AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM | |
AF performance:
I went to a local wildlife sanctuary with the intention of evaluating the AF performance yesterday. I used the Zone AF mode on the A9 and I set the drive to just the lowly 5 fps. I don’t feel like going through hundreds of images for this purpose. Since I prefer more mobility here but I could not afford to handhold the lens anymore, I ended up using a monopod with an RRS monopod head. The composition suffered a bit and was not as tight as with a gimbal head but it wasn’t bad. It was fairly early in the morning and the lighting conditions were good for the the flock of Canada geese and better for the white pelicans. There were water fowls there that, judging by their distance from my position, could be used to add to the optical performance evaluation of the Mandarin duck.
During the dry run in my backyard, the AF zipped from varying distances really fast. It was almost instantaneous and my impression was darn close to a native performance judging by my experience of using the GM 100-400mm lens, I would say. So, I had high expectations from this adapted setup. Now, let’s get down to the nitty gritty - I was pleased how well the combo performed under real-life conditions for BIF. It acquired focus, tracked focus of varying flying birds out there from pelicans to cormorants to Canada geese. In total, I took some 10 continuous BIF of varying species but documenting only 2 here. Granted these are fairly large birds and about the same size as sandhill cranes, eagles or ospreys. I realize that owls, falcons, etc. will be more challenging; they are smaller and faster birds and their flight pattern while hunting is more erratic. However, I didn’t have any issues with my bare 400mm lens even back then during the previous season; just too short. With the latest FW upgrade, however, I am confident that it could pull off capturing slightly smaller/faster birds as well but that remains to be seen until later. So, my findings here are not final.
What is my current keeper percentage, you may ask. Well, it depends also on various external circumstances such as how many cups of coffee did I have that morning  . I did manage getting some 85-90% for strictly AF. Of course, as always, composition, slight movement from not using a gimbal head, too slow of shutter speed etc. lowered the actual keeper rate by quite a bit. Actually, there was a sequence of a pelican that banked and changed the direction flying away from me, showing its rear end. Under normal circumstance, I would stop right away but yesterday, I kept on shooting to see how well it tracked birds flying away from me and I am happy with the results. The images posted here were cropped, adjusted for minor contrast and exposure in LR only.
The bottom line here - I still put it at “almost” native since I could not compare that with the Sony 400mm f/2.8 GM lens. I don’t have any current top class Canon body like the 1Dx II to compare it with the A9. The above explanation is the long version but in essence, I have given up on the Sony 400mm f/2.8 lens although I know that the AF of that lens is superb. The combination of the two factors, better AF performance of adapted lenses, nearing that of a native lens and the opportunity to buy a great lens of the focal length of my choice at a reduced price, makes me go this route for the time being. I can wait and see what Sony will come up with as the second long lens in 2019. In the meantime, I will happily continue my wildlife photography using my adapted long Canon lens or lenses. Now, Sony, bring on the A9r soon, please then I would be a happy camper.
|
. 
. I do have to rely on some kind of support for that big and long lens in the form of at least a monopod. It is that bad that I feel more comfortable getting some kind of support even for my FE 100-400mm GM lens at the long end, depending on the lighting conditions. But I make a habit of doing that to get tack sharp images anyway.