NatureScapes.net Forums

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.

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

SantaFeJoe wrote:

... 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.

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

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 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.

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. 

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 ?
Olymups EM 1 Mk II + 300 f4


Needed to watch the background though I supposed

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

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.

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.  

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

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

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. 

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]

A m43 300 f/4 is the DOF equivalent of a 600 f/8 on a Sony.

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

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.

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

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

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.