Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM Image Thread
p.33 #1Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM Image Thread
Imagemaster wrote:
"But how are you going to strip the exiff from the raw files?"Words in the sentence below...
"convert RAW to JPEG"
Do you think the comparison shots posted on this thread would be RAW files
No, I inferred from the post that the poster was wanting to compare the RAW files by processing them whatever way they saw fit rather than relying on whoever was running the "blind test" to process them and possibly introduce some bias, and was therefore wondering how the exif data would be removed from the RAW files.
duncangr wrote
Last two words in the sentence below..."But how are you going to strip the exiff from the raw files?"
"convert RAW to JPEG"
Do you think the comparison shots posted on this thread would be RAW files
arbitrage wrote
I'm going to work on a blind test to see if all the rendering experts can really tell the difference without the EXIF included. Maybe 20 shots, mix between 600GM and 300GM/2xTC.No, I inferred from the post that the poster was wanting to compare the RAW files by processing them whatever way they saw fit rather than relying on whoever was running the "blind test" to process them and possibly introduce some bias, and was therefore wondering how the exif data would be removed from the RAW files.
Dec 19, 2024 at 07:01 PM
p.33 #3Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM Image Thread
duncangr wrote:
No, I inferred from the post that the poster was wanting to compare the RAW files by processing them whatever way they saw fit rather than relying on whoever was running the "blind test" to process them and possibly introduce some bias, and was therefore wondering how the exif data would be removed from the RAW files.
How about that poster just not looking at the exif? A 'blind test'.
Edited on Dec 30, 2024 at 03:47 PM · View previous versions
No, I inferred from the post that the poster was wanting to compare the RAW files by processing them whatever way they saw fit rather than relying on whoever was running the "blind test" to process them and possibly introduce some bias, and was therefore wondering how the exif data would be removed from the RAW files.
How about that poster just not looking at the exif? A 'blind test'.
Edited on Dec 30, 2024 at 03:47 PM · View previous versions
Dec 19, 2024 at 09:33 PM
p.33 #4Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM Image Thread
DSC06006 by Jose Raposo, on FlickrDec 20, 2024 at 05:25 AM
p.33 #5Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM Image Thread
Imagemaster wrote:
How about that poster just not looking at the exif? A 'blind test'.
No I can't see that working
duncangr wrote
No, I inferred from the post that the poster was wanting to compare the RAW files by processing them whatever way they saw fit rather than relying on whoever was running the "blind test" to process them and possibly introduce some bias, and was therefore wondering how the exif data would be removed from the RAW files.No I can't see that working
Dec 21, 2024 at 03:23 AM
p.33 #6Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM Image Thread
Little guy.
Northern Saw-whet Owl by Jose Raposo, on Flickr
Northern Saw-whet Owl by Jose Raposo, on FlickrDec 21, 2024 at 04:53 PM
p.33 #7Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM Image Thread
Yesterday marked my first outing with my Sony 300mm lens. I attached the 2x teleconverter to capture this Northern Harrier, and the combination performed exceptionally well. Having used various long telephoto lenses from Sony, Canon, and Nikon, along with their respective 2x converters, this setup feels like it might be the best of the bunch. I would still take the 600mm with 1.4x instead for the extra reach.
Clarification: I have not shot with Canon and Nikon's newest lens, bodies and 2x converters, so really not a fair comparison. The Sony 2x does seem better on the 300mm over the 400 and 600.
Thanks for looking.
Jason
Clarification: I have not shot with Canon and Nikon's newest lens, bodies and 2x converters, so really not a fair comparison. The Sony 2x does seem better on the 300mm over the 400 and 600.
Thanks for looking.
Jason
ILCE-1 600mm f/5.6 1/2000s 4000 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1 600mm f/6.3 1/3200s 1250 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1 600mm f/5.6 1/3200s 1250 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1 600mm f/6.3 1/3200s 1250 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1 600mm f/6.3 1/3200s 1250 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-1 600mm f/5.6 1/4000s 1250 ISO 0.0 EV
Dec 22, 2024 at 08:08 AM
p.33 #8Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM Image Thread
jaylee73 wrote:
Yesterday marked my first outing with my Sony 300mm lens. I attached the 2x teleconverter to capture this Northern Harrier, and the combination performed exceptionally well. Having used various long telephoto lenses from Sony, Canon, and Nikon, along with their respective 2x converters, this setup feels like it might be the best of the bunch. I would still take the 600mm with 1.4x instead for the extra reach.
Clarification: I have not shot with Canon and Nikon's newest lens, bodies and 2x converters, so really not a fair comparison. The Sony 2x does seem better on the 300mm over the...Show more →
Looking good Jason.
I have never had a lens from any manufacturer that performs this well for BIF with a 2xTC.
I haven't used the Z 2.0TC on the latest primes. But I have used the RF2xTC on the RF400 and RF600 and it isn't this good.
Yesterday marked my first outing with my Sony 300mm lens. I attached the 2x teleconverter to capture this Northern Harrier, and the combination performed exceptionally well. Having used various long telephoto lenses from Sony, Canon, and Nikon, along with their respective 2x converters, this setup feels like it might be the best of the bunch. I would still take the 600mm with 1.4x instead for the extra reach.
Clarification: I have not shot with Canon and Nikon's newest lens, bodies and 2x converters, so really not a fair comparison. The Sony 2x does seem better on the 300mm over the...Show more →
Looking good Jason.
I have never had a lens from any manufacturer that performs this well for BIF with a 2xTC.
I haven't used the Z 2.0TC on the latest primes. But I have used the RF2xTC on the RF400 and RF600 and it isn't this good.
Dec 22, 2024 at 08:55 AM
p.33 #9Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM Image Thread
I wish you guys would post full resolution images or links to the full res images - these 2048px images all get upscaled on my displays and look very ordinary.
Dec 23, 2024 at 12:37 AM
p.33 #10Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM Image Thread
duncangr wrote:
I wish you guys would post full resolution images or links to the full res images - these 2048px images all get upscaled on my displays and look very ordinary.
Yes, spot on.
Downsized, you may get the impression that the 300GM + 2xTC approaches 600GM quality, but that is only at small size on a 4K display.
Full resolution raw files are very different and may show that the 600GM has significantly higher resolving (and cropping) abilities, especially when subjects are not close distance. 2xTC's are traditionally at their best with subjects at (near) frame filling distance.
I have found the 600GM to be spectacular with subjects a bit further out, that require copping the A1 full frame image to e.g. 3500px wide.
I wish you guys would post full resolution images or links to the full res images - these 2048px images all get upscaled on my displays and look very ordinary.
Yes, spot on.
Downsized, you may get the impression that the 300GM + 2xTC approaches 600GM quality, but that is only at small size on a 4K display.
Full resolution raw files are very different and may show that the 600GM has significantly higher resolving (and cropping) abilities, especially when subjects are not close distance. 2xTC's are traditionally at their best with subjects at (near) frame filling distance.
I have found the 600GM to be spectacular with subjects a bit further out, that require copping the A1 full frame image to e.g. 3500px wide.
Dec 23, 2024 at 03:39 AM
|
p.33 #11Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM Image Thread
arbitrage wrote:
But I have used the RF2xTC on the RF400 and RF600 and it isn't this good.
Looks like the 300mm is a winner with the 2x. I could not imagine it better than the 2x on the RF 100-300 and the RF 400mm. In my opinion on R3, R1 and R5 II it is outstanding. Good job on Sony's end for sure.
But I have used the RF2xTC on the RF400 and RF600 and it isn't this good.
Looks like the 300mm is a winner with the 2x. I could not imagine it better than the 2x on the RF 100-300 and the RF 400mm. In my opinion on R3, R1 and R5 II it is outstanding. Good job on Sony's end for sure.
Dec 23, 2024 at 04:16 AM
p.33 #12Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM Image Thread
A1 1.4x
Northern Shoveler by Steve Paradise, on Flickr
Black-crowned Night Heron by Steve Paradise, on Flickr
Northern Shoveler by Steve Paradise, on FlickrBlack-crowned Night Heron by Steve Paradise, on FlickrDec 23, 2024 at 11:20 PM
p.33 #13Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM Image Thread
Northern Harrier
DSC09334 by Jose Raposo, on Flickr
DSC09334 by Jose Raposo, on FlickrDec 24, 2024 at 07:40 AM
p.33 #14Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM Image Thread
With the A9iii (posted in that thread as well).
Going to be a nice lens for catching the waders in flight.
Or use this link for the full set https://duncangroenewald.com/pages/collections/2024-12-FE300_5.html
Going to be a nice lens for catching the waders in flight.
Or use this link for the full set https://duncangroenewald.com/pages/collections/2024-12-FE300_5.html
Dec 24, 2024 at 09:18 PM
p.33 #15Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM Image Thread
Here is the 600 f/4 comparison Geoff
600 + 1.4tc
300 @600
600 + 1.4tc
300 @600
Dec 24, 2024 at 09:39 PM
Guderian
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
Dec 26, 2024 at 09:30 AM
p.33 #17Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM Image Thread
A backyard visitor (African spotted eagle-owl) just chilling in a palm tree.
Shot this one through a slight fog bank that was rolling in.
ILCE-7RM5 FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter lens 600mm f/5.6 1/1250s 6400 ISO 0.0 EV
Shot this one through a slight fog bank that was rolling in.
ILCE-9M3 FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS + 2X Teleconverter lens 600mm f/5.6 1/500s 3200 ISO 0.0 EV
Dec 26, 2024 at 12:12 PM
p.33 #18Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM Image Thread
A1 at 2.8 and with 1.4x One of the pics is w/o a TC Can you tell which one it is ?
Rock Pigeon by Steve Paradise, on Flickr
Ruddy Duck by Steve Paradise, on Flickr
Rock Pigeon by Steve Paradise, on Flickr
Rock Pigeon by Steve Paradise, on FlickrRuddy Duck by Steve Paradise, on FlickrRock Pigeon by Steve Paradise, on FlickrDec 26, 2024 at 03:05 PM
p.33 #19Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM Image Thread
The 3rd one is the naked lens IMO, Smooth background. But in reality it's impossible to tell here, only via your EXIF .
Okay, I checked it out now. ,
sparadise wrote:
A1 at 2.8 and with 1.4x One of the pics is w/o a TC Can you tell which one it is ?
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54227577613_daabdfddcc_b.jpgRock Pigeon by Steve Paradise, on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54227310596_782eef02e7_b.jpgRuddy Duck by Steve Paradise, on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54226460797_e158532d4e_b.jpgRock Pigeon by Steve Paradise, on Flickr
Okay, I checked it out now. ,
sparadise wrote:
A1 at 2.8 and with 1.4x One of the pics is w/o a TC Can you tell which one it is ?
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54227577613_daabdfddcc_b.jpgRock Pigeon by Steve Paradise, on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54227310596_782eef02e7_b.jpgRuddy Duck by Steve Paradise, on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54226460797_e158532d4e_b.jpgRock Pigeon by Steve Paradise, on Flickr
Dec 26, 2024 at 05:01 PM
p.33 #20Sony FE 300mm f/2.8 GM Image Thread
DO101 wrote:
The 3rd one is the naked lens IMO, Smooth background. But in reality it's impossible to tell here, only via your EXIF .
Okay, I checked it out now. ,
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54227577613_daabdfddcc_b.jpgRock Pigeon by Steve Paradise, on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54227310596_782eef02e7_b.jpgRuddy Duck by Steve Paradise, on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54226460797_e158532d4e_b.jpgRock Pigeon by Steve Paradise, on Flickr
I think with the 2X you may see a slight difference . With the 1.4x it's impossible to tell. I sure do like the option of 300, 420, or 600 in such a light package. Theses flight shots would not have been possible with a 600mm . Was too close
Here's another at 300mm
Rock Pigeon by Steve Paradise, on Flickr
The 3rd one is the naked lens IMO, Smooth background. But in reality it's impossible to tell here, only via your EXIF .
Okay, I checked it out now. ,
sparadise wrote
A1 at 2.8 and with 1.4x One of the pics is w/o a TC Can you tell which one it is ?https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54227577613_daabdfddcc_b.jpgRock Pigeon by Steve Paradise, on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54227310596_782eef02e7_b.jpgRuddy Duck by Steve Paradise, on Flickr
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54226460797_e158532d4e_b.jpgRock Pigeon by Steve Paradise, on Flickr
I think with the 2X you may see a slight difference . With the 1.4x it's impossible to tell. I sure do like the option of 300, 420, or 600 in such a light package. Theses flight shots would not have been possible with a 600mm . Was too close
Here's another at 300mm
Rock Pigeon by Steve Paradise, on FlickrDec 26, 2024 at 05:37 PM