Post your R5 Images Here

And now the bird (through the double glass kitchen door).

IMAGE LINK: https://rndman.smugmug​.com/TestShots/i-5LC4GpG/A

Cropped pretty heavily. From this morning in my back yard, had 3 pairs of these guys today.

A few more shots from this weekend. All with the RF 100-500L lens

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2kgD​CN6

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2kgD​AFf

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2kgD​BEV

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2kgg​jdW

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2kgD​Csm

okay 1st images from the new camera have been taken with permission from the very curious chicken. SOOC with only lens correction and exposure boosted to +1.00 on LR since the room was so dark. focus locked on quickly, didn't enable animal detect (as far as I know). ISO 4000, also included is a close up, very fine noise, but easily corrected.

Whitetails.
Don

Photo from Littlefield's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1077915)

goalerjones wrote in post #19166402
okay 1st images from the new camera have been taken with permission from the very curious chicken. SOOC with only lens correction and exposure boosted to +1.00 on LR since the room was so dark. focus locked on quickly, didn't enable animal detect (as far as I know). ISO 4000, also included is a close up, very fine noise, but easily corrected.

Hosted photo: posted by goalerjones in
./showthread.php?p=191​66402&i=i34827831
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by goalerjones in
./showthread.php?p=191​66402&i=i194324969
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

I'd try upping the ISO on the camera, make the exposure more to the right on the histogram, and see if the noise is even less. (In fact maybe I'll give it a try myslef)

In general, I've found with Canon CMOS that boosting ISO to get the exposure more to the right in the histogram will equal less noise, than shooting lower iso with a darker exposure and boosting in post.

85RF @ 1.2

goalerjones wrote in post #19166402
okay 1st images from the new camera have been taken with permission from the very curious chicken. SOOC with only lens correction and exposure boosted to +1.00 on LR since the room was so dark. focus locked on quickly, didn't enable animal detect (as far as I know). ISO 4000, also included is a close up, very fine noise, but easily corrected.

Hosted photo: posted by goalerjones in
./showthread.php?p=191​66402&i=i34827831
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by goalerjones in
./showthread.php?p=191​66402&i=i194324969
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

If you needed a +1EV push, then the actual ISO exposure index is 8000; not 4000. Real ISO is about exposure; not the setting number on the camera. 1 stop of under-exposure for the ISO setting is generally not going to generate a lot of extra noise on the R5, but there is still a small benefit to having used ISO 8000 to begin with, with the same Av and Tv values, and that benefit increases if your lighting color is very lacking in red or blue light (deep shade or incandescent lighting), and even more so if you use the electronic shutter, which gives more shadow noise, in the form of fine horizontal banding noise.

As you get to very low exposures, it becomes important not to need pixel-level sharpness, because sharpening sharpens noise as well as subject matter. A good policy is to accept the fact that the lower the exposure (the higher the ISO exposure index), the less potential an image has for magnification of sensor area through large displays, or heavy cropping. The R5 noise is very low in large-scale blotches; it is most intense at the pixel level, like a dithering, and disappears easily with good NR and reasonable display size. I've under-exposed a museum plaque in a very dark room with a shutter speed 32x normal for ISO 51K and pushed to ISO 1.6 million, and the plaque was still completely readable without any extra noise reduction than the minimum allowed with in-camera JPEGs, even without RAW, and just pushing the embedded JPEG in the RAW. I found the right shutter speed for 51K to be normally exposed for the plaque, then I increased the shutter speed from 1/250 to 1/8000, and just pushed the embedded JPEG with a Levels tool, and then downsampled it to 10% with Bicubic. As you can see, for large-scale, very high contrast subject matter, and low magnification demands, the ISO ceiling can go pretty high, practically. I could have easily made this pure B&W with little visible noise at all, with more extensive processing:

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19166451
I'd try upping the ISO on the camera, make the exposure more to the right on the histogram, and see if the noise is even less. (In fact maybe I'll give it a try myslef)

In general, I've found with Canon CMOS that boosting ISO to get the exposure more to the right in the histogram will equal less noise, than shooting lower iso with a darker exposure and boosting in post.

As much talk as there is about cameras being "ISO-less" or "ISO-invariant" over certain ranges of ISOs, that often only means that you can get away with a limited amount of "under-exposure" from a lower ISO, without compromising IQ (in the darker areas of the image, especially). The fact of the matter is, there is noise that cameras add to the signal after the analog gain typically used for higher ISOs, and this becomes more visible with any combination of HTP, slight under-exposure, electronic shutter, and ambient light colors very weak in one or more RAW color channel; put these all together, and you have a good case for ETTR at a higher ISO setting, even in alleged "ISO-invariant" ISO setting ranges, in exchange for extra highlight headroom.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19166545
If you needed a +1EV push, then the actual ISO exposure index is 8000; not 4000. Real ISO is about exposure; not the setting number on the camera. 1 stop of under-exposure for the ISO setting is generally not going to generate a lot of extra noise on the R5, but there is still a small benefit to having used ISO 8000 to begin with, with the same Av and Tv values, and that benefit increases if your lighting color is very lacking in red or blue light (deep shade or incandescent lighting), and even more so if you use the electronic shutter, which gives more shadow noise, in the form of fine horizontal banding noise.

As you get to very low exposures, it becomes important not to need pixel-level sharpness, because sharpening sharpens noise as well as subject matter. A good policy is to accept the fact that the lower the exposure (the higher the ISO exposure index), the less potential an image has for magnification of sensor area through large displays, or heavy cropping. The R5 noise is very low in large-scale blotches; it is most intense at the pixel level, like a dithering, and disappears easily with good NR and reasonable display size. I've under-exposed a museum plaque in a very dark room with a shutter speed 32x normal for ISO 51K and pushed to ISO 1.6 million, and the plaque was still completely readable without any extra noise reduction than the minimum allowed with in-camera JPEGs, even without RAW, and just pushing the embedded JPEG in the RAW. I found the right shutter speed for 51K to be normally exposed for the plaque, then I increased the shutter speed from 1/250 to 1/8000, and just pushed the embedded JPEG with a Levels tool, and then downsampled it to 10% with Bicubic. As you can see, for large-scale, very high contrast subject matter, and low magnification demands, the ISO ceiling can go pretty high, practically. I could have easily made this pure B&W with little visible noise at all, with more extensive processing:

A "before" image would be nice, that cleaned up well. What mode was this shot in?

John Sheehy wrote in post #19166547
As much talk as there is about cameras being "ISO-less" or "ISO-invariant" over certain ranges of ISOs, that often only means that you can get away with a limited amount of "under-exposure" from a lower ISO, without compromising IQ (in the darker areas of the image, especially). The fact of the matter is, there is noise that cameras add to the signal after the analog gain typically used for higher ISOs, and this becomes more visible with any combination of HTP, slight under-exposure, electronic shutter, and ambient light colors very weak in one or more RAW color channel; put these all together, and you have a good case for ETTR at a higher ISO setting, even in alleged "ISO-invariant" ISO setting ranges, in exchange for extra highlight headroom.

What noise is that?
Anything after the amplifier is digital. 14 bits of dynamic range can make that noise rather small.

Curve-Billed Thrasher...

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19166451
I'd try upping the ISO on the camera, make the exposure more to the right on the histogram, and see if the noise is even less. (In fact maybe I'll give it a try myslef)

In general, I've found with Canon CMOS that boosting ISO to get the exposure more to the right in the histogram will equal less noise, than shooting lower iso with a darker exposure and boosting in post.

I've gotten into the habit of trying to stay as close to ISO 100 as I can, then adjusting the SS for my main on the fly changes, especially with sunset images. Perhaps now I should re-evaluate the use of my ND filter? Actually that would be, learn how to use it.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19166547
... put these all together, and you have a good case for ETTR at a higher ISO setting, even in alleged "ISO-invariant" ISO setting ranges, in exchange for extra highlight headroom.

You meant to type HAMSTTR didn't you? C'mon, you know you did!

goalerjones wrote in post #19166722
I've gotten into the habit of trying to stay as close to ISO 100 as I can, then adjusting the SS for my main on the fly changes, especially with sunset images. Perhaps now I should re-evaluate the use of my ND filter? Actually that would be, learn how to use it.

If you've not read it, this might be of interest;
https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=8534003#p​ost8534003

Slow shutter and ND filters are a certain subset that I admit this may not pertain to. I just don't know. But for birds, I am pretty confident this helps.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19166782
If you've not read it, this might be of interest;
https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=8534003#p​ost8534003

Slow shutter and ND filters are a certain subset that I admit this may not pertain to. I just don't know. But for birds, I am pretty confident this helps.

I am HAMSTTRing since the day I came to know about it quiet a few years ago (with 7DMKI)