Photoclubalpha

Here is a shot taken at the Kelso races, ISO 400, 70-200mm SSM, f5 at 200mm:



URL for full size: http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/104190337

Here's a clip:



I took a few shots - races are not that frequent, even at 5 fps I only got half a dozen images each for a couple of races at half hour intervals. All but one of the frames were well focused, most show the eyelashes or mane hair of the horses. I also used the 2X converter, but this introduced some CA; generally, the extra space for framing and panning given by the looser composition without the converter helped. The pix crop down for repro and I can see uses for the high resolution full frame in shooting action or sports, and being able to crop selectively.

Feel free to post this post URL elsewhere, there seems to be an appetite for A900 shots. Later on, Sunday evening, I hit the beach for some 'Marky' inspired 17mm pix (but my filter kit turns out to contain nothing except Hasselblad adaptors as that's the last time I used it! No 77mm, just 105mm, B60, B50 and so on... so no ND or grad filters). Will put a couple up tomorrow.

David

Thumbs up.

great shot and a perfect illustration of "four feet off the ground"

Thanks for your test!

How is you feeling about the 70-200ssm focus speed and tracking accuracy?

And how do you compare this lens to the Nikon equivalent (if you had the opportunity to use it)?

--
Andrea Olivotto
http://www.andreaolivotto.com

vtube wrote:Thanks for your test!

How is you feeling about the 70-200ssm focus speed and tracking accuracy?

And how do you compare this lens to the Nikon equivalent (if you had the opportunity to use it)?

--
Andrea Olivotto
http://www.andreaolivotto.com

Andrea, you have a very beautiful site with wonderful pictures (I love B&W photography).
Ooh, I almost forgot... welcome to the forum.
As for your question, I am interested in it too.

I can not make a firm comparison with Nikon, as I have shot the same subject from the same position, but in much worse light - very low light - with their 300mm f/2.8 only, on the D3. The Nikon missed a couple of shots (9 fps is much faster than 5 fps so I was able to get longer sequences) for exactly the same reason the Sony missed one - focusing shifting to a background object when the horse missed the active focus sensor, then recovering instantly for the next shot. I have also shot this view with the KM5D and 70-210mm f4 AF 'beercan' and even that was able to pick up focus pretty well (in sunny conditions, like this).

I'd say the A900 so far has proved as reliable as the D3 for focusing, and the 70-200mm SSM is about the same focus speed as the 70-200mm VR (the 80-200mm AF-S is a better lens by far, and also seems to focus faster, or more reliably). It is very slow when you switch on, and takes what sounds like a full second for the lens to set itself to infinity, but fine increments of focusing tracking moving subjects are very precise and fast. My experience with the D700 was not as good as with the D3, and I'd definitely rate the A900 as a better all-round performer than the D700 as far as focus, exposure and general file quality go.

Here is a contact sheet of the shots taken during this race - where one runner was 2 seconds ahead of the next clump (these are not professional jockeys, they are the town principals of all the Border town civic festivals - elected, need to have a good degree of horsemanship, but some have to learn during their year). With centre spot AF, I was firing a couple of shots at 5fps, then quickly aiming back to catch the next batch coming from behind a jump and firing three shots continuous - etc. Focus was picked up reliably all the time.



Go to this URL http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/104213855 and click NEXT, you'll get a set of the shots, plus some more taken on Sunday of different subjects. The 2X converter's slightly softer image and noticeable CA can be seen, also the respectable but not brilliant performance of the 28mm f2, something from the 100mm macro, and a candid shot with the 70-300mm SSM G at 200mm which really shows the level of detail it can manage, plus the distortion:





I don't want to post strings of images here, it's probably better to visit the pBase pages and have a look. I will add some more later. Please remember - no capture sharpening, no output sharpening on most of my samples - where there is sharpening or NR, I'll give details.

David

David Kilpatrick wrote:Here is a contact sheet of the shots taken during this race [...] With centre spot AF, I was firing a couple of shots at 5 fps, then quickly aiming back to catch the next batch coming from behind a jump and firing three shots continuous - etc.

Here you can see why I want more than 5 fps. You caught always the same two phases of the gallop---to resolve the motion into all relevant phases, you'd need a higher frame rate than that. Do you have a similar sequence (min. 3 or 4 shots in a row) of a galloping horse taken at 8 - 9 fps?

I really hope a successor to the A700 will offer a frame rate higher than a mere 5 fps. I do understand that higher frame rates may collide with the image stabiliser ... but similar to the flash sync speed which depends on the SSS being on or off, the max. frame rate could be restricted to 4 - 5 fps with the SSS on and as high as 8 - 10 fps with SSS off. This would really be helpful when shooting equestrian and other sports. I'd consider it fine when at frame rates above 5 fps, the lens' diaphragm wouldn't open fully between the frames so during the burst the viewfinder would be darker (unless shooting wide open). This would circumvent the possible issue with diaphragms not designed for frame rates beyond 5 fps.

-- Olaf

Why would SSS be affected by frame rate?

Dr. Harout wrote:Andrea, you have a very beautiful site with wonderful pictures (I love B&W photography).
Ooh, I almost forgot... welcome to the forum.
As for your question, I am interested in it too.

Thanks a lot for your nice words! Very appreciated.

And many thanks to David for reporting his experience. I think I won't buy the a900 for a long time (I need money!), but I'm very happy to see that Sony has done a good product, near the best in class. I hope there will be a new a750 with some improvements like better AF with the lateral sensors. Or maybe I'll buy an a700 (it's good for me, sure better than my 7D) at the end of its life, for a cheap price.

--
Andrea Olivotto
http://www.andreaolivotto.com