Jump to content

DrJohn

Members
  • Content Count

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by DrJohn

  1. Has anyone use the Sony 200-600 mm lens for astrophotography? I'm considering it for lunar photography. I also have the 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters and the Sony 100-400 mm lens. I also have telescopes, but feel one gets better resolution from camera lenses than reasonably prices amateur telescopes. John
  2. After being cooped up all winter with nasty weather and Covid 19 shutdown in New York, it felt really good to get out hiking and taking photos. This was my first photo of the season. I didn't expect to take any photos so I left the A7RIV home and just took the A6500. The swan was on the far side of the pond. Sony A6500, Sony 70-350 mm at 350 mm, 1/2000 sec, f/6.3, ISO 1250, handheld John
  3. A cold and dreary morning during Covid 19 lockdown in New York. All parks, beaches, trails, etc are closed in NY until at least May 15th. I believe it is a $1,000 fine if caught there. This was my backyard on a cold morning (35 degrees F). No flowers in bloom yet. Not much to photo in my backyard. John
  4. I'm thinking of setting shutter speed and aperture manually and trying out auto ISO. John
  5. I should have said "Waiting in the woods where deer and other animals hang out for many hours." John
  6. Thanks Chrissie for your information. I've been doing wildlife for a long time, but not birds in flight. I have spent many many hours waiting for a shot that never happened. I currently have the A7RIV and the Sony 100-400 mm with 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters. I'm also considering the new Sony 200-600 mm. Both lenses and camera have OSS. I live near the water. So. Seagulls are easy to find. They even fly over my house. And, for some reason I really like seagulls. John
  7. I posted a photo I took sometime in the 1970s of a seagull in flight under the "Birds in Flight" Topic. Following this topic has inspired me. You are all doing such great work. This spring I want to to photograph birds in flight again. I cannot remember the camera settings I used 50+ years ago. Off the top of my head I'm thinking of using a shutter speed of 1/1000 sec and maybe f/6.3 and maybe auto ISO. Please list some settings you have had good results with. John
  8. I was out last night with my A6500 camera and 70-350 mm lens. The focal length was too short for lunar photography. It was what I had on hand and so I took the shot anyway. You can enlarge this photo 200-300% without it degrading too much. I reduced size for the internet. The Sony cameras and lenses are really great. John
  9. The reviews on the Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 Art Lens were excellent. So, I ordered it for $1399. I will use the Sony 16-35 f/4 for travel because it is lighter in weight. John
  10. I have the Sony 16-35 mm f/4 lens that I use for landscape photography. The rule of thumb for astrophotography is f/2.8 or faster. I can't test the 16-35 mm from home because there is almost always clouds or a mist blocking the stars. Has anyone tried it? I'm also considering the Sigma 14-24 mm f/2.8 lens. I have the Sony A7RIV camera. John
  11. The Swans are still in the Northeast. Soon, they will fly south for the winter. Sony A7RM4, 70-300 mm lens
  12. Now they are putting on a show for me.
  13. Ok. I will stick with the 70-300 and the 28-70. I also have the 100-400 with 1.4x and 2x TC, which is too heavy for hiking up and down hills at my age. I use that lens when I'm not hiking. John
  14. I'm currently carrying the FE 70-300 and the FE 28-70 mm lenses on the A7RM4 for wildlife and nature photos. The other day, I was out hiking in the woods and found myself changing between the two lenses several times. And, I missed some shots while changing lenses. I'm considering the FE 24-240, which is supposedly an inferior lens to the FE 70-300. I'm a stickler for resolution. So, I'm not sure what to do. Some reviews say the 24-240 is just ok. Others say it is sharp. What are your opinions? John
  15. I tested it today and got: Uncompressed Raw: 123.4 mb Compressed Raw: 62.2 mb Extra Fine Jpeg: 48.5 mb John
  16. I just got the camera and need to do some testing. Compressed raw is the default, which translated to a file size of 62 mb. I need to find out what the file size is for uncompressed. John
  17. I'm not sure which to choose, compressed or uncompressed raw. The default is compressed raw. Any thoughts on the subject? John
  18. Attached is a test photo I did with my 100-400 and 2x at 50 feet away handheld. I didn't have any problems with focus or exposure. No post processing. Only file size reduction for the internet. F/11, 1/160 sec, ISO 3200 John
  19. For wildlife, I sometimes use the 100-400 mm lens and sometimes with 1.4x or 2x. But, if I don't want to carry that much weight while hiking, I will use the 70-300. If it helps attached is a photo taken with the 70-300. No post processing. Only file size reduction for the internet. John
  20. There are signs posted to not feed them. They run away to their nest when they see someone else coming by. Here's the nest. John
  21. I never feed them. There is plenty of food in the pond. John
  22. I made the decision to go with the 100-400 mm lens with 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters. The photos are razor sharp and the lens is much lighter in weight.The photo below was taken at 40 feet handheld at 400 mm with 2x teleconverter. No post processing. Only file size reduction for the internet. John
×
×
  • Create New...