EOS R6 RF 100-500 2xtc @1000 f14, 1/1250, ISO 3200 HH, Manual EXP. ~70% FF for better composition
Thanks as always for help on previous posts. This has same settings and equipment as last post except with higher ISO and thus faster SS for subject movement. From my experience so far the SS is of course needed for subject movement but not camera shake. Lens IS plus IBIS works very well for that. The dark part of BG was a natural shadow on previous post. Sharp as an f4 500 with 2xtc, no way, but still decent IQ. Let me know what you think.
Nice light and BG! Head angle and eye contact could be better.
image isn’t quite sharp/crisp for a head shot as posted and it seems a bit grainy too perhaps from too much sharpening at high ISO. As I mentioned diffraction blur is a problem at tiny apertures. There is nothing you can do about it. Perhaps changing your sharpening / NR workflow entirely will improve the small JPEG but it is tough. there are strange looking artifacts in parts of the water. to the front of the bill in particular.
TFS
Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 01-11-2021 at 12:20 PM.
Nice light and BG! Head angle and eye contact could be better.
image isn’t quite sharp/crisp for a head shot as posted and it seems a bit grainy too perhaps from too much sharpening at high ISO. As I mentioned diffraction blur is a problem at tiny apertures. There is nothing you can do about it. Perhaps changing your sharpening / NR workflow entirely will improve the small JPEG but it is tough. there are strange looking artifacts in parts of the water. to the front of the bill in particular.
TFS
Hi Arash, first and foremost, thanks for the always valued feedback. Reprocessed with very light NR and sharpening. The uncompressed file looks clean and very SH and detailed to me. In compression, birds with fine crossing feathers can look coarse at times in my experience. The water has vegetation at surface and just underneath but I'm not sure what artifacts you are seeing. It is also a little cooler as it looked too warm to me. My PP skills leave much to be desired. I might take the SH to 0 (now 1) in DPP as it comes off the sensor SH even with neutral PS and SH at 1 for my defaults.
Peace,
David
the repost is still soft to me eye. Diffraction blur is hard to fix.
artifacts are quite visible in front of the bill they look like pairs of waves and residue of a significant clone job. can you post a screen shot of the RAW?
the repost is still soft to me eye. Diffraction blur is hard to fix.
artifacts are quite visible in front of the bill they look like pairs of waves and residue of a significant clone job. can you post a screen shot of the RAW?
best
Waves maybe, no cloning at all. Thanks again for your help.
1- Can you post a jpeg that shows the full frame capture?
2- Did FD + Tracking work well with the 2X?
thanks with love, artie
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,
the repost is still soft to me eye. Diffraction blur is hard to fix.
artifacts are quite visible in front of the bill they look like pairs of waves and residue of a significant clone job. can you post a screen shot of the RAW?
best
Hi Arash,
Just so you and others can further evaluate effective SH of this rig at f14 with 2xtc, I decided to take compression out of the picture. This is a very large crop of the image to a size that would allow posting with no compression. Only processing is light NR and sharpening. The focus box literally squared the circle of the eye. This not presented as a final image, just a further illustration of IQ (or not).
Peace,
David
Last edited by David Roach; 01-13-2021 at 03:02 PM.
1- Can you post a jpeg that shows the full frame capture?
2- Did FD + Tracking work well with the 2X?
thanks with love, artie
Hi Artie,
I took off a strip at the top and the right side for stronger diagonal. You can see from the very large crop posted for Arash, 70% crop (on OP) did not degrade this very detailed image. Compression does sometimes affect perceived IQ on very fine feathered birds. I do understand this will never be as high IQ as a 500 f4 with 2xtc at f8. But not bad for this light rig. The FD and tracking work fine at f14. The two differences are speed of AF (slower but still fast to me) and you can only AF in large box at middle of frame (sorta like old DSLR days). So, for this frame in a sequence of about 15, it jumped to the eye and stayed as I recomposed with restriction of keeping eye within center box.
Peace,
David
Last edited by David Roach; 01-13-2021 at 11:26 AM.
Hi Arash,
Just so you and others can further evaluate effective SH of this rig at f14 with 2xtc, I decided to take compression out of the picture. This is a very large crop of the image to a size that would allow posting with no compression. Only processing is light NR and sharpening. The focus box literally squared the circle of the eye. This not presented as a final image, just a further illustration of IQ (or not).
Peace,
David
Hi David, this isn't a 100% crop from RAW that I asked for, and it is also heavily processed (lots of sharpening with and NR). It looks sharpened rather than sharp. I think the over sharpening is what caused the artifacts on the head and neck. If you back off sharpening, resize then sharpen for web you will get much better results IMO.
this image by itself doesn't tell me much about the sharpness of a rig to be honest. It looks good enough as posted if you back off the sharpening but I doubt if the RAW at 100% is quite tack sharp. Posting resized and processed crops to prove sharpness of optics is a common fallacy on the web. The only measure for me is the real RAW but your mileage might vary :)
best
Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 01-14-2021 at 12:10 AM.
Hi David, this isn't a 100% crop from RAW that I asked for, and it is also heavily processed (lots of sharpening with and NR). It looks sharpened rather than sharp. I think the over sharpening is what caused the artifacts on the head and neck. If you back off sharpening, resize then sharpen for web you will get much better results IMO.
this image by itself doesn't tell me much about the sharpness of a rig to be honest. It looks good enough as posted if you back off the sharpening but I doubt if the RAW at 100% is quite tack sharp. Posting resized and processed crops to prove sharpness of optics is a common fallacy on the web. The only measure for me is the real RAW but your mileage might vary :)
best
Hi Arash,
This is 1.4MP out of 22.4MP. It is not changed in size at all from raw and looks just about identical except for very fine even grained noise in BG on raw file. The NR and very light sharpening had very little effect other than to alleviate the noise in BG. Was not following your instructions, just wanted to show uncompressed view. So, your vote is for not sharp. Thanks for the help.
Peace,
David
Hi Arash,
This is 1.4MP out of 22.4MP. It is not changed in size at all from raw and looks just about identical except for very fine even grained noise in BG on raw file. The NR and very light sharpening had very little effect other than to alleviate the noise in BG. Was not following your instructions, just wanted to show uncompressed view. So, your vote is for not sharp. Thanks for the help.
Peace,
David
no problem. I am sorry there is no way a RAW file at 100% looks like that. The image is shrunk and then processed so heavily it is screaming at you.
good luck
Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 01-14-2021 at 01:52 AM.
no problem. I am sorry there is no way a RAW file at 100% looks like that. The image is shrunk and then processed so heavily it is screaming at you.
good luck
Hi Arash,
Image was cropped in DPP so it would have dimensions to post. Not sure what you mean by shrunk or processed heavily as I told you in post what I did, but here is a screen shot from DPP. Near same crop as the processed file I just posted. PS is neutral, SH is 1, Lum NR is 2 and Chrom is 3. These are my defaults in DPP. Other than pulling EXP back from ETTR no other processing in DPP. Again a screen shot from DPP converted to JPG. The previous post was very minimally NR with one round of neat image and very minimally SH for presentation with Topaz (sliders were pulled way back). At any rate, as already stated, this is RAW with defaults and exposure pulled slightly back from ETTR. So, sharp enough or not? As always, thanks for your very valued help.
Peace,
David
ps
You can see the focus box as mentioned previously.
Last edited by David Roach; 01-14-2021 at 03:15 AM.
the screen shot you posted is NOT 1:1 (it has been shrunk). this is a 1:1 screen shot from my DPP's toolbar. compare this to the toolbar at the bottom of your screen shot. do you see how the icons in mine are larger? what you posted is not 1:1. if you want email me the RAW file and I will show what 1:1 is supposed to be. The 1:1 crop from RAW would look noisier and softer.
Now the image in pane 13 is not processed as heavily as the one you posted before. Is the image in pane 13 sharp ? not really for me.
can you make a sharp looking JPEG out of this : absolutely yes with correct processing. The image is taken from close range and has plenty detail to work with :)
what does it tell us about optics? nothing other than most equipment today can produce a sharp looking JPEG out of a head shot of heron at point blank when processed properly even if the RAW isn't quite sharp the credit goes to the Topaz artificial intelligence and modern SW.
would you have gotten a better image if you had gotten closer to this tame bird, took off the TC, and shot at lower ISO as was suggested before ? I am positive If in doubt just try
best and stay safe
Last edited by arash_hazeghi; 01-14-2021 at 11:38 AM.
Hi Artie,
I took off a strip at the top and the right side for stronger diagonal. You can see from the very large crop posted for Arash, 70% crop (on OP) did not degrade this very detailed image. Compression does sometimes affect perceived IQ on very fine feathered birds. I do understand this will never be as high IQ as a 500 f4 with 2xtc at f8. But not bad for this light rig. The FD and tracking work fine at f14. The two differences are speed of AF (slower but still fast to me) and you can only AF in large box at middle of frame (sorta like old DSLR days). So, for this frame in a sequence of about 15, it jumped to the eye and stayed as I recomposed with restriction of keeping eye within center box.
Peace,
David
Hi David,
Thanks for the additional info. Are you positive that AF will not track with the 2X? As I remember, it tracked fine with the RF 1.4X. So what you are saying does not make sense .. Is your 2X TC an RF TC??? In the meantime I will check with Rudy Winston at Canon ...
I asked because in the original post there is too much dead space at the top. Now I know why :(. I purchased an R5/100-500/RF 1.4X TC and should have it soon. I will still use all of my SONY stuff and it will remain my primary system.
with love, artie
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,
Thanks for the additional info. Are you positive that AF will not track with the 2X? As I remember, it tracked fine with the RF 1.4X. So what you are saying does not make sense .. Is your 2X TC an RF TC??? In the meantime I will check with Rudy Winston at Canon ...
I asked because in the original post there is too much dead space at the top. Now I know why :(. I purchased an R5/100-500/RF 1.4X TC and should have it soon. I will still use all of my SONY stuff and it will remain my primary system.
with love, artie
No, just the opposite. The Animal AF and Eye detection with servo tracking both work fine with RF 2xtc. The tracking on the 2x is slightly slower but still quite fast IMHO. Also the active AF area is reduced from FF in 1.4xtc case to a large area AF region box at center of frame. So, for this frame, one in a servo AF sequence of about 15 frames, it jumped right to the eye (worked just the same as with faster 1.4xtc combo) and stayed on eye as I recomposed with restriction of keeping eye within center AF region box as opposed to entire frame. Hope this clarifies. If not holler...
ps
Sorry for confusion...
Last edited by David Roach; 01-14-2021 at 03:29 PM.