The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Newest MFD member....

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Just as an FYI, I am more likely to use the 300mm on a bean bag for wildlife with shutter speeds that will hopefully be faster than 1/125.
I think that with your long lens experience you'll be fine. The bean bag will dampen any resonance/ringing which I feel affects quality.
 

hcubell

Well-known member
I had the pleasure of testing a Mamiya 300 late last year while in Jackson Hole and afterwards decided to go back 100% medium format. The images here are all from the backside of the National Elk Refuge from distances of several 100 yards to as close to just several. I offer the full image then a 100% crop. These were all quick handheld no tripod shots with the ISO set at 100 and the f/stop either 8 or 11 and shutter speeds as low as 400 and high as 800.

Recognizing the fact they were all shot handheld I can only image how much better they'd be with some sort of support. Also forgot to add these were taken with the P65+ which is basically the same as the IQ160; actually I consider the !Q160 just a supped up version of the P65+.

No processing was done with any of the files other than to open duplice, crop at 100% then save the files.
Each to his own, but I do not consider these examples "sharp". I think they are very soft, even by web standards. In the top photo and the crop from it, nothing appears to be in critical focus.
I don't ascribe this to technique. I think it is a function of the physics of the equipment. The DF, the IQ 160 and the shorter Mamiya/Phase lenses can provide extraordinary image quality, but IMO it falls very short in performance with longer lenses.
 

hcubell

Well-known member
Just as an FYI, I am more likely to use the 300mm on a bean bag for wildlife with shutter speeds that will hopefully be faster than 1/125.
Andy, the best thing to do is to borrow a Mamiya 210mm and a 300mm and test them alongside your regular 35mm DSLR 135mm and 200mm lenses using the same shutter speeds and support system(i.e., a bean bag or the special RRS safari setup that you configured with RRS). Obviously, you are very experienced, and the best judge of what works for you and whether these Mamiya lenses with the DF are a stepup from from what you have been using. OTOH, the DF/IQ160with the Mamiya 150D and the shorter lenses will produce amazing results (if you can get close enough!).
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
Have to admit I'm struggling with this a bit. Maybe I need new eyes, or a new brain.

What exactly is the critical difference between shooting with a 150 and a 300 that makes it impossible to get a sharp image with the 300, whilst the 150 will produce amazing results?

Howard, you're not saying there's a subtle or gradual change here. You are claiming that "amazing results" are possible with a 150mm lens, and "nothing helps to produce critically sharp images with the 300mm".

Is it the quality of the lens itself (and are you referring to the /4.5, /2.8 or both?), or a fundamental limit based on some function of its focal length, the camera, and digital back?

I can't see how it can be anything to do with the focal length. Assuming a subject lit in direct sunlight, you'd be looking at, what, about a 1/1000th or 1/1500th of a second shutter speed at f/2.8. And that's at ISO35? That's plenty fast enough to freeze your subject hand-held without worrying about mirror slap or shutter bounce, surely?

Conversely, the Hassy HC300 is f/4.5, so you're already over a stop slower with that, not to mention limited to 1/800th shutter speed anyway.

Is your point regarding technical challenges around the focal plane shutter and mirror of the DF, or simply that the HC300 is a far superior piece of glass?
 

hcubell

Well-known member
Have to admit I'm struggling with this a bit. Maybe I need new eyes, or a new brain.

What exactly is the critical difference between shooting with a 150 and a 300 that makes it impossible to get a sharp image with the 300, whilst the 150 will produce amazing results?

Howard, you're not saying there's a subtle or gradual change here. You are claiming that "amazing results" are possible with a 150mm lens, and "nothing helps to produce critically sharp images with the 300mm".

Is it the quality of the lens itself (and are you referring to the /4.5, /2.8 or both?), or a fundamental limit based on some function of its focal length, the camera, and digital back?

I can't see how it can be anything to do with the focal length. Assuming a subject lit in direct sunlight, you'd be looking at, what, about a 1/1000th or 1/1500th of a second shutter speed at f/2.8. And that's at ISO35? That's plenty fast enough to freeze your subject hand-held without worrying about mirror slap or shutter bounce, surely?

Conversely, the Hassy HC300 is f/4.5, so you're already over a stop slower with that, not to mention limited to 1/800th shutter speed anyway.

Is your point regarding technical challenges around the focal plane shutter and mirror of the DF, or simply that the HC300 is a far superior piece of glass?
I think the Hassy 300mm lens produces much better results because it's a leaf shutter lens. The vibration from the focal plane shutter of the DF, particularly at slower shutter speeds, is probably a good part of the problem. I have no idea as to the inherent optical quality of the Mamiya 300mm lens. I just look at results. I tested the DF/P65 with the Mamiya 150mm D lens, and the results were VERY sharp. Long telephoto lenses are just more susceptible to a drop in image quality from the slightest form of vibration. You don't have to be an engineer to feel and hear the difference between using an H2 and and a DF. The former makes a barely audible click in the leaf shutter when you do MLU and release the shutter with a remote cable. The latter, even with MLU, still makes a lot of noise and you can feel the shutter release. I would assume that the faster the shutter speed, the less of a problem this would be, but I would still want to test it out if a 300mm lens were a key part of my kit. I use my 300mm lens a lot. My 35mm lens sits in my bag.
BTW, if the issue is with the DF's focal plane shutter, I assume the issue would still be there even with Phase's new 240mm leaf shutter lens.
 

Geoff

Well-known member
The comments on the leaf shutter are right on the mark. The 300 is one of the most demanding lenses on MFDB. I find that its a kind of "smack you in the head" lens - capable of rewarding exacting technique with great results, and also making a fool if anything less than really careful. It needs slow steady work, solid tripod, MLU and fast shutter speeds if possible.

The shot below is taken with a Schneider 300 (leaf shutter) on a Leaf back, with MLU and a very gentle hand. The crop on the right gives a sense of the resolution (see spider webs) on this limb some 30 yds away. Note the shallow DOF.

For action shots, the 300 is pretty unusable. Rather the 150 mm with 1/1000 shutter (as opposed to the 1/500 max on the 300) is much easier. Surprisingly, the 300 (with only MF) is better with landscape than action, at least in this setup.
 
Last edited:

Shashin

Well-known member
The Pentax 300mm f/5.6 is not the greatest lens (optically, the f/4 is far better), but there is no reason you can't handhold it--and I am not even trying. 1/250, f/8, Pentax 645D, and chasing a hummingbird around my garden. I see no motion blur and no more than the bird or bush would introduce.
 

hcubell

Well-known member
Here is a JPEG of a recent photo taken with the Hassy HC 300mm lens at sunrise in Tuscany. On a tripod f/16 at .3 seconds. There are also two crops of small details, one taken from the first file focused on the hay bale and the second from a second file that was focused on the farmhouse. These would be blended together in Helicon Focus. I hope this works.
Oh, IQ 180 on the H2.
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
I think the Hassy 300mm lens produces much better results because it's a leaf shutter lens. The vibration from the focal plane shutter of the DF, particularly at slower shutter speeds, is probably a good part of the problem. I have no idea as to the inherent optical quality of the Mamiya 300mm lens. I just look at results. I tested the DF/P65 with the Mamiya 150mm D lens, and the results were VERY sharp. Long telephoto lenses are just more susceptible to a drop in image quality from the slightest form of vibration. You don't have to be an engineer to feel and hear the difference between using an H2 and and a DF. The former makes a barely audible click in the leaf shutter when you do MLU and release the shutter with a remote cable. The latter, even with MLU, still makes a lot of noise and you can feel the shutter release. I would assume that the faster the shutter speed, the less of a problem this would be, but I would still want to test it out if a 300mm lens were a key part of my kit. I use my 300mm lens a lot. My 35mm lens sits in my bag.
BTW, if the issue is with the DF's focal plane shutter, I assume the issue would still be there even with Phase's new 240mm leaf shutter lens.
Thanks.

Clearly a leaf shutter is preferable given the same shutter speed - I don't think anyone would challenge that.

However, given that with the DF option, you can go with an f/2.8 lens, and up to 1/4000th shutter speed, I don't believe the situation is as cut and dried as you were claiming in your earlier post.

It would be a shame if someone clearly as accomplished with long lenses as Andy were put off from including a 300mm lens in his new kit based on your comments.

Kind regards,

Gerald.
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
Thought I'd have a look at how the 300/2.8 is on a slow shutter speed.

1/15th, ISO100, f/8.

Phase One AF, MLU, Arca Cube and Gitzo 2540 LLVL.

Focused at around 10 feet, so very close to the limit of the lens.

Full frame:



100% crop:



Considering that at this shutter speed supposedly the shutter vibration can mess things up, that's not too bad, is it?
 

etrump

Well-known member
Congrats Andy, you'll enjoy working with the IQ160.

I wouldn't worry about the 300mm unless your exposures are less than 1/100. In all of the images you linked I can't imagine the shutter speed is slow enough to cause problems. You would have more problems with blurry subjects before the vibration becomes a problem.
 
At this moment I am more likely to get the older 300mm f/2.8 APO, primarily because of the faster aperture and hefty mass. I might also be able to use their old 2x teleconverter as well.
 

Marlyn

Member
Andy !.

Welcome to the world of MF, you won't be dissapointed !.


At this moment I am more likely to get the older 300mm f/2.8 APO, primarily because of the faster aperture and hefty mass. I might also be able to use their old 2x teleconverter as well.
I'd agree with that also.

I took the 300mm f4.5 on the 645D III to Homer recently to shoot Eagles, and frankly hated it. (both handheld, and tripod with all the normal long lens techniques). It was very hard to get a critically sharp frame.

I found I had to shoot > 1/1000s to even come close.

Also, even assuming 'sharp', I found the overall quality wasn't up to expectations of the IQ. Certainly looked nothing like the images from even the 80mm (never mind the stuff of the tech camera). The shots were 'mushy', feather detail was lost, etc etc.

Andy's ability far far exceeds mine, but I would not recommend that lens (300mm 4.5) for wildlife.

Regards

Mark Farnan
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
Welcome Andy! Always good to hear more from you ...

I have the 300 4.5 and and the shutter bounce can definitely be problematic ... may even be worse on a tripod. I think part of the problem is just the balance of the lens ... the 75- 150 doesn't seem to be an issue at all. You may want to experiment with mounting ... I think I get better shots with the camera still mounted to the tripod, so the weight of the lens is pulling down. The 2.8 makes a lot of sense in your case to get some faster shutter speeds, as does sand bags - haven't tried that. I am considering ordering this long lens support from RRS to see if it can help. I always take several images and the sharpness varies from shot to shot.

The best answer might be the 240mm LS lens if it has enough reach for you. That should be much easier to get sharp images with. I don't do much telephoto, the 75-150 I have is a very sharp copy, and 150 seems to be enough for most of what I do. Hopefully someday I will get a chance to go to Africa where I would definitely want some good telephoto options.
 

Landscapelover

Senior Subscriber Member
I am wondering why you don't use Nikon D800 or Canon 5D MIII for wildlife photography. There are many more lens choices to choose from.
High ISO, VR/IS, continuous shooting mode etc. are clearly more advantageous.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Although not specifically related to the Mamiya 300mm, as some have illustrated in this thread, the Pentax 645D MFD camera along with various Pentax telephoto 645 lenses such as the FA 300mm and FA 400mm, aquaints itself to long lens use quite nicely.

I just took the attached shot with the 645D and Pentax 600 f5.6 A* 645 Manual focus lens in part for continued testing of this lens. Tripod mounted of course but image would have greatly benefited from using additional long lens techniques.

(OK, so it's the obligitory cat picture :) )

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I am considering ordering this long lens support from RRS to see if it can help. I always take several images and the sharpness varies from shot to shot.
Wayne,

I'll be interested to hear of your experiences with the RRS mount. I bought one and tried it for a while but ended up reverting to using MUP and extended delay as I wasn't seeing the expected image quality improvements with the support as I also was still getting variable results.

That said that was with my first copy of this lens so maybe I'll give it another try ...
 
I am wondering why you don't use Nikon D800 or Canon 5D MIII for wildlife photography. There are many more lens choices to choose from.
High ISO, VR/IS, continuous shooting mode etc. are clearly more advantageous.
I am, actually. I would like for my IQ160 to be used as much as possible, and the longer I can get 'out there' with a long lens, to a point, the better. 200mm equivalent in 35mm terms would be nice, but not necessary. It all comes down to making better images where wildlife is only part of the frame, and this doesn't require a huge/long lens.
 
Top