Show your Bird Portraits
- Thread starter 1982chris911
- Start date
this first image was almost directly into the sun. I thought to see what adjusting the levels looks like, but I felt it looks best with no adjustment. The second was with the sun more like 45 degrees to the left althoughs the trees blocked the sun from touching the bird from both angles.
Upvote
0
Eastern Striated Pardalote
View attachment 211059
Modelling on a rock
View attachment 211060
View attachment 211061
Yellow-rumped Thornbill
View attachment 211062
View attachment 211059
Modelling on a rock
View attachment 211060
View attachment 211061
Yellow-rumped Thornbill
View attachment 211062
Upvote
0
Still sitting on a fence. A1 + 200-600 is a great combo, especially when you need a greater reach. But I also love my Canon R5 + 100-500. It's a great camera and a very sharp lens for a closer distance. Both are workhorses, with some minor wrinkles. And I still post photos shot with both cameras. Apparently I shoot more with my Sony because 600mm+ is definitely a plus in this open landscape. I guess I'll have to make a "final" choice when I have to leave this country for good.
Upvote
0
Many people complain about Sony's ergonomics. I think because your able to shoot more with the Sony it's not a problem, at least not for you, right?
What would you say are the positives and negatives for each option?
I quite like how you were able to find drops in the rocky foreground to allow us to see the feet!
Upvote
0
Thank you, Eric! Yes, It took me a while to find a position where the feet would be seen between the rocks.
Sony's ergonomics was a bit challenging first. I was lost in the menu, but thanks to Mark Smith's tutorial I could set up the camera and get what I needed from it. I assigned functions to buttons to have the same or very similar layout in both Sony and Canon cameras. Now I'm comfortable with both systems.
Sony has two main advantages: 1) 200-600 with F/6.3 at 600mm plus quite good IQ with the 1.4x extender. As a result, I can have 840mm and even crop it if necessary. 2) the camera itself. It's just the fastest beast I've seen, and it doesn't have a rolling shutter effect with the electronic shutter. Also, probably 3) the sensor allows me to crop up to 3000x2000 and still have decent IQ.
Canon is a bit slower and shorter, but I like image quality of RF100-500. It has a greater contrast and it's a bit sharper than 200-600. Also, it has shorter minimal distance so I can use it as a macro lens. Finally, I still do love Canon's color much better. Although you can make any color with RAW, they look a bit differently anyway.
Not sure if my notes are helpful, but that's how I see it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yellow-Crowned Night Heron catching some morning rays at Brazos Bend State Park in SE Texas. R5 with RF 100-500mm @438mm EV -1.33 3x2 vertical crop the height of the original frame.
Attachments
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I think this is a fair comparison of the Nikon 180-600mm vs Sony 200-600mm, with the Canon 100-500mm at the end. The Canon is the more general purpose lens with its wider field of view at the short end and much shorter mfd for macro shots. The other two have the extra at the long end but are heavier. I'm tempted by a 600/6.3 but I know the 100-500 is the best for me.
Upvote
0
Spending that extra time to find a better position is usually worth it!
Your notes were helpful for me, thanks. I thought, if the Canon is sharper, it might not be as usual as the specification of 600mm at F/6.3 implies?
Thanks for the video. I noticed he said at 600, he stops down to f/8. Do you need to stop down the 100-500 or is f/7.1 sharp enough?
Upvote
0
The 100-500 doesn't get any sharper on stopping down from f/7.1, which is what I find and also sites that measure the resolution with IMATEST. The Nikon needed stopping down at 600mm but the Sony doesn't, as been confirmed elsewhere. We need to see more tests on the Nikon but I guess it's going to be behind the Sony. Also, the Sony TCs are reported to be very good. The Canon RF TCs are very good and I often put the 2x on the 100-500. The 100-500 is really sharp at 500, and at 100mm has the sharpness of a prime. By the way, I made yesterday my own measurements of the magnification of the 500 at mfd and found it to be 0.34x, close to the 0.33x claimed by Canon.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I remember you saying more than once the Canon takes TCs very well.
Does Canon claim a lower magnification for these two lenses to account for variation between the individual lenses? Totally different lens, but I've been quite impressed with what the 16mm gives. It's claimed at 0.26x, how's the best way to do your test?
Upvote
0
I have a chart on a wall with lines on it. Move the camera closer and closer until I get the mfd where there is still tack sharp focus. Measure the length of a line on the chart in mm with calipers, calculate the length of the line in mm in the image from its number of pixels and the number of pixels in the width of the frame. Then divide the image length by the measured length on the chart. Crude, but effective.
I made a mistake in my previous post that I have now corrected. Canon claims 0.33x magnification at mfd of the 100-500mm, not 0.31, close enough to the 0.34 I measured.
Upvote
0