly right eric ,a couple of things have niggled at me ,one i like to use the 300 f4 with the 1.7tc .as its the ideal walk around combo and according to the pundits when i was having the troubles with the dodgy 7100 ,it was not useable with the 300 f4 on this camera because of pixel density etc ,added to that there has been a distinct lack of subjects in the right range and light etc to put it to the test .
however yesterday i bolted on the 1.7 and got a hour in at a local reserve while everything was in place .this is one of the b.i.f shots i got ,and the whole session has helped to re-build my confidence with the system a bit .
i think thats the thing i had so much trouble i have taken to analysing my pictures more than is needed .so whats your view on this one
back in the running by blackfox wildlife & nature imaging, on Flickr
Any shot of a gull without a chip or bread in its beak is a winner in my book.
I would be more than happy with the clarity and rendition of that image.
Beyond that it's down to Fieldcraft, spectacular lighting or unusual behaviour to make the difference. Non of which is camera dependant.
But you know that.
You are doing what we all do when changing key equipment, wanting it to behave like the previous gear...but give better results.
Nothing wrong with that. You were clearly able to identify a defective body. Trouble is we can end up chasing phantoms.
I did exactly the same when I bought a new macro lens. Compared it to my current lens to the nth degree. It was never showing the performance I expected from a super duper improved model. Truth was I already had a good version lens that I knew inside out. The contender was going to have to be outstanding to show an improvement over the current holder.
____________________
Eric