A weekend with the Sony a7iii

Life is a funny old thing. You never quite know what might happen next. Case-in-point, this weekend just gone (as I write this).

It just so happens that over this last weekend, our daughter and her partner had planned an 'elopement' here in Greymouth. We knew about the elopement - just the parents were invited - so we were 'planning' a wedding - and getting ready for grandkids, a new puppy(!), catering for a small gathering etc.

I was going to be doing 'some' of the photography on the day (just try and stop me) - the getting ready at our home and the bridal party photos afterwards. A friend of the family would be covering the actual service and family photos.

Leading up to the day, I looked over my photography gear to decide what I might use. Of course I have the recently acquired Sony a57, with SAL18250 lens, which is decently sharp from 18mm up to around 100mm. This should cover most bases on the day, together with the 50mm f2.8 macro. I also have the Sony a99, which I could pair with the 50mm for a low-light option indoors. So I figured I could manage pretty much everything on the day with this setup.

Unfortunately, rain was forecast. So I thought things might get a little 'gloomy'. Since I haven't got a flash for the Sony's, I thought I would ask Stew (from who I have the loan of the a99) if he had a flash that might work? I also explained the 'elopement' scenario. Wasn't really expecting his reply though....

"Yeah, I've got a flash that will work with the Sony's", he said. "But why don't you just use my a7iii for the weekend? You could use it with the Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8 and have the whole day covered".

What's a guy, whose been reading up on the a7's for the last month and wondering what it would be like to shoot with one, supposed to say to that!? Except, of course, YES!

Those who have been following along with my blog (shame on you if you haven't), will know that I have seriously been considering my next camera move. And that my next camera move is most likely to be full-frame. And that top of my list for 'affordable' full frame options, is the Sony a7 line (more specifically the A7ii or A7Rii). Check out my last few posts if you haven't already.

Anyways, as much as it's wonderful to 'dream' about this stuff, and play around with 'what-ifs', it's another thing to actually have the gear in your hands. And it's even better if you can get to spend a decent amount of time actually using said gear out in the field. Now, it seemed, I was going to get to do both...

Daddy & daughter time. Sony a7iii (ILCE-7M3) with Minolta 85mm f/1.4 - f/2.5 @ 1/400th, ISO 200 

First of all I want to preface everything I'm about to say with the following statement - image quality from the 24MP sensor on the a7iii is simply gorgeous! There, I've said it. The dynamic range of the sensor is excellent - about 14.5 stops - allowing details to be retained and recovered in both shadows and highlights. The above image was very contrasty, with a lot of bright highlights and deep shadows in the RAW capture, but the recovery of both still looks very natural. A truly great result. So not surprisingly, no issues with IQ whatsoever.

Ok, here it comes...

BUT, I didn't really enjoy shooting with the camera. Unfortunately. For a couple of reasons. One that might be fixable, but the other - maybe not? Let me explain...

First - the fixable issue. The weight. At one level I can't (and shouldn't) complain - because I got to borrow and use some truly amazing glass with the a7iii. I mostly (95% of the day) used the incredible Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70mm f/2.8 ZA SSM II (SAL2470Z) lens (pictured right), and as already stated above, IQ is outstanding. But... it also happens to be an A-mount lens, therefore requiring an adapter to fit the E-mount, and it also happens to be unbelievably heavy (about 1kg including adapter). The camera body itself is a solid 650grams - so the total package comes in at around 1.65kgs. 

Pretty hefty to be carrying around all day, and you certainly know that you have some gear with you. But I did say that this was 'fixable'. And of course it is. Just use lighter lenses... Easy. And, of course, also having dedicated E-mount lenses would  help eliminate some of the weight by getting rid of the adapter. Fair enough.

Emy and Emily. Sony a7iii with SAL2470Z

But, what if your E-mount lens happens to be the equivalent FE 24-70mm f2.8 G, at 886grams? That's still about 1.5kgs to be carrying around. Not insignificant.

You could, of course, say "harden-up you big sook and be a man! If you want to go to full-frame, then heavier cameras and lenses are par for the course. Grow some muscles and get over yourself"!

To which I would say - fair enough. I agree. If... if it wasn't for my second (and major) gripe with the a7iii - it's handling and ergonomics.

Because I also happen to have another full frame camera at the moment. The Sony a99. And it, too, is not a lightweight camera. In fact, it's even heavier than the a7iii (at 812grams). But, when I attached the aforementioned SAL2470Z lens to the a99 - with a total weight of almost 2kgs - it felt so much better to hold and use than the a7iii. Where the a7iii was cramped, sharp, and angular, the a99 was comfortable, rounded and relaxed. Even with the weight. The a99's ergonomics are such a superior experience, it's like night and day.

Ok then, what about a grip? The a7iii will take a grip that will increase the hand space and therefore make it more comfortable to use (playing devil's advocate).

Yes, this is true. And I would absolutely get the grip attachment for an a7 if I go down that route. I do agree that it should/would improve the handling significantly. It's unfortunate that it's another thing to have to buy - but there you go. I'm getting used to this with mirrorless systems.

Of course the added grip would also help by including a shutter button when the camera is in portrait orientation - another bonus - and increase the already excellent battery life (of the a7iii at least).

Mrs Emily Hunt. Sony a7iii with SAL2470Z. f/4 @ 1/500th, ISO 200

Which brings me to my last gripe. Which also has to do with the ergonomics of the camera. And which won't be fixed by adding a battery grip. And that's the exposure compensation dial on the camera. It's awful. Truly awful. I don't know about other versions of the a7, but on the a7iii it's way too stiff and hard to move, and it actually hurt to use it. The dial is sharply ridged (presumably for better grip), but because it's so hard to turn, it very quickly started taking skin off of my thumb! I ended up switching out exposure compensation to the control wheel next to it, which was so much easier to use. So yes, again another work-around. But really!? If the exposure compensation dials are of the same design, and the same stiffness to use, in all the other a7 cameras, then I really don't think the Sony a7 line is for me?

Maybe it's just this copy of the a7iii? I've done a little research, and some people on-line complain that it's too easy to change accidentally on the a7ii? So maybe they made it a little stiffer on the A7iii? And I could always just shoot fully manual and forget about the exposure compensation wheel altogether? Which is an option.

But the menus also drove me a little crazy as well. Not very intuitive to use (and this from someone who used Olympus for years).

I guess I just didn't love my time with the A7iii as much as I'd hoped that I would? I did love the images it produced though. And maybe all the other stuff is just, well, stuff? A grip would help, for sure. And a slightly less stiff exposure compensation wheel. And if I got used to the Sony menu system...

So maybe I haven't counted the Sony a7's out completely. But there are some caveats. Poor ergonomics is something that has plagued the a7 series from the very beginning. And there is no doubt that there are better handling cameras out there. But is there better value? Or a more filled-out system? Or better IQ than the Sony's? Probably not.

The Lure of Full Frame cameras

Oh dear.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

I think I might be falling for an old flame!? One that I thought I had finished with years ago. And one that, in this very blog, I vowed and declared I didn't care about anymore.

But I bumped into her recently, and we've kinda reacquainted. I've started seeing her off-and-on again. And I have to admit that it's been thrilling. I'm enjoying it. More than I maybe would like to admit. And now I can't stop thinking about her. And dreaming... and hoping....

Ok, so if you've read the title of this blog post, you'll know where this is going. I have recently switched systems (as is my want) over to the Sony SLT range - more specifically the Sony SLT a57. The decision to move to Sony was largely due to the fact that I have some very nice Minolta glass, and the full-frame Sony a99 'on-loan'. So a very full and comprehensive kit was just begging to be made. 

I've had the a99 for probably a year now, and never really explored its capabilities. For a few reasons. First, I had my main kit - the Olympus OM-D E-M1 micro four thirds system that I was enjoying using, so the Sony just sat in my cupboard, unloved. Second, I had actually lost interest in photography over this last year for various reasons (covid lockdowns being prime among them). And third, I had talked myself into this 'smaller is better' frame of mind that had disregarded full frame as an option in my workflow. Yeah, I know...

When I decided to leave the micro four thirds platform and go to the Sony SLT system, of course I dusted off the Sony a99 so I could start getting used to the Sony eco-system. I had used it briefly about a year ago, when Sony unofficially discontinued their A-Mount line. I wrote a memorial for the system, and used the a99 at Coal Creek Falls (you can read that post here). I loved using the camera for that brief period, and even suggested in later posts that I was sorely tempted to look at full-frame again. But then 'reality' took over, and micro four thirds consumed my attention.

But that was then... 

Rapahoe Beach poles. Sony a99 with Minolta 17-35mm f/3.5 G. f/11 @ 1 sec, ISO 50

My first time using the Sony a99 in a 'serious' landscape shoot rocked my world and blew my mind. No - really! Very few cameras have managed to do this to me over the course of my 35+ years in this hobby/profession - and I've used a lot of cameras.

The 24 megapixel full frame sensor in the Sony a99, shot at ISO50, creates beautiful files that are sharp and contrasty, with a nice 'pop' to them, and yet they also have a very filmic quality. They actually remind me of the files I got from the Fuji X-trans sensors, but better!

As can be seen from the image on the right, the RAW file was deliberately underexposed to retain information in the highlights. I figured that I could recover 'some' detail in the shadows later in post, but if I had to let some areas remain black I would.

I was amazed at not only how much detail I could pull out of the shadows with the full frame sensor, but how clean the shadow areas were afterwards. With micro four thirds, or even APS-C, I would expect to have to do some noise-reduction cleanup afterwards. But not with the ISO 50 files on the a99. Even after cranking the shadow recovery up to 100%, the shadow areas that remained were super-clean! And yes, I'm impressed. And yes, if that's one of the benefits of shooting with full-frame sensors, then count me in!

Motukiekie Beach, Low tide. Sony a99 with Minolta 17-35mm f/3.5 G. f/11 @ 2.5 secs, ISO 50

My next outing with the a99 - to Motukeikie Beach - pushed the sensor in the a99 even further. Both the highlights and shadows needed full-recovery to get the image above. And once again, I'm super-impressed with the final result.

There's no way I thought I was going to recover all the shadow detail in this file - let alone do it 'cleanly'. And yet the 24MP sensor on the a99 has done just that - with flying colours!

The a99 is also a fantastic camera to use out in the field. It has the best articulating screen I've ever used - no contest. Not even close.

It's solid and weather-sealed without being a brick, has dual card slots, and a plethora of on-camera buttons that make changing settings an absolute breeze.

Yeah, ok, I'm gushing. It's embarrassing. But it's also almost hard not to. I think this might just be my perfect landscape camera - of all time! Wow!

My 'new' Sony a57 has a lot to live up to. And of course, it doesn't. Not even close. Not that it doesn't also take some great images. Because it does. And the sensor is also pretty pliable - for a 16MP APS-C sensor. But it's not a patch on the mighty a99 - poor wee thing.

So I'm getting an a99 - right? I mean, I've just said it's my perfect landscape camera. What am I waiting for?

There are three reasons I won't be getting the Sony a99 anytime soon. Price, price and... price. Even on the used market here in NZ, an a99 body goes for a ridiculous amount of money. Around $3000NZ. And you can double that for a used a99ii! That's just stupid money. Even for my most favouritist camera😢 (and yes, I made that word up).

So no, I won't be getting one anytime soon. Or probably ever! "But what about the one you've got on-loan"? I hear you say. Jolly good question. I'm glad you asked. Two things about that give me considerable pause. First, the a99 I have on-loan is 'on-loan'. Obviously. I'm not going to create a system around a camera that doesn't even belong to me. And second, it's had a pretty hard life. The command wheel has fallen off and it's permanently stuck on Aperture Priority (fortunately), and the control dials are a little sticky and 'unresponsive'. They work, but not consistently. Lord only knows what the shutter count on the camera is? I shudder to think. If this was my 'main' camera, these things alone would drive me nuts. Even if it turns out that I can keep the a99 as my forever camera, I'd be looking for a 'better' unit. And I simply can't afford the asking price. I guess that's it for full frame then?

Not so fast there buddy. All, perhaps, is not lost. Full-frame cameras - both DLSR and mirrorless, have been around for quite a while now. Long enough so that the earlier models are appearing regularly on the used market - for 'reasonable' prices.

Cameras like the Sony a7ii and a7Rii - 24MP and 42MP respectively - are coming up regularly for around the $1400 to $1800 range. Which, while still not 'cheap', is a little more affordable than a used a99. And I'm betting that image-wise the quality from the a7ii's 24MP sensor will be as good, if not better, than the a99's. No - handling won't be quite the same. The a7ii only has one card slot, is probably half the weight and size of the a99, and doesn't have the same articulation on its LCD screen. And apparently the battery life on the earlier A7 range is abysmal. But I could live with all that. Ultimately it's the IQ that matters most.

So yes, I've been looking up information on the Sony a7ii range, keeping my eye out, and dreaming that one may be in my future. And then, just to mix things up a bit, there's the 'dark horse' in the race....

My desire for full-frame digital began in about 2008, when I got the original full-frame DLSR, the Canon 5D. It too was an eye-watering price for a camera when it was first released. I waited three years for it to come down from eye-watering to just plain ridiculous before I jumped in and got one. I was shooting weddings with a 30D at the time, and moving to the full frame 5D was a huge jump in quality.

The Canon 5D was another one of those 'wow' moment cameras for me, although I ended up having something of a love-hate relationship with it.

Even though I used to shoot 'professionally' I've always looked after my gear. There's never a scratch on them (unless I purchased them pre-scratched 😆) and I'm not the sort of photographer who throws my gear around because they are 'just tools'. Yes, they are tools. But they also happen to be very expensive tools. So I look after them. Imagine, then, my surprise when my pristine 5D just stopped working one morning before a wedding! Failed logic board (apparently). I was gutted. And a bit burnt from the experience.

I was still paying it off, and couldn't really afford to get it fixed (it was about 3 months out of warranty). So I used my backup 30D for the wedding, and then promptly changed to Nikon (the amazing D300). It wasn't until the next wedding season that I managed to get the 5D fixed, and then I ended up going for a swim with it in a river! Never a good idea. One completely dead 5D!

I haven't had a 5D, or a full frame camera, since. But now that they are up to the Mark IV, and Canon have announced that there won't be a Mark V, older bodies have started coming down in price. People are switching to the mirrorless R system, and DSLR's are becoming 'old' tech (and therefore cheaper). You can pick up a 5D MkIII for about the same price as a Sony a7ii. They are, of course, very different shooting experiences. But for someone who grew up with Canon (first film and then DLSR), a move 'back' to the 5D system actually has quite a lot of appeal.

Of course, all of this is simply a 'what if' mental exercise. I still don't actually have the money to make it happen. BUT... (isn't there always a but) I certainly am not counting it out for the future. I have been booked to shoot a wedding this time next year (March 2023), and who knows? I'm doing it on the 'cheap' for somebody I know - but I might just make enough to get back into the world of full frame?

I know I've said ad-nauseam on this blog that you (I) don't need 24 megapixels. Or full frame. Or even APS-C. Especially if, like me, you only print occasionally - and even then, not very large. And indeed, you don't. And I stick by that unequivocally. I still maintain that for 'general' photography, 24MP (and full frame) is overkill.

But (there it is again), what shooting recently with the a99 has shown me, in relation to full frame, is the superior performance that it does bring to the table when post-processing. And how beautifully clean the images are at low ISO's. When dealing with pixels and light-gathering information, we've all known for a long time that bigger equals better. Bigger photosites that is. Which is why a 16MP camera can sometimes produce 'cleaner' images, with less noise, than a 24Megapixel camera. Because their photosites are bigger (sensor size being equal).

I have always introduced myself as a landscape photographer - first and foremost. And as a landscape photographer, I'm often dealing with extremes. Of weather, of light, and of the sensor's dynamic range. It's a constant struggle to fit what you see in front of you, into the camera's range of information. HDR photography was invented for this very reason. And if cameras really are just tools, and if you should always choose the right tool for the job, then as a landscape photography maybe I'm just coming to the realisation that larger, full-frame sensors, really might be the best tool for my job!? Better late than never I guess? 

Testing the Sony SAL75300 and Sony SAL18250 lenses

a57 with 75-300. f/8 @ 1/320th, ISO 800

I have continued to persevere with bird photography now that I have the Sony a57 and SAL75300 lens. On an APS-C sensor that equates to a 450mm equivalent fov (field of view), so I can get reasonably close to the wildlife.

But I can't say that I have been blown away by the performance of the Sony 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 lens. It's certainly not 'tack' sharp (or even close) at the 300mm end - which is exactly where you want to be if you buy a telephoto lens. 

Case-in-point - the other evening I went back down to my local lagoon and followed a Grey Heron around for about an hour. He slowly became used to my presence, and so I got reasonably close. I managed to get some decent poses, fairly close up, but the light was low, so I had to crank the ISO up (again). I've had to do this on both occasions now and I'm beginning to think that the high ISO's are contributing to the overall 'softness' I'm experiencing with this lens?

Of the 250-ish images I shot of the grey heron, I kept just four. All the rest were just too soft. And the four I kept only just snuck through.

So I decided that on the next sunny day, I was going to go out in the middle of the afternoon, in bright conditions, and test the lens at ISO 100. On a tripod. With a 2 second delay on the shutter. At all focal lengths and apertures. Just to see what this lens is really capable of in a 'best case' scenario. So that's what I did this weekend.

And while I was at it, I thought I'd test the SAL18250 at the same time. Just - ya know - because. So sit back, relax, get a beverage, and lets find out how good(?) these two lenses are...

Greymouth Wharf from Cobden. Sony a57 with SAL75300. f/8 @ 1/250th, ISO 100 (at 135mm)

Looking across to the Greymouth Wharf area from Cobden Lagoon is a great place to do these kinds of telephoto lens tests. First because there's plenty of space to set up your tripod, second because it provides lots of details and contrast to lock in on, and third because it's only five minutes from my house 😆

I set up as outlined above; on a tripod, with 2 second timer, central focus point (yes, I auto-focused because that's what I do 99% of the time in real-world shooting conditions), steady shot off (because I'm on a tripod) and aperture priority mode so I could speed up the process, since I would be working through all the apertures at every focal point marked on the lens barrel. Easy...

After I had all the images, I opened them in Lightroom, looked through each set of f/stops for each focal length I shot at, and chose the sharpest of the set. The lenses 'sweet spot' at that focal length, if you will. Below, are the results.

The selections above are all central crops at 100%, made in Photoshop, with my 'normal' sharpening applied (Unsharp Mask Filter applied at 125%, Raduis 1, Threshold 0). It might be difficult to make out what's happening from a low-res internet image, so I'll just tell you what I found....

The Sony SAL75300 lens (at least my copy of it), is soft at 75mm across the aperture range - with f/16 being somewhat presentable. But this isn't a lens I will be shooting at the 75mm end. Period 

From 100mm through to about 250mm, the lens is what I would call 'acceptably' sharp from f/5.6 to f/11 - with f/8 more than likely being the sweet spot. Images within this aperture and focal range are sharp, without being 'tack' sharp. This lens never really manages tack sharp.

At 300mm there is a fall-off in overall sharpness again, although not as bad as at the 75mm end (where it really is horrendous). At the 300mm focal length, f/5.6 to f/8 is 'reasonably' sharp, but I would stick to the 100 - 250mm range for better performance if I could. The lens has other issues at 300mm as well, exhibiting high levels of purple fringing. This is very evident at f/5.6, becoming better (although not completely gone) at f/8. Even with 'Remove Chromatic Aberrations' ticked in Lightroom's lens correction tab.

I thought that maybe the 16MP sensor of the a57 wasn't doing the SAL75300 any favours, and it may perform better on the full-frame 24MP sensor of the a99? So, of course, I tested this theory as well.

Once again, I'll decipher the low-res findings for you...

Basically, nothing changes. Apart for the fact that the a57 crop sensor is producing a slightly bigger fov for equivalent focal lengths - the actual sharpness remains relatively the same. Yes, the a99 is ever so slightly 'cleaner' (ISO 50 compared to ISO 100), and maybe a hair sharper? Maybe. But nothing that makes it shockingly different.

So bottom line with the Sony 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 (SAL75300); don't shoot at 75mm (at all), stick between 100-250mm and between f/5.6 to f/11 (let's just call it f/8 shall we?), and you should get 'acceptably' sharp results. Depending, of course, on your idea of 'sharpness'.

Cobden Lagoon. Sony a57 with SAL18250. f/8 @ 1/400th, ISO 100 (at 18mm)

Ok. So having established that the SAL75300 is really a 100-250mm, lets tackle the 18-250mm super zoom shall we!?

The SAL18250 is another one of those lenses that gets a bad rap from some reviewers. Actual users, on the other hand, often have some good things to say about this lens. Let's find out for ourselves.

Same process as above for the 75-300mm lens, although I changed position slightly so that there would be some interesting foreground in the image. Going through the apertures and focal lengths on this lens, what did I find?

Deciphering the above from what I see full-screen on my desktop computer at home, there's some good news if you want to use this lens as a pseudo landscape lens (as I do).

From 18mm up to 70mm, the lens performs very well in terms of sharpness - from f/5.6 to f/11. I wouldn't hesitate to use any combinations of the above. 18mm up to 35mm is even sharp through to f/16, which is a great result for us landscape photographers. Lens correction at the extreme 18mm end works well in Lightroom, and the corners are also nice and sharp. So at the 'wide' end of the lens, I'm very happy.

From 100mm up things change slightly. At 100mm sharpness is good from f/5.6 to f/8, and at 200mm from f/6.3 to f/8. At the extreme telephoto end of 250mm, only f/8 is what I would call 'acceptably' sharp.

So again, the good news for this lens, as a walk-around/travel/do-it-all superzoom, is that if you lock the aperture down at f/8, then practically all your images will be sharp. And if you want to use it as a landscape lens at the wider ends, then you have a great range of f/stops and focal lengths to choose from (up to about 100mm).

All-in-all I think this is a great result, and I'm well pleased with the SAL18250. 

I'm less pleased with the SAL75300, due to the less than impressive performance at 300mm (and 75mm). So does that mean I should just use the SAL18250 for everything and leave the 75-300mm at home?

Actually - no. Because again, based on my testing, the SAL75300 is a decent performer from 100mm to about 250mm. And the SAL18250 is an excellent performer from 18mm to about 100mm. Can you see the synergy here? The 75-300mm picks up where the 18-250mm leaves off. So effectively, with both lenses, I have decent (to sometimes excellent) performance from 18 to 250mm using both lenses. I did, of course test this theory out as well...

Hopefully you can clearly see that the SAL75300 is sharper from 100mm to 250mm than the SAL18250. Which means that it is still worth keeping both lenses, and taking both with me when I go out. If the 75-300mm lens was a big, heavy beast, then I'd think twice about bringing it. But it's not (it's only 460grams).

Am I disappointed with the lenses performance at 300mm? Yes, I am. And if I had the money, I would be changing it for either the Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 or the Sony 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G SSM lens - both of which would, I believe, be infinitely better.

But I don't (have the money), so the Sony SAL75300, confined to shooting between 100 to 250mm, and from f/5.6 to f/8, will have to do during the meanwhile...

Sorry for the long post - and thanks for sticking with me this far (if you have). But it's a good, and important, exercise to do for yourself if you want to get the best out of your lenses. No matter what they might be. Lens testing doesn't have to be about boring test charts and brick walls. Get out in your natural environment and do some 'real-world' testing. I find this is always the best kind of testing. And the results may surprise, delight, or upset you!? 😄

__________________________________________________________________________________

UPDATE: 15/04/22

Take all of the above with a grain of salt... 

I have recently discovered that my a57 isn't focusing properly - the sensor is probably out of alignment. So my overall impression of 'softness' is not surprising - and therefore all of the above is probably somewhat invalid!

First landscapes with the Sony a57

Having gone out the previous night with my 'new' (new for me, but second-hand) Sony a57 to photograph some birds (see last post), I thought it only fair that I go out again the next night, to put it through its landscape paces. It is, after all, mainly what I use my camera gear for.

I thought I would go back to Rapahoe Beach, to the spot where I had last tested out the a99 (see the images here). I love the images I get out of the Sony a99 - just gorgeous. So I thought "what the heck", why not put the a57 up against some serious competition and see how it fares!?

Rapahoe Pier structure. Sony a57 with SAL18250. f/11 @ 1/3 sec, ISO 100

What do you reckon? Didn't do too badly now, did it? In fact, lets get right down to it - it did fantastically! 

Now I'm not going to lie to you (honest). Obviously the images from the full-frame 24MP a99, shot at ISO 50 with the Minolta 17-35mm G lens are cleaner, clearer and sharper. They just are. In fact they are some of the most impressive files out of a camera that I think I've ever seen.

But honestly, who wouldn't be happy with the above image, taken with a 16MP APS-C camera and lens combination that all-up cost me $395.00 NZ! These are great results at ISO 100. The camera can achieve an 11-stop dynamic range (the a99 has almost 13 stops - 12.8 to be exact), which is plenty to be able to retain detail in both the shadows and the highlights of a well-exposed image - even in tricky landscape lighting scenarios.

Beachwood, Rapahoe. Sony a57 with SAL18250. f/11 @ 1/13th, ISO 100

Case-in-point is the image above. There is obviously very strong side lighting on the right from the setting sun, but I wanted to retain detail in the highlights, so I exposed for the sky and let the shadows darken. As you can see, they were recoverable in post, and the camera sensor has handled the extreme dynamic range in the scene very well. Again, perhaps it's not as 'clean' as a file from the a99 might have been - but 'again', it's a fifth of the price of the a99 (and that's not counting the Minolta lens).

Meandering. Sony a57 with SAL18250. f/11 @ 1 sec, ISO 100 

I'm doing something with the a57 that I've never really done with any other camera before. Shooting in full manual. Perhaps that's a shocking thing for someone who has been a photographer for over 35 years to say, but it's also true. For practically all of my photography career, since owning my very first film camera (the Canon T70), I've shot - whenever possible - in Aperture priority mode. It's ingrained in me. It's just the way I think photographically. I've trained myself to think in apertures, and that's how I approach every scene. My first consideration - what aperture do I want. Dial that in, and let the camera do the rest.

I've tried to adapt to full manual a few times - when I used digital cameras with optical viewfinders. But I always found it a complete faff, and eventually ended up where I wanted to be if I had been shooting in aperture priority anyway (for the most part).

But with mirrorless, and an evf (electronic viewfinder), I've found that shooting manual is actually now a fast and viable option. Shooting in full manual on the a57 is a breeze. And still centers around dialing in the aperture first.

Ripples in motion. Sony a57 with SAL 18250. f/11 @ 1/6th sec, ISO 100

Setting the aperture manually on the a57 is a two-step process unfortunately, since it has no rear control dial. So you press the AEL button and spin the front control wheel to choose your aperture. Once set, you then also use the front control wheel to choose your shutter speed, and next to that is the ISO button. So the exposure triangle is 'somewhat' at your fingertips.

So why does this make it any better for full manual control? Actually it doesn't. What makes it 'better' is seeing the exposure changes in the evf! With the aperture locked in, and the ISO chosen, all that remains is to toggle the front wheel that controls the shutter speed, and the scene lightens or darkens accordingly! When it was a purely optical viewfinder, you would have to change your exposure value a bit, take another shot, and 'chimp' to see how close you got. If not, then rinse and repeat until you did. By then, the light had probably changed, and you would have to repeat the process all over again! Aarrgghhh.

But with the evf, all of that 'guess' work goes away. You actually get to see what's happening. And for me, this has been somewhat revelational! Yeah, I know, I'm a bit slow on the uptake...

Rapahoe Beach at Sunset. Sony a57 with SAL18250. f/11 @ 5 secs, ISO 100

Long story short, I actually enjoyed shooting in full manual. For the first time ever! Probably helped by the fact that I was working on a tripod (as I am mostly with landscapes) and the apeture never left f/11 nor did the ISO leave 100. So all I had to worry about was the shutter speeds. Which also wasn't a concern, since I was on a tripod. So yeah, we'll see how long full manual control lasts....

Were there things I didn't like with the a57? Of course...

For a start, I find the focus area to be too small. I want more focus points further out towards the edges. But to be fair, this is also a complaint I have with the Sony a99 too - so it's not just an issue with the a57.

Also, the flip down screen is just plain annoying. I'd much prefer if it just slid down like the one on my Olympus OM-D E-M1 did. Or better still, give me the full articulation of the Sony a99. That thing is the bomb! The screen on the a57, hinged as it is at the bottom, gets stopped by my tripod mount, so doesn't really flip out on an angle to aid when viewing on the tripod. I've figured a work-around, where I now mount the camera on the tripod 'back to front' so the locking mechanism is now operated from the front of the camera. But I'm not crazy about this.

Another rear control wheel would be great, so changing the aperture wasn't a two-step process. Not a deal-breaker, but a nice-to-have.

And lastly... yeah, ok - I wish it had the 24MP sensor of the a99 and went down to ISO 50 (or even 64), for a cleaner image. That would be nice. But not, like, essential...

So really, what I'm saying, is that I wish it was an a99?! Maybe, I guess. I've been a bit spoiled by having one at the same time as I got the a57. And let's face it, any APS-C camera would pale in comparison to the full-frame, full-metal, full-control awesomeness that is the a99.

And yet it can still take some fantastic images. As seen above. I did have a fantastic time out with my new a57. And I thoroughly expect to have many more.

Birding with the Sony SAL75300

In my last post I indicated that my 'new' Sony a57 had arrived, and I had already taken it out for a test-drive with the Sony SAL75300 (Sony A Lens 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6).

It's been a while since I've had a dedicated 'telephoto' lens for one of my systems, so I was keen to pop the 75-300mm on and give it a spin. I decided to do some bird photography down at my local lagoon. Unfortunately the clouds had rolled in and the weather was a bit overcast, so I had to bump up the ISO to give me some decent shutter speeds at the 300mm end of the lens.

Shagadelic! Sony a57 with SAL75300. f/11 @ 1/250th, ISO 800

From reading reviews of the lens, I knew that the Sony 75-300mm wasn't going to be the sharpest tack in the box - especially at the long end. So I made sure that I shot at around the f/8 to f/11 apertures, which should produce the sharpest images (a couple of stops shut down from wide open). As mentioned above, this also meant that I was having to bump up the ISO to give me fast enough shutter speeds. Hey ho - I guess I'll get to see how it performs at high ISO's as well then 😊

Lens elements in the SAL75300

The lens itself isn't anything to write home about. It is, after all, the cheapest telephoto to 300mm lens that Sony makes. It is also, apparently, a 're-packaging' of an old Minolta 75-300mm lens.

There are no special lens elements in its construction, and it's made mostly from plastic. Although that's not necessarily a bad thing. The plastic is of the modern polycarbonate type - which has proven to be very rugged and sturdy enough for most uses. Of course the lens elements are all glass, and the lens mount is metal. So that's a good thing. Fit and finish is also fairly impressive for such a cheap and cheerful optic. It's just a no-frills kinda product.

Unfortunately, the front lens element rotates, and the auto-focus is driven from the camera body. So it's not blisteringly fast, and it's not whisper quiet. Although it's also not turtle-slow, nor is it annoyingly noisy. It found focus and locked on reasonably quickly, so no complaints there. But it certainly ain't no G master! It also only cost me $149.00NZ. So there's that...

Swan family. Sony a57 with SAL75300. f/11 @ 1/100th, ISO 1600

I wasn't looking for birds-in-flight, so I didn't need to rely on the tracking on the a57. I did, however, set it to continuous hi-speed shooting so I could fire off a shot burst of images. This helps with getting sharpness, as at least one image in a series of burst should be sharp. Probably didn't need to have bothered with this approach looking back on the files. They are all 'relatively' sharp. 

I say 'relatively' sharp for a reason. Because from what I can tell from my brief outing, the SAL75300 never gets 'bitingly' sharp really, at any focal distance. I shot, as I said, at around the f/8 to f/11 apertures, and it seems to me from pixel-peeping that f/8 is the sweet spot.

It is probably hard to tell from the image samples above (click on the image to enlarge it in your viewer), but absolute sharpness (such as it is with this lens) peaks at around the 200mm focal length. Although it is a little difficult to gauge the lenses true capabilities, since all of the above were shot at ISO 1600 and are therefore a little 'noisy' (adding to the overall sense of softness). I will have to do a bit more testing in brighter conditions, where noise isn't a factor, to really get a sense of this lenses capabilities (and I will do).

All-in-all I wasn't blown away by the results from the SAL75300, although nor was I really expecting to be. I think that at f/8, all focal lengths (but especially below 250mm), will produce very good images up to A3 size. Beyond that, sharpness might start to become an issue?

Wading bird, Cobden Lagoon. Sony a57 with SAL75300mm. f/9 @ 1/500th, ISO 1600

The jury is out on this lens presently. I'm not sure that I got the best out of it on my first try, and I want to try again in better conditions. Ideally I would like to see how it performs at ISO 100, with a much 'cleaner' file.

The images here are not 'bad' per-se, they just didn't blow me away as much as I was hoping they would. And yet maybe my expectations were too high? This is, as has already been previously stated, Sony's cheapest telephoto lens up to 300mm - by far. So was there that much to expect in the first place? 

Trouble is, I'm coming from the micro-four-thirds system, where even the super cheap and plasticky Olympus 45-150mm f/4-5.6 (90-300mm fov in full-frame terms) is exceptionally sharp. So I've been a bit spoiled.

I certainly need to use the lens a few more times before I formulate any firm opinions regarding it's sharpness. And then again - sharpness isn't everything. Is it?

Sony a57 has arrived!

The title says it all really 😄

Yesterday (as I write), my 'new' Sony a57 was delivered by the nice folks who brought it back from Christchurch for me (thanks Macey's dad). It arrived packaged up in a Tenba Solstice 7L sling bag (not a 10L, but never-mind, it fits heaps of gear) which included the body, Sony 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3, Sony 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6, Sony camera strap and Sony charger. The battery in the camera was flat 😞 so I popped it on the charger and gave it a few hours to fully charge.

For a start, overall condition is excellent. Both lenses look practically new - although the SAL18250 didn't come with a lens hood (drats!). The glass on both is clean, clear and pristine. Really don't think they have had much use at all.

As for the camera body itself... it does show a few signs of wear on the body, and the rear thumb leatherette section (which I actually think is some type of rubber) is peeling away slightly. So I have used some double-sided tape to keep it stuck in place. If that doesn't do the trick, then I will glue it down as a long-term solution. It's just a minor thing.

The main 'wear' was evident on the rear LCD screen itself. This could even be seen on the photos they had online. But I was guessing that it was a removable screen protector that had been scratched, and would come off and be replaced easily. Sony actually has their own screen protection film placed on their screens out of the factory, and often it's just a simple case of peeling this off carefully to reveal the clean screen underneath.

Long story short, there was actually another screen protector placed over top of this one by a previous owner, and it just popped off with a little help. So I've just left it as-is now for the time being. The Sony standard plastic film cover is pristine, so that's good enough for me.

So overall condition on the whole kit itself - I'd rate it a solid 8.5 out of 10. Which I'm very happy with. I've also checked the shutter count for the a57. Only 12,224 shutter actuation's, so it's hardly been used at all. I would assume that the a57, being a mid-range series camera, has a shutter life of around 100,000 clicks? So that means the camera has used about 12% of its life-span. Good news.

Settings-wise it's pretty straight forward. Most of the time I will shoot RAW, single-shot, single auto-focus, wide area AF (or spot), multi-metering, at the lowest ISO I can feasibly get away with (not Auto ISO). I usually choose sRGB colour space (since mostly I'm posting on the web), anti-shake set to 'on', eye-focus set to on, and all noise reduction turned off (as is the annoying camera beep). I have left the ISO button to control ISO, but have re-configured the AEL button to switch to manual magnification focus assist. And that's about it.

I haven't delved into the movie settings, since I don't plan on using it for video - at all. And pretty much all the other options don't really matter, since I'm shooting RAW only and not Jpeg (or RAW + Jpeg).

And there you have it. Pretty simple really. Which I think is great. 

I have taken it out with the 75-300mm attached to do some bird photography at my local lagoon, and will post about that next. Unless I cut-in with what I'm planning on for tonight's outing - landscapes with the 18-250mm. Should be fun.