This topic is on two completely different tracks. I’d like a world where the “exposure equivalence” folks make their own topic to cage match each other so the rest of us who care about these new lenses can get drip fed new info without getting clotheslined in the ring.
Jack Flesher wrote:
How much noise is in a well exposed, full sun landscape image taken with an A7R6 at iso 100?
I actually think the equivalence consideration is less relevant in a "full sun landscape" scenario. There is plenty of light and one can always reach the full-well capacity of the sensor.
When considering between a cropped 400mm F4.5 and a native 600mm F6.3, it is very different. When shooting birds we are shutter speed limited. We don't have enough light. Cropping a 400mm F4.5 won't give us any advantage in the end result over a 600mm F6.3 despite what the light meter says.
moyang_mm wrote:
I actually think the equivalence consideration is less relevant in a "full sun landscape" scenario. There is plenty of light and one can always reach the full-well capacity of the sensor.
When considering between a cropped 400mm F4.5 and a native 600mm F6.3, it is very different. When shooting birds we are shutter speed limited. We don't have enough light. Cropping a 400mm F4.5 won't give us any advantage in the end result over a 600mm F6.3 despite what the light meter says.
Fair enough. What about the other two questions? At what point does noise become visible and measurable? And when does it become objectionable?
Yeah, I agree. I think 400mm/f4.5GM with 2X is definitely a viable option.
Another comparison video：
7:50: 100-400/4.5GM@400mm +14TC vs 300/2.8GM + 20TC
9:00: 100-400/4.5GM@400mm +20TC vs 300/2.8GM + 20TC
I know this isn't a comparison specifically for the 400mm/f4.5GM, but theoretically, its results should be very close to the 100-400mm/f4.5GM, if not even better, so it's still a useful reference.
Daran wrote:
Surprisingly Dustin reports that his 400f4.5 with a TC1.4 is a hair sharper than his 600f6.3. Now I am curious whether this is due to copy variability or generally the case.
Yes the plot thickens.
Shockingly in DA’s test the 400/4.5 with 2X is so terrible compared to the 600mm/6.3 with 1.4x. It makes no sense
How can this be? Does he have a dud 2X?
Could it be because the test chart has to be further away for an 800mm test?
We need samples with “just cropping” and no TCs on one lens
I will be posting some comparisons soon Remeber that all thsoe tests are shot upon specific conditions and aim at comparing 'something' - which may not be a real world use case. There is also a lens copy variation and if done by amateur (like I am) there are test bench issues.
Anyway, for a good comaprison one would need a series of shots at few distances, at least two sets of apertures (even aperture and fully opened), good lighting conditions, ISO 100 even exposure, even amount of light gathered. And even so the results would be complex and hard to comprehend.
Imho in general people are overthinking it. Often including myself. Best way is to go and shoot and check if the experience and results satisfy you and if the lens is buy worthy.
michal.narozny wrote:
I will be posting some comparisons soon Remeber that all thsoe tests are shot upon specific conditions and aim at comparing 'something' - which may not be a real world use case. There is also a lens copy variation and if done by amateur (like I am) there are test bench issues.
Anyway, for a good comaprison one would need a series of shots at few distances, at least two sets of apertures (even aperture and fully opened), good lighting conditions, ISO 100 even exposure, even amount of light gathered. And even so the results would be complex and hard to comprehend.
Imho in general people are overthinking it. Often including myself. Best way is to go and shoot and check if the experience and results satisfy you and if the lens is buy worthy....Show more →
Looking at the 2X sample DA posted, I think there's little camera/lens shake in that shot. This can happen especially images taken outside. As we all know (and Michael mentioned above) we are over thinking this. I have no doubts that these lens will perform wonderfully in the field.
biggles2002 wrote:
I think he used a Viltrox 2.0X TC
Jemini wrote:
Looking at the 2X sample DA posted, I think there's little camera/lens shake in that shot. This can happen especially images taken outside. As we all know (and Michael mentioned above) we are over thinking this. I have no doubts that these lens will perform wonderfully in the field.
I would prefer the (cheaper) 400/4.5 with the 1.4x TC if it is equivalent to the 600/6.3 at 560mm.
However, if the 400/4.5 + 1.4x is equivalent to the 600/6.3 at 560mm, then logically, the 400/4.5 + 2x TC should be reasonably close to the 600/6.3 + 1.4x TC.
The reason is that the 1.4x TC turns the 400/4.5 into a 560mm f/6.3, so if that combination is optically comparable to the 600/6.3, then the two setups should have broadly similar resolving performance, contrast, and image quality at that point. Applying another 1.4x worth of magnification to the 400/4.5 setup should therefore be analogous to putting a 1.4x TC on the 600/6.3.
Obviously, TC performance is not perfectly linear because each lens/TC combination has different, MTF characteristics, but I would still expect the relative performance to scale somewhat predictably if the 400/4.5 + 1.4x and 600/6.3 are genuinely equivalent. Dustin's results seem to show a much larger difference than I would expect from that relationship, which is what I find puzzling.
Ultimately, it doesn't really give me a clear indication of which lens I should buy.
I'll ask it again. Why are Viltrox TCs being used? If I had the money these reviewers did, I'd throw all mine away! BUT, despite being a nobody, I still was able to scrape together enough crumbs to have 1st party tcs. TCs can be problematic, so why use a discount Chinese non-native TC for testing? Maybe Viltrox is writing them checks?
'
I'll have the 600 soon. I also have the 300 with both Sony tcs and the 600gm. I don't pay to post images on this site, but will give a fair assessment once I have the lens in hand and can test under controlled environment. I have access to large buildings for inside testing under controlled conditions. I cannot compare it to the 2-6 or 4-8 as I had both and sold them. I found the the 2-6 inferior to to the 300gm once I got the GM (stunned by its IQ and AF performance with SONY 2x) and sold the 4-8 because it's weight was close enough to the 600 GM that it didn't stack up in IQ or hitting f8 by 600. I felt the lens was fine for what it was, but if I was going to carry such a heavy lens, I'd carry the 600gm. My interest in the new 600 is due to its size and weight for kayak photography. I'm hoping the naked lens can match the 300gm + SONY 2x. I don't expect it to be better. Yes, the 300/2x is that good. I shoot waterfowl and loons from the kayak at 6.3-8 for DOF anyway, so 6.3 doesn't worry me.
"Soon"
How soon you will get it? Earlier than worldwide release?
Thank you
ps09 wrote:
I'll ask it again. Why are Viltrox TCs being used? If I had the money these reviewers did, I'd throw all mine away! BUT, despite being a nobody, I still was able to scrape together enough crumbs to have 1st party tcs. TCs can be problematic, so why use a discount Chinese non-native TC for testing? Maybe Viltrox is writing them checks?
'
I'll have the 600 soon. I also have the 300 with both Sony tcs and the 600gm. I don't pay to post images on this site, but will give a fair assessment once I have the lens in hand and can test under controlled environment. I have access to large buildings for inside testing under controlled conditions. I cannot compare it to the 2-6 or 4-8 as I had both and sold them. I found the the 2-6 inferior to to the 300gm once I got the GM (stunned by its IQ and AF performance with SONY 2x) and sold the 4-8 because it's weight was close enough to the 600 GM that it didn't stack up in IQ or hitting f8 by 600. I felt the lens was fine for what it was, but if I was going to carry such a heavy lens, I'd carry the 600gm. My interest in the new 600 is due to its size and weight for kayak photography. I'm hoping the naked lens can match the 300gm + SONY 2x. I don't expect it to be better. Yes, the 300/2x is that good. I shoot waterfowl and loons from the kayak at 6.3-8 for DOF anyway, so 6.3 doesn't worry me. ...Show more →
I am a nobody, but I'm first on a list at a shop that will get first batch copies, so I'm guessing mid October. I will be out of town on a landscape trip when it arrives at home, so I won't be able to do anything until late October. By then, I'm sure others will post logical reviews. Right now it's all a bit of a joke. If I were an "influencer" that was sent a copy, and didn't have the lenses people want to see compared, I'd rent them from LR. Who, that shoots Sony tiles or zooms, does not have the Sony tcs. I'm beginning to think many of these "influencers" don't shoot the gear on a regular basis. Jan's review (and Steve Perry) are what we need to see.
FWIW, the French guy’s utube reviews linked a few pages back used the Sony TC’s on both new lenses and the 200-600, as well as the 600/4 in his comps. He may have even had a 400/2.8 in there. It was pretty comprehensive.
Hey everyone, this took a bit longer than expected!
I’ve also put together a Reel with the results. If you have a second, a thumbs up or a repost would mean the world—it really makes a huge difference for smaller creators.
michal.narozny wrote:
Hey everyone, this took a bit longer than expected!
I’ve also put together a Reel with the results. If you have a second, a thumbs up or a repost would mean the world—it really makes a huge difference for smaller creators.
Also - I have created a separate thread with results, so they are easier to find: FM thread <---- click here
Thanks for the effort and posting them. Wait for few critics of your method
I was looking only at 400/600/tc combos
Anyway my takeaway is that 400+1.4 vs 600 as well 400+2X vs 600+1.4 are pretty close to each other. 400 combo is a smidge better than 600, may be because 400 shots has slightly more contrast.
Edit : I think I was biased. Both the combos are identical.
Ok, I'll respectfully state with no disrespect intended - in the DSLR days of auto focus fine tuning, LensAlign (which I personally found to be best) recommended 8' for every 100mm of focal length when testing/calibrating lenses. This is more than likely why Dustin Abbott did his testing outside, as 840mm would require 67.2'. 6.75 meters would be about 22', which is really close to test 800mm.
michal.narozny wrote:
Hey everyone, this took a bit longer than expected!
I’ve also put together a Reel with the results. If you have a second, a thumbs up or a repost would mean the world—it really makes a huge difference for smaller creators.
Also - I have created a separate thread with results, so they are easier to find: FM thread <---- click here
I preciate your effort to make this clearer for us but why not share those raw files? .......
I mean "REEL" how in "hell" should that be representive view of what the difference is between these lenses?
Remeber that all thsoe tests are shot upon specific conditions and aim at comparing 'something' - which may not be a real world use case. There is also a lens copy variation and if done by amateur (like I am) there are test bench issues.