RobAmy wrote:
Nothing scientific here but me and Amy where standing close to one another and shot this Cormorant this morning. I was in crop mode and Amy was full frame. 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...Show more →
Hey Rob...were these both R5 shots or was Amy shooting her 1DXIII? I was confused what we were trying to compare here. I would think crop mode vs crop in post would be identical if these were both R5??
arbitrage wrote:
Hey Rob...were these both R5 shots or was Amy shooting her 1DXIII? I was confused what we were trying to compare here. I would think crop mode vs crop in post would be identical if these were both R5??
Yes 2 different cameras, sorry for the confusion, Amy used the 1dx and I used the R5. I was in crop mode with the R5 and Amy was full frame with the 1dx and cropped in to match. I never seen a difference in the R5 files with crop mode vs cropping.
lighthound wrote:
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.
RobAmy wrote:
Sorry Dave for the confusion, I was using different cameras, not 2 R5's. My mistake for not explaining that better.
Ha! No need to be sorry, that was my mistake. For some reason I thought you were comparing your R5's and I didn't catch the different bodies in your comment. Carry on.
Canon EOS R5
EF500mm f/4L IS II USM
ƒ/4.0 500mm 1/500 ISO2000
Yes, it's been a quiet and dull day here too. Drove a distance to a wildlife refuge and everything was too far away even at 1000mm. Popped on the 100-400 and took a few portraits when a couple of Ring Billed gulls seemed interested in what I was doing. They wanted in for a bit of fun so I obliged...
SpeedyB wrote:
Here's one of a plain ol House Finch but was able to approach at MFD with the 600mm IS iii and 1.4x (handheld).
.
Looks good in the blue spruce. What was the background? Rock? Wall of a building? Or just the smoke you were talking about? Good combo of colors though.
mdvaden wrote:
That lens gives a very nice dreamy look from that distance.
It's not necessarily the lens that caused that effect. I did shoot wo @ f4 but most of the soft dreamy effect is coming from the FG and was from me getting down low in the grass. I got plenty of strange looks from others that were standing there, but I really liked the results.
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 →
Your experiences here match my feelings about the 400DOII exactly. If Canon comes with an APS-C version of the R5 in future, I will likely add Canon to the Nikon D500+500PF, but it will not be with the 400DOII again. I will go for the 500/4, so I won't need the 2.0TC for reach. On the 7DII, the 400DOII+2.0TC still looked very good for closer distances, but going out a bit further it crumbled.
ChrisMak wrote:
Your experiences here match my feelings about the 400DOII exactly. If Canon comes with an APS-C version of the R5 in future, I will likely add Canon to the Nikon D500+500PF, but it will not be with the 400DOII again. I will go for the 500/4, so I won't need the 2.0TC for reach. On the 7DII, the 400DOII+2.0TC still looked very good for closer distances, but going out a bit further it crumbled.
That's been my experience with every lens, closer you are the better the detail regardless 400 DO II or whatever. As for the R5 it has a 1.6 crop mode. Especially with TC's shooting over a long distance...
