gkinard1952 wrote:
Don't know about the 100-300 lens. No experience. But, I was never impressed with the 300II with converters. Or the 300 IS for that matter. My copies showed a huge hit when using a TC. Unless you were right on top of the bird.
IMO once you really get into it you will not want to use TC's on any Canon lenses for birding.
just take a look at the quality of the RF 800 and 1200 mm lenses. If you want to see what a 2x is like on a Canon lens.
I see no difference with the 1.4x and there is a small hit with the 2x, but this is based on the ML era bodies. I believe you still shoot with an old 7D and that makes a huge difference. I was never fond of using TC's in the DSLR days, but as someone else mentioned TC's have a new life with ML and I have no problem using them. Something else that has changed dramatically is the editing software. So nowadays any small hit you might take with a 2x TC can be much easier rectified in post processing. The photos above were not processed very well other than some levels adjustments and could look much better if properly denoised, sharpened, etc.
Interesting set up! I did not know there was a option for an RF teleconverter + EF lens combo. I am still using EF teleconverters on my EF prime lenses. Very curious to see if the R5m2 helps the autofocus of the EF combos I use.
BokehBeauty wrote:
Let me ask, are you happy with skintone? To me it‘s too pale or may be it’s the green reflection from the gras. If you made a similar observation, is it a R5 II characteristic or of the RAW converter. Does DPP already support the camera?
That's probably just me / my processing. I didn't use a gray card or a color checker, so I'm not quite sure if WB is accurate, I just processed to my taste
Based on my experience with the original R5, the successor requires less temp/tint corrections (but again, to my eyes).
docusync wrote:
That's probably just me / my processing. I didn't use a gray card or a color checker, so I'm not quite sure if WB is accurate, I just processed to my taste
Based on my experience with the original R5, the successor requires less temp/tint corrections (but again, to my eyes).
Thank you for reporting your observation. Better AWB is always much appreciated by me.
gkinard1952 wrote:
Are the RF converters better than the EF TC's? As far as sharpness goes?
No, I can't tell a difference when using them on EF lenses. But I will say the EF TC vIII's came alive with ML. I'm just trying to get rid of all my EF stuff so I'm using the RF TC now.
artsupreme wrote:
No, I can't tell a difference when using them on EF lenses. But I will say the EF TC vIII's came alive with ML. I'm just trying to get rid of all my EF stuff so I'm using the RF TC now.
gkinard1952 wrote:
Don't know about the 100-300 lens. No experience. But, I was never impressed with the 300II with converters. Or the 300 IS for that matter. My copies showed a huge hit when using a TC. Unless you were right on top of the bird.
IMO once you really get into it you will not want to use TC's on any Canon lenses for birding.
just take a look at the quality of the RF 800 and 1200 mm lenses. If you want to see what a 2x is like on a Canon lens.
It's much more noticeable on a crop sensor body. The pixels are much smaller, and in order for each pixel to "resolve" the lens quality should be flawless.
I was testing a big motorized gimbal on my backyard birds ~5 years ago. The photos below were shot with the 300/2.8II + 2x mounted on the EOS R (5Dmk4 sensor), no sharpening or extra processing. To my eyes the birds' eyes are quite sharp. I don't want to post actual pictures since they are not related to the R5II, but here are the links:
I can't wait to get the 100-300, but my dealer let me down lol. Hopefully next week, or I'll just buy from B&H... The soccer season starts next Sunday!
BTW the camera can recognize an insect as an "object" but unlike the A9III does not specifically supports insect AF (in the "Animal" category). I.e. it won't focus on the head/eyes.
I tested the AI Focus, the newly added feature to the Mark II. The idea is to let the camera switch between one shot and Servo.
It works surprisingly well, when you focus and recompose it acts like one shot but when the subject moves it acts as Servo.
The RAW vs. C-RAW image quality difference Canon has shared with me is that the C-RAW file format may potentially show more noise in shadows when increasing brightness during post-processing. I processed Canon EOS R3 standard RAW and CRAW images with a +3 EV setting, pushing the exposure by three stops. Even at high ISO settings, it is challenging (impossible?) to find a difference in this comparison, and even darker subjects than those shared from the same test images showed no discernable disadvantage to the C-RAW format.
In a very high percentage of uses, you will struggle to see any difference in your C-RAW vs. RAW results. I've asked Canon to provide a C-RAW output option in Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP), allowing the photographer to later determine which archive format to select. This option would enable mass compression of entire archives, saving considerable amounts of disk space.[/I]
Yaniv wrote:
I tested the AI Focus, the newly added feature to the Mark II. The idea is to let the camera switch between one shot and Servo.
It works surprisingly well, when you focus and recompose it acts like one shot but when the subject moves it acts as Servo.
Nicely done Canon.
Is there an advantage to this over using Servo all the time, which has been my method for ages? Servo used to be twitchy on stationary subjects but I haven't noticed this with recent cameras. My concern with such an 'AI' mode is that on occasion it might not switch to Servo when it should.
docusync wrote:
I can't wait to get the 100-300, but my dealer let me down lol. Hopefully next week, or I'll just buy from B&H... The soccer season starts next Sunday!
It's a fabulous lens. If you don't already have them, get at least the 1.4x TC, which I found essential for field sports, at least on 24MP. I did not see any drop in image quality compared to non-TC images.
I'll be interested to see your results and thoughts on how the AF system compares to the competition (a9III) for sports. Be sure to shoot some with fast ball action to give an idea whether the 'slow' stacked sensor (compared to the competition) has any real world impact on fast object distortion.
Yaniv wrote:
I tested the AI Focus, the newly added feature to the Mark II. The idea is to let the camera switch between one shot and Servo.
It works surprisingly well, when you focus and recompose it acts like one shot but when the subject moves it acts as Servo.
Yep, that's odd, right? Apparently they decided to resurface the thing from DSLRs.
Have you tried to shoot soccer with the new action mode yet?
rscheffler wrote:
It's a fabulous lens. If you don't already have them, get at least the 1.4x TC, which I found essential for field sports, at least on 24MP. I did not see any drop in image quality compared to non-TC images.
I'll be interested to see your results and thoughts on how the AF system compares to the competition (a9III) for sports. Be sure to shoot some with fast ball action to give an idea whether the 'slow' stacked sensor (compared to the competition) has any real world impact on fast object distortion.
The lens should be here tomorrow!
I got both TCs, Lifeguard-design wrap and a replacement foot with a QD socket. Fully prepared . I will definitely try the 1.4x because it'll be close to what I currently have with Sony (400GM).
The R3 (rental) was very close to the A9III hit rate at 30fps, so I'm expecting the R5II to surpass, but we'll see... I'll report back on Sun/Mon.
This is new for Mark II
. I will definitely try the 1.4x because it'll be close to what I currently have with Sony (400GM).