ajamils wrote:
Beautiful pictures. Which lens did you use?
I also currently have A7r4 + 200-600 and have been debating about moving to Canon R5. How's your overall experience?
It’s my older 500 f/4 is ii + 1.4x iii tc. I had migrated over to Sony to test the waters around a year ago with the a7riv, 200-600, adapted Canon glass and eventually picked up a couple a9’s and another 200-600. There was much to like about the a7riv though it was nowhere in the league of the a9 with respect to af. The differences between the a9 and R5’s af accuracy is negligible and I am very pleased to be back. Some general observations; Buttons are smaller, less programmable and less multifunctional than the a7riv. The rf mount is more solid and lens changes are easier with the R5. Much better LCD screen with true touch screen. IQ is superb, I prefer the Canon color, and files require less overall PP compared to Sony images though the AA filter does impact the resolution.
Overall, the IBIS/OS appears superior with the R5. For some reason, it never worked that well on the a7riv with the 200-600 and even for perched birds dropping below 1/1200 was dicey. It may have had something to do with the slower scan rate on the a7riv’s ES? Rolling shutter has not been an issue so far even with the slower scan rate compared to the a9 though I don’t shoot against verticals. The ES fps is not adjustable and I hope that will be changed in a fw update. The sharpness and tracking accuracy are on par with the a9 with the added benefit of greater resolution and crop ability. My last a9 sits on the desk, is rarely used and it and the 200-600 will go on the market to help fund another R5.
Apart from the few issues I mentioned, the only thing I’ll miss is the 200-600. Canon has nothing like it at any price point. The 100-500 f/7.1 which bayonets and is blocked with a tc is a joke in my opinion.
armd
Thank you for the details. My experience with the Sony is very similar to yous and I like most things about Sony except for PP. Even though A7rIV has better colors than previous generation, pictures still require a fair bit of PP to get them how I like them. For occasional work it is fine but it is just not practical with everyday shooting and takes the fun out of it. OOC jpegs is one of the primary reason why I started looking at Canon. Never owned a Canon but always read/heard good things about their colors.
I agree that if Canon had a lens similar to 200-600 I would have switched immediately. I am also looking at Sigma options for Canon and how they perform with R5.
AdamBlyth wrote:
Could you clarify what you mean by this comment? Thanks
Unlike the Sony 200-600 which has internal zoom, Canon's 100-500 extends when zoomed out.
Mrs Whip took a few of the dogs out for some field training yesterday, and asked me to shoot some photos. I was really pleased with how the eye tracking AF worked when shooting through the tall grass. It stayed locked on the moving target's eyes nicely, despite the constant foreground distractions.
bwhip62 wrote:
Mrs Whip took a few of the dogs out for some field training yesterday, and asked me to shoot some photos. I was really pleased with how the eye tracking AF worked when shooting through the tall grass. It stayed locked on the moving target's eyes nicely, despite the constant foreground distractions.
I took a very quick shot of the beautiful crescent moon last night, but my real target (with the same camera/lens combination) was the ISS.
Because it's moving so fast, so small, so far away, and such a high contrast target, it's incredibly difficult to photograph without a lot of time and effort. I didn't much of either into this and it shows.
I've composited one of my ISS images with the moon (look at lower part of the image), and added another one separately, where I've done more image processing and have enlarged it further in software.
All images hand-held with Canon R5 body, Canon 100-500mm zoom lens, and Canon RF 2X TC, yielding 1000mm focal length. (Didn't have panning tripod setup ahead of time.)
ajamils wrote:
Getting ready for duck hunting season ?
I think it's just for training and fun for them. I'm always too busy riding motorcycles and taking photos to go hunting!
ajamils wrote:
Thank you for the details. My experience with the Sony is very similar to yous and I like most things about Sony except for PP. Even though A7rIV has better colors than previous generation, pictures still require a fair bit of PP to get them how I like them. For occasional work it is fine but it is just not practical with everyday shooting and takes the fun out of it. OOC jpegs is one of the primary reason why I started looking at Canon. Never owned a Canon but always read/heard good things about their colors.
I agree that if Canon had a lens similar to 200-600 I would have switched immediately. I am also looking at Sigma options for Canon and how they perform with R5.
Unlike the Sony 200-600 which has internal zoom, Canon's 100-500 extends when zoomed out. ...Show more →
Give it a few months until everyone catches up with developing the profiles for the R5/R6. Right now, DPP has the best set of profiles and Adobe has one but it is less than stellar. Capture One released theirs, though I don't know enough about it to comment. Ascribing "color" to systems is difficult because with some work, one can manipulate any image to appear more like another system. Heck, people spend many $ and hours trying to simulate old film looks. Nonetheless, while I loved my Sony images because of the native sharpness and resolution, it took a while to adjust to the underlying noise and need for not only NR but significant PP. The RAW Sony images had issues in the greens/yellows which always had to be addressed. Additionally, for whatever reason, the color transitions don't seem as "creamy" if there is such a description? For most images, I find Canon's WB is better though some have complained that the images (and skin) are too warm and one has to watch out for the highlights. This isn't the case with images processed with DPP. As a rule, my Canon R5 RAW images need less overall basic PP than those out of my Sony bodies, though all images will require creative PP.
cameron12x wrote:
I took a very quick shot of the beautiful crescent moon last night, but my real target (with the same camera/lens combination) was the ISS.
Because it's moving so fast, so small, so far away, and such a high contrast target, it's incredibly difficult to photograph without a lot of time and effort. I didn't much of either into this and it shows.
I've composited one of my ISS images with the moon (look at lower part of the image), and added another one separately, where I've done more image processing and have enlarged it further in software.
All images hand-held with Canon R5 body, Canon 100-500mm zoom lens, and Canon RF 2X TC, yielding 1000mm focal length. (Didn't have panning tripod setup ahead of time.)...Show more →
You got that little bad boy! I photographed it once also, but not with a moon in the frame. If I recall, it was with my old 400/2.8 IS and stacked 1.4X and 2X teleconverters. Can't remember which camera I used at the time, but I do remember having to chase it. And I don't think my image was as clean as yours.
armd wrote:
Nice shots and it looks like the runner is out though I can't be sure. Care to expound? Were you shooting video? What lens(es) and settings?
Definitely he was out although he was called safe, my son's team won anyway
RF70-200, Av 1/1000s f2.8, shooting the whole game in H mode with very very few times in H+. The grip felt warm / hot the whole time so the overheating warning wasn't surprising but a bit disappointing. In the end it worked out.
stanj wrote:
Definitely he was out although he was called safe, my son's team won anyway
RF70-200, Av 1/1000s f2.8, shooting the whole game in H mode with very very few times in H+. The grip felt warm / hot the whole time so the overheating warning wasn't surprising but a bit disappointing. In the end it worked out.
MS or ES? I don't have the grip but when I am shooting with the body for stills, it does not heat up appreciably. The RF 70-200 looks nice and sharp!
armd wrote:
MS or ES? I don't have the grip but when I am shooting with the body for stills, it does not heat up appreciably. The RF 70-200 looks nice and sharp!
As I said, H or H+, which both are MS. And by grip I mean the grip that the camera comes with, the one that you hold it by. Not sure what a better term is for that - not the optional, vertical grip. The handle. The bulge. That thing.
Flora and Fauna
Just for giggles, the latter was taken with a MF 100mm f2 Contax CY lens (adapted to EF, and then on an adapter). Had to stop down to eliminate some CA WO on this old lens.
lighthound wrote:
DO NOT even bother with Homer for eagles unless March is the time they gather there.
We drove down there specifically for the eagles and there were only 2 eagles there. One was on a damn cell tower looking thing thus not click worthy at all and the other one was down on the north side off the spit setting on a boulder. I got a few shots of him but he launched away from me so I didn't even get any BIF action with him.
That was the one and only major disappointment we had on this trip. Everyone had told me to go to Homer for the eagles, so I planned on doing some 4k/120 clips of them fishing, but as it turns out, according to all the locals we talked to, the only reason there used to be a ton of eagles there was because some old lady was feeding them. The wildlife people banned this practice several years ago due to the possibility of spreading disease and killing them all off but they allowed this one old lady to keep doing it knowing that she wouldn't be around much longer. She passed away some time back and the eagles do not flock there like they used to. She was grandfathered in so to speak from what we were told. ...Show more →
Jeanne Keane, the “Eagle Lady” is a legend and not “some old lady.” It was politics that caused the ban. It’s a long story but I did have the privilege of shooting from her compound on The Spit several times. She was “crusty” but loved her eagles and protected hundreds of them in the winter. It was a travesty what Homer did to her.
stanj wrote:
Definitely he was out although he was called safe, my son's team won anyway
RF70-200, Av 1/1000s f2.8, shooting the whole game in H mode with very very few times in H+. The grip felt warm / hot the whole time so the overheating warning wasn't surprising but a bit disappointing. In the end it worked out.
EGrav wrote:
Jeanne Keane, the “Eagle Lady” is a legend and not “some old lady.” It was politics that caused the ban. It’s a long story but I did have the privilege of shooting from her compound on The Spit several times. She was “crusty” but loved her eagles and protected hundreds of them in the winter. It was a travesty what Homer did to her.
I certainly meant no disrespect to Mrs. Keane. Had I been told her name I would have used it. Because I never had the privilege of meeting her, I was simply using the description as it was told to us by the locals. And yes, the people we talked to also said she had a very strong passion and love for the eagles.
