At this point, pretty happy with my mid setup (A7V, 100-400 4.5), but will def upgrade to something with a global shutter and a 400 2.8 at some point in my life...
It's not the 2.8, but as a dad shooting on the sidelines, I think this lens will be great for me. AF and rendering IMO is better than the 200-600G I replaced. All shots at 1/2000 and 4.5, first 2 at 400mm and the last at 218mm .
So this was the setup I used for soccer last season. Really happy with how I take the pictures, and the pictures (and video) themselves. The improvements I would love to make are being able to pick the whole thing up easily, AND being able to rotate from portrait to landscape without having to remove the top handle.
For picking up, I tried adding a side handle that you can sort of see in the pic, but it’s really not as useful as picking up the rig with the top handle. The weight of the setup flexes the top handle and I can only imagine the stress on the lens mount (which not only has the lens weight but also the tripod underneath).
This could be solved by a “lens cage” that wraps around the lens with the anchor to the lens being the lens foot. I envision attaching my top handle to that, which leaves my body free to rotate.
Anyone know how I could get someone to custom fabricate something like that? I tried smallrig and leophoto, no dice. Or is there something that exists that I can use?
This is completely unscientific, but might be useful for those wondering if Sony's new 100-400 is worth it. I bought it to use as a soccer lens, and I shot some soccer practice with it today. These are just screen caps from Lightroom at 300%. I have found the 200-600 better in the middle than on either end, and this sort of confirms that for me.
I'm pretty happy with improvement in sharpness with the new lens, and the overall pop is much better. Not really shown is the better contrast and subject isolation and bokeh at 4.5. I've always found the bokeh of the 200-600 a little busy and distracting. The new 100-400 is much better to my eyes in that regard.
Again, completely unscientific, just making sure I didn't spend $4300 for nothing. I did manage to sell my 200-600 for exactly what I paid for it (thanks tariffs I guess?), so there's that. What I am really trying to decide is if I am happy enough with the 100-400 to skip the 400 2.8 for a while.
Has Adobe decided these aren’t worth the effort?
Ugh I am hoping this is dumb user error. I don’t like all the informational icons mucking up my display when I am trying to frame. With the update I just did, I can’t seem to get rid of the icons, even though I have the setting right. Any ideas?
I am still learning, but I am getting happier with my photos week to week. Some of the changes I made along the way with the biggest impact for my tastes: shooting low, positioning myself for clean backgrounds, and turning off OSS and shooting faster shutter speeds. Equipment matters, IMHO. The Sony A7V's AF made a huge difference over the A7III I was shooting with last season, and the precapture and framerate help as well. I thought I was unhappy with my Sony 200-600, but sharpness has improved as I have improved how I am capturing. Still want that background blur from a 400 2.8, but I am realizing I get a lot of keepers at 600mm, so I either need to switch to Nikon for their 400TC, or test out the Sigma 300-600. GAS is real, but I am only recently extracting more out of my current setup, so there's that to mitigate. Anticipating moments better (the first pic was an actual goal, and it wasn't a free kick either) and the kids genuinely getting better and looking like ballers helps, of course.
Oh, and I am just a parent on the sideline trying to grab some memories, and have ramped up the seriousness of the effort, but def not a pro, and still mucking about...