The TPU Darkroom - Digital SLR and Photography Club

[the54thvoid]

Damn it. I pre-orderd an EOS R7 back in May (will trade in my R and an extender for some cash back) but the stock is abysmal. It'll pair well with my 100-400 mkii (plus adapter) for a 160-640mm equiv focal length. But I'm not sure if I'll get it in time for my Canada vacation on Aug 17th.

First world problems, I know. But as long as I'm in the first world, I can complain.

 

[Aquinus]

Damn it. I pre-orderd an EOS R7 back in May (will trade in my R and an extender for some cash back) but the stock is abysmal. It'll pair well with my 100-400 mkii (plus adapter) for a 160-640mm equiv focal length. But I'm not sure if I'll get it in time for my Canada vacation on Aug 17th.

First world problems, I know. But as long as I'm in the first world, I can complain.

Let me know how it goes. The reviews on it looks fairly good with the exception of the rolling shutter since I guess it's an older sensor they used in it. Either way, it's a nice way to get a little more reach out for your existing glass, particularly since it costs less than new glass at only about $1k USD.

 

[mouks]

Mountain freight delivery

 

[Arcdar]

Still on an old Eos700D with some fixed (30&50) and one zoom (old 70-250L non stab) and not by far enough time to take pictures at the moment, but also still have a lot raw files to go through from the years before 2019 ....

here's one of my fav's, which was shot in 2016 of an art-piece I helped build (and burn). "only" 300DPI but I don't have the full file here right now, so this is the one I have on my 500px dl&re-ul here

 

[mouks]

Still on an old Eos700D with some fixed (30&50) and one zoom (old 70-250L non stab) and not by far enough time to take pictures at the moment, but also still have a lot raw files to go through from the years before 2019 ....

here's one of my fav's, which was shot in 2016 of an art-piece I helped build (and burn). "only" 300DPI but I don't have the full file here right now, so this is the one I have on my 500px dl&re-ul here View attachment 254776

Awesome shot! That would be a perfect album cover for some obscure doom metal stuff

 

[Arcdar]

That little light looks the good. Flash does not have to be complicated though you can pick up TTL Yongnuo flash cheap (maybe second hand) and that is as easy as putting in TTL mode with the difuser on and going for it the flash will do the work

I love my Yongnuo TTL's !!! I also couldn't wrap my head around flash and settings and stuff but those work so well - even with my 700D and base knowledge of how to not over brighten an image // how to use "indirect flash" (indoors -> roof). Made my life a lot easier in evenings when family forces me to take some pictures ...

((but you definitely have to use a diffusor - and not the one integrated into the flash. something like those "fabric boxes/hoses" they work amazingly well )

Awesome shot! That would be a perfect album cover for some obscure doom metal stuff

thanks .... one out of 5 I'm happy about from about 150 I took on that evening from sunset when the burn of the light houses started to the end. As always, as long as a few shots are "O.K." it was worth it

 

[Hyderz]

hey guys i have a got question, i have a sony a6000 for 9 years now and the camera has been great and all..
but the wear and tear is coming out now... my mode select button is very hard and stiff, sometimes i have to rotate counterclockwise in order to go clockwise again...
its still very useable ( i need to replace the 9 year old battery) so i was wondering is it worth sending to sony to fix or just let it run its course and buy a new camera?

 

[Arcdar]

hey guys i have a got question, i have a sony a6000 for 9 years now and the camera has been great and all..
but the wear and tear is coming out now... my mode select button is very hard and stiff, sometimes i have to rotate counterclockwise in order to go clockwise again...
its still very useable ( i need to replace the 9 year old battery) so i was wondering is it worth sending to sony to fix or just let it run its course and buy a new camera?

maybe check one of the shops around you - a lot of them offer quick repairs for "small issues like that" ... easier and safer than finding a tutorial to do it yourself (but which is also still possible )

 

[Hyderz]

maybe check one of the shops around you - a lot of them offer quick repairs for "small issues like that" ... easier and safer than finding a tutorial to do it yourself (but which is also still possible )

i can do pc parts but not camera's the sensors are very sensitive and tiny spec of dust can ruin it... i will look around

 

[mouks]

i can do pc parts but not camera's the sensors are very sensitive and tiny spec of dust can ruin it... i will look around

You can also try a smartphone repair shop, they shouldn't charge much to look at the mode dial. As you can see in this video, the top part is only held by 2 screws on the top and 2 others in the battery compartment. If the dial is hard to turn, some dust may be stuck inside.

thanks .... one out of 5 I'm happy about from about 150 I took on that evening from sunset when the burn of the light houses started to the end. As always, as long as a few shots are "O.K." it was worth it

My keeper rate is as worse as it can be since I bought my Sony A9 which can shoot 20 i/s and I'm not even happy with some of the pics I keep

 

[tabascosauz]

back to our usual programming

 

[the54thvoid]

Absolute drought for pics from me recently - not had the weather or scenery to get anything decent. Shot this through a narrow window aperture from my kitchen - needed tidied up in Capture One. FTR, this is the R6 at ISO 16000, using the 800m f/11.

 

[Aquinus]

back to our usual programming

View attachment 255035

I raise you a monarch butterfly. ISO 4000, 1/1000s, ƒ8, 400mm. In retrospect, 1/500s and ƒ11 would have yielded better results. I don't like how the left side of the wing is out of focus, might even need to go as far as ƒ16 to fix the DoF. Either way, I'm happy with the attempt. This is also from the RAW version, not the processed JPEG.

Absolute drought for pics from me recently - not had the weather or scenery to get anything decent. Shot this through a narrow window aperture from my kitchen - needed tidied up in Capture One. FTR, this is the R6 at ISO 16000, using the 800m f/11.

View attachment 255062

Is that with the fixed aperture 800mm RF lens? I know a guy with the 600mm ƒ4 and he takes some amazing pictures with it, as you should when you're spending north of 10k USD on a lens.

 

[AMF]

nice pictures guys!

 

[Aquinus]

nice pictures guys!

I'd like to think that every time I go out and try to snap some shots that I get a little better. I needed a hobby other than playing video games and photography seemed like a good one that would get me out of the house. I'm by no means... the GOAT.

141mm, ƒ7.1, 1/1000s, ISO 640

 

[tabascosauz]

I raise you a monarch butterfly. ISO 4000, 1/1000s, ƒ8, 400mm. In retrospect, 1/500s and ƒ11 would have yielded better results. I don't like how the left side of the wing is out of focus, might even need to go as far as ƒ16 to fix the DoF. Either way, I'm happy with the attempt. This is also from the RAW version, not the processed JPEG.

I envy you Canon users with actually usable 100-400 glass (referring to the white one, idk anything about the RF one).

Banff trip got me super depressed, and now I'm in a rut because I want more reach for birds but I just can't find anything that fits the bill and doesn't force me to sell my car to get one.

Our 300/4 is good but ancient and weighs like it's made of concrete, our 80-400 is a flaming turd after 200mm, and the "real" glass (400 and 800 PFs) are way out of what I can justify. IQ is already fussy enough on the 80-200, that I don't think it would survive a teleconverter. All that leaves me with is APS-C, and I'm not buying any more DSLRs.

I have not an ounce of interest in mirrorless (except maybe Sony or Fuji), but even I can't deny that Nikon is forcing us to go that way

 

[the54thvoid]

I raise you a monarch butterfly. ISO 4000, 1/1000s, ƒ8, 400mm. In retrospect, 1/500s and ƒ11 would have yielded better results. I don't like how the left side of the wing is out of focus, might even need to go as far as ƒ16 to fix the DoF. Either way, I'm happy with the attempt. This is also from the RAW version, not the processed JPEG.

View attachment 255075


Is that with the fixed aperture 800mm RF lens? I know a guy with the 600mm ƒ4 and he takes some amazing pictures with it, as you should when you're spending north of 10k USD on a lens.

Oh hell - the 600 f4 is way better than the 800 f11. When I moved from 7dMk2 (APS-C) to the FF R6, I lost 200mm effective focal range on my 100-400 mk2. I got the 800 specifically for long range wildlife, though not necesarily birds (the f11 is too slow).

 

[Aquinus]

I envy you Canon users with actually usable 100-400 glass (referring to the white one, idk anything about the RF one).

Banff trip got me super depressed, and now I'm in a rut because I want more reach for birds but I just can't find anything that fits the bill and doesn't force me to sell my car to get one.

Our 300/4 is good but ancient and weighs like it's made of concrete, our 80-400 is a flaming turd after 200mm, and the "real" glass (400 and 800 PFs) are way out of what I can justify.

I have not an ounce of interest in mirrorless (except maybe Sony or Fuji), but even I can't deny that Nikon is forcing us to go that way

So, the 100-400mm RF glass is really a budget lens. It's "okay" in my opinion, but pretty good for the money $600 or $650 USD-ish new. I saw a review of the 100-500mm L glass lens with the new R7 and those shots looked really nice given the effective reach at 500mm with a 1.6x crop. I don't tend to take pictures of people, but when I do, I like being at a distance because candid shots are somethings the best. So something like the 100-500 would be really nice if it wasn't for the $2,900 price tag. The reality though is that the 100-400 RF glass isn't all that sharp compared to a lot of other lenses. What makes it good is the reach on a budget. The Canon camera bodies are pretty good though. They do a lot really well.

I will say though that the combo of the Canon EOS RP and the 100-400mm is insanely light. It's super easy to run around with because sometimes you just want to grab it and go. If it got something like an adapted 150-600 Sigma, it'd be a lot more weight I'd be hauling around. Even the 100-500 Canon L glass is something like 3 lbs/1.3 kg whereas the 100-400 RF is 1.4 Lbs/ 0.6 kg.

Oh hell - the 600 f4 is way better than the 800 f11. When I moved from 7dMk2 (APS-C) to the FF R6, I lost 200mm effective focal range on my 100-400 mk2. I got the 800 specifically for long range wildlife, though not necesarily birds (the f11 is too slow).

The ƒ8 on the long end of the 100-400 is borderline too slow. It's fine on a nice day. I can't justify spending that much money on glass though. I think if I were ever to go for something north of 2k USD, It'd probably be the 100-500.

Edit: Side note, the minimum focus distance on the 100-400 @ 400mm is about 1m. I used it for the butterfly shot.

Edit 2: This probably would have been an amazing picture with a 800mm prime.

 

[tabascosauz]

So, the 100-400mm RF glass is really a budget lens. It's "okay" in my opinion, but pretty good for the money $600 or $650 USD-ish new. I saw a review of the 100-500mm L glass lens with the new R7 and those shots looked really nice given the effective reach at 500mm with a 1.6x crop. I don't tend to take pictures of people, but when I do, I like being at a distance because candid shots are somethings the best. So something like the 100-500 would be really nice if it wasn't for the $2,900 price tag. The reality though is that the 100-400 RF glass isn't all that sharp compared to a lot of other lenses. What makes it good is the reach on a budget. The Canon camera bodies are pretty good though. They do a lot really well.

I will say though that the combo of the Canon EOS RP and the 100-400mm is insanely light. It's super easy to run around with because sometimes you just want to grab it and go. If it got something like an adapted 150-600 Sigma, it'd be a lot more weight I'd be hauling around. Even the 100-500 Canon L glass is something like 3 lbs/1.3 kg whereas the 100-400 RF is 1.4 Lbs/ 0.6 kg.

Edit 2: This probably would have been an amazing picture with a 800mm prime.

Bald eagles are still elusive for me. Saw one a couple weeks ago but I'm not sure even with an 800mm there would be a spot around to stand to make it "within reach". It really chose a great spot, perched at the very apex of the tree. Just sat there for like an hour.

After a lot of deliberation I saw a "local" 300mm f/4 AF-S (4 hours' drive away, compared to all the way in Japan ) and decided to go for it. Nikon/Sigma just don't give me many options I can afford in this range. This 300 has a neat little built-in hood that extends/retracts.

Looked at the 80-400, 28-300, and all 3 70-300s. Think shooting too many bees makes me overly sensitive to zooms' poor IQ - even my own 80-200 that the entire internet thinks is "very sharp". I can definitely feel the D610 vs Df resolution difference at the long end.

At least the 300 f/4 gives me a lot more room to accommodate a TC-14E teleconverter if I need it. All the zooms seem to be kinda a bad bet, considering the mediocre IQ at 300 or 400 even without a TC. But still no VR though, VR only on the 2.8. Out of my budget both price and weight wise.

 

[Aquinus]

Bald eagles are still elusive for me. Saw one a couple weeks ago but I'm not sure even with an 800mm there would be a spot around to stand to make it "within reach". It really chose a great spot, perched at the very apex of the tree. Just sat there for like an hour.

After a lot of deliberation I saw a "local" 300mm f/4 AF-S (4 hours' drive away, compared to all the way in Japan ) and decided to go for it. Nikon/Sigma just don't give me many options I can afford in this range. This 300 has a neat little built-in hood that extends/retracts.

Looked at the 80-400, 28-300, and all 3 70-300s. Think shooting too many bees makes me overly sensitive to zooms' poor IQ - even my own 80-200 that the entire internet thinks is "very sharp". I can definitely feel the D610 vs Df resolution difference at the long end.

At least the 300 f/4 gives me a lot more room to accommodate a TC-14E teleconverter if I need it. All the zooms seem to be kinda a bad bet, considering the mediocre IQ at 300 or 400 even without a TC. But still no VR though, VR only on the 2.8. Out of my budget both price and weight wise.

They seem to really like Newfound Lake, the general location is here. This isn't the first time I've seen one on this particular tree, but when you're on a motorboat, shots can be pretty tricky. This is a case where the light nature of the EOS RP and 100-400 come into play because smaller boats move a lot. The next best thing would be an R7 body.

 

[Aquinus]

I need to work on my landscape shots. I'm going to London next month.

 

[tabascosauz]

first outing with the 300 f/4

needs more practice, more arm strength, and probably a teleconverter

 

[the54thvoid]

I had the canon ef300 f2.8 with basic IS. It weighed a tonne. Eventually traded it in for the ef100-400mkii. The flexibility and weight are huge advantages but I do miss the faster f value. That said, I'm happier with the zoom.

I need to work on my landscape shots. I'm going to London next month.
View attachment 255616

IMO, the key to landscapes is knowing your contrasts, the lighting (time for best colours), and getting as much 'modern clutter' out of the way, unless of course you want people for 'street landscape'. If you want HDR, you'll need to use that setting in camera, or post process to bring out the shadows, even if just for a little detail. And composition is the pimary consideration in landscape. It's why I'm not so good at it, I'm too impatient to scout out the best 'aesthetic'.

 

[tabascosauz]

My initial impressions were too pessimistic. It's a very nice lens, considering it's only 300mm, light was scarce, these are tiny-ass birds (chickadee(?)) and I have to crop 24MP down to just 8-12MP.

I only wish I could clear the foreground clutter.

These are my most beloved birds. Found an entire tree of them, so I had to try to repay them. Few months ago one flew down to land a few feet away for a staring contest. Stayed for a good 2 minutes. I furiously shot off like 100 frames, but sadly it was too dark for anything so they were all ruined.

 

[suraswami]

I agree, it’s just that there are very few good 3rd party options and the price of RF glass is pretty expensive. Then there are things like the sigma 150-600, where there simply isn’t a comparable RF option other than the 100-500 which is almost 3k USD. An adapter plus lens would be 1k with the sigma. That’s mainly why I’m considering it. I guess I could get one of those new R7s and use my 100-400 with a crop factor. It’d cost less than new glass.

Edit: also, used EF glass is pretty affordable.

Edit 2: My mood when I look at RF lens prices.
View attachment 254325

Opera

Q met Q7, got married and got a baby