I'd agree with most of the comments about depth of field, shutter speed, being hand-held and the possible need to micro-tune the lens. But why not get a decent artificial bird and do some test shots using it and, in particular, compare results using and not using a tripod. Use a remote or the timer and try live view and mirror lock. Obviously you might not want or be able to use a tripod in the field but at least you'll know if it's you or the lens. Also, do it in RAW.

It is still a very nice shot though.

I would argue that, rude as it may be, if people like that are taking the same photograph as you are then just buy a postcard.

I don't know for sure but recall when I tried this that the lens reverted to fully open aperture. I have recently got a Fotodiox pro-fusion adapter. Unfortunately autofocus is slow or nonexistent but it does allow the a6000 to control the aperture even though focussing is best done manually. They are only about $90 so it might be worth the upgrade.

I have the Tamron. I don't know if it's better than the silver version of the Sony but it's cheaper and ideal for travel photography. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or f/2.8 might be a nice compact prime to supplement the zoom if you wanted to take a prime along. The f/2.8 is really sharp and weighs only 5oz and makes the a6300 very compact.

I cannot speak to the video. But to go lighter consider a used Canon 135mm and an extender. It is not a zoom but would probably cover your needs. Add a Canon RP and you're in business!

Any opinions on/experience with this, which converts a ball head into a gimbal? It's $30 off it seems at B&H as compared to elsewhere.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/754602-REG/Jobu_Design_BWG_M1_BWG_Micro_Gimbal_Ballhead_Adapter.html?sts=pi-ps

I agree that it's easier, in practice, to memorize them. Still, I think it's important to understand why they are why they are what they are. You're correct that it should be f5.7 by the rules of rounding. Or f5.657... (etc)! I think manufacturers try to go with the physically correct numbers -- so, theoretically, the f5.6 aperture should aim actually to let in half the light of f4 and so is, ideally, constructed to be as close as possible to f5.657 -- but, obviously, there will be some, possibly significant, error -- which are where T-stops come in (mainly) for movie lenses.

The sequence of f-stops goes as multiples of Sqrt[2] ~ 1.4 and not by doubling and halving the f-stop. So, if you start with f4 you get f5.6 and f2.8 on either side of it. These correspond to half- as much and twice- as much light, respectively. That's because the area of a circle is proportional to its radius-squared (A = pi r^2). So if you want to double (halve) the amount of light you increase (decrease) the radius (essentially the aperture if the iris were a perfect circle) by a factor of Sqrt[2] ~ 1.4.

Now, if you remember f4 and f5.6, as Timmer suggests, you can generate them all by doubling and interleaving the two series you get.

However, it's not that hard to multiply by 1.4 is it? Start at f2 and remember that 2 ~ 1.4^2

I would say that it depends on what you do. That seems obvious. I would not take my 5D Mk IV on a backpacking trip. So I take a Nex 3n instead. For walk-around stuff I usually take my a6000. As they say in Spain, Hay gente pa to'.

Well, while that's true I would suggest that it doesn't so good (at least not to some of us here) even if it were to live up to the claims. AI is amazing and has its uses, even in photography. But it might take the fun out of it for many of us.

Dennis,

Agreed 100%! I also have a menagerie of cameras old and new, film and digital.

Thanks for the reply,

David

Dennis & Bob,

I totally agree. Almost any photograph of any scene on the planet can be found online (obviously people, weddings, etc. excepted). The fun is in doing it oneself. To me it's the difference between watching a film about, say hiking the Colorado Trail or a Safari in Africa and doing it oneself. Now, both can be fun but the idea of buying a nice camera and then having AI take over is not my idea of photography. It's the difference between seeing a really nice image and having made it oneself, even if one's own image is not as good. The difference between eating in a great restaurant or cooking something at home. Both have their place but the AI idea is (perhaps) like inviting somebody over for dinner but having ordered the food in and passing it off as one's own. I would think that a better alternative, should you want to go that route, is the new Google smartphone (or similar). That is, if you simply want nice images as a record then why bother with a nice camera? My sister routinely makes excellent images on her smartphone and wonders why I bother with a camera -- but to her, it's all about recording a moment (and I have 100% sympathy with that idea -- nothing wrong with that at all).

As they say in Spain, "hay gente pa' to' " or, "whatever floats one's boat." So, this is just my opinion, not a value judgment on other people.

And, of course, it could be quite a useful learning tool. I would push that angle (and maybe Arsenal does, I haven't looked.)

For even more fun learning, my suggestion is to buy an old film camera.

And they did get soundly beaten by Southampton!

I really like this. It is slightly above your price limit but I use it with a Canon 5D Mark iv and a Canon 400 mm f/5.6 lens. It is sturdy, heavy and well made.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1157830-REG/benro_tma28a_mach3_aluminum_series_2.html