upside down?

[arash_hazeghi]

elegant tern shake off after a dive, from socal. light was sweet hope you like it too

shot with A9 II and 200-600 GM 1/4000 sec ISO-800 f/6.3 at 600mm hand held processed with C1P

[Paul Burdett]

Well captured Arash! Water droplets add to the drama. Could you have got a similar result with the D500/500mm PF? (I've been given a very good price for that combo here...just waiting for the shop to get the lens in). How good is the 200-600 with a 1.4x TC compared to the 500PF +TC?)

[Jay Ing]

Love it when they do this. Sweet frame. Beautifully PP'd as always. later - TFS.

[arash_hazeghi]

Well captured Arash! Water droplets add to the drama. Could you have got a similar result with the D500/500mm PF? (I've been given a very good price for that combo here...just waiting for the shop to get the lens in). How good is the 200-600 with a 1.4x TC compared to the 500PF +TC?)

I think we have discussed this at least 5 times before, the 500PF +D500 combo has more reach than the 2-6 + A9 so it is better for general bird photography. The Sony works better with the TC but it is f/9!

getting a shot like this is 90% skill and technique and 10% gear really.

best

[Paul Burdett]

Hi Arash. Point taken...however, that was before you got your "better" 200-600, so I was curious as to the combo with the better IQ...not so much the reach aspect. Won't mention it again..

[Joseph Przybyla]

Love the image, Arash. Nothing else need to be said. Thank you for sharing.

[dankearl]

Outstanding shake... You were pretty close, these are not easy..

[Krishna Prasad kotti]

Nice Action and well capture. Nice red color on the bill (wish it was not intersecting/close to the wing) works very well.

TFS

[John Mack]

Ah the classic shake. A nice view of that head and the mini hair do. Like the water drops and that dark blue background.

[arash_hazeghi]

Hi Arash. Point taken...however, that was before you got your "better" 200-600, so I was curious as to the combo with the better IQ...not so much the reach aspect. Won't mention it again..

reach and IQ go hand in hand. :)

[annmpacheco]

Hello Arash, Enjoy this image very much, terrific capture, exposure and the shake, love the water droplets. super.

[Arthur Morris]

Yes, skill is at least as important as gear, and Arash has that in droves. I disagree with Arash on the 500 PF being "so much better" than the 200-600 for many reasons. Like Dr. Fauci, Arash is not always 100% correct. Let's not forget that it was not long ago that Arash told me, "SONY is garbage. Ha ha!"

with love, a

ps: I love the image; it looks as if the bird is trying to pick something off the leqding edge of the wing.

pps: exactly where was thiss bird photographed? When?

[arash_hazeghi]

Yes, skill is at least as important as gear, and Arash has that in droves. I disagree with Arash on the 500 PF being "so much better" than the 200-600 for many reasons. Like Dr. Fauci, Arash is not always 100% correct. Let's not forget that it was not long ago that Arash told me, "SONY is garbage. Ha ha!"

with love, a

ps: I love the image; it looks as if the bird is trying to pick something off the leqding edge of the wing.

pps: exactly where was thiss bird photographed? When?

Hi Artie,

where did I say "500 PF is so much better than 200-600"? can you please point me to it? maybe you didn't see what I exactly said above "the 500PF +D500 combo has more reach than the 2-6 + A9 so it is better for general bird photography. The Sony works better with the TC but it is f/9!
"

feel free to disagree :) but I still stand by what I said that most Sony cameras are not great for BIF / action photography, because of the issues I outlined before. The A9II being an exception, it doesn't have those limitations. But if I were shooting static subjects I wouldn't see any difference between the systems, I don't doubt that for a second :)

As for Dr. Fauci I do trust him. Thanks to the idiots who don't believe in science the country is in the place it is today...many of those deniers are being put into their graves as we speak of course...

image taken in Bolsa Chica BTW


stay safe

best

[Paul Burdett]

Arash (and you started this...lol) Could you point me to the "limitations" of the A9 that are not present in the A9ii. Cheers.

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash (and you started this...lol) Could you point me to the "limitations" of the A9 that are not present in the A9ii. Cheers.

I have no idea what you are talking about

[Paul Burdett]

Arash. Really? You state "The A9II being an exception, it doesn't have those limitations." in your previous post. What are the limitations on the A9 compared to the A9ii?

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash. Really? You state "The A9II being an exception, it doesn't have those limitations." in your previous post. What are the limitations on the A9 compared to the A9ii?

never had the original A9. why do you care?

[Paul Burdett]

Then why do you say the A9 has limitations that the A9ii doesn't? You obviously feel the A9ii is better for bif..I'm only asking why (as opposed to the A9...whether you owned one or not!)

[arash_hazeghi]

Then why do you say the A9 has limitations that the A9ii doesn't? You obviously feel the A9ii is better for bif..I'm only asking why (as opposed to the A9...whether you owned one or not!)

I never said A9 had any limitations. where did get that from?

From the Sony cameras I have tried A6400, A7R3, A7R4 and A9 II. from these I only liked A9 II.

Paul, I really appreciate if we move on from these questions, you have asked the same question probably 10 times now, re. sony vs. Nikon and I gave you the answer. My answer is not going to change and I think you are wasting your time. Just get something and start shooting with it. If you have the skills you can make excellent images with both. Any serious camera on the market today is better than the 7DII and even with that you can make greet images (just look at Daniel's photos). end of the story. being obsessed with talking about gear you don't even own doesn't make one a better photographer.
this forum is more for image critique, if you want to talk about gear you can post your questions in the gear forum, you will probably get more responses there.

best and good luck

[Paul Burdett]

Happy to move on Arash. It seems you are not able to substantiate your statement: "but I still stand by what I said that most Sony cameras are not great for BIF / action photography, because of the issues I outlined before. The A9II being an exception, it doesn't have those limitations."

What issues? What limitations?

[arash_hazeghi]

Happy to move on Arash. It seems you are not able to substantiate your statement: "but I still stand by what I said that most Sony cameras are not great for BIF / action photography, because of the issues I outlined before. The A9II being an exception, it doesn't have those limitations."

What issues? What limitations?

It seems you can't recall when I stated these last time. I can refresh it for you : rolling shutter effect, banding noise and EVF lag + slide show phenomenon are prohibitive for action in those and all other MLIC cameras. I don't know whether the discontinued and now obsolete A9 had these issues or not.

let's move on now.

[Paul Burdett]

Agreed..let's move on. I guess you were comparing the A9ii to Sony cameras OTHER than the A9. Didn't mean to be argumentative, I guess I just interpreted your statement incorrectly. No offense intended. Cheers.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Artie,

Where did I say "500 PF is so much better than 200-600"? stay safe ,best

Here is an e-mail exchange:

AH: If you do a search online you will find out that many will methodically agree with me that the Sony zoom lens isn’t quite sharp and that a lens’s performance should be evaluated 100% under controlled and filed conditions. We have discussed this many times. It is based on science and facts not elitism.

AM: What you are missing is that what is better for some folks may not be better for others.

AH: One can make many great award winning images with less than ideal lenses but that doesn’t mean A is equal or better than B.

AM: Agree that the photographer is more important than the lens.

AH: Has nothing to do with budget either, as mentioned I would pick a Nikon D500 and 500 PF it is cheaper and will result in better images any day action or no action.

AM: Not on any day. There are many advantages of the 200-600 SONY over the 500 PF.

On a phone call you told me to do a search online and that I would see that "everyone" says that the 500 PF is much better. Your feeling were based on the bad lens that you had. Even Mercedess makes a lemon once is a while.

I still plan on doing a comparative article on the 2-6 /a9 ii vs the 500 PF and any camera body :)

with love, a

ps: how long aa drive is it from Bolsa to your home?

[arash_hazeghi]

Hi Artie,

a) it seems you forgot that my 1st 2-6 was no good. It was junk. After I got the 2nd copy I did say the new lens is sharp and much better than the old one. this email was sent when I had the lemon.

b) I did not say "500 PF is so much better than 200-600". I said "I would pick a Nikon D500 and 500 PF it is cheaper and will result in better images". these sentences do not have the same meaning to me, earlier is general, the latter subjective , i.e. for me, not necessarily others.


glad we got this one clarified

cheers

[Arthur Morris]

Agreed..let's move on. I guess you were comparing the A9ii to Sony cameras OTHER than the A9. Didn't mean to be argumentative, I guess I just interpreted your statement incorrectly. No offense intended. Cheers.

Not to be a pain in the ***, but you were not being argumentative. Arash clearly disregaraded the a9 with his statement.. The only difference in the two bodies is that the a9 ii us slightly thicker and gives more of a pro body feel. a9 AF is superb, better than anything Canon or Nikon. When I first was playing with SONY, I began with the a9. That is when Arash said, "SONY is junk. Ha ha!

Sometimes we all need to be careful with our words.

with love and respect, a

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Artie,

where did I say "500 PF is so much better than 200-600"? can you please point me to it? maybe you didn't see what I exactly said above "the 500PF +D500 combo has more reach than the 2-6 + A9 so it is better for general bird photography. The Sony works better with the TC but it is f/9!
"

feel free to disagree :) but I still stand by what I said that most Sony cameras are not great for BIF / action photography, because of the issues I outlined before. The A9II being an exception, it doesn't have those limitations. But if I were shooting static subjects I wouldn't see any difference between the systems, I don't doubt that for a second :)

As for Dr. Fauci I do trust him. Thanks to the idiots who don't believe in science the country is in the place it is today...many of those deniers are being put into their graves as we speak of course...

image taken in Bolsa Chica BTW


stay safe

best

Lots more to say. ]

#1:Here are some of the many reasons that the 200-600/a9 ii combo is better than the Nikon 500 PF:

a- by your own admission, a9 ii AF is clearly better than any Nikon body AF including the D5 and the D6.
b- when shooting static subjecs as many of us peons do a lot, Nikon AF with the TC-E14 as you move the AF point away from the center suffers badly; as you get well away from center, it usually will not even acquire focus. With the 200-600/a9 ii and the 1.4X TC not only is AF fast and accurate when you get well away from the center but the AF covers well more than 90% of the frame.
c-More pixels on the subject with the SONY rig.

I will cover lots more reasons in my article.

Now you say this: I still stand by what I said that most Sony cameras are not great for BIF / action photography.

But when I told you that I was playing with ONY you said, "SONY is garbage. Ha ha." Without any qualifiers. I keep bringing this point up in hopes that you see that folks who are well-respected and lookeed to for knowledge need to mind their words all the time.

As for trusting Fauci, on what day do you trust him? He changes his advice 180 degrees every other day.

with love and respect, a

[arash_hazeghi]

Artie,

you may want to use a color other than white for your text, it's a pain to read it. it appears blank!


b- when shooting static subjecs as many of us peons do a lot, Nikon AF with the TC-E14 as you move the AF point away from the center suffers badly; as you get well away from center, it usually will not even acquire focus. With the 200-600/a9 ii and the 1.4X TC not only is AF fast and accurate when you get well away from the center but the AF covers well more than 90% of the frame.

I respectfully disagree. How do I get photos like the ones below then? I used the peripheral sensor with the focus point on the head . I have made 100's of tack sharp frames using the peripheral sensors with my 500PF and 1.4X.... never had an issue. For BIF AF wasn't ideal but can't imagine why anyone wouldn't be able to nail the static shots with it. maybe it was operator error?

Are these sharp ?

D850 , 500PF + 1.4C TC




D5 + 500PF + 1.4X




c-More pixels on the subject with the SONY rig

This is incorrect. the D500 + PF will give equivalent 700mm FOV @ 20 mega pixles. the Sony 2-6 is 540mm FOV @ 20 mega pixels. That's why I said Nikon has more reach :). Nikon D500 is equal to 38 mega-pixels when comparing with the 24 mega pixel FF A9. the D500 + 500PF will give the about same reach as the A9 II + 2-6 + 1.4X TC. I'd pick f/5.6 over f/9 any day, in less than bright light the f/9 combination will suck and struggle to produce a high image quality. Not to mention the 2-6 is significantly heavier and bulkier than the PF. Let's put it this way, if Sony did not have a 600GM I wouldn't have switched to it despite the A9II's state-of-the-art AF system. Again that's my opinion, I am not asking anyone to agree or disagree with my opinion.

"
I will cover lots more reasons in my article.


As for trusting Fauci, on what day do you trust him? He changes his advice 180 degrees every other day.

with love and respect, a
"

Fauci changes his advice 180 degrees? Is this some fake news that is spread by the Trump supporters in FL? You can choose between the retarded brain-dead governor of FL or a lifelong infection disease expert highly regarded by the scientific community...I let you make that choice.

stay safe and healthy.

best

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks, Arash. A question on the two sharp kestrel images: are one or both of them cropped? Is the 2nd one from a horizontal image?

a

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks, Arash. A question on the two sharp kestrel images: are on or both of them cropped? Is the 2nd one from a horizontal image?

a

Hey Artie, these are vertical. in fact I missed the take off in the last one since I was shooting vert....

[Arthur Morris]

Hey Artie, these are vertical. in fact I missed the take off in the last one since I was shooting vert....

Thanks Arash. Please do me a favor and shoot me the two NEF files.

with love, artie'

[Arthur Morris]

Following up, as you ignored my request for the NEF files and did not answer my question about cropping ...

I reiterate: Nikon AF at f/8 with a TC (and even at times at f/5.6 with the TC-E14 oon the 600 VR) once you get away from the middle AF point suffers. One AG point away from the center was usually OK but slowerr to acquirre. Once I went to AF points or more, to the edge of the array. AF was terrible; it would often not acquire focus at all. The with the 500 PF and both of my D580 bodies. And I got the same problem with three of my TC-E14s.

I'd love to hear from other folkls with the 500 PF as to AF performance with the AF point near the edges of the array.

Since you like Fauci so much and do not like Trump, it is possible that you will wind up with a near-death brain-dead president with a militant, whcko , anarchist VP.

with love, artie

[Arthur Morris]

Furthermore you were right on the pixels on the subject bueiness, in part. The a9 iii is 24.2 MP (not 20 MP). IIn addition, when yoo can get close to the birds with th2-2-6 you wind up wiith far more piixels on the subejct. Your comment is correcct assuming that the subject is the same size in the frame (i think).

with love, artie