Pius Sullivan wrote:
Armd, I find when that happens I just keep pumping the back-button and it usually kicks over...
Just curious were you in MS or ES, I find mine locks up more in MS since the firmware upgrade.
ES, just right after I was shooting the Merganser with the 100-400 is ii. No TC, no grip, latest firmware, weather around 50 deg F, battery ~50%. It hasn’t happened with any other lens (yet).
SpeedyB wrote:
Pius and Geoff, congrats on these gems.
What Case settings are you applying to these? Also, AED or Zone?
Most of my shots today were AED (Auto selected start point) but some were Zone. I think the ones posted were probably all AED. I often hit Zone first for a quick second as it seem to find the subject easier and then hit my AED button and let it take it from there.
I think I was in Case 1 but I'll need to check because the night before I was playing around with some of the sliders and not sure if I changed them back and also not sure if I changed them for both my C1 (ES) and C2 (MS) which I was switching between today.
FWIW, today I tried to watch my battery vs when my MS dropped off of 12FPS. When I finally noticed it change to White Icon my battery was at 37%. But it may have changed a little before that and I hadn't noticed.
“Most of my shots today were AED (Auto selected start point) but some were Zone. I think the ones posted were probably all AED. I often hit Zone first for a quick second as it seem to find the subject easier and then hit my AED button and let it take it from there.”
That’s my precise strategy with the R5 and part of my rationale for having the two adjacent bb’s programmed to F+T vs. Zone. Zone seems to capture af quicker against challenging backgrounds or when the subject is oof, then it is easy to slide the thumb to F+T.
Aed, set to eye AF on the AF-On button.... think Geoff was the same.
---------------------------------------------
arbitrage wrote:
Most of my shots today were AED (Auto selected start point) but some were Zone. I think the ones posted were probably all AED. I often hit Zone first for a quick second as it seem to find the subject easier and then hit my AED button and let it take it from there.
I think I was in Case 1 but I'll need to check because the night before I was playing around with some of the sliders and not sure if I changed them back and also not sure if I changed them for both my C1 (ES) and C2 (MS) which I was switching between today.
FWIW, today I tried to watch my battery vs when my MS dropped off of 12FPS. When I finally noticed it change to White Icon my battery was at 37%. But it may have changed a little before that and I hadn't noticed....Show more →
Pius and Geoff, thank you for the replies.
It sounds like both of you were mostly in [auto] AED.
Geoff, this am it seems like I was right around that exact same point when mine dropped off. If I had to guess, ~ 40% life remaining. Would love to know what you find out on Case settings please.
---------------------------------------------
armd wrote:
Arbitrage wrote:
“Most of my shots today were AED (Auto selected start point) but some were Zone. I think the ones posted were probably all AED. I often hit Zone first for a quick second as it seem to find the subject easier and then hit my AED button and let it take it from there.”
That’s my precise strategy with the R5 and part of my rationale for having the two adjacent bb’s programmed to F+T vs. Zone. Zone seems to capture af quicker against challenging backgrounds or when the subject is oof, then it is easy to slide the thumb to F+T....Show more →
I set mine up accordingly Armd as this made lots of sense to me. Need more BIF attempts to positively affirm the application.
armd wrote:
Pius, great series and in my neck of the woods, I saw some lady Mergansers for the first time this year. Unfortunately, I had a 100-400 so it was more of an academic exercise in identification.
Geoff, fantastic images and I see you’ve found the old 400 DO and are making it sing. Interestingly, this is the first weekend I’ve been able to make it to the shore and was very impressed by the R5’s performance in this setting. Though there weren’t any “interesting” shore birds, the R5 tracked gulls admirably as they swooped against the water and gray skies. Also the AED performed very well shooting dark coots swimming and diving in opaque water with a long prime+tc. Experienced the first “freeze” where an image froze in the evf and the camera became briefly unresponsive with the 100-400 is ii. Turning it off and on did nothing and the image persisted. Was about to pull the battery but the camera suddenly became responsive after pushing a couple random buttons....Show more →
The 400DOII featured in that set was generously loaned to me by Mr. Sullivan for the day. I came away with mixed feelings about the lens' performance. I'm no stranger to the 400DOII but I could not pull off a sharp shot to save my life with the 2xTC on the lens and shooting in APS-C mode. I think the 400DOII/2xTC and high-pixel density is not a good combination. It seems to only do good at short distances. I'm sort of racking my brain to think if that was more than likely the case even when I owned it. I do know it never performed well on my 5DSR trying to "reach" out over water...same thing yesterday.
It has me thinking that I'm more likely to look towards a 400III or wait it out for an RF supertele vs looking for a used 400DOII to buy.
The 400DOII was doing pretty good with the 1.4TC and things got better as subjects were closer (of course every lens does better with that).
arbitrage wrote:
The 400DOII featured in that set was generously loaned to me by Mr. Sullivan for the day. I came away with mixed feelings about the lens' performance. I'm no stranger to the 400DOII but I could not pull off a sharp shot to save my life with the 2xTC on the lens and shooting in APS-C mode. I think the 400DOII/2xTC and high-pixel density is not a good combination. It seems to only do good at short distances. I'm sort of racking my brain to think if that was more than likely the case even when I owned it. I do know it never performed well on my 5DSR trying to "reach" out over water...same thing yesterday.
It has me thinking that I'm more likely to look towards a 400III or wait it out for an RF supertele vs looking for a used 400DOII to buy.
The 400DOII was doing pretty good with the 1.4TC and things got better as subjects were closer (of course every lens does better with that)....Show more →
Pius Sullivan wrote:
Sounds like its back to Sony for Geoff...
Nah...I turned on my A9II last evening just to check if the batteries needed charging and the lag to wake the damn thing up drove home how much I love the operation of the R5 over the Sony.
What I need are RF superteles or a cracking deal on a 400III or even 600III. I see myself back and forth between Sony/Canon until next year when both Sony and Canon release new cameras and maybe some new lenses. Oh and the Z7II is coming in a few days so maybe I'll just go back to Nikon instead
The 400DOII featured in that set was generously loaned to me by Mr. Sullivan for the day. I came away with mixed feelings about the lens' performance. I'm no stranger to the 400DOII but I could not pull off a sharp shot to save my life with the 2xTC on the lens and shooting in APS-C mode. I think the 400DOII/2xTC and high-pixel density is not a good combination. It seems to only do good at short distances. I'm sort of racking my brain to think if that was more than likely the case even when I owned it. I do know it never performed well on my 5DSR trying to "reach" out over water...same thing yesterday.
The 400DOII was doing pretty good with the 1.4TC and things got better as subjects were closer (of course every lens does better with that)....Show more →
Pixel density and reach both tend to exacerbate the effect of atmospheric thermals and distortion (even the smallest of them). And when combined, the situation becomes worse.
Just thinking out of the box, since the combination performs adequately at shorter distances?
Nothing scientific here but me and Amy where standing close to one another and shot this Cormorant this morning. I was in crop mode with the R5 and Amy was full frame with the 1dx Mark III. I cropped her's to a similar size and processed both. Her image held up very well. Her's is almost cropped 50%. We had different settings because we did not do this as a test but interesting none the less. In PS full size 24x16 we both agree mine looks a little better. Hers looks a little over sharpened in full size.
Her's is the second image. She was at 1/1000 • f/6.3 • ISO 1250. I was at 1/1600 • f/5.6 • ISO 1250
Interesting and thanks for posting these Rob.
I have to say, I see very little difference between the birds at this size but Amy's eye looks a little sharper to me. But look at the difference between the oof BG. Yours is smoother and less blotchy.
Were they both processed the same? Same lenses?
lighthound wrote:
Interesting and thanks for posting these Rob.
I have to say, I see very little difference between the birds at this size but Amy's eye looks a little sharper to me. But look at the difference between the oof BG. Yours is smoother and less blotchy.
Were they both processed the same? Same lenses?
Yes processed the same and same lenses. Different lenses but the same lens both 400mm f2.8 with the 2x. Yes this size is tough but in full size mine does pull away. Her's does look sharper smaller, she had a bit better DOF too at f6.3.
Here is mine on Flickr, follow the link the sharpness shows up a bit better.
RobAmy wrote:
Yes processed the same and same lenses. Different lenses but the same lens both 400mm f2.8 with the 2x. Yes this size is tough but in full size mine does pull away. Her's does look sharper smaller, she had a bit better DOF too at f6.3.
Do you think the BG differences we see is caused from the 5.6 to 6.3? I guess it would being that all else is equal. Same PPD from one to the other so I wouldn't think cropping in post vs camera would cause any difference.
lighthound wrote:
Do you think the BG differences we see is caused from the 5.6 to 6.3? I guess it would being that all else is equal. Same PPD from one to the other so I wouldn't think cropping in post vs camera would cause any difference.
It could be but I noticed when processing the 1dx files I do see blotchy areas when the noise goes up a bit over the R5, more so in the green colors. I think Pius noted that early on with his files too with the 1dx.
RobAmy wrote:
It could be but I noticed when processing the 1dx files I do see blotchy areas when the noise goes up a bit over the R5, more so in the green colors. I think Pius noted that early on with his files too with the 1dx.
As long as we're at it. I just ran across a test I did myself while shooting elk. Hold on a minute or twelve and I'll post up my in camera crop and post FF crop to match. Will be interesting to see if there are any similarities.
eh, I don't think there is much to learn from my images. Not enough up close detail like your birds.
First image is in camera crop mode full size. Second image is FF cropped to match the first image.
No sharpening or NR applied. Just processed and resized in PS the same 24x16. I didn't apply the Lens profile correction in LR to either of them.
