Pius Sullivan wrote:
Canon would have nailed that bird on the perch....
My iPhone would have nailed it also. To be fair the bare lens on the R4 would have nailed it also. My mistake was having the 1.4TC on which I did only because I thought I'd mounted my A9II. Stuff you mess up at 5AM in the morning
Then again, I think "Canon" is a little far reaching....my 7D2, 80D and 5DSR with a lens/2xTC would have missed probably just as often as this R4/200-600/1.4 combo does even for this super simple subject.
tester_V wrote:
I'd love to see at least a couple of "spectacular" (sharpness) images taken with this lens, what I see here, on this forum, a lot of very good pictures, just not sharp ones (pages and pages). So far it does not look good (sharpness).
You've posted this repeatedly in this thread (2 posts in the same day) and in the other thread. I've explained some reasons the images may not appear as sharp on FM as they will on your computer. I've also suggested going to mine and others' Flickr pages to see a much better representation of the true sharpness without FMs degradation.
Did you go to my Flickr to see images without this forums' degradation of uploaded images? I think there are super sharp shots from the 200-600 on there. And these have a 1.4TC on the lens....
tester_V wrote:
I'd love to see at least a couple of "spectacular" (sharpness) images taken with this lens, what I see here, on this forum, a lot of very good pictures, just not sharp ones (pages and pages). So far it does not look good (sharpness).
I suspect that is because many posters are exporting from Lightroom. About a week ago I started using "edit in Photoshop" and then used it to downsize and save jpegs for the forum with a noticable difference.
tester_V wrote:
I'd love to see at least a couple of "spectacular" (sharpness) images taken with this lens, what I see here, on this forum, a lot of very good pictures, just not sharp ones (pages and pages). So far it does not look good (sharpness).
Is this John the Nikon dork back with another new username?
arbitrage wrote:
You've posted this repeatedly in this thread (2 posts in the same day) and in the other thread. I've explained some reasons the images may not appear as sharp on FM as they will on your computer. I've also suggested going to mine and others' Flickr pages to see a much better representation of the true sharpness without FMs degradation.
Did you go to my Flickr to see images without this forums' degradation of uploaded images? I think there are super sharp shots from the 200-600 on there. And these have a 1.4TC on the lens....
kimknapp wrote:
I suspect that is because many posters are exporting from Lightroom. About a week ago I started using "edit in Photoshop" and then used it to downsize and save jpegs for the forum with a noticable difference.
I only use LR, no PS and I have never had any problem with image not being sharp so I don't agree with what you are saying. Sure there can be compression with the forum, web site hosting etc but I don't buy this LR vs PS thing.
I have both the A92 and A7rIV along with the 200-600 and 600 f4. With the 200-600 and A7rIV I have the same focus issues many posts have pointed out. I cannot find a key setting that causes the issue. I have had strange focus results with and without IS enabled and different modes of AFC with both stationary and BIF. With the A7rIV I always use high shutter speeds (1/3200 or above). One thing I have noticed. The keeper rate goes down the closer to infinity the 200-600 lens is focused and especially in harsh side or back-lighting. I seem to get a little better results since I stopped using IS. Could be my imagination but hoping a fix will come about as I love the portability of the 200-600 for BIF.
smhoer wrote:
One thing I have noticed. The keeper rate goes down the closer to infinity the 200-600 lens is focused and especially in harsh side or back-lighting.
Sounds suspiciously like a Nikon optical design in that respect... like the 200-400mm f4, or my copy of the 300mm f4 PF.
I own an A9 and an A7R IV. When using the 200-600 with 1.4X I get a lot of missed focus with the A7R IV which does not happen with the A9. There are some spectacular shots form A7R IV, but a lot more close but no cigar shots. And in reality, for most shots I am starting to question if the A7R IV is any sharper than the A9 when shooting ISO 1000 to 1600 which you frequently have to at f9.
And that's the frustration and reason to give up on A7R IV for nature. Big risk of missed shot, small gain in IQ unless a very heavy crop is involved. Completely different case than 600mm GM where you would grab the A7R IV almost always.
Now I am creating a whole new set of frustrations for myself with the Nikon 500mm PF plus 1.4x and the limitations of Nikon AF capabilities at f8
Does the 200/600 shut down aperture when focusing? I wonder if the A9 focuses the same way or maybe opens a bit to allow more light for focusing. I am not familiar with a7IV and don't know its characteristics.
molson wrote:
True... but if you don't have them already, it would be hard to consider investing in a lens mount that's more or less reached the end of it's life.
It is a hobby for me, not an investment. You can buy those superteles for cheap and use them for 10 yrs and enjoy without worrying what else will come next yr. Don't have to buy them brand new, look for nice used copies. 1dxMk3 just came out. Those lenses will be there for a while IMHO. Other option is hope Sony will release similar lenses, like 200mm f2, 500mm f4, 800mm f5.6 and do nothing in the mean time while you waiting.
bobby350z wrote:
It is a hobby for me, not an investment. You can buy those superteles for cheap and use them for 10 yrs and enjoy without worrying what else will come next yr. Don't have to buy them brand new, look for nice used copies. 1dxMk3 just came out. Those lenses will be there for a while IMHO.
No thanks - I had my fill of owning expensive telephotos that the manufacturer wouldn't repair or service when I owned Olympus Four Thirds gear.
I like Sony, I like Fuji but come on Canon still has the lenses Sony/Fuji don't have. 