Bellying up to the Beauty Berry Bar... A new TC test...
EOS R RF 100-500 RF1.4tc @500 f10 1/640 ISO 3200 HH, Manual EXP, cropped for composition
I admit it, like a kid on Christmas morning, couldn't wait till golden hour to test the new zoom with new TC. So, ventured out into my wife's all natural and native backyard. No setups back there, but plenty of firebush for hummers/butterflies and beauty berries for the Mockingbirds and Blue Jays to fight over along with Florida coffee berries, Papaya... You get the picture. While mid afternoon, it was dark under the Oak canopy. So, once again, wide open at far end of zoom, low light with slow glass (f10). Wouldn't even try this image with my 15 yr old glass (not wide open anyway). It was challenging dappled light, but that's how it is under the canopy. So, I only toned down the bright spots slightly as they are part of the story. Very minimal sharpening (to bird only) applied to show the raw level SH in the JPG.
Thanks, as always for your very valued help on previous images. Please keep it coming.
Good comp. I like most of the leaves (a bit less the BG ones), and love all of the berries. It does have a "backyard" feel to it. It must feel odd photographing wide-open at f/10! How was initial focus acquisition, and then overall tracking with this combo?
Good comp. I like most of the leaves (a bit less the BG ones), and love all of the berries. It does have a "backyard" feel to it. It must feel odd photographing wide-open at f/10! How was initial focus acquisition, and then overall tracking with this combo?
It was fast (tracking also) and will be much improved on the newer bodies. Also, I purposely underexposed to see any noise issues which puts a bigger strain on AF. I knew this right from the time I slapped on the old 2xtc to the old 100-400 when I first got the R, now two years ago. Also had fast AF at f11 glass. The R was a stopgap and clearly not a wildlife body, With the Digic X, ten times faster than the "R"s processor, the new bodies will do much better. I'm not selling Canon , just trying to give real info to folks who are Canon DSLR shooters and own the excellent big EF primes. Your glass will work, if not better on the R5 and R6 and the RF glass has been killer so far. You are the "poster boy" for two points Artie has always emphasized. It's not the equipment, it's the photographer behind the equipment and the glass is more important than the body choice.
As always, your valued and astute inputs always welcome and appreciated.
Though the berries are nice the mixed light and the busy background do not work for me.
I did not even know that they made an RF TC.
Are you planning on getting an EOS R5?
with love, a
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
Though the berries are nice the mixed light and the busy background do not work for me.
I did not even know that they made an RF TC.
Are you planning on getting an EOS R5?
with love, a
Yes , they released both TCs with the first super telephoto RF glass, RF 100-500 included. I am waiting on more shakeout but am leaning toward the R6 right now. Brian Sump has one (R5) on order.
Bird looks pretty sharp, but the setting is muddled and the lighting is uneven. There berries on the perch are great, and I would think about trying a set-up with that plant, assuming you have a yard to do it. It's really cool.
Hi David, although rather busy to me it does look natural. The Blacks & Contrast are just masking a great deal, address those and things begin to 'pop' IMHO, however there is just too much NR smoothing out some of the detail in the plumage and foliage.
TFS
Steve
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
Hi David, although rather busy to me it does look natural. The Blacks & Contrast are just masking a great deal, address those and things begin to 'pop' IMHO, however there is just too much NR smoothing out some of the detail in the plumage and foliage.
TFS
Steve
And the irony is this image only needed minimum noise reduction (which I obvioulsy blew) and even that was because I purposely under exposed for the AF test.
Too often, many times when not needed at all and many times on the subject which is really not needed as long as ETTR. It is an old habit and you have told me this before. It's funny, I was just telling myself, listen to Steve. I actually wish I had more wildlife images to contribute as that forum seems to have the best PP people (including yourself). I've told you this before, as far as PP I'm at about 25% of the knowledge needed to even understand your discussions over there. To answer your question directly and honestly, the habit comes from just doing it to further smooth the OOF BG.
Thank you David for being patient and to a degree humouring me. OK here you say it was under exposed but at ISO640 how much did you really need to lift it? At 640 you would have a super smooth background and in all honestly having a super smooth BKG can at times look false, personally having a hint of grain I feel offers a better authenticity, but for whatever reason why NR is applied to images below ISO2000 is beyond me, but... However if you are applying for whatever reason, please ensure it’s at the Raw stage.
David, I appreciate your honesty in why you apply it, but if in your travels you are able to take some wildlife images you would be more than welcome, but never feel you have to post an image, just chime in and or, ask just questions.
Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.
Thank you David for being patient and to a degree humouring me. OK here you say it was under exposed but at ISO640 how much did you really need to lift it? At 640 you would have a super smooth background and in all honestly having a super smooth BKG can at times look false, personally having a hint of grain I feel offers a better authenticity, but for whatever reason why NR is applied to images below ISO2000 is beyond me, but... However if you are applying for whatever reason, please ensure it’s at the Raw stage.
David, I appreciate your honesty in why you apply it, but if in your travels you are able to take some wildlife images you would be more than welcome, but never feel you have to post an image, just chime in and or, ask just questions.
Hi Steve. As always, thanks for your very valued help. Yes, for instance, it was the ISO 3200 that made me look for noise. In reality, in this instance, the raw file had only very uniform and minimal noise in only the very darkest part of the BG. And if it was ETTR probably close to none. Yeah, I should venture over to the wild side more often and ask the PP newbie questions...