I decided I didn't have a long enough reach for the rare times I need it, and went ahead a bought a Used Sony FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS for about $1,600. Did I screw up?

Picrel handheld shot of a Starling on top of a dead tree, 600mm, wide open. I tweaked the colors a bit and made it one stop brighter with camera raw in elements, but left the sharpening and noise at 0 for softness inspection for the pixel peeping.

yellow spotted warbler

Robin, I cranked the iso up to 1600 to try and get the exposure right, but blew out the highlights. Left the color as is for this one, you can see the noise pretty well.

boohoo doves.

Lab/Aussie

Had to resize for file limit, sry pixel peeper, but wanted to show the bokeh the lens can do. Had to adjust the blacks on this ones, she really did a number on the metering.

Redwing

This guy thought he was king of the woods. Black and color unedited. It was tricky trying to focus through the brush in the foreground, it kept going back and forth, but eventually the focus tracking locked onto his head and it was sold focus for multiple shots.

Aluminum bird

check the iso noise and color diffusion from being so far up in the sky. Can almost make out the paint job.

Color enhanced crop, no sharpening,
600mm F6.3 1/500 ISO125,
~1300mm effective with crop ratio

>>4422764 (OP)
They're all kinda shitty. I've got that lens too and it's better for creep shots. You should definitely get the X2 magnifier it's compatible with it.

>>4422764 (OP)
Ah yes I need "reach", 80% of the time its not the lack of reach its you not getting close enough, evidenced by these photos of birds on sticks.

>>4422836
>its you not getting close enough,
What do you recommend for birds? cherry picker or step ladder? ^^

Not gonna lie I only stopped feeling the need to crop my bird snaps in once I got to 800mm equivalent, but I fully acknowledge this is a skill/patience issue. Though I'll get lucky and have a bird come up close now and then, I suppose thay's what zooms are for.

>>4422855
For BIF you do need the reach but otherwise you can always do better, just wait for birds that are closer to the ground or find nearby hills to flatten the perspective. Look up Simon D'entremont on youtube, he has lots of practical tips like these.
>step ladder
You jest but pros will go to much further lengths.

Long lenses are best used for extreme closeups of things at short range.

>>4422860
>feeling the need to crop my bird snaps in once I got to 800mm equivalent, but I fully acknowledge this is a skill/patience issue.
I had no idea those ones could sit still that long. I have a feeling I'll be croping most of mine as well, why not though, paid for the extra pixels.

I got the straps in the strap holder on the lens, but is extremely hard on the neck. probably need to find a large pad area one.

What I really wanted this for is when the whoopers start nesting. I heard one fly over already, so they need to be around. Not sure how finicky those birds are, can't be worse than turkeys. Might have to invest into some camo.

>>4422855
Get good at birding. Then the lens will be the difference.

>>4422764 (OP)
Get a m43 camera with 2x crop if you want to really shoot telephoto

>>4422923
This. If the goal is to have as much reach as possible rather than build skill and take nice photos you might as well go all the way.

>>4422931
Shouldn't one get a superzoom like P1000 for that niche? Tinier sensor with ludicrousouser reach.

>>4422923
ಠ_ಠ
>>4423007
ಠ_ಠ

Why do I even try with you retards.

these are all shit

>>4423029
>all shit
Show me what you get with this lens.

>>4422836
>bring out my 50mm prime because anything more than that is unnccessary "reech"
>bird fills 1/140th of sensor
>"that's okay, I'll just zoom with my feet! zoom zoom!"
>bird is in a tree and I forgot my step-ladder at home
>crops in 600% and still has shitty composition and horrible noise
>>4423010
Ignore the tards. If you're using the lens and you're getting results that other lenses can't reproduce, then you didn't fuck up. You spent a non-autistic amount of money on a practical solution that didn't involve resorting to mfturding to objectively worse IQ.

>>4423057
Yes, you literally do "zoom" with your feet, or you settup a hunting a blind and bait, or sit up in a tree, or buy full camo gear and hide, the bazooka lens just gives you more options to get the right shot, otherwise again, you're just taking photos of birds on sticks at the top of trees, or you end up just taking a bazillion photos of moose, turtles, and robins.

>>4423065
holy false dichotomy, you can do a lot better than op by just walking around with that kind of lens. you don't need to go full hide in a blind 16 hours for a nice photo of a robin

It's not an awful start but focus on:
- going out in better light
- finding ways to flatten your perspective. If the bird is on the ground put your camera on (or just above) the ground. Wait for birds to land on bushes that are at eye level instead of shooting against a bright sky
- Look up techniques for getting closer to birds
I can also recommend making a habit out of the same walk every day, you get to know the birds really well which helps more than anything else.
But also, work on post processing, your birds are too dark. I think people here way undervalue post processing. You aren't an inspection contractor, you're making art; if you're in denial about this you are probably making bad art.

Anyone actually use the buttons on the side? Why would I need to turn OSS off?

>>4423096
Someone made a sarcastic remark about using a ladder or feet to zoom. I was just making the comment that you most definitely do need to use "your feet" and there's different ways to do that, even yes, using a ladder. Again, you can go walk around in the woods all you want but you'll end up getting tons of photos of birds up in the trees and a moose on the side of the road 80% of the time. Wildlife photography is more about sitting and waiting and tracking or baiting the animals than actual photography.

>>4423125
>baiting the animals than actual photography.
Easiest I think would to be to just leave it on tripod over a bait pile and remote it with my phone, but I just know some nigger will pop out of no where, grab it, and run away. So it needs to stay in my hands.

>>4423154
The z9 can actually be a advanced trail cam that auto focuses and takes photos.

>>4423121
OIS can make things worse on tripods. If you're shooting handheld leave it on.>>4423121

I rented a cherry picker and got this sparrow, am I bird guy now? Do i have bird cred?

>>4423374
Birders are boring uncreative snapshitters so yes you are in the club

>>4423121
I've never seen a birds asshole before, so I guess it did it's job.
I can't justify buying something worth more than my rent, but if you can afford it.

>>4422764 (OP)
Buy an ad.

>>4423427
That's a vagina.

>>4423498
this thread is an anti-ad
>buy $2000 rattly snoy and $2000 heavily vignetting snoy lens
>photos of twigs with birds
>fills 1/10th of the frame
>only 3 colors in the photo
>colors still almost as bad as panasonic m43 (clear blue midday sky turned dull and dark lol)

>>4423514
Don’t forget
>pay extra for snoy resolution
>crop out the vignetting to get 800mm
>"now that’s getting what you pay for"
haha snoy

>>4423515
Kek, most of my crops are 1200 to 1400mm equivalent. You just acknowledged how good the focus and resolution is.

>>4423617
>tiny boring centered subjects with boring backgrounds

>>4423622
HAhaha, are you retarded? How does composition make a lens bad? Gear envy makes you look so pathetic.

>>4422888
tenba has great addon padding for straps

>>4423617
>The absolute state of snoys
no wonder mfturds think they can punch down on you guys

>>4422764 (OP)
>so this is the power of fool frame snoy and a $2k lens
wtf this is literally worst that mft

>>4423625
I'm saying you're bad, genius.

>>4423650
of course, if you crop away 90% of your sensor you get baby sensor performance

>>4423650
This 5000mm crop proves sony is crap, the photo I took with my iphone of the breakfast my mother made me, and the one of the out of focus house plant is so much better.

>>4423827
Truly, an awful lens.

Snoysisters.. not like this..

Sony 200-600mm is probably the best bang for the buck lens out there

Regardless of which sensor and lens you're using, you need to get closer.

Tamron 28-200 f.2.8-5.6
European Robin

>>4422764 (OP)
I know you fags are diehards about DSLR and mirrorless, but I use fixed-lens cameras since I go hiking a lot and it's less of a hassle to bring along.
Got a Coolpix P950 specifically for the reach as it can be difficult to get close to wild animals, but I regret not getting the Sony RX10 IV, the sensor in the p950 is so shit the extra zoom means nothing, I'd rather get higher quality images that I can crop later.