a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

menu
gear symbol (2nd one) tab
page 4 of that tab
first item is FINDER/MONITOR
press center button on circular control on rear while it is highlighted, that gives 3 choices
choose "viewfinder (manual)"
close menu

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Given that most of your BIF shots will likely be at a distance, then cropped in unless a long telephoto is used, wouldn't the solution be to pre-focus on a distant point at infinity and just lock the focus?

James56 Loc: Nashville, Tennessee

I got it...and that worked. I appreciate this so much.

Ricker Loc: Salt Lake City, Utah

The photo that you took of the two ducks is excellent with superior color rendition. Those ducks ARE the colors that are shown in your photo. I'm sure you noticed that you have perfectly focused in on the drake and the hen shows a bit of fuzz. A depths of field situation which could be resolved, if you wanted both ducks in focus, simply by using a larger f/stop. That is a great photo....very crisp! Keep up the good work! Ricker

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Did you mean a smaller aperture/larger f stop number?

Ricker Loc: Salt Lake City, Utah

Yes. Maybe you shot at an aperture of 8 or 11 when shooting with an aperture of 16 would have greater depth of field and both of the ducks would have been in perfect focus.
You may choose to ignore this: A German friend of mine told me that he NEVER uses a protective piece of glass over his Zeiss lenses because he firmly believes that all glass, except for polarizing lens covers, tend to REDUCE the crispness of the the images that are possible using Zeiss lenses. Actually, the polarizing lens cover will also have a negative effect on the images but the effect of the polarizing lens cover outweighs the slight reduction in image quality. He prefers to frequently clean his Zeiss lenses rather than using protective lens covers.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Depth of Field responses:

The observation is correct - only one duck is sharp and that is because it was shot pretty much wide open. Let's do the math. Start with "sunny 16" at ISO 100, ideally. I have found that for birds, 1/1600 is my minimum shutter speed for consistently good results. 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600: That's 4 stops. F16, 11, 8, 5.6, 4.0.

There you go: if you want to both freeze a moving subject AND keep the best possible ISO for signal-noise ratio, then you need a big lens opening (low number f stop). If you want DOF badly enough you either risk blur and/or increase noise. If I wanted f11 for example then I'd need 3 stops of ISO or 800, maybe more if the light is less than ideal. An ISO of 800 is OK but the real image quality is going to be found at lower ISO. This fact of life is more of a problem with an RX10 than, for instance, an a7R2. The smallish sensors just can't compete when the ISO settings rise. That is why I wanted an a7R2 to replace my a6000. The a6000 is almost indistinguishable from the a7R2 at ISO 100 but the difference is very noticeable at higher ISO settings which you often need in real life.

It's a terrific camera but it's not magic. In my next post I'll illustrate why this compromise is a good one for me.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

This almost feels like cheating. We were walking around the Disney/Nature Conservancy site this morning and my wife found this little female woodpecker. She was moving very quickly all the time and often concealed by branches as she circled around them. I used as much zoom as needed and hit the movie button. Much of the movie is just awful. But there was one quick part.. Well, see the frame capture and note the bug in her mouth that she dug out of a hole in the branch.

The ambient light was hazy/sunny but the bird was in mostly shade.

I have done nothing in the way of improving the shot; this is what the camera did, using "standard" creative effect (Sony terminology).

This kind of result is beyond my skills using a normal camera, mirrorless or DSLR. It's perhaps not beyond everyone's skills but certainly this is how I need to do it, if at all.

The frame capture from a 4k video was in TIFF format but that turned out to be 23+ MB so I had to save it as a JPG for this use.

(Download)

IreneAC Loc: San Diego

I am very happy to see your post.

I currently own an RX10, but wanted more reach (I like to shoot birds, boats/ships at sea, and other objects in the surf, among other things). I was looking to upgrade to either one of the Sony a6xxx cameras + a super-zoom lens or the RX10 III. I went to Best Buy and tried all those cameras. The a6xxx cameras were so quick and handled so nimbly compared to the RX10 III. It was like driving a sports car and then a town car. BUT, and this is huge for me, I really don’t want to carry around a heavy, super-zoom lens. I like to travel light! (The a6xxx cameras didn't have a large zoom lens attached so maybe they would have seemed heavier/slower had that been the case.)

I’ve been on the fence since I have never owned a DSLR, but was thinking I needed to go that direction to get the results I wanted. Plus, while I like my RX10 (I’ve only owned it about 18-months), I thought it would be fun to try a different type of camera.

Note: I purchased a Nikon P900, but was unhappy with the IQ, and some of the camera’s features so ended up returning it. The super-reach of the P900 was fun I have to admit.

Your comparison and conclusion taking the RX10 III over the a7R2 has helped me solidify my decision: Rx10 III.
I guess I’m destined to be a bridge-camera owner for the foreseeable future…

Thanks again for posting your findings.

drufe

Thanks for your post. I'm curious about the Tamron 150-600 G2 lens you used with the A7RII - what mount version did you use, Canon or Nikon, and what adapter did you use with it? How did you find the AF results using it with whatever adapter you used? I've been waiting several months now for the Sony A-Mount version of that lens to be released and they keep delaying its release.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I am very pleased at the number of UHHers who have gained from my little effort. Makes me feel useful. Thanks to all of you for saying it.

The Tamron that I WANTED would have been for Sony A mount but that does not exist yet. Therefore I rented the one for Nikon because I have a Metabones Nikon F to Sony E adapter. This adapter, however, did not provide any functionality other than holding the lens in the right position. No AF. The a7R2 provides in-camera stabilization. The Sony version when it is available will not have IS. All my shots with the Tamron, therefore, were manually focused. As was noted by some readers in that thread, it's not a fair comparison. But the size and weight were the deciding factors. If they had not been then I would have probably waited until the Sony version could be tested. I can't say if the Tamron would have performed better with AF but without it, the RX10 comes close to matching it and maybe even bests it.

The extra 50% reach from 400 mm to 600 mm is non-trivial if the IQ is otherwise close. That gives the Tamron an advantage over the 70~400 Sony which is smaller and lighter and performs very well. It would have been a hard decision. But I need a monopod and a ball head to effectively use the Tamron. That adds almost 2 more pounds. Walking around with that over my shoulder became very unpleasant very quickly. I see many birders carrying lenses in that size and weight class as if they weighed nothing. I wish I could do that. But I can't.

In accepting that the RX10 m3 had its own advantages I discovered that very good IQ plus a host of performance features became more important to me than truly excellent IQ alone or than truly excellent IQ plus size and weight. In reality, I'm getting better pictures than I thought I would and many that I know I would not have gotten at all. I have shots taken with my Sony a6000 and the FE 70~2000 that are super sharp and I am happy with them. But an angle of view of 300 mm is a lot less than for almost 600 mm and it takes a lot of IQ superiority to make up the difference. In most cases I find that the bridge camera wins when birds are the subject.

The a7R2 still costs about $2800 and the Tamron costs about $1300. So that's $4100 vs $1500. I can afford the more expensive rig but I don't mind saving money either.

For all of you with the Nikon Coolpix P900, I am very familiar with it because that is what my wife uses. It's an amazing camera and Nikon's design parameters are well chosen for a certain kind of birding. But I agree with those that find its IQ not as good as they would like. That's why I got the RX10 m3 even though the 2000 mm angle of view on the Nikon is simply in a class by itself. Having both on the same expedition is terrific.

denverdon

I've had mine about a month and am very satisfied with it. The only thing I've found, the instruction manual is only on PDF and seems hard to use. It is over 200 pages long, so too long to print. I purchased White's book on Kindle, but it doesn't seem to be easy to work with. Now I bought his hard copy, should get it soon. Does anyone know of another source for a manual?

Bill_de Loc: US

Since the demise of the DL line from Nikon I have been checking reviews of the RX10-III. I new it was coming home soon. After filing my taxes I went to Amazon this morning. All the sellers listed were at $1498. I usually scan the whole page before ordering and noticed that Amazon themselves is out of stock until February 26, with expected delivery of March 1. I guess in order to keep people buying directly from them, their price is $1399. With 5% back with an Amazon Prime Visa, I think $1330 is a deal. I can wait a couple of weeks and just use the old, heavy stuff for now.

If you are on the fence ...


---

Ricker Loc: Salt Lake City, Utah

I ordered one two days ago from Best Buy online for $1,275 (open box, certified by their Geek squad as excellent) and I trust that it's excellent as advertised. If it's not, I can drop it off to a local Best Buy store and they will return it. I checked with the store before I ordered it. They told me that IF I had a problem with the camera, and they had to send it back where it came from, it is highly likely that a brand new camera would be sent to me instead of a certified open box unit. Huuuuum, we shall see. Best regards, Ricker

Bill_de Loc: US

I have read a few reviews that said focus tracking, as birds in flight, leaves something to be desired. I downloaded the manual while waiting for my camera to arrive. In the section on lock on focusing it says it is set and turned off with a button on the back of the camera. This is a departure from the typical half shutter press. I wonder if the reviewers noted this. Have you used, and if so, found an improvement in tracking?


---