rx55 wrote:
Some mega awesome images in this thread !
Long time lurker here, canon 5d2 user with a bunch of EF, ZE glass. But the R5 + 50RF and 85RF are at another level altogether, and has rejuvenated my interest back in Canon!
Some pics below with the R5 and RF50 combo for fun, processed in C1 20.
Welcome to the group, nice to see you stepped out and into the shadows of the lurking night and shared some of your shots. Look forward to seeing more.
Yes, the high ISO looks great in your images, and I'm impressed with the color fidelity in the first couple of shots. The first shot shows it off pretty well - the sky colors, the orange color of the street lighting, the green color of the grass as lit by the headlights, and the correct color of the tail-lights.
bobbytan wrote:
Great set of images, Pius ... but do you agree that there is a visible loss of fine detail with the TCs?
I agree there is a loss of fine detail with the use of ES with TC's but not MS.
I think there is an overall loss of fine detail with ES regardless, also I noticed that with the 1dx III in live-view..
Yeah, I am pleasantly surprised by the straight up noise performance, didn't have to do anything much in C1 20, but have to give Topaz Denoise a try to see if I can increase the usability of 25k to 51k images. On top of this, the colors don't lose much saturation at high ISOs either, so overall looks like Canon has done a very good job here.
A close-up, also on the EF24-70 @ 70mm , f2.8 and ISO640. Processed this a little darker than I normally do. Was playing around with getting the right level on the shadows for the flower, could probably be 10-20% brighter though before it starts looking unnatural. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-83WSHxw/0/b88473b2/X3/i-83WSHxw-X3.jpg
Really nice images - the colors are fantastic! That location looks very similar to a location just up the road from my in CO on Highway 52. Anyway, cool shots!
Why would there be a loss in detail in ES vs the MS mode? Does not make any sense to me. If anything the opposite would be true as ES usually results in sharper images and can therefore resolve the finer details.
Pius Sullivan wrote:
I agree there is a loss of fine detail with the use of ES with TC's but not MS.
I think there is an overall loss of fine detail with ES regardless, also I noticed that with the 1dx III in live-view..
bobbytan wrote:
Why would there be a loss in detail in ES vs the MS mode? Does not make any sense to me. If anything the opposite would be true as ES usually results in sharper images and can therefore resolve the finer details.
That's easy to figure out, if you have the R5 take pictures with ES and MS and compare them, its just my opinion.. that's just what I see...
It's not worth posting lame images, but my experiment with using stacked 2X teleconverters on the 500/4 II (a Mark III and a Mark II) resulted in some pretty lame images. Not only is it an f/16 lens, but even in good light, the images just aren't very sharp in terms of micro contrast (100% crop, even 50% crop shows this readily). Yes, the AF works great, even with that combo, but the sensor seems to out-resolves the lens combo. Perhaps a bit of diffraction plays a part, but I'd guess that 2X plus 2X isn't very useful except in extreme situations.
Light is a commodity that is necessary. If you have to have high ISO to get the image, and it starts off soft (as it does with stacked teleconverters), you will end up with images that are only useful for internet-sized (Facebook, etc.) images.
Well, now that I've spoken, I might as well show my stuff (not for great critique - the images are kind of lame). Note that the second 2X teleconverter is not noted in the EXIF, so figure 2 stops slower and double the indicated focal length.
Last image is with 1 teleconverter. Much improved.
Mockingbird in good light with stacked converters, 2000 mm
Tufted Titmouse, high ISO, 2000 mm
Single teleconverter, mockingbird and friends at the birdbath
Tom_W wrote:
It's not worth posting lame images, but my experiment with using stacked 2X teleconverters on the 500/4 II (a Mark III and a Mark II) resulted in some pretty lame images. Not only is it an f/16 lens, but even in good light, the images just aren't very sharp in terms of micro contrast (100% crop, even 50% crop shows this readily). Yes, the AF works great, even with that combo, but the sensor seems to out-resolves the lens combo. Perhaps a bit of diffraction plays a part, but I'd guess that 2X plus 2X isn't very useful except in extreme situations.
Light is a commodity that is necessary. If you have to have high ISO to get the image, and it starts off soft (as it does with stacked teleconverters), you will end up with images that are only useful for internet-sized (Facebook, etc.) images.
Well, now that I've spoken, I might as well show my stuff (not for great critique - the images are kind of lame). Note that the second 2X teleconverter is not noted in the EXIF, so figure 2 stops slower and double the indicated focal length.
Last image is with 1 teleconverter. Much improved....Show more →
Interesting that the stacking worked regardless of quality. I could not get the R5 to work with stacking the 2x III + 1.4x III using a 12mm tube. Maybe something with the Mark II and Mark III combo. AF was not recognized at all. Anyone else using the Mark III extenders with a tube get it to work?
RobAmy wrote:
Interesting that the stacking worked regardless of quality. I could not get the R5 to work with stacking the 2x III + 1.4x III using a 12mm tube. Maybe something with the Mark II and Mark III combo. AF was not recognized at all. Anyone else using the Mark III extenders with a tube get it to work?
The only reason I still have the Mk II 2X is for stacking. I'll probably give the 1.4X III and 2X II a try today to see what it gives me. If it isn't fairly good, then maybe I don't need the older 2X any more. Seems to me that I struggled with the 2X + 2X before in terms of IQ on previous bodies, and the higher pixel density of the R5 certainly serves to amplify lens deficiencies.
I can only imagine the mess the 2 + 2 would be on the M6 II.
BTW, nice greenies in your image post. I've a friend that loves them. She was in greenie heaven last weekend when a couple of them entertained her for hours in a local park. Sometimes, within 10 feet of her. They are a unique bird, lots of awkward neck-stretching and twisting postures.
One point that I have not seen considered when talking about softer images relative to the use of TC, especially the 2x version, is “seeing”. Being an astrophotographer, seeing plays a major role in my ability to resolve fine detail. When shooting my 500 with a 1.4 TC, on my crop 7dii, I’m always conscious of any heat source I may be shooting through, creating poor seeing.
The majority of images I’ve seen posted here are wonderful and it appears that the sharpest are those shot in shadow areas, and or, over water, where the air tends to be much more stable. Having said that, even the finest glass in the world will break down in resolution when the magnification is pushed too far. I suspect most of the photographers who post here are familiar with the potential for bad seeing, but just wanted to mention it as a point to consider when shooting at very long focal lengths.
I would be most happy to shoot through Vaseline right now, if my pending R5 order were to be in my anxiously awaiting grasp. Keep posting your great images!
Some stunning images on these pages! I'm wondering how you guys are dealing with the noise in the R5 raw files. I'm seeing a fair amount of noise at what isn't considered "high ISO" anymore, say ISO 800 and getting worse as ISO increases. Is this just because of increased MP or are there menu settings I should be using to help control it? I have mine set up nearly the same as my 5D IV, except for AF.
