Specifically for the discussion of the A-mount DSLR range
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
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.
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).
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.
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
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!
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
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.
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.
