New Posts For Thread: Anyone on here do photography for a hobby?https://community.betfair.com/chit_chat/go/thread/view/94038/23420222/anyone-on-here-do-photography-for-a-hobby^^^^ttthttps://community.betfair.com/chit_chat/go/thread/view/94038/23420222/anyone-on-here-do-photography-for-a-hobby?post_id=417671730#417671730tttSat, 12 Dec 2009 06:36:58 -0600Spot on with your comments. . . The Tamron has better optics but the Sigma has better auto-focus. The Sony has the best of both. Either on a 700 gives you 105-300 focal length. . .with a 1.4 converter you have a good bit of kit for the horses!https://community.betfair.com/chit_chat/go/thread/view/94038/23420222/anyone-on-here-do-photography-for-a-hobby?post_id=417671398#417671398Spot on with your comments. . . The Tamron has better optics but the Sigma has better auto-focus. The Sony has the best of both. Either on a 700 gives you 105-300 focal length. . .with a 1.4 converter you have a good bit of kit for the horses!Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:17:15 -0600AI The Sony is a mix of the best of the Sigma and Tamron. The Tamron is sharp yet slower focusing yet the Sigma is less sharp but faster focusing than the Tamron. I think the Sigma also has an SSM equivalent in its lens as well.https://community.betfair.com/chit_chat/go/thread/view/94038/23420222/anyone-on-here-do-photography-for-a-hobby?post_id=417671394#417671394AI The Sony is a mix of the best of the Sigma and Tamron. The Tamron is sharp yet slower focusing yet the Sigma is less sharp but faster focusing than the Tamron. I think the Sigma also has an SSM equivalent in its lens as well.Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:13:21 -0600treble, I mentioned high ISO because that would allow you to use a faster shutter speed in dodgy lighting. Obviously its not crucial on sunny days but for my uses, it was a deciding factor into which camera I bought.I'm not sure about most day meetinhttps://community.betfair.com/chit_chat/go/thread/view/94038/23420222/anyone-on-here-do-photography-for-a-hobby?post_id=417671390#417671390treble, I mentioned high ISO because that would allow you to use a faster shutter speed in dodgy lighting. Obviously its not crucial on sunny days but for my uses, it was a deciding factor into which camera I bought.I'm not sure about most day meetinThu, 03 Dec 2009 04:11:18 -0600I take a fair few photos and some of them are pretty good, also dive a fair amount but no underwater housing exists for my present camera...so thinking of upgrading. Dont suppose anyone has or has heard about the Canon 5D?Tahttps://community.betfair.com/chit_chat/go/thread/view/94038/23420222/anyone-on-here-do-photography-for-a-hobby?post_id=417671386#417671386I take a fair few photos and some of them are pretty good, also dive a fair amount but no underwater housing exists for my present camera...so thinking of upgrading. Dont suppose anyone has or has heard about the Canon 5D?TaThu, 03 Dec 2009 04:11:17 -0600SDThe picture quality on the G lens is better. . the focusing is FAR quicker. . the sharpness is unreal. The SSM of the G makes the extra money very worth while. But (excuse the pun) its horses for courses and i guess the money difference is quite hihttps://community.betfair.com/chit_chat/go/thread/view/94038/23420222/anyone-on-here-do-photography-for-a-hobby?post_id=417671382#417671382SDThe picture quality on the G lens is better. . the focusing is FAR quicker. . the sharpness is unreal. The SSM of the G makes the extra money very worth while. But (excuse the pun) its horses for courses and i guess the money difference is quite hiThu, 03 Dec 2009 04:05:18 -0600AI.I was looking at either the Sigma or Tamron 70-200 f2.8 for about half the price of the Sony. Yes, they both have their faults but they're excellent vfm compared to the Sony.https://community.betfair.com/chit_chat/go/thread/view/94038/23420222/anyone-on-here-do-photography-for-a-hobby?post_id=417671378#417671378AI.I was looking at either the Sigma or Tamron 70-200 f2.8 for about half the price of the Sony. Yes, they both have their faults but they're excellent vfm compared to the Sony.Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:01:20 -0600Yes Shrew D, it is a touch over exposed. I am a Lightroom user. I am a bit confused about your horse racing point though. I would'nt have thought a high ISO would be necessary for horse racing as most day meetings are obviously well lit and at night,https://community.betfair.com/chit_chat/go/thread/view/94038/23420222/anyone-on-here-do-photography-for-a-hobby?post_id=417671374#417671374Yes Shrew D, it is a touch over exposed. I am a Lightroom user. I am a bit confused about your horse racing point though. I would'nt have thought a high ISO would be necessary for horse racing as most day meetings are obviously well lit and at night,Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:59:59 -0600Shrew D. . .Get the Sony 70-200G 2.8This is probably the best lens (Carl Zeuss aside) that Sony do.I have one and its superb. . .but a little pricey!!https://community.betfair.com/chit_chat/go/thread/view/94038/23420222/anyone-on-here-do-photography-for-a-hobby?post_id=417671370#417671370Shrew D. . .Get the Sony 70-200G 2.8This is probably the best lens (Carl Zeuss aside) that Sony do.I have one and its superb. . .but a little pricey!!Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:55:53 -0600The camera counts for little imo..------I half agree with that. If you need a camera for photo's of horse racing then you're better off with a body that has high ISO performance and a reasonable burst rate. If you just shoot landscapes then you may ghttps://community.betfair.com/chit_chat/go/thread/view/94038/23420222/anyone-on-here-do-photography-for-a-hobby?post_id=417671366#417671366The camera counts for little imo..------I half agree with that. If you need a camera for photo's of horse racing then you're better off with a body that has high ISO performance and a reasonable burst rate. If you just shoot landscapes then you may gThu, 03 Dec 2009 03:47:53 -0600