Birds Backyard Bark Butter Birds

[Brownie]

My 'new' LA-EA4 came, so I put it and the Maxxum 28-135 on the A7RM3 and went out to just shoot whatever as a test. I was standing about 25' away from the feeders and spotted a Downy on the log. I didn't expect to see any birds at all with me moving around so close and the dog in the run, so I just snapped off a few with the settings I had.

DSC04458 by telecast, on Flickr

I went inside and swapped out the 28-135 for the Minolta 100-400. Came back out but the Downy was gone. It wasn't long though before a Nuthatch showed up and started his acrobatics.

DSC04490 by telecast, on Flickr

Shortly after a couple Sparrows came along and challenged the Nuthatch for space on the log.

DSC04494 by telecast, on Flickr

DSC04495 by telecast, on Flickr

This Red Bellied Woodpecker never did come to the feeder. He hung around way up in a silver maple wanting to come in, but was too wary.
DSC04513 by telecast, on Flickr

Still not sure about this 100-400. It takes a lot of effort to get something decent out of it, sometimes it seems pretty good, other times not. Lots of CA too.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Not bad, but when a lens takes effort to work it, it doesn't inspire you to use it.

 

[spudhead]

My 'new' LA-EA4 came, so I put it and the Maxxum 28-135 on the A7RM3 and went out to just shoot whatever as a test. I was standing about 25' away from the feeders and spotted a Downy on the log. I didn't expect to see any birds at all with me moving around so close and the dog in the run, so I just snapped off a few with the settings I had.

DSC04458 by telecast, on Flickr

I went inside and swapped out the 28-135 for the Minolta 100-400. Came back out but the Downy was gone. It wasn't long though before a Nuthatch showed up and started his acrobatics.

DSC04490 by telecast, on Flickr

Shortly after a couple Sparrows came along and challenged the Nuthatch for space on the log.

DSC04494 by telecast, on Flickr

DSC04495 by telecast, on Flickr

This Red Bellied Woodpecker never did come to the feeder. He hung around way up in a silver maple wanting to come in, but was too wary.
DSC04513 by telecast, on Flickr

Still not sure about this 100-400. It takes a lot of effort to get something decent out of it, sometimes it seems pretty good, other times not. Lots of CA too.

Tim for peace of mind I would test the 100-400 with manual focus peaking at both ends in decent light if you get some and sort out if the lens is sharp or not, not all copies are the same, if its sharp then it's a learning curve withe adaptor or not at least you will know.

 

[Brownie]

Not bad, but when a lens takes effort to work it, it doesn't inspire you to use it.

Tim for peace of mind I would test the 100-400 with manual focus peaking at both ends in decent light if you get some and sort out if the lens is sharp or not, not all copies are the same, if its sharp then it's a learning curve withe adaptor or not at least you will know.

Thanks gents. Agreed, but I think I need more time with it. It's not a very fast lens and doesn't like the dark. In the log shots the sun was very bright and getting low. Only the Downy had the decency to step into the light for me, the rest were heavily shaded. Then on the Red Bellied Woodpecker I am shooting almost directly into the sun, you can see he's backlit.

I guess I'm making excuses for the lens right now as I continue to test it out. The whole purpose is to have a compact, inexpensive long zoom with me during the day for snapping when the mood hits, and it will probably fill that role pretty well once I learn its limitations. I am not going to carry my Sigma 100-400 or the Sony 200-600 for grab shots.

I guess the good news is that the EA4 functions pretty well with the screw drives. It focuses faster than I thought it would. At one point the 100-400 lost contact with either the lens or the body and went to MF, I couldn't get AF back. I turned the camera off and spun both mounts and it worked ok afterwards, so contact cleaning is in order. It came from KEH so I have 180 day warranty.

 

[Brownie]

Just cleaned the contacts and got the RM3 ready for EDC, pending the possible purchase of a 7R, still undecided. The 100-400 seems to be ok, but the 35-105 is intermittent, pretty bad. It works, then it doesn't. It seems to be fine when the contacts are freshly cleaned, then it starts again. Sometimes it will go back and forth between AF and MF when zooming. This would all make me think it's the lens, but it's never done this with the LA-EA5, so no idea. I'll keep an eye on it. The 28-135 works flawlessly.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Makes me realise how lucky I am to come into photography at the time I have. From what I gather, it seems that in the last 5 years it has gotten to a point where there is just a multitude of fantastic options which deliver beautiful results. Even on a budget there are heaps of options that are outstanding.

 

[spudhead]

Just cleaned the contacts and got the RM3 ready for EDC, pending the possible purchase of a 7R, still undecided. The 100-400 seems to be ok, but the 35-105 is intermittent, pretty bad. It works, then it doesn't. It seems to be fine when the contacts are freshly cleaned, then it starts again. Sometimes it will go back and forth between AF and MF when zooming. This would all make me think it's the lens, but it's never done this with the LA-EA5, so no idea. I'll keep an eye on it. The 28-135 works flawlessly.

Tim not to steal your thread but I went looking for some old Minolta

• ILCA-77M2
• 80-200mm F2.8
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/320 sec
• ISO 2000

• ILCA-77M2
• 80-200mm F2.8
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/320 sec
• ISO 2000

80-200 images as I know you have this lens and found 2 from 2015 on a77mk2, big regret letting it go 1993 was the version I had

 

[Brownie]

The 80-200 is an entirely different animal, not even a comparison. It's still rated as highly as it's Sony successors. It was a top-of-the-line choice, mine has performed fantastically every time I've used it. This 100-400 was an every-man's choice. Lower cost, good, but not stellar. But for the intended purpose I think it'll be ok once I sort it out, which may have happened today.

I played some more with it indoors. It's really crappy out today, rain and heavy overcast, the streetlights were on by 4:00. Made shots from ISO 640 all the way to ISO 32000 . I was able to get some pretty decent clarity even at ISO 32000 and some very low shutter speeds, like way down to 1/10 @400mm with leaning my elbows on the table. Zoomed in (in post) I could easily count the threads in our kitchen curtains from across the dining room and kitchen, about 25'.

This feels to me like I'm depending a lot more on IBIS than I thought I was. The RM3 IBIS is not as good as the M4, and of course there's nothing in this 27-year-old lens to help. I'm betting that if I take a bit more time I'll see a marked improvement. Good lesson to be learned here.

I took this the same day with the 100-400. He was in direct sunlight so I was able to bump the shutter speed. I didn't post it because this is in the bird section, but for comparison:

DSC04531 by telecast, on Flickr

 

[Brownie]

Makes me realise how lucky I am to come into photography at the time I have. From what I gather, it seems that in the last 5 years it has gotten to a point where there is just a multitude of fantastic options which deliver beautiful results. Even on a budget there are heaps of options that are outstanding.

There have always been a multitude of fantastic options. The difference is these days everything is automated. This is exactly what I'm alluding to in the third paragraph of my post above. When I was shooting film, I'd never be so cavalier about making a shot. Not only was it expensive to shoot stinkers, but you had no way to chimp and look at the shot. Nowadays it's too easy to just delete and shoot another one.

When that lens was released there was no such thing as image stabilization of any kind. Minolta included a very basic attempt to make the Maxxum foolproof by including minimum shutter speeds in their programming. When in Auto, the camera could tell the FL of whichever lens was mounted and wouldn't allow a shutter speed so slow that it would produce a blurry image. It was their safety net to ensure anyone could pick up a Maxxum and make good photos. Someone familiar with cameras could override by using one of the other modes, but they were pushing the 'anyone can do it' hard to expand sales.

 

[spudhead]

The 80-200 is an entirely different animal, not even a comparison. It's still rated as highly as it's Sony successors. It was a top-of-the-line choice, mine has performed fantastically every time I've used it. This 100-400 was an every-man's choice. Lower cost, good, but not stellar. But for the intended purpose I think it'll be ok once I sort it out, which may have happened today.

I played some more with it indoors. It's really crappy out today, rain and heavy overcast, the streetlights were on by 4:00. Made shots from ISO 640 all the way to ISO 32000 . I was able to get some pretty decent clarity even at ISO 32000 and some very low shutter speeds, like way down to 1/10 @400mm with leaning my elbows on the table. Zoomed in (in post) I could easily count the threads in our kitchen curtains from across the dining room and kitchen, about 25'.

This feels to me like I'm depending a lot more on IBIS than I thought I was. The RM3 IBIS is not as good as the M4, and of course there's nothing in this 27-year-old lens to help. I'm betting that if I take a bit more time I'll see a marked improvement. Good lesson to be learned here.

I took this the same day with the 100-400. He was in direct sunlight so I was able to bump the shutter speed. I didn't post it because this is in the bird section, but for comparison:

DSC04531 by telecast, on Flickr

I am sure you are right, the 100-400 will work fine when you get to know it