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?

The limitation of 6 megapixels

I am still waiting to hear back from the camera store about my E-M1 repair (what, me impatient? Never!). I am really hoping that it coincides with our upcoming trip to Christchurch to meet our new grandchild because a) it would be very convenient to pick it up then, and b) I really want a camera to photograph the new edition to our family! And to make matters worse (or better I guess, depending on how you care to look at it), my Panasonic Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 G lens has now arrived. Yay! Except I don't have a camera to try it out with. Aarrgghh!

Greymouth wharf from Cobden. Nikon D70 with Nikkor 18-55mm. f/8 @ 1/400th, ISO 200

In the meantime, though, I am still using my wife's Nikon D70. And I'm still enjoying shooting with it. I used the camera for a few years when I switched to digital in the mid 90s, so when I pick it up now a certain amount of muscle memory kicks in, and I find it very intuitive to use. Yes, there are a couple of things that 'annoy' me (exposure compensation +/- is flipped around from what I am used to now), but overall the shooting experience is still very enjoyable. And the images still hold-up, even at 6 megapixels. With one exception... cropping.

White Heron. D70 with 18-55mm. f/5.6 @ 1/640th, ISO 200

Most weekends, my wife and I like to go for at least an hours walk together. This usually involves taking a stroll through our local Cobden Lagoon - an estuary that is home to numerous bird life. If we are lucky, one of those birds will be a beautiful white heron.

I usually take my camera on these walks, on the off-chance that something catches my eye, and I'll wan't to take a photograph of it. Most of the time the camera stays draped over my shoulder (or carried in my hand) and I never use it. But sometimes I get lucky, and a white heron (or some other worthy subject) presents itself.

That's what happened last weekend on our walk. We spotted it from across the other side of the lagoon, and from where it was wading I could tell it was very close to a bridge that we would cross eventually. Actually, it's the same bridge from which I captured the image 'Swan River' from my last post.

As we made our way over to the other side of the lagoon, and approached the bridge, I spotted the Heron again - in almost exactly the same position as when we had first seen him. He had hardly moved at all. And because we were slightly elevated up on the bridge, he seemed not to really even notice that we were there. Or if he did, he didn't seem to mind. He was only about 15 meters from us, probably the closest I have ever managed to get to a heron. And would you believe it - all I had was a standard 18-55mm lens!

The smaller image of the white heron, seen above, is the uncropped image - as close as I was able to get with the full 55mm end of the lens. As you can see, even though this was the closest I have ever got, the bird is still relatively small in the frame.

The larger image is cropped from the original. And while the bird is now a bit more prominent, it's still not filling the frame! But this was as close as I could physically get. So I knew I would have to crop in on the image later if I was going to get anything even half-way decent.

And in doing so, we run up against the D70s limiting factor - the 6MP sensor if you need to crop heavily into your image.

Curious Horses. Nikon D70 with Nikkor 18-55mm. f/5.6 @ 1/1000th, ISO 200

Unfortunately, it didn't only happen once, but twice, on this particular walk. Heading home from the lagoon, we passed a paddock with some horses that I hadn't seen in there before. The lighter coloured horse especially caught my eye, and I went over to take a photo.

This scenario was even worse than the heron, since as you can see from the uncropped image at right, the horses were even further away from me, and they weren't that keen to get any closer!

So once again, I took the shot anyway - at the 55mm end of the lens (around an 80mm full-frame equivalent focal length) - knowing that I would have to crop out a lot of the image to feature my subject.

In both images, I've probably only kept around a third of the image, cropping out two-thirds. That's left me with file sizes of around 1MB - not great in terms of resolution. Enough for a sharp 5x7 print, but probably not much more.

Does that mean that the D70 is no good as a camera? No, of course it doesn't! If you don't crop the 6MP files, then you can easily print up to A3 sizes. But, if you do need to crop - heavily - then resolution (and print sizes) will suffer. Dat's a fac u'all.

Bus Barn. Nikon D70 with Nikkor 18-55mm. f/5.6 @ 1/1000th, ISO 200

So what to do? Well, if I was going to be shooting a lot with the D70 (I'm not), then I would invest in a zoom lens. Something like the Nikkor 75-300mm. Then I wouldn't have had any problem filling the frame with the heron, or the horses, and I wouldn't have had to crop-in later. Thereby taking advantage of all those 6 million wonderful pixels! Easy....

And to be honest, the same should be true no matter how many megapixels your camera has. Yes, it will be easier to do a super close crop of a bird from a 50 megapixel sensor and still be able to get a decent A4 print. But should you? There is a reason why bird, wildlife and sports photographers carry around those massive 600mm lenses with them (and newsflash, it's not just to look professional). They need to get as close to their subject as possible, and fill-the-frame so they don't have to crop later on. This gives them the absolute best IQ they can get. I'm sure there is certainly some cropping going on later in post. But they certainly don't all own 100 megapixel cameras and shoot with standard lenses, thinking that they'll just crop-in super tight later on! And neither should you or I. 

I'm not advocating that we all shoot with 6 megapixel cameras and resolution be damned! Of course not. But... we also probably don't need as many megapixels as we think we do either - and we certainly shouldn't be going out with the intention of cropping out two-thirds of every photo we shoot because we couldn't/didn't get close enough. Wildlife photographer's know they will be shooting nervous animals, from a long way off, so they invest in super telephoto lenses. Comes with the territory I'm afraid. 

I'm not a wildlife photographer, and never intend to be. I do know, however, that on the odd occassion, I will want to take a telephoto image or three. That's why the only lens I kept when I was selling all the others to get the 12-35mm f2.8, was my Lumix 45-150mm. A while that's not super-telephoto by any stretch, it does equate to 300mm focal length on a full-frame system. And boy, could I have used a 300mm lens last weekend when I was photographing a white heron and some horses. Maybe next time...