Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 30 Jul 2020 (Thursday) 11:17
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Post your R5 Images Here

 
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
3,848 posts
Likes: 785
Joined Jan 2010
     
Jun 14, 2021 04:47 |  #4171

rndman wrote in post #19247701 (external link)
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 (external link)

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
clipper_from_oz
Goldmember
Avatar
3,039 posts
Gallery: 27 photos
Likes: 20385
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Melbourne Australia
Post edited 1 month ago by clipper_from_oz. (2 edits in all)
     
Jun 14, 2021 04:50 |  #4172

Finch from today


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


Clipper
R5, 5DSR,5DMkII,Fuji XPRO1,X-T1&X-T20,Fotoman 6x17cm Large Format Panorama Camera,Mamiya Universal 6x9
Canon EF 16-35mm f4 L, 17mm TSE f4 L,50mm f1.4, 24-70 f2.8 L, 70-200mm F4 L, 85mm f1.8, 100-400mm II L,
EF 400mm f2.8 IS II L, Fujinon XF18mmf2, XF35mmf1.4, XF60mm f2, XF18-55f2.8-4.5, XF55-200f4
Rodenstock, Sinar& Nikkor LF lens for Pano (75,95,150+210mm)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
clipper_from_oz
Goldmember
Avatar
3,039 posts
Gallery: 27 photos
Likes: 20385
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Melbourne Australia
Post edited 1 month ago by clipper_from_oz.
     
Jun 14, 2021 04:59 |  #4173

...


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


Clipper
R5, 5DSR,5DMkII,Fuji XPRO1,X-T1&X-T20,Fotoman 6x17cm Large Format Panorama Camera,Mamiya Universal 6x9
Canon EF 16-35mm f4 L, 17mm TSE f4 L,50mm f1.4, 24-70 f2.8 L, 70-200mm F4 L, 85mm f1.8, 100-400mm II L,
EF 400mm f2.8 IS II L, Fujinon XF18mmf2, XF35mmf1.4, XF60mm f2, XF18-55f2.8-4.5, XF55-200f4
Rodenstock, Sinar& Nikkor LF lens for Pano (75,95,150+210mm)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rndman
Goldmember
1,475 posts
Gallery: 168 photos
Likes: 951
Joined Apr 2008
     
Jun 14, 2021 06:24 |  #4174

John Sheehy wrote in post #19247820 (external link)
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.


smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
3,848 posts
Likes: 785
Joined Jan 2010
Post edited 1 month ago by John Sheehy.
     
Jun 14, 2021 07:10 |  #4175

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

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 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
my ­ name ­ is ­ always ­ taken
Senior Member
Avatar
453 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Sydney,Australia n Frankfurt,Germany
     
Jun 14, 2021 07:40 |  #4176

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.


https://smithersphotog​raphy.com.au/ (external link)
clintsmithers.me (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/CSmithersPhotograph​y/ (external link)
Google+

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Capn ­ Jack
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,467 posts
Gallery: 2193 photos
Likes: 16302
Joined Mar 2010
Location: NE USA
     
Jun 14, 2021 08:04 |  #4177

John Sheehy wrote in post #19247853 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
3,848 posts
Likes: 785
Joined Jan 2010
Post edited 1 month ago by John Sheehy.
     
Jun 14, 2021 10:00 |  #4178

Capn Jack wrote in post #19247866 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ in ­ Arizona
Goldmember
Avatar
3,163 posts
Gallery: 1445 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 66075
Joined Nov 2009
     
Jun 14, 2021 10:13 |  #4179

Cactus Wren...


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


The sound of birds stops the noise in my mind.” - Carly Simon

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LJ3Jim
Goldmember
Avatar
1,434 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 2525
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Pacific Northwest
     
Jun 14, 2021 10:49 |  #4180

John Sheehy wrote in post #19247901 (external link)
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:

IMAGE: https://www.lj3.com/r5/owlet_1.jpg
And here is the full photo (you can see a bit of the 2nd owl in the upper left corner):

IMAGE: https://www.lj3.com/r5/owlet_1_full.jpg
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?

Image editing ok; C&C always welcome.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Capn ­ Jack
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,467 posts
Gallery: 2193 photos
Likes: 16302
Joined Mar 2010
Location: NE USA
     
Jun 14, 2021 10:56 |  #4181

John Sheehy wrote in post #19247901 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JayLT
Senior Member
655 posts
Gallery: 379 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 8305
Joined Sep 2019
     
Jun 14, 2021 10:57 |  #4182

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: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51246598845_9b6fa06c9c_h.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2m5u​dr4  (external link) R5__9337-Edit-06-12 (external link) by Jay Cline (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51245742063_403b6edd8a_h.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2m5p​PJX  (external link) R5__8985-Edit-Edit-06-12 (external link) by Jay Cline (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51246303404_f1c3b2b339_h.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2m5s​GBf  (external link) R5__9291-Edit-06-12 (external link) by Jay Cline (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51245478391_d31a1a24c3_h.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2m5o​tmT  (external link) R5__9448-Edit-Edit-06-12 (external link) by Jay Cline (external link), on Flickr

Flickr stream: https://flic.kr/ps/se6​hB (external link)
Currently using Canon 90D and 5Ds

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JayLT
Senior Member
655 posts
Gallery: 379 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 8305
Joined Sep 2019
Post edited 1 month ago by JayLT.
     
Jun 14, 2021 11:06 |  #4183

Capn Jack wrote in post #19247927 (external link)
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

IMAGE: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50784858736_702dfb098f_h.jpg
Photo from JayLT's gallery.

Flickr stream: https://flic.kr/ps/se6​hB (external link)
Currently using Canon 90D and 5Ds

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JayLT
Senior Member
655 posts
Gallery: 379 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 8305
Joined Sep 2019
     
Jun 14, 2021 22:48 |  #4184

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

IMAGE: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51247219502_0478fedb8e_h.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2m5x​oW3  (external link) R5__9715-Edit-Edit-06-14 (external link) by Jay Cline (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51247940636_e88b8639f2_h.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2m5B​6io  (external link) R5__9722-Edit-Edit-06-14 (external link) by Jay Cline (external link), on Flickr

Flickr stream: https://flic.kr/ps/se6​hB (external link)
Currently using Canon 90D and 5Ds

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
3,848 posts
Likes: 785
Joined Jan 2010
     
Jun 15, 2021 05:17 |  #4185

LJ3Jim wrote in post #19247924 (external link)
I'm still not quite understanding the logic (sorry!). Here is the owl again:
QUOTED IMAGE
And here is the full photo (you can see a bit of the 2nd owl in the upper left corner):
QUOTED IMAGE
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

474,478 views & 41,177 likes for this thread
Post your R5 Images Here
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is laminatorking
1308 guests, 226 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.