photonoclast wrote:
^^^ Just curious if you shot this from a blind. The Pileated's here are **extremely** shy!
No, but I was a little bit out of sight. I set up my tripod at the back of my garage, and I am somewhat covered by trees & plants, but still visible once they come in. The secret is to remain still, as it is your movement that puts the birds off more than anything. This often requires keeping your hands on the camera, ready to shoot, which can be tedious at times, but ya gotta pay to get the shot!
I also find that this particular bird (as well as Northern Flickers) tends to announce their approach well ahead of time with their loud call, letting us know to get ready.
arbitrage wrote:
Okay, okay, I'll stop with the Godwits.....at least until tomorrow
Here are some other feathered friends I saw today down at the lagoon....
Geoff, that coot in #3 looks really great! Don't get me wrong all the images you posted here are just impressive but I have not seen a coot image that looks even close to that.
I understood that you went ahead and ordered an R5 but short of the Canon 600mm f/4 Mark III, what other lens or lenses can match the GM 600mm? Unless you get that lens, it would be hard to get the performance similar to the A9 II or the A7r IV that has been performed splendidly for us. Of course, getting a duplicate 600mm would be the solution. I am just curious...
AGeoJO wrote:
Geoff, that coot in #3 looks really great! Don't get me wrong all the images you posted here are just impressive but I have not seen a coot image that looks even close to that.
I understood that you went ahead and ordered an R5 but short of the Canon 600mm f/4 Mark III, what other lens or lenses can match the GM 600mm? Unless you get that lens, it would be hard to get the performance similar to the A9 II or the A7r IV that has been performed splendidly for us. Of course, getting a duplicate 600mm would be the solution. I am just curious...
At this point the R5 is just a bit of an experiment...a test run to see how it compares. I won't be buying any big lens for it at this time. Maybe a 400DOII but most likely will just use the 100-500. What you say is true, without buying a 600 or similar it won't be a complete system to me like the Sony system is for me currently. I don't know how it will all play out...I often experiment for awhile before diving in head first. With Nikon I bought the D500/200-500 back in 2016 but never really got serious into shooting it until late 2017. With Sony I got the A9/100-400 in May 2018 and didn't really start shooting it as my main system till well into 2019 (mostly because of the 200-600 coming along).
If I find myself reaching for the Canon gear more than the Sony gear like I did for Nikon over Canon and then Sony over Nikon/Canon, then I would consider a big lens. Most likely that will be the 400 f/2.8 IS III unless they bring out something better in RF mount.
Question for you 600/4 experts. I've been using the 200-600 for a few months, now on an A9, and no doubt the system is far beyond my present skill level to get the best out of it. I am now using the 1.4TC for virtually everything, unless the light gets low. Nevertheless, it is true that at least 99.5% of my shots have the zoom racked all the way out to 600. Given my primary subjects, shy Michigan songbirds, I need max reach for essentially everything. Here's the question: if I were to splurge for a 600/4, how much would it buy me in terms of how rapidly and accurately it grabs focus ? As you have taken 1000s of images with both, on an A9 (leave the A7iv aside for this question) is the difference substantial? Here's the thing - I don't know how much I would want to actually shoot at f4, since the depth of field is so small that only half the bird is in focus. I am wondering if the extra aperture of the 4 gives me better/quicker/more accurate focus, even if I'm then taking the shot at f8.
photonoclast wrote:
Question for you 600/4 experts. I've been using the 200-600 for a few months, now on an A9, and no doubt the system is far beyond my present skill level to get the best out of it. I am now using the 1.4TC for virtually everything, unless the light gets low. Nevertheless, it is true that at least 99.5% of my shots have the zoom racked all the way out to 600. Given my primary subjects, shy Michigan songbirds, I need max reach for essentially everything. Here's the question: if I were to splurge for a 600/4, how much would it buy me in terms of how rapidly and accurately it grabs focus ? As you have taken 1000s of images with both, on an A9 (leave the A7iv aside for this question) is the difference substantial? Here's the thing - I don't know how much I would want to actually shoot at f4, since the depth of field is so small that only half the bird is in focus. I am wondering if the extra aperture of the 4 gives me better/quicker/more accurate focus, even if I'm then taking the shot at f8....Show more →
Geoff (arbitrage) will have a better technical answer than I, but it seems to me that the limiting factor in the focus acquisition is in the a9, not the lenses. The biggest advantage of the 600/4 (IMO) is that it will work better with the 2X extender, and is 1200mm @ f/8. It will also offer better micro contrast and simply better optics, but the 200-600 is pretty impressive for a zoom lens. Sharp too!
photonoclast wrote:
Question for you 600/4 experts. I've been using the 200-600 for a few months, now on an A9, and no doubt the system is far beyond my present skill level to get the best out of it. I am now using the 1.4TC for virtually everything, unless the light gets low. Nevertheless, it is true that at least 99.5% of my shots have the zoom racked all the way out to 600. Given my primary subjects, shy Michigan songbirds, I need max reach for essentially everything. Here's the question: if I were to splurge for a 600/4, how much would it buy me in terms of how rapidly and accurately it grabs focus ? As you have taken 1000s of images with both, on an A9 (leave the A7iv aside for this question) is the difference substantial? Here's the thing - I don't know how much I would want to actually shoot at f4, since the depth of field is so small that only half the bird is in focus. I am wondering if the extra aperture of the 4 gives me better/quicker/more accurate focus, even if I'm then taking the shot at f8....Show more →
I've read others say the 600GM is faster to focus....I think it is to a some degree but I've also found that it will stutter on me more than the 200-600. One thing people may or may not have noticed is that if you are in Zone or Wide and the camera is having trouble focusing it flashes up a Med Flex Spot overlay. I see that more often with the 600 than the 200-600. It is usually when the distance to drive focus is larger (ie it was grossly OOF to start with compared to where the subject is). As you add TCs then the differences become more pronounced with the focus and I think that is just because the light is getting pretty dim at f/9 and f/13 with the 200-600 and the TCs.
I feel the biggest benefit of the 600GM is the extra aperture and ability to use 1200mm. Once at 1200mm the 600GM certainly does focus better than trying to use 1200mm on the 200-600 (which I experiment with occasionally but almost always end up disappointed).
One thing to be mindful of when considering the 600GM is the MFD is a lot longer than the 200-600. So you can find yourself in situations where you end up with less magnification than the 200-600 if you can get closer than the 600's MFD of 4.5m (14'8"). Also the 600 is a lot harder to wield in the field and the agility one has with the 200-600 has certainly netted me shots I would have missed with the big gun.
^^^ Many thanks, arbitrage, for a very useful analysis. I trust others will find it equally useful. That MFD point was particularly surprising and important. I am often right in the 12-20 foot range.
