Sony SLT's for Wildlife Photography

motso

motso

Suspended / Banned
Messages
40
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

I currently shoot mainly wildlife/bird photography with my Sony A55 and 75-300mm 4.5-5.6 lens. As this lens obviously has quite a few limitations I am looking to upgrade to either a Sony 70-400g or a Sigma 50-500mm.

I have found with my current set up that I am always struggling for light and whilst I accept I will always need to use a tripod and struggle in dawn/dusk shooting, I find it almost impossible to 'freeze motion' (ie. birds on the wing) in all but the brightest conditions. I have read that SLT's reduce light by a couple of stops which I am beginning to think could be a significant factor.

My question is, as SLT's limit precious light and I cannot justify purchasing a 2.8 telephoto, would I be better switching to a Nikon or Canon set up at this stage before investing in significant kit and passing the point of no return?

I have always liked Sony cameras and it would obviously cost me precious cash to switch allegiance, however if it would make a significant difference to my photography then it would be a price worth paying.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks

Tom.
 
motso said:
I have read that SLT's reduce light by a couple of stops which I am beginning to think could be a significant factor.
Click to expand...
it's about 0.4 of a stop light loss due to the SLT mirrror.
How critical is under 1/2 a stop to you?
& currently the 70-400 G is the best in it's class with a 70-400 G II coming imminently (supposedly new coatings, weatherproof & faster AF).
 
welcome to the world of mega expensive wildlife photography gear!

At dawn or dusk the light is very low, and I can imagine you need to shoot at high speeds, so ISO 1600 or (much) higher as you have ruled out f/2.8 glass (only a cost of almost new small car)

Well most crop cameras will struggle at ISO1600 and above to produce crystal clear files suitable for heavy cropping or printing at A1. The way out is a more sensitive FF body, and luckily there are Canon 5DIII, 1DX and Nikon D4, D3s, etc, and you'll need a longer lens

Or you have to try and get closer with something like 70-200 f/2.8.

Most winning images at the wildlife photographer of the year competition were taken at less than 200mm. In fact, many were captured with 16-35! So that means there is very little excuse for me and you
 
motso said:
I have read that SLT's reduce light by a couple of stops which I am beginning to think could be a significant factor.
Click to expand...

As has already been posted, it's actually closer to 1/3 stop - but this has already been factored in to the cameras ISO settings!

So if you have a Sony SLT, a Canon & a Nikon all set on ISO 200, and manually set them to f/8 & 1/250, they will all give a similar exposure.

Where the SLT light loss is apparent is when you raise the ISO - because the SLT has to compensate for the loss due to the translucent mirror, the images will be noisier at high ISO's than they would be without a translucent mirror.

Unfortunatly it does sound as if your choice is either a fast telephoto (expensive) or pushing the ISO.
 
As others have said, you're not going to get a significant performance increase from any aps-c camera. The a55 is no slouch, even with the SLT mirror.

Can I ask how you process noise? What software do you use for NR and how do you apply it? There might be options to manage the noise better, without necessarily resorting to big expensive lenses.
 
I don't have a Sony camera (Canon 7D) but am in the same boat as you always struggling in low light the answer is an f2.8 lens but that's way out my budget
What I do is expose to.the right as far as I can to minimise noise and process the raws in lightroom 4 this helps a lot.
 
i used to have an A55 and as others have said already, the loss of light is around 1/3 stop not 2 stops.

Personally I found the A55 is be very good in low light for it's price. Certainly I haven't had any major problems at ISO1600 and occasionally I'd bump it to ISO 3200 and then use some NR after.

I think if you switched to Canon/Nikon unless you went full frame that you'd only see a very small difference in quality.

Not sure how much you need the reach but how about the Tamron 70-200 f2.8? They are going for around £400ish on eBay and thanks to Sony IBIS it's stablised. You would need to pay significantly more for the same for Canon/Nikon VR lenses.
 
Hi, I shoot some wildlife and can wholeheartedly recommend the Sony 70-400 which gave stunning results with my a77. In future I intend to focus (no pun intended) on sports and wildlife so have changed systems back to Canon purely for the 500f4 which is VERY expensive in Alpha mount but just about affordable used in Canon- fitment.

However, if 400 mm is long enough for you a good used copy of the 70-400 is an utter bargain IMVHO.

Friends recommend the Sigma 50-500 in os form but I have not used it.

Having jumped from Canon-to-Sony-to-Canon I can see the pros and cons of both systems. My advice would be to stick with Sony unless you intend to invest heavily in the Canon mighty whites. OOI, I much prefer the a77 to the 7D I currently use !

Regards

Gary
 
Hi All,

Thanks for all the helpful comments, its great to know there are so many people out there willing to give good advice.

From your comments and further research on 'light loss' with the SLT's it would seem to pointless switching brand at this stage, especially as I am happy with many features of my A55. This gives me 3 lens options in my price range:

1) Go with the best optics, a 2.8 Sony/Tamron 70-200mm. This would severely limit my ability to photograph many birds and other wildlife but give me the best overall pictures and performance in low light of the things I can reach. This would give me the option of using teleconverters but with a 1.4 I would have a slightly lower reach than my current lens.

2) Go for the 70-400mm g, accept that on my budget I will have to sacrifice low light performance and 'image freezing ability', but still get a great quality lens.

3) Accept that on my budget I am going to struggle to get images like the ones in books/magazines and go for the longest zoom (Sigma 50-500mm) and sacrifice a bit of image quality.

It's a tough decision, I thought deciding to invest would be the hardest part, but that was just the beginning!

Any further advice would be greatly appreciated!


Tom
 
For me its actually the lower end Sony's were the SLT tech seems to make the most sense.

I'm guessing alot of the reason you don't get 10 fps entry level DSLR's isnt simpley the processing power needed but the cost/size of a mirror assumbley that can flip that fast, the SLT design obviously gets rid of the need for that.

For something like the A77 or A99 the advanatge seems less obvious to me, your dealing with rival DSLR's that offer similar FPS and the kind of user who's buying such cameras probabley places more importance on that extra 1/3 of a stop of light.
 
Moreorless said:
For me its actually the lower end Sony's were the SLT tech seems to make the most sense.

I'm guessing alot of the reason you don't get 10 fps entry level DSLR's isnt simpley the processing power needed but the cost/size of a mirror assumbley that can flip that fast, the SLT design obviously gets rid of the need for that.

For something like the A77 or A99 the advanatge seems less obvious to me, your dealing with rival DSLR's that offer similar FPS and the kind of user who's buying such cameras probabley places more importance on that extra 1/3 of a stop of light.
Click to expand...

For me, the real benefit of the SLT design has nothing to do with the high frame rate. Being free from having to guess at exposures, based on a needle on a scale, is what it's all about. Full time live view, without losing fast AF, means I get the shot 1st time (almost) every time. Even when I ETTR, I rarely need to check for clipping because I know when I'm at the limit before I take the shot.
 
Some interesting points, I'm certainly happy with my A55 and glad light loss is probably not an issue for me.

Anyone got any advice on lens choice?

Tom.
 
daugirdas said:
welcome to the world of mega expensive wildlife photography gear!

At dawn or dusk the light is very low, and I can imagine you need to shoot at high speeds, so ISO 1600 or (much) higher as you have ruled out f/2.8 glass (only a cost of almost new small car)

Well most crop cameras will struggle at ISO1600 and above to produce crystal clear files suitable for heavy cropping or printing at A1. The way out is a more sensitive FF body, and luckily there are Canon 5DIII, 1DX and Nikon D4, D3s, etc, and you'll need a longer lens

Or you have to try and get closer with something like 70-200 f/2.8.

Most winning images at the wildlife photographer of the year competition were taken at less than 200mm. In fact, many were captured with 16-35! So that means there is very little excuse for me and you
Click to expand...

Why would he want to print to A1??? And you don't need to pay the cost of a new small car for f/2.8 lenses, far from it!

A crop can easily be used effectively with a fast lens, but that doesn't mean spending mega bucks. A used Sigma 70-200 f2.8 can be had for about £300, and even shorter primes can be used effectively if you are clever.

Of course, if you want longer lengths, ie 400mm plus then that will be expensive whatever body you use.
 
Last edited:
Photography is an expensive hobby lol

One thing just occurred to me and that is the Tamron isn't the fastest to focus and esp in low light has a tendency to hunt. So it might not be the best choice for you to capture fast moving subjects.

I've never done birding before but have you ever tried using the MFNR? No idea if it is suitable for what you want but that's very effective in removing noise.
 
gadgeteer said:
Photography is an expensive hobby lol

One thing just occurred to me and that is the Tamron isn't the fastest to focus and esp in low light has a tendency to hunt. So it might not be the best choice for you to capture fast moving subjects.

I've never done birding before but have you ever tried using the MFNR? No idea if it is suitable for what you want but that's very effective in removing noise.
Click to expand...

The sigma is lightning fast, go for that over the Tamron any day.
 
I had the Sigma HSM II & I wouldn't describe it as lightning fast.
It is still faster than the Tamron but the Tamron AFs quicker on a Sony than on a Canon & it's sharper than the Sigma.

Of course there is also a new USD Tamron coming out shortly.
 
heidfirst said:
I had the Sigma HSM II & I wouldn't describe it as lightning fast.
It is still faster than the Tamron but the Tamron AFs quicker on a Sony than on a Canon & it's sharper than the Sigma.

Of course there is also a new USD Tamron coming out shortly.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree, the Sigma HSM is easily as fast as the USM on the mk1 Canon 70-200 I used to use, and the Siggy was just as sharp, hence why I kept the Siggy.

Can't comment on the Sony mount though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top