Post your R5 Images Here

rndman wrote in post #19247701
Hi Rob, is this also Female Summer Tanager? I had taken this in 2010, but did not have the id for this bird.

https://photos.smugmug​.com …926e/XL/4573521​030-XL.jpg

That's looks like a Red-eyed Vireo.

Rob's bird looks like a female Yellow Warbler to me; I don't see anything that I associate with a Summer Tanager, like a larger, light-colored bill, square-ish hump at the back of the head, and warm colors in the wings. Summer Tanagers are only rare vagrants or migratory overshoots in Rhode Island, while Yellow Warblers are extremely common all over the northeast. The spring breeding season Summer Tanager overshoots that I occasionally see in the NYC area look more like dull brownish-gold than yellow. I think that they are more yellowish outside of breeding season.

Finch from today

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

...

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19247820
That's looks like a Red-eyed Vireo.

Rob's bird looks like a female Yellow Warbler to me; I don't see anything that I associate with a Summer Tanager, like a larger, light-colored bill, square-ish hump at the back of the head, and warm colors in the wings. Summer Tanagers are only rare vagrants or migratory overshoots in Rhode Island, while Yellow Warblers are extremely common all over the northeast. The spring breeding season Summer Tanager overshoots that I occasionally see in the NYC area look more like dull brownish-gold than yellow. I think that they are more yellowish outside of breeding season.

Thanks John. It does look like Red-eyed Vireo after comparing the images on the internet.

LJ3Jim wrote in post #19247756
This lab test shows that the 2x does have a significant hit:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=6​&APIComp=4

This type of test has questionable relevance to most real-world TC use, as the target is twice as far from the camera in the 1000mm version as the 500mm version. These tests were definitely not set up to aid in assessing equipment for focal-length-limited photography. In the real world, you usually put a TC on because you can't get close enough, and would otherwise have to crop; you usually don't step twice as far away because someone forced the TC into your system. One should expect a slightly softer render at 1000mm, but not so much softer that any item in the center of the target wouldn't be recorded better overall if both focal lengths were shot at the same distance from the target, which is more representative of most real-world TC use. BTW, CA can be corrected better than what we see in these tests, and better-sampled versions of the same CA can be better corrected. Some of what looks like luminance blur in the repeating lines is actually CA that is mostly cancelling its colors out by adding fringes from both sides, re-combining the colors. IOW, correcting the CA in the 1000mm version would not only remove the color, but also improve the contrast in the repeating lines.

The proper test for what really matters for much TC use would be to set the distance to that which frames the target at 1000mm, and then shoot 700mm and 500mm from that same distance, and crop the target and upsample them to 45MP, and also do CA correction on them all. If we want to extend the test to consider noise, using low light, then the same shutter speed could be used for all, too.

The owls have very fine detail in their feathers, and the IQ is a bit "mushy" in my opinion. The lab test for the 1.4x is better:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=5​&APIComp=0
In my experience so far, the 2x might have a future on my R6 but probably not on the R5. More shooting to follow over the summer.

The R5 with a 1.4x is similar to the R6 with a 2x, in pixels-on-subject, from the same distance (a slight advantage to the R5 of 1.125x pixels or 1.06x in each dimension). Same for no TC on the R5, and a 1.4x on the R6. So, the R5 helps with TC avoidance, by getting the pixels-on-subject in an optically better way.

White Bellied Sea Eagle.
Late afternoon, I'm blown away by the 600mm f4. Loaned this lens for over a week and I'm amazed.
Some shots with the 1.4 TC and the closest image with the TC and the in camera 1.6 crop (when 60mm isn't enough).
Serious envy if you own this lens..

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19247853
This type of test has questionable relevance to most real-world TC use, as the target is twice as far from the camera in the 1000mm version as the 500mm version. These tests were definitely not set up to aid in assessing equipment for focal-length-limited photography. In the real world, you usually put a TC on because you can't get close enough, and would otherwise have to crop; you usually don't step twice as far away because someone forced the TC into your system. One should expect a slightly softer render at 1000mm, but not so much softer that any item in the center of the target wouldn't be recorded better overall if both focal lengths were shot at the same distance from the target, which is more representative of most real-world TC use. BTW, CA can be corrected better than what we see in these tests, and better-sampled versions of the same CA can be better corrected. Some of what looks like luminance blur in the repeating lines is actually CA that is mostly cancelling its colors out by adding fringes from both sides, re-combining the colors. IOW, correcting the CA in the 1000mm version would not only remove the color, but also improve the contrast in the repeating lines.

The proper test for what really matters for much TC use would be to set the distance to that which frames the target at 1000mm, and then shoot 700mm and 500mm from that same distance, and crop the target and upsample them to 45MP, and also do CA correction on them all. If we want to extend the test to consider noise, using low light, then the same shutter speed could be used for all, too.

The R5 with a 1.4x is similar to the R6 with a 2x, in pixels-on-subject, from the same distance (a slight advantage to the R5 of 1.125x pixels or 1.06x in each dimension). Same for no TC on the R5, and a 1.4x on the R6. So, the R5 helps with TC avoidance, by getting the pixels-on-subject in an optically better way.

Please consider that if I have a subject adequately framed at 500 mm, I would use the 2x teleconvertor if the same subject is twice as far to get similar framing. I'd suggest the test may well somewhat represent real-world use. I only use my TC if the subject is distant. I don't step twice away because I have a teleconvertor, I use it because the subject is twice as far.

Capn Jack wrote in post #19247866
Please consider that if I have a subject adequately framed at 500 mm, I would use the 2x teleconvertor if the same subject is twice as far to get similar framing. I'd suggest the test may well somewhat represent real-world use. I only use my TC if the subject is distant. I don't step twice away because I have a teleconvertor, I use it because the subject is twice as far.

So then, what is the core problem with being at 2x the distance by necessity? Is it the TC, or the distance itself? Somehow, TCs seem to get blamed for distance, but distance itself can easily be most of the reason for the inferior capture of the normalized subject. Just because a TC does add at least a tiny bit of aberration itself to the analog projection of the lens, does not mean that all or even most of the loss in subject quality is due to the TC.

Cactus Wren...

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19247901
So then, what is the core problem with being at 2x the distance by necessity? Is it the TC, or the distance itself? Somehow, TCs seem to get blamed for distance, but distance itself can easily be most of the reason for the inferior capture of the normalized subject. Just because a TC does add at least a tiny bit of aberration itself to the analog projection of the lens, does not mean that all or even most of the loss in subject quality is due to the TC.

I'm still not quite understanding the logic (sorry!). Here is the owl again:

John Sheehy wrote in post #19247901
So then, what is the core problem with being at 2x the distance by necessity? Is it the TC, or the distance itself? Somehow, TCs seem to get blamed for distance, but distance itself can easily be most of the reason for the inferior capture of the normalized subject. Just because a TC does add at least a tiny bit of aberration itself to the analog projection of the lens, does not mean that all or even most of the loss in subject quality is due to the TC.

I would agree with that- some loss of resolution may be from the teleconvertor, but there are may other contributors to resolution loss. Dust, haze, fog, add to loss of resolution and contrast. Variations in the atmosphere from uneven heating can blur images. My technique is such that I find that longer focal lengths with a teleconvertor installed require me to use a tripod due to motion blur for good results. I'm assuming that "normalized" means the subject is imaged to the same size on the sensor in both cases.

A couple more shots of the first adult mantis I've seen so far this summer. This one had some bright yellow markings on it which isn't what I normally see

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2m5u​dr4

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2m5p​PJX

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2m5s​GBf

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2m5o​tmT

Capn Jack wrote in post #19247927
I would agree with that- some loss of resolution may be from the teleconvertor, but there are may other contributors to resolution loss. Dust, haze, fog, add to loss of resolution and contrast. Variations in the atmosphere from uneven heating can blur images. My technique is such that I find that longer focal lengths with a teleconvertor installed require me to use a tripod due to motion blur for good results. I'm assuming that "normalized" means the subject is imaged to the same size on the sensor in both cases.

Agreed. I've used both the 1.4x and 2x converters with the 100-500 on my R5. And while I think the 2x is still the best 2x extender I have ever used to this point, when you try top use it to shoot at real distance it can be very difficult to get nice sharp shots. But is that really all that unexpected? It's 1000mm (hand held for me, almost never use a tripod) f/14 which is well within diffraction range, and then you add in atmospheric issues on top of that and it really narrows the usability of the combination, but again I think that should be expected.

However, based on my usage of it I think the distance is going to be the largest contributor of issues, mainly because when I use that combination on up-close subjects then I tend to get a nice sharp image with some good contrast @1000mm f/14. Being in Phoenix, haze heat and dust are something I can almost never get away from though.

Here's a shot I've posted before with that combination of an up close subject

Photo from JayLT's gallery.

Happened across this black and yellow mud dauber earlier today. Only got a couple pics in focus before it decided to leave

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2m5x​oW3

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2m5B​6io

LJ3Jim wrote in post #19247924
I'm still not quite understanding the logic (sorry!). Here is the owl again:

And here is the full photo (you can see a bit of the 2nd owl in the upper left corner):

I was as close as I could get to the owl (about 30-40 feet away). Without the TC, the owl would have been half of its size in the frame and just 1/4 of the pixels. Was the TC the right choice?

The logic was that the test chart comparison at the.digital.picture does not predict many real world differences, where the subject would be at the same distance, with and without the TC. If it did not interfere with focus, then yes, it was a choice I would have made, too, even if 100% pixel views look softer than without the TC. For a perched bird, you can use manual focus, too, removing one potential TC problem.

The point I am always making in such a discussion is that distance/proximity is usually the true main variable in subject quality with a given lens, and that TCs get blamed often by association for causing all of the losses due to distance. No matter how tempting it is to look at 2x TC captures at 100% pixel view and think, "this is more than twice as soft as without the TC", I have never found that to hold up to actual normalized, controlled tests. Now, the 100-500 could be a little different, and have some extra issues in the corners, but a comparison like the.digital.picture one that you linked to is not going to show that directly, and that would require cropping from 500mm at the same subject distance as 1000mm, and then normalizing the results by upsampling the 500mm crop 2x as much.