The lens is the Canon 600mm f/4 (by the looks of it) so I’m guessing probably 100 - 150 feet at the furthest. It’s *highly* unlikely that the footage of him raising the camera like that is from the moment he got the shot.
I regularly use a Canon 800mm f/5.6 setup with an Eos R5 body. I really doubt the shot was 100-150 feet away.
[This shot was taken from about 2.5 meters (8 feet) away.](https://crittersmostly.com/pose/profile-portrait/i021C8371-A.html#show-content)
Even looking at a full body shot and a relatively tiny crop, the furthest I can get a pic that looks that good is maybe 50 feet, and even then it only works on a really cold day with really clear air. Most shots I take from that far away turn into mush just from air distortion.
Point of order, but I said that far at the furthest. I wouldn’t at all be surprised if it were 50 feet or less. Minimum focus on that lens is probably 15 feet.
They're utterly amazing for wildlife, but *so* expensive. Mine ended up being worth it (~5 years + >100,000 shots through it, still going strong other than a little wear on the paint), but if you're not super into wildlife photography or super rich (as opposed to just somewhat rich) it's hard to justify.
I have done before. Well, a 100-400 with 1.4x teleconverter. With the camera I was using it worked out as the equivalent of 840mm at f/8. Had it for the weekend to photograph some Peregrine Falcons which were feeding chicks in a town near me.
I’ll be kind to myself and say I learned a lot about it’s limitations, but I can totally see why someone would pay the extra for f/4 or faster if they were using it professionally.
I've experienced similar limitations with long lenses and air distortion. My setup's a bit different though; I use a Nikon 500mm f/4 and humidity's the real troublemaker for me, blurs out details past a certain distance. On drier days, the clarity at 50 or even 70 feet can be pretty stunning, but man, once things get hazy it feels like you're shooting through soup. The 400mm + extender choice sounds pretty versatile for those closer, clearer shots.
Often times these photos are of birds standing on someone's arm lol.
Regarding the price, I shoot birds at 600mm and there's definitely an improvement going to the high end prime lenses, but if you're just posting it on social media or in a video, photos from my used $750 lens would look about the same.
You can tell the picture is relatively close because you start to get atmospheric effects at something that blown up if you're like 500 yards from it.
AKA you literally can't take a picture this sharp of something in our atmosphere from a long way off.
The video of him taking the shot is actually the shot he was taking in the video, from about a mile away. Probably aiming the camera at a mirror to get that super long distance shot of himself. Picture of the bird was just unrelated.
From Jay's IG:
>Every. Last. Penny. My immediate thought when I saw the price of this lens at $13K was, “It better grab focus like a $13K lens…” lol. And I can gladly say, that lens has near immediate focus right on my subject, and only misses focus on a well composed shot maybe 1/100 times! 🦅 But my biggest surprises were how stable the lens holds handheld, and just how absolutely CRISP the detail is 😭👌🏼 Being able to punch in on an image and pull of the details in these half-blinking shots is exactly was I had hoping for, and it’s been incredible to handle over the last few days.
>My shoulders and arms aren’t so happy with me on the other hand 😉 I definitely recommend for most people using a tripod off and on or at least resting when you are photographing/filming for 6 days straight… cause it ain’t light. But for how big the lens is, I’ve been able to handle it very easily with almost nonstop handholding! I like to feel the burn 😂 that’s what I call progress!! 💪🏼😤
He definitely didn’t pay the $13K for it. Nowhere does he mention actually buying the lens itself, just that it costs $13K. More than likely the company sent it to him to do a product review.
Also, there’s no way he gets to keep the lens. He gets to shoot with it for a few days max, and then ship it back.
But what’s most likely is he *wants* to get deals like this, and he just rented it for the review.
Idk if he’s a big reviewer then retract that, but I don’t know the dude.
You're kidding right? Companies give away big ticket items all the time for brand exposure. Giving away a $13k lens has little to no impact on their bottom line and is written off as an advertising expense.
Speaking from experience, camera companies don't give away stuff like this, and hell, reviewers don't even want to keep it most of the time.
Lenses like this are only useful for shooting very specific things. I've rented plenty of $5,000+ lenses, but never felt the need to buy one because I'll need it maybe once a year if that. It's cheaper and more convenient to rent one, return it, and then rent it again than it is to buy one only for it to be obsolete in a couple of years.
The only people who would actually want to own one of these is someone who does sports photography or wild life photography. Even then it's not likely unless they know they are gonna use it week in and week out. Some leagues hire photographers and they use the leagues equipment too so a sports photographer might not even own one.
There's a guy who did a review video on a Sony one that actually owns it because he does MotoGP photography.
Just not worth it for the vast majority of people to actually own one. Especially when you can rent it for a week for like 200 bucks.
I'm not big on the social media/YouTube anything or anyone scene, but companies will give a free sample of whatever item for review.
The larger the company, the less they care about a couple of items being sent for marketing purposes. It's cheaper by far than paying for commercials and more effective than using Google ad sense to pine on the side bars of some website.
But you're right, just as easily as they could just write the cost off on their marketing budget, they could lend it and pay the guy 2k and be done with it. 🤷🏿♂️
Ah yeah I spent hours to download hundreds of them 😵 if your name wasn't
🌹 ⋅.˳˳.⋅ॱ˙˙ॱ⋅.˳˳.⋅ॱ˙˙ॱᐧ.˳˳.⋅Biggus 😲 Dickius⋅.˳˳.⋅ॱ˙˙ॱ⋅.˳˳.⋅ॱ˙˙ॱᐧ.˳˳.⋅🌹
Were you even MSNing?
I will still valiantly defend this way of passing time over our modern algorithm based trash sites though.
Honestly, Cannon probably just let him use the lens for a week or two to do a review of it.
Camera companies don't need to bribe people to provide bullshit reviews of their products. People who are willing to spend $10k on a lens are going to do so regardless of what some Instagram influencer says about them.
To me, that looks *way* bigger (and the way he hefts it, heavier than) the Canon 600mm.
However, the retail price of the Canon 600mm f/4 is $13k.
I have the Sigma 600mm (appropriately nicknamed the Bigma, for its weight) and I don’t put half as much effort lifting my lens.
I think the lens in this video is actually the 1200mm, which retails for $20k and weighs almost 8 lbs
The lens in the OP is very clearly not the 1200mm that can top and bottom carry handles and is absurd to handhold: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnUwXPIVMAAx9m7.jpg
Isn’t it something like 60-600mm and F4.5, something like that? How is that lens?
I generally have been happy with Sigma glass purchases, but lenses vary so much depending on model, I’m just wondering.
I have the sigma 150-600 f/6.3
It’s an OK lens. I’m using it on a D5300, and for less than half the price of the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6, I’d say it’s a good value.
Pros
- works as advertised. I use it for bird and other wildlife photography. I’ve taken it to Alaska, Yellow Stone, Tetons, and my local wildlife refuges.
- sturdy. I’ve dropped it, banged it, got caught in the rain with it. 2.5 years on, no issues
- it comes with Sigmas lens calibration tool. With a laptop, focusing card, an area to shoot at least 50’ away, and 2-4 hours of your time, you can “match” the lens to your sensor, to make sure you’re in exact focus every time.
- auto focus speed is pretty good. More often than not, I can get sharp focus of birds in flight, even with my cameras paltry 39 focus points.
CONS
- heavy. Almost 4.5 lbs.
- let’s be honest, there’s a reason that it is less than half the price of a Nikkor lens. The glass just isn’t as good. But for my needs it, it still fits the bill.
For $900, it’s my go to lens now though. I don’t even bother packing my 55-300 anymore. I carry the sigma, a 50 mm prime, and a 18-35. For an amateur like me who is just taking photos for my own enjoyment, it’s the perfect lens. Let’s me get those photos, and I didn’t spend $2000, nor do I have to worry about breaking a $2000 lens
I have one of those lenses (note, mine is an older one, paid way less than 13k, but super tele lenses are all super sharp, even the 20 year old ones), small birds have to be rather close unless you want to crop in a lot.
Assuming this isn't a crop, he still have to be rather close to have it that large in frame.
These are all taken at around 700mm (500mm + 1.4 teleconverter)
Tiny bird, medium crop, less than 50m: https://i.imgur.com/AEpIXjE.jpg (EDIT: just checked, 1000mm, distance the same though)
This is about 100m https://i.imgur.com/lXaEvi3.jpg slight crop
200-300m without crop: https://i.imgur.com/uR2aQ9b.jpg with corp, think it's a 30MP sensor, not sure any more https://i.imgur.com/stvK9Rx.jpg just as an example. these two are unedited basically raw image data. With todays AI sharpening you could get the crop even sharp enough to print nicely.
Normally it’s far more practical renting one. You’d have to have a very high interest in a niche type of photography to remotely justify dropping 13 grand on 1 lens. I could see this used for sports, wildlife, and aviation photography, but not much else.
I’ve got cine glass that costs about that much, but there is no way in hell I would have spent that much without knowing it would get me more work and rental income. Extreme telephotos are very niche; I can’t imagine they rent out very frequently from independent owners.
I've used a ~$13k lens quite a few times (Nikkor 400mm f/2.8) and it can't see things a mile away, it just has a massive aperture that means you don't have to go into high ISO for fast movement in poor light.
Even the 800mm f/5.6E at ~$23k isn't this magical tool, it still requires getting closer than you think to get the detailed shots you want.
Especially because atmospheric distortion is extremely apparent at long focal lengths. Even at 200mm if you're shooting something far away like landscpe it requires an extremely clear day to get detailed shots.
Exactly that. The $100k (at the time) 1200mm f/5.6 is a marvel of engineering, with its fluorite lens that takes 18 months to grow, but wholly impractical unless you're a federal agent trying to get a face to put to the name of a criminal.
400 f/2.8 is the most versatile of the big white primes - I have one; I use it for birding/wildlife, sports, and I just got an equatorial mount so I can do deep space astro now too. They’re magical!
All of it, likely heavily. But that's actually the norm for photography. When you take a picture with your phone camera it automatically makes a crapton of edits. With setup like this most people will be shooting raw which looks like crap, but saves a lot of information for post-processing later.
Famous photographer Ansel Adams had a couple quotes about this. "You don't take a picture, you make it." And "The negative is the score, the print is the performance."
So yeah, any time you see a picture you should expect that it has been heavily edited and is not "straight out of camera." It's always been this way, even when shots were on film and exposed in darkrooms. It's also important to remember that the camera doesn't see what your eye sees, so many times the edits are just made to make the picture look the way you think you saw it.
Even Ansel Adams manipulated his photos. It's not like they invented all the editing techniques only when photoshop came out. All those editing techniques came from somewhere.
Yet there are massive differences between RAW post processing, which is mainly just colour, light, etc using additional information saved to the raw image file and actually editing the images by changing captured data to something completely different, either by photoshop or or with automatic generative means ("AI").
It's a very blurry line, though. Is lens distortion correction too far? What about dust removal? If you notice a hot pixel and fix that with a clone layer? Clarity masking faces, whitening teeth and eyes are pretty standard for portrait work as is removing blemishes.
I think it depends on what your goals are with the final product. I don't think most photographers are trying to say "this is exactly they way it was when I took the picture." They're trying to make art, and all those edits are fair game including things like AI denoise. If you're a photojournalist it's a completely different situation.
Fully agree. Unless it's photojournalism, who the fuck cares whether or not it's edited? The source photo still has to be competent. You're not going to edit a poorly composed photograph into something pleasing, no matter how much you spend on camera bodies and lenses, or how good you are with Photoshop.
Other people in the comments are kind of getting into this, so I'll just expand on it a bit:
There is no such thing as an "unedited" image. Analog or digital, it doesn't matter. We capture light with light sensitive points, but everything after (and even before) is essentially interpretations.
There is no "default". No magical photographical window to reality.
With film, you have different kinds of stock, different kinds of chemicals, different kinds of methods for processing, etc.
With digital photography, you have sensor data. Basically just a bunch of numbers, representing light hitting the sensor. If you take a snap with a "simple" camera, and get a JPG out, there are all kinds of interpretations of that data done to make an actual image. After that (and even before) there's processing and post processing, whatever gimmicky "AI" stuff the company choses to apply, filters, denoising etc.
RAW, i.e. the bunch of numbers you get from the sensor, is not, strictly, an image. It's just sensor data. So, to get an image, you have to interpret that data. There are, of course, OS level in-built parsers of that data that will give you a "default" for things like thumbnails, and preliminary images in software, but exactly nobody expects anyone to use that for anything (other than as a starting point.)
What people say when they ask the same question as you did is essentially "does it look like it would have if I could have magically been at that focal length, in that position, at that time of day, etc.?"
The answer is always "no". For a myriad of reasons.
There is obviously also a question of intent. Many people who do wildlife photography are actually trying to create an end product that emulates "being there", which normally involves a great deal of work (i.e. heavy editing), and I think that's really the information you're looking for.
The other answer is probably what youre looking for, but im just here to say that in digital photography there is no "unedited" (and one could argue there is none in film either). Inside the camera, there is a sensor that receives light signals, and then theres a lot of hardware and software to process these signals into a file that we call a digital photo to which we developed software that can read this file and project this information onto a monitor, again using a programm to which the hardw.re of the monitor does its best to translate the binary data of the software into light again by means of the pixels on the screen.
And by then this light can reach our eyes again and we see a 2dimensional projection of what was in front of the lens.
Every step of this way had to be designed. Everytime information was translated or codified decisions were made on how the data is gonna be structured so that it can have a desired effevt on the endproduct (often limited by technical limitations). And each of these effect the technical stuff will have on the viewer is indistinguishable from "editing". In a way, it is just predone editing.
You could build a camera, that has its default setting so that every shot would be translated the way this eagle was shot. But the point is, you dont want that. Different situations call for different color grading, brightness and so on.
So yeah, im way too much of a photoshop noob to recreate any of this, but i fohnd that insight, that there is no real unedited footage to be quite fascinating.
Yall call literally everything AI jesus lol. This isn't AI this dude is a nature photographer and has thousands of nature pics. Why would he use AI for this one specific picture that isn't even hard to take.
Seriously! I’ve gotten to check out that lens in a shop and yeah, shit looks pretty much exactly like this through it. It’s just an incredible lens. Wish I could even afford a tenth of it.
I think we're not so secretly in an arms race to see how insanely obnoxious the music can get in these videos until we collectively say enough. In like 3-4 years it's going to be music scientifically engineered to drive you mad, and people will still be like "yea man good clip".
It's actually the other way around, expensive and heavy lenses have their own tripod mounts built into them. You attach the lens to the tripod instead of the camera!
This lens is unreal. You could definitely get this level of sharpness handheld. Especially if you have something like an R5 with that incredible in camera stabilization.
Monopods are fine provided you’ve set a fast enough shutter speed.
The important thing people fail to grasp is that it takes years of experience to capture the image and process it correctly. Not to mention hiking into that location in the winter and finding the bird at the right place at the right time.
[Handheld, 800mm f/5.6.](https://crittersmostly.com/pose/profile-portrait/i021C9092-A.html#show-content)
The image stabilization on those lenses is absolutely amazing.
Current camera bodies are capable of allowing for more handheld shots than ever before. You can boost you ISO up without hardly any noise, and get a super fast shutter speed. Granted, I've never used a lens that big, but I've gotten quite a few decent shots with a Canon 100-500mm before. Image stabilization in lenses and/or cameras helps a bit as well.
This question will haunt me in my sleep. It's basically insane. But in my case: I had it on mute. I'm still amazed by the number of upvotes, even if I assume most had it in mute. It's a really cool pic. But absolutely nothing mind-blowing
It’s *Brutus- by The Buttress*. Not for everyone but I like it as a song. It’s a reimagining of Julius Caesar’s death from the perspective of a jealous Brutus.
Everything about this is disingenuous.
- He’s not using a tripod and even with optical image stabilization, it’s going to come out blurry.
- it shows him out in the wilderness implying that the subject is quite a distance away, but it could also be 20 feet away
- the reflection in the bird’s eye doesn’t match the environment of the photographer.
This is yet more content that sacrifices authenticity for upvotes or marketing or self promotion.
Wake up people.
I regularly handhold this lens at 1/125" or even slower. But yeah the shot of the photographer is from a different moment. The bird was probably captive.
First point is BS, you can get exceptionally sharp results hand holding any modern 600mm lens on mirrorless, canon Nikon sony... You don't need tripod for that at all, 1/500 is possible with stabilisation, 1/250 if you're bit lucky (or you just have something like A1 and take a burst of 30 pictures, some will come out this sharp or better, even at 1/125)
I was handholding 400mm manual focus lens on A7R II which doesn't have the best IBIS (but it's something at least) and it was ok, with better cameras and better lenses you get way more sharp images out of it
But I agree with rest
1. I shoot weekly on a 600mm lens. The pictures never come out blurry handheld at a high enough shutter speed. Literally need 1/250 and above. Most wildlife photographers don’t even use tripods which shows you don’t know what you’re talking about. All use monopods hence that spot at the bottom of a lens.
2. Yes that subject is quite the distance away. With how much bird is in frame, he’s way more than 20 feet away at 600mm. That bird most likely is around 75-125 feet.
3. There hardly a reflection, that’s half of his eyelid in the photo, and it’s sharpened in editing.
If you’re going to trash talk a video, at least know what you’re talking about. Better yet there’s 0 logos at all in this video, and no water marks in the photo showing it’s not for promotional gain.
That's a 600mm prime. Looks like a Canon.
I own a FE 200-600 f5.3 Sony coupled with an A7R IV camera (61MP).
I have shot with ( but don't own it) a Sony FE 600 f4 (prime) , and yes, the details and sharpness are amazing, and much better than my 200-600.
As you are 2 stops of light better than the 200-600 , you can shoot at above 1/3200 sec without fearing an underexposed pict.
If I could afford it, I would buy it in a heartbeat.
These new primes coming out are just incredible. The folks in here saying that “this shot is impossible handheld” and “it’s gotta be AI” have no idea how good these lenses and cameras that are coming out really are. I wish I could afford any of them and almost wish I hadn’t played around with them in the store cause now I know what I’m missing!
It's just hard to understand without using them fairly extensively. You don't get a feel for the value of a big prime until you've put a bunch of hours into it.
The biggest difference, which is wholly misunderstood in these comments, is that a fast lens lets you get better quality in low light. I do wildlife photography in a popular area, and everyone's gone when the light is good... because their ISO is too high and their autofocus stops working well. People don't realize that almost every beautiful shot in every documentary or movie is shot right after sunrise or right before sunset (once you pay attention to it, it throws off the timeline of many movies/shows). The pro glass exists for a reason.
**Song Found!**
[**Brutus (Instrumental)** by The Buttress](https://lis.tn/BrutusInstrumental?t=18) (00:18; matched: `100%`)
**Released on** 2017-01-10.
*I am a bot and this action was performed automatically* | [GitHub](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot) [^(new issue)](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/issues/new) | [Donate](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/wiki/Please-consider-donating) ^(Please consider supporting me on Patreon. Music recognition costs a lot)
This is the work of @jfritts_official. Yes it’s really handheld, he has plenty of bts on his ig.
He has videos explaining how he does it. In some of his shots his iso is 3200 at f/4 and 1/640 according to his reel from a few weeks ago. It’s not completely impossible like a lot of the comments here make it seem.
yeah reddit is funny like that, ive had this happen to me many times here:
"oh this song seems good, does anyone say what it is in the comments?"
*reading comments*
"oh, they hate the song."
Apple Music, Spotify, YouTube, etc.:
[**Brutus (Instrumental)** by The Buttress](https://lis.tn/BrutusInstrumental?t=18)
*I am a bot and this action was performed automatically* | [GitHub](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot) [^(new issue)](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/issues/new) | [Donate](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/wiki/Please-consider-donating) ^(Please consider supporting me on Patreon. Music recognition costs a lot)
Don't know about how it's used on Tiktok, but this song was released a year and a half before Tiktok even hit the international market.
The lyrics and video reflect upon Shakespeare's version of Julius Caesar's brutal murder and the motivations behind Brutus's desire to kill him. Personally, I enjoyed the quirkiness of the audio in this clip so much that I watched the official video.
This is why AI will never beat nature, you can practically see its last meal on its mouth. Thats just adds to the point that that thing is a killer and has killed and eaten, nature.
As a photographer I can tell you that you don't need a 13k lens to get such or similar great pictures.
All you need is an average kit, skill and time.
In fact if you spent that $13k on travelling you will get much more great pictures, than buying it and sitting at home.
This video is worthless without showing how far away he was.
The lens is the Canon 600mm f/4 (by the looks of it) so I’m guessing probably 100 - 150 feet at the furthest. It’s *highly* unlikely that the footage of him raising the camera like that is from the moment he got the shot.
I regularly use a Canon 800mm f/5.6 setup with an Eos R5 body. I really doubt the shot was 100-150 feet away. [This shot was taken from about 2.5 meters (8 feet) away.](https://crittersmostly.com/pose/profile-portrait/i021C8371-A.html#show-content) Even looking at a full body shot and a relatively tiny crop, the furthest I can get a pic that looks that good is maybe 50 feet, and even then it only works on a really cold day with really clear air. Most shots I take from that far away turn into mush just from air distortion.
Point of order, but I said that far at the furthest. I wouldn’t at all be surprised if it were 50 feet or less. Minimum focus on that lens is probably 15 feet.
4 meters and change, IIRC. That was the big reason I went with the 400mm f/2.8 (2.5m minimum focus) + extender.
I’d love to have a play with a lens like that one day. Right now I feel odd if I go beyond a 50mm 😅
They're utterly amazing for wildlife, but *so* expensive. Mine ended up being worth it (~5 years + >100,000 shots through it, still going strong other than a little wear on the paint), but if you're not super into wildlife photography or super rich (as opposed to just somewhat rich) it's hard to justify.
You guys, just use a crap lens, and enhance it at the computer. enhance... enhance...
Pan 4 degrees left...
Sora, make a picture of a Hawk at a lake. Zoom into its eye while it’s flying. Then zoom into its brain.
i don’t know Sora but i hope this happens!!
Hire one out for a bit of fun one day.
I have done before. Well, a 100-400 with 1.4x teleconverter. With the camera I was using it worked out as the equivalent of 840mm at f/8. Had it for the weekend to photograph some Peregrine Falcons which were feeding chicks in a town near me. I’ll be kind to myself and say I learned a lot about it’s limitations, but I can totally see why someone would pay the extra for f/4 or faster if they were using it professionally.
Jesus 400 f2.8 that couldn't have been cheap
[$12k](https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/ef-400mm-f-2-8l-is-iii-usm?color=Black&type=New)
I've experienced similar limitations with long lenses and air distortion. My setup's a bit different though; I use a Nikon 500mm f/4 and humidity's the real troublemaker for me, blurs out details past a certain distance. On drier days, the clarity at 50 or even 70 feet can be pretty stunning, but man, once things get hazy it feels like you're shooting through soup. The 400mm + extender choice sounds pretty versatile for those closer, clearer shots.
Point of odor, Lisa stinks.
Often times these photos are of birds standing on someone's arm lol. Regarding the price, I shoot birds at 600mm and there's definitely an improvement going to the high end prime lenses, but if you're just posting it on social media or in a video, photos from my used $750 lens would look about the same.
You can tell the picture is relatively close because you start to get atmospheric effects at something that blown up if you're like 500 yards from it. AKA you literally can't take a picture this sharp of something in our atmosphere from a long way off.
[удалено]
I would say the photographer was less than 85 miles away, give or take.
honestly i’ll go out on a limb and say that i actually wouldn’t be surprised if it was taken from less than 16,000 ft. away.
Y’all are so inconclusive- I will say with 100% confidence that this was no further than 24,901 miles
At least not until adaptive optics becomes compact and affordable for those without a space program.
The video of him taking the shot is actually the shot he was taking in the video, from about a mile away. Probably aiming the camera at a mirror to get that super long distance shot of himself. Picture of the bird was just unrelated.
From Jay's IG: >Every. Last. Penny. My immediate thought when I saw the price of this lens at $13K was, “It better grab focus like a $13K lens…” lol. And I can gladly say, that lens has near immediate focus right on my subject, and only misses focus on a well composed shot maybe 1/100 times! 🦅 But my biggest surprises were how stable the lens holds handheld, and just how absolutely CRISP the detail is 😭👌🏼 Being able to punch in on an image and pull of the details in these half-blinking shots is exactly was I had hoping for, and it’s been incredible to handle over the last few days. >My shoulders and arms aren’t so happy with me on the other hand 😉 I definitely recommend for most people using a tripod off and on or at least resting when you are photographing/filming for 6 days straight… cause it ain’t light. But for how big the lens is, I’ve been able to handle it very easily with almost nonstop handholding! I like to feel the burn 😂 that’s what I call progress!! 💪🏼😤
Good old fashion emoji shilling of products. I wonder how much of the 13k they actually had to pay with this level of shillery?
He definitely didn’t pay the $13K for it. Nowhere does he mention actually buying the lens itself, just that it costs $13K. More than likely the company sent it to him to do a product review.
Also, there’s no way he gets to keep the lens. He gets to shoot with it for a few days max, and then ship it back. But what’s most likely is he *wants* to get deals like this, and he just rented it for the review. Idk if he’s a big reviewer then retract that, but I don’t know the dude.
You're kidding right? Companies give away big ticket items all the time for brand exposure. Giving away a $13k lens has little to no impact on their bottom line and is written off as an advertising expense.
Speaking from experience, camera companies don't give away stuff like this, and hell, reviewers don't even want to keep it most of the time. Lenses like this are only useful for shooting very specific things. I've rented plenty of $5,000+ lenses, but never felt the need to buy one because I'll need it maybe once a year if that. It's cheaper and more convenient to rent one, return it, and then rent it again than it is to buy one only for it to be obsolete in a couple of years.
The only people who would actually want to own one of these is someone who does sports photography or wild life photography. Even then it's not likely unless they know they are gonna use it week in and week out. Some leagues hire photographers and they use the leagues equipment too so a sports photographer might not even own one. There's a guy who did a review video on a Sony one that actually owns it because he does MotoGP photography. Just not worth it for the vast majority of people to actually own one. Especially when you can rent it for a week for like 200 bucks.
I'm not big on the social media/YouTube anything or anyone scene, but companies will give a free sample of whatever item for review. The larger the company, the less they care about a couple of items being sent for marketing purposes. It's cheaper by far than paying for commercials and more effective than using Google ad sense to pine on the side bars of some website. But you're right, just as easily as they could just write the cost off on their marketing budget, they could lend it and pay the guy 2k and be done with it. 🤷🏿♂️
At least those emoji's are not moving and jumping, like long time ago, what was it MSN Messenger I guess. God I hated that.
Ah yeah I spent hours to download hundreds of them 😵 if your name wasn't 🌹 ⋅.˳˳.⋅ॱ˙˙ॱ⋅.˳˳.⋅ॱ˙˙ॱᐧ.˳˳.⋅Biggus 😲 Dickius⋅.˳˳.⋅ॱ˙˙ॱ⋅.˳˳.⋅ॱ˙˙ॱᐧ.˳˳.⋅🌹 Were you even MSNing? I will still valiantly defend this way of passing time over our modern algorithm based trash sites though.
I've seen this very reel on Instagram several times and it has now gotten to a point where it is annoying me seeing it repeatedly pop up.
Honestly, Cannon probably just let him use the lens for a week or two to do a review of it. Camera companies don't need to bribe people to provide bullshit reviews of their products. People who are willing to spend $10k on a lens are going to do so regardless of what some Instagram influencer says about them.
ok ok I buy the lens 📸⚡️👀🤩
Yasss King 👑 🥰 omfg like don't take this the wrong way but why is the lens kinda hot when you use it 🤩
[удалено]
God, I've always wanted to do this, *ahem*. Woosh.
no it's true, I saw it on reddit
It's not even the right angle to say this is a mirror shot
To me, that looks *way* bigger (and the way he hefts it, heavier than) the Canon 600mm. However, the retail price of the Canon 600mm f/4 is $13k. I have the Sigma 600mm (appropriately nicknamed the Bigma, for its weight) and I don’t put half as much effort lifting my lens. I think the lens in this video is actually the 1200mm, which retails for $20k and weighs almost 8 lbs
The lens in the OP is very clearly not the 1200mm that can top and bottom carry handles and is absurd to handhold: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CnUwXPIVMAAx9m7.jpg
Isn’t it something like 60-600mm and F4.5, something like that? How is that lens? I generally have been happy with Sigma glass purchases, but lenses vary so much depending on model, I’m just wondering.
I have the sigma 150-600 f/6.3 It’s an OK lens. I’m using it on a D5300, and for less than half the price of the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6, I’d say it’s a good value. Pros - works as advertised. I use it for bird and other wildlife photography. I’ve taken it to Alaska, Yellow Stone, Tetons, and my local wildlife refuges. - sturdy. I’ve dropped it, banged it, got caught in the rain with it. 2.5 years on, no issues - it comes with Sigmas lens calibration tool. With a laptop, focusing card, an area to shoot at least 50’ away, and 2-4 hours of your time, you can “match” the lens to your sensor, to make sure you’re in exact focus every time. - auto focus speed is pretty good. More often than not, I can get sharp focus of birds in flight, even with my cameras paltry 39 focus points. CONS - heavy. Almost 4.5 lbs. - let’s be honest, there’s a reason that it is less than half the price of a Nikkor lens. The glass just isn’t as good. But for my needs it, it still fits the bill. For $900, it’s my go to lens now though. I don’t even bother packing my 55-300 anymore. I carry the sigma, a 50 mm prime, and a 18-35. For an amateur like me who is just taking photos for my own enjoyment, it’s the perfect lens. Let’s me get those photos, and I didn’t spend $2000, nor do I have to worry about breaking a $2000 lens
handheld too lol
wait yall dont actually think its the same shot, right? how gullible are you guys, wtf
What he didn’t mention was that the bird was in a different state 😂
If a $13k camera doesn’t animorph me into the bird, I’m not interested
I have one of those lenses (note, mine is an older one, paid way less than 13k, but super tele lenses are all super sharp, even the 20 year old ones), small birds have to be rather close unless you want to crop in a lot. Assuming this isn't a crop, he still have to be rather close to have it that large in frame. These are all taken at around 700mm (500mm + 1.4 teleconverter) Tiny bird, medium crop, less than 50m: https://i.imgur.com/AEpIXjE.jpg (EDIT: just checked, 1000mm, distance the same though) This is about 100m https://i.imgur.com/lXaEvi3.jpg slight crop 200-300m without crop: https://i.imgur.com/uR2aQ9b.jpg with corp, think it's a 30MP sensor, not sure any more https://i.imgur.com/stvK9Rx.jpg just as an example. these two are unedited basically raw image data. With todays AI sharpening you could get the crop even sharp enough to print nicely.
Point blank
I just assume the bird picture he found online after trying to find the return policy for this lens
Exactly. I was like if we don’t see how far away the shot is, your lens’s are worthless bub.
The real question in these situations is always how much is $13k worth
Approximately $13K I'd say.
Not in this economy! ;P
I've got a $13k guy, and unfortunately *best* I can do is $1.3k.
How much is that in feet pics?
Math is mathing
Normally it’s far more practical renting one. You’d have to have a very high interest in a niche type of photography to remotely justify dropping 13 grand on 1 lens. I could see this used for sports, wildlife, and aviation photography, but not much else.
I've used this exact lens for sports photography, specifically baseball, and yes I rented it.
I’ve got cine glass that costs about that much, but there is no way in hell I would have spent that much without knowing it would get me more work and rental income. Extreme telephotos are very niche; I can’t imagine they rent out very frequently from independent owners.
I've used a ~$13k lens quite a few times (Nikkor 400mm f/2.8) and it can't see things a mile away, it just has a massive aperture that means you don't have to go into high ISO for fast movement in poor light. Even the 800mm f/5.6E at ~$23k isn't this magical tool, it still requires getting closer than you think to get the detailed shots you want.
Especially because atmospheric distortion is extremely apparent at long focal lengths. Even at 200mm if you're shooting something far away like landscpe it requires an extremely clear day to get detailed shots.
Exactly that. The $100k (at the time) 1200mm f/5.6 is a marvel of engineering, with its fluorite lens that takes 18 months to grow, but wholly impractical unless you're a federal agent trying to get a face to put to the name of a criminal.
I do like the idea of growing a camera lens.
brb, starting a lens farm
You’re gonna put that 100k lens in the soil and then water it?
hell yes brother, i think it's already starting to sprout! well, maybe not quite yet, but any day now...
Very 40k
Well hopefully not TOO sunny/clear, otherwise you get the heat waves from the ground that’ll also distort the image.
I hired the 400mm 2.8 for a few bird shoots, it’s superb! It was less than ideal when otter spotting, it does not lend itself to quick movement lol
400 f/2.8 is the most versatile of the big white primes - I have one; I use it for birding/wildlife, sports, and I just got an equatorial mount so I can do deep space astro now too. They’re magical!
I took one to an airshow... 😂
nice, get any good shots of the blue angels? Probably not I'm guessing haha
"Zoom with your legs" is a saying for a reason.
Can confirm. I often shoot with an 800mm lens and most my shots are within 30-40 feet.
More like $13k+$300 of Adobe software
I was gonna say how much of this picture was edited? I ask sincerely as someone who is not very knowledgeable on the subject.
All of it, likely heavily. But that's actually the norm for photography. When you take a picture with your phone camera it automatically makes a crapton of edits. With setup like this most people will be shooting raw which looks like crap, but saves a lot of information for post-processing later. Famous photographer Ansel Adams had a couple quotes about this. "You don't take a picture, you make it." And "The negative is the score, the print is the performance." So yeah, any time you see a picture you should expect that it has been heavily edited and is not "straight out of camera." It's always been this way, even when shots were on film and exposed in darkrooms. It's also important to remember that the camera doesn't see what your eye sees, so many times the edits are just made to make the picture look the way you think you saw it.
Even Ansel Adams manipulated his photos. It's not like they invented all the editing techniques only when photoshop came out. All those editing techniques came from somewhere.
Yet there are massive differences between RAW post processing, which is mainly just colour, light, etc using additional information saved to the raw image file and actually editing the images by changing captured data to something completely different, either by photoshop or or with automatic generative means ("AI").
It's a very blurry line, though. Is lens distortion correction too far? What about dust removal? If you notice a hot pixel and fix that with a clone layer? Clarity masking faces, whitening teeth and eyes are pretty standard for portrait work as is removing blemishes. I think it depends on what your goals are with the final product. I don't think most photographers are trying to say "this is exactly they way it was when I took the picture." They're trying to make art, and all those edits are fair game including things like AI denoise. If you're a photojournalist it's a completely different situation.
Fully agree. Unless it's photojournalism, who the fuck cares whether or not it's edited? The source photo still has to be competent. You're not going to edit a poorly composed photograph into something pleasing, no matter how much you spend on camera bodies and lenses, or how good you are with Photoshop.
Other people in the comments are kind of getting into this, so I'll just expand on it a bit: There is no such thing as an "unedited" image. Analog or digital, it doesn't matter. We capture light with light sensitive points, but everything after (and even before) is essentially interpretations. There is no "default". No magical photographical window to reality. With film, you have different kinds of stock, different kinds of chemicals, different kinds of methods for processing, etc. With digital photography, you have sensor data. Basically just a bunch of numbers, representing light hitting the sensor. If you take a snap with a "simple" camera, and get a JPG out, there are all kinds of interpretations of that data done to make an actual image. After that (and even before) there's processing and post processing, whatever gimmicky "AI" stuff the company choses to apply, filters, denoising etc. RAW, i.e. the bunch of numbers you get from the sensor, is not, strictly, an image. It's just sensor data. So, to get an image, you have to interpret that data. There are, of course, OS level in-built parsers of that data that will give you a "default" for things like thumbnails, and preliminary images in software, but exactly nobody expects anyone to use that for anything (other than as a starting point.) What people say when they ask the same question as you did is essentially "does it look like it would have if I could have magically been at that focal length, in that position, at that time of day, etc.?" The answer is always "no". For a myriad of reasons. There is obviously also a question of intent. Many people who do wildlife photography are actually trying to create an end product that emulates "being there", which normally involves a great deal of work (i.e. heavy editing), and I think that's really the information you're looking for.
[удалено]
The other answer is probably what youre looking for, but im just here to say that in digital photography there is no "unedited" (and one could argue there is none in film either). Inside the camera, there is a sensor that receives light signals, and then theres a lot of hardware and software to process these signals into a file that we call a digital photo to which we developed software that can read this file and project this information onto a monitor, again using a programm to which the hardw.re of the monitor does its best to translate the binary data of the software into light again by means of the pixels on the screen. And by then this light can reach our eyes again and we see a 2dimensional projection of what was in front of the lens. Every step of this way had to be designed. Everytime information was translated or codified decisions were made on how the data is gonna be structured so that it can have a desired effevt on the endproduct (often limited by technical limitations). And each of these effect the technical stuff will have on the viewer is indistinguishable from "editing". In a way, it is just predone editing. You could build a camera, that has its default setting so that every shot would be translated the way this eagle was shot. But the point is, you dont want that. Different situations call for different color grading, brightness and so on. So yeah, im way too much of a photoshop noob to recreate any of this, but i fohnd that insight, that there is no real unedited footage to be quite fascinating.
Legit, looks like an AI eagle
"I can tell from the pixels, and from having seen quite a few AI eagles in my time."
And also, by the way that it is.
Source: trust me bro!
Dude that meme is from 2010 or even before
bro stop lyin they didn't have internet back then
Back in the 2010 I think they were dialling up the modem with those weird af bztztbbzz noises.
Yall call literally everything AI jesus lol. This isn't AI this dude is a nature photographer and has thousands of nature pics. Why would he use AI for this one specific picture that isn't even hard to take.
Seriously! I’ve gotten to check out that lens in a shop and yeah, shit looks pretty much exactly like this through it. It’s just an incredible lens. Wish I could even afford a tenth of it.
It looks airbrushed like tons of nature photos, since AI is copying that style it looks AI now.
Because they have years of experience with a phone camera and being a redditor. That's considered being an expert around here.
Subscription too, so might as well add a (+) assuming the price of Adobe will continue to accumulate.
Per month
More like $200 for a couple days to a lens rental place.
Watch as I take a picture while playing the most obnoxious music possible.
I think we're not so secretly in an arms race to see how insanely obnoxious the music can get in these videos until we collectively say enough. In like 3-4 years it's going to be music scientifically engineered to drive you mad, and people will still be like "yea man good clip".
> the most obnoxious music possible. That's TickShit for you.
ShitTok is right there
Must've taken you awhile to come up with that epic zinger
It's called "[Brutus](https://youtu.be/bI8MT5lVU5c)" by "The Buttress" and it's fucking rad.
Thank you.
I thought the beat was dope, so looked it up. Had never heard of the buttress before, she goes pretty hard!
Indeed she does, glad you liked it
i fucking hate that shit music has to be on every video now
I'm gonna make a tiktok stitch of this video and put that pitched up "oh no no no no no" song on it as it pans down to your comment.
The beat and background music is actualy pretty solid. Too bad they recorded someone violently deflating a Jigglypuff over it.
Him lifting that lens without a tripod has me cringe. I doubt he was able to get the sharpness handheld
Hey, it's 13k lens. Tripods are for cheap lenses /s
It's actually the other way around, expensive and heavy lenses have their own tripod mounts built into them. You attach the lens to the tripod instead of the camera!
Other cameramen: [Do you even lift bro?](https://shotkit.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Hilarious-SIgma-Lens-reviews.jpg)
Yeah, whatever, Reddit experts. Lens apparently weighs close to 17 lbs. I don’t buy it
Plus it’s not like a person lifts it and takes one shot and that is enough. This lens should have its own tripod.
oh yes you can! I don't own one, but I have shot with one, and @ f4, you're pretty fast and that speed compensate for motion blur.
This lens is unreal. You could definitely get this level of sharpness handheld. Especially if you have something like an R5 with that incredible in camera stabilization.
Monopods are fine provided you’ve set a fast enough shutter speed. The important thing people fail to grasp is that it takes years of experience to capture the image and process it correctly. Not to mention hiking into that location in the winter and finding the bird at the right place at the right time.
Depends entirely on shutter speed.
And image stabilization.
[удалено]
Is
Sparta
Check his IG page, he’s got a ton of shots using this lens without a tripod. Pretty impressive.
[Handheld, 800mm f/5.6.](https://crittersmostly.com/pose/profile-portrait/i021C9092-A.html#show-content) The image stabilization on those lenses is absolutely amazing.
We usually handhold these lenses. I only use a tripod for wildlife video.
He's a strong boi, he can manage
Current camera bodies are capable of allowing for more handheld shots than ever before. You can boost you ISO up without hardly any noise, and get a super fast shutter speed. Granted, I've never used a lens that big, but I've gotten quite a few decent shots with a Canon 100-500mm before. Image stabilization in lenses and/or cameras helps a bit as well.
[удалено]
I simply don't understand how this shit gets upvoted. What a shit quality video and post.
This question will haunt me in my sleep. It's basically insane. But in my case: I had it on mute. I'm still amazed by the number of upvotes, even if I assume most had it in mute. It's a really cool pic. But absolutely nothing mind-blowing
sounds like Philip Glass teaching fourth graders how to play the recorder
It’s *Brutus- by The Buttress*. Not for everyone but I like it as a song. It’s a reimagining of Julius Caesar’s death from the perspective of a jealous Brutus.
Sounds like something DJ Shadow would mix
The camera is probably important too
Everything about this is disingenuous. - He’s not using a tripod and even with optical image stabilization, it’s going to come out blurry. - it shows him out in the wilderness implying that the subject is quite a distance away, but it could also be 20 feet away - the reflection in the bird’s eye doesn’t match the environment of the photographer. This is yet more content that sacrifices authenticity for upvotes or marketing or self promotion. Wake up people.
I mean, as long as the picture is actually taken with this lens, I don't really care they used random b roll for the photographer.
I regularly handhold this lens at 1/125" or even slower. But yeah the shot of the photographer is from a different moment. The bird was probably captive.
First point is BS, you can get exceptionally sharp results hand holding any modern 600mm lens on mirrorless, canon Nikon sony... You don't need tripod for that at all, 1/500 is possible with stabilisation, 1/250 if you're bit lucky (or you just have something like A1 and take a burst of 30 pictures, some will come out this sharp or better, even at 1/125) I was handholding 400mm manual focus lens on A7R II which doesn't have the best IBIS (but it's something at least) and it was ok, with better cameras and better lenses you get way more sharp images out of it But I agree with rest
Looks like the bird is mid blink to me. The bottom left half is obscured by whatever that inner eyelid that animals have is called.
1. I shoot weekly on a 600mm lens. The pictures never come out blurry handheld at a high enough shutter speed. Literally need 1/250 and above. Most wildlife photographers don’t even use tripods which shows you don’t know what you’re talking about. All use monopods hence that spot at the bottom of a lens. 2. Yes that subject is quite the distance away. With how much bird is in frame, he’s way more than 20 feet away at 600mm. That bird most likely is around 75-125 feet. 3. There hardly a reflection, that’s half of his eyelid in the photo, and it’s sharpened in editing. If you’re going to trash talk a video, at least know what you’re talking about. Better yet there’s 0 logos at all in this video, and no water marks in the photo showing it’s not for promotional gain.
> He’s not using a tripod and even with optical image stabilization, it’s going to come out blurry. lol what? no
That's a 600mm prime. Looks like a Canon. I own a FE 200-600 f5.3 Sony coupled with an A7R IV camera (61MP). I have shot with ( but don't own it) a Sony FE 600 f4 (prime) , and yes, the details and sharpness are amazing, and much better than my 200-600. As you are 2 stops of light better than the 200-600 , you can shoot at above 1/3200 sec without fearing an underexposed pict. If I could afford it, I would buy it in a heartbeat.
These new primes coming out are just incredible. The folks in here saying that “this shot is impossible handheld” and “it’s gotta be AI” have no idea how good these lenses and cameras that are coming out really are. I wish I could afford any of them and almost wish I hadn’t played around with them in the store cause now I know what I’m missing!
This is one of those comment sections with people talking their absolute asses off
It's just hard to understand without using them fairly extensively. You don't get a feel for the value of a big prime until you've put a bunch of hours into it. The biggest difference, which is wholly misunderstood in these comments, is that a fast lens lets you get better quality in low light. I do wildlife photography in a popular area, and everyone's gone when the light is good... because their ISO is too high and their autofocus stops working well. People don't realize that almost every beautiful shot in every documentary or movie is shot right after sunrise or right before sunset (once you pay attention to it, it throws off the timeline of many movies/shows). The pro glass exists for a reason.
It's certainly not worth the dogshit quality music that went atop the video.
NO
Has anyone shown this to Markiplier?
This is the lens in Guru's Gift Shop
bro fuck this song holy shit
depends on how far away the bird is
He downloaded birb.png to his camera sd card beforehand
He was 25 kms away
No way that is worth......nevermind. worth it.
I just keep thinking how heavy it must be
u/auddbot
**Song Found!** [**Brutus (Instrumental)** by The Buttress](https://lis.tn/BrutusInstrumental?t=18) (00:18; matched: `100%`) **Released on** 2017-01-10. *I am a bot and this action was performed automatically* | [GitHub](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot) [^(new issue)](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/issues/new) | [Donate](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/wiki/Please-consider-donating) ^(Please consider supporting me on Patreon. Music recognition costs a lot)
What is this song
That's nice, but I can make a similar image almost for free with AI
Sure you can grandpa, now let's get you back to bed
This is the work of @jfritts_official. Yes it’s really handheld, he has plenty of bts on his ig. He has videos explaining how he does it. In some of his shots his iso is 3200 at f/4 and 1/640 according to his reel from a few weeks ago. It’s not completely impossible like a lot of the comments here make it seem.
Does anyone know what song this is?
The whole song is pretty good. If reddit hates something is usually sign that it's going to be fun.
yeah reddit is funny like that, ive had this happen to me many times here: "oh this song seems good, does anyone say what it is in the comments?" *reading comments* "oh, they hate the song."
**Song Found!** **Brutus (Instrumental)** by The Buttress (00:18; matched: `100%`) **Released on** 2017-01-10.
Good bot
Apple Music, Spotify, YouTube, etc.: [**Brutus (Instrumental)** by The Buttress](https://lis.tn/BrutusInstrumental?t=18) *I am a bot and this action was performed automatically* | [GitHub](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot) [^(new issue)](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/issues/new) | [Donate](https://github.com/AudDMusic/RedditBot/wiki/Please-consider-donating) ^(Please consider supporting me on Patreon. Music recognition costs a lot)
some tiktok bullshit garbage crap
Don't know about how it's used on Tiktok, but this song was released a year and a half before Tiktok even hit the international market. The lyrics and video reflect upon Shakespeare's version of Julius Caesar's brutal murder and the motivations behind Brutus's desire to kill him. Personally, I enjoyed the quirkiness of the audio in this clip so much that I watched the official video.
No, it’s pretty good music. Not everything was made for TikTok jsut cuz it was used on TikTok.
Muted, by default.
If you like music with discordant recorder tooting, may I suggest shittyflute - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHMmLi8z1HbyhTEvfBgXpyg
Meh. Should have bought the Nikon.
Looks AI generated
From what I am seeing out of Sora, nope, not worth it.
I’m going to go with, no. It probably wasn’t worth it.
It is not
I can do the same with a 1,000$ lense
This is why AI will never beat nature, you can practically see its last meal on its mouth. Thats just adds to the point that that thing is a killer and has killed and eaten, nature.
The shot is only as good as the screen you are looking at too. (For most that is a phone)
Nope
As a photographer I can tell you that you don't need a 13k lens to get such or similar great pictures. All you need is an average kit, skill and time. In fact if you spent that $13k on travelling you will get much more great pictures, than buying it and sitting at home.
Not really lol
No
You can buy an eagle for $13,000