The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

snerkler said:
Just after some opinions please. I have a gift voucher for a Kingfisher Experience that I’m hoping to use this year. Now my understanding is that it’s a hide at a natural pond/river where you’re not going to get as close as some of the dive pool places and it got me wondering if it’s worth hiring the 200-600mm over using my 100-400mm with 1.4 TC which loses 40mm range and 2/3 stop of light in comparison? I can’t see the 40mm making ‘that’ much difference, but without knowing what the light is going to be then the 2/3 stop may or may not make a difference. However, is it worth circa £100 difference (hire cost) and the extra weight?

I did look at hiring the 400mm f2.8 or the 600mm f4 but they’re circa £300 for 3 days hire so they’re a big no :LOL:
Click to expand...
I have both of these lenses + the 1.4xTC and nearly always grab the 200-600mm when out with wildlife - the 100-400mm with a 1.4x TC is a very capable lens though - the only drawback is the extending zoom when used with a Gimbal it is hard to get the balance right- I would hire a 200-600mm for that extra light if I didn't already own one- just my take on it :)

Les
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lez325 said:
I have both of these lenses + the 1.4xTC and nearly always grab the 200-600mm when out with wildlife - the 100-400mm with a 1.4x TC is a very capable lens though - the only drawback is the extending zoom when used with a Gimbal it is hard to get the balance right- I would hire a 200-600mm for that extra light if I didn't already own one- just my take on it :)

Les
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info, much appreciated. I don't tend to use monopods/tripods and handhold hence why I like the lighter lenses. Part of me thinking it's silly to even contemplate hiring the 200-600mm as the differences will only be small, but it may be the one and only time I photograph kingfishers and would kick myself if ISO/noise ruined the pics. I think I have Topaz denoise though (clearly used it a lot :LOL:) so that could be a factor.
 
Another old photo that I've processed. Hopefully on Friday I'll have some new ones to process, weather's looking a bit mixed at the moment, fingers crossed I'll be lucky.


A7R07607-Edit-Edit by Toby `Gunnee, on Flickr
 
snerkler said:
Thanks for the info, much appreciated. I don't tend to use monopods/tripods and handhold hence why I like the lighter lenses. Part of me thinking it's silly to even contemplate hiring the 200-600mm as the differences will only be small, but it may be the one and only time I photograph kingfishers and would kick myself if ISO/noise ruined the pics. I think I have Topaz denoise though (clearly used it a lot :LOL:) so that could be a factor.
Click to expand...

We all have our own views on what's acceptable... but... I find that often my pictures which can look noisy when pixel peeping look ok as whole pictures so I sometimes think we obsess too much. If a part of the enjoyment is zooming in and seeing clean feather detail that could well be a problem but I do think that even a quite noisy picture can look acceptable and even very nice as a whole picture on screen or as a print. I suppose with small birds cropping could exacerbate things though.

Good luck with it, here's hoping you get some stunners :D
 
woof woof said:
We all have our own views on what's acceptable... but... I find that often my pictures which can look noisy when pixel peeping look ok as whole pictures so I sometimes think we obsess too much. If a part of the enjoyment is zooming in and seeing clean feather detail that could well be a problem but I do think that even a quite noisy picture can look acceptable and even very nice as a whole picture on screen or as a print. I suppose with small birds cropping could exacerbate things though.

Good luck with it, here's hoping you get some stunners :D
Click to expand...
Thanks, interesting thoughts.
 
snerkler said:
Thanks, interesting thoughts.
Click to expand...

I don't print much but I treated myself to a couple of cheap A4 frames from ASDA last week and now have two more framed pictures. I think it's surprising what can look very nice if we (and I mean I :D) can stop pixel peeping and obsessing.
 
Car Wash (A65 / Tamron 16~300)

Honiton Road car wash Exeter A65_DSC03321.JPG
 
snerkler said:
Thanks for the info, much appreciated. I don't tend to use monopods/tripods and handhold hence why I like the lighter lenses. Part of me thinking it's silly to even contemplate hiring the 200-600mm as the differences will only be small, but it may be the one and only time I photograph kingfishers and would kick myself if ISO/noise ruined the pics. I think I have Topaz denoise though (clearly used it a lot :LOL:) so that could be a factor.
Click to expand...

Don't forget you can use the 1.4x on the 200-600mm as well. You may be shooting at f/10 but if the light is good that gives you 840mm which is handy with a 24mp sensor
 
Mike.P said:
Don't forget you can use the 1.4x on the 200-600mm as well. You may be shooting at f/10 but if the light is good that gives you 840mm which is handy with a 24mp sensor
Click to expand...
F9 in fact ;)
IME 200-600mm performs less well with TC than 100-400GM with TC.
May be it good enough on a 24mp sensor
 
Mike.P said:
Don't forget you can use the 1.4x on the 200-600mm as well. You may be shooting at f/10 but if the light is good that gives you 840mm which is handy with a 24mp sensor
Click to expand...

nandbytes said:
F9 in fact ;)
IME 200-600mm performs less well with TC than 100-400GM with TC.
May be it good enough on a 24mp sensor
Click to expand...
Thanks, something else to mull over. I've actually just been out with the 100-400mm with the TC on as a 'trial run' and I forgot how difficult it is to hold steady at that focal length to get the pinpoint accuracy for the focus point. I have the camera set to BBF so I need to look if I can set it so that IBIS kicks in with half press of the shutter to help stabilise the camera when positioning it on the subject. I can imagine 200-600mm with TC is even trickier.
 
snerkler said:
One of my efforts from this morning


A9_09596-Edit by Toby `Gunnee, on Flickr
Click to expand...

That is quite beautiful.

All I got was smut. (MFT, GX80 and 45-150 at 128mm.)

aURCuLQ.jpg
 
Last edited:
Had a great day at Knockhill today. Shot with new 70-200 and 200-600. So out of practice with panning and only done motorsport a few times but got a few I liked and made my day seeing an Escort and Cortina Mk 1 fling round the track.

Knockhill by Simon Wootton, on Flickr

Knockhill by Simon Wootton, on Flickr
 
wookie6262 said:
Had a great day at Knockhill today. Shot with new 70-200 and 200-600. So out of practice with panning and only done motorsport a few times but got a few I liked and made my day seeing an Escort and Cortina Mk 1 fling round the track.

Knockhill by Simon Wootton, on Flickr

Knockhill by Simon Wootton, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Nice, I'm hoping to see similar cars (along with some classic F1 cars) at Donington on Friday. I love the way they drift the Lotus Cortinas and Minis around the old hairpin :cool:
 
Just a bit of zone focusing at f8 whilst pointing the camera at the scene at about chest height so as not to frighten the customers.

hfhTNy7.jpg


Got some flowers sharp anyway.

ALJVUPc.jpg


At f1.2 zone is challenging. Best use peaking or focus with the magnified view :D

DkZIGRw.jpg
 
Last edited:
Barrysprout said:
Managed out for a walk today with the A7C. Uninspired and poor weather meant that it wasn't really worth it ☹️

Bored walk by barrysprout, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Weather certainly looks crap but I like your composition very much (y)
There is a bit too much empty space on the top left may be some cropping could fix that.
I know you didn't ask for a critique but I liked the composition so thought I'd comment :)
 
There are some tempting things in the for sale section including... (and none of these are mine)...

A very nice Voigtlander 50mm f2 APO, perhaps one of the best 50mm lenses ever made (so some claim) and a fraction of the price of the Leica, note that this Voigtlander is E mount and has electronic communication.

An A6000 and kit lens. I always look and agonise over these but I always decide that MFT suits me better. This might be a nice combination and buy for someone though.
 
woof woof said:
Are new Sigma prime coming?

Sigma will soon announce those new FE primes: 50mm f/1.2 and 50mm f/2.0 – sonyalpharumors

www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com


The 50mm f2 could potentially interest me as a replacement for my Sony 55mm f1.8.
Click to expand...

That’s disappointing.

I was hoping they would refresh the 50mm art with a smaller lighter proper mirrorless version. Have zero interest in a 50mm f/2 and even less interest in a 50mm f/1.2 which if it’s the same size as 35mm f/1.2 will need a wheel barrow to cart it around.
 
woof woof said:
There are some tempting things in the for sale section including... (and none of these are mine)...

A very nice Voigtlander 50mm f2 APO, perhaps one of the best 50mm lenses ever made (so some claim) and a fraction of the price of the Leica, note that this Voigtlander is E mount and has electronic communication.

An A6000 and kit lens. I always look and agonise over these but I always decide that MFT suits me better. This might be a nice combination and buy for someone though.
Click to expand...

The A6000 is very over priced.
 
f/2.8 said:
That’s disappointing.

I was hoping they would refresh the 50mm art with a smaller lighter proper mirrorless version. Have zero interest in a 50mm f/2 and even less interest in a 50mm f/1.2 which if it’s the same size as 35mm f/1.2 will need a wheel barrow to cart it around.
Click to expand...

The attractive one for me is the 50mm f2 as it could potentially replace my Sony 55mm f1.8 which I've never really bonded with partly because I wanted a 50 and got a 55 and I've convinced myself that I can see the extra 5mm.

I probably wont bother, but there's an outside chance that I might.
 
woof woof said:
The attractive one for me is the 50mm f2 as it could potentially replace my Sony 55mm f1.8 which I've never really bonded with partly because I wanted a 50 and got a 55 and I've convinced myself that I can see the extra 5mm.

I probably wont bother, but there's an outside chance that I might.
Click to expand...

That’s what I want to replace as well. My wife uses the 55 f1.8 a lot. 50mm f/2 wouldn’t be a worthwhile change for me. She won’t let me replace it with another 50GM as it’s too big and heavy for her.

There isn’t a good light weight 50mm ish f/1.4 or f/1.8 available. I guess the 55 f/1.8 will live to see out another wedding season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top