Just got notification that my $100M, two year project is scheduled to fly in the morning. Time to scramble and get my gear set up for a 4 am wake up call. Got to be on the field by 6. Weather looks plenty challenging but our orders are to be there and be ready top rock n roll. Looks like one of those restless nights going over all the possible twists and turns.
Already had one of those recently planning a day with one of my favorite Senators.........
I'm guessing from your results that you are happy with the 200-600 swap out to the 400-800. Any regrets or second thoughts? What will your kit be now? 300 + 400-800, or ?
I'm guessing from your results that you are happy with the 200-600 swap out to the 400-800. Any regrets or second thoughts? What will your kit be now? 300 + 400-800, or ?
P.S. Great captures AGAIN!
---
Jeff
Thank you Jeff! I sold the 200-600 before I received the 400-800 so I didn't get to do a sharpness comparison. The 400-800 is very sharp at 800mm. As you may recall, in the past my airshow setups were A1 body+200-600 and A1 body+600mm F4+1.4TC. The main attraction of the 400-800 for me is the 800mm end. I don't need to lug the 600 f4 for airshows anymore.
If it's a sunset/evening show, I will use the 300 f2.8+2XTC for more light gathering. If it's a day time day, now I just bring the 400-800. But 400mm sometimes is too long for some formation stuff or even a single jet when it comes close. I guess it depends on show location. If the front row, where I am in usually, is close to the show box, then 400mm can be too long sometimes. For the show at Langley, 400mm is almost too long for the Thunderbirds' 360 diamond formation.
For how I shoot, I can use 800mm more than I can use the 200mm, that's a trade-off I am happy to take. If I know there are formations where I need wide than 400mm, I will bring the 100-400 on a second body. The 9-ship Canadian Snow Bird will perform at the Latrobe, Pa show in June and I will definitely need the 100-400 for that show.
In the first picture below, the 3rd Mustang was clipped, so I just cut it out to show two .
ILCE-1M2FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS lens400mmf/8.01/125s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS lens553mmf/10.01/125s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS lens800mmf/10.01/125s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS lens604mmf/9.01/125s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1M2FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS lens800mmf/8.01/4000s200 ISO-1.3 EV
ILCE-1M2FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS lens420mmf/6.31/4000s125 ISO-1.3 EV
ILCE-1M2FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS lens460mmf/6.31/4000s125 ISO-1.7 EV
ILCE-1M2FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS lens400mmf/6.31/4000s125 ISO-1.7 EV
ILCE-1M2FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS lens556mmf/7.11/4000s200 ISO-1.3 EV
ILCE-1M2FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS lens436mmf/6.31/5000s200 ISO-1.3 EV
ILCE-1M2FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS lens481mmf/6.31/4000s200 ISO-1.3 EV
ILCE-1M2FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS lens513mmf/7.11/4000s320 ISO-1.0 EV
JWilsonphoto wrote:
Six hours of crazy shooting from the hip, but it was a huge sucess and I picked up a very cool new defense client in the bargain............
.
Small world Jim.
We make parts for one of our customers, and those go to Altitude/Jarmac in Coppell Texas and they are for Mammoth.
.
We are still doing a lot of parts for another customer for the G400/G800 as well, was hoping to visit them back in Georgia this year but might be next year now.
.
My customer is working on the vertical tail and horizontal tail stab pieces for a B-17 for Erickson, just an inspection, clean and new paint is all but so neat to see what was built in 1940.
.
I am going over in 3 weeks to photograph the B-25 we made quite a few parts for before it goes to it's new owner in Switzerland.
Douglas L wrote:
Thank you Jeff! I sold the 200-600 before I received the 400-800 so I didn't get to do a sharpness comparison. The 400-800 is very sharp at 800mm. As you may recall, in the past my airshow setups were A1 body+200-600 and A1 body+600mm F4+1.4TC. The main attraction of the 400-800 for me is the 800mm end. I don't need to lug the 600 f4 for airshows anymore.
Just amazing photography Douglas. It has a 3D appearance. MY olde eyes tell me that there is separation between the aircraft and the sky. Everything is sooooooo razor sharp!! Crisp, clean images all..
Well done!
Dan
JWilsonphoto wrote:
Six hours of crazy shooting from the hip, but it was a huge sucess and I picked up a very cool new defense client in the bargain............
Next VP candidate you are Jim? Mr Cruz is a great person!
Great memorable image! Did JIII take the shot?
Dan
Thanks for the feedback. Two more questions/thoughts. One, image stabilization. I find the 200-600 and/or A1 stabilization not that great. It is said to improved on the A1II and the 400-800. Do you find that to be true? Second, wider needs as you note for formations, etc. I had, and sold, the "dust pumper" 100-400, which does produce great images. I just wish there was a 100-400 solution with internal zoom and newer optics. Perhaps the 70-200II + TC2.
Great photo from J III, you can't start em young enough.
If he keep his interest in photography you can expect some great quality which is already there.
Bill Gass wrote:
.
Small world Jim.
We make parts for one of our customers, and those go to Altitude/Jarmac in Coppell Texas and they are for Mammoth.
.
We are still doing a lot of parts for another customer for the G400/G800 as well, was hoping to visit them back in Georgia this year but might be next year now.
.
My customer is working on the vertical tail and horizontal tail stab pieces for a B-17 for Erickson, just an inspection, clean and new paint is all but so neat to see what was built in 1940.
.
I am going over in 3 weeks to photograph the B-25 we made quite a few parts for before it goes to it's new owner in Switzerland. ...Show more →
Bill any chance on the former history of that Swiss bound B25? If not i will wait here for the photo's
Jan-Arie wrote:
Bill any chance on the former history of that Swiss bound B25? If not i will wait here for the photo's
Apparently the Swiss had a somewhat vested interest in the B-25..see here:
"During World War II, several B-25 bombers ended up in Switzerland due to circumstances like forced landings or straying into neutral airspace. These incidents resulted in the crews being interned by the Swiss government until the end of the war. Some aircraft were later repaired and flown back to Allied territories, while others were scrapped.""
Here also:
...."However, a B-25, known as Russel's Raiders, has been operated out of Sion, Switzerland since it was purchased by its current owners in January 2005..."
So Bill will have to supply..."the rest of the story.."(Paul Harvey-The Rest of The Story-)" J-A.
Dan
Danpbphoto wrote:
Apparently the Swiss had a somewhat vested interest in the B-25..see here:
"During World War II, several B-25 bombers ended up in Switzerland due to circumstances like forced landings or straying into neutral airspace. These incidents resulted in the crews being interned by the Swiss government until the end of the war. Some aircraft were later repaired and flown back to Allied territories, while others were scrapped.""
Here also:
...."However, a B-25, known as Russel's Raiders, has been operated out of Sion, Switzerland since it was purchased by its current owners in January 2005..."
So Bill will have to supply..."the rest of the story.."(Paul Harvey-The Rest of The Story-)" J-A.
Dan
A quick google I have seen that one fly in France years ago.
The B-25 Mitchell crashed on May 31st, 2011, in France near Melun-Villaroche, south-east of Paris..
Interesting.
Danpbphoto wrote:
Just amazing photography Douglas. It has a 3D appearance. MY olde eyes tell me that there is separation between the aircraft and the sky. Everything is sooooooo razor sharp!! Crisp, clean images all..
Well done!
Dan
Thank you Dan!
I must admit I am not really a big fan of warbirds, I am more a modern fighter jet kind of guy.
Every June, there is this WWII Weekend event in Reading Pa, about 2 hours from where I live. I have been there a few times.
They have all sorts of warbirds flying/displaying, offering rides. Folks also bring the tanks, armored vehicles, guns from different countries. Some of them dress in German and Japanese uniforms. The funny thing is some of them are too fat to look like German solders in WWII. I may stop by this year..
Thanks for the feedback. Two more questions/thoughts. One, image stabilization. I find the 200-600 and/or A1 stabilization not that great. It is said to improved on the A1II and the 400-800. Do you find that to be true? Second, wider needs as you note for formations, etc. I had, and sold, the "dust pumper" 100-400, which does produce great images. I just wish there was a 100-400 solution with internal zoom and newer optics. Perhaps the 70-200II + TC2.
---
Jeff
Jeff, according to Sony and many youtubers, the image stabilization of the A1II and the 400-800 are big improvement. I just sold my A7RV, which should share the new IBIS with the A1II, the IBIS of the A7RV is amazing. I have no doubt the A1II is very good too but I haven't had a chance to really try it. Nothing I have shot since I got the A1II in my hand required slow shutter speed. No question the 400-800's stabilization is better than the 200-600. I think the big question is what you shoot and how you shoot. If you don't need 800mm often, I don't see a good reason to replace the 200-600 with the 400-800. The used price for the 200-600 is $1300-1400, the price for the new 400-800 is $2900, or soon will be $3500 with the tariff.
I sold my first Sony 100-400 GM after I bought the 200-600 when the 200-600 first came out. I bought a 100-400 GM back last year for the A2A projects, it's crazy sharp. I am keeping it. I don't have the 70-200 mm f2.8 GM II anymore, I replaced it with the much light/smaller 70-200 f4 G II. But the 70-200 GM II is pretty light already. If you already have it, I would use it with TCs instead of buying the 100-400. Some of the new Sony lenses work really well with TCs, The 300GM is exceptional with TCs, as you already know.
