Photoclubalpha

Although this lens was clearly marked NOT TO BE USED, I feel that this shot - the kind of picture I would never have taken without the extreme clarity of the A900 viewfinder showing the subject almost as an art-form - is worth sharing. The water of the puddle on the old streets of Edinburgh, outside the conference room, picks up the pattern from the breeze and the light from between the houses, and somehow it inverts the water so it appears like a pool of oil or mercury standing on the cobble setts.

http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/103320505 for the full size file



Depth of field is of course limited at f6.3 and 210mm - just half a stop down I think - but the point of focus, with the small blades of grass at the top of puddle, is fine. This is processed using ACR 4.6 Beta. The body was a pre-production model as well as the lens. The firmware is definitely not final, as it consistently reported the 50mm f1.4 lens as having a maximum aperture of f4.5 and it also reported some other wrong focal lengths (but most lens data was correctly received).

David

Do you have or have access to a Minolta AF 100-400mm F/4.5-6.7 to compare it to?

I am partucularly interested in nearly, in-focus bokeh. the 100-400 is terrible at this. Double images all over the place. Far bokeh is fine.

actually it looks like ice. I'd be thinking that I was going to haveto dig up those cobbles and reset them in the spring if I saw that scene around here. When the piture came up I saw it before I read the text and I though man that 400mm can see someplace cold from there. or man it got a lot colder there than I thought it did

Winston wrote:Do you have or have access to a Minolta AF 100-400mm F/4.5-6.7 to compare it to?

I am partucularly interested in nearly, in-focus bokeh. the 100-400 is terrible at this. Double images all over the place. Far bokeh is fine.

I don't, but this was medium distance, and the bokeh seems smooth enough. Also, I won't have access to the 70-400mm for another six months - when they release the final version.

David

Actually rather surprising depth from FF at that distance and focul length (210mm) and f/stop, (assuming standing and aiming down at about 35-40deg.) good density and clarity as well. That water puddle looks like there might be an oil/diesel component involved...car deposits maybe, it seems too have a rolled edge in places. Couldn't find the blades of grass though. what ISO was it, 200, 400.
Greg

Thanks David

There is an amazing amount of detail there! Blades of grass...and even detail of surface tension reflections that the water creates round the cobbles...

For Pre-Production and NOT TO BE USED warnings... thats impressive!

Iso 200 I believe.

Greg Beetham wrote:Actually rather surprising depth from FF at that distance and focul length (210mm) and f/stop, (assuming standing and aiming down at about 35-40deg.) good density and clarity as well. That water puddle looks like there might be an oil/diesel component involved...car deposits maybe, it seems too have a rolled edge in places. Couldn't find the blades of grass though. what ISO was it, 200, 400.
Greg

1/400th at f6.3, -0.3 over-ride, ISO 200

David

Still hoping for a faster zoom from Sony (or anyone actually) for decent sports use at 300 or more. I think Sigma do a 2.8 @ 70-300 for Canon fit but nothing on Sony. Boo.

This looks like it might be a handy little purchase though. I feel nervous every time I use my Bigma at the moment, expecting the screw to strip and turn it into an expensive paperweight.

I like the art you captured in this photo David, especially the surface-tension-driven irregular edges of water contrasting with the orthogonal hardness of the cobble stones is good enough for a photo exhibition collection.

And thanks for letting us know what this acclaimed lens can be up to with the A900.
I hope your trip to Photokina will bring us more intriguing news from the development departments of all brands and definitely from Sony.

Have nice working and pleasure trip,
Yildiz

David,

There has been some discussion on some other boards about this being internal focus, but others stating that it isn't. What did you find?

calpon wrote:David,

There has been some discussion on some other boards about this being internal focus, but others stating that it isn't. What did you find?

I'm sure it uses internal focus, but not internal zoom.

David

yes, sorry, I meant to type zoom 8O

This one is going to be tempting.

Winston wrote:This one is going to be tempting.

It is already tempting me (not sure to which should I upgrade from SAL75300, the 70-300 G SSM or this one).

calpon wrote:yes, sorry, I meant to type zoom 8O

I've been thinking about it, and I can't remember the zoom extending like the 70-300mm SSM does. However, I was looking through the lens not at it! The zoom is the front ring. Internal zoom is nearly always the rear ring, as with the 70-200mm SSM. The 70-400mm is built like the 70-300mm in layout, so I think that the front was extending during use, though maybe not as dramatically as the 70-300mm.

David