70-300 on 7RM3? Or 70-200 and crop?

[thefsb]

I'm attracted to the 70-300 over either 70-200 because it's more inconspicuous. Apart from that its only advantage is zoom beyond 200mm. But in that range its sharpness is relatively weak.

 

Pros and cons of cropping a sharp 42 MP image (or shooting APS mode) vs the less sharp longer lens?

[tinplater]

I'm attracted to the 70-300 over either 70-200 because it's more inconspicuous. Apart from that its only advantage is zoom beyond 200mm. But in that range its sharpness is relatively weak.

 

Pros and cons of cropping a sharp 42 MP image (or shooting APS mode) vs the less sharp longer lens?

In my experience the 70-200 f.4 produced better images, so that trumped the other issues for me. (I sold the 70-300 after owning only a few months)  I kept the 70-200 lens, even after acquiring the 100-400, because of its relatively light weight and excellent images. 

[thefsb]

I want the 70-200 but worry I'll use it less because it's big and white. My habit is to casually take the camera with one lens (usually 1.8/55 or 1.8/85) as an accessory just in case I want to snap something. I'm torn because I worry I'll be disappointed with the 70-300 IQ but, otoh, I might not want to walkabout looking like a ham photog with pro gear.

 

I guess the conclusion here is that I need to work on my self-consciousness.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Is it the f4 or GM lens you're thinking of?

 

In any case I have two points on this conundrum.

 

1) The extra stops of light on the 200mm are more useful than the extra length on the 300mm.

 

2) If you actually do look like a ham photographer, the colour of the lens won't matter.

[Username]

...............

 

2) If you actually do look like a ham photographer,

the colour of the lens won't matter.

   

ROTFLMFAO ! ! !      

     

As to looking like a ham .... living near what many 

visitors consider very photogenic urban environs, 

I offer what ... in my most insightful observation ... 

is the Numero Uno ham identifier in public places, 

so that you can avoid doing it.  

  

NEVVUH wander with your camera out of the bag 

[exception for very skilled stealthy street shooters]. 

There is plenty of time to unbag your camera. You 

are not about to stumble on a Pulitzer Opportunity 

requiring a lightning speed grab shot. You are far 

more likely to be hit by lightning, twice, while being 

pummeled by falling NASA debris. Really true fact. 

    

Do NOT unbag your camera when you encounter 

a likely scene or subject ... so that you can peer 

thru the finder and step back and forth and shape 

up your shot with the camera at your eye. This is 

a giant billboard that screams "HAMMY ! " If you 

are any good at all at this game, you can do the 

above described dance WITHOUT unbagging the 

camera. Then, only AFTER determining where to 

stand, what FL, etc etc, it's finally time to unbag it. 

Get the few necessary frames and quickly re-bag. 

     

I do this verrrrry often. 95% of the time I decide to 

pass on the shot anywho. I also do it when I really 

MUST pass on the shot cuz I don't even have any 

gear with me. It's a lifelong habit :-) Get the habit ! 

[tinplater]

ROTFLMFAO ! ! !      

     

As to looking like a ham .... living near what many 

visitors consider very photogenic urban environs, 

I offer what ... in my most insightful observation ... 

is the Numero Uno ham identifier in public places, 

so that you can avoid doing it.  

  

NEVVUH wander with your camera out of the bag 

[exception for very skilled stealthy street shooters]. 

There is plenty of time to unbag your camera. You 

are not about to stumble on a Pulitzer Opportunity 

requiring a lightning speed grab shot. You are far 

more likely to be hit by lightning, twice, while being 

pummeled by falling NASA debris. Really true fact. 

    

Do NOT unbag your camera when you encounter 

a likely scene or subject ... so that you can peer 

thru the finder and step back and forth and shape 

up your shot with the camera at your eye. This is 

a giant billboard that screams "HAMMY ! " If you 

are any good at all at this game, you can do the 

above described dance WITHOUT unbagging the 

camera. Then, only AFTER determining where to 

stand, what FL, etc etc, it's finally time to unbag it. 

Get the few necessary frames and quickly re-bag. 

     

I do this verrrrry often. 95% of the time I decide to 

pass on the shot anywho. I also do it when I really 

MUST pass on the shot cuz I don't even have any 

gear with me. It's a lifelong habit :-) Get the habit ! 

Like Kai Man Wong?

[Lescatalpas]

I am very happy with my fe70-300. It is very sharp, but optimal sharpness is at f/8. I use it a lot for birding from a hide-out and as a long macro lens since the minimum focus distance is only around 90cm, making it very versatile. It is not suitable for bad light conditions. You will find examples of pictures I took here:  https://www.flickr.com/photos/lescatalpas

[thefsb]

I bought the 70-300 today and then used it to snap the puppy zooming around meadows, wood, and in the river. Lots of fun.

 

To Jaf's point 1) I understand what you mean. Otoh, looking at the pictures I took today, like the one below with disappointing focus, it reminds me how years ago when I had the Canon 4/70-200 I would declare "I find this hard enough to focus! I couldn't cope with the f/2.8 lens." It's even more true now. At f/5.6, the pup's shoulder is in focus, her face is in the foreground blur and her tail in the background blur. Some people strive for minimum DoF but I just strive for some focus, which isn't easy when she's galloping at me full tilt. (I'll figure out the AF on this camera one day ... maybe.)

 

To Jaf's point 2) That's almost certainly true.

 

To Uername's suggestion to always keep my camera in a bag unless and until I know with certainty that the shot will be good, I don't think my draw is fast enough.

 

 

[thefsb]

It's very early but so far I think the 70-300's background blur is better than the 1.8/55 and even the 1.8/85.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

There's no question Sony did a good job on the FE 70-300. Although, native Sony FE lenses do focus very well at f2.8, if you should ever consider a faster lens.

 

As to keeping the camera hidden until you take a shot, I'd like to quote Bruce Gilden:

"Then you're just a sneak."

[thefsb]

I don't doubt the products. The limitation is my skills. Until this year I used an A7 with 55 and 85 primes and seldom tried to shoot fast action. Since January I have 7RM3 and a highly kinetic puppy that's so black she's usually the spike at 0 on the histogram. I just need to take the time to find the configs/techniques that work best and develop the field skills.

[thefsb]

Maybe I should have expected it but I'm surprised how well image stabilization works at 300mm with a still subject. I've taken a number of tests at 1/20 and can't see any camera shake in any of them.

[thefsb]

I am very happy with my fe70-300. It is very sharp, but optimal sharpness is at f/8. I use it a lot for birding from a hide-out and as a long macro lens since the minimum focus distance is only around 90cm, making it very versatile. It is not suitable for bad light conditions. You will find examples of pictures I took here:  https://www.flickr.com/photos/lescatalpas

Those are very nice pictures.

 

It reminds me to mention that the background blur of the 70-300 looks good. The 1.8/55 often produces a jarring effect, for example with foliage in sunlight such as below, which makes me want the 100mm STF. This zoom may suffice.

 

2018-04-22-Lucy-_DSC3233 by The Fsb, on Flickr

[Username]

.............   

   

As to keeping the camera hidden until you take a

shot, I'd like to quote Bruce Gilden: "Then you're

just a sneak."

     

O sure. Like when I sneak up on a bridge or 

other inanimate object. Actually, I made no 

suggestion of keeping your camera hidden 

or being sneaky. I said to leave it in the bag 

and not do all your visualizing thru a stupid 

machine plastered against your face. If you 

are at least semi-capable at photography, 

you can do much better visualizing by eye, 

with the camera involved only as briefly as 

really necessary. 

  

Don't know who Bruce Gilden is. Never had 

heard the name until now, and immediately 

have zero respect for him so far. According 

to your out-of-context quote from him, but in 

the context of the "hammy shooter", we are 

limited to a binary choice, that of being "just 

a sneak" being a "ham" ... which is truly BS.   

   

Feel free to question the difference between 

hiding your camera and merely leaving it in

the bag whilst visualizing.   

[thefsb]

Unsername, I understood Jaf's comment as a joke. It made me smile but not lol.

 

I accept your point even though I prefer not to carry a bag.

 

Since I started using a Sony A7 two and a half years ago it has been my policy to only venture out with one lens. More often 1.8/55 than 2/28. Since November sometimes 1.8/85. It simplified life but I also did it to help develop my skills of imagination of photos. Iiuc, your keep-it-in-the-bag policy aims at imposing a disciple to similar ends.

 

I'm curious how much will change now that I have this zoom and a whole new set of challenges in aesthetics and technique.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Carrying the camera in a bag until the exact moment you are ready to take a photo... that's just crazy talk. But, yeah, the lighter note was to quote Brucie.

[tinplater]

Carrying the camera in a bag until the exact moment you are ready to take a photo... that's just crazy talk. But, yeah, the lighter note was to quote Brucie.

Too much worrying about what other people think about you...as I have aged I care less about perceptions of my hamminess.

[Username]

Carrying the camera in a bag until the exact moment you are

ready to take a photo... that's just crazy talk. But, yeah, the

lighter note was to quote Brucie.

   

Tho I quote you here, jaf, it is not to argue with you. 

It's just a logical connection point in the discussion.  

  

Forget "exact moment" ... I never said that and what 

I actually did recommend has nothing to to do with 

"last moment", "stealth/sneaking", "hiding" nor "what 

people think [of the the ham]".   

   

Soooooo .... lemme try to make this reeeeally clear.  

 

The purpose of bagging the camera is to carry it in 

reasonable safety for the device. The purpose of 

unbagging the camera is to USE it. The ham type 

shooter USES it to visualize ... peering into it while 

working out his images ... and acoarst, finally, also 

USES it to record the image. 

   

Other than for "real street", and action sports, the

reason for keeping the camera bagged until ready to

USE it for recording the image is to avoid using it as

a visualizing crutch in place of one's own eyes.   

   

The idea is to use the eyes and mind To-The-Limit 

without technical aid. Obviously there will be some 

final adjustments after unbagging the camera. IOW 

no "last moment sneak".   

   

The reason that hams look hammy/silly/foolish is 

simply the same as the reason to minimize/delay

"The Unbagging". Hams look silly cuz they really 

are BEING silly, constantly raising a machine to 

their face and prowling around and squatting and   

turning dials on the sacred machine. I recommend 

shunning the hammy dance NOT cuz it looks so 

silly. It doesn't matter if no one else is there to see 

you hamming. It matters that the hammy dance is 

is a dumb approach even when all by yourself in 

the wilderness. 

   

The hammy dance is a lousy substitute for your 

eyes and mind, and stunts your creative growth.   

  

When it becomes habit to visualize without any 

techie crutch, you tend to do it all the time, not 

just when intent on recording images, not just if 

you have your camera with you. Mind-and-eye 

visualizing becomes a mode of being even when 

tending to most other aspects of life. It may be a 

"back burner" thing much of time, but it's always 

cooking/simmering, even when you don't pay it 

conscious attention. And then when it's needed 

[for actual photography] it just pops to the front 

burner, already active and "tuned up".  

[Username]

........... At f/5.6, the pup's shoulder is in focus, her face is in the

foreground blur and her tail in the background blur. Some people

strive for minimum DoF but I just strive for some focus, which isn't

easy when she's galloping at me full tilt. .......

 

 

     

Given the razor thin focus plane I think you have caught 

the best/correct focus. Not just the better compromise, 

but the BEST at the limited DoF in use.  

  

If you had set a fixed focus and let the dog run thru it, 

toward you, and shot at 20 or 30 FPS, you would have 

the above image, and also an image with the face right 

at the in-focus plane.  

  

But at such shallow DoF the focused face would prolly 

not allow the focused shoulders which render that outer 

margin of the whole dog as sharp "spikey" wet fur. You'd 

have a sharp face/eyes but they'd be sitting in the midst 

of a soft-focuses larger dark mass. I can picture the shot 

both ways, and I prefer the posted version. Maybe cuz 

it's not my dog, not my family, so I see it as a successful 

action shot ... where mebbe you want it to be a portrait 

of an individual in your family ?    

   

Here's a visual of what I mean. I sharpened the face and 

slightly blurred the "spikey margin" of the whole dog: 

   

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  

  

   

  

 

`

[thefsb]

Too much worrying about what other people think about you...as I have aged I care less about perceptions of my hamminess.

You're obviously right. But becoming less self-conscious takes time and self-discipline.

 

On the plus side, having a puppy has already brought changes in this regard. I live in a fashionable neighborhood of a big city. I used to venture out only if I was dressed to my satisfaction and I would deplore those dressed like slobs. I still do but now I'm a hypocrite because I walk the dog in sweats and clogs. Carrying a bag of poo somehow legitimizes it in my mind. Next step: learn to handle the dog, carry a bag of poo and a big telezoom all at once.

[thefsb]

Username, neat editing trick. Thanks!

 

And I appreciate your thoughts on the aesthetics, a subject that merits more discussion than we give it. And you make a good point. The drama of the water splashes is another part of what makes it fun and that much is nicely focused too. (Ofc, most people have only seen it on a smartphone display and look for only a few seconds, so what does it matter really? But that's another discussion.)

 

The other option is to stop down some more, which is actually why I showed this example. I understand that an f/2.8 long lens offers more capabilities than the f/5.6 but I do wonder (1) would I every shoot a scene that realizes the value of that capability? and (2) if that were to happen, would I be able to focus it?

 

Fwiw, I changed the AF config on the camera and the focus hit rate improved dramatically. I use M1 on the mode dial for fast-moving action and iterate it's settings through trial-and-error, hoping to find a fixed point.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

The ham-talk carried further than I thought. I think what makes anyone look hammy is if they are self-aware about carrying and using the camera.

 

In photo journalism you often carry two big cameras, one on each shoulder. But you're not really aware of the cameras, you're only aware of the scene. Using and switching cameras is seamless and unteflected. So, you don't look like a ham. On the other hand, if you carry two cameras for show and fumble them about you'll definitely look like a ham.

 

If you carry the camera in your bag and spend time and energy on deciding when to get it out, you not only look like a ham you'll miss a lot of pictures. Even if you shoot static subjects like bridges or landscapes, the light may be perfect for a moment and then change. If the camera is in the bag you'll miss it.

[Username]

......................... I think what makes anyone look hammy is

if they are self-aware about carrying and using the camera.

   .................  

 

     

Amen & Trudat !    

[Username]

................ 

If you carry the camera in your bag and spend time

and energy on deciding when to get it out, you not

only look like a ham you'll miss a lot of pictures. 

 

Even if you shoot static subjects like bridges or

landscapes, the light may be perfect for a moment

and then change. If the camera is in the bag you'll

miss it.

    

And, objectively, this is also true, but not worth 

an "Amen" !    

   

True that fumbling with your bag is a bummer, 

as is fumbling with your camera, car keys, etc. 

Self-evidentially true. Real fact. Also sad fact. 

 

IOW if you got your schidt together then you 

don't fumble with your gear. A bag is gear. So  

if you "spend time and energy" on it, you're 

in need of getting your schidt together ! 

   

Could you miss the shot of a lifetime, or even 

your personal "shot of the day/week/month/etc  

even tho you're a lightning fast unbagger ? No 

denying that COULD happen ..... just like you 

COULD get hit twice by lightning, or even win

the Publishers' Clearing House Sweepstakes.  

   

Pouting over a missed photo is thinking more 

highly of your work than ANYBODY's work is 

deserving of. If you're good, you're productive 

and a few potential "great" images missed is 

just par for the course. 

   

* Cue the jump-in comments about split- *

* second action subjects, such as sports.* 

   

Obviously, one does NOT look hammy with a  

continuously at-the-ready unbagged camera   

at a fast paced sports event, or at any similar

spectacle. That would look quite normal, cuz

it's normal and appropriate, even necessary. 

  

What looks hammy is prowling around like a 

hunter and repeatedly squinting thru your VF 

at possible subjects that clearly aren't going

anywhere in a hurry.  

[sundial215]

I am very happy with my fe70-300. It is very sharp, but optimal sharpness is at f/8. I use it a lot for birding from a hide-out and as a long macro lens since the minimum focus distance is only around 90cm, making it very versatile. It is not suitable for bad light conditions. You will find examples of pictures I took here:  https://www.flickr.com/photos/lescatalpas

 

I loved the insect shots on your Flickr site.  Were these with the 70-300" becasue IMHO, they about as shapr as one could expect.   Also, How diod you manage to get the dof in some  of these shots?  Are these built from several images or were they single shots?  

Until recently , I have been using two formats one for landscape and one for wildlife.  For wildlife I use the m43 becasue it is a whole lot lighter to carry with a lens that is from 100-400mm in length.  My A7r2 is my current landscape camera with shorter lenses from 17mm to 105mm.  But after seeing your images here, I am thinking I might well consider the 70-300 Sony lens.  You mention shooting at f8, I assume that is when your extended to 300mm.  How is the image quality and sharpness at shorter extensions and wider openings?

Again, thanks for showing those outstanding images on your Flickr.