Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 17, 2009, 3:51 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,547
Default A300 and Tamron 28-300

After enjoying Tullio's post about this lens, I had to take mine out and do a very UN-scientific test today. The weather was turning bad(rain and thunderstorms) so the sky was gray and I didn't have much time.

I shot all these at iso 400, f/8 and hand-held because of time constraints. Some shutter speeds were very low so I imagine some camera movement is possible. While the pictures are not technically perfect, they do show the lens's capabilities or lack thereof.

My lens is not the DI version. The box says AF 28-300mm Ultra Zoom XR f/3.5-6.3 LD aspherical (IF) Macro. Anyway, I am copying these from Flickr, so the exif data will be stripped. I will include the most important stuff.

The pictures are of my dog and a post with a chain attached. Please enjoy...

I lied...the dog pics are iso 100.

28mm 1/25 f/8 iso 100



35mm 1/13 f/8 iso 100



70mm 1/20 f/8 iso 100



100mm 1/30 f/8 iso 100



300mm 1/320 f/8 iso 400



300mm 1/125 f/8 iso 400



I will start a separate thread for the post and chain, this one is long enough. Robert

Last edited by Hawgwild; May 17, 2009 at 3:54 PM.
Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 18, 2009, 1:50 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Nice series showing the excellent resolution this lens produces at various focal lengths. So, are you saying this is not a lens you use all the time? Mine stays on the A200 at all times unless I need a bit more WA or I want to shoot macro, in which case I swap the Tamron with the Sigma 24mm.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2009, 2:06 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
Nice series showing the excellent resolution this lens produces at various focal lengths. So, are you saying this is not a lens you use all the time? Mine stays on the A200 at all times unless I need a bit more WA or I want to shoot macro, in which case I swap the Tamron with the Sigma 24mm.
To be honest, my first pics with this lens were all indoors with a flash, and well below the 100mm mark. The few outdoors pics I took were unbelievably soft at 300mm, enough that I thought I had a focus issue with the lens. Today I changed my mind, and with your positive feedback, I feel better about putting it back on my camera more "permanently". Tomorrow I will post another "test" I did today and see what that looks like. Thanks for your valued input. Robert
Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2009, 12:50 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

I don't shoot indoors too much but when I do, I tend to use the Sigma. Not only it's a little wider (24mm vs. 28mm of the Tamron), but it's faster as well (f2.8 vs. f3.5). For many years I was an advocate of the in-camera RAW to JPEG conversion. Perhaps because both Olys I had (E510 and E520) were excellent in processing the RAW image and converting it to JPEG. The same is not true with the A200. I started to shoot RAW+JPEG and quickly realized that the camera conversion was not that good. At first glance the RAW image may look a bit soft but with very little PP that can be easily fixed and in the end, you get a much wider range of colors and details since you get the highlights and shadows preserved. That may help you when shooting indoors.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2009, 10:38 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
I don't shoot indoors too much but when I do, I tend to use the Sigma. Not only it's a little wider (24mm vs. 28mm of the Tamron), but it's faster as well (f2.8 vs. f3.5). For many years I was an advocate of the in-camera RAW to JPEG conversion. Perhaps because both Olys I had (E510 and E520) were excellent in processing the RAW image and converting it to JPEG. The same is not true with the A200. I started to shoot RAW+JPEG and quickly realized that the camera conversion was not that good. At first glance the RAW image may look a bit soft but with very little PP that can be easily fixed and in the end, you get a much wider range of colors and details since you get the highlights and shadows preserved. That may help you when shooting indoors.
Some good information. I never shoot raw, but I will give it a try.

I have heard that the Sonys tend to produce soft jpegs, and found that to be true. My Nikon D50 produced great jpegs with no in-camera sharpening dialed in. When you shoot raw, do you use in-camera sharpening? Or do it in PP? And if I shoot raw, should I set evrything to normal? Sorry for asking so many questions, but after shooting film for almost 40 years, this stuff is fairly new to me

Robert

Here's a typical indoor shot with the 28-300 and the sony hvl f42am flash, bounced from the ceiling

100mm f/6.3 a goofy shot of my daughter-in-law and my Grand kids..



Not saying this is great, but would I see an improvement by shooting raw? I intend to find out..

Robert
Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2009, 12:49 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Yes, I do adjust the in-camera sharpening, contrast and saturation to my taste but that's because I shoot RAW+JPEG and if the JPEG file looks good, then I do not PP the RAW. When you shoot raw, camera settings won't apply.

This is a lovely family picture. As I said, some times the camera does a real good job converting the RAW file. You will find that the RAW file has a lot more details, less blown highlights and you'll be able to better adjust the white balance, particularly when shooting under artificial light.

There is an awesome free software called PHOTOSCAPE. You should give it a try if you think Photoshop is too convoluted and Picasa too restrictive. I use Photoscape for all photo editing. Just a thought!
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2009, 1:17 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,547
Default

Thanks for the link. I downloaded and saved photoscape v3.3. Since it is now after midnight here, I will install it to(day) and see what happens. I currently use Photoshop elements 4.0, and it has some issues with Windows Vista. I was thinking about upgrading, but since I don't do layers often, this one may do what I need. I tried Picasa 3, and yes, it was a little restrictive.

That pic was silly; I took four shots before I could get the kids to look "normal". Robert
Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2009, 11:45 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

You'll find PHOTOSCAPE to be an excellent software to process RAW (and fix JPEG) files. It has all sorts of adjustments, filters, features, you name it. I'm very familiar with it so if you have questions, don't hesitate to ask.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2009, 11:02 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,547
Default

I installed Photoscape 3.3 tonight and created an animated gif in five minutes. The resizing tool in intuitive and fast, the editing tools are all there, and while not as fancy as photoshop, it some some things better. I just named two. I won't trash my Elements 4.0 just yet, but this FREE software is pretty dadgum good ( no, I'm not from the south). Tullio, I do have a question right off the bat. When I finished creating my an gif, saved it, I couldn't figure out how to close the picture to start another one, since ther is no file drop-down menu in the top left-hand corner, or am I missing something?
Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2009, 11:09 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Glad to hear you like it. I think it's pretty awesome for a free software. With regards to your question, if you are editing JPEG files, they are usually displayed at the left under the folder/file tree, all you need to do is to click on a new image. If you have made changes to the image that's being displayed but did not save it, Photoscape will ask you whether you wish to save it or not. If you click NO, then the new JPEG image replaces the existing one. If you are editing RAW files. then you click on the Photoscape tab to get to the main menu. Then click on Raw converter, ADD (choose the folder and RAW image you wish to edit), PREVIEW (to read the image in) and finally Photo Edit (it will bring the image to the editor. Again, if you were editing an image and had not saved it, photoscape will ask if you wish to save it first. A this point, if you say NO, then photoscape will discard the editing you have done to the previous image and will replace it with the new one. If you had saved the previous image, then Photoscape will simply replace it. Let me know how it goes.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:32 PM.