nmerc_photos
Online
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Sony FE 600mm f/6.3 GM OSS Images Thread | |
billsnature wrote:
nmerc_photos wrote:
billsnature wrote:
nmerc_photos wrote:
billsnature wrote:
dfreese wrote:
Dude. Look at that picture. It isn't properly focused. This tells us nothing. The guy right after that posted BIF with the 1.4 that are super sharp. Don't look at one bad Pic amd make assumptions.
evanhanded wrote:
billsnature wrote:
Here is the horrible news from my perspective!!!! It looks like the 400-800 at 800 is sharper than the 600 with 1.4X at 840mm. You get a lot more magnification as you can see in the first screen shot, but not more resolution
Ugh! Now I don't know whether to keep it or return it
Thanks. This is the test I wanted to see as I have not ordered the 600mm f6.3 and was wondering if I should. I use a tripod for my 400-800mm. If I wanted to do more handheld shots, I'd jump on that 600mm. Not even a question. But I believe my 400-800mm is a good copy and for tripod shooting...I don't see the need to get the new lens. As for any slight difference when using the 1.4x tc on the 600mm compared to the 400-800, it could be technique, it could be the tc, but it's close enough I wouldn't lose sleep trying to find which is slightly better.
These samples represent the use case. Shot in AFC as that is how I would use the lens. If it's OOF, that isn't my fault. It showed eye detect. I agree it looks a little front focused if you look at background, but if you look at the stick below the feet that should be sharper as its it's closer to camera, but its not. It appears to have a narrower DOF. Both the foreground and background are sharper in the 400-800.
I shot many frames and have been taking random pairs (not best vs best) and no pair so far has shown the 600 1.4x combo better but I will test many more.
I have no interest in manually focused comparisons as that isn't how I shoot.
What's the reasoning behind making a big point "horrible news!! 400-800 is better than 600 6.3 + 1.4x" when your only example is one OOF image?
Taking a poor picture/test and saying "if it's OOF that's not my fault" is an interesting choice to say the least. Why make the post at all if you're not willing to put in the work to ensure it's a fair test?
Seems like a smear job against the 600 6.3 in favor of the 400-800.
If the 400-800 is truly better, that's remarkable and would be good to know. But prove it in a real test. Don't fudge the results to make your desired outcome seem supported.
CPWarner wrote:
dfreese wrote:
Your tests mean nothing if you're not comparing bests. That picture is blurry. It isn't showing detail because it isn't in focus. I don't care if you think you got the shot. You missed.
Wow, the arm chair quarterbacks come out in a hurry. Seems like there are some major assumptions being made here to say it is not in focus. Then again, it is a GM. It has to be sharper with the 1.4x than a lowly G zoom lens. 
Bill, no good deed goes unpunished! Thanks for the test results.
What assumptions do you think are being made? Did you look at the images, and do you think the 600 6.3 one is in focus?
I've looked at it on 3 different setups (iPhone, 45" 5K2K monitor, 77" TV) and it's clear as day that it isn't in focus.
WTF dude?
I don't think it is inappropriate to express my surprise and disappointment that a $3700 GM prime with a TC doesn't crush a $2500 G zoom with a 1.4X TC. That's the whole use case!!!
If a $7000 A1 II can't achieve focus on a static object with this lens that is a real problem for Sony, not my skills that seemed just fine with the 400-800.
Do you think I plunked down $3700 just to become an FM celeb by trashing a lens? I so wanted this lens with a 1.4X to beat or at least tie the 400-800. Might be a bad copy. Might be a bad 1.4X TC. Might be a great 600 that sucks with a TC just like the 400 GM is a great 400 that sucks with a TC. It sure isn't a I can't focus problem,
If your tests actually showed what you're stating - I'd have no issue with your surprise and disappointment.
But when you create a heavily flawed "test" and then admit that you didn't make an attempt to make it fair - that's pretty ridiculous.
You can't post an OOF image and draw ANY conclusions, other than user error. It would've taken you what, 3 seconds or less, to get a locked on in focus image to post?
Think about it from anyone else's position. I could go out right now and take the 600GM, point it at a toy bird, miss focus, and then come in here and post "horrible news! the 600GM is worse than every other lens!". In that case, the 600GM has a track record so it would be quickly dismissed, ideally. But in your case, you are one of the fortunate few with the lens in hand - so people are putting stock in your findings.
Your second set of testing is at least not as clearly flawed as the first, so that's progress. I appreciate that.
Let me make sure I understand your thinking. You always manually focus your 600mm lens so an appropriate test is to manually focus and pick the best of many images as determining a good lans. REALLY ? Don't think so.
I am starting to think that my copy is bad and it is a stabilization problem. I will try to test with OSS off as even at 600mm it doesn't look good. It isn't actually OOF it isn't sharp anywhere!! Please pull the stick out of your a$$ and recognizing that the problem isn't my inability to focus in AFC mode. DUH. And Yes I am happy to learn I have the best 400-800 ever made!
No, you're not understanding correctly at all. I NEVER manually focus a 600mm lens. But when I'm testing a lens, I make sure the image is at least in focus so it can be compared.
Why on earth would you take a picture that's OOF, note in your post that it's OOF, but still try to draw a conclusion from that?
We all miss shots. That's completely fine. But don't post a missed shot and try to pass it off as a lens performance issue. State it as it is - a skill issue, a lack of caring, or an actual mechanical failure (if you can prove it).
All you had to do was either omit the failed picture from testing - or just spend the extra 3 seconds to get it in focus. Not that hard lol.
|
