Sony A900 anti shake with long telephoto lenses on tripod

[leicaman94044]

Given Leica's dropping the ball on a timely replacement for the DMR and my being heavily invested in long APO glass, I'm looking for a practical replacement for my DMR as I need larger file sizes for big prints.  Of most interest to me is the Sony A900 as it has sensor cleaning and camera anti shake.  The Nikon D3x has neither, and though IQ is superior at 800 iso and above, I never shoot above 400 iso due to the constraints in IQ with extreme enlargements.  A friend is willing to build a Leica to Sony lens mount as there is not enough distance between lens mount and body to allow for an adapter.

I'm interested only in comments from those who have personally used the longest longest lenses on their A900 when the camera is tripod mounted.  I'm reading two conflicting stories on the net; one perspective is that there is no noticeable difference.  Then there is a quote from Michael's evaluation of the A900 stating "One area where the latest Canon and Nikon IS and VR lens systems have a small edge is that they sense when the camera is tripod mounted and turn themselves down or off. The A900 doesn't do this, and so with the camera firmly tripod mounted if you don't turn stabilization off you're in fact going to get blurry images as the system tries in vain to compensate for vibration that isn't there."  

It may not be there with lenses 300mm and less... but it most certainly is with lenses over 800mm.  The question is whether the anti shake will sense this vibration which impacts sharpness due to extreme magnification?

Has anyone on the forum mounted the old Minolta 600mm APO lens (w&w/o a 1.4 TC) on a tripod and shot with antishake engaged?  I ask because I have no issues with lenses through 400mm with a 1.4 converter.  The problem arises when I mount the 800 Leica modular lens with 1.4 TC on a tripod and try to get sharp images.  There is a quantum increase in stable support required between a 400 and 800 and I'm hoping that the antishake will sense this vibration  and engage (a vibration that would not exist with a lens 300mm or less due to short lens length and lower magnification).  

Before I ask my friend to build the Leica to Sony mount, I would like to be assured by the personal experience of others that antishake will work, otherwise there is no point.  The issue is vibration control as much as my need for larger file size.

Thanks for any observations based on personal use of the A900 with long tripod mounted glass.

Lawrence

[mattpallante]

Given Leica's dropping the ball on a timely replacement for the DMR and my being heavily invested in long APO glass, I'm looking for a practical replacement for my DMR as I need larger file sizes for big prints.  Of most interest to me is the Sony A900 as it has sensor cleaning and camera anti shake.  The Nikon D3x has neither, and though IQ is superior at 800 iso and above, I never shoot above 400 iso due to the constraints in IQ with extreme enlargements.  A friend is willing to build a Leica to Sony lens mount as there is not enough distance between lens mount and body to allow for an adapter.

I'm interested only in comments from those who have personally used the longest longest lenses on their A900 when the camera is tripod mounted.  I'm reading two conflicting stories on the net; one perspective is that there is no noticeable difference.  Then there is a quote from Michael's evaluation of the A900 stating "One area where the latest Canon and Nikon IS and VR lens systems have a small edge is that they sense when the camera is tripod mounted and turn themselves down or off. The A900 doesn't do this, and so with the camera firmly tripod mounted if you don't turn stabilization off you're in fact going to get blurry images as the system tries in vain to compensate for vibration that isn't there."  

It may not be there with lenses 300mm and less... but it most certainly is with lenses over 800mm.  The question is whether the anti shake will sense this vibration which impacts sharpness due to extreme magnification?

Has anyone on the forum mounted the old Minolta 600mm APO lens (w&w/o a 1.4 TC) on a tripod and shot with antishake engaged?  I ask because I have no issues with lenses through 400mm with a 1.4 converter.  The problem arises when I mount the 800 Leica modular lens with 1.4 TC on a tripod and try to get sharp images.  There is a quantum increase in stable support required between a 400 and 800 and I'm hoping that the antishake will sense this vibration  and engage (a vibration that would not exist with a lens 300mm or less due to short lens length and lower magnification).  

Before I ask my friend to build the Leica to Sony mount, I would like to be assured by the personal experience of others that antishake will work, otherwise there is no point.  The issue is vibration control as much as my need for larger file size.

Thanks for any observations based on personal use of the A900 with long tripod mounted glass.

Lawrence

The Sony has a switch on the front of the body to turn the anti-shake on or off. I'm not sure I understand your question

[michael]

Cameras with in-body stabilization do their thing irrespective of the lens mounted. I shot with a Sigma 50-500mm hand-held at 500mm in Antarctica recently and the results were excellent.

With a very long lens stabilization is needed even when tripod mounted. It's only with short lenses on a tripod that stabilization needs to be turned off.

Michael

[leicaman94044]

Thank you, Michael.
This makes for a very interesting proposition as having my big glass adapted to the Sony will solve my battle with vibration issues and give me bigger files.  The question was whether anti shake would be effective when activated IF using extreme telephotos on a tripod and your answer is very encouraging.  

Cameras with in-body stabilization do their thing irrespective of the lens mounted. I shot with a Sigma 50-500mm hand-held at 500mm in Antarctica recently and the results were excellent.

With a very long lens stabilization is needed even when tripod mounted. It's only with short lenses on a tripod that stabilization needs to be turned off.

Michael

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My personal experience is mostly with the A700 (as I only had my A900 for about a month). The lens I have is the Minolta 400/4.5 APO which I use with either 1.4x or 2x converter so that corresponds to 560 or 800 mm. With the 2X converter it is very hard to focus,

My experience in short that Anti Shake works with these lens combination both on and off tripod. I actually think that AS shuts of on the A900 if there is no vibration, but I'm not really sure. (AS makes a "buzzing noise" when in operation. If I use it on tripod it keeps slient.

One thing which I'd suggest is important in your context is that the Anti Shake system does use focal length information from the lens. So even if it works correctly with my lenses this may not be the case if another make of lens is used with a mechanical adpator.

Best regards
Erik

Given Leica's dropping the ball on a timely replacement for the DMR and my being heavily invested in long APO glass, I'm looking for a practical replacement for my DMR as I need larger file sizes for big prints.  Of most interest to me is the Sony A900 as it has sensor cleaning and camera anti shake.  The Nikon D3x has neither, and though IQ is superior at 800 iso and above, I never shoot above 400 iso due to the constraints in IQ with extreme enlargements.  A friend is willing to build a Leica to Sony lens mount as there is not enough distance between lens mount and body to allow for an adapter.

I'm interested only in comments from those who have personally used the longest longest lenses on their A900 when the camera is tripod mounted.  I'm reading two conflicting stories on the net; one perspective is that there is no noticeable difference.  Then there is a quote from Michael's evaluation of the A900 stating "One area where the latest Canon and Nikon IS and VR lens systems have a small edge is that they sense when the camera is tripod mounted and turn themselves down or off. The A900 doesn't do this, and so with the camera firmly tripod mounted if you don't turn stabilization off you're in fact going to get blurry images as the system tries in vain to compensate for vibration that isn't there."  

It may not be there with lenses 300mm and less... but it most certainly is with lenses over 800mm.  The question is whether the anti shake will sense this vibration which impacts sharpness due to extreme magnification?

Has anyone on the forum mounted the old Minolta 600mm APO lens (w&w/o a 1.4 TC) on a tripod and shot with antishake engaged?  I ask because I have no issues with lenses through 400mm with a 1.4 converter.  The problem arises when I mount the 800 Leica modular lens with 1.4 TC on a tripod and try to get sharp images.  There is a quantum increase in stable support required between a 400 and 800 and I'm hoping that the antishake will sense this vibration  and engage (a vibration that would not exist with a lens 300mm or less due to short lens length and lower magnification).  

Before I ask my friend to build the Leica to Sony mount, I would like to be assured by the personal experience of others that antishake will work, otherwise there is no point.  The issue is vibration control as much as my need for larger file size.

Thanks for any observations based on personal use of the A900 with long tripod mounted glass.

Lawrence

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

Hi,

My personal experience is mostly with the A700 (as I only had my A900 for about a month). The lens I have is the Minolta 400/4.5 APO which I use with either 1.4x or 2x converter so that corresponds to 560 or 800 mm. With the 2X converter it is very hard to focus,

My experience in short that Anti Shake works with these lens combination both on and off tripod. I actually think that AS shuts of on the A900 if there is no vibration, but I'm not really sure. (AS makes a "buzzing noise" when in operation. If I use it on tripod it keeps slient.

One thing which I'd suggest is important in your context is that the Anti Shake system does use focal length information from the lens. So even if it works correctly with my lenses this may not be the case if another make of lens is used with a mechanical adpator.

Best regards
Erik

With a short lens the a900 AS will degrade your image if you don't turn it off when using a tripod. I have tested this with the CZ 24-70.

However, with the 500 mm mirror lens on a tripod on a breezy day I found the AS worked very well when left on.

I think the bottom line is pretty simple - if there really is NO vibration, the AS gets confused and will blur your shots. (Hunting, maybe?) But if there is even slight vibration, the AS is in its element and does a nice job.

In a day or two I'll take delivery of the 300 mm f2.8 and a 1.4X and I'll post my findings.

Bill

[ErikKaffehr]

Just to mention...

I made a series of tests after having a discussion with "Ray" on this forum on AS and MLU. I never published the results, because I had not the energy to formalize it. The test was carried out on this basis.

- An 80-200/2.8 APO lens was used at maximum focal length
- Lens was mounted on a Velbon 630 CF tripod with RRS BH 40 head and RRS plates
- Series of exposures were made W/WO MLU and WO MLU and AS and finally AS + free hand
- Sharpness was eveluted as LP at 50% MTF using Imatest
- Shutter times between 1/125s and 1/15s were used

The results were essentially:

- Pictures with MLU were twice as sharp as without
- When MLU was not used but AS was enabled little effect f AS could be seen
- Freehand shots with AS were essentially equally sharp to tripod shots without MLU

The visual differences may have been smaller than what was measured with Imatest.

I always used MLU religiously, but now I have good reason...

Best regards
Erik

With a short lens the a900 AS will degrade your image if you don't turn it off when using a tripod. I have tested this with the CZ 24-70.

However, with the 500 mm mirror lens on a tripod on a breezy day I found the AS worked very well when left on.

I think the bottom line is pretty simple - if there really is NO vibration, the AS gets confused and will blur your shots. (Hunting, maybe?) But if there is even slight vibration, the AS is in its element and does a nice job.

In a day or two I'll take delivery of the 300 mm f2.8 and a 1.4X and I'll post my findings.

Bill

[douglasf13]

Leicaman, make sure your friend makes you mounts with chips in them. AFAIK, if the camera isn't told what the focal length of a lens is, it defaults to the 50mm length SSS settings. Also, without a chip, you can only use M mode, not A mode, fwiw.

[leicaman94044]

Thanks to all for your responses.  

I've communicated with one photographer over on dpreview who has done tests with a Minolta 400mm lens coupled to a 2x converter and he indicated: "The Sony SSS always works, whether you use a chipped lens or not. It is rumored that when you use a lens with distance encoding ("D" lenses) that SSS works somewhat better but this has never been shown to make a visible difference. The "chipped" lenses/converters are only necessary for autofocus or SSM motors."  He also comments: "on a tripod I have the best results when using mirror-lockup mode + cable release + *stabilization off."

Answers on this forum have included:
"Leicaman, make sure your friend makes you mounts with chips in them. AFAIK, if the camera isn't told what the focal length of a lens is, it defaults to the 50mm length SSS settings. Also, without a chip, you can only use M mode, not A mode, fwiw."

"When MLU was not used but AS was enabled little effect f AS could be seen" (with a tripod mounted 80-200 lens)

"One thing which I'd suggest is important in your context is that the Anti Shake system does use focal length information from the lens. So even if it works correctly with my lenses this may not be the case if another make of lens is used with a mechanical adapter."

"Cameras with in-body stabilization do their thing irrespective of the lens mounted.  With a very long lens stabilization is needed even when tripod mounted. It's only with short lenses on a tripod that stabilization needs to be turned off."

I'm a little confused by what appears to be conflicting information here.  Michael's comment (the last quote above) doesn't specify that a chipped lens is required for SSS to work properly or if he ever shot with his 500 Sigma lens on a tripod or whether that lens is chipped.  I'm guessing it is chipped, otherwise the autofocus would not work.  And since Minolta only made an 800 f8 reflex (mirror lens), there is probably no chip available for the 800mm focal length.  

Just trying to get confirmation that SSS will work effectively on a non-chipped 800 before making the investment for the A900, several custom mounts and a new laptop for the larger files the Sony will produce.

All comments appreciated.
Lawrence

[Brammers]

I'm a little confused by what appears to be conflicting information here.  Michael's comment (the last quote above) doesn't specify that a chipped lens is required for SSS to work properly or if he ever shot with his 500 Sigma lens on a tripod or whether that lens is chipped.  I'm guessing it is chipped, otherwise the autofocus would not work.  And since Minolta only made an 800 f8 reflex (mirror lens), there is probably no chip available for the 800mm focal length.  

Just trying to get confirmation that SSS will work effectively on a non-chipped 800 before making the investment for the A900, several custom mounts and a new laptop for the larger files the Sony will produce.

All comments appreciated.
Lawrence

The answer is...  maybe.

The information is a little sketchy, but as far as we are aware Sony's AS system makes use of the lens focal length to calculate how much it should compensate.  The lens focal length is supplied by the chip on the lens to the camera body - there's no other way to tell the camera what focal length is attached.

Although Micheal's using a Sigma 50-500 is perfectly fine, 1st party A-mount lenses do report information slightly differently to Sigma lenses - read through my guide here for an explanation:

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=39797

Basically rather than embed the lens information in the chip, as I believe CorN lenses do, they embed a code which is then looked up from a table in the camera.  As Sigma reverse engineer their lens mounts they are not able to create their own entries in this table and must therefore copy Minolta codes.  Sometimes they get this close, sometimes very wrong - for example a Sigma 70-300 I used showed up as a Minolta 70-300 - no real problem there.   However my Sigma 20mm showed up as a Minolta 100-300 - any AS calculation would be way out.  It may be the case however that the AS doesn't use this information and instead only uses reported focal length, which should work fine.  Either way the Sigma 50-500 is a chipped lens, whether correctly chipped or not may well proove irrelevent.

Here's the important bit.  If you use an unchipped lens on your camera your camera will have no way of deducing the lens' focal length.  From discussions in the past the camera defaults to stabilisation assuming a focal length of 50mm in such a case.  

To get optimal use of the inbody IS you should use chipped adapters.  The chips that go in these adapters are easily available from various sources and are used in custom conversions just like your own - you'll simply do what the Sigmas do and tell the camera that you're using a lens with similar characteristics to the one mounted - loads  of us have done this for 58mm f1.2s for example. For more information about these you need to ask at dyxum.com.

I don't reccomend relying on the AS of an unchipped super-telephoto - you really need to get the lens chipped.  MLU will be of help whether the lens is chipped or not.

Hope that's of use!

[Brammers]

Couple of clarifications - the answer is maybe because you're doing pretty ground-breaking stuff here - I can't think of a single instance of adapting 600mm+ lenses to Amount before.  Even Sigma 800 and 300-800 zooms are pretty rare in A-mount - come to think of it so are 600mm primes...

IIRC chips are available up to 1000mm - the lookup table contains 'spare capacity' in order to facilitate future lens designs which were never put into production.  This is certainly the case for aperture - here's an example of an 'f1.1' lens on an amount camera:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/35398335@N00/...57604762685329/

The fastest lenses Minolta/Sony ever made were 1.4s - I see no problem with making a chip that reports an 800mm focal length.

As to this quote:

Cameras with in-body stabilization do their thing irrespective of the lens mounted.

I believe this to be slightly erroneous.  Either Oly or Pentax have a specific mode where you input focal length for unchipped lenses to help with in-body stabilisation.  Sony's don't have that - hence the need for the chip.  As to the exact effect that focal length has upon the stabilisation system - that's a little beyond me!

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

With a short lens the a900 AS will degrade your image if you don't turn it off when using a tripod. I have tested this with the CZ 24-70.

However, with the 500 mm mirror lens on a tripod on a breezy day I found the AS worked very well when left on.

I think the bottom line is pretty simple - if there really is NO vibration, the AS gets confused and will blur your shots. (Hunting, maybe?) But if there is even slight vibration, the AS is in its element and does a nice job.

In a day or two I'll take delivery of the 300 mm f2.8 and a 1.4X and I'll post my findings.

Bill

I have now run a battery of tests using the 300 mm f2.8 G plus the 1.4x teleconverter. My first impressions, quoted above, seem to be confirmed.

Using a firm tripod but one that nevertheless did vibrate very slightly (visible in the viewfinder only) when I was holding the camera in order to depress the shutter release, SSS worked effectively at shutter speeds of 1/60th and faster.

At slower speeds it degraded the image. Also, if I was not holding the camera but using the 2 second MLU delay and keeping my hands well away so there was no transmitted motion, it always degraded the image at any shutter speed.

My conclusion remains - if there is NO vibration, turn off SSS. If there is even slight vibration, leave it on for shorter shutter speeds. And in my experience, in the field shooting birds or wildlife there is nearly always some vibration - from wind or more often from our own hands. And while you can't generally use MLU for such subjects unless they're quite static -  you should then turn SSS off.

I'll be very interested to hear others' experiences.

Incidentally, the 300 2.8 G is awfully heavy - and awfully sharp! (Even with the 1.4X)

Bill

[Brammers]

leicaman PMed me following my posts - I'll stick my reply on here so that others can read it (and maybe even find it useful!)

Here's what he said:

Given that I'd like to use the 800 with a 1.4 TC for birding, would it be a good idea to have the 800 chipped as if it were a 1000? This would partially account for the use of the 1.4 TC, which would be an actual 1120mm lens. Leica has never put ROM contacts on their 1.4 converter... so I don't think the design of the 1.4 TC would allow for a chip implant. The 2X APO TC has been redesigned to have ROM contacts so these could be removed to install a 2X chip (if such a thing exists). I could use a Sony 1.4 or 2X if and when they become available... but I don't think they'd be corrected as well as the Leica APO converters (which are insanely sharp).

When Sony lenses are used with Sony TCs then the TCs are also chipped and pass on the focal length adjustment to the camera body.  E.g.  Sony 300mm f2.8 + 1.4x TC = 450mm f4.  Much of this is to do with the SSM focusing system - it's well known that SSM focusing motors and Sonys don't work with unchipped TCs - use an old Sigma TC with your 70-200 G and you'll have the focus all over the place as it fails to account for the TC.  Sigma are releasing new, chipped versions of their TCs for Sonys + SSM/HSM motor lenses - don't get 2nd hand Sigma TCs if you're wanting to use such a combination.

If I've never heard of anyone chipping a Leica 800mm lens, I've certainly never heard of anyone chipping a TC...  However the chips do exist in the Sony TCs and are conceivably reverse engineerable, I've just never heard of anyone using them before.

Chipping the Leica at 800mm means it will be out if the 1.4x is used, chipping it at 1120mm means it will be out if the TC is not used.  I don't know enough about the way the AS system works with long focal length to tell you which will give the better result.  If I were you I'd look into either reverse engineering the Sony TC chips, both 1.4x and 2x, or buying broken Sony TCs to steal the chips off.  Maybe you could even hunt down the Sony part number and order the chips?  

As to the Leica 1.4x not being designed to take a chip, I'd imagine you'd overcome that problem during the mount-swap.  The chips themselves are tiny - here's one that I attached to my 58 1.2:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/35398335@N00/...57604762685329/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35398335@N00/...57604762685329/

I'm sure that during a mount swap a skilled technician could squeeze one of those in - it could be trimmed even further if required.

I've sent the OP a couple of names by PM that may be of use rather than posting them on here - if anyone else is interested then ask me for them by PM.

[Brammers]

Quick addition to that - the Sony TCs have a very good rep themselves...  Maybe worth a go before trying to chip the Leicas?  They're optically identical to the old Minoltas, a pretty good brand imo.  If you don't like them you can either strip the chips or sell them for very little loss on ebay/forums.