To see birds with detail like you’ve never seen them before in images, it’s hard to beat this camera and lens combination.
In this video, professional bird photographer Mark Smith shares exciting narration and amazing photos and video from some recent outings he’s taken with his brand new Sony FE 600mm f/4 GM OSS lens and a7R IV camera. From ospreys, to loggerhead shrikes, to roseate spoonbills and more, Smith’s home state of Florida is lush with birds brave enough to get their photo taken by the whooping 61-megapixel full-frame sensor and one of the best lenses money can buy.
Photo by Mark Smith.
Photo by Mark Smith.
Photo by Mark Smith.
Photo by Mark Smith.
As shown in the resulting images, every tiny feather and detail is resolved with his Sony kit. The kicker is that it’s all shot with the freedom of handholding the gear. “The 600mm f/4 has opened my eyes to a new level of detail that I didn't know was possible in a telephoto lens and being able to handhold that much resolving power is simply incredible,” Smith told me. “Quite easily the single best investment I have made in photography gear.”
All photos used with permission.
good photos but dont need to spend all that money on high end gear when i can do the same with mid range gear; everything is all about gear gear gear and not skill now days; well ill save my money and use skill.
The obvious benefit of the higher end gear is the ability for it to separate the subject from the background and the sharper focus. But yes, for the hobby photographer they would most likely not really need that to have a fulfilling experience.
I'm sorry - I replied to the wrong person, by mistake. I re-wrote my comment and re-submitted it to Jason (above).
Unfortunately, you can't do the same thing with mid-range gear. Nobody can.
A 20 or 30 megapixel camera simply cannot resolve the same amount of fine detail that a 61 megapixel camera can. And a mid-range lens will not be able to resolve the same amount of fine detail as a world-class lens can resolve.
You could fill the frame the same way with the same light and the same perfect focus, but the 61MP image taken with that caliber of lens will show more of the tiny little filaments on the feathers than any of your mid-range gear will be able to show.
Can you get truly great images with your mid-range gear? Yes, you can! But those images will not have the same degree of fine detail resolution as this set-up, and for some photographers, that ultra-high level of resolved feather and hair detail is what matters most.
shows how wrong you really are; a many of my photos come out looking just as good and some better but at least i know i dont have to spend like the foolish man and rest assured i make good with my photos; then again im not trying to print on a damn billboard either but then again neither are you; also you seem to forget that mp doesnt mean that much all you have to do is go back to the old heads that have done wonderful jobs all these year without all this money eating tech. so yea once again i can prove my point all damn day. period
I like the photo but it clearly doesn't show the same level of detail as the photos in this article.
In optimal conditions you can get away with smaller front optics, but not in a forest in early morninglight. I try to save some money by using smaller focal length, getting the subject towards me, I only use a 200-400 on FF, most of my photos are barely cropped.
Hi Jason, I agree with the fact that 'gear' isn't always the answer. However, new technology in sensors and lenses does assist. Can I ask what 'mid range' gear you are using? That way, your comment will be justified, rather than coming across as against this new 'gear'.
hi mark; up till this year i have been doing airshow photography for a couple places using only my d5600 and kit 70-300 nikon; now this year i am going with something similar to d850 and just got my first nikon pf lens and sigma telephotos lens; do they make a difference ? yes but did anyone notice that my airshow photos where taken with kit lens ? no; i had several of my photos used for airshow advertisement which goes to show that its more skill than gear for the most part which is something that has been lost in this day and age.
plus this dumb website wont let me post my high meg photos on here; i always have to downsize them to get them to load so that also takes away from my above photo
The photos in the article are in a completely different class than what you have here, so you managed to disprove yourself.
In a way, what you say is true. Expensive equipment is not a necessity until it is.
You pay more for reliability, better overall performance, and better image quality.
Ryan Mense is at the top of his game. If he chooses better gear to go even better, more power to him. Ryan: Fantastic images!
Well, I have followed Mark Smith on YouTube for a while. There's no way you can get shots he has with your cheaper 24-70mm lens... unless you fly quite close them... with your skills, Mr. Jason ;)
lmao; shows your a keyboard warrior; 24-70; lol wrong; keep trying; with your keyboard skills you might guess lucky; but then again most of you are just that , keyboard warriors; lol
Mark turns out amazing work regardless of the camera/lens combo. Just listen to him narrate his videos...that dude breathes wildlife and the outdoors.
I use a D850 with Tamron 150-600 G2 for bird photography and straight out of camera, the Sony combo absolutely smokes the sharpness of my images. However, after applying the PS Shake Reduction filter, I can get get a lot closer but never quite get the detail of the Sony combo. (I know it's a 3rd party 4x zoom.)
And keep in mind the above combination is a whopping $16,000. The difference in price is quite obvious and so should the difference in IQ be.
I would like to see unstaged and uncropped flight shots taken with the a7R IV.
I have plenty with my a7riv and crummy 200-600. What do you want to know?
The a7R IV is 1.47lbs. The 600mm is 6.71lbs. The combined weight is 8.8lbs. Which, for the record, is lighter than my cats, who I handhold all the time.
Seems like you're insinuating that it's not possible to handhold this combination. So here's a photo I took of Tony Nothrup handholding it on the a9 with the grip at a soccer match.
FWIW - Mark wasn't actually insinuating that these birds are heroically rushing into a fire to save children because they were being photographed. He's joking around. /woosh
Great photos for sure. But talent plus almost $20,000 worth of equipment should be expected to produce great photos.
Sony a7Rii Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS... didn't sell the house for a camera setup :-)
These photos definitely have 'pop'. And with the resolving power of a $12K lens I can see the value of 61mp.
Of course you can still do it with a $1K lens and 24mp; you just have to get close.
The 600mm is probably not replaceable but the camera? Depends on how much you have to crop. 61MP cropped to APS-C is 27MP, so almost the same as the average APS-C camera with newer models being in the same range (Fuji 26MP, Canon 30MP).
Printed at normal sizes, like even 30X40 you’re never going to see any difference in detail from a 24mp camera to the 61 mp A7R4 .
I dunno about 30x40, but 16x20 or smaller I would agree.
I’ve seen some amazingly detailed 30-40 prints from even 12mp files.
Well yeah I can see that, due to acutance. Back in the photo-optical days we used to blow stuff up to sizes measured in feet. While you easily the film grain, the acutance allowed for detail to be discerned.
Generally big images look best from a distance, where you can take in the entire image and appreciate the whole image at it's large size. Walking up to a huge print to view minutae, even if has the detail, defeats the whole point of printing big
Exactly.
Tho, with the A7R4 It does give options. You could shoot APS-C crop at 26MP...
Agree 100%. Liberal cropping in post or aps-c mode, or massive size prints is where file sizes like these become important.
And this the bottom line.
I've very rarely sold a print of a bird photo and when I have, it wasn't that big. People don't put 48" prints of birds over their fireplaces - maybe a 10" print in a kitchen. And at that size you don't even need 24mp. Not nearly.
The photos in this post are great, but we don't know the distance to the subject and/or the amount of cropping.
Actually, I have sold a couple dozen bird images that were printed at 36" by 24" on metal, two on metal that were 40" by 27", and one that was 48" by 32". Most of them I photographed with my 16 megapixel Canon 1D Mark 4 and my 400mm f2.8 lens.
These large bird prints were all acceptable to the clients who purchased the prints, but personally I am not satisfied with them when I see them displayed. I know that those feathers have a lot more beautiful detail that is not resolved, and could be resolved and seen at those sizes.
Now that I upgraded to a 30 megapixel 5D4, I can make large prints that are more satisfying to me - ones that I would actually want to display in my own place and ones that I can be proud of. I only wish that I would have had a 30, 40, or 60 megapixel camera many years ago, because then all of the best photos I have taken would have more precisely resolved hair and feather detail, and that would be much more satisfying to me.
A lot of these comments seem to be assuming Mark said you could not get good results with other cameras and lenses. That's not the case. The original video was showing the detail and resolving power of the combination of lens and camera he's using.
That doesn't mean a less expensive lens, less expensive camera, shorter focal length lens can't get good detail.
Mark was not arguing that you need to spend $20,000 to take a good photo, and he shoots with all kinds of gear and makes great photos regardless of what he's shooting with.
Right, he's just showing what could be done with gear like this. The need for it depends on how close you think you can get.
Mark is great, isn’t he? Who is going to spot me $13k for this lens? We wealthy folks have to stick with the 200-600.
Gear helps, but it's how you frame/compose the subject and how you use the light, at the end of the day you are shooting light.
Images below "the first three" where taken with D500 and Sigma 500mm f4 sport, all hand held.
You don't need $20K in gear, you need to be out there and shoot as much as possible. The Kingfisher was shot with the D500 and Nikon 200-500mm f5.6. All subjects were shot in their natural habitat "no feeders nearby", and no blinds used.
I have printed fantastic large prints from the D500.
I also shoot with the D850, which gives me a bit more detail when the subject is close enough, but it's not night and day from the D500, all I see today in the digital photo community is about pixel peeping and megapixels, it's not about what really matters, which is not the gear but the subject that is being photographed, and also loving what you do.
What people seem to forget, is that in some conditions, the extra stop or 2 that you get with the f/4 lens compared to cheaper alternatives makes a world of a difference. I shoot a lot in low light conditions, like after sunset or in places where the sun never rises, and f/4 is the bare minimum to have there.