FF Upgrade for Wildlife

KingSaxlingham

KingSaxlingham

Messages
41
Name
Benjamin
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey,

Currently using an A6300 with the Sony 200-600mm (5.6-6.3), which seems great for static birds on sunny days, but it really seems to be struggling with AF on moving birds, and in low light situations. Thinking of upgrading to an A7iii (seems significant over the ii) as I'm starting to spend a lot more time out and about.

My question really is, having never used a full frame camera, what sort of difference I'm likely to see with the combo? I've read a lot of very favourable reviews, but I'm keen to get some thoughts from genuine users.

My expectation is much quicker AF, and much better low light performance at the expense of range.

Is that realistic?

Thank you kindly,
 
I think @Lez325 has experience of quite a range of Sony options, maybe he can advise. :)
 
If your budget can stretch to it a used Sony A9 would be a great option, AF is about as good as you’re going to get.
 
rob-nikon said:
Have you considered the A6400? It’s supposed to have nearly the same AF performance of the A9, though low light performance may not be the same.
Click to expand...
Sounds impressive (y).

Another advantage of the A9 is the blackout free shooting.
 
Thanks all. I think the a9 is probably a bit too much.

Looking at the a6600, reckon that's going to give a noticeable improvement on AF and low light on the big lens?
 
Unless you are also able to get a longer lens with the same max aperture to make up for the wider FOV, then there really isn't much in the low light performance. Other than generational technology changes, low light (ISO) performance comes down to light/image; and any method of discarding image area/light has the same penalty. Using a TC is the only one that actually tells you what the penalty is (f# changes), but cropping in post or using a crop sensor is effectively the same (e.g. 1 stop for APS 1.5x, 2 stops M4/3 2x, etc).

With wildlife I think the bigger thing is the best AF system you can get... and one rated for the lowest light levels.
 
Last edited:
Ok, thanks for that update. Seems a tough choice. A faster AF would be good for in-flight birds, but i guess my main gripe is that the a6300 seems to produce really noisy images in anything less than bright daylight.

Attached is a couple of shots of a gull unedited. Whilst the focus isn't bob-on (sorry only image's I have to hand), you can see that it's still really noisy, despite being at 640iso and 800iso respectively (at 1/4000).

Maybe I'm being fussy, but do you think a FF camera is going to produce better results regarding noise with this lens?
 

Attachments

  • _DSC5947.jpg
    _DSC5947.jpg
    40.8 KB · Views: 21
  • _DSC5956.jpg
    _DSC5956.jpg
    24.9 KB · Views: 21
KingSaxlingham said:
Maybe I'm being fussy, but do you think a FF camera is going to produce better results regarding noise with this lens?
Click to expand...
IDT you are being too fussy, but I also do not think a FF sensor will make a notable difference. The biggest issue here is the Ap/SS reducing the amount of light the sensor gets... that is what causes the noise. The secondary issue is that blue skies, and especially cloudy skies, almost always show some color noise... that's a demosaicing issue with the RGB CFA (only 25% of the photosites are blue primary).

This was taken w/ a small 1" sensor (Nikon1 V2)... the main difference is that it was 1/1600 at f/5.6 (160)... i.e. the sensor got more light.

Ringbill by Steven Kersting, on Flickr
 
Really great info thank you.

I guess my last thought is if it comes down to whether the a6600 or a7iii handle high iso better than the 6300 can for my low light photography, otherwise it feels sticking with the 6300 is probably best for now.
 
KingSaxlingham said:
Really great info thank you.

I guess my last thought is if it comes down to whether the a6600 or a7iii handle high iso better than the 6300 can for my low light photography, otherwise it feels sticking with the 6300 is probably best for now.
Click to expand...
I really doubt there will be any significant difference between the two APS bodies... IDT there have been any major technology changes in sensor design between them.

The FF sensor will have an advantage IF you record the same composition with the same settings. I.e. either from closer to the scene/subject, or with a longer lens with a larger entrance pupil (same f#); that's because both of those things mean more light reaches the sensor (same exposure over a larger sensor area). But that's only a 1 stop advantage. Often, a faster lens is a cheaper/easier way of getting there (assuming using a wider aperture is suitable)... and a quality lens tends to be a longer term investment.

FWIW, I mostly use FF bodies (but not only) for their potential benefit, but there are plenty of negatives associated with them as well... mostly cost/weight; especially if it's going to require lens upgrades/changes at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Here's a comparison tool that might help; but keep in mind that the different models were tested at different times, which also means (quite probably) slightly different software/demosaicing algorithms (you can often get significant differences just using different software). Also keep in mind that the different ISO settings are achieved by changing the SS rather than by decreasing the light levels...that is NOT the same thing (lower light levels are inherently noisier). Note that the A7III is using an 85mm instead of a 55mm (at the same f#)... that's why it has the advantage...
 
Last edited:
Thanks, that's really useful.

I think my conclusions are leading me to move on the 200-600 and pick up a faster apeture lens with slightly less range, which I'd lose anyway with a new FF Camera. Bonus being it'll save me a bit of cash, whilst still leaving loads of room to continue the learning journey.

Thanks again,
 
Unless you need IBIS, record video & need mic and headphone ports then the A6600 isn’t worth it over the A6400. The A6600 has a larger capacity battery but you can just buy a spare one with the £600 you saved :)
 
KingSaxlingham said:
Thanks, that's really useful.

I think my conclusions are leading me to move on the 200-600 and pick up a faster apeture lens with slightly less range, which I'd lose anyway with a new FF Camera. Bonus being it'll save me a bit of cash, whilst still leaving loads of room to continue the learning journey.

Thanks again,
Click to expand...
It's really a circle of tradeoffs... the faster lens means you can get more light overall. But if the shorter FL means you have to crop harder in post, then you will be discarding that additional light. I.e. the cropped image will look better when viewed at the same magnification (smaller size), but the noise will equalize when viewed at the same output size (e.g. 1024x or 10" print).
Now, if you can use the shorter/faster lens from closer and not need to crop... that's where you will see a benefit.
 
This is my take. I use a canon 7d2 crop sensor with a sigma 150-600c. What I have to is look at the conditions when I shoot. For bif I like to be 1/2000 or above for hand held. You need to look at what you are shooting.
 
Fwiw, I managed to have a go with the 70-350 on my a6300 this morning, and the difference seems quite large.

Auto focus was faster and much more accurate than when using the 200-600, and the image quality also seemed much sharper due to a lot less 'soft focus'. The less range also didnt seem to be as noticeable as I'd expected.

It's not a faster lens at all, but I was genuinely surprised by the difference. The bonus being it's much easier to handle.

I guess the 200-600 wasn't really designed for the a6300 so much.

I think for now I'll pick up the 70-350 and maybe revisit the 200-600 if I ever do decide to pick up a FF at some point.

Thanks again for the comments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top