I have been using the 600/4 GM with the 2X TC to shoot grebes at Lake Hodges for a few months. I have been very pleased with the results. I posted a couple of Grebe Rushing images earlier this year and just posted 8 more on the Nature and Wildlife forum, https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1637414 . I will post a few of them below.
I have been using both the A7R4 and the A9 with the 600/4 + 2X TC. Both have performed extremely well with the lens+TC. With the 1200mm reach I was managing to fill a significant fraction of the frame so the advantage of the extra pixels of the A7R4 was attenuated. These images are all shot from the shore off of a tripod with a RRS FG-02 fluid gimbal head. The tripod was as low as possible and the lens was about 3 feet above the water surface since I want as low an angle as possible.
arbitrage wrote:
It only took me 38 pages....
It's about time!
I believe your only regret with be that you didn't buy it months ago.
BTW, a few pages back when you indicated you had a mystery lens on the way, I thought it was the 600mm, but I also thought it might be the 400mm since you spoke about its advantages a few times. I had the 400 and sold it to get the 600. I was not so sure I did the right thing, but I am now convinced I did. I think you will reach the same conclusion.
dclark wrote:
It's about time!
I believe your only regret with be that you didn't buy it months ago.
BTW, a few pages back when you indicated you had a mystery lens on the way, I thought it was the 600mm, but I also thought it might be the 400mm since you spoke about its advantages a few times. I had the 400 and sold it to get the 600. I was not so sure I did the right thing, but I am now convinced I did. I think you will reach the same conclusion.
Dave
It was a close battle between the 400 and 600. But considering that after about 40 shots with the bare lens today, I immediately slapped on the 2xTC and was having a blast I think I made the right decision. I know that 1200 will matter more to me over the 400/2.8 option and the compact size of the 400GM.
All shot handheld...but admittedly there weren't many keepers in my string of wren images at 1/250s and 1200mm . I probably should have switched over to e-shutter to get a few more sharp ones.
I shot this Robin with the A9II and A7RIV....I have to say that once again I just really prefer the rendering of a ~20MP FF file over these high MP ones. Especially true once ISO is in this sort of range. You can't really tell much difference in this size of output and after PP but I also don't see much advantage of the RIV pixels in this Robin image. But as I was culling along through the R4 images I then got to the first of the A9 images and it just seemed like a more pleasing image. Not sure if this is more to do with the increased magnification I'm seeing on the screen because I'm culling them both at 1:1. Maybe I should cull the A7RIV images at 1:2 to even the "look" out. Of course I've found this time and time again over the years but it never sinks in and I keep buying high-res bodies. Maybe in better light the high MPs will make a difference
arbitrage wrote:
It was a close battle between the 400 and 600. But considering that after about 40 shots with the bare lens today, I immediately slapped on the 2xTC and was having a blast I think I made the right decision. I know that 1200 will matter more to me over the 400/2.8 option and the compact size of the 400GM.
Geoff,
Congratulations. Look forward to seeing a lot of great results with the lens. Will also be interested in when you use the 600 GM vs the 200-600 G.
arbitrage wrote:
All shot handheld...but admittedly there weren't many keepers in my string of wren images at 1/250s and 1200mm . I probably should have switched over to e-shutter to get a few more sharp ones.
I shot this Robin with the A9II and A7RIV....I have to say that once again I just really prefer the rendering of a ~20MP FF file over these high MP ones. Especially true once ISO is in this sort of range. You can't really tell much difference in this size of output and after PP but I also don't see much advantage of the RIV pixels in this Robin image. But as I was culling along through the R4 images I then got to the first of the A9 images and it just seemed like a more pleasing image. Not sure if this is more to do with the increased magnification I'm seeing on the screen because I'm culling them both at 1:1. Maybe I should cull the A7RIV images at 1:2 to even the "look" out. Of course I've found this time and time again over the years but it never sinks in and I keep buying high-res bodies. Maybe in better light the high MPs will make a difference...Show more →
Holger wrote:
Cool. So no R5+600/4 from Canon then?
Oh I'll certainly consider the R5 and 600III or 400III. I got a good enough deal on my Sony purchase that I won't lose much if anything if I sell it. Or I may run both systems. July is a ways a way and I'm not opposed to switching systems often.
arbitrage wrote:
Of course I've found this time and time again over the years but it never sinks in and I keep buying high-res bodies. Maybe in better light the high MPs will make a difference?
Geoff
Congratulations to the new gear , Look forward to seeing more shots
Hope you be satisfied with your purchased
Will you keep both 100-400 GM and 200-600 G together with 600 GM F4?
Zoom can be nice to have if 600mm is too tight
For the birds, I can agree that less MP actually looks better than the high-res bodies (My opinion)
Can it get too sharp and too much detail ? I think so sometimes
Sometimes it may be nicer to see a slightly more soft picture especially on birds
Crop opportunity is an advantage with high-res bodies
but Iso performance is worse
For landscape photography high-res bodies can shine more
of course it can be really good on birds also
Its in good hands. And I figured this was how you'd go too. Congrats, enjoy, and looking forward to what it brings. And yeah, putting the 2x on there really does validate the choice.
