Mike Fewster
Forum Pro
Not so. If you have better IBIS you don't need to have as fast a lens, which means you can have a smaller lens. This is about the size of the gear.
I note that you haven't mentioned Pro capture. That's not maths either.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Will Sony consider creating light long telephotos like 500mm?
I note that you haven't mentioned Pro capture. That's not maths either.
BrentSchumer
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,795
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 4,393
A moving bird needs a high shutter to freeze the action; stabilization isn't going to affect the amount of light you need.
Pro capture is an interesting gimmick but limited:
- In the fastest SH1 mode, you don't AF between frames.
- In the more usable SH2 mode, you require high shutter speed (hey, remember how you were bragging about IBIS and low shutter speeds?).
- Autofocus accuracy is lower with ProCap SH2.
- Limited to certain lenses.
QuietOC
Veteran Member
From 2011 to 2019 Sony sold a 500mm F4 G for $13k--i.e., the same price as the 600mm F4 GM OSS.
QuietOC
Veteran Member
Sony even sold it with their name on it for a few years. It is 230 g lighter than the RF 600mm F11 and about half as long. The copy I had was very sharp.
Robjwilli
Leading Member
- Messages
- 821
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 603
I experimented with an Olympus EM1 MKiii with 100-400mm lens recently as I was also looking for a lighter weight setup to my A1 and 200-600. Turns out the weight is fine when the performance is much better. Both since returned.
not with those slow stepper motors, it's infected most of the z-mount lineup... for example, $6500 for the 800pf stepper motor lens is ridiculous.
o.k., i just saw where nikon finally added hi-frequency flicker reduction.
Last edited:
joger
Veteran Member
A 500 f/4.0 wont be lighter than the G 200 .. 600 - and probably not smaller too - the number of people interested in saving a few gram compare to the 3 kg 600 f/4,0 is probably very small.
Sony is all about size and weight lately - therefore I‘d highly doubt a 500 f/4.0
QuietOC
Veteran Member
Yeah, my 400mm F5.6 doesn't feel much lighter or smaller than the 200-600 G OSS.
Dave Oddie
Senior Member
In which case you could try out what it's like to shoot with a longer but slower and lighter lens by getting hold of a Tamron 70-300 and shooting it in aps-c mode and still have plenty of pixels.
From what I can tell the Canon slow long tele's aren't that good image quality-wise. No idea what Nikon is up to in this space.
J
JasonTheBirder
Guest
The 800 f/6.3 is a PF lens. It has a PF element. It's just not in the name.
N
No account anymore
Guest
1) High quality long lenses has built-in image stabilization that is working together with IBIS.
2) When freezing fast action, stabilization is not needed.
N
No account anymore
Guest
Just use 300 mm focal length and crop with the FF camera, and image quality will be equal to the MFT camera with the 3oo mm lens. About same weight and bulk too, but way more sensor area available for everything else.
dcstep
Senior Member
For bird-in-flight, I find that stabilization helps with initial target acquisition and my ability to track the bird.
SQLGuy
Forum Pro
With the LA-EA5 the total is about 760g
Maybe we should limit these smaller, lighter lenses to 1500 grams which easily covers the three lighter Nikkor lenses I’m thinking about. The 400/4.5, 300 PF, and the 500/5.6 F mount PF.
Snapquacky
Well-known member
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 45
Have to agree, extremely disappointed Nikon chose to use stepper motors in the 400f4.5 let alone the 800pf. People will argue that not all stepper motors are the same but for my money it isn't acceptable :-|
Not entirely sure whether Sony will go for a 500mm prime, would be nice no doubt, 500f4 or 500f4.5 maybe, could slot in to the range, maybe they will spring a surprise :-D
Chris Mak
Senior Member
You are right in debating the strange comparison between the OM1 with 300/4 lens and the A1 with 600/4 lens. I don't really understand why this is still always done. A 300mm f4 lens is a 300mm f4 lens and a 600mm f4 lens is a 600mm f4 lens, all regardless of what sensor area size and sensor resolution you place behind it. It makes no sense to me to compare these two lenses.
Last edited:
N
No account anymore
Guest
My guess is that MFT people want to compare field of view, so that they can claim that larger sensor systems will be much bigger and heavier. They never say that longer focal length means larger image scale on the sensor and better image quality ... ;-)
Last edited:
Chris Mak
Senior Member
Perhaps for e.g. landscape photography, where little or no cropping takes place, this would make some sense, but for wildlife/bird photography it makes no sense at all to compare field of view, because one is always cropping, and mostly significantly, so there goes the FOV comparison out the window.
Comparing lenses dóes make sense, because longer lenses allow to get truly closer to your subject (opposed to the mostly flawed sense of digital cropping power with high pixel density cameras), lenses with a large aperture allow for better subject isolation and more light gathering, as well as large front elements allowing for higher maximum resolution. These benefits are all sustained by physical science, but the FOV comparison does not tell you anything about the benefits of your system, it only tells you how much you are (digitally) cropping.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum