Z600 PF - A far off test

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

BarkingBeans Coffee

BarkingBeans Coffee

Michael H
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
First can you find the Red Tail. Since I figured he/she (can anyone tell me) would sit a while, I decided to take images in FX and DX mode with and without the 1.4. TC. Just curious what they would look at with a similar perspective - no exactness or precise testing- when posted to this site. Of course this mating pair won't do a session for me up close. I promised endless rodents from yard, but no dice.

Interested in any comments anyone has. For me I was surprised I could salvage an environmental shot out of this.
1704637527582.png


FX


FX & TC


DX


DX&TC


Photoshop Processed DX Image
 
Member's gallery
Michael, thanks for the test. Were all 4 shots taken at the same distance and same settings? Would be interested to know approximately how far you were from the hawk and the camera settings. Thanks!
 
Member's gallery
Pat Cassity said:
Michael, thanks for the test. Were all 4 shots taken at the same distance and same settings? Would be interested to know approximately how far you were from the hawk and the camera settings. Thanks!
Click to expand...
All were at 1/3200. The FX and DX were at f6.3
The ones with TC at F9.
I was standing at my deck railing, so yes all the same distance. I don't have a rangefinder. I can try using manual focus later today to see what distance it gives. I believe it was a FW 4.0 update.
That first image with my iPhone is reflective of how I first saw the hawk.
As I look at these, I don't love my DX edit and would change it, but you get the idea on what one can do with distance.
As posted in the 600PF thread, if you are close to your subject the detail and micro contrast are amazing. If one can't afford the telephotos with the built in TC's this is the one to get. The Photography Life MTF charts bear out what I am seeing so far.
 
Member's gallery
Yeah 600 is the focal length you need if you have one birding lens. this one, which is about a third of the cost of the 600mm f4 will do the job nicely. Plus it is a lot easier to handle.

With the 1.4x tc you as I recall are at f9 which is workable at 800 plus focal length (I haven't had sufficient coffee to do math right now).

A while back I did an unscientific comparison shot done with the 600mm pf of a close-in subject. The weather was cold and I chose to do the tests from the comfort of home shooting through a plate glass window. I shot the frame of a weathered outdoor teak chair which was close to the minimum focus distance. I used the 1.4 and 2x tc's as well as dx. The chair had a lot of grain from the weathering so it worked as a test pattern.

The conclusion I reached from that test is that 1.4 and dx do satisfactory results. When I went with the 2x it was acceptable but at that level either adding dx or cropping degraded the image substantially. You might be able to get some of that back through sharpening/denoise manipulations.

So go ahead and shoot with the 2x if you have to but try to fill the frame. That is the lesson I learned.
 
Member's gallery
BarkingBeans Coffee said:
First can you find the Red Tail. Since I figured he/she (can anyone tell me) would sit a while, I decided to take images in FX and DX mode with and without the 1.4. TC. Just curious what they would look at with a similar perspective - no exactness or precise testing- when posted to this site. Of course this mating pair won't do a session for me up close. I promised endless rodents from yard, but no dice.

Interested in any comments anyone has. For me I was surprised I could salvage an environmental shot out of this.
View attachment 78487

FX


FX & TC


DX


DX&TC


Photoshop Processed DX Image
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting these--very helpful. 👍
 
Member's gallery
wotan1 said:
Yeah 600 is the focal length you need if you have one birding lens. this one, which is about a third of the cost of the 600mm f4 will do the job nicely. Plus it is a lot easier to handle.

With the 1.4x tc you as I recall are at f9 which is workable at 800 plus focal length (I haven't had sufficient coffee to do math right now).

A while back I did an unscientific comparison shot done with the 600mm pf of a close-in subject. The weather was cold and I chose to do the tests from the comfort of home shooting through a plate glass window. I shot the frame of a weathered outdoor teak chair which was close to the minimum focus distance. I used the 1.4 and 2x tc's as well as dx. The chair had a lot of grain from the weathering so it worked as a test pattern.

The conclusion I reached from that test is that 1.4 and dx do satisfactory results. When I went with the 2x it was acceptable but at that level either adding dx or cropping degraded the image substantially. You might be able to get some of that back through sharpening/denoise manipulations.

So go ahead and shoot with the 2x if you have to but try to fill the frame. That is the lesson I learned.
Click to expand...
I don't have the 2x. When I am out shooting with someone that has one, I will try it out. Thanks.
 
Member's gallery
I would also like to know the time of day and temperature. The only time or temp I can seem to get clear images like that at that distance is early morning or when temps are below about 50 degrees. Heat distortion usually is a problem for me. I also know that your temps are generally higher than where i am. Humidity might have and impact also.
 
Member's gallery
Chappy said:
I would also like to know the time of day and temperature. The only time or temp I can seem to get clear images like that at that distance is early morning or when temps are below about 50 degrees. Heat distortion usually is a problem for me. I also know that your temps are generally higher than where i am. Humidity might have and impact also.
Click to expand...
Chappy your question is a good one. 9:15am yesterday. Guessing it wasn't even 50 yet. I am sure heat distortion would factor in with this distance. One can't tell from the iPhone image but this is just up from a wash so I was shooting down and across a wash. I am not sure this would be an issue in hotter temps either with this topography. My neighbor has a rangefinder that I will borrow and try to see the distance.
 
Member's gallery
BarkingBeans Coffee said:
I don't have the 2x. When I am out shooting with someone that has one, I will try it out. Thanks.
Click to expand...
I’ve used mine with the 2x and while it is a bit softer at 1:1…once it’s downsampled to screen output resolution after PP, NR, and sharpening it looks pretty good. Here's a 1200mm handheld shot. Granted…closer and no 2x TC woulda been better, but this Redheaded WP was down in the pasture at our local eagle nest and you're not allowed to get close…it is about 50 yards to the tree from the fence so it was cropped a bit even with the TC. I was pretty shocked because although Redheaded's are in FL, they're not usually seen in the NFM area but rather at the breeding area north of here in Babcock Webb Reserve.

20231017_L600PFTest_Z8_4516-Enhanced-NR.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Anjin San said:
I’ve used mine with the 2x and while it is a bit softer at 1:1…once it’s downsampled to screen output resolution after PP, NR, and sharpening it looks pretty good. Here's a 1200mm handheld shot. Granted…closer and no 2x TC woulda been better, but this Redheaded WP was down in the pasture at our local eagle nest and you're not allowed to get close…it is about 50 yards to the tree from the fence so it was cropped a bit even with the TC. I was pretty shocked because although Redheaded's are in FL, they're not usually seen in the NFM area but rather at the breeding area north of here in Babcock Webb Reserve.

View attachment 78634
Click to expand...
Ya gotta love that 1200mm reach!
 
Member's gallery
KurtH said:
Ya gotta love that 1200mm reach!
Click to expand...
Yep…sometimes it's either that or you just don't get a shot…and that was like the second day I had the 600 so I was just playing with it a bit and wanted to try bare and with both TCs to get a sense of how usable 1200 was. 840 with it is just fine and dandy…and even 1200 given good light and a tripod/monopod/support is still perfectly usable for me, especially with Topaz and DxO to help with PP. Is it is good as a native 1200 prime assuming such a thing existed? Probably not…but as I say a lot…better is the enemy of good enough and while good enough varies between people…if it's good enough then it's good enough.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks for the insights and image @Anjin San and @KurtH. I think the 2x is for where you don't get the shot otherwise which the redhead is a great example. My purpose of this test was to gauge in a non-scientific way what's too far. The red tail was large enough for me to know that's normally on the Saguaro. Now I know the distance as well.
As far as science goes below are the Phtography Review MTF charts at each distance. I noted the 2x wide open numbers are similar to the bare numbers at f/16. I am not sure what to make of that.

What I do know is that the bare lens at 6.3 blows me away in its detail and micro contrast.

These charts come from the Phtography Life article on the 180-600.



1704805890428.png

1704805918844.png

1704805942176.png
 
Member's gallery
So I guess I learned that one hawk sitting alone at over 100 yards one can't tell easily male vs female.

United in Color​

While male and female birds often are totally different in color, that doesn't apply to red-tailed hawks. The majority of these sizable hawks have deep brown or grayish-brown coloration on the top. Their undersides, however, are markedly lighter, generally off-white or pale brown. Their chests and necks tend to be yellowish-brown. As their monikers express, most of them boast solid red tails.

Size Difference​

Mature red-tailed hawks typically reach lengths of between approximately 18 and 26 inches. Adult specimens usually weigh between 28 and 43 ounces, as well. Females are significantly larger than the males, which is typical among birds of prey. Males generally are about 25 percent smaller.
 
Michael, Were these handheld shots or tripod mounted? Impressive sharpness
 
Member's gallery
wotan1 said:
Yeah 600 is the focal length you need if you have one birding lens. this one, which is about a third of the cost of the 600mm f4 will do the job nicely. Plus it is a lot easier to handle.

With the 1.4x tc you as I recall are at f9 which is workable at 800 plus focal length (I haven't had sufficient coffee to do math right now).

A while back I did an unscientific comparison shot done with the 600mm pf of a close-in subject. The weather was cold and I chose to do the tests from the comfort of home shooting through a plate glass window. I shot the frame of a weathered outdoor teak chair which was close to the minimum focus distance. I used the 1.4 and 2x tc's as well as dx. The chair had a lot of grain from the weathering so it worked as a test pattern.

The conclusion I reached from that test is that 1.4 and dx do satisfactory results. When I went with the 2x it was acceptable but at that level either adding dx or cropping degraded the image substantially. You might be able to get some of that back through sharpening/denoise manipulations.

So go ahead and shoot with the 2x if you have to but try to fill the frame. That is the lesson I learned.
Click to expand...
I like doing tests like these. As far as IQ, keep in mind that as you add a TC and and change f-stops, your ISO would have changed if you kept SS at 1/3200. So with that, you'll get a decreased IQ. With a steady subject, you might want to decrease SS and keep exposure in camera the same without increasing ISO. And I believe you can make adjustments in post to make it look good.
BTW, I dedicated my exposure compensation button to IQ shortcut, so I can quickly change from FX to DX in the field. Works great for me.
 
Member's gallery
BarkingBeans Coffee said:
First can you find the Red Tail. Since I figured he/she (can anyone tell me) would sit a while, I decided to take images in FX and DX mode with and without the 1.4. TC. Just curious what they would look at with a similar perspective - no exactness or precise testing- when posted to this site. Of course this mating pair won't do a session for me up close. I promised endless rodents from yard, but no dice.

Interested in any comments anyone has. For me I was surprised I could salvage an environmental shot out of this.
View attachment 78487

FX


FX & TC


DX


DX&TC


Photoshop Processed DX Image
Click to expand...
My experience as well. I use a laser rangefinder. Shots at more than 500 yards over water can be quite clear and detailed.
 
Member's gallery
Chappy said:
I would also like to know the time of day and temperature. The only time or temp I can seem to get clear images like that at that distance is early morning or when temps are below about 50 degrees. Heat distortion usually is a problem for me. I also know that your temps are generally higher than where i am. Humidity might have and impact also.
Click to expand...
Atmospheric distortion comes from a combination of environmental factors, temperature differential between the air column and the surface being photographed over. Temps can be hot, cold or temperate. Moisture / humidity, dust etc. in the air all add to the equation, and as always the farther away the subject is the more atmosphere there is.

Most common problem I have solved for people over the years is something @Steve has brilliantly written and done videos about. I have solved soft and blurry photo issues in person and on line for many people that were trying to photograph from a heated or cooled vehicle or house into a warm or cold atmosphere outside of the vehicle. That heater and AC create instant soft focus photos :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top