Thanks, that's my concern with the focal length. With regards to the shutter sound I'm hoping it's not an issue, I'll obviously use the electronic shutter but there's two others plus Steve Race who runs runs it.
Wow, 350mm at close focus that's crazy. It's a shame they don't mention how close.
This is very telling, taken at 13.5ft which is likely going to be the sort of ball park I'll be shooting at. The 200-600mm is giving about a 520mm reach which means that potentially I'll get closer shots with my 100-400mm and 1.4 x tc
That's crazy, is it the same with all long lenses, or is the 200-600 particularly prone?This is very telling, taken at 13.5ft which is likely going to be the sort of ball park I'll be shooting at. The 200-600mm is giving about a 520mm reach which means that potentially I'll get closer shots with my 100-400mm and 1.4 x tc
View attachment 381543
I think most zoom lenses are prone to it, some more that others and from my brief research the 200-600mm does look particularly prone. Another lens that springs to mind is the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII which only gave something like 120mm at close focus.
Most zoom lenses are prone and especially telephoto ones. Parfocal zoom lenses like the ones used in videography are massive. Correcting a telephoto zoom to be parfocal would make rather large.This is very telling, taken at 13.5ft which is likely going to be the sort of ball park I'll be shooting at. The 200-600mm is giving about a 520mm reach which means that potentially I'll get closer shots with my 100-400mm and 1.4 x tc
View attachment 381543
I wouldn't trust that they say tbh. They are seldom reliable.
Yeah, I just didn't realise the 200-600mm was so bad. When you say you doubt you'd see much difference with the 100-400mm are you saying the framing would be similar as i've not seen anywhere that the 100-400mm suffers particularly from focus breathing?
No I take it with a pinch of salt for sure which is why I looked elsewhere, however that test chart is telling. I've contacted Steve to find out exactly how close we'll be and if it's within 15ft I'll just stick with the 100-400mm and TC and if needs be risk dropping the shutter speed down once I've got some guaranteed keepers.
Wex do the 400 f2.8 for £88 per day
I did contact Wex about that a while ago but I gave up in the end as they could not tell me if the lens would be delivered the day before or not, and whether it needed to be sent back on the same day or the day after. They also couldn't tell me if it was delivered the day before and collected the day after whether that would be charged as a single day usage or three day usage, and lastly they wanted a deposit for the full price of the lens ( £10500) or they could take a deposit of £1500 but they'd have to do a credit check.
That's sounds pants. I've always used @StewartR at Lenses For Hire for all my rental needs. They are doing a discount at the moment for February because it's their birthday. 15% off
Yep not great. I've rented from Stewart before and was happy with the service, but the 400mm f2.8 is 3 day minimum hire at £292 + shipping and I can't justify or afford that
www.sonyalpharumors.com
Yep sounds expensive.More rumors, this time of a looooong and possibly very expensive lens.
RUMOR: Sony 800mm f/5.6 GM lens coming in 2024? – sonyalpharumors
£12500 minimum I’d say.More rumors, this time of a looooong and possibly very expensive lens.
RUMOR: Sony 800mm f/5.6 GM lens coming in 2024? – sonyalpharumors
I wonder what that will be? The A9II seems to have been forgotten about for updates, at least anything exciting. I have been hoping they’d improve animal AF but maybe it just doesn’t have the hardware.
I've had a look through the A9 Exif data and I'm not seeing focus distance there either.
Anything in a7info?
I can't find anything unfortunately, just appears to have the basic exposure info.
I'm messaged you with a snip from a7info. Looks like there are various bits of information in the exif.
I'm looking for a second body but alas no cash at the moment. Insurance renewal and gas and electric bills that I've managed to have a negative balance on. Sucks!!I see Simon wookie6262 has an A9 with a 3rd party grip for sale.
Very Nice
Thanks, messaged back. Have now found the info
Looking at the info the distance is consistently inaccurate, two subjects I've measured at 2.8m and 4.2m have shown in the EXIF as 3.4m and 5.04m respectively. Measurement was taken from the plane of the sensor. I'll try from a longer distance if the weather improves so I can get out.
Gigapixel works really well if your original file has enough details for it to analyze and upscale.Doubt this will show very well but I've just been doing some tests with my 1.4x TC and comparing it against using the lens without TC and performing a 1.4x enlargement using Topaz Gigapixel, and then using Topaz sharpen AI to get the best possible results. All shot on a tripod using remote shutter, 100% crops
1. Gigapixel enlargement left vs 1.4 TC right, gigapixel looks sharper
TC right, Gigapixel Left by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
2. Gigapixel enlargement left vs TC right then sharpened in Topaz, TC image looks sharper
TC and Sharpen AI right, Gigapixel left by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
3. Gigapixel enlargement left vs 1.4 TC right, gigapixel looks sharper
Repsol TC right, gigapixel left by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
4. Gigapixel enlargement left vs TC right then sharpened in Topaz, TC image looks sharper
Repsol TC and Sharpen AI right, Gigapixel left by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
5. Gigapixel enlargement and sharpened left vs TC right then sharpened in Topaz, pretty much identical
Repsol TC and Sharpen AI right, Gigapixel and Sharpen AI left by Toby Gunnee, on Flickr
Here's a link to the screenshots if you want to see it better
Dropbox
www.dropbox.com
Yeah I’d agree with that, I found it interesting findings nonetheless. I think it’s equally amazing how much detail topaz sharpen can bring out too.
