phishbone wrote:
I could have really used that 600 F4 today. I was shooting 4 ft. away from Geoff on my right, and the magnification difference between it and the 200-600 is quite stark.
A few from earlier today.
Can you post up an uncropped shot of the one just before impact? Then I'll post that same shot uncropped to really see how different they are. I think when you were viewing my playback I was zoomed in each time. I know the 200-600 is slightly shorter than the 600 but I don't think at the distance we were shooting that it is going to be as much as you think.
Now what both of us needed was the 600/4 with the 1.4TC on....
phishbone wrote:
Thanks, Doug. Hard to explain, but compared to the prime, this lens seems to be a bit "short" - like not quite 600mm. Geoff and I were shooting from essentially the same vantage point, but the Osprey on his frame appeared bigger shot from the same distance. It'll be more apparent when he posts his pictures later today.
Well, I just did a quick test, the 200-600 at 600mm and the 600 GM, although the frames are not perfectly identical but no question the 200-600 at 600mm is not quite as long as the 600gm.
Just look at the position of the heart in the lower right corner.
My tests at around 30ft showed the 200-600 about 560. It was pretty much identical to the 400DOII/1.4TC.
Fun fact: my testing three weeks ago showed the Canon 600III to have more magnification than the 600GM at about 30 feet.
Douglas L wrote:
Well, I just did a quick test, the 200-600 at 600mm and the 600 GM, although the frames are not perfectly identical but no question the 200-600 at 600mm is not quite as long as the 600gm.
arbitrage wrote:
Can you post up an uncropped shot of the one just before impact? Then I'll post that same shot uncropped to really see how different they are. I think when you were viewing my playback I was zoomed in each time. I know the 200-600 is slightly shorter than the 600 but I don't think at the distance we were shooting that it is going to be as much as you think.
Now what both of us needed was the 600/4 with the 1.4TC on....
Thanks for the comparison shots. Still trying to decide between 400/f2.8 or 600/f4 since at most I can only get 1.
I used the 1.4x today with the 200-600 for the first time in a long time. Subjects were not all that challenging but I feel it didn't snap into focus like the bare lens. Atmospheric conditions were miserable which didn't help. Low angle shots were a no go, but standing up gave acceptable results at times.
A couple shots with the TC:
Sony ILCE-1
FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS + 1.4X Teleconverter
ƒ/9.0 840.0 mm 1/2000 500
Sony ILCE-1
FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS + 1.4X Teleconverter
ƒ/9.0 840.0 mm 1/2000 500
Sony ILCE-1
FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS + 1.4X Teleconverter
ƒ/9.0 840.0 mm 1/2000 500
I'll probably post more later here or in the 200-600 thread.
After comparing my uncropped osprey and Christian's I believe he must have been in APS-C mode. Here is my image cropped to APS-C for a better comparison.
Then I brought the two images into PS and layered them with 50% transparency.
I've been working the Milky Way with the A7C, just smaller for some of the places I've gone to shoot. Last night I put the A1+85/1.8 on the MSM tracker for a 150 second exposure of the core. I prefer the A7C over the A1 for ISO but when tracked it matters not.
arbitrage wrote:
After comparing my uncropped osprey and Christian's I believe he must have been in APS-C mode. Here is my image cropped to APS-C for a better comparison.
Then I brought the two images into PS and layered them with 50% transparency.
Interesting exercise! Wonder if we should park this discussion for the weekend in person; not sure if anyone else is benefiting from it.
No, I was definitely shooting full-frame. Here's what comes to mind, for what it's worth:
We were between 4-6 feet apart. Looking at the map, we were essentially equidistant from the target.
We were blabbing away, but you were already crouched down by the time I called "Osprey". Yours is a much better angle.
My tracking technique is not up to par. I noticed a ~3-5* slant on the horizon from that particular sequence.
I may be biased, but the image from the prime looks a smidge bigger and better rendered. I may also just be trying to justify the purchase next year.
A lot can happen in 1/3200ths of a second! It's the difference between 6" above, and talons entering the water. Interesting that you were shooting at 15fps, whereas I was shooting at 30.
phishbone wrote:
Interesting exercise! Wonder if we should park this discussion for the weekend in person; not sure if anyone else is benefiting from it.
No, I was definitely shooting full-frame. Here's what comes to mind, for what it's worth:
We were between 4-6 feet apart. Looking at the map, we were essentially equidistant from the target.
We were blabbing away, but you were already crouched down by the time I called "Osprey". Yours is a much better angle.
My tracking technique is not up to par. I noticed a ~3-5* slant on the horizon from that particular sequence.
I may be biased, but the image from the prime looks a smidge bigger and better rendered. I may also just be trying to justify the purchase next year.
A lot can happen in 1/3200ths of a second! It's the difference between 6" above, and talons entering the water. Interesting that you were shooting at 15fps, whereas I was shooting at 30.
If yours was FF then the images don't make sense to me. Just look at how much more rock wall I have in my frame. If yours is FF then the Osprey looks bigger in your frame than mine which would say the 200-600 has more magnifcation out at infinity than mine. But on the flip side my cropped to APS-C image seems to have too much magnification compared to yours so I believe you when you say you weren't in crop mode. I'm confused but I will test it myself on Friday with both lenses just to cure my curiosity
arbitrage wrote:
If yours was FF then the images don't make sense to me. Just look at how much more rock wall I have in my frame. If yours is FF then the Osprey looks bigger in your frame than mine which would say the 200-600 has more magnifcation out at infinity than mine. But on the flip side my cropped to APS-C image seems to have too much magnification compared to yours so I believe you when you say you weren't in crop mode. I'm confused but I will test it myself on Friday with both lenses just to cure my curiosity...Show more →
Didn't you notice Canon 600 has more magnification than Sony? Does it mean Sony 600 is not really 600? Very rare chance. Still?
I'd love to see a pic at long distance (like the osprey image) with both 200-600 and 600GM. I expect 600GM would be larger (56mm vs 600mm).
