Sigma 60-600 Sports coming

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #18989784
.
good reason to have two cameras, the left hand one is prefocused to try to catch the rodents in mid flight, set for Manual exp and focus. even then since they are coming towards me at Mach 2 it is hard to get them sharp
.

.
Yeah, that kind of photography is always really challenging.

You want the nicest, most distraction-free background possible, with everything behind the squirrel beautifully blurred out ... which means wide apertures and shallow depth of field.

But then because the squirrel is moving and erratic, you want as much depth of field as possible to assure that he is perfectly sharp.

So you have two needs fighting against one another; the need to ensure that a good part of the squirrel is absolutely tack sharp, and the need to ensure that the background is beautifully blurred out. . Darn hard to accomplish both of these objectives in a single frame.

One idea may be to set up a background; something that is bland and has no distractions on it, such as hanging a big bedsheet (of a natural looking color) behind where the squirrels jump. . Or a big expanse of burlap can work, too. . Then you could give yourself more depth of field without worrying about the background becoming a distraction.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18989807
.
Yeah, that kind of photography is always really challenging.

You want the nicest, most distraction-free background possible, with everything behind the squirrel beautifully blurred out ... which means wide apertures and shallow depth of field.

But then because the squirrel is moving and erratic, you want as much depth of field as possible to assure that he is perfectly sharp.

So you have two needs fighting against one another; the need to ensure that a good part of the squirrel is absolutely tack sharp, and the need to ensure that the background is beautifully blurred out. . Darn hard to accomplish both of these objectives in a single frame.

One idea may be to set up a background; something that is bland and has no distractions on it, such as hanging a big bedsheet (of a natural looking color) behind where the squirrels jump. . Or a big expanse of burlap can work, too. . Then you could give yourself more depth of field without worrying about the background becoming a distraction.

.

very good ideas, will look into them

I just edit the background if I don't like it.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18989865
.
I just edit the background if I don't like it.
.

.
That is so difficult and time consuming! . I mean, at least it is for me.

I find that it only looks right if every subject : background transition is feathered in with a gradual 3 to 6 pixel transition zone. . Going around every outlying hair and whisker to ensure that it is feathered in perfectly takes for freaking ever. . I know there is software that automates a lot of that, but the automated results are never as good as if you go in yourself and make each row of pixels just how you want them to be to ensure a totally realistic result. . If you don't gradually feather everything into the background, it looks kinda fake, like it was cut out of one image and pasted onto another.


.

I have gotten pretty good and efficient at it, and plan on learning the Wacom tablet I just picked up to make it even easier.

I use something completely different to shoot squirrels....

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18990307
I use something completely different to shoot squirrels....

They taste like chicken! If they get into the house I like my double barrel coach gun with #6 shot both barrels ROFL

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #18990330
They taste like chicken! If they get into the house I like my double barrel coach gun with #6 shot both barrels ROFL

.
I agree with the #6 shot. . Their hides are really tough for a critter of their size; in my experience anything smaller than #6 won't punch through the skin ..... when skinning I've even found that quite a few of the #6 don't make it through, either. . In that regard they're nothing like rabbits at all.

.

Well I rented a 60-600 from lensrentals, I figured a week would be enough to tell me about the lens since I have the 150-600 Sport and will compare it side by side. If I find it as sharp I will trade the 150 in on the 60 plus the 60 is 1 pound lighter. OF course it arrived yesterday and it was heavy overcast and mist, but even though it was really dark at 3:30 I took it out for a run. I was heading to a pond where there are usually geese and as I was driving I looked over at a mill pond behind a company and saw two swans so pulled into the company who owns it parking lot and got out and standing there handheld some shots at ISO 2000 so I don't think it is sharp due to the conditions. Supposed to be nice the next few days and will do some tripod mounted tests.

Here is one of the shots of course my wife loves it! Personally it is ok but not that good.

Nice sunlight today! Curious to see how it goes.

Had to help out at the Seagrave Observatory in North Scituate so on the way there I stopped at a state park and caught my first eagle in the wild!!!

When I got to the observatory I set up all 3 lenses aimed at the brick wall of the observatory and the wood deck.

The 60-600 (60) is slightly sharper than the 150-600 Sport (150S) at 500 and 600 and 200 (I had to contemplate it, my wife looked and studied for a moment then picked the 60-600 as sharper). The 150S is slightly sharper at 400 and they are the same at 300.

I then tried my 150-600 Contemporary. It is sharper than the 60-600 at all focal lengths including 600mm I had tested the Contemporary against the 150S before and knew that. I think I got a really good copy of it.

I am going to sell the 150-600 Sport as it is a beast and the C I have is sharper. I like the Sport BECAUSE it is a beast but it doesn't make sense to keep it. I got it used when I got the C, so I should get my or most of my money back.

The 60-600 goes back next Tuesday so will do a bunch of shooting with it over the next few days. But my C is as sharp or slightly sharper especially at 400mm which is a focal length I use a lot. also it is over a pound lighter.

The only thing the 60-600 has going for it is the extra length at the short end - 60-150, and weather sealing and slightly better build. However I am easy on my gear and not going on a safari, the wildest I get is a 1/4 mile shuffle to the overlook at the Stony Brook Audubon refuge.

I am thinking but not sure how easy it would be, to carry my 80D as a 2nd camera with the 55-250 STM or the 70-300ii or even just a nifty fifty. It is nice being able to zoom out to 100mm when a bird gets too close and not having to try to juggle two cameras, but and it is a big but I think most would agree I should go with the sharper lens. Besides since I rented it I can always change my mind at some point, I am only out $100.

I so want the 60-600 to be good or great, still going to give it some more tests and another chance to impress.

Here is the eagle I shot today with the 90D and the 60-600

did another test of the 60-600 at 400mm a target in my garden at about 15 feet the normal distance I am shooting birds

to me the 60 seems slightly sharper than the 150-600 Contemporary

final shot for now. Seems ok to me, but I may not be critical enough

Interesting update Jeff.

I think it makes sense to stick with the "C" unless you can message as much IQ out of the 60-600mm.

I prefer to shoot with a tow body kit a lot of the time. Usually that means a big prime on one, and the 100-400mm on the other, BUT, if i were shooting my 150-600mm on one body, the other would be an APS-C with the 18-135mm (or something like that.)

"I like to use a large shell. You can't eat them afterwards, but it sure is fun watching them explode." I think this quote is attributed to Bernadette's father on The Big Bang Theory.