Achieving this level of sharpness: This image is from Scott Wells...He uses a Nikon z9 with a 600mm lens...I have a Nikon D850, D500, and am using a Sigma 150-600 lens...is it every...

zacksoccer

This image is from Scott Wells...He uses a Nikon z9 with a 600mm lens...I have a Nikon D850, D500, and am using a Sigma 150-600 lens...is it every possible to get this level of sharpness without a mirrorless camera and a prime lens? These images are amazing...

(Download)

Haenzel Loc: South Holland, The Netherlands

zacksoccer wrote:

This image is from Scott Wells...He uses a Nikon z9 with a 600mm lens...I have a Nikon D850, D500, and am using a Sigma 150-600 lens...is it every possible to get this level of sharpness without a mirrorless camera and a prime lens? These images are amazing...

I don't think it is possible to get a picture of an eagle that is sharp from beak to tail with a 600mm tele lens?
I can't with a 450mm...

zacksoccer

By comparison, here is one of mine...with D500/Sigma 150-600/ 1/4000, f10, ISO 1250...

(Download)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Did Mr. Wells suggest he did no editing to the shot, and that he photographs in jpg only, no raw?

Zack, a lot of the issue with your photo is exposure. You were in a tough location for light, but had you shot in raw and edited, perhaps there'd be details to pull out?

zacksoccer

No. His was done in LR and then Topaz DeNoise...

Basil_O Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Linda From Maine wrote:

Zack, a lot of the issue with your photo is exposure. You were in a tough location for light, but had you shot in raw and edited, perhaps there'd be details to pull out?

I agree. Your shot is underexposed. The shadow on the body makes it difficult to get it right. However, even proper exposure won't make up for the fact that your lens simply isn't as good or that the shot itself isn't as dynamic. The stark white background of the first image really helps the details pop. The dull water in yours mutes the edge detail a lot. I would suggest that you work with the equipment that you have and not worry about how your results compare to someone else. Your camera and lens combo are still good and it's still a very good shot.

cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

Haenzel wrote:

I don't think it is possible to get a picture of an eagle that is sharp from beak to tail with a 600mm tele lens?
I can't with a 450mm...

I think a bit of touch-up.

therwol Loc: USA

zacksoccer wrote:

By comparison, here is one of mine...with D500/Sigma 150-600/ 1/4000, f10, ISO 1250...

How do you determine sharpness? You have to do a little pixel peeping to see subtle differences. You're comparing the output of two very different cameras, one with 45 megapixels and the other with 20. The one with 45 with a good lens is going to have a huge advantage. In spite of that, I personally don't see a huge difference in sharpness, but I do see some noise in your photo, and I agree that it is underexposed.

User ID

Haenzel wrote:

I don't think it is possible to get a picture of an eagle that is sharp from beak to tail with a 600mm tele lens?
I can't with a 450mm...

Perspective in the shot does suggest a fairly close subject and much less FL than the typical UHH Biffer Lens.

User ID

zacksoccer wrote:

By comparison, here is one of mine...with D500/Sigma 150-600/ 1/4000, f10, ISO 1250...

Clearly no solution there :-(

Chances are that with favorable distance and technique your gear would deliver the IQ that you are after.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

zacksoccer wrote:

This image is from Scott Wells...He uses a Nikon z9 with a 600mm lens...I have a Nikon D850, D500, and am using a Sigma 150-600 lens...is it every possible to get this level of sharpness without a mirrorless camera and a prime lens? These images are amazing...

Short answer: of course. Better processing of your later eagle on the water would yield a better result of that image. Looking at the further wing, beyond the eagle's head, it seems to show even better focus there, indicating possibly a misplaced focus, something that would have to be confirmed with the original image file and the original EXIF.

If not considered before, How to obtain sharp images in digital photography

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

Wells's eagle is weird. No background. It's like a cartoon.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

You're comparing apples to pineapples! To answer your question, YES.
Why did you choose the D500 instead of the D850 with a sensor comparable to the Z9?
The D500 is a fine camera. I have one and use it all the time with Birds In Flight. But it doesn't compare with my D850 with the 45MP sensor. Especially if I'm going to be cropping!
Just because the mirrorless cameras are getting all the press these days, doesn't mean that great DSLRs can't get the job done!!! It sounds to me like you are trying to talk yourself into a BIG purchase! And that's without the big prime lens! Give some thought to the Nikon 200~500mm zoom! I like them so much that I have two of them, along with two D850s!

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

Zack, a couple of thoughts. His Z9 is not innately sharper than your D850. In this application mirrorless vs. DSLR is not a factor. His 600mm lens is going to be sharper than your zoom. Finally, while processing in DeNoise, he may have applied additional sharpening.

User ID

Retired CPO wrote:

You're comparing apples to pineapples! To answer y... (show quote)

Theres a 200-500 for $575 on UHH right now.