fbpixel

Moderators: Greg Downing, E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC - 5 hours

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 41 posts | 
by DChan on Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:08 am
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1999
Joined: 09 Jan 2009
Once you have a taste of a lighter, smaller system which gives you the same results as a heavier, bulkier one, I doubt anyone would want to go back to carry around the latter.
 

by SantaFeJoe on Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:36 pm
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7137
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: American Southwest
DChan wrote:
Once you have a taste of a lighter, smaller system which gives you the same results as a heavier, bulkier one, I doubt anyone would want to go back to carry around the latter.

It can’t give you the same results or potential. One stop of light and 100mm makes a big difference. I do agree that not everyone needs this potential, but I have missed plenty of shots in low light because of not having that extra stop. With the improvements in sensor/ISO performance technology, that point may be moot in the future. 

Joe
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso
 

by DChan on Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:55 pm
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1999
Joined: 09 Jan 2009
SantaFeJoe wrote:
Quote:
... but I have missed plenty of shots in low light because of not having that extra stop. With the improvements in sensor/ISO performance technology, that point may be moot in the future. 




To me, that point has long been moot since the D3/D700 days. Then of course, one's noise tolerance level plays a role, too, and so better noise reduction programs should help. Certainly when it comes to depth of field, I can agree that the results are not the same.
 

by SantaFeJoe on Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:27 pm
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7137
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: American Southwest
DChan wrote:
Certainly when it comes to depth of field, I can agree that the results are not the same.


And that’s one reason why some wildlife and many sports photogs love the 400 2.8. Too bad it’s just too short(focal length) and heavy for the focal length.

Joe
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso
 

by Gary Irwin on Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:19 pm
Gary Irwin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 576
Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
SantaFeJoe wrote:
DChan wrote:
Certainly when it comes to depth of field, I can agree that the results are not the same.


And that’s one reason why some wildlife and many sports photogs love the 400 2.8. Too bad it’s just too short(focal length) and heavy for the focal length.

Joe


On the other hand DOF with a 400/2.8 is too shallow for small birds up close where I often shoot....I'm typically stopped down to f5.6 - f8 anyway, so there's no benefit to having fast glass in this instance if the light is good.
Gary Likes Nature.
 

by Mike in O on Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:23 pm
Mike in O
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2668
Joined: 22 Dec 2013
Gary Irwin wrote:
SantaFeJoe wrote:
DChan wrote:
Certainly when it comes to depth of field, I can agree that the results are not the same.


And that’s one reason why some wildlife and many sports photogs love the 400 2.8. Too bad it’s just too short(focal length) and heavy for the focal length.

Joe


On the other hand DOF with a 400/2.8 is too shallow for small birds up close where I often shoot....I'm typically stopped down to f5.6 - f8 anyway, so there's no benefit to having fast glass in this instance if the light is good.

m4/3 should be what you should be shooting if DOF doesn't matter to you.
 

by Gary Irwin on Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:13 pm
Gary Irwin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 576
Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Mike in O wrote:
Gary Irwin wrote:
SantaFeJoe wrote:
DChan wrote:
Certainly when it comes to depth of field, I can agree that the results are not the same.


And that’s one reason why some wildlife and many sports photogs love the 400 2.8. Too bad it’s just too short(focal length) and heavy for the focal length.

Joe


On the other hand DOF with a 400/2.8 is too shallow for small birds up close where I often shoot....I'm typically stopped down to f5.6 - f8 anyway, so there's no benefit to having fast glass in this instance if the light is good.

m4/3 should be what you should be shooting if DOF doesn't matter to you.


LOL sure, direct me to a 45MP 4/3 body with accompanying light-weight supertele, and I'll bite.  :D
Gary Likes Nature.
 

by DChan on Thu Jun 13, 2019 8:38 pm
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1999
Joined: 09 Jan 2009
Mike in O wrote:
Gary Irwin wrote:
SantaFeJoe wrote:
DChan wrote:
Certainly when it comes to depth of field, I can agree that the results are not the same.


And that’s one reason why some wildlife and many sports photogs love the 400 2.8. Too bad it’s just too short(focal length) and heavy for the focal length.

Joe


On the other hand DOF with a 400/2.8 is too shallow for small birds up close where I often shoot....I'm typically stopped down to f5.6 - f8 anyway, so there's no benefit to having fast glass in this instance if the light is good.

m4/3 should be what you should be shooting if DOF doesn't matter to you.


Sure, why worry about DOF ?

Image

Olymups EM 1 Mk II + 300 f4


Needed to watch the background though I supposed

Image
 

by SantaFeJoe on Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:17 am
User avatar
SantaFeJoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7137
Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Location: American Southwest
Another factor not mentioned is the fact that a larger aperture allows a brighter view in low light to focus and compose. I don’t know to what extent that is true in an EVF, but for a DSLR it makes a lot of difference. One stop is a lot of light.

Joe
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.  -Pablo Picasso
 

by Swissblad on Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:45 am
User avatar
Swissblad
Forum Contributor
Posts: 958
Joined: 17 Jun 2016
Here’s an interview with the head of Sony’s global interchangeable lens business regarding the concept Sony has for the future and the design of these lenses:


https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/1348083745/sony-interview-600mm-f4-200-600mm-launch

Joe

Sony is very fortunate to have someone with such foresight and vision leading this division - something sadly lacking in the CaNikon camp.
 

by Mike in O on Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:08 am
Mike in O
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2668
Joined: 22 Dec 2013
SantaFeJoe wrote:
Another factor not mentioned is the fact that a larger aperture allows a brighter view in low light to focus and compose. I don’t know to what extent that is true in an EVF, but for a DSLR it makes a lot of difference. One stop is a lot of light.

Joe


This is not as important with EVF since it gains as it gets darker...much better than a OVF in dim light.  
 

by Primus on Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:16 am
Primus
Lifetime Member
Posts: 890
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: New York
Member #:02003
I switched completely to Sony and sold my Canon bodies over 2 yrs ago. Was waiting for these lenses and boy, the wait has been well worth it.

I have used the 100-400GM since it was released but most of the time, i have had the 1.4TC on it. This gives me pictures that are still quite sharp, but there is a slight focus lag and of course with birds the background is too busy especially if they are sitting in a tree. I was in Botswana and we did the shoot from a boat on the  Chobe river. It's a great place for a variety of birds especially Kingfishers, but in most instances if the bird is perched, the branches behind are too obtrusive. Not to mention the fact that even the 540mm you get with the TC is sometimes not enough.

Not sure if I will get both the new lenses. The 600 f4 while big is really light compared to my previous experience with the Canon 600MkII. I have the Sony 400 2.8 but have not been able to test it in the field yet. The new 600 is only a few oz heavier, so it would work well.

It's great to have a choice now. I predicted a long time ago - the first time I bought the A7r1 - that Sony is a player to reckon with. For a long time us Sony users were made fun of, it seemed that the cameras were not 'serious enough'. It's a good feeling to be vindicated now. Canon and Nikon are racing to catch up with Sony in the  mirrorless world, the writing has been on the wall for a while now and they have quite a while to go.

Pradeep
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sat Jun 29, 2019 4:30 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 84270
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
A not easily impressed photographer is about as impressed as I've ever seen him with the 600 f/4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl5FDG0jQfI
 

by Neilyb on Mon Jul 01, 2019 3:32 am
User avatar
Neilyb
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2733
Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Location: Munich
Gary Irwin wrote:
Mike in O wrote:
Gary Irwin wrote:
SantaFeJoe wrote:
DChan wrote:
Certainly when it comes to depth of field, I can agree that the results are not the same.


And that’s one reason why some wildlife and many sports photogs love the 400 2.8. Too bad it’s just too short(focal length) and heavy for the focal length.

Joe


On the other hand DOF with a 400/2.8 is too shallow for small birds up close where I often shoot....I'm typically stopped down to f5.6 - f8 anyway, so there's no benefit to having fast glass in this instance if the light is good.

m4/3 should be what you should be shooting if DOF doesn't matter to you.


LOL sure, direct me to a 45MP 4/3 body with accompanying light-weight supertele, and I'll bite.  :D


Well the Oly 300 f4 is [font=arial, sans-serif] [/font][font=arial, sans-serif]3.25 lbs (1.47kg), considerably lighter than the Canon or Sony equiv ;) So 50% of the way there. :) [/font]
 

by E.J. Peiker on Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:06 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 84270
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
A m43 300 f/4 is the DOF equivalent of a 600 f/8 on a Sony.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Thu Jul 04, 2019 7:43 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 84270
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
A very thorough review of the 200-600 with lots of great info on how to use it, which cameras to use it with under what conditions and the AF system limitations of various Sony cameras with an f/6.3 lens...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR_s8DRWh6U
 

by Scott Fairbairn on Sun Jul 07, 2019 11:59 am
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4560
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
E.J. Peiker wrote:
A very thorough review of the 200-600 with lots of great info on how to use it, which cameras to use it with under what conditions and the AF system limitations of various Sony cameras with an f/6.3 lens...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR_s8DRWh6U




I think that's the best review I've seen. It really makes me think that Sony needs to get an advanced crop body out there soon. The A6400 has great autofocus, but the form factor is crappy.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:01 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 84270
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Scott Fairbairn wrote:
E.J. Peiker wrote:
A very thorough review of the 200-600 with lots of great info on how to use it, which cameras to use it with under what conditions and the AF system limitations of various Sony cameras with an f/6.3 lens...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR_s8DRWh6U




I think that's the best review I've seen. It really makes me think that Sony needs to get an advanced crop body out there soon. The A6400 has great autofocus, but the form factor is crappy.

I could not agree more.  The a9 with the 26mp APS-C sensor and it would be a D500 killer.  The a9 is now easily the best focusing camera for action on the planet and with a 400/2.8, 600/4 and 200-600, the lenses are showing up...  Would love to se a PF 500/5.6 for that system though :)
 

by DChan on Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:13 pm
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1999
Joined: 09 Jan 2009
E.J. Peiker wrote:
...The a9 with the 26mp APS-C sensor and it would be a D500 killer. ...


Sure, it's like the BMW M2 would kill a Civic Type R on a track. Not much difference in performance but one is much more expensive than the other.

Nikon D500: USD 1,499.95 per Nikon USA.

Sony A9: USD 4,499.99 per Sony.com.

Sony's 600mm f4 also costs $700 more.

Nah. I'll keep my Nikon :-)
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:19 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 84270
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
I said an a9 body with an APS-C sensor... Like in the Nikon world, it would cost a fraction of the larger sensor body. D500 = $1500, D850=$3000 - essentially the same body. The point we were making is that Sony has the best AF and now has lenses for wildlife photography, although a 500PF equivalent would be nice, but does not have an APS-C body that is conducive to action photography. The price of the lenses will come down, they are brand new and still on allocation.
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
41 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group