Well that was disappointing, the video didn't discuss anything other than provide some stock footage of the lens setup. I don't see anything that the 200-600 can't do just fine in the video. A comparison would have been nice.
No, they are expecting him to talk about the lens and how it performs with a 2x TC when photographing birds and wildlife. Sort of like what the title of his video implies: Sony 300mm 2.8 + 2x Tele - Beautiful Combo for bird and wildlife photography.
gooby wrote:
Well that was disappointing, the video didn't discuss anything other than provide some stock footage of the lens setup. I don't see anything that the 200-600 can't do just fine in the video. A comparison would have been nice.
Right, I'd like to see a comparison at 420mm f/4 or 300mm f/2.8
Imagemaster wrote:
A real useless video. Instead of discussing the lens and showing still examples, he just blathers about the birds catching fish.
I take it you have not been following him.
I get the criticisms, but I think that people expecting an in depth analysis haven't watched his previous videos much as mentioned above. Mark loves storytelling and is more about the experience than the technical side of things.
Not everyone wants to look at yet another MTF chart or gridline picture. Personally, I find his videos inspirational to try that style of photography and videography. When I look at his videos, he's demonstrating what is possible with practice and experience.
I never expected Mark to do formal testing but I was sort of expecting him to at least give his thoughts on how it was performing for AF/IQ compared to say his 600GM.
My point being, a more appropriate title would have been 'Yet another osprey video', instead of Sony 300mm 2.8 + 2x Tele - Beautiful Combo for bird and wildlife photography.
arbitrage wrote:
I never expected Mark to do formal testing but I was sort of expecting him to at least give his thoughts on how it was performing for AF/IQ compared to say his 600GM.
Read the comments
- sharper, faster, lighter than the 200-600 - and that is with the 2xTC
- iq as good as the 600 for closer subjects. Obviously the 600 can go to 840/1200 but also this seems to indicate its not quite the same - you just can't notice with enough pixels on the subject
The real question is is he buying one to replace the 200-600 or to partly replace the 600 ?
- sharper, faster, lighter than the 200-600 - and that is with the 2xTC
- iq as good as the 600 for closer subjects. Obviously the 600 can go to 840/1200 but also this seems to indicate its not quite the same - you just can't notice with enough pixels on the subject
The real question is is he buying one to replace the 200-600 or to partly replace the 600 ?
In the comments he is asked, "Which lens do you think you will take out more once you get your 300 - the 600 f4 or the 300 2.8?". His response is "Probably the 200-600 lol". I know he is very fond of it for video in particular. It seems that each has its strengths. I think owning both the 300 2.8 GM and the 200 - 600 is the best of all worlds as they each offer something different.
I finally tried the 300 GM with the 2x last weekend, and was processing images last night.
Yes, it’s excellent.
No noise and sharp fine detail on the A9III. I was not doing a technical test, just shooting images, but I have not seen image quality quite this good from the 2x before. Not on the 200-600 G, and not on the 70-200 GM II.
Sony did make a point about it working well with teleconverters during the announcement.
Getting 600mm at half the weight of the 600mm (for a loss of one stop), and a big gain in manoeuvrability - I’ll take that! It’s also half a kg lighter than the 200-600, a third of a stop faster, and easier to keep on target.
Tony Ross wrote:
Getting 600mm at half the weight of the 600mm (for a loss of one stop), and a big gain in manoeuvrability - I’ll take that! It’s also half a kg lighter than the 200-600, a third of a stop faster, and easier to keep on target.
alexands wrote:
In the comments he is asked, "Which lens do you think you will take out more once you get your 300 - the 600 f4 or the 300 2.8?". His response is "Probably the 200-600 lol". I know he is very fond of it for video in particular. It seems that each has its strengths. I think owning both the 300 2.8 GM and the 200 - 600 is the best of all worlds as they each offer something different.
Imagemaster wrote:
Yeah must be a really big chip to bother you.
. Why, because they are not in the video instead of more osprey chit-chat?
Is it the weather in Canada that makes you so grumpy or is it just Sony's technical brilliance that does that ?
BTW you still haven't answered my question as to how I can download all the RAW files from a Canon burst onto my computer ? You seem to indicate that it was possible to do this on another thread but I see you never responded to my question as to how you do this?
or did you mean to say it is possible but you first have to manually extract each one individually and then you can download them all normally ?
Sorry to cross-thread but if there is an easier way I would love to know - as it's a PITA to have to extract each one individually.
duncang wrote:
Is it the weather in Canada that makes you so grumpy or is it just Sony's technical brilliance that does that ?
No, it is just you, and I have not been dazzled, nor do I care, about Sony's technical brilliance.
BTW you still haven't answered my question as to how I can download all the RAW files from a Canon burst onto my computer ? You seem to indicate that it was possible to do this on another thread but I see you never responded to my question as to how you do this?
or did you mean to say it is possible but you first have to manually extract each one individually and then you can download them all normally ?
Sorry to cross-thread but if there is an easier way I would love to know - as it's a PITA to have to extract each one individually. ...Show more →
I did answer that. You don't have to extract each one individually. They are sitting on your card just like all other RAW files.
You get to immediately review your shots and delete any shots, or save them as RAW, jpeg, or HEIF files. Or you can do that later. Or you can just download the RAW images in that stack just like all the other RAW images from your camera, and you can open them in Photoshop to do what you like with them.
