duncangr wrote:
I can easily get sharp shots handheld at 1/40s at 840mm with the 200-600 and have never set the manual steady shot settings.
Trick with slow shutter speeds is to use a burst because any subject movement will cause motion blur. Usually a few shots in the burst will catch a moment when the subject is not moving.
Small little hoppity birds in dark undergrowth are particularly problematic but even they are momentarily stationary occasionally.
Even with that technique, you should try the manual steady shot and maybe you get more keeper from the burst.
Found this review of both the A7RVI and the new 100-400. He had the combo for 35 days. They seem to work great for safari. This guy got some amazing footages. It's in Chinese.
aCuria wrote:
The 500/4.5L (3kg) is double the weight of the 300GM..
Don’t forget that is a very old lens now, I’m sure modern tech would get that weight down a long way.
Back during SLR days AF was not reliable after 5.6. So this lens wasn't great with TC. Sigma had similar lens and that was my first long lens with auto focus. Good old days
scott f wrote:
Don’t forget that is a very old lens now, I’m sure modern tech would get that weight down a long way.
Did anyone catch from the reviews if this foot uses the bolt pattern from the 400/600 or is it the one from the 400-800?
Looking at the foot style it looks like it will be the 400/600 (which is also the same as Canon super-tele EF/RF).
I hope it is the 400/600/Canon pattern as I already have a bunch of feet lying around
I remember seeing in one review that it's the 400/600 primes. Don't sue me if I misquoted it
arbitrage wrote:
Did anyone catch from the reviews if this foot uses the bolt pattern from the 400/600 or is it the one from the 400-800?
Looking at the foot style it looks like it will be the 400/600 (which is also the same as Canon super-tele EF/RF).
I hope it is the 400/600/Canon pattern as I already have a bunch of feet lying around
Oswald74 wrote:
Even with that technique, you should try the manual steady shot and maybe you get more keeper from the burst.
MfG L.E.
Worth a try I suppose but usually it is the subject that is out of focus or the subjects head/eyes while the rest of the body or branch is in focus. This seems to indicate that its motion blur on moving parts rather than motion blur from the lens movement.
For stills shooting the stabilisation seems to be excellent - I shoot 99.9% handheld and don't have a problem getting sharp images. For handheld video at long focal lengths it's not great so a tripod is really needed but usually I am shooting action so stabilisation is not really helpful and a tripod is more a hindrance than a help.
scott f wrote:
I had high hopes for this lens but after watching Steve Perry’s review, I’m not impressed.
Steve himself said he's buying the lens and is review is at odds with several others I've seen. I think he has a sharp 200-600G and had a softer 100-400. Also his stopwatch based AF tests aren't really what I'd put much stock in as to real world performance.
I'd just sit tight and let's see how the lens pans out once it's in the hands of a lot more field testers.
duncangr wrote:
Worth a try I suppose but usually it is the subject that is out of focus or the subjects head/eyes while the rest of the body or branch is in focus. This seems to indicate that its motion blur on moving parts rather than motion blur from the lens movement.
For me, that sound like a really bad calibrated lens.
With my copy of the 200-600 I can shoot a flying buzzard ~2km or a small bird ~3m away and everything is tak sharp.
Did exact that today in my garden, with the really slow A7RIV.
I found some RAW files from FB shared by someone who participated Sony events but results seem awful to me.
Thanks for sharing.
I've exported the ones shot at f/4.5, ISO 800 or lower, as JPEG of quality 97% due to Imgur's size limit. It's worth noting that some of those files have EXIF data saying "f/2.0" for some reason. I did not choose those photos.
scott f wrote:
Too bad he didn’t try it with tcs. I want this lens but I’m going to wait until this sharpness issue gets ironed out, not to mention copy variation.
I'm never an early adopter, I will happily wait 6-12 months before deciding whether this lens could replace a 200-600.
I just wish Sony would do either a new 150-600 f/4.5-6.3 GM with the same upgrades as the 100-400: 4 XDL motors, much better OS, improved mfd, and excellent IQ and AF with a 1.4x TC or a 600 f/5.6 GM.
