The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

mav said:
it may not make much difference , have a look at this video from the northrups. ff to 9.50 assuming the 100 400 dosent have the same Problem
View: https://youtu.be/h-aYXUoRDkM

i
Click to expand...
I doubt you would be as close as minimum focal distance. Not sure if the effects of focus breathing are as marked with a kingfisher a couple meters away.
 
gilbouk said:
I agree, you need the reach for how small these birds are. I was in a hide last week and can't imagine anybody getting closer in other setups and I was always at 600mm. Even at 600mm bird was occupying about a quarter of the frame. It was surprising how little the bird seemed affected by the shutter clicks from others in the hide. It was that close it must have heard them. I guess it was so used to it with it being a popular hide.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that's my concern with the focal length. With regards to the shutter sound I'm hoping it's not an issue, I'll obviously use the electronic shutter but there's two others plus Steve Race who runs runs it.
mav said:
it may not make much difference , have a look at this video from the northrups. ff to 9.50 assuming the 100 400 dosent have the same Problem
View: https://youtu.be/h-aYXUoRDkM

i
Click to expand...
Wow, 350mm at close focus that's crazy. It's a shame they don't mention how close.
 
gilbouk said:
I doubt you would be as close as minimum focal distance. Not sure if the effects of focus breathing are as marked with a kingfisher a couple meters away.
Click to expand...
This is very telling, taken at 13.5ft which is likely going to be the sort of ball park I'll be shooting at. The 200-600mm is giving about a 520mm reach which means that potentially I'll get closer shots with my 100-400mm and 1.4 x tc :thinking:

Screenshot 2023-02-17 at 08.06.32.jpg
 
snerkler said:
This is very telling, taken at 13.5ft which is likely going to be the sort of ball park I'll be shooting at. The 200-600mm is giving about a 520mm reach which means that potentially I'll get closer shots with my 100-400mm and 1.4 x tc :thinking:

View attachment 381543
Click to expand...
That's crazy, is it the same with all long lenses, or is the 200-600 particularly prone?
 
Last edited:
gilbouk said:
That's crazy, is it the same with all long lenses, or is the 200-600 particularly prone
Click to expand...
I think most zoom lenses are prone to it, some more that others and from my brief research the 200-600mm does look particularly prone. Another lens that springs to mind is the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII which only gave something like 120mm at close focus.
 
snerkler said:
This is very telling, taken at 13.5ft which is likely going to be the sort of ball park I'll be shooting at. The 200-600mm is giving about a 520mm reach which means that potentially I'll get closer shots with my 100-400mm and 1.4 x tc :thinking:

View attachment 381543
Click to expand...
Most zoom lenses are prone and especially telephoto ones. Parfocal zoom lenses like the ones used in videography are massive. Correcting a telephoto zoom to be parfocal would make rather large.
I doubt you'd see much difference even with 100-400mm. I know the canon 100-500 for example behaves closer to 450mm at closer distances.

This is one of the reasons why I want that Z400/4.5 with TC vs. 200-600mm. Size is one thing but I'd also get wee bit more reach with the prime.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Most zoom lenses are prone and especially telephoto ones. Parfocal lenses like the ones used in videography are massive. Correcting a telephoto zoom to be parfocal would make rather large.
I doubt you'd see much difference even with 100-400mm. I know the canon 100-500 for example behaves closer to 450mm at closer distances.

This is one of the reasons why I want that Z400/4.5 with TC vs. 200-600mm. Size is one thing but I'd also get wee bit more reach with the prime.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I just didn't realise the 200-600mm was so bad. When you say you doubt you'd see much difference with the 100-400mm are you saying the framing would be similar as i've not seen anywhere that the 100-400mm suffers particularly from focus breathing?
 
nandbytes said:
I wouldn't trust that they say tbh. They are seldom reliable.
Click to expand...
No I take it with a pinch of salt for sure which is why I looked elsewhere, however that test chart is telling. I've contacted Steve to find out exactly how close we'll be and if it's within 15ft I'll just stick with the 100-400mm and TC and if needs be risk dropping the shutter speed down once I've got some guaranteed keepers.
 
snerkler said:
Yeah, I just didn't realise the 200-600mm was so bad. When you say you doubt you'd see much difference with the 100-400mm are you saying the framing would be similar as i've not seen anywhere that the 100-400mm suffers particularly from focus breathing?
Click to expand...

I would be surprised it didn't focus breath at all.

I'm saying you'll get same or similar reach as 200-600mm with 100-400+1.4x.
 
Playing with more processing.

P9eQRI7.jpg


QqQeyvh.jpg


HWyL8Bl.jpg


Npd0ycv.jpg
 
snerkler said:
No I take it with a pinch of salt for sure which is why I looked elsewhere, however that test chart is telling. I've contacted Steve to find out exactly how close we'll be and if it's within 15ft I'll just stick with the 100-400mm and TC and if needs be risk dropping the shutter speed down once I've got some guaranteed keepers.
Click to expand...
Wex do the 400 f2.8 for £88 per day
That might be a better option ive heard it takes the tc very well .
 
mav said:
Wex do the 400 f2.8 for £88 per day
That might be a better option ive heard it takes the tc very well .
Click to expand...
I did contact Wex about that a while ago but I gave up in the end as they could not tell me if the lens would be delivered the day before or not, and whether it needed to be sent back on the same day or the day after. They also couldn't tell me if it was delivered the day before and collected the day after whether that would be charged as a single day usage or three day usage, and lastly they wanted a deposit for the full price of the lens ( £10500) or they could take a deposit of £1500 but they'd have to do a credit check.
 
snerkler said:
I did contact Wex about that a while ago but I gave up in the end as they could not tell me if the lens would be delivered the day before or not, and whether it needed to be sent back on the same day or the day after. They also couldn't tell me if it was delivered the day before and collected the day after whether that would be charged as a single day usage or three day usage, and lastly they wanted a deposit for the full price of the lens ( £10500) or they could take a deposit of £1500 but they'd have to do a credit check.
Click to expand...
That's sounds pants. I've always used @StewartR at Lenses For Hire for all my rental needs. They are doing a discount at the moment for February because it's their birthday. 15% off
 
gilbouk said:
That's sounds pants. I've always used @StewartR at Lenses For Hire for all my rental needs. They are doing a discount at the moment for February because it's their birthday. 15% off
Click to expand...
Yep not great. I've rented from Stewart before and was happy with the service, but the 400mm f2.8 is 3 day minimum hire at £292 + shipping and I can't justify or afford that (y)
 
More rumors, this time of a looooong and possibly very expensive lens.

RUMOR: Sony 800mm f/5.6 GM lens coming in 2024? | sonyalpharumors

As you know I don't post all rumors I get. I try to sum up the less reliable in my "wild rumors" roundup post. I checked a rumor I got two months ago from a new source and I think that in this case the new source might actually be spot on! He told me
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com
 
woof woof said:
More rumors, this time of a looooong and possibly very expensive lens.

RUMOR: Sony 800mm f/5.6 GM lens coming in 2024? | sonyalpharumors

As you know I don't post all rumors I get. I try to sum up the less reliable in my "wild rumors" roundup post. I checked a rumor I got two months ago from a new source and I think that in this case the new source might actually be spot on! He told me
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com
Click to expand...
Yep sounds expensive.
Nikon Z800mm f6.3 is "only" £6.3k. I have seen a couple open box and used ones for £5.5k.
This Sony looks to be along the line of other large 800mm prime which will cost 3 times as much.
 
And there's a rumor about an A1 firmware update too.

Exciting times.
 
woof woof said:
More rumors, this time of a looooong and possibly very expensive lens.

RUMOR: Sony 800mm f/5.6 GM lens coming in 2024? | sonyalpharumors

As you know I don't post all rumors I get. I try to sum up the less reliable in my "wild rumors" roundup post. I checked a rumor I got two months ago from a new source and I think that in this case the new source might actually be spot on! He told me
www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com
Click to expand...
£12500 minimum I’d say.
woof woof said:
And there's a rumor about an A1 firmware update too.

Exciting times.
Click to expand...
I wonder what that will be? The A9II seems to have been forgotten about for updates, at least anything exciting. I have been hoping they’d improve animal AF but maybe it just doesn’t have the hardware.
 
Is it possible to see the focus distance in the EXIF data from photos, if so how do I do it? I can't see the info on Flickr, lightroom or info on mac.
 
I’ve never noticed/looked before but I’m surprised that the minimum focus distance of the 600mm f4 is 4.5m (14.8ft), and this is not unusual for a 600mm prime.

It’s not unusual for me to shoot birds closer than this and it never crossed my mind that I’d have not been able to shoot these shots with a 600mm prime :oops: :$
 
snerkler said:
Is it possible to see the focus distance in the EXIF data from photos, if so how do I do it? I can't see the info on Flickr, lightroom or info on mac.
Click to expand...
I've had a look through the A9 Exif data and I'm not seeing focus distance there either.
 
I see Simon wookie6262 has an A9 with a 3rd party grip for sale.

Very Nice :D
 
woof woof said:
I see Simon wookie6262 has an A9 with a 3rd party grip for sale.

Very Nice :D
Click to expand...
I'm looking for a second body but alas no cash at the moment. Insurance renewal and gas and electric bills that I've managed to have a negative balance on. Sucks!!
 
gilbouk said:
I'm looking for a second body but alas no cash at the moment. Insurance renewal and gas and electric bills that I've managed to have a negative balance on. Sucks!!
Click to expand...

I seem addicted to lenses. I keep telling myself I have waaaay too many but I keep buying more. I'm currently the highest bidder on another and to be honest I don't know what I'll do if someone outbids me. Will I be glad? Will I increase my bid?

I need an intervention.
 
GeordieStew said:
I'm messaged you with a snip from a7info. Looks like there are various bits of information in the exif.
Click to expand...
Thanks, messaged back. Have now found the info (y)
 
GeordieStew said:
I'm messaged you with a snip from a7info. Looks like there are various bits of information in the exif.
Click to expand...
Looking at the info the distance is consistently inaccurate, two subjects I've measured at 2.8m and 4.2m have shown in the EXIF as 3.4m and 5.04m respectively. Measurement was taken from the plane of the sensor. I'll try from a longer distance if the weather improves so I can get out.
 
Doubt this will show very well but I've just been doing some tests with my 1.4x TC and comparing it against using the lens without TC and performing a 1.4x enlargement using Topaz Gigapixel, and then using Topaz sharpen AI to get the best possible results. All shot on a tripod using remote shutter, 100% crops

1. Gigapixel enlargement left vs 1.4 TC right, gigapixel looks sharper

TC right, Gigapixel Left by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

2. Gigapixel enlargement left vs TC right then sharpened in Topaz, TC image looks sharper

TC and Sharpen AI right, Gigapixel left by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

3. Gigapixel enlargement left vs 1.4 TC right, gigapixel looks sharper

Repsol TC right, gigapixel left by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

4. Gigapixel enlargement left vs TC right then sharpened in Topaz, TC image looks sharper

Repsol TC and Sharpen AI right, Gigapixel left by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

5. Gigapixel enlargement and sharpened left vs TC right then sharpened in Topaz, pretty much identical

Repsol TC and Sharpen AI right, Gigapixel and Sharpen AI left by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr


Here's a link to the screenshots if you want to see it better

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com www.dropbox.com
 
snerkler said:
Doubt this will show very well but I've just been doing some tests with my 1.4x TC and comparing it against using the lens without TC and performing a 1.4x enlargement using Topaz Gigapixel, and then using Topaz sharpen AI to get the best possible results. All shot on a tripod using remote shutter, 100% crops

1. Gigapixel enlargement left vs 1.4 TC right, gigapixel looks sharper

TC right, Gigapixel Left by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

2. Gigapixel enlargement left vs TC right then sharpened in Topaz, TC image looks sharper

TC and Sharpen AI right, Gigapixel left by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

3. Gigapixel enlargement left vs 1.4 TC right, gigapixel looks sharper

Repsol TC right, gigapixel left by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

4. Gigapixel enlargement left vs TC right then sharpened in Topaz, TC image looks sharper

Repsol TC and Sharpen AI right, Gigapixel left by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr

5. Gigapixel enlargement and sharpened left vs TC right then sharpened in Topaz, pretty much identical

Repsol TC and Sharpen AI right, Gigapixel and Sharpen AI left by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr


Here's a link to the screenshots if you want to see it better

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com www.dropbox.com
Click to expand...
Gigapixel works really well if your original file has enough details for it to analyze and upscale.
In case of birds that'd mean capturing enough feather details for example.

If the subject/bird/animal is really small in your frame with a lot of cropping then gigapixel won't really magic in the missing details.

Basically for shooting wildlife the aim should be to be able to get as close to the subject as possible.
 
nandbytes said:
Gigapixel works really well if your original file has enough details for it to analyze and upscale.
In case of birds that'd mean capturing enough feather details for example.

If the subject/bird/animal is really small in your frame with a lot of cropping then gigapixel won't really magic in the missing details.

Basically for shooting wildlife the aim should be to be able to get as close to the subject as possible.
Click to expand...
Yeah I’d agree with that, I found it interesting findings nonetheless. I think it’s equally amazing how much detail topaz sharpen can bring out too.
 
Denoise and Sharpen are excellent. I also use the Mask tool and its excellent for separating foreground from background so you don't sharpen a creamy bokeh background.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top