p.2 #1 · 100-400 with 2x tc on a7III, does it work well?
phototiimo wrote:
The a7iii focuses faster than the a6500, so I would think it's safe to assume that in good light at f11 on the a7iii you should be ok.
Ahhhhh, it's that "I think" that's the $548 question.
Strange, it seems as though so many a7III's were sold to people that don't use long lenses.
I've seen tons of shots with it being used on a7R2's and 3's, lots of a9's, a6500 ... sure, a7III, never heard of it.
I've looked through videos on youtube, nothing. It just seems bizarre.
At this point, I'm wondering if the new crop camera will be out before someone tries this combo on the a7III.
Maybe save the $500 to put towards that. Save a stop of light, still use the 1.4 and 100-400 to get 840mm.
That's if it ever comes out.
p.2 #2 · 100-400 with 2x tc on a7III, does it work well?
A7III maintains Phase Detect AF until F/11 just like the A9 does (do not expect A9 level performance due to much slower sensor readouts) so it should be noticeably better than for example A7R3 (PDAF only until F/8) with the 2X TC.
The AF difference can be observer in "Cont. Shooting" section Help Guide where it states that tracking is available for high speed burst until F11. It says F8 for A7R3 in same section. So you might expect similar performance as with the 1.4X TC if there is enough light available and you'll get to keep tracking during burst shooting.
"When the F-value is greater than F11 in [Continuous Shooting: Hi+], [Continuous Shooting: Hi] or [Continuous Shooting: Mid] mode, the focus is locked to the setting in the first shot."
p.2 #3 · 100-400 with 2x tc on a7III, does it work well?
tn1krr wrote:
A7III maintains Phase Detect AF until F/11 just like the A9 does (do not expect A9 level performance due to much slower sensor readouts) so it should be noticeably better than for example A7R3 (PDAF only until F/8) with the 2X TC.
The AF difference can be observer in "Cont. Shooting" section Help Guide where it states that tracking is available for high speed burst until F11. It says F8 for A7R3 in same section. So you might expect similar performance as with the 1.4X TC if there is enough light available and you'll get to keep tracking during burst shooting.
"When the F-value is greater than F11 in [Continuous Shooting: Hi+], [Continuous Shooting: Hi] or [Continuous Shooting: Mid] mode, the focus is locked to the setting in the first shot."
Some of my misunderstanding came from just the way I interpret things.
When I read "until F11" I see that as the camera stops con. focus at F10.
I see that that I'm wrong, and the camera con. focuses up to, and including F11.
This is one of my major concerns. I'm planning to use this combo for birds in flight, if continuous focus
wasn't available, the teleconverter would be useless to me.
Over one hurtle, on to IQ.
I guess I should go through the a9 shots thread to view this combo's IQ.
Is it fair to say that the sensors in the a9 and a7III are close enough to each other,
to draw a conclusion about what to expect in my shots?
p.2 #4 · 100-400 with 2x tc on a7III, does it work well?
davev wrote:
Ahhhhh, it's that "I think" that's the $548 question.
Strange, it seems as though so many a7III's were sold to people that don't use long lenses.
I've seen tons of shots with it being used on a7R2's and 3's, lots of a9's, a6500 ... sure, a7III, never heard of it.
I've looked through videos on youtube, nothing. It just seems bizarre.
At this point, I'm wondering if the new crop camera will be out before someone tries this combo on the a7III.
Maybe save the $500 to put towards that. Save a stop of light, still use the 1.4 and 100-400 to get 840mm.
That's if it ever comes out.
Maybe a Flickr search will give me something. ...Show more →
p.2 #5 · 100-400 with 2x tc on a7III, does it work well?
I'm not big on renting. I'd rather research than rent.
The last 3 months, we've had about 2 days per month with sunny skies.
The odds of having a good day to try it out aren't really in my favor.
Add to that, this time of year, the things I want to try it out on, bif's, is hit and miss.
Maybe an option in a month or so when the temps get colder and the eagles start congregating near open water.
p.2 #6 · 100-400 with 2x tc on a7III, does it work well?
davev wrote:
I'm not big on renting. I'd rather research than rent.
The last 3 months, we've had about 2 days per month with sunny skies.
The odds of having a good day to try it out aren't really in my favor.
Add to that, this time of year, the things I want to try it out on, bif's, is hit and miss.
Maybe an option in a month or so when the temps get colder and the eagles start congregating near open water.
p.2 #7 · 100-400 with 2x tc on a7III, does it work well?
The 2.0X TC arrived yesterday. Had a chance to play with it briefly today.
IME, usable results are a mixed bag. If there's even a hint of movement, the image is OOF when viewing at magnification, and it tends to be soft at normal view - and this was shooting on a tripod.
So, I'd say the 2.0X TC is probably best for architectural/stationary objects and maybe landscapes, and probably less good for wildlife (though perhaps with continuous shooting there will be a few good frames, etc).
Using a tripod and 5s timer, I tried to do a comparison between the Sony GM and Sigma 400 TM APO, and couldn't get consistent results across similar shots. (If a car drove by, the vibration causes some blur in that photo, for example).
You can see the level of detail the Sigma is capable of, at any rate, and I'd started to wonder if my Sony wasn't autofocusing properly. because I expected the Sony to be significantly better at 800mm than the Sigma, but it really wasn't - which I ultimately attributed to motion on either my end, or the subject, given the inconsistent results (was an intermittent strong wind today).
p.2 #8 · 100-400 with 2x tc on a7III, does it work well?
bluloo wrote:
The 2.0X TC arrived yesterday. Had a chance to play with it briefly today.
IME, usable results are a mixed bag. If there's even a hint of movement, the image is OOF when viewing at magnification, and it tends to be soft at normal view - and this was shooting on a tripod.
So, I'd say the 2.0X TC is probably best for architectural/stationary objects and maybe landscapes, and probably less good for wildlife (though perhaps with continuous shooting there will be a few good frames, etc).
Using a tripod and 5s timer, I tried to do a comparison between the Sony GM and Sigma 400 TM APO, and couldn't get consistent results across similar shots. (If a car drove by, the vibration causes some blur in that photo, for example).
You can see the level of detail the Sigma is capable of, at any rate, and I'd started to wonder if my Sony wasn't autofocusing properly. because I expected the Sony to be significantly better at 800mm than the Sigma, but it really wasn't - which I ultimately attributed to motion on either my end, or the subject, given the inconsistent results (was an intermittent strong wind today).
Thank you very much for this.
I was worried that the 2x would soften the shot to much, and that the shots would be inconsistent. Your findings are
like a laundry list of what I feared.
My main reason to look at this was for bald eagles in flight. I guess I'll either use one of Canons, or maybe try
my Sigma 150-600 with a Canon 1.4 and the mc-11.
Next sunny day I'll try that combo.
Actually I have used that Combo in the spring for grebes on the water.
At that time with the older firmwares, AF-C was unavailable.
I believe with the latest firmwares it's there.
p.2 #9 · 100-400 with 2x tc on a7III, does it work well?
bluloo wrote:
IME, usable results are a mixed bag. If there's even a hint of movement, the image is OOF when viewing at magnification, and it tends to be soft at normal view - and this was shooting on a tripod.
And why would that be the fault of the TC. If you are having movement when shooting on a tripod, then you have to increase the shutter speed.
So, I'd say the 2.0X TC is probably best for architectural/stationary objects and maybe landscapes, and probably less good for wildlife (though perhaps with continuous shooting there will be a few good frames, etc).
Obviously not if the photographer can't have no movement of the camera when it is mounted on a tripod.
Using a tripod and 5s timer, I tried to do a comparison between the Sony GM and Sigma 400 TM APO, and couldn't get consistent results across similar shots. (If a car drove by, the vibration causes some blur in that photo, for example).
Again, what is the point of shooting from a tripod if you are allowing movement due to a passing car?
You can see the level of detail the Sigma is capable of, at any rate, and I'd started to wonder if my Sony wasn't autofocusing properly. because I expected the Sony to be significantly better at 800mm than the Sigma, but it really wasn't - which I ultimately attributed to motion on either my end, or the subject, given the inconsistent results (was an intermittent strong wind today).
Sorry, but I don't see your comparison being helpful to others. To accurately compare the two, you should be posting images from both of the same subject under the same shooting conditions.
It has been pretty common knowledge that 2x TC's work best on f2.8 or f4 telephoto lenses, not on f5.6 zooms.
Bottom line is that you only should use a 2x TC if it is giving you better results than upsizing the 1x image, and can afford the light loss of 2 f-stops.
p.2 #10 · 100-400 with 2x tc on a7III, does it work well?
davev wrote:
My main reason to look at this was for bald eagles in flight. I guess I'll either use one of Canons, or maybe try
my Sigma 150-600 with a Canon 1.4 and the mc-11.
Next sunny day I'll try that combo.
Actually I have used that Combo in the spring for grebes on the water.
At that time with the older firmwares, AF-C was unavailable.
I believe with the latest firmwares it's there.
Good luck getting better results with those combos.
The reason I wanted to use the 2x with 100-400 was to get better, more accurate focusing for BIF's.
The fact that the the exposure jumps to f11, I may have been hoping for something that may
not be possible.
With the 150-600 and the Canon 1.4, that brings the aperture to f9.
That may work better.
Until I can try it with some better skies than what we've been having, I may be wondering for a while.
p.2 #12 · 100-400 with 2x tc on a7III, does it work well?
davev wrote:
The reason I wanted to use the 2x with 100-400 was to get better, more accurate focusing for BIF's.
The fact that the the exposure jumps to f11, I may have been hoping for something that may
not be possible.
With the 150-600 and the Canon 1.4, that brings the aperture to f9.
That may work better.
Until I can try it with some better skies than what we've been having, I may be wondering for a while.
The reason I did not like the 150-600 was the size and weight.
You should really just go and buy the Sony 400 f2.8 G.
p.2 #13 · 100-400 with 2x tc on a7III, does it work well?
Imagemaster wrote:
The reason I did not like the 150-600 was the size and weight.
You should really just go and buy the Sony 400 f2.8 G.
I'm still young enough to toss that lens around, but of course, if I could get away with using something lighter, I would
As for the 400 f2.8, maybe ... right after I check my lotto tickets tonight.
Last year I mostly used a Canon 1D4 and the Sigma 150-600. It was a pretty good combo, but, the 16mp image,
even through there's a 1.3 crop on that camera, I just couldn't get as many pixels on the eagles as I'd have like to.
I also have an 80D, but for flight, it just seems as though the focus is always just a little off, but not in a predictable way.
Sometimes it hits the beak, sometime the feet. As Forest would say, It's like a box of chocolates.
So, here's hoping Sony puts the new crop sensor camera out soon.
I've tried using the 100-400 and the 1.4 on my a6300. It's painfully slow to focus.
There is no way I could use this for BiF's.
The last choice, clear zoom on the a7III.
There have been times I tried it and the shots were ok. There were other times ... Yikes!
p.2 #14 · 100-400 with 2x tc on a7III, does it work well?
davev wrote:
Earlier in the spring I did ok with the 150-600 and the Canon 1.4.
The issue was the camera lost AF-C focusing.
With the new firmwares on the camera, lens and the mc-11, I believe AF-C is now available.
from this spring.
The reason I wanted to use the 2x with 100-400 was to get better, more accurate focusing for BIF's.
The fact that the the exposure jumps to f11, I may have been hoping for something that may
not be possible.
With the 150-600 and the Canon 1.4, that brings the aperture to f9.
That may work better.
Until I can try it with some better skies than what we've been having, I may be wondering for a while....Show more →
If those are at 840mm, they look pretty good.
If you could live with cropping, and 540mm, the 100-400GM + 1.4X TC would likely give you what you want, for BIF, with fast AF.
p.2 #15 · 100-400 with 2x tc on a7III, does it work well?
bluloo wrote:
[
If those are at 840mm, they look pretty good.
If you could live with cropping, and 540mm, the 100-400GM + 1.4X TC would likely give you what you want, for BIF, with fast AF.
Those are at 840mm, and in a way, I was lucky to get those.
I set my camera up as I usually would, with AF-C active.
When I added the 1.4, I didn't pay attention to the fact that the camera only had AF-S available for that combo,
and it switched it automatically, but I didn't notice.
So I'm rattling off shots at 10 frames a second, on the back of the camera they looked pretty good.
When I got home and viewed them on the computer I could see the problem.
Maybe 20% were in focus. If the bird swam parallel to me, great. How often does that happen? Not very.
Otherwise, the first shot was good, the rest bad.
Should get a couple of chances to get out this week. Negative 8 degrees shouldn't be a problem.
With some luck I get a shot of two like this from my Canon.
This is from last year with the 1D4, a Canon 300 f2.8 and a 2x tc.
Huge crop. I'd like to have a few more pixels on the bird ... maybe a a7RIII might be the answer.
p.2 #16 · 100-400 with 2x tc on a7III, does it work well?
davev wrote:
This is from last year with the 1D4, a Canon 300 f2.8 and a 2x tc.
Huge crop. I'd like to have a few more pixels on the bird ... maybe a a7RIII might be the answer.
If I got that shot, I'd be overjoyed. It's great.
If only the 400 2.8s weren't quite so expensive...
p.2 #17 · 100-400 with 2x tc on a7III, does it work well?
Today we had some light, so I grabbed the 100-400 with the 1.4 tc, and the a6300.
I thought that I'd give this set up a try. Not a big success.
Sure I got some good shots, some really bad shots. I tried a few different things, like clear zoom on those far off subjects, but I don't think this is the answer.
I started with the swans.
The ones floating, no problem. Flight shots should have been better. It reminded me of my 80D.
Some looked great, some just a touch off.
On to the eagle (one).
He's in the process of get the nest ready.
I tried all kinds of things here, and found a few short comings of the Sony cameras.
When the eagle is "in the junk", I use single point focusing. It works pretty well.
The problem is, when the eagle is getting ready to move, I have to hit a button, scroll, select the zone area, set it, then find the bird in the viewfinder again.
It's a pain. I want to whittle down my choices to those two areas, and have a button that I can push to toggle between them.
Anyway, I tried pure optical zoom, clear zooms of 1.4, 1.5, 2x.
The 1.4 and 1.5 really aren't that bad in a pinch, but I wouldn't want a steady diet of it.
One more note on these shots, I've just moved up to Photoshop CC. It feels a bit foreign to me. I know some of these are over sharpened.
I did what I could. All are big crops.
Anyhow, when the action really starts, I'll be trying both the a7III and a6300 and see how they do.
If I have a couple of failed outings, I'll go back to the Canon until I can figure something else out.
p.2 #18 · 100-400 with 2x tc on a7III, does it work well?
I would avoid clear zoom, whatever that is, the IQ has fallen apart on the last two baldy shots.
I have zero interest in using a 2x on the 100-400 event though A9 can handle it well and IQ is still good. I'll use my 500 f/4L IS II and 2x TC with MC-11 if I need serious reach. Note the A7R3 + Lens gives not much less reach than A9/A73 + Lens + 1.4x, so I'd be comparing 100-400 with and without 1.4x on A7RIII vs 100-400 with 1.4x and 2x TC on A73/A9. A7R3 is essentially like a 1.33x TC compared to it's 24MP brothers. I would be surprised if the A73 + 100-400 + 2x is better able to track than A7R3 + 100-400 + 1.4x or better IQ.
p.2 #19 · 100-400 with 2x tc on a7III, does it work well?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I would avoid clear zoom, whatever that is, the IQ has fallen apart on the last two baldy shots.
I have zero interest in using a 2x on the 100-400 event though A9 can handle it well and IQ is still good. I'll use my 500 f/4L IS II and 2x TC with MC-11 if I need serious reach. Note the A7R3 + Lens gives not much less reach than A9/A73 + Lens + 1.4x, so I'd be comparing 100-400 with and without 1.4x on A7RIII vs 100-400 with 1.4x and 2x TC on A73/A9. A7R3 is essentially like a 1.33x TC compared to it's 24MP brothers. I would be surprised if the A73 + 100-400 + 2x is better able to track than A7R3 + 100-400 + 1.4x or better IQ....Show more →
I agree that the shots aren't the best.
Most of the problems with those shots are the fault of my using an unfamiliar camera, and processing the shots on unfamiliar software.
All though the 500 is a fine lens, seeing as I handhold everything, I don't think I'll be getting one anytime soon.
The other issue using the 500, it isn't a zoom. I like zooms. Critters aren't always 1000mm in focal length away.
I've tried the primes. I have the Canon 300 2.8, I've had a 400 f5.6 and a 200 f2.8. Although I still have the 300, I haven't used it in over a year.
I don't know anything about the a7RIII. I don't own it, and until a couple of days ago, I had no reason to research it.
More than likely, I'll end up using one of my Canons with the Sigma 150-600. That combo worked pretty well last year.
