Here's one of Jared Polin's images I ran through lightroom quick. He was probably not too far back from MFD, so it's possible the lens does quite well near MFD but gradually gets worse the further away a subject is.
I wouldn't be disappointed in this with a $900 800mm lens.
EDIT: I see now this was with the R6, not the R5. I'm sure the high pixel density of the R5 doesn't work as well with the 800.
AvianScott wrote:
Here's one of Jared Polin's images I ran through lightroom quick. He was probably not too far back from MFD, so it's possible the lens does quite well near MFD but gradually gets worse the further away a subject is.
I wouldn't be disappointed in this with a $900 800mm lens.
EDIT: I see now this was with the R6, not the R5. I'm sure the high pixel density of the R5 doesn't work as well with the 800.
I'm not seeing the detail in that photo taken at f/11, there is no doubt the eye is very sharp but the feather detail is missing big time...
Pius Sullivan wrote:
I'm not seeing the detail in that photo taken at f/11, there is no doubt the eye is very sharp but the feather detail is missing big time...
I think some of it is the thin DOF though. I did process the DNG and it looked pretty good after Topaz. Still it is falling a little short for a point blank eagle head shot...you should be able to see the cross barbs in this type of shot with a good lens (and that doesn't have to be a $12K 600/4).
The big question is how bad it falls apart as you start to get further away. That is by far where the $12K lenses pull way apart from other lenses. I worry about the people buying the 800 and then overreaching to birds that are too far even for a 1200mm $12K lens and are going to be severely disappointed...but I guess that happens regardless.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that eagle shot from a $900 800mm lens.
Does it compare with a $12000 lens? Shit no and why would anyone think it should/could or would?
Perspective people. Perspective.
Canon will not be able to keep up with demand on this lens.
Hell, Sony shooters would probably be their biggest customer if Sony could find a 3rd party to make an adapter for them.
I'm not sure what to make of the banding in the DPReview image comparison tool. The $10k 100mp 33x44 Fuji showed banding in shadows a bit, I think only raised 2 stops. A7r4 had banding, granted at a rather extreme setting, the A7r3 didn't have. Now the R5 is apparently showing banding at a relatively low iso, and raising the shadows is similar to just setting the iso higher to begin with. Is this just an issue of extreme examples, is something goofed up, or is it dead on accurate?
I'd be curious if files processed in DPP had this issue. DPP was apparently noticeably better on the 90D, at least at first, from what I read here
AvianScott wrote:
Here's one of Jared Polin's images I ran through lightroom quick. He was probably not too far back from MFD, so it's possible the lens does quite well near MFD but gradually gets worse the further away a subject is.
I wouldn't be disappointed in this with a $900 800mm lens.
EDIT: I see now this was with the R6, not the R5. I'm sure the high pixel density of the R5 doesn't work as well with the 800.
The eye is sharp, most of the feathers to the right of the eye are oof. As is the tip of the bill, probably a bit before, too.
Dof razor thin at 800mm. And he's shooting from below, which seems to make it worse, as far as differing distances.
lighthound wrote:
Absolutely nothing wrong with that eagle shot from a $900 800mm lens.
Does it compare with a $12000 lens? Shit no and why would anyone think it should/could or would?
Perspective people. Perspective.
Canon will not be able to keep up with demand on this lens.
Hell, Sony shooters would probably be their biggest customer if Sony could find a 3rd party to make an adapter for them.
Shooting a subject from below means that the sensor is not paralleled with it, so only a minor part of the subject will be in focus. I'll wait for some more photos before judging this lens.
Switch back and forth between the 25600 image and the 6400 image and you know where to look.
What do you guys think about this. Am i seeing ghosts, or do we have a 5D mark II like problem?
It might be the processing or firmware. Didnīt DPR had a production R6 only (but no final R5)?
I compared the ISO 12800 shot of DPR from the link above with Gordon Laings two ISO 12800 shots of the final production R5. The DPR shot shows clear visible banding if the gradient curves are rased. But I can not see any banding in Gordon Liangs night shots.
AvianScott wrote:
He somehow found a way to convert them to DNG so they can be processed in LR.
Change three Exif tags, convert to DNG, change back the three Exif tags.
Ralph Conway wrote:
It might be the processing or firmware. Didnīt DPR had a production R6 only (but no final R5)?
I compared the ISO 12800 shot of DPR from the link above with Gordon Laings two ISO 12800 shots of the final production R5. The DPR shot shows clear visible banding if the gradient curves are rased. But I can not see any banding in Gordon Liangs night shots.
DPR states these images are from their production R5. They had the R6 first and that is why the review came out first but even in that review they said they had just received their production R5 and would be working away on the review for it.
arbitrage wrote:
DPR states these images are from their production R5. They had the R6 first and that is why the review came out first but even in that review they said they had just received their production R5 and would be working away on the review for it.
There is something going on with those DPR shots. The ISO 102,000 night shot is awful. I find it hard to believe that would be something Canon would release this day and age.
Agreed, I just threw that jpeg into LR and cranked up exposure 3 stops and can't see any.
May be related to what shutter mode was used??
Although I also downloaded the DPR 6400 shots and cranked its exposure, played around with dehaze to extremes and don't really see the banding in that file either.
So maybe it really is only showing itself at the real high-ISO??
I still find it odd though i could not find banding in the jpg's from Gordon either. But it sure is something i will test thoroughly when i get the R5 since night photography is what we do a lot with our cameras. And i will only order a 2nd camera when it's free of this banding issue i have seen on the DPR website.
arbitrage wrote:
DPR states these images are from their production R5. They had the R6 first and that is why the review came out first but even in that review they said they had just received their production R5 and would be working away on the review for it.
Okay. But there is banding visible in the DPR files at ISO 12.800 and higher, while I can not detect any in the Liangs 12.800 sample pictures no matter how strong I drag the sliders in PS.
