Sony Lounge Thread MKIII (All Sony cameras welcome)

Made it to a small canyon in Arizona near the town of Portal..... basically a store. Its in the south eastern tip and they have some amazing wildlife

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nuh​reC

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nuh​mGm

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nun​y9J

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nuq​2aC

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nup​WdD

David Arbogast wrote in post #19396238
I’m really sorry and pained to read about all you’re going through right now, Travis, and sincerely hope and wish you and your family’s well-being. I too am sick with sorrow regarding my mom’s health. I’m losing her - she is mostly gone - to alzheimers. It is awful.

I’m so sorry David. I can’t imagine the pain.

gaabnz wrote in post #19396768
my mate popped round with his a6400 today to try it with my FE200-600G lens. Pretty happy with how this came out. Slightly cropped in

Wondering if it would be better to try and find a good second hand a7riii or go with a crop sensor for birds? Any advice is much appreciated

I used to have an A6400 that I would put the 200-600 on. They worked great together.

4matic wrote in post #19396740
These are great.

gaabnz wrote in post #19396671
Just Wow!!

Thanks guys, hard not to get decent stuff with so many bird every where and close. cheers!

gaabnz wrote in post #19396768
my mate popped round with his a6400 today to try it with my FE200-600G lens. Pretty happy with how this came out. Slightly cropped in

Wondering if it would be better to try and find a good second hand a7riii or go with a crop sensor for birds? Any advice is much appreciated

Bill in Texas wrote in post #19396906
I used to have an A6400 that I would put the 200-600 on. They worked great together.

I used to have one too, but we both got rid for full frame! I got rid because I hated the ergonomics and even though I was coming from a canon 7DII and thought I'd miss the crop factor with just an A9 I never did and the A9 files being full frame were so much nicer than the A6400 I just didn't use it. I'd go for an a7RIII.

sidknee wrote in post #19396924
I used to have one too, but we both got rid for full frame! I got rid because I hated the ergonomics and even though I was coming from a canon 7DII and thought I'd miss the crop factor with just an A9 I never did and the A9 files being full frame were so much nicer than the A6400 I just didn't use it. I'd go for an a7RIII.

Cheers. The size is a little bit frustrating, especially with that lens on it, hardly feels like you are holding a camera.

Still have to get either option past the financial controller. This will be a struggle either way hahaha

More backyard nature with the A1 and 100-400

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nuV​F8j

Itsed65 wrote in post #19397308
More backyard nature with the A1 and 100-400

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nuV​F8j
Pollination in Progress by lennycarl08, on Flickr

Just recently I've been thinking of the 100-400GM lens. How do you find the use of and IQ as compared to the 200-600?
Thats a very clear image!

4matic wrote in post #19397406
Just recently I've been thinking of the 100-400GM lens. How do you find the use of and IQ as compared to the 200-600?
Thats a very clear image!

IF you can live with 400mm it is a sharper lens for sure. If you put a TC on it for more reach, the 200-600 beats it IMO. The 100-400 is better for macro-ish type shots like this one because it has a much closer focusing distance than the 200-600. Kind of why I have both, it all depends on what I am going for. If I'm out birding, its going to be the 200-600 every time, but if I am in my yard, or a zoo or a botanical garden, I will gladly take the lighter 100-400 every time.

sidknee wrote in post #19396519
Any A1 users tried the new medium or small raw sizes yet? I did for a few hundred shots on a trip on Friday and although I can view them in my browsing/sorting app I can't open the RAW files as none of my software has been updated yet. The jpegs are obviously embedded in there as I can view them but I can't extract them like I can with the normal RAW files. On the plus side the jpegs do look very good despite the smaller size.
Annoyingly all the flying birds with fish in their beaks are amongst the M RAWs so unavailable at the moment
A couple of others from the trip to Skomer Island.......

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nuw​n8C DSC00322-22-06-24-11-51-40 by Sid Simmons, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nur​6Zs DSC00486-22-06-24-12-56-50 by Sid Simmons, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nur​752 DSC00470-22-06-24-12-54-28 by Sid Simmons, on Flickr

fantastic captures!

David Arbogast wrote in post #19396238
I’m really sorry and pained to read about all you’re going through right now, Travis, and sincerely hope and wish you and your family’s well-being. I too am sick with sorrow regarding my mom’s health. I’m losing her - she is mostly gone - to alzheimers. It is awful.

oh no. Very sorry to hear that. I really dont have anything to say other than sharing the thought and sadness you are going through.

Itsed65 wrote in post #19397443
IF you can live with 400mm it is a sharper lens for sure. If you put a TC on it for more reach, the 200-600 beats it IMO. The 100-400 is better for macro-ish type shots like this one because it has a much closer focusing distance than the 200-600. Kind of why I have both, it all depends on what I am going for. If I'm out birding, its going to be the 200-600 every time, but if I am in my yard, or a zoo or a botanical garden, I will gladly take the lighter 100-400 every time.

Thanks very much Ed, I too was wondering of using a TC on the 400 as compared to the 200-600. Its not often I am in situations too close for too much lens. Appreciate the feedback.

4matic wrote in post #19397598
Thanks very much Ed, I too was wondering of using a TC on the 400 as compared to the 200-600. Its not often I am in situations too close for too much lens. Appreciate the feedback.

I went in the opposite direction and sold my 100-400. When I bought the A1, the 200-600 is it's lens primarily and I bought a Tamron 150-500 for my A9. I have taken some very good photos with the Tamron.

IMAGE LINK: https://billmorris.smu​gmug.com …r/Woodpeckers/i​-KxWvjjR/A

Bill in Texas wrote in post #19397694
I went in the opposite direction and sold my 100-400. When I bought the A1, the 200-600 is it's lens primarily and I bought a Tamron 150-500 for my A9. I have taken some very good photos with the Tamron.

IMAGE LINK: https://billmorris.smu​gmug.com …r/Woodpeckers/i​-KxWvjjR/A

Thats very interesting Bill, how would you rate the IQ of the Tamron compared to the 100-400? The Tamron is nearly half the price as well.

4matic wrote in post #19397879
Thats very interesting Bill, how would you rate the IQ of the Tamron compared to the 100-400? The Tamron is nearly half the price as well.

IMO, IQ on my copy is comparable to the 100-400. I was astonished by the results of this lens.