-= Canon EOS R6 owners unite! Post photos and discuss.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19134013
I was up at an ungodly hour today and saw an opportunity to try out the camera's highest ISO speed. Taken around dawn. And just for fun.

The original file, cropped to 2106px at the long end.

Hosted photo: posted by Levina de Ruijter in
./showthread.php?p=191​34013&i=i259983122
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

The file after playing with it first in LR and then in PS.

Hosted photo: posted by Levina de Ruijter in
./showthread.php?p=191​34013&i=i59026794
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

File cleaned up however, its a useless file. All detail is gone in the feathers.Everything is soft

But you just made my point

You were at an ungodly early morning dawn hour and there was no light

Imagine shooting this with a F/2.8 Prime----Thats 2 stops....thats 12800 ISO just based on your settings

Not sure why the shutter was at 1/3200 but I will assume it was there to test the ISO

Imagine a 500 F/4 Prime at F/4 instead of F/5.6.....thats 25000 ISO and if you didnt need a shutter at 1/3200 and say its capable of being shot at 1/800.....your talking another 3-4 stops of light here. we are down to 6400 ISO territory.....500mmm reach in poor light to get a usable image that was not possible prior to this release is priceless

Proves my point about this sensor

In poor light, with a faster prime, when wildlife is most active.....you are going to have better opportunities for good captures on this very clean ISO sensor

umphotography wrote in post #19134030
File cleaned up however, its a useless file. All detail is gone in the feathers.Everything is soft

But you just made my point

You were at an ungodly early morning dawn hour and there was no light

Imagine shooting this with a F/2.8 Prime----Thats 2 stops....thats 12800 ISO just based on your settings

Not sure why the shutter was at 1/3200 but I will assume it was there to test the ISO

Imagine a 500 F/4 Prime at F/4 instead of F/5.6.....thats 25000 ISO and if you didnt need a shutter at 1/3200 and say its capable of being shot at 1/800.....your talking another 3-4 stops of light here. we are down to 6400 ISO territory.....500mmm reach in poor light to get a usable image that was not possible prior to this release is priceless

Proves my point about this sensor

In poor light, with a faster prime, when wildlife is most active.....you are going to have better opportunities for good captures on this very clean ISO sensor

But what if you’re shootings with the 100-500 @500 mm at f 7.1?

i-G12 wrote in post #19134021


So 102400. Wow. Get help Levina.

LOL. I did say it was for fun!

umphotography wrote in post #19134030
File cleaned up however, its a useless file. All detail is gone in the feathers.Everything is soft

But you just made my point

You were at an ungodly early morning dawn hour and there was no light

Imagine shooting this with a F/2.8 Prime----Thats 2 stops....thats 12800 ISO just based on your settings

Not sure why the shutter was at 1/3200 but I will assume it was there to test the ISO

Imagine a 500 F/4 Prime at F/4 instead of F/5.6.....thats 25000 ISO and if you didnt need a shutter at 1/3200 and say its capable of being shot at 1/800.....your talking another 3-4 stops of light here. we are down to 6400 ISO territory.....500mmm reach in poor light to get a usable image that was not possible prior to this release is priceless

Proves my point about this sensor

In poor light, with a faster prime, when wildlife is most active.....you are going to have better opportunities for good captures on this very clean ISO sensor

There was no light, literally.
Shutter was there to test the ISO. I didn't want to stop down the lens, thinking the less DOF the better here (blurring out noise maybe). But I must have still been half asleep the bird was too far away for any out-of-focus blurring...

And yes, file is utterly useless!
I first tried Topaz but it had no idea what to do with it. So I used Noiseware.
Colour noise cleans up really easy in these files though. I do that in Lightroom (5.7) and even with the higher ISO's I don't need to take the slider over 10.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19134032
LOL. I did say it was for fun!

There was no light, literally.
Shutter was there to test the ISO. I didn't want to stop down the lens, thinking the less DOF the better here (blurring out noise maybe). But I must have still been half asleep the bird was too far away for any out-of-focus blurring...

And yes, file is utterly useless!
I first tried Topaz but it had no idea what to do with it. So I used Noiseware.
Colour noise cleans up really easy in these files though. I do that in Lightroom (5.7) and even with the higher ISO's I don't need to take the slider over 10.

Good information you just stated

I think the guys with 400 F/2.8 primes are going to get magical images with this new sensors and technology

Good cameras will capture wonderful images with good light. Great cameras will capture spectacular images when its dark

Its an R6 for me..Its going to be a great sensor for wildlife photographers..and its your fault

umphotography wrote in post #19134057
Good information you just stated

I think the guys with 400 F/2.8 primes are going to get magical images with this new sensors and technology

Good cameras will capture wonderful images with good light. Great cameras will capture spectacular images when its dark

Its an R6 for me..Its going to be a great sensor for wildlife photographers..and its your fault

Oh god. The responsibility!!

I do hope your experience will be like mine.
When I first saw the files I was blown away, but I sort of toned it down because I never shot with anything better than a 1D4, right? I never had a 5D4 e.g. or a 1DXII so I had no idea how the R6 would compare to those cameras.

I also want to say something about my workflow. I always start in Lightroom where I reduce colour noise and a tiny bit of luminance noise (if there is any). Sliders there are never taken above 10. I then crop the image and correct exposure if that is needed. Then I take the image to Photoshop where I will tweak it to my liking. There I will remove remaining noise, usually only on the background.

The high(er) ISO gull shots were treated the same way: In LR I reduced colour noise and a little bit of luminance noise, cropped the images and corrected exposure. Then in Photoshop I tweaked the images and removed the remaining luminance noise. For this I usually make an edge mask and then use Noiseware. Sometimes I use Topaz AI, although I often find it too agressive as it tends to sharpen even when sharpening is turned off.

I thought maybe I hadn't been clear enough about that. I wouldn't want anybody to think that that little bit of noise reduction in Lightroom was enough to clear up the noise in the high ISO shots!

i-G12 wrote in post #19134031
But what if you’re shootings with the 100-500 @500 mm at f 7.1?

I'm thinking of getting that lens next Spring. When I first saw the specs of it I thought "f/7.1!! Are you effing kidding me?!!" But after my experience with the R6 I am not worried at all about that.

However, when you're in need of a wider aperture, like during that half hour before dawn, you could also reduce your focal length. I mean, it's a zoom lens. Do you know at which focal length it goes to the max?

And/or wait until light gets good. I'm often in place before the sun is up and of course with the 1D4 (and before that the 1D3 and 1DIIn) I had to wait until light was good enough. There often wasn't enough light yet. That ends the moment the sun rises above the horizon. But I have to say though that I love that blue light, just before sunrise. I just love it. And even with my previous cameras I managed some really nice images, despite their limitations.

Have a look at this shot of a (very wet) oystercatcher: Taken with my 1DIIn, just before dawn. There was very little light. Look at the exif. A SS of 1/160s, aperture f/6.3. That's almost f/7.1. But the ISO was just 400! With a R6 you can take that way higher and increase shutter speed as well!

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

From a review comparing the RF 100-500mm with the EF 100-400mm II showing at what FL the aperture stops down

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19134074
. For this I usually make an edge mask and then use Noiseware. Sometimes I use Topaz AI, although I often find it too agressive as it tends to sharpen even when sharpening is turned off.

You probably know, but the newest versions of DeNoise AI have a third mode called low light that lets you completely turn off sharpening. I have not used it much yet, but it is there now if needed.

LoneRider wrote in post #19134083
From a review comparing the RF 100-500mm with the EF 100-400mm II showing at what FL the aperture stops down

Hosted photo: posted by LoneRider in
./showthread.php?p=191​34083&i=i146139462
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Thanks for posting this

I need a variable to go with my 500F4

This will do the trick

and it takes a RF- TC as well

umphotography wrote in post #19134057
Good information you just stated

I think the guys with 400 F/2.8 primes are going to get magical images with this new sensors and technology

Good cameras will capture wonderful images with good light. Great cameras will capture spectacular images when its dark

Its an R6 for me..Its going to be a great sensor for wildlife photographers..and its your fault

This is great if you have a 400 F/2.8 BUT...

For me my wildlife photography is basically on safari in Africa. A prime 400 lens *for me* on safari is impractical. So many times you’re just too close for 400 mm. Way too close. So unless your an expert at switching lens a lot and very quickly I think a 400 prime is just not a good solution.

On my last trip I was shooting an 80D with the 100-400 II. Pretty much perfect except as I said many times even 100 mm was too close. So there is no sense for me to wish for a F/2.8 lens. Therefore the low light capabilities is critical. Last trip I needed 5000 or 6400 ISO a fair amount but the 80D didn’t handle that all that well. So if the R6 easily handles that even a 7.1 then I’m golden.

umphotography wrote in post #19134092
Thanks for posting this

I need a variable to go with my 500F4

This will do the trick

and it takes a RF- TC as well

Just be advised, on the RF 100-500mm the TC can only be used from 300-500mm

i-G12 wrote in post #19133760
Can somebody explain why people are saying the R5 files are not as clean as the R6 at higher ISO?

@TeamSpeed and @Unphotography touched on this above but I guess I need better clarification.

Edit: Also the R6 doesn’t shoot in 3:2 aspect ratio? Whatcha all shooting? 4:3 aspect ratio?

Well, I think the R6 when resized to the same size as the R5 or visa versa is a little bit cleaner with no sharpening or NR, but not by a huge amount, and those larger claimed amounts probably come mainly from two facts: Many people view at 100% pixel view, which magnifies the R6 frame less, and between the difference in AA filter style and difference in pixel size, the R5 is sharpened more, by default, so a default conversion looks noisier than it should because the converter is trying to bring out the finest details.

Some in-flight insects from a trip to the Roma Street Parklands in Brisbane this morning.

#1 is a Blue Banded Bee.
#2 is a Hoverfly

Canon EOS R6.

Cheers

Dennis

My first sighting of a Dark-eyed Junco this fall. Through my window on a rainy Sunday.

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …50419306578/in/​datetaken/

Dark-eyed Junco