Tony Ross wrote:
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....Show more →
That is very helpful. Now I wish they would make a 600/5.6 the size and weight of this 300/2.8 so it could go up to 840mm with a 1.4x TC. The birds are really shy here in Tennessee
I'm pretty sure Sony can do it, and they would catch up with Nikon's mid-premium telephoto segment.
Imagemaster wrote:
No, it is just you, and I have not been dazzled, nor do I care, about Sony's technical brilliance.
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.
Oh, I missed that answer - that's strange because when I copy the files from the card I get a file that cannot be read by anything other than the Canon software. What am I missing here - is there some way of copying them that turns that stack file into the individual raw files ?
duncang wrote:
Oh, I missed that answer - that's strange because when I copy the files from the card I get a file that cannot be read by anything other than the Canon software. What am I missing here - is there some way of copying them that turns that stack file into the individual raw files ?
Either use DPP or extract in-camera from the blob. The camera will save it as a regular raw file that can be opened in LR. I don't think you can extract all files at once in-camera. This is how my R7 works, not sure about newer Canon cameras.
docusync wrote:
Either use DPP or extract in-camera from the blob. The camera will save it as a regular raw file that can be opened in LR. I don't think you can extract all files at once in-camera. This is how my R7 works, not sure about newer Canon cameras.
Well that has been my understanding and the R6II works the same way - I am just trying to understand what ImageMaster is doing that he is somehow able to just copy all the individual RAW files from the roll.
duncang wrote:
Well that has been my understanding and the R6II works the same way - I am just trying to understand what ImageMaster is doing that he is somehow able to just copy all the individual RAW files from the roll.
@Imagemaster builds custom firmware for his cameras, similar to Magic Lantern. He knows how to side load them via 0-day exploits that he buys in the Darknet. Canon simply cannot catch up on security patches with this prolific fella...
docusync wrote:
@Imagemaster@ builds custom firmware for his cameras, similar to Magic Lantern. He knows how to side load them via 0-day exploits that he buys in the Darknet. Canon simply cannot catch up on security patches with this prolific fella...
I hope I answered your question
. - well that certainly answers the question I hadn't asked - "does this guy even own a Canon camera ?"
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.
He does so to an extent in the comments. He thinks it equals the 600GM for closer subjects. He also says it is sharper, and faster, than the 200-600G at 600mm.
deevee wrote:
A more practical test with crop and noise reduction (things I'd do with birds all the time)
Cheers,
Those results are really underwhelming. Especially when most of them are shot at low ISO. They look like typical Sony 2xTC shots I get on 400GM and 600GM and almost all of those are destined for the trash bin.
Anyways, if all goes to plan I will have the 300GM in hand on Saturday and see for myself. Should have swallows and ducks to aim at.
The general advice I've always been given is that you shouldn't buy a lens if you intend to always use it with TCs. I think this holds true for the 300GM as well, especially if you are a BIF guy.
Tony Ross wrote:
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....Show more →
Would love to see an A/B test with the 600/4 bare lens versus the 300/2.8 with 2X.
I am guessing the difference is night and day, but willing to be pleasantly surprised.
lightskyland wrote:
Would love to see an A/B test with the 600/4 bare lens versus the 300/2.8 with 2X.
I am guessing the difference is night and day, but willing to be pleasantly surprised.
Not sure what you are expecting. It is night and day if you crop or zoom in deep enough. If you view the image as a whole at common viewing scales you may not notice any difference. Depending on subject matter and processing some purple fringing may still be visible. In the center it is closer to the 200-600G than to the long prime. The images I base this on are somewhere within https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67528525 (not my images).
Daran wrote:
Not sure what you are expecting. It is night and day if you crop or zoom in deep enough. If you view the image as a whole at common viewing scales you may not notice any difference. Depending on subject matter and processing some purple fringing may still be visible. In the center it is closer to the 200-600G than to the long prime. The images I base this on are somewhere within https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67528525 (not my images).
I can't believe that the shots are done in right way.....all shots have something strange and defect.
The 300gm @2.8 is razor as sharp, much, but so much more defined than the 200-600@300, possibile to see at page 7.
All done with tripod, remote shot, ES, and choosing from several shots of each setting the best shot (but they were all practically the same).
I'm sure Mark will have another video and commentary about this combo in the near future ..
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.
