The TPU Darkroom - Digital SLR and Photography Club

[suraswami]

Jupiter Canyon Hike with Incredible Q7!

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Getting ready for a vacation drive across the Canadian Rockies sometime in the early fall

Dusting off my micro 4/3 mount system in preparation, and realizing I don't have any lens for wildlife. My 12-60 Lumix does pretty good with landscapes, but it can't reach very far. Bearing in mind the 2X crop factor, would 200mm be long enough, or would I need to stretch out to 300mm?

Also, if anyone could suggest alternatives in a similar price range, I would be grateful.

Since I said it took decent landscapes, here are a couple of examples:

And this is why I want a longer lens:

 

[tabascosauz]

a peculiar and very tiny catch

 

[Aquinus]

a peculiar and very tiny catch

View attachment 255935

That's a really nice shot. Small birds in flight are really hard to get good pictures of.

 

[Aquinus]

This little guy and I had a staring contest. I'm the self-proclaimed winner.
400mm, ƒ8, 1/400s, ISO 2500

 

[Aquinus]

Not the best of shots, but I adjusted some settings on the camera. Most notably I disabled the in body high ISO noise reduction while keeping lens corrections on for the jpeg versions. I went for a walk, didn't see many birds, but these guys stayed around long enough for me to attempt to get a decent picture. There were a lot of branches in the way so it was hard to tell if I actually had the birds in focus or not. Out of maybe 30 or 40 pictures, this one was probably the best one. I couldn't actually get any closer to the birds because next to the walkway was a very steep bank that goes down to a river of which was also protected land for wildlife.

400mm, ƒ8, 1/1000s, ISO 1000

 

[mouks]

There were a lot of branches in the way so it was hard to tell if I actually had the birds in focus or not.

Does your camera has the "peaking" option? It is a focus assist that highlight the part of the image which is in focus on the lcd or even in the viewfinder on mirrorless bodies. I only rely on that and sometimes on magnification for non moving subjects as all my lenses are manual focus.

 

[Aquinus]

Does your camera has the "peaking" option? It is a focus assist that highlight the part of the image which is in focus on the lcd or even in the viewfinder on mirrorless bodies. I only rely on that and sometimes on magnification for non moving subjects as all my lenses are manual focus.

I haven't really fiddled with the peaking settings to be honest. On the EOS RP, the resolution of the EVF and LCD probably isn't clear enough to show me if objects this small are in focus. Usually what I'll do is use the setting where it starts with AF, then when I move the focus ring it will then magnify, then I can actually see if the target is sharp or not for something not moving. For some weird reason it stopped worked for me (would switch to manual focus, but not magnify,) so I figured that I'd try to play around with having it set to servo instead. Also the image is cropped a bit, so a higher resolution body may have helped. To put things into perspective, the birdy on the right when cropped down to just the bird itself isn't any bigger than 500x500 pixels.

Edit: Another reality is that when you're pixel peeping, you start to notice why the RF 100-400mm ƒ5.6-8 is only $600 USD. It really is a budget lens. Dustin Abbott did a review on YouTube and his primary complaint was IQ, but for the price, it's not bad. I would expect far better performance out of the RF 100-500 ƒ4.5-7.1 L glass lens, but that's also $2,900. He compared it to the 100-500 and it's night and day difference when it comes to sharpness, at least on the R5 body.

This is another example of it not being quite as sharp as I wanted it to be.

It's the same kind of deal when you crop the bird, you see the same kind of lack of sharpness.

 

[the54thvoid]

I'd not judge the lens too harshly. The EOS RP isn't as good with focus as the R5 or R6. Even the R is a bit 'off' with certain subjects. The 'box' area focusing can often miss the finer details. The 'eye-tracking' focus on the R5,6,3, and 7, is far superior to the R and RP. I have the R but use it for landscapes and 'still' scenes. It's better suited for that. Though, even then, I've read the sensor is a little soft. If you're looking for pin sharp wildlife, you need to get closer to ensure the right focus area, or, (unfortunately), upgrade to one of the R's that have eye-tracking. Easier said than done, given the expense.

With my previous 7DmkII and the EF100-400 mkII, I was still missing the sharpest focus on distant animals/birds. But, if you're taking a pic like yours with the Heron as a small part of the photo, the eye itself is a tiny percent of the overall picture, so it's almost impossible to be tack sharp on an eye at that range. I mean, look at the eye compared to the rest of the scene. Is it even 1/1000th of the shot? In that sort of picture, you'd not expect to pixel peep with that scrutiny -it's more of a 'scene' than a bird pic. Taken as a whole, it looks sharp enough.

But, if you want sharp, you need to be closer. I cheated; this is through my utility window. Sparrow is only about six feet away and the shot is at 400mm. Even this could be sharper, though the fact I shot at an angle through a double-glazed window doesn't help.

 

[Chomiq]

I'd not judge the lens too harshly. The EOS RP isn't as good with focus as the R5 or R6. Even the R is a bit 'off' with certain subjects. The 'box' area focusing can often miss the finer details. The 'eye-tracking' focus on the R5,6,3, and 7, is far superior to the R and RP. I have the R but use it for landscapes and 'still' scenes. It's better suited for that. Though, even then, I've read the sensor is a little soft. If you're looking for pin sharp wildlife, you need to get closer to ensure the right focus area, or, (unfortunately), upgrade to one of the R's that have eye-tracking. Easier said than done, given the expense.

With my previous 7DmkII and the EF100-400 mkII, I was still missing the sharpest focus on distant animals/birds. But, if you're taking a pic like yours with the Heron as a small part of the photo, the eye itself is a tiny percent of the overall picture, so it's almost impossible to be tack sharp on an eye at that range. I mean, look at the eye compared to the rest of the scene. Is it even 1/1000th of the shot? In that sort of picture, you'd not expect to pixel peep with that scrutiny -it's more of a 'scene' than a bird pic. Taken as a whole, it looks sharp enough.

But, if you want sharp, you need to be closer. I cheated; this is through my utility window. Sparrow is only about six feet away and the shot is at 400mm. Even this could be sharper, though the fact I shot at an angle through a double-glazed window doesn't help.

Yeah I'm in the misfocus camp too.

 

[tabascosauz]

I'd not judge the lens too harshly. The EOS RP isn't as good with focus as the R5 or R6. Even the R is a bit 'off' with certain subjects. The 'box' area focusing can often miss the finer details. The 'eye-tracking' focus on the R5,6,3, and 7, is far superior to the R and RP. I have the R but use it for landscapes and 'still' scenes. It's better suited for that. Though, even then, I've read the sensor is a little soft. If you're looking for pin sharp wildlife, you need to get closer to ensure the right focus area, or, (unfortunately), upgrade to one of the R's that have eye-tracking. Easier said than done, given the expense.

But, if you want sharp, you need to be closer. I cheated; this is through my utility window. Sparrow is only about six feet away and the shot is at 400mm. Even this could be sharper, though the fact I shot at an angle through a double-glazed window doesn't help.

Wholeheartedly agree. Distance, weather/haze, lighting, human/camera focus errors, handheld shake, all play a big role. The slight "off" sharpness frustrates me to no end on my teles. I have no VR/IS but IS isn't perfect either, and helps some lenses more than others.

I know the 20+ year old 80-200 2.8D can make crystal results because I've seen it myself, but both my bodies regularly mis-focus with it which is the single worst culprit ruining photos. Same on my 27 year old macro, infinitesimally small depth of field combined with slow and inaccurate AF.

That said, a fixed 300/400/600 will always make better [lab] results than a super zoom stretched to its limit at the long end where sharpness and contrast just kinda drops like a stone. But the zooms are catching up - the 200-600 G master is super strong at 600mm.

 

[Aquinus]

I'd not judge the lens too harshly. The EOS RP isn't as good with focus as the R5 or R6. Even the R is a bit 'off' with certain subjects. The 'box' area focusing can often miss the finer details. The 'eye-tracking' focus on the R5,6,3, and 7, is far superior to the R and RP. I have the R but use it for landscapes and 'still' scenes. It's better suited for that. Though, even then, I've read the sensor is a little soft. If you're looking for pin sharp wildlife, you need to get closer to ensure the right focus area, or, (unfortunately), upgrade to one of the R's that have eye-tracking. Easier said than done, given the expense.

With my previous 7DmkII and the EF100-400 mkII, I was still missing the sharpest focus on distant animals/birds. But, if you're taking a pic like yours with the Heron as a small part of the photo, the eye itself is a tiny percent of the overall picture, so it's almost impossible to be tack sharp on an eye at that range. I mean, look at the eye compared to the rest of the scene. Is it even 1/1000th of the shot? In that sort of picture, you'd not expect to pixel peep with that scrutiny -it's more of a 'scene' than a bird pic. Taken as a whole, it looks sharp enough.

But, if you want sharp, you need to be closer. I cheated; this is through my utility window. Sparrow is only about six feet away and the shot is at 400mm. Even this could be sharper, though the fact I shot at an angle through a double-glazed window doesn't help.

View attachment 256665

That's a really good point and I'm sure that there are other factors at play as well, but I don't see this kind of loss of IQ with the nifty fifty. This is part of the reason why I dropped the noise reduction because I was thinking it was softening the images too much when it might just have been the lens in a lot of cases, or combination of lens, camera, human, and environmental factors. Even at really close focus (1-2m @ 400), it still lacks the same level of sharpness as getting up to 30-60cm with the 50mm pancake.

Edit: An R5 would be a really nice upgrade though.

Edit 2: I should also know better than to compare a prime to a zoom.

 

[the54thvoid]

Thank the gods for grey market imports. Got my EOS R7 today from a UK dealer. The unit is for the Japan market, but other than having to return to the dealer (not Canon) for repairs, it's all good. I fly to BC, Canada in two weeks, three nights of which I spend here (NOT MY PIC):

Knight Inlet Lodge (it's a floating 'hotel').

(This is one of those once in a lifetime things. I've saved, had some inheritance, and it's why I can afford it. I'm not that well paid in my day job...)

With the 800mm (budget) f11, the R7 APS-C gives me 1280mm equivalent reach. As long as it's sunny, it'll all be good. If not, I'll pop the 800 on my R6, and put the ef100-400 on the R7 for 640mm reach.

I'm trading in my EOS R, a 1.4TC, and the RF 35mm 1.8 to offset 95% of the cost of the R7. I've already set buttons and made the R7 comfy for my needs. It seems to be okay (for an APS-C) so far, though it's not a shade on the quality/performance of ther R6. But it does have 1.6 crop factor and 32.5 megapixels.

 

[Aquinus]

Thank the gods for grey market imports. Got my EOS R7 today from a UK dealer. The unit is for the Japan market, but other than having to return to the dealer (not Canon) for repairs, it's all good. I fly to BC, Canada in two weeks, three nights of which I spend here (NOT MY PIC):

Knight Inlet Lodge (it's a floating 'hotel').
View attachment 256868
(This is one of those once in a lifetime things. I've saved, had some inheritance, and it's why I can afford it. I'm not that well paid in my day job...)

With the 800mm (budget) f11, the R7 APS-C gives me 1280mm equivalent reach. As long as it's sunny, it'll all be good. If not, I'll pop the 800 on my R6, and put the ef100-400 on the R7 for 640mm reach.

I'm trading in my EOS R, a 1.4TC, and the RF 35mm 1.8 to offset 95% of the cost of the R7. I've already set buttons and made the R7 comfy for my needs. It seems to be okay (for an APS-C) so far, though it's not a shade on the quality/performance of ther R6. But it does have 1.6 crop factor and 32.5 megapixels.

Admittedly, I just traded in my 24-105mm variable aperture kit lens for the 24-105 ƒ4L IS USM. I was feeling an itch for new glass before my trip to London and it seemed like a decent worthwhile upgrade that wasn't going hit the wallet too hard. At first I was looking at the 16mm ƒ2.8, but the barrel distortion is absolutely horrific and it totally impacts the IQ in the corners of the frame. So I ended up just biting the bullet and going with something a little nicer.

 

[Ferrum Master]

It seems we are having an arms race.

I too upgraded to A7 IV.

 

[the54thvoid]

Gear Acquisition Syndrome (GAS) is a terrible thing.

 

[Aquinus]

Gear Acquisition Syndrome (GAS) is a terrible thing.

Only for the wallet.

Also, this new lens has a nice creamy bokeh wide open. I'm liking what I see... but now I want the 100mm ƒ2.8 L IS USM Macro lens.

105mm, ƒ4, 1/500s, ISO 1000

I can't help but play with my new toy. I'm loving the IQ of this lens.

 

[mouks]

I should have taken my cardboard box

 

[Jetster]

 

[the54thvoid]

I am so bummed. Capture One doesn't convert EOS R7 images yet. I don't understand how that can be when they use the same Canon RAW file (CR3). I used CPP to convert this image (I've altered my JPEG file to small, at 2 MB, so I need to process, though the image isn't altered that much at all).

A Goldfinch on my feeder.

 

[Chomiq]

I am so bummed. Capture One doesn't convert EOS R7 images yet. I don't understand how that can be when they use the same Canon RAW file (CR3). I used CPP to convert this image (I've altered my JPEG file to small, at 2 MB, so I need to process, though the image isn't altered that much at all).

A Goldfinch on my feeder.

View attachment 257275

Can't you fool it into thinking they came from R5 or R6?

 

[Ferrum Master]

I am so bummed. Capture One doesn't convert EOS R7 images yet.

The raw container doesn't matter. Bayer Demosaic ~ debayering algos are patched for each Sensor/ASIC stack(features vary in-between cameras). They ŗe always are late to the party, Software reputation is way more important than delivering probably works same as older. It ain't windows updates lol.

 

[Aquinus]

I'm having a blast in London. Had to scale it down and drop the quality, but you get the idea. It's been sunny day after sunny day for almost a week and a half which is astonishing.

53mm, ƒ16, 1/500s, ISO 250 with my swanky new 24-105mm L glass lens. I have hundreds of pictures. I'm going to have some work to do when I return to the states.

 

[Ferrum Master]

I'm having a blast in London. Had to scale it down and drop the quality, but you get the idea. It's been sunny day after sunny day for almost a week and a half which is astonishing.
53mm, ƒ16, 1/500s, ISO 250 with my swanky new 24-105mm L glass lens. I have hundreds of pictures. I'm going to have some work to do when I return to the states.

it seems you have issues with dust on the sensor.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

My thrice-bedeviled phone camera with the fixed focal distance of 1 foot (.3m, heathens) finally became useful.