Osprey take-off

[Colin Driscoll]

R5 600 f4 III 2x III EF/RF adapter HH
1/3200 f9 iso1250 (auto) +1 ev
DPP4 PS2021 20% crop NR to BG only, lifted shadows a bit, unsharp mask
This was as far ETTR as could go with small blinkies on the top of the head.
Missing fine feather detail which I expect can only be fixed by getting closer.
Maybe also a limitation of the lens combo for the R5? No micro-adjust available.

[arash_hazeghi]

nice take off but the harsh light and the IQ kills it for me. why is the IQ so bad ? too much crop or bad processing? the canon 2X III is not tack sharp really but it shouldn't be this bad.... looks like an image that has been digitally enlarged.

TFS

[dankearl]

No offense but how could a $4000 camera look this bad? Something is wrong.. You have not posted anything remotely OK with it.

[kevin Hice]

Colin my first impression was way too dark and looking at the shrub with shadows harsh light, but you have lost all the detail or lack of IQ on the bird. I'm not sure what happened your ISO looks fine and not much of a crop. Love the takeoff and those talons. TFS

[annmpacheco]

Hi Colin, IQ is lacking etc, ... Although we are not seeing solid IQ, are you happy with your images? Is there something we could help you with?

[Arthur Morris]

With the R5 you never want any blinkies in the sun. Ever. But it is likely that the IQ problems here are a result of poor post processing as the R5 files are quite nice. -- see Brian Sump's images ... You might be interested in my R5 Camera User's Guide (https://birdsasart-shop.com/the-birds-as-art-canon-eos-r5-camera-users-e-guide/) or in Digital Basics II. (https://birdsasart-shop.com/the-birds-as-art-current-workflow-e-guide-digital-basics-ii/)

with love, artie

[Colin Driscoll]

No offense but how could a $4000 camera look this bad? Something is wrong.. You have not posted anything remotely OK with it.


Thanks Dan, my thoughts exactly and I will be checking with Canon. As it is I have concluded that the camera is unusable because of the huge amount of noise generated in the raw image even in good light conditions.

[Colin Driscoll]

With the R5 you never want any blinkies in the sun. Ever. But it is likely that the IQ problems here are a result of poor post processing as the R5 files are quite nice. -- see Brian Sump's images ... You might be interested in my R5 Camera User's Guide (https://birdsasart-shop.com/the-birds-as-art-canon-eos-r5-camera-users-e-guide/) or in Digital Basics II. (https://birdsasart-shop.com/the-birds-as-art-current-workflow-e-guide-digital-basics-ii/)

with love, artie


Artie, I have your helpful R5 user guide and my setup was as per your recommendations. The problem is not in post it is in the huge amount of noise in the raw image.

[William Dickson]

This must be frustrating for you Colin.....I do hope you resolve the issue quickly...The IQ on the tree is so much better than the bird.

Will

[Arthur Morris]

Artie, I have your helpful R5 user guide and my setup was as per your recommendations. The problem is not in post it is in the huge amount of noise in the raw image.

Colin, Thanks! If you would like to send me the raw file for this image via a large file sending service like Hightail, fire away. samandmayasgrandpa@att.net

with love, artie

[Andreas Liedmann]

Hi Colin ... sorry to hear your " ongoing" issues with your gear .
As said above by others IQ is not there on the subject ...
The tree does look sharper than the bird ???!!!
From processing POV I personally think it is over processed and I am wondering why there is a " noise issue " at Iso 1250 ?????????? File should be very clean at this low settings .

You are complaing ( if I understand that correctly) about the camera ... I would be surprised if there is any issue with it .... as you do the shooting and you are processing the file .

The combo should be working well ... see some posts by others , here in this forum .

Just my thoughts , wish you will find a way to sort out your problems .

TFS Andreas

[Arthur Morris]

Colin sent me the raw file. I do not think that the problem is with the camera (as Andreas suggested and I thought).

The top of the head was over-exposed (as per RawDigger). The AF point was on the tail leaving the head out of focus. The sun was high and the light was harsh.Too much contrast during post processing. The crop was relatively huge. There was lots of motion blur. As the bird was relatively distant, there were problems with heat shimmer. Such problems seem to occur more often with the R5 than with any other camera I have ever used.

If anyone would like to see the screen captures and the rest of my analysis, shoot me an e-mail to samandmayasgrandpa@att.net with Colin's Osprey as the subject line.

I was able to create something better with a wider crop and help from Topaz DeNoise and Topaz Sharpen AI (for the motion blur).

with love, artie

[Andreas Liedmann]

Hi Artie ..... good that you received the raw file for a closer inspection .

How does the original framing look like ??? if your version is already cropped ???

Anyhow the RP does look way better than the OP ....

If I take Colin´s intro now ... I think he cropped to 20% of the original pixel dimensions , meaning he has thrown away 80 % of them :eek3:.
Well my thinking is , it is way too much . Colin I can only suggest that you need to understand that all cameras have their limitations in terms of cropping and the resulting IQ . We had the same " discussion " already with another fish eagle from you .... where you cropped the 1Dx III the same hefty way .
I keep hoping you get your grips to understand the limits of your gear and use a more gentle way in processing ..... just my thoughts .

NO NEED to blame the used gear , or take it to Canon :w3 , IMHO.

Would like to help , but actually not sure how ???

Cheers Andreas

[Arthur Morris]

My file is 58328K. The original converted file is 131157K. So, I have cropped away 63.5% of the original file. Colin's original crop was likely at or greater than 80% ...

I am with you on being against the huge crops. The files from the SONY a1 are the best I have seen for standing up to large crops.

with love, a

[Andreas Liedmann]

Yeah that makes things a lot clearer why this image has got not the best IQ ... as originally posted :w3

Might be that the A1 files hold up longer with IQ .... but not any folks have it and most folks should avoid that pixel bashing to keep the IQ , just my take .

[Brian Sump]

Hey guys, Artie asked me to chime in. Sorry I missed this thread initially.

Some of my thoughts; I am not the expert but I feel pretty good about what the R5 has afforded me:



The heat shimmers with the R5 are no different than what I was seeing with the D850. I don't know the climate where Colin is, but in Colorado I suffer from these far more than anyone else I know here. At 6000 ft elevation and very intense sun and temperature gradients, that makes sense. Otherwise, my opinion is that heat shimmers are far more climate based and in combination with the focal length/compression of the lens set up, than that of a particular body.
As Artie is also aware, the location of the focal point with R5 files is not always directly correlated with the sharpness of the file. I believe the R5 guide also discusses this in detail. So in this frame, I am not concerned that the focus point was on the tail. That said, I think the file was just not sharp. In an email thread I gave suggestions about changing the Case settings to help maintain focus on a subject leaving a stationary perch (i.e. try -2 and +1/+2 in that order for the two options under Case 2)
Colin, I was extremely frustrated with the R5 in the first 4-5 weeks. Then things started clicking and I couldn't see myself without it. I hope we can help you sort them out.
Regarding noise, if you look at last month's theme winner, I believe that was ISO 6400. For me, noise on the R5 can still be reasonably tamed up to 3200 and in some cases, higher. The absolute main factors, though, are a) you need to have the right end of the exposure curve entering the 5th column - in other words, you have to look at the histogram and make sure at least a bit of the exposure curve enters that section. This applies to 95% of files, with the exemption being one where most of the canvas is dark and there is one small white section that is very bright and it may not show up on the histogram. And b) the higher SS you can get the better. But again, I think that Hoodie frame was only like 1/400 or something.
My primary settings are ISO 1250 and f7.1 anytime I can. Again, anything up to ISO 2000 should give you little problem if you're exposing properly
I have some files cropped at 65-70% or more and they hold up fine. Ask Artie (or read the guide) about Geoff Newhouse and some of his 80% crops. It is not the camera IMO, but one has to know the limits of cropping with regard to the final presentation. Every file is different.
As far as PP process - I highly suggest staying in LR with the R5 files. You need to make sure you check "Remove chromatic abberation" under lens correction and then make sure to UNcheck "Enable profile corrections". I think DPP can work fine, but IMO you have much less highlight and shadow control and DPP requires more color correction for me.
I know many think Sony is God.... and I think it's a fine set up. But hopefully there are some R5 frames out there that give others the confidence that they can produce world-class images. LMK if I can help further.


PS - VERY good job dealing with the RP Artie!

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks, Brian.

As I said, I have seen more heart shimmer problems with R5 images than with any of my previous camera bodies -- Canon, Nikon, SONY. I know that that does not make much sense, but that has been my experience.

Agree the many of the new AF systems create sharp files even when the AF point is nowhere where we'd hope it would be, including on the bird's tail or on the sky (for a flight shot). But as you are aware, Colin's image is not sharply focused. I have also stated clearly that younger, stronger, fitter folks with fast reflexes and superior hand-eye coordination are better able to get the AF point where they want it and fully take advantage of the amazing new AF systems.

My repost was converted in Capture One.

I am glad that your R5 is working well for you.

with love, a

Note that for the image in question, Colin could not have pushed the exposure any more to the right as the top of the head was already toasted.

Every file is different for sure, but sharp, properly exposed files from both the R5 and the a1 (among others), often hold up very well to large crops. That without even considering the sue of Topaz Gigapixel AI.

The R5 is certainly capable of creating great images; that's why I put your Amanda image on the cover of the R5 Camera User's Guide (https://birdsasart-shop.com/the-birds-as-art-canon-eos-r5-camera-users-e-guide/).

Thanks for the AF case tip.

[Colin Driscoll]

Thanks Artie and Brian, you have given me a lot to work with. By way of explanation, not excuse, I have a very demanding job that keeps me busy at least 6 days per week, home and away.
This means opportunities to take pics are generally from my house and yard. The Osprey shot was from the front deck and I am quite sure that no heat shimmer was involved as the bird was only 130 meters away on a 17 deg C day.
I will persist with the R5 until I can post a shot that is critically sharp in RAW. I can certainly identify with your early frustration Brian.

[annmpacheco]

Hey guys, Artie asked me to chime in. Sorry I missed this thread initially.

Some of my thoughts; I am not the expert but I feel pretty good about what the R5 has afforded me:



The heat shimmers with the R5 are no different than what I was seeing with the D850. I don't know the climate where Colin is, but in Colorado I suffer from these far more than anyone else I know here. At 6000 ft elevation and very intense sun and temperature gradients, that makes sense. Otherwise, my opinion is that heat shimmers are far more climate based and in combination with the focal length/compression of the lens set up, than that of a particular body.
As Artie is also aware, the location of the focal point with R5 files is not always directly correlated with the sharpness of the file. I believe the R5 guide also discusses this in detail. So in this frame, I am not concerned that the focus point was on the tail. That said, I think the file was just not sharp. In an email thread I gave suggestions about changing the Case settings to help maintain focus on a subject leaving a stationary perch (i.e. try -2 and +1/+2 in that order for the two options under Case 2)
Colin, I was extremely frustrated with the R5 in the first 4-5 weeks. Then things started clicking and I couldn't see myself without it. I hope we can help you sort them out.
Regarding noise, if you look at last month's theme winner, I believe that was ISO 6400. For me, noise on the R5 can still be reasonably tamed up to 3200 and in some cases, higher. The absolute main factors, though, are a) you need to have the right end of the exposure curve entering the 5th column - in other words, you have to look at the histogram and make sure at least a bit of the exposure curve enters that section. This applies to 95% of files, with the exemption being one where most of the canvas is dark and there is one small white section that is very bright and it may not show up on the histogram. And b) the higher SS you can get the better. But again, I think that Hoodie frame was only like 1/400 or something.
My primary settings are ISO 1250 and f7.1 anytime I can. Again, anything up to ISO 2000 should give you little problem if you're exposing properly
I have some files cropped at 65-70% or more and they hold up fine. Ask Artie (or read the guide) about Geoff Newhouse and some of his 80% crops. It is not the camera IMO, but one has to know the limits of cropping with regard to the final presentation. Every file is different.
As far as PP process - I highly suggest staying in LR with the R5 files. You need to make sure you check "Remove chromatic abberation" under lens correction and then make sure to UNcheck "Enable profile corrections". I think DPP can work fine, but IMO you have much less highlight and shadow control and DPP requires more color correction for me.
I know many think Sony is God.... and I think it's a fine set up. But hopefully there are some R5 frames out there that give others the confidence that they can produce world-class images. LMK if I can help further.


PS - VERY good job dealing with the RP Artie!


Hi Brian, thankful for your valuable explanations and experience. Would you please help me understand why I should leave "enable profile corrections " unchecked? Thanks, Ann

[arash_hazeghi]

Artie's repost MUCH MUCH better, at least it looks like an image taken with a camera and not a cell phone. Any camera made in the past 20 years can take a sharp photo of an osprey jumping from a tree against a plain sky BG. I have sharp osprey shots with a Canon 20D from 2004 :w3..... so this case is an example of poor technique combined with poor post processing. has nothing to do with gear used.

Collin, I hate to say it buddy but you spent $$$ on gear only to get worse results. If I were you I'd pass some of that $$$ to a skilled instructor who can show you how to improve your technique in the field and behind the computer. I am sure you heard of Artie's workshops.... much better ROI than just buying whatever comes out and then coming up with images like these. sorry to be blunt but I am trying to address the root cause


good luck

[arash_hazeghi]

My file is 58328K. The original converted file is 131157K. So, I have cropped away 63.5% of the original file. Colin's original crop was likely at or greater than 80% ...

I am with you on being against the huge crops. The files from the SONY a1 are the best I have seen for standing up to large crops.

with love, a


I think some folks don't realize that a 50% crop of a 50 mega pixel camera is actually larger and contains more detail than a full frame shot of one of those old 20 mega pixel DSLR's for example. likewise a 50% crop of a 1DX III is less then 20% of the frame of something like the A1. If the RAW is sharp the files of the latest high res cameras can be cropped quite a bit and not a soul can tell the difference when viewing a small JPEG file posted here. If the RAW is not tack sharp then it won't handle much cropping but that is due to bad technique/AF not the act of cropping.

[Arthur Morris]

I think some folks don't realize that a 50% crop of a 50 mega pixel camera is actually larger and contains more detail than a full frame shot of one of those old 20 mega pixel DSLR's for example. likewise a 50% crop of a 1DX III is less then 20% of the frame of something like the A1. If the RAW is sharp the files of the latest high res cameras can be cropped quite a bit and not a soul can tell the difference when viewing a small JPEG file posted here. If the RAW is not tack sharp then it won't handle much cropping but that is due to bad technique/AF not the act of cropping.

Agree.

with love a

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Artie and Brian, you have given me a lot to work with. By way of explanation, not excuse, I have a very demanding job that keeps me busy at least 6 days per week, home and away.
This means opportunities to take pics are generally from my house and yard. The Osprey shot was from the front deck and I am quite sure that no heat shimmer was involved as the bird was only 130 meters away on a 17 deg C day.
I will persist with the R5 until I can post a shot that is critically sharp in RAW. I can certainly identify with your early frustration Brian.

Hi Again Colin, We have given you a lot to work with but after examining the EXIF for this image I have a bit more to add:

1- For less skilled folks (including and especially me) I strongly recommend using Zone AF rather than face detection plus tracking for birds in flight.
2- Shooting flight at 1200mm is extremely challenging even on a tripod. The spectacular results of Arash and Brian while hand holding a 600mm f/4 with either TC border on the super-human.
3- You need to learn to work in Manual mode to attain consistent exposures. There is lots on working in Manual mode in my books, on the blog, and possibly here on BPN somewhere ...

Keep on plugging whenever you can. On ether phone with Brian yesterday I shared with him that at times, I feel as if I will never be able to create a good image and that I should throw my gear in the nearest link. He said that he often feels the same way.

Lastly, at 130 meters from the subject there is a ton of atmosphere between you and the subject (no matter the air temps).

with love, artie

[Brian Sump]

Hi Brian, thankful for your valuable explanations and experience. Would you please help me understand why I should leave "enable profile corrections " unchecked? Thanks, Ann

Ann, sorry I should have mentioned this is a lens specific correction setting for the 600mm f4L IS iii. Some of my recent frames lacked that super sharp look in final post and it was bothering me. I went back and realized that after an update or something, that lens correction box had been checked on the past several frames as an automatic setting. I experimented and I actually believe it makes the images slightly softer. See if you see the same thing.