FYI, the photo with the Red whiskered Bulbul was shot from 47 feet. I use a golf laser range finder to measure distance from the target so I have an idea of the maximum distance I can be away from the target and still expect maximum detail.
Paul, by any chance, do you have some BIF images you took with that lens and the A7r IV? Just using the bare lenses without TC would be preferable actually. Thank you!
Paul, amazing ability of the a7r4 and the lens combo - we know the latter works very well from all the other posts but this is the first one with the new camera. Great for birders and wildlife enthusiasts.
Unfortunately I don’t have any BIF images yet. Have been trying to use the longest most extreme case scenario on static or semi static subjects to test the resolution. What I can tell you is that focus acquisition is fast. Tracking is good. However, maybe because I’m used to the A9’s light trigger action and 20 fps, the A7Riv’s seems to get stuck once in a while, not wanting to take the shot. For example, I see a bird walking from left to right, I push the shutter button and try to hold it down. It take 2-3 shot then pauses. Don’t know if I’m not holding it down hard enough or long enough but the same action on the A9 would have gotten at least 20 plus frames. This was using the normal raw file. I tried using the compressed raw and it felt the same. Maybe I have to get use to the different shutter action. Maybe I have to play with the settings. More experimentation needed. On another note, the raw file is huge and on my go anywhere MacBook Pro with only 16gb of ram, LR is seriously bogged down. Will have use the big desktop to do any serious editing as the delay reaction on the laptop is driving me nuts. I’ll be traveling for work for a week so not sure if I have time to try an BIF for now.
For those using the Sony 600 f/4 who have previously used a Canon or Nikon big prime, how does it compare? I know that the AF system of the body also plays a role (as in the a9), but are the linear motors a game changer?
I can only comment on a Canon 600/4 on a sony body (a9) compared to the FE600/4. Where the Canon AF on the Sony is adequate, AF of the sony is certainly faster and more accurate. However, the big plus for me is the weight and center of gravity of the Sony. It is much lighter and the center of gravity makes it feel even lighter. So far, most of my images with the Sony have been handheld while in a boat. I don’t think I could do that with the Canon and certainly only for a shorter time.
rji2goleez wrote:
I can only comment on a Canon 600/4 on a Sony body (a9) compared to the FE600/4. Where the Canon AF on the Sony is adequate, AF of the Sony is certainly faster and more accurate. However, the big plus for me is the weight and center of gravity of the Sony. It is much lighter and the center of gravity makes it feel even lighter. So far, most of my images with the Sony have been handheld while in a boat. I don’t think I could do that with the Canon and certainly only for a shorter time.
True, although the Canon 600 f/4 III is about the same weight as the Sony.
rji2goleez wrote:
Sorry, I only used the Canon version II . . . Much heavier than Sony.
Yes, I had the Canon 500 f/4 IS, and then the "II", and now the Nikon 500 f/4E. Always wanting lighter. But I'm getting the impression that the linear motors in the Sony place it far above the Canikons for AF speed.
That's good to hear. I'm just in the process of doing a deal on my Canon gear (600 II) for a part-ex on the Sony 600 after using the a9 adapted (Sigma) for the last six months.
rji2goleez wrote:
I can only comment on a Canon 600/4 on a sony body (a9) compared to the FE600/4. Where the Canon AF on the Sony is adequate, AF of the sony is certainly faster and more accurate. However, the big plus for me is the weight and center of gravity of the Sony. It is much lighter and the center of gravity makes it feel even lighter. So far, most of my images with the Sony have been handheld while in a boat. I don’t think I could do that with the Canon and certainly only for a shorter time.
Unfortunately I don’t have any BIF images yet. Have been trying to use the longest most extreme case scenario on static or semi static subjects to test the resolution. What I can tell you is that focus acquisition is fast. Tracking is good. However, maybe because I’m used to the A9’s light trigger action and 20 fps, the A7Riv’s seems to get stuck once in a while, not wanting to take the shot. For example, I see a bird walking from left to right, I push the shutter button and try to hold it down. It take 2-3 shot then pauses. Don’t know if I’m not holding it down hard enough or long enough but the same action on the A9 would have gotten at least 20 plus frames. This was using the normal raw file. I tried using the compressed raw and it felt the same. Maybe I have to get use to the different shutter action. Maybe I have to play with the settings. More experimentation needed. On another note, the raw file is huge and on my go anywhere MacBook Pro with only 16gb of ram, LR is seriously bogged down. Will have use the big desktop to do any serious editing as the delay reaction on the laptop is driving me nuts. I’ll be traveling for work for a week so not sure if I have time to try an BIF for now....Show more →
Thank you, Paul. No problem, I understand that fully.
Colin F wrote:
For those using the Sony 600 f/4 who have previously used a Canon or Nikon big prime, how does it compare? I know that the AF system of the body also plays a role (as in the a9), but are the linear motors a game changer?
Hi Colin, although I had my first copy of the Canon 600mm f/4 Mark II when I was still using Canon but I didn't use it on the 1DX Mark I nor Mark II. My last copy of a Canon camera back then was the 5D Mark III. Regardless, a direct comparison is not feasible and like you said, the body used plays a significant role in driving the lens or lenses. Sorry, I am not much of help in this respect.
Colin F wrote:
For those using the Sony 600 f/4 who have previously used a Canon or Nikon big prime, how does it compare? I know that the AF system of the body also plays a role (as in the a9), but are the linear motors a game changer?
Colin, I had used the Canon 600 MkII with the 1DX2. Never could hand hold it properly. Tried BIF shots but it never worked, largely due to the inability of the camera to latch on if a wide area was used. In that sense the Sony a9 is fantastic, I have so many keepers with this camera. It is still early days with the 600GM for me, have only used it once so far and while not so easy on the arms as the 400 2.8 was, it still feels lighter and I can walk around with it. Part of the reason why I sold my Canon was that it was only ever useful for static subjects and for big animals often proved to be too much. Plus, combined with the 1DX2, was very bulky.
You could say the a9 plus 600GM feels a bit like the Canon 1D4 with the 300 2.8 MkI, a combination I also had at one time. The heft and ease of use is similar with again the big difference being the AF of the Sony - which is superior.
Did some experimentation with 2X TC today, this guy was seating on log, approx. 670 ft away for almost 6 hours without doing anything else, have to say amazing patience!
Shot was taken with A9, 600 GM, 2X TC and cropped 1/4 %.
Peregrine falcons are still there at the same location but they are getting tougher and tougher to see, let alone to photograph.... It is fairly far away from my place, making it a tough gamble to venture out there...
AGeoJO wrote:
Peregrine falcons are still there at the same location but they are getting tougher and tougher to see, let alone to photograph.... It is fairly far away from my place, making it a tough gamble to venture out there...
What a beautiful sharp details and lovely eye contact! great work!
