Tamron SP 150-600mm Di VC USD

Peter2516 wrote in post #16695936
Hi Matt yeah that was me. I had a feeling it was you also. Yeah I saw you looking in their direction and that is good that you are tracking the wind surfers just fine. I think the AF is functioning well with my lens too. I think I just have to be familiar with AF limiter switch and know the distance of my target.

Btw I stayed until 2:30 and the rain is kind of on and off and hails also around 1:30pm, this lens did very well in the rain but I have to cover my 7D .

Yeah, I was only able to stay for about 30 min. I would have stayed longer. At least until the hail :P. It actually wasn't that bad in the rain/that cold. There were alot of birds around! . I got some surprisingly decent shots of the wind surfers, 1/2 mile away. I can pretty clearly see their faces at 100%. I'll run this DxO on it, and see how good or not it looks. I might post the results here in a while.

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #16695978
Yeah, I was only able to stay for about 30 min. I would have stayed longer. At least until the hail :P. It actually wasn't that bad in the rain/that cold. There were alot of birds around! . I got some surprisingly decent shots of the wind surfers, 1/2 mile away. I can pretty clearly see their faces at 100%. I'll run this DxO on it, and see how good or not it looks. I might post the results here in a while.

Wow that is great. The Eagle finally tried the scoots but no luck and gave up and perched on the tree where you were standing while you testing your AF with wind surfers. I took a picture and got surprise when I open the file I have clear shot of the eagle considering the bad weather.

RAW-Shooter wrote in post #16695921
In general you have to expose properly to begin with and then ETTR. One of the real good threads about ETTR is here: https://photography-on-the.net …p?t=744235&high​light=ETTR


Cheers.

Yep, have been using it for years, but the issue is the impracticality when you're shutter speed limited (as is likely when pointing the Tamzooka at a small bird).

Usually it's better the bump the ISO up a stop (as you get analogue gains) vs. dragging an exposure slider up in post. However there comes a point were you don't actually get any useful gains, and you'd be better off staying at the lower ISO setting (but using the faster shutter speed as if you had changed), then lighten in post (as this protects your highlights).

I suppose, if shutter speed limited, there might be some combination whereby a degree of ETTR with a higher ISO speed (and not raising your shutter speed much) would result in a better image than using the same ISO and shutter speed with a "normal" exposure. It's not something I've tried though.

Given that the analogue signal-to-noise gains from increased ISO tail off somewhere around ISO 1600->3200 on a 5D2 (IRC - may be lower) then I can see how, for instance, ISO 1600 at 1/125 (instead of 1/200) might be better than ISO 800 at 1/100, then drag it down 2/3 stop in post.

Awesome display HEADSHOTSZX.

sploo wrote in post #16695896
Yes, I find the same. For some scenarios (e.g. landscape work) ETTR is very useful, as you can use longer exposures to increase the signal-to-noise ratio. However, when I'm pushed for needing higher ISO settings, it's usually because I need a faster shutter speed - therefore overexposing using a longer shutter speed is rarely useful.

I've seen it mentioned quite a few times that the 7D really benefits from a bit of ETTR (in terms of reducing noise) when using higher ISO settings - but it's always struck me as counter to the point of using a higher ISO setting (i.e. keeping the shutter speed up).

I suppose there may be scenarios where you have a (just) sufficient shutter speed at some ISO setting, and the noise will be better if you go up one ISO stop (e.g. from 1000 to 2000) but then over expose slightly by not speeding up your shutter by a full stop (e.g. instead of going from 1/100 to 1/200, go to 1/125 or 1/160).

My opinion is the same regarding ETTR.

I know many people swear that it is great and all that but, just like you said, most of the time in a high ISO situation we are already shooting at the slowest "acceptable" shutter speed.
If let's say a low-light indoor event calls for a minimum of 1/60 shutter speed (e.g. people socializing, chatting, so there is some movement), and you're already at f/2.8 with a 24-70 2.8 lens, obviously you'll get whatever ISO that gives you proper exposure, let's say ISO 1600. Now, how much better off would I be by ETTR and either shooting 1/30s (can't do that), or bumping the ISO to 3200, then pulling it back in post?

I am aware that there are some complex signal-to-noise numbers involved here, but according to my tests, the end result is pretty much the same with my cameras. Shooting at 3200 with +1 EV ETTR then pulled back by a stop results a very similar image to shooting at 1600 at 0 EV. Again, I cannot always sacrifice shutter speed.
Of course major underexposure is a problem and should be avoided but I'm talking about proper exposure vs ETTR.

But if people believe that they get better results with ETTR, where they cannot sacrifice shutter speed (hence bumping the ISO up), that's great for them, I'm not against anyone using ETTR. I just don't see the benefit when you're already shooting at the lowest limit in terms of your minimum shutter speed, which you cannot afford to sacrifice in a given situation.

Peter2516 wrote in post #16696021

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …eterbangayan/12​558712163/
1402_untitled_00061 by Peter Bangayan, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …eterbangayan/12​559087714/
1402_untitled_00036-Edit by Peter Bangayan, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …eterbangayan/12​558684253/
1402_untitled_00084 by Peter Bangayan, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …eterbangayan/12​559063624/
1402_untitled_00074-Edit by Peter Bangayan, on Flickr

Nice ones! I want to get some nice shots of the Bufflehead, but they don't like to get too close usually.

Peter2516 wrote in post #16696021

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …eterbangayan/12​559087714/
1402_untitled_00036-Edit by Peter Bangayan, on Flickr

I understand that when distance restricted higher pixel density camera (typically crop camera) will give better result. On the other hand it seems to me that if it's possible to have the same frame using FF and crop camera, the PQ on FF is much better than crop body. So far most of those impressive pics I've seen were taken with FF camera with 150-600. Right now I'm not sure if a crop camera will work better for me or 600mm reach is enough on FF ?

gabebalazs wrote in post #16696031
My opinion is the same regarding ETTR.

I know many people swear that it is great and all that but, just like you said, most of the time in a high ISO situation we are already shooting at the slowest "acceptable" shutter speed.
If let's say a low-light indoor event calls for a minimum of 1/60 shutter speed (e.g. people socializing, chatting, so there is some movement), and you're already at f/2.8 with a 24-70 2.8 lens, obviously you'll get whatever ISO that gives you proper exposure, let's say ISO 1600. Now, how much better off would I be by ETTR and either shooting 1/30s (can't do that), or bumping the ISO to 3200, then pulling it back in post?

I am aware that there are some complex signal-to-noise numbers involved here, but according to my tests, the end result is pretty much the same with my cameras. Shooting at 3200 with +1 EV ETTR then pulled back by a stop results a very similar image to shooting at 1600 at 0 EV. Again, I cannot always sacrifice shutter speed.
Of course major underexposure is a problem and should be avoided but I'm talking about proper exposure vs ETTR.

But if people believe that they get better results with ETTR, where they cannot sacrifice shutter speed (hence bumping the ISO up), that's great for them, I'm not against anyone using ETTR. I just don't see the benefit when you're already shooting at the lowest limit in terms of your minimum shutter speed, which you cannot afford to sacrifice in a given situation.

Yeah, I agree. I just play it by ear when outside in the field. If my shutter speeds are already suffering alot, I'll just have to deal with a bit darker exposures possibly, or at least, not pushing to the right as much as I'd like. Although, if exposing to the right is not affecting the shutter speed too badly, I'll try it.

genjurok wrote in post #16696049
It seems to me that if it's possible to have the same frame using FF and crop camera, the PQ on FF is much better than crop body. So far most of those impressive pics I've seen were taken with FF camera with 150-600.

That would be awesome to your 6D. Are you planning to get this lens or you already have one?

Considering how bad (raining, hailing , weather condition from yesterday I am very satisfied with this lens and it was soaking wet accept my 7D because I cover it but still got wet. I can not wait to have a nice weather to try this lens out specially during summer.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …eterbangayan/12​591307615/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …eterbangayan/12​591300455/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …eterbangayan/12​591285475/

mike325 wrote in post #16695834
Really thinkin of getting this lens. I have a 70-200 f4 with 1.4xii with a t1i that I use for wildlife. My question is do you think this lens will work well with this body? I know most reviews and people who have this lens use nicer, more recen bodies.

What do you think? Thanks. The images in this thread are making it very hard to resist.

You're over-thinking it, Mike Don't worry so much about which body others are using; the lens goes on any of them. It will take more work to get used to working with and to do it well than the kit you're currently using, but would still be a great upgrade if you want to bird.

Peter2516 wrote in post #16696055
That would be awesome to your 6D. Are you planning to get this lens or you already have one?

From yesterday.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …eterbangayan/12​591307615/
1402_untitled_00085 by Peter Bangayan, on Flickr

I don't have one yet, but I'm really tempted. From the pics I've seen, the PQ looks very good on FF camera except 600mm, which is soft wide open but good at f/8. I might get it or wait until Canon releases 100-400L II and see how good it is with 1.4X TC. If at 560mm f/8 it's sharper than the Tammy 600mm f/8 and the price isn't too much over $2k, I might get it instead.

genjurok wrote in post #16696090
I don't have one yet, but I'm really tempted. From the pics I've seen, the PQ looks very good on FF camera except 600mm, which is soft wide open but good at f/8. I might get it or wait until Canon releases 100-400L II and see how good it is with 1.4X TC. If at 560mm f/8 it's sharper than the Tammy 600mm f/8 and the price isn't too much over $2k, I might get it instead.

Sounds like a good plan to me. My 7D is almost 4 yrs old I am now considering 5D mkiii or that rumor 7d II. I am just waiting a few more months for the 7d II if it is true.

genjurok wrote in post #16696049
I understand that when distance restricted higher pixel density camera (typically crop camera) will give better result. On the other hand it seems to me that if it's possible to have the same frame using FF and crop camera, the PQ on FF is much better than crop body. So far most of those impressive pics I've seen were taken with FF camera with 150-600. Right now I'm not sure if a crop camera will work better for me or 600mm reach is enough on FF ?

That's something only you can answer. If you can fill the frame on a FF body, your images will almost certainly be somewhat better than the same framing on a crop (assuming approximately equal numbers of total pixels on both bodies). But if you can just fill the frame on a crop and therefore can't do so on a FF, then it becomes a more difficult comparison. Your individual pixels will be better on the FF, but won't have as many of them in use. Personally, I find myself constantly focal-length limited, so a good crop body is likely to give me better results than a FF and cropping the image in post.

YMMV, however, and in low light the results might be reversed because the FF bodies generally have much better ISO capabilities than crops.