Well it's no more expensive than your A1 for example.Nice
Bit too steep for me that one, will be intesting to see what it's like with the 2x TC though as you say, a 1700g 600mm f5.6 sounds great. I'm sure I read something a while back about new Sony TC's but not heard anything since, it owuld be nice if we could finally get a 2x TC that's useable.
It’s about what I expected when you compare it to the 400mm f2.8.
You got me thinking what's the most I have spent on a lens.... I think it's £1750.
The lens is the only thing that would be of interest to me but I haven’t got 6k laying around spare.
I think I am personally drawing a line for most things under £1000, be it used or new. I am obviously not in the market of super teles; pretty much no need for one. You would have to up the budget for one.
Obviously it’ll be cheaper grey but I know you don’t like to buy grey. They’ll probably offer something like £300 cashback at some point but I can’t see it being close to £5k UK for a long time even with CB
Maybe in 2034... or asset liquidation fire sale
I think most lenses are ludicrously overpriced these days. I wince at what I paid for the 70-200mm GM II, and even though I got an exceptional deal in the 50mm f1.2 I still wince at that as well
There is a reason why I am buying select Sigma ART and an odd Tamron glassI think most lenses are ludicrously overpriced these days. I wince at what I paid for the 70-200mm GM II, and even though I got an exceptional deal in the 50mm f1.2 I still wince at that as well
Yep that's indeed the question and also how it holds up against Z400/4.5 (+1.4x).
Is there any need for a 400mm f5.6 when the 100-400mm is f5.6?
Not sure if such a lens will be available to buy grey anyway.Obviously it’ll be cheaper grey but I know you don’t like to buy grey. They’ll probably offer something like £300 cashback at some point but I can’t see it being close to £5k UK for a long time even with CB
I think used could be an option but I wouldn’t have thought it would be a lens where you get a lot of used ones come up.
Yes. I thought it was OK value, and 800mm didn't seen as crazy but has gone up a lot since. The 600mm is just way above the median line. This is just general curiosity for me, I have no need for anything over 4-500mm and even this for only a very very occasional use. In real life more like up to 135mm.
cost. And prime would still be sharper, particularly with Tc.
My longest prime is 85mm and it's also my most used.
I think you will be right. The big whites stay at the same price for years unless a new model is on the way. Look at the 400 and 600Obviously it’ll be cheaper grey but I know you don’t like to buy grey. They’ll probably offer something like £300 cashback at some point but I can’t see it being close to £5k UK for a long time even with CB
I think used could be an option but I wouldn’t have thought it would be a lens where you get a lot of used ones come up.
I can't find the part in the video but the wording, taken from another forum, was "Sony says doesn't compromise on ISO performance or dynamic range." I took that to mean the same as teh A9ii so plenty as far as I am concerned. Pre-orders can be cancelled so there is plenty time to change minds.
I watched part of a video of a B&H Livestream with a couple of people from Sony - one was a Sony Ambassador / sports photographer, the other was either another Sony Ambassador or may have worked for Sony, I'm not sure.
Given it's base ISO is 250 and there is no dual gain my guesstimate is the dynamic range is on level on an APS-C sensor which isn't bad tbh. It's just one stop less.
have you seen DR of the Nikon D5 sensor?
On the other post the last option was the A6300 + 16-50 - if it's the A6400, then as @nandbytes said, I'd be wondering why it's the cheapest option, as camera wise it woudl be the pick of the 3 for me (basically the A6100 replaced the A6000, and the A6400 replaced the A6300)
I’d probably suggest the A6400 for a few reasons that are of no use to the likes of myself but your son will probably like such as touchscreen, selfie/vlogger LCD screen, and weather sealing. It also has a much better AF system than the others.
www.eoshd.com
Sorry I missed that 6400 was a typo.
to be honest both sample are pretty shocking in their own ways. It is ISO ridiculous aimed at black wall. Expect mess if you do that. You would think decent ISO1600-3200 would be plenty good on either and that is the bottom line.Sony a9 III high ISO RAW test - A noisier 6K sensor than predecessor - EOSHD.com - Filmmaking Gear and Camera Reviews
I have put some of the high ISO RAW samples from the Sony a9 III under the pixel peeping microscope. The results do show there is a trade off for having a global shutter. 24 megapixel, or 6K in movie terms has been something of a sweet spot for balancing resolution and high ISO performance.
That was my take and there won't be any sports photographers too concerned about DR at iso100 as long as they have good performance at high iso. I'd hope the DR is the same as the A9ii from iso250 up which is better than cropped cameras at those iso levels
One the one hand she knows way better than me about cameras as she is simply a fantastic photographer and storyteller. On the other hand she is paid by Sony. I hope she is correct and that is certainly the impression given at the launch
Not seen it but I presumed that was that and we will have to wait 5 months to get that.
I think most Sports photographers shoot fairly often at iso12800 at this time of year in smaller venues. The range they tested was fine but the methodology wasn't great and another part of the story is how well the files display as in camera jpegs as that is the most common output. I suspect in camera processing may be slightly better than A9ii days
