I'm not sure if this is a joke or not? Surely it's a depth of field thing and the leaves on the left of the frame are further away from the camera and are MUCH softer as are actually out of focus due to the DOF.
I was using centre focus. On this combo I only get centre autofocus or wide auto focus. I was just pointing the camera towards the brightest area just to see what kind of ISO I'd get so i didnt switch focus mode. There's no flexible spot focus with this adapted lens - as sony call it - so I can't select what I want to focus on unless I get my subject right in the centre. Saying that, on continuous focus it does wonder after things that aren't quite central.
Actually I might be able to use zone autofocus but not tried that yet
Ahh I see. All the leaves etc are at different distances so you can't really comment on whether part of the fame is sharper than the other. To me there's a difference in distance of the leaves on the right of the fame even compared to the centre.
Yep, understand what you mean now. Without knowing the focus point/mode it's hard to say. If in Auto I'd have expected the AF to pick that area as it's closest, likewise if I was to manually select the focus point this is where I would choose. However, if the centre point has been used (as suggested by the OP) then it does seem a bit odd as you said.
I'm not sure I'm understanding what focus mode you've used tbh? Are you saying that you used central, but then the AF point moved about? I personally wouldn't use continuous AF on a shot like this, I'd stick to single (AF-S)
I would say bang in the middle given my settings. That's where the focus spot was.
It won't have ben bang in the middle as that's way out of focus. On the a6300 do you get the option to view focus points during playback (reviewing the image on the LCD)? I tried in lightroom but unfortunately it's not compatible with the plugin.
Granted, but the OPs said that he just focussed centrally and took the shot, no mention of focus recompose
As you say ISO isn't the only deciding factor in how noisy an image is. A properly exposed image at say 3200 should have less noise than one that's underexposed at 3200 and boosted in PP. Also, the quality of light plays a part.
I ended up doing a camera change, and now have a Nikon D500. Have been stunned by the improved performance with the Tamron 150-600mm. Both better sharpness and detail when shooting wide open. The speed and accuracy of the autofocus is far far better compared to my previous setup and have been able to take my first successful BIF pictures without a tripod and get recognisable results. I'm also find the reach with equivalent focal length is further which I'm guessing is due to a smaller sensor? The body and grip is a lot easier to carry and handle with the large lens and my images are more detailed and less noisy with higher ISOs. So overall really happy
I am able to select all 55 selectable points at 600mm but AF was not effective at the extreme corners with the camera unable to acquire focus. I could test all points Snerkler and let you know exactly which points work and which don'tWith the Tamron when I went above 520mm only the minimal AF points worked on the D500. I'm not sure if you're aware, but in many cameras all the AF points 'only' work to a maximum of f5.6 lenses, but if your effective aperture drops below this such as when using teleconverters then some cameras still can autofocus but with a reduced number of AF points, see below. The arrow shows which AF points worked on the D500 above 520mm
View attachment 99899
Now at first I assumed it was because the Tamron is f6.3 at the long end, which is a reasonable assumption. However, the Tamron stops down to f6.3 just after 400mm so you would have thought if it was due to aperture/light limitations then the D500 would reduce to the minimum AF points just after 400mm but it doesn't, it's fine until 520mm. The Tamron works fine on my D750. Now it could be a crop body vs FF issue, but the Tamron worked fine on my friends D7200 although I can't be 100% certain that I tried all the AF points. I will hopefully be borrowing it again in the next week or so. Between myself, the store I bought the camera from, Nikon and Tamron it could not be determined whether this is normal behaviour for the D500 with the Tamron, or whether my D500 was defective and the AF points were not as sensitive as they should be for whatever reason. I did contact about a dozen Flickr users with the D500/Tamron Combo and of the 6 that replied none reported having the issue, although one did say he'd never used anything other than the centre AF point. One member id specifically say he'd tried all the AF points. I would like to get my hands on another D500 at some stage to check it for myself.
Going back to your point above, yes properly exposing will give you better results, but just using a higher shutter speed won't necessarily. It's always a balancing act as to what exposure settings you should use to get the best results, but you should always make sure exposure is 'correct'. As to how you know whether it's exposed correctly or no according to the histogram I don't think that you can really when the bird is so small in the frame, I've not found a way yet to determine which bit of the histogram refers to the bird. You can use spot metering, but unless you're completely au fait with spot metering you can get some wildly different results.
When shooting wildlife I use one of two settings. It's always manual mode (so that I control both aperture and shutter speed) but if the animal/bird is moving about I will use auto ISO so that exposure can constantly change as the animal is moving from lighter to darker areas. If the animal is pretty static I will use spot metering and use a set ISO to a specific value. I will then view in the LCD and check the histograms and adjust exposure settings if necessary. Be aware though, that simply viewing in the LCD is not entirely reliable as if viewing in bright light the image will look dark and you will think it's underexposed. It's always best to view the LCD in a darker environment if you can, such as in a well shaded area. Over time you will get a better feel of whether exposure is correct or not.
My general settings for wildlife using the Tamron are 1/1000, f8 and then whatever the ISO needs to be to expose correctly. If light's poor I will lower the shutter speed if possible. With the tamron try and stick to 550mm at the longest length, the difference in framing between 550mm and 600mm is negligible, at least it is on FF
imo the D500 is by far the best APS-C camera currently on the market.
Yeah, unfortunately Nikon still let you select all the AF points rather than deactivating them when you go beyond the minimum aperture, you just find they don't focus. With my combo it was only those that you see listed in the manual when using an f4 lens with 1.7tc IIRC. So the only ones that worked were the central 9 cluster and those across the middle row. So none of the top row, some of the second row, all of the middle row, some of the fourth row and none of the bottom row.
You can't really compare shots like this as there's so many variables, none more so than light. However, viewing on the phone the bottom looks noticeablely sharper to me so am assuming that's the Nikon? Any reason you have the files names FSC and GSC?In the meantime, here is a rough comparison of results I could get with the Sony vs results I have been able to get with the Nikon.
I think it's the same bird!!
You can't really compare shots like this as there's so many variables, none more so than light. However, viewing on the phone the bottom looks noticeablely sharper to me so am assuming that's the Nikon? Any reason you have the files names FSC and GSC?In the meantime, here is a rough comparison of results I could get with the Sony vs results I have been able to get with the Nikon.
I think it's the same bird!!
I found that on the top and bottom I was able to acquire focus on the 3 centre most - groups, albeit not very quickly with hunting. 4 either side of these didn't work at all.
In the meantime, here is a rough comparison of results I could get with the Sony vs results I have been able to get with the Nikon.
I think it's the same bird!!
Thanks for doing this. Seems like the D500 and Tamron 150-600mm aren't a good marriage then
Perhaps not ideal but certainly an improvement compared to using the same lens with AF on the A6300 with the LAE3 adaptor.Thanks for doing this. Seems like the D500 and Tamron 150-600mm aren't a good marriage then
These are the ones that worked/didn't work for me at 520-600mm
View attachment 100696
Nice shots, very detailed - out of curiosity, did you use the LAEA3 adaptor with this combo, and what were your experiences with the AF performance
I'v had the Sony A7 camera with the LA-EA4 adapter & 70-400 lens for about 3 years. Previously I've had both Canon & Nikon, loved them both, but I also love the A7. I wanted 4k video & a faster fps but the new A7 series is too much money, so I bought the Sony A6300 for that reason, plus I can use my existing lenses etc. I have done quite a few comparrisons with the same lens between the two & the A6300 comes up extremely well. The focusing on the A7 & the A6300 with the 70-400 lens may not be fast, but the results are spot on.
