1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  1. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,004
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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.
     
    wezza13 likes this.
  2. OldCarlos

    OldCarlos

    Messages:
    6,302
    Name:
    Carl
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    It's not a joke. I'm not talking about DOF & the obvious OOF leaves.

    I haven't clicked through to flickr, just viewing on here, but the centre of the image seems less in focus than the leaves to the right side & below. (to me)
     
  3. Gil Bev

    Gil Bev

    Messages:
    373
    Name:
    Gil
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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.
     
  4. Gil Bev

    Gil Bev

    Messages:
    373
    Name:
    Gil
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Actually I might be able to use zone autofocus but not tried that yet
     
  5. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,004
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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.
     
    OldCarlos and Gil Bev like this.
  6. OldCarlos

    OldCarlos

    Messages:
    6,302
    Name:
    Carl
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Yep, that's what I was getting at. I wondered if the pic was a crop & the leaves to the right were actually the centre & were actually focused on.
     
  7. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,004
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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.
     
    OldCarlos likes this.
  8. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,004
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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)
     
    OldCarlos likes this.
  9. Gil Bev

    Gil Bev

    Messages:
    373
    Name:
    Gil
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    It was just a shot to compare different lit parts of the garden. Keeping the same configuration as for my birding - I just swung my camera over to the brightest part of the garden - wanted to see what ISO would be required in the brighter conditions at 1\1000
     
  10. OldCarlos

    OldCarlos

    Messages:
    6,302
    Name:
    Carl
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    But as asked, where is the focus point/s on the image?
     
  11. Gil Bev

    Gil Bev

    Messages:
    373
    Name:
    Gil
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I would say bang in the middle given my settings. That's where the focus spot was.
     
  12. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,004
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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.
     
  13. HoppyUK

    HoppyUK

    Messages:
    21,029
    Name:
    Richard
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Knowing the focus point only tells you which point was used, not necessarily what was focused on. With focus-recompose technique, there can obviously be a big difference and with very long lenses it's very easy for framing to change slightly between focusing and shooting.
     
  14. Gil Bev

    Gil Bev

    Messages:
    373
    Name:
    Gil
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    All I do know is that I was less interested in the focus, and more interested in the comparative ISO chosen by the camera in this better lit part of the garden - I didn't compose this image, it was just a random shot.

    I have since learnt it's not necessarily the ISO value that is the deciding factor on how grainy an image is from camera to camera although a properly exposed picture with an ISO of 100 would be ideal. So ISO 1600 exposed properly might not give the same grain on my camera compared to ISO 1600 exposed properly on another camera. Some cameras produce a much better result at higher ISO. It seems that my setup gives a particularly grainy result compared to other cameras on the market and this might be part of the reason why I'm not getting the detail I'm looking for in more of my shots. Also my AF at the longer end is not nearly as fast as direct lens on body configuration without an adaptor inbetween.

    On the Canon and the Nikon do you guys use the lock on subject focusing. How does this benefit your shots? Does it allow you to stay in focus even if a bird lands in a hedge like above?
     
  15. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,004
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Granted, but the OPs said that he just focussed centrally and took the shot, no mention of focus recompose :p
     
  16. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,004
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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.

    Your camera actually handles noise pretty well. Looking at this is only just behind 2 highly regarded full frame cameras, and just a smidge behind arguably the best noise handling APS-C camera (D500).
    https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...=1&x=0.1312927631284066&y=-0.9790009973890715


    Also, looking at your coal tit pic on the previous page noise seems to be handled very well considering it's taken at 6400 ISO, although of course I've no idea how much NR has been applied.

    With regards to AF, using adapters to make lenses fit is a bit of a 'fudge' imo and you can't expect to get the same performance as native lenses.
     
  17. Gil Bev

    Gil Bev

    Messages:
    373
    Name:
    Gil
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2017
    mikew likes this.
  18. Gil Bev

    Gil Bev

    Messages:
    373
    Name:
    Gil
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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't
     
  19. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,004
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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.
     
  20. Gil Bev

    Gil Bev

    Messages:
    373
    Name:
    Gil
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Will give them all a go and let you know. Will start out of focus with each, and see which ones are able to acquire focus.
     
    snerkler likes this.
  21. Gil Bev

    Gil Bev

    Messages:
    373
    Name:
    Gil
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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!!

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2017
  22. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,004
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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?
     
  23. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,004
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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?
     
  24. Gil Bev

    Gil Bev

    Messages:
    373
    Name:
    Gil
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I just set it so that the camera uses unique file names to my previous cameras - DSC was my RX10, FSC was my A6300, and GSC my Nikon
     
    snerkler likes this.
  25. Gil Bev

    Gil Bev

    Messages:
    373
    Name:
    Gil
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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.

    One line down from top and one line up from bottom I was able to get focus on the centre 7 - again not very well with the outermost groups of these 7.

    And centre line all worked fine.

    Test was at 600mm at f6.3
     
  26. mikew

    mikew

    Messages:
    1,882
    Name:
    mike
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I hope the bottom one is the Nikon,if not i would go for a refund :D:D
     
    Gil Bev likes this.
  27. Redspider

    Redspider

    Messages:
    1,391
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I just bought the Sony A6300 camera. I used it with my Sony 70-400 lens the other day & these are the results.

    I will say I had to resize them, then putting them onto this site loses more detail. They were all pin sharp before.

    DSC00433.jpg DSC00444.jpg DSC00459.jpg DSC00497.jpg DSC00502.jpg
     
    snerkler likes this.
  28. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,004
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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

    Screen Shot 2017-04-05 at 13.56.10.png
     
    Gil Bev likes this.
  29. Gil Bev

    Gil Bev

    Messages:
    373
    Name:
    Gil
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Perhaps not ideal but certainly an improvement compared to using the same lens with AF on the A6300 with the LAE3 adaptor.
     
    snerkler likes this.
  30. Gil Bev

    Gil Bev

    Messages:
    373
    Name:
    Gil
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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
     
  31. Redspider

    Redspider

    Messages:
    1,391
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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.
     
  32. Gil Bev

    Gil Bev

    Messages:
    373
    Name:
    Gil
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Well, after a couple of months with the D500, I'm really impressed with what I've been able to do with the Tamron 150-600 compared to with what I was able to achieve with the Sony and the adapted Sony A Fit version of the same lens. I'm finding that ISO is much closer to 100 at equivalent shutter speeds and I'm able to shoot at 1/1250 which before would result in ridiculously high ISO even in good light. I now realise the importance of the outer focus points and being able to select them. Snerkler had quite rightly explained that this was not possible with this combo and when filling the frame with a larger bird I'm finding it more important to be able to focus on the eye further up on the frame.

    I'm wondering what the next step would be in terms of a better lens. I'm probably not going to be changing anytime soon, but it's worth while asking what people think would be the next lens I should try. Would the Nikon 200-500 be a good idea, is the fact that it's a native lens make for faster AF and also a complete flexibility to select the focus point knowing that they all work. Or would the next step be the Sigma Sport (a bit heavy I've heard), the newer Tamron (has anybody tried all of the focus points with this lens), or even an older or shorter prime?
     
    snerkler likes this.
  33. wezza13

    wezza13

    Messages:
    2,352
    Name:
    Wez
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    You (possibly) won't see any difference between the Tamron, Nikon and Sigma. In the right light, they all produce excellent results. The next step would probably be a 300mm pf f4 or a 500mm f4. But, tbh, you might not even notice any difference with those.
     
  34. gramps

    gramps

    Messages:
    28,683
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Wez, I think you will certainly see a difference between the Tamron and the Nikon 300 PF or 500 f4, good though it may be ... and the Nikon 200-500 being f5.6 can bring significant advantages in extra light and possible TC 1.4 use.
     
  35. Gil Bev

    Gil Bev

    Messages:
    373
    Name:
    Gil
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I have been able to see quite a difference in sharpness and detail in the photos others have taken with the 500mm prime. I'm guessing the faster nature of the lens makes for taking good shots in darker situations too. I'm not sure how I'd get on with the aiming at 500mm though. Currently, particularly for the smaller birds, I start at 150mm, and zoom in. It makes it easier to pinpoint the subject. Would the 300mm with a permanent teleconverter make for better results than the Tamron 150 - 600? Is it more portable? My 150-600mm does get heavy once you've been walking for a couple of hours.
     
  36. gramps

    gramps

    Messages:
    28,683
    Edit My Images:
    No
    The 300 PF is so portable it is unbelievable and it works extremely well with the TC 1.4 Ell, though of course you would lose the lower range (150-300).and higher range (420-600). You could use it with a 1.7 very well, or a 2x(Mk3) but with the latter it would be more for portability than IQ. :)
     
    wezza13 likes this.
  37. mikew

    mikew

    Messages:
    1,882
    Name:
    mike
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Unless you go for the PF version you will not have VR.
     
  38. Gil Bev

    Gil Bev

    Messages:
    373
    Name:
    Gil
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    By jove, I don't think I could live with less than 500mm of good quality reach. And I'm not sure I could live without my zoom either!!
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2017
  39. wezza13

    wezza13

    Messages:
    2,352
    Name:
    Wez
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I know what you mean but, as an amateur, Gil won't see much difference between the Tamron and the Nikon 200-500 and maybe not even the 300mm PF. just one of those things that you hope to see a big improvement in IQ when it may only be slightly different and not worth the big hike in price difference.

    I'd certainly suggest hiring some lenses first to try before you buy.

    @Gil Bev
    I hired the Nikon 200-500 twice with a view to replacing my Tamron 150-600 on my D500. The focusing was slower on the Nikon and the IQ was minimal, if any (y)
     
  40. gramps

    gramps

    Messages:
    28,683
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Can't agree there Wez, the 300 PF is superb but of course doesn't cover the 150-600/200-500 range. :)
     

Share This Page