Post your R5 Images Here

Wow! Despite any superfast technology those are great pictures!
Cheers
Pete

Gambel's Quail...

Great Blue Heron vocalizing as he flies by.

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …51484444956/in/​datetaken/

Great Blue Heron

It's been a little bit since I've been able to spend some time behind the camera, but I was glad to have a little free time when this guy showed up outside. Probably the last antlion I'll see this year, but this is my favorite kind with some exceptional eyes on them

RF 100mm Macro lens

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2mrs​8s5

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2mrt​GBp

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2mru​PNJ

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2mrs​bHy

JayLT wrote in post #19284283
It's been a little bit since I've been able to spend some time behind the camera, but I was glad to have a little free time when this guy showed up outside. Probably the last antlion I'll see this year, but this is my favorite kind with some exceptional eyes on them

RF 100mm Macro lens

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2mrs​8s5 R5__6160-Edit-Edit-09-15 by Jay Cline, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2mrt​GBp R5__6928-Edit-Edit-09-15 by Jay Cline, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2mru​PNJ R5__7175-Edit-Edit-09-15 by Jay Cline, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2mrs​bHy R5__6724-Edit-Edit-09-15 by Jay Cline, on Flickr

Terrific macro shots as usual, Jay. I know that you've been shooting macros with both the RF 100 Macro and the RF 100-500, and one thing I'm curious about is your decision-making process as to which lens to use for a particular macro photography situation. Is it the subject driven decision-making or the lens?

SYS wrote in post #19284288
Terrific macro shots as usual, Jay. I know that you've been shooting macros with both the RF 100 Macro and the RF 100-500, and one thing I'm curious about is your decision-making process as to which lens to use for a particular macro photography situation. Is it the subject driven decision-making or the lens?

Thanks!

There's a couple things I take into consideration for which lens I'd use. And as good as the 100-500 is, it's still more of a very good "close-up" lens as compared to a macro lens (my opinion)

Macro lens;
- the biggest thing is the "attitude" of the subject. Can you get close enough to really use it? Some of this is down to the subject, and some of this is down to the environment. If it's cold, like early morning then things like bees, wasps, and butterflies don't move all that much
- small subject, like jumping spiders ants
- extreme close-up of a specific part like the head of a mantis only

100-500 lens
- very active subjects that might not let you get too close. Butterflies and bees are the big ones for me. If the weather is warm butterflies can be very skittish and take off if you get too close, but the 100-500 lets you keep enough distance. When shooting bees I can stay in a single vantage point and move/zoom easier to try and catch them as they move very erratically
- larger insects, full shots of butterflies are easy to do with this lens, and I rarely like to do extreme close-ups of butterflies because the colors and details of their wings is what I'm usually more interested in
- dragonflies are something this works with as well
- with the 100-500 I can also try and catch in-flight shots of butterflies, and it's much easier compared to the 100mm macro ass they are never close enough to use it 99% of the time

If I can get close enough, the macro lens is a better choice most of the time, but getting close enough to use it can be a real challenge!

With the macro lens, especially the RF version, I can get these shots and do little to no cropping on them at all. The ones I just posted are barely cropped, mostly just to center, whereas with the 100-500 it's more likely to need to crop in a bit because of the farther minimum focus distance, that's also why I tend to use the 1.4x converter with it most of the time to help compensate a bit for that.

A bit of rambling in there but hopefully it makes some sense

JayLT wrote in post #19284297
Thanks!

There's a couple things I take into consideration for which lens I'd use. And as good as the 100-500 is, it's still more of a very good "close-up" lens as compared to a macro lens (my opinion)

Macro lens;
- the biggest thing is the "attitude" of the subject. Can you get close enough to really use it? Some of this is down to the subject, and some of this is down to the environment. If it's cold, like early morning then things like bees, wasps, and butterflies don't move all that much
- small subject, like jumping spiders ants
- extreme close-up of a specific part like the head of a mantis only

100-500 lens
- very active subjects that might not let you get too close. Butterflies and bees are the big ones for me. If the weather is warm butterflies can be very skittish and take off if you get too close, but the 100-500 lets you keep enough distance. When shooting bees I can stay in a single vantage point and move/zoom easier to try and catch them as they move very erratically
- larger insects, full shots of butterflies are easy to do with this lens, and I rarely like to do extreme close-ups of butterflies because the colors and details of their wings is what I'm usually more interested in
- dragonflies are something this works with as well
- with the 100-500 I can also try and catch in-flight shots of butterflies, and it's much easier compared to the 100mm macro ass they are never close enough to use it 99% of the time

If I can get close enough, the macro lens is a better choice most of the time, but getting close enough to use it can be a real challenge!

With the macro lens, especially the RF version, I can get these shots and do little to no cropping on them at all. The ones I just posted are barely cropped, mostly just to center, whereas with the 100-500 it's more likely to need to crop in a bit because of the farther minimum focus distance, that's also why I tend to use the 1.4x converter with it most of the time to help compensate a bit for that.

A bit of rambling in there but hopefully it makes some sense

Thanks for outlining your thought process. Have been waiting a long time for the macro lens to be available. At least it hasn't risen in price -- yet.

JayLT wrote in post #19284283
It's been a little bit since I've been able to spend some time behind the camera, but I was glad to have a little free time when this guy showed up outside. Probably the last antlion I'll see this year, but this is my favorite kind with some exceptional eyes on them

RF 100mm Macro lens

Jay these are truly impressive photos.
So rich in detail.
They are beautiful in every dimension.

Red squirrel in Ottawa. No problem at ISO 12800.

Photo from Archibald's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1121646)

Archibald wrote in post #19284332
Red squirrel in Ottawa. No problem at ISO 12800.

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by Archibald originally in forum: Wildlife

What do you use for noise reduction?

LJ3Jim wrote in post #19284335
What do you use for noise reduction?

Lightroom. Noise reduction was set to 8, very modest. In addition, I did a brush with strong denoise over the OOF background. The background wasn't that noisy, but it does no harm to do strong denoising there.

The image was only lightly cropped. Cropping makes noise! So it benefited from being almost full frame.

Archibald wrote in post #19284332
Red squirrel in Ottawa. No problem at ISO 12800.

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by Archibald originally in forum: Wildlife

Wow - that scrubbed up quite nicely, very clean for ISO12800.

Cheers

Dennis

Haven't had much opportunity to shoot/post.

A recent visitor...