Camera Nerds?

[AZRedhawk44]

As someone else mentioned above, remember that cropping is your friend for bringing those animals in "closer", at least within the resolution of your camera.

Understood.  The last camera I had with a moderate telephoto lens on it was only 7MP so cropping wasn't much of an option with so little data, nor were large prints.  With 24MP I can crop some, but I'd like a fairly large print if I do get my shot.

[Brad Johnson]

With 24MP I can crop some, but I'd like a fairly large print if I do get my shot.

ISO, f-stop, and image stabilization are your friends.

Brad

[RoadKingLarry]

What software will you be using for your post processing?
I'm a big fan of Adobe Lightroom and do the majority of my processing with that and only rarely use Photoshop but it does come in handy.

Lightroom also has the added benefit of letting you catalog and index your photos.

[AZRedhawk44]

What software will you be using for your post processing?
I'm a big fan of Adobe Lightroom and do the majority of my processing with that and only rarely use Photoshop but it does come in handy.

Lightroom also has the added benefit of letting you catalog and index your photos.

We'll see.  I'd prefer to avoid post processing.  I have software on my Synology NAS that does a good job cataloguing/indexing and allowing you to make use of photo metadata, and I can import them into a photo library on my Plex Media Server if I really feel I want to force someone to endure a modern day equivalent of a slide show, either at home on the big TV or on someone else's TV remotely through the Plex app. 

A friend of mine has good things to say about Lightroom except Adobe has evidently shifted to a monthly SaaS fee for it rather than a one-and-done license.  Not a fan of clouds or SaaS (it's just someone else's computer) and my Syno NAS is my own personal cloud resource I can access remotely if I want.  Friend suggested On1 as an alternative that is a rising star in that genre.

[castle key]

Post processing can create controversy...

I use Lightroom, which merges well with Photoshop. I generally don't do much in PS.

The real game changer is the Topaz Labs AI processors which address so much detail, sharpening, focus correction, grain, and a host of other issues. It will not convert a crap shot into a masterpiece, but it will take a 90% shot to 95%.

[RoadKingLarry]

When I shoot digital I shoot in RAW format. Most of my processing consists of  cropping and alignment with WB adjustments and minor exposure and contrast adjustments.  Depending on the subject I may adjust color saturation and vibrance.

[JTHunter]

As an alternative to Photoshop ($$$$), try "GIMP".
It is a free, open source editing program.
https://www.gimp.org/

[AZRedhawk44]

Very familiar with Gimp.

The Photoshop/Gimp level of photo editing is something I consider either "cheating" or "work."  Not interested in either when it comes to photography.

For recreational use only.

[RoadKingLarry]

Very familiar with Gimp.

The Photoshop/Gimp level of photo editing is something I consider either "cheating" or "work."  Not interested in either when it comes to photography.

For recreational use only.

You need to go old school like I did. 

[AZRedhawk44]

So one cheat I would like to use in post-processing is some sort of "crop to horizon level" feature.

Does anyone here know if On1, Lightroom, or something else is capable of that?

[RoadKingLarry]

Easy to.adjust for tilt in lightroom.

[AZRedhawk44]

I'm unimpressed with the Sony 55-210mm lens.

Didn't encounter any of the wild horses this weekend, but that's to be expected with an 8 year old boy along the hike, constantly throwing rocks or swinging sticks at stuff and otherwise making a ruckus.

I caught this hand-held at 200mm with the new lens as the boy was whittling at a piece of bamboo, from probably 8-10 feet away.  The OSS is certainly a nice feature.



I liked the detail on that one and for longer range portrait or mid-range action/sports things it seems like an okay lens, but if I want wildlife detail it seems to be a bit lacking.  For instance, I was about 25 feet from a dragonfly resting on some submerged greenery just poking out of the surface of the water.  I put the camera on a tripod and manually focused on the dragonfly.



If you zoom in on the subject in the picture, it's just lackluster.  Yeah, it's only a 2-inch dragonfly, at 25 feet.  There's too much glow/bleed being thrown off of it when I zoom in on the only photo edit suite I have right now, Capture One (got this for free with the camera, trying it out before I commit to On1 or Lightroom).  I took the picture in aperture mode with no adjustment so it prioritized light a bit too highly, closing the aperture a little more it would probably be sharper, I think.  Not sure.  I never took a photography class and I'm several years removed from having a camera where I can play with these settings.

Last week I took this pic with the 16-50mm kit lens:



At the same location this weekend, with the 55-210 Sony lens:
55mm:


210mm:


This 55-210 just feels dull, especially when I compare it to what my other new lens can do, the 18-50mm Sigma F2.8.  And it's still lacking in how tight I want the angle of view to be.

[Ben]

I took the picture in aperture mode with no adjustment so it prioritized light a bit too highly, closing the aperture a little more it would probably be sharper, I think.  Not sure.  I never took a photography class and I'm several years removed from having a camera where I can play with these settings.

Everyone has their own opinions, but for something like your dragonfly shot, I would want a lower vs a higher f-stop. In photos like that, I want the dragonfly in sharp focus and things around it somewhat out of focus to one degree or another so the eye goes straight to the dragonfly.

I think most all DSLRs now have an option (like pressing the shutter button halfway) to let you see what the focus will be in the final shot before you take it.

[AZRedhawk44]

Everyone has their own opinions, but for something like your dragonfly shot, I would want a lower vs a higher f-stop. In photos like that, I want the dragonfly in sharp focus and things around it somewhat out of focus to one degree or another so the eye goes straight to the dragonfly.

I think most all DSLRs now have an option (like pressing the shutter button halfway) to let you see what the focus will be in the final shot before you take it.

Yep, half-shutter engaged autofocus on this.  The autofocus engine couldn't discern the dragonfly from all the rippling water, so I manually focused on it.  It's definitely in focus... there's about a foot long slice of water with the dragonfly right in the middle of it that's in focus, and the foreground and background are blurred.

[JTHunter]

AZ - that shot of the dragonfly - what "mm" setting?  Same question on the one with the horse.
The shot with the horse appeared to be the best, but I have a question.  In looking at the shadows, esp. on the rock cliffs at the rear, these were taken at different times, weren't they?  Or was the horse shot on a slightly overcast day?  The lighting on the rocks was more muted and not as sharp on the one with the horse but more evenly lit and with more saturated colors.
The 55mm picture seems to be sharper, possibly because of the greater contrast, but also a bit overexposed.
You have a good eye.

[AZRedhawk44]

AZ - that shot of the dragonfly - what "mm" setting?  Same question on the one with the horse.
The shot with the horse appeared to be the best, but I have a question.  In looking at the shadows, esp. on the rock cliffs at the rear, these were taken at different times, weren't they?  Or was the horse shot on a slightly overcast day?  The lighting on the rocks was more muted and not as sharp on the one with the horse but more evenly lit and with more saturated colors.
The 55mm picture seems to be sharper, possibly because of the greater contrast, but also a bit overexposed.
You have a good eye.

Dragonfly was at 210mm focal length on a Sony 55-210mm f/6.3 lens, shot on November 26th (Black Friday), at 12:20PM.

The horse was a week earlier (November 21st at 10:45AM), with the 16-50mm Sony kit lens, at 50mm and f/5.6.  It was more overcast that day, I had intended to be out closer to 8AM but it was more overcast than I wanted and I waited until it broke up a bit, around 10AM.

I also included a pic of the same scene as the horse picture, but with no horse, shot at 55mm on the Sony 55-210 lens, taken on November 26th, about 12:20PM, shot at f/6.3.

Some takeaways I'm starting to get (which very well might be incorrect?), more aperture is not always better.  It can be countered with ever-faster shutter speed, but peak sharpness, especially at more distant objects, is more appropriately obtained around f/8 in well lit environments.  All 3 of the pics above were taken in aperture priority mode on the camera rather than manual or auto or shutter priority.

[zxcvbob]

Rule of thumb, the least distortion will be about 2 stops down from the fastest.   I can't remember if that's full stops or 2 half-stops.  A faster lens will still be faster when it's stopped down 2 clicks.

I need to dust off my camera...  See if the batteries still charge...  One thing I wanted to try, before I got distracted with something else, was using my old Canon lenses with an adapter and manual-focus them.  The 50mm f1.4 ought to make a great portrait lens for M4/3 format.

[RoadKingLarry]

I've got an adapter to use my Canon FD lenses on my EOS camera, a bit fidgety to use but they are still capable lenses.

[AZRedhawk44]

A friend came over yesterday with an older Minolta A-mount 300mm lens and a Sony A/E mount adapter.  I took it out on the street and started shooting at stuff 200 yards away to get a feel for if 300mm would be adequate and it seems like it'll do the job.

I've narrowed down my telephoto choices to the following:

1. Sony E 70-350mm f/4.5-6.3 G OSS  ($1000)
2. Tamron 18-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di III-A VC VXD  ($700)

Both have lens based image stabilization.  Sigma's 100-400mm doesn't make my cut because it weighs twice as much as either of these two and it is also another 1-2 inches longer.

The Tamron has a more open aperture at its low end but that rapidly falls off to parity with the Sony as you enter common focal lengths.

Drawbacks to the Tamron are it has a tendency to warp and pincushion slightly through its focal range.  300mm limit versus Sony's 350mm.  Dual-nested telescoping barrel is more surface area and more seals vulnerable to dust or moisture intrusion, though it is supposedly sealed fairly well.  Weight of both are right around 625gr.  SIX YEAR WARRANTY is a huge attraction to me though, thinking of taking an expensive lens across a thousand miles of dirt road on the back of a motorcycle.

Drawbacks to the Sony?  $300 more than the Tamron, only 70mm at widest.  If I want to take wide angle I'll have to change lenses, which could be problematic if weather is sketchy.  I've got that lovely Sigma F2.8 18-50mm though which will take much better wide angle shots.  It doesn't sound like the Sony is as well weather sealed as the Tamron.  Only a 1 year warranty, which is pretty awful for a $1000 purchase.

The Tamron is marketed as either the do-all traveler's lens, or the one-and-done lens for people that don't want a stable of lenses.  Tamron also offers a 70-300mm that initially intrigued me but it has no image stabilization so I've discounted it from my options. 

Honestly that warranty issue is bothersome to me with the Sony.  But having a native lens with the body able to handle compensation for pincushion/warp natively is attractive.  I don't own any Sony G glass right now.  But the broad utility of the Tamron means I'm that much less tempted to be swapping lenses in environments where the sensor can get contaminated or damaged.

Not really sure how much the pincushion issue would bother me with wildlife photography, most people that I've seen complain about things like that are doing urban landscape with a lot of broad straight lines.

Thoughts?