Sony Lounge Thread MKIII (All Sony cameras welcome)

Talley wrote in post #18733076
I don't feel the 70-200 is a great platform to start with to throw a 2x on top of it. Unless I had a poor copy I sold my 70-200 off quickly.

I do like the 70-200 alone. I also saw a video recently mentioning about the 2x being poor on the 70-200. but on a 100-400 it is good. I will be doing some more test shots and see how it turns out but I think it will have to go back :/

DTBaan wrote in post #18733127
I do like the 70-200 alone. I also saw a video recently mentioning about the 2x being poor on the 70-200. but on a 100-400 it is good. I will be doing some more test shots and see how it turns out but I think it will have to go back :/

it was and is not great on my 70-200, but some sharpening in post usually resolves the issue, it is better on the 100-400 for sure. But my 70-200 on its own is fantastic, and I wouldn't want to be without it.

Charlie wrote in post #18733088
Huntington Beach? I was there in the morning doing a hyperlapse

ahha cool

i was debating to go take a pier shot but decided to go to wetlands instead. was very excited to use the 2x and wanted to get done before the sun comes up toasting. went to the pier after for some surfing shots.

WhyFi wrote in post #18733115
After 5 years or so of telling myself that I should get an A7, I finally got an A7II. Stupid, screaming deal on it, too (BB was showing that they had an open box, I went to check it out and it wasn't there - inventory error. Long story short, I ended up walking out with a new one, with kit lens, for $909 - yeah, I'm still not sure how that happened).

No adapters for my C/Y Zeiss lenses, yet, but went out an played with the kit lens today - it's strangely competent.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/NuBa​Hi
Row the Boat by Heightsfidelity, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2b9P​SjL
Tōrō by Heightsfidelity, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2b9N​pcG
Moth on a Basket by Heightsfidelity, on Flickr

Woot on your new camera.

DTBaan wrote in post #18733125
lol sorry I'll keep that in mind :P

I like the shot, but I don't like the soft images from the 2x with the 70-200

You were implying (my interpretation) that the 2.0+100-400GM produced soft images
but remember I'm aged and often interpret wrongly.

TRhoads wrote in post #18733128
it was and is not great on my 70-200, but some sharpening in post usually resolves the issue, it is better on the 100-400 for sure. But my 70-200 on its own is fantastic, and I wouldn't want to be without it.

My 70-200GM copy was fantastic from 70-135 but past that was iffy... hazey... soft and generally appeared to be out of focus(ISH). I'm pretty sure it was a dud. Some of the issues of buying used perhaps is unknown lens copy variation type stuff. Sucks because the canon II is so much cheaper. I wanted it for sports though and video so I need native.

Maybe just suck it up and buy a new one.

My 100-400GM though is pretty darn nice. But... not digging the slow aperture.

TRhoads wrote in post #18733128
it was and is not great on my 70-200, but some sharpening in post usually resolves the issue, it is better on the 100-400 for sure. But my 70-200 on its own is fantastic, and I wouldn't want to be without it.

thanks for your experience. Maybe i should skip the testing and just return it heheh. Id like to have a 100-400 but I don't do alot of long range to be needing it. my 70-200 isnt even used much but when I need the more reach it comes in handy.

TRhoads wrote in post #18733116
welcome to the obsession...hide your credit card...this thread can spend your cash fast!

Ha - I'm usually the one spending other people's money for them.

DTBaan wrote in post #18733122
these are fantastic! crazy deal too!!
what are your thoughts so far?

Thanks!

It'll take some getting used to, but I'm enjoying it thus far.

I'm coming from a 5D (original) that I've had for more than 10 years, so everything just feels different, whether it's because of features, ergonomics or such long-term familiarity. My main concerns were color and ergonomics - neither is a concern at this point. Being able to work with a handful of files, I think that I can get what I want out of them. The increased ISO range is humongous, too. And it didn't take long, but I'm really enjoying the step down in size/weight (though it sometimes feels weird for my pinky to have nothing to hold on to ).

Edited to add: can't wait to get the old glass on it. Focusing, composing and metering was sometimes a big pain in the butt on the ol' 5D, so I'm hopeful the that EVF will help out a lot.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18733132
You were implying (my interpretation) that the 2.0+100-400GM produced soft images
but remember I'm aged and often interpret wrongly.

what?

i'm confused lol
I'm talking about the 70-200. from what I seen from you and others with the 100-400 it is super.

Talley wrote in post #18733133
My 70-200GM copy was fantastic from 70-135 but past that was iffy... hazey... soft and generally appeared to be out of focus(ISH). I'm pretty sure it was a dud. Some of the issues of buying used perhaps is unknown lens copy variation type stuff. Sucks because the canon II is so much cheaper. I wanted it for sports though and video so I need native.

Maybe just suck it up and buy a new one.

My 100-400GM though is pretty darn nice. But... not digging the slow aperture.

I have fallen victim to soft images on the long end, but upon review realized that my shutter speed was much too low for 200mm...lower light shooting. When my shutter speed is higher, its fine...can count hairs.
Whole image

DTBaan wrote in post #18733134
thanks for your experience. Maybe i should skip the testing and just return it heheh. Id like to have a 100-400 but I don't do alot of long range to be needing it. my 70-200 isnt even used much but when I need the more reach it comes in handy.

I am like you...don't need it often, but want it when I do...so I kept mine.

TRhoads wrote in post #18733139
I have fallen victim to soft images on the long end, but upon review realized that my shutter speed was much too low for 200mm...lower light shooting. When my shutter speed is higher, its fine...can count hairs.

I am like you...don't need it often, but want it when I do...so I kept mine.

Would you entertain thoughts of an FE200-600 IF IF IF it ever materializes ??
I'd look at the weight before anything. Lately the 500PF is spoiling me for hefting issues.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18733142
Would you entertain thoughts of an FE200-600 IF IF IF it ever materializes ??
I'd look at the weight before anything. Lately the 500PF is spoiling me for hefting issues.

my bank account would be entertained...laughing is arse off at the notion of me buying one...

I’m looking to upgrade. I was thinking a7 iii, but the A7r iii used prices are close enough that I think I’m going to go with that. The resolution would be nice for landscapes and macro.

TRhoads wrote in post #18732918
So glad I live in a place where I can drive mine all year.

you mean u only have one season,,,, god i hope not, i am blessed to live where we have 4 glorious seasons each brings unique photo ops, hot summers, cool falls, vibrant springs and crisp winters, each lasts just long enough to make u miss it when its gone into the next season, i couldnt live in florida or those places that have on season,,,,,,hot,,,,hah​a.

Shot a wedding yesterday. Second shooter is a fuji guy with an XT-3 (ridiculous camera BTW). Both videographers were shooting Sony.

No Canon or Nikon DSLR's in sight. Time's are changin.

I rarely see videographers shooting Canon anymore. 5DII started the whole video with ILC cameras trend....but Canon lost the video market years ago.