macwalter
Active member
Actually I would be fine with just the bare lens assuming it would work well with an external TC. I would want to be able to use both a 1.4 and a 2x.I'll see you 300 2.8 and raise you a 300 2.8 with a TCTHAT would be cool!
Sony a9iii and 300 GM Announced - Official Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
The 300 f2.8 is intriguing
We have a Safari planned for next July to Sabi Sands Game Reserve off of Kroger and Elephant Camp in Zimbabwe and I'm already starting to think about gear. I had decided to take the Sony kit over my M43 because of the 600 F4 but from everything I've read a 600mm prime is way too much lens for the private game reserves which has thrown a wrench in those plans as I thought that would be my primary lens with a 70-200 or 100-400 (would have to purchase)
If I'm not taking the 600 prime then my primary lens becomes a 200-600, which is fine but once you get those nice backgrounds with a 600mm it's hard to go back. It also starts becoming very close in equivalent to my M43 kit. This is were the 300 is intriguing. Now I'm thinking of a 200-600 and 300 (maybe with a 1.4x TC) combo. The 300 would be the primary lens with the 200-600 filling in for things a little closer/further. I know it's 100% overlap but in the range of photos for the 300 I'd obviously get better background separation. I'd still bring along a 70-200 in case I find things are even closer (maybe stick it on a A7C or something). The Nikon 400TC would probably be perfect
Good thing I have like 6 months to figure it out
We have a Safari planned for next July to Sabi Sands Game Reserve off of Kroger and Elephant Camp in Zimbabwe and I'm already starting to think about gear. I had decided to take the Sony kit over my M43 because of the 600 F4 but from everything I've read a 600mm prime is way too much lens for the private game reserves which has thrown a wrench in those plans as I thought that would be my primary lens with a 70-200 or 100-400 (would have to purchase)
If I'm not taking the 600 prime then my primary lens becomes a 200-600, which is fine but once you get those nice backgrounds with a 600mm it's hard to go back
. It also starts becoming very close in equivalent to my M43 kit. This is were the 300 is intriguing. Now I'm thinking of a 200-600 and 300 (maybe with a 1.4x TC) combo. The 300 would be the primary lens with the 200-600 filling in for things a little closer/further. I know it's 100% overlap but in the range of photos for the 300 I'd obviously get better background separation. I'd still bring along a 70-200 in case I find things are even closer (maybe stick it on a A7C or something). The Nikon 400TC would probably be perfect Good thing I have like 6 months to figure it out
I have the 600 mm prime and the 200–600 and I still use the 200–600 very often. I think it is a spectacular lens for hiking especially when you have good light. I think the images are phenomenal. I wish they could somehow come out with a constant 5.6 version of that lens that only weighed 4 pounds lol.The 300 f2.8 is intriguing
We have a Safari planned for next July to Sabi Sands Game Reserve off of Kroger and Elephant Camp in Zimbabwe and I'm already starting to think about gear. I had decided to take the Sony kit over my M43 because of the 600 F4 but from everything I've read a 600mm prime is way too much lens for the private game reserves which has thrown a wrench in those plans as I thought that would be my primary lens with a 70-200 or 100-400 (would have to purchase)
If I'm not taking the 600 prime then my primary lens becomes a 200-600, which is fine but once you get those nice backgrounds with a 600mm it's hard to go back
Good thing I have like 6 months to figure it out
I agree! My 200-600 is very sharp but I had 2 things in mind taking a faster lens. First is that we'll be doing at least 2 safari's a day (early morning and late afternoon) so getting that extra light to keep the ISOs down would be helpful. The 2nd is that this isn't a wide open area so any help with background separation would be desirable.
1st world problems I know
. If I do nothing I'll still have an incredible trip with great photos!
Honestly if I had to ever make a choice to only keep one it would be the 200-600 because it’s so versatile and great for video as well. Hopefully they’ll be a mark 2 on the horizonI agree! My 200-600 is very sharp but I had 2 things in mind taking a faster lens. First is that we'll be doing at least 2 safari's a day (early morning and late afternoon) so getting that extra light to keep the ISOs down would be helpful. The 2nd is that this isn't a wide open area so any help with background separation would be desirable.
1st world problems I know
Here’s my 2 cents. Take the 600f4 and the 100-400GM. I’d also take the 24-105 or 16-35 and that’s it. I’d take 3 bodies so I’m not changing lenses in dust. I’d take a 1.4TC just in case but avoid using if possible.I agree! My 200-600 is very sharp but I had 2 things in mind taking a faster lens. First is that we'll be doing at least 2 safari's a day (early morning and late afternoon) so getting that extra light to keep the ISOs down would be helpful. The 2nd is that this isn't a wide open area so any help with background separation would be desirable.
1st world problems I know
So many people think when they travel they must limit weight or size so they don’t want to take the big glass. I’d rather just have the big glass and nothing else. If I’m spending that kind of money I don’t want to sacrifice the best glass I can to capture images I can’t get everyday.
Zooms have their place which is why I’d pair the 100-400 to the 600 and be done.
In my opinion, the 100–400 is Sony‘s best zoom paired with the 1.4 TC. I think it is absolutely just as good as the 70–200 GMII. The 200–600 paired with the TC is not very good or at least that's been my experience.
In good light the 200-600 is ok but the 100-400 is awesome.
I hardly ever use the 200-600. It will be going with us to shoot eagles next week but I’ll be shooting my 600. My spouse sometimes has a hard time with finding birds with a big prime so the 400GM with tele might stay in the bag as they will enjoy the 200-600 more.
They are all tools and have their strengths but my biggest issue with the 200-600 when traveling with a big prime is packing it. It takes up so much room when compared to the 100-400 so now that I have it I take it and leave the 200-600 at home.
I think the 200-600 really excels in video use where top of the line glass really doesn't matter. There have been many missed opportunities with video whenever I've been out only with the prime. A lot of times you just done have the room coupled with the fact 4K60 crops in a bit as well. If I only go out for video it's usually the 100-400, 70,200 or the 200-600mm. That 100-400 is honestly good for almost anything including landscape or even portraits.
For those interested Mark Smith is doing a few videos with the 300mm (part one below)
It is so nice to see him active again!
Why did he stop?
I’m not sure. I do know some video aggregator YT channels stole some of his footage for clicks. He was disheartened and had to deal legally with that…he posted some vids on the subject.
But I don’t know if that experience led to him taking a YT break or not.
Agool
Active member
Been to Sabi Sands many times and you only need a 70-200 2.8 or a 300 2.8. I always use the Z70-200 2.8 with the Z400 4.5 as a backup. Which lodge are you going to?The 300 f2.8 is intriguing
We have a Safari planned for next July to Sabi Sands Game Reserve off of Kroger and Elephant Camp in Zimbabwe and I'm already starting to think about gear. I had decided to take the Sony kit over my M43 because of the 600 F4 but from everything I've read a 600mm prime is way too much lens for the private game reserves which has thrown a wrench in those plans as I thought that would be my primary lens with a 70-200 or 100-400 (would have to purchase)
If I'm not taking the 600 prime then my primary lens becomes a 200-600, which is fine but once you get those nice backgrounds with a 600mm it's hard to go back
Good thing I have like 6 months to figure it out
Thanks for the info, enforces what I’ve read! We are staying at Notten’s Bush Camp.
Tony just did a quick YT review of the RAW. Per his "analysis," it's about a stop or so lower in dynamic range (ie noisier in shadows) than the A1, or the same as an APS-C sensor. That's the same as the A9ii at ISO 250.
I'm not a fan of the channel and his analyses are not rigor, but it feels right. Waiting on Gerald Undone or CineD to publish the results now that they can talk about image quality.
I'm not a fan of the channel and his analyses are not rigor, but it feels right. Waiting on Gerald Undone or CineD to publish the results now that they can talk about image quality.
arbitrage
Well-known member
When Tony said the A1 can "gather more light" than the A9III because it shoots ISO 100 I just turned the video off. I'll wait till someone that knows what they are doing tests the camera.
Cameron T
Well-known member
Lol. Did he really?
I haven't watched him in a long long long time, for a lot of good reasons. But man... You'd think he'd do better.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
I won’t give him any clicks since he accused Steve McCurry of taking advantage of the subject in Afghan Girl without the accusations being held to any journalistic standards.
Last edited:
He's an idiot. But his findings are probably correct. Undone who in my book does the best analysis has been unusually quiet, not a word about the camera. And he's a Sony guy
Wrogu
Active member
Of course if base ISO is 250 the image will be more noisy and with lower DR. But honestly, anyone who shoot sports rarely sees low ISOs. Pity there is no second gain AFAIK. But for the job this camera is designed for I am sure the IQ will be plenty enough. Even for strobe work at ISO 250 there should be enough DR and detail to deliver suoer high quality images. And there are ways to remove noise. I would be concerned with lower IQ if it was a landscape or product photography tool ...
ChrisM
Well-known member
The A9III is not meant as a landscape camera, is it?
The A1 does not match the A7RV at iso 100, but beats it at higher iso.
I assume iso 100 will not be missed by many that buy an A9III.
The A1 does not match the A7RV at iso 100, but beats it at higher iso.
I assume iso 100 will not be missed by many that buy an A9III.
I'm high on the wait-list for this body and lens. I know it's a specialist (sports) camera and that's how I'll use it, but I was wishing Sony sprinkled some of that fairy-dust they have locked away on it to get a better IQ than the A9ii. Not putting much weight on Ton's "testing," waiting on others to show us the IMATEST data.
Vincent_VdB
Well-known member
I have been plenty of times to Kruger, including Sabi Sands (twice this year). I have per standard my (Nikon) 600mm TC and the 100-400mm with me. Yes, your cats are pretty close but not always true for your birds. I was very happy to have the 840mm when we had the cheetahs on a part we could not traverse and allowed me to get the shots I was after.
Kruger is more than the occasional closeup from the lion or leopard.. but hey, that is just me.
Kruger is more than the occasional closeup from the lion or leopard.
. but hey, that is just me. The 300 f2.8 is intriguing
We have a Safari planned for next July to Sabi Sands Game Reserve off of Kroger and Elephant Camp in Zimbabwe and I'm already starting to think about gear. I had decided to take the Sony kit over my M43 because of the 600 F4 but from everything I've read a 600mm prime is way too much lens for the private game reserves which has thrown a wrench in those plans as I thought that would be my primary lens with a 70-200 or 100-400 (would have to purchase)
If I'm not taking the 600 prime then my primary lens becomes a 200-600, which is fine but once you get those nice backgrounds with a 600mm it's hard to go back
Good thing I have like 6 months to figure it out
Thanks for the info! If you have any galleries with photos from Sabi Sands I'd love to see themI have been plenty of times to Kruger, including Sabi Sands (twice this year). I have per standard my (Nikon) 600mm TC and the 100-400mm with me. Yes, your cats are pretty close but not always true for your birds. I was very happy to have the 840mm when we had the cheetahs on a part we could not traverse and allowed me to get the shots I was after.
Kruger is more than the occasional closeup from the lion or leopard.