Beginner saving up for a camera

Messages
38
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
No
I like the Sony A7r3
what lens would be best for horse shows , I have seen a 24-240 Sony lens also a Sony 18-105 G lens .....what would be best for getting that best equine shot?

I cant get on to the classifieds part of the forum yet unfortunately
any advice will be great
thanks
Gary
 
Welcome! Might be an idea to have posted this in the Sony section (ask a mod to move it), and/or change the title to include the word Sony to attract relevant replies. :)
 
I shot Equestrian for years. Some (most) indoor arena are poorly lit. You’ll need a fast zoom.
Get a 70-200 F2.8. If you’ve got time to wait it’ll be worth looking at the Tamron 70-180.
Don’t think that an f4 lens will do.
 
70-200 F2.8
nearly crapped myself at the prices lol
better keep on saving
 
Maybe this is a learning moment for us digital newbies.

Back in the day I shot a lot of sports in crummy 70s-era domed stadiums. Tri-X pushed 2 stops to 1600 was about the most I could do to get acceptable images. Even then, it was often marginal. 500@2.8.

I love fast glass. Nothing better. You'll never hear me say anything bad about fast glass except to complain about the cost. But there is the cost.

I just bought a new Canon 80D. Max ISO is 16000 (16 thousand!!!). Is that really a thing or just a marketing thing? And even if you don't take it to the extreme, how good are the shots at 1600 or 3200 or 6400? Is 500/2.8/1600 significantly better than 500/4/3200 or 1000/4/6400?

I don't remember shooting anything digital at more than ISO 400. Occasion hasn't risen. But there will come a day.
 
Last edited:
It depends on the camera really. Full frame cameras will have less noise at equivalent ISO than a crop sensor, but whether the quality is "good enough" at high ISO is different from camera to camera.

I'd be happy shooting at ISO 6400 ISO on my D810 but wouldn't want to go past 3200 on my G80, for example.

Also worth noting that often cameras will have very high top ISO ratings...foe the most part it's a marketing gimmick because images are very grainy at those ISOs, and the 'extended' ISOs are just digitally brightened in camera so it's not really the same.
 
Last edited:
70-200 F2.8
nearly crapped myself at the prices lol
better keep on saving
What kind of budget are you thinking of? A Sony A7R3 and 70-200 F2.8.8 will likely be over £3k even used. Sony, or any mirrorless for that matter, isn’t known to be the cheaper option.

The tamron 70-180 F2.8 is starting to get some appeal. Probably because it’s half the price of the Sony 70-200 F2.8.8.
As I said in the other thread @JJ! is the Sony horse photographer and would be the best person to advise.
 
I have a Sony a7Riii and the Sony 70-200mm f2.8 - its a superb set up and would do nicely for equestrian type shoots :)
other than that a Sony 100-400mm would be ideal I feel

Les
 
What kind of budget are you thinking of? A Sony A7R3 and 70-200 F2.8.8 will likely be over £3k even used. Sony, or any mirrorless for that matter, isn’t known to be the cheaper option.

The tamron 70-180 F2.8 is starting to get some appeal. Probably because it’s half the price of the Sony 70-200 F2.8.8.
As I said in the other thread @JJ! is the Sony horse photographer and would be the best person to advise.

Except when they are :D You have to compare like with like but there are certainly examples in which a Sony set up is cheaper than the equivalent (for example) Canon DSLR set up. It's best therefore to compare the spec, abilities and prices of the specific kit on the shopping list.
 
What kind of budget are you thinking of? A Sony A7R3 and 70-200 F2.8.8 will likely be over £3k even used. Sony, or any mirrorless for that matter, isn’t known to be the cheaper option.

The tamron 70-180 F2.8 is starting to get some appeal. Probably because it’s half the price of the Sony 70-200 F2.8.8.
As I said in the other thread @JJ! is the Sony horse photographer and would be the best person to advise.

Yep I do both indoor and outdoor equestrian stuff. A9 with 70-200 2.8. All indoor stuff is at 2.8 to be honest so would definitely avoid the F4.

Cant comment on the Tamron, but the Sony is fast and accurate and hasn’t missed a beat in all weathers. It’s been out in rain, snow and taken shots on the sea and it’s had no issues what so ever.

I have got used to the size and weight, I like internal zooms and it just works!
 
I do shoot some equestrian events (it keeps the wifey from moaning about buying new camera gear). Outdoors you'll probably get away with an f/4 lens, but even then on gloomy days it's not great. Indoors, as much as it pains me to say, you are best off with an f/2.8 lens and you'll still need to push the ISO up above base level.
There are a couple of genres of photography where equipment matters and sports is one of them.
 
Another very competitive market. As others have said if indoors you will need a 2.8 but if only outdoors a F4 would work very well. I would not go for a super zoom like the 24-240 as they are not the fastest at focusing. As for the Tamron, nobody knows the price yet but most think around a £1000. I have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 which is tack sharp. Another big difference in the Sony 70-200 f2.8 and the new Tamron 70-180 f2.8 is weight with the Tamron being much much lighter.
 
I made great experiences with my first camera. It was a Canon 1000D. You can get them fairly cheap as second hand. Great starter camera
 
Sorry what is the issue?
Advertising another form on TP is a big nono please lose the link (s)
Before the sword of Damocles falls, thanks.
 
Last edited:
Advertising another form on TP is a big nono please lose the link (s)
Before the sword of Damocles falls, thanks.
sorry! i have remove it but i hope my instagram lonk is ok?
 
I think that the issue has become rather obvious now that your signature is visible.
Sorry I am slightly confused.... What is the issue with my recommendation? I am maybe not an experienced photographer like yourself but I think giving input from my own experience should not be mocked.
 
Sorry I am slightly confused.... What is the issue with my recommendation? I am maybe not an experienced photographer like yourself but I think giving input from my own experience should not be mocked.


Replying to a months old thread?
Failing to read or understand the opening post?
Making a completely irrelevant reply?

Classic hallmarks of a spam post.
 
Replying to a months old thread?
Failing to read or understand the opening post?
Making a completely irrelevant reply?

Classic hallmarks of a spam post.
great things about forums....everyone has an opinion
 
Classic hallmarks of a spam post.

great things about forums....everyone has an opinion
Let me explain a little further about Mark's post...

A spammer posts 3 random innocuous and usually brief posts scattered, across 3 forums to beat the "mod approval queue"
And the 4th post is the spam link. Your first posts followed the classic pattern.
Yes we get "hit" many times a day, the auto spam filter takes much of it out,
some is taken out manually when we spot it or the diligent members see it first and report it.
 
Let me explain a little further about Mark's post...

A spammer posts 3 random innocuous and usually brief posts scattered, across 3 forums to beat the "mod approval queue"
And the 4th post is the spam link. Your first posts followed the classic pattern.
Yes we get "hit" many times a day, the auto spam filter takes much of it out,
some is taken out manually when we spot it or the diligent members see it first and report it.
thank you for explaining
 
I love fast glass. Nothing better. You'll never hear me say anything bad about fast glass except to complain about the cost. But there is the cost.

and the WEIGHT!!!

I pondered long and hard about going for the Nikkor 500/4 in the classifieds recently but reckoned on an occasional weekend rental for a 400/2.8 would never set me back as much as deprecation on a purchased lens.

I have long Nikkor glass - 80-400 and 200-500 - both f5.6... that aperture is a handicap in low light and separating subject from background
 
Back
Top