Buying the 800mm as I HATE CROPPING

I have looked at the link you posted for your files and I see great loss of detail in the 1/500s @ 6400. iso 100 looks great though (Crops below are at 200% in Canon DPP).

canon 800mm f11 DPP looksee iso100 vs iso 6400 at f11 TalkPhotography.jpg
 
Last edited:
The test chart file for iso3200 at 1/2500 at 200% in Canon DPP . . . looks good !

Canon 800mm f11 at f11 iso 3200 1_2500s 200 percemnt in DPP.jpg
 
NOTE : I don't know if the white background in my screen shot post #87 should be pure white or speckled as I see it here in this post.
 
Last edited:
Fixer said:
NOTE : I don't know if the white background in my screen shot post #87 should be pure white or speckled as I see it here in this post.
Click to expand...
Okay I see I have applied too much sharpening in DPP in post.
 
Dael_Pix said:
Oh no I didn't post them. I've deleted them anyway
Click to expand...
ok makes it hard to diagnose. the test pics below ISO 3200 look acceptable to me so probably the lens is fine. the bird pics look like there was enough light for some of them, so I'm not sure why they are so bad. did you practice technique since the thread when you first got the r5?
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I can't see much wrong with that unless you choose wrong shutter speed for the subject.
Click to expand...
The CIPA standard for image stabilization is much lower than the traditional standard for acceptable sharpness, which is itself legitimately debatable as being inadequate for modern digital imagery.

There are many times where the choices one makes does not impose a notable penalty; nor does it provide a notable advantage. I.e. there may not be much wrong with it, but there also isn't much benefit to it either... it's "the circle of equivalence." And often one does not see any negative impact to a given choice/change (e.g. adding a TC); often that is because they had never taken all of the steps required to maximize IQ prior to that change.
 
dibbly dobbler said:
Might be of interest - this guy does some straight up testing and he got some very nice results with a similar setup
Click to expand...
The video is presented at 4k (~8MP); while my MBP liquid retina monitor is set to the default resolution setting of ~ 2MP full screen... so yeah, it doesn't take much to meet those requirements. And the diffraction limit of 16MP (average) at f/11, regardless of the sensor used, isn't really a problem.
 
I took it out to my local tarn and took some shots. Most are unusable. There's a few that are ok and these are when the bird is turned to the direction of the light.

Since I use the lens in dull conditions, I've contacted WEX about returning it.
 
I sympathise with you over your sharpness problems. I've had a long history of "mushiness" in my bird photos and I've not come to a real solution to the problem. Good, bright sunlight seems to be a real help but not always. Once I had bird detection AF set correctly things seemed to improve things but I'm not consistently there yet.

AI noise reduction is a boon too.
 
Last edited:
I have returned the lens back to WEX and have ordered a 1.4x extender for the 100-400mm instead.

Be warned:police: if you're planning on buying the RF 200-800mm because there's up to a 4 month wait according to the Leeds branch.

Thanks to everyone who replied. I appreciate it. (y) :)
 
Dael_Pix said:
I have returned the lens back to WEX and have ordered a 1.4x extender for the 100-400mm instead.

Be warned:police: if you're planning on buying the RF 200-800mm because there's up to a 4 month wait according to the Leeds branch.

Thanks to everyone who replied. I appreciate it. (y) :)
Click to expand...

while f8 and f9 are better than f11 but its still not great. I can barely put up with f6.3.

Its hard to get around massive f2.8-f4 primes.....
but I think Nikon have got it right idea with the PF teleprimes for those us who cannot afford and/or carry massive teleprimes. though even those are not cheap!

if you are trying to maximise you reach and you cannot do it optically (or by field craft i.e. getting physically closer to your subject) the alternative is to look into doing it digitally. So APS-C/m43 systems.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
while f8 and f9 are better than f11 but its still not great. I can barely put up with f6.3.

Its hard to get around massive f2.8-f4 primes.....
but I think Nikon have got it right idea with the PF teleprimes for those us who cannot afford and/or carry massive teleprimes. though even those are not cheap!

if you are trying to maximise you reach and you cannot do it optically (or by field craft i.e. getting physically closer to your subject) the alternative is to look into doing it digitally. So APS-C/m43 systems.
Click to expand...
I have no intentions in changing cameras. The R5 can actually change to a 1.6x (crop). I actually used it on Monday, but can't remember which photos were 1.6x. I should have marked them:rolleyes:

I'll be ordering the 200-800mm when money allows. In the meantime I'll use the 1.4x extender, which I know doesn't extend to 800mm but I won't buy the 2x extender because image quality will be poor.
 
Dael_Pix said:
I have no intentions in changing cameras. The R5 can actually change to a 1.6x (crop). I actually used it on Monday, but can't remember which photos were 1.6x. I should have marked them:rolleyes:

I'll be ordering the 200-800mm when money allows. In the meantime I'll use the 1.4x extender, which I know doesn't extend to 800mm but I won't buy the 2x extender because image quality will be poor.
Click to expand...

The 1.6x files will show as a lower resolution in Lightroom
 
Dael_Pix said:
I have no intentions in changing cameras. The R5 can actually change to a 1.6x (crop). I actually used it on Monday, but can't remember which photos were 1.6x. I should have marked them:rolleyes:

I'll be ordering the 200-800mm when money allows. In the meantime I'll use the 1.4x extender, which I know doesn't extend to 800mm but I won't buy the 2x extender because image quality will be poor.
Click to expand...
Try renting the 200-800 first? I’m not sure it’s the improvement you’re hoping for tbh if the core problem is low light.
 
Dael_Pix said:
I have no intentions in changing cameras.
Click to expand...
Not suggesting you should or shouldn't, just saying what is and isn't
the rest is up to you.

Dael_Pix said:
The R5 can actually change to a 1.6x (crop). I actually used it on Monday, but can't remember which photos were 1.6x. I should have marked them:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
That is the same as cropping in post which I believe you hated going by the title of this thread ;)

Dael_Pix said:
I'll be ordering the 200-800mm when money allows. In the meantime I'll use the 1.4x extender, which I know doesn't extend to 800mm but I won't buy the 2x extender because image quality will be poor.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you feel you'll have better luck with 200-800mm than you did with 800mm f11. f9 is really not much better for this country.
My feeling is you won't and on top you'll have to put up with massive lens.
 
nandbytes said:
I don't know why you feel you'll have better luck with 200-800mm than you did with 800mm f11. f9 is really not much better for this country.
My feeling is you won't and on top you'll have to put up with massive lens.
Click to expand...
shhh... someone needs to support Canon, otherwise who else would?
 
nandbytes said:
...

That is the same as cropping in post which I believe you hated going by the title of this thread ;)
....
Click to expand...
Switching a FF to crop mode is not quite the same as cropping in post.
On the plus side, your view while taking the shot is also cropped in - so you can more easily see if you have focus, it's automatic, so requires no effort, and you get smaller files so take less room on your memory card and clear the buffer faster.
On the down side, your view while taking the shot is also cropped in - so it's harder to keep the subject in frame if it's moving at all unpredictably, and the crop is 'fixed' - if you take the FF image, you can chose where in the frame the crop is, to give the framing you want, and avoid clipping bits if the subject partly moves out of the central area.
 
Faldrax said:
Switching a FF to crop mode is not quite the same as cropping in post.
On the plus side, your view while taking the shot is also cropped in - so you can more easily see if you have focus, it's automatic, so requires no effort, and you get smaller files so take less room on your memory card and clear the buffer faster.
On the down side, your view while taking the shot is also cropped in - so it's harder to keep the subject in frame if it's moving at all unpredictably, and the crop is 'fixed' - if you take the FF image, you can chose where in the frame the crop is, to give the framing you want, and avoid clipping bits if the subject partly moves out of the central area.
Click to expand...
I know the differences, I have a high res body. you are missing the point....
The point is OP said he hates cropping and crop mode isn't a magic bullet that gets rids of cropping.
whether you get the camera to do it for you at time of shooting or you do it in post the point is it is still cropping (which OP supposedly hates).
 
nandbytes said:
I know the differences, I have a high res body. you are missing the point....
The point is OP said he hates cropping and crop mode isn't a magic bullet that gets rids of cropping.
whether you get the camera to do it for you at time of shooting or you do it in post the point is it is still cropping (which OP supposedly hates).
Click to expand...
I understood the point, the info was to clarify that in-camera and post cropping while similar, are not identical.
The OP hasn't (unless I've missed it) specified WHY he hates cropping - he may simply have an aversion to having to open up an editor and manually cropping, or it may be a strong preference to seeing the 'final' image in the viewfinder - both of which are resolved by in-camera cropping.
Personally I always use my camera in FF mode, and post crop if wanted (why throw away parts of an image I might later need?) but then I also have an assortment of off-cuts of wood in the garage in case they might be useful one day, so perhaps I'm just a hoarder :LOL:
 
Faldrax said:
I understood the point, the info was to clarify that in-camera and post cropping while similar, are not identical.
The OP hasn't (unless I've missed it) specified WHY he hates cropping - he may simply have an aversion to having to open up an editor and manually cropping, or it may be a strong preference to seeing the 'final' image in the viewfinder - both of which are resolved by in-camera cropping.
Personally I always use my camera in FF mode, and post crop if wanted (why throw away parts of an image I might later need?) but then I also have an assortment of off-cuts of wood in the garage in case they might be useful one day, so perhaps I'm just a hoarder :LOL:
Click to expand...
the feeling I got was cropping was giving him undesirable results due to increased visibility of noise and/or loss in details (well not really a loss if it wasn't captured in the first place due to subject being very far and/or lacking light etc)

which is why I didn't think he'd really get along with f8/9/11 type lenses or combinations, not in the UK anyway shooting wildlife+action.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
shhh... someone needs to support Canon, otherwise who else would?
Click to expand...
well I can see some use for it.
I was even tempted at one point to get the 800mm f11 for a trip to India. Plenty of sunlight there....
I was never going to carry a massive telezoom anyway.

but I am thinking may be I'm better of with likes of nikon 400mmm f4.5 or sigma 500mm f5.6 or sony 300mm f2.8. But they all cost a LOT more too.
anyway haven't made up my mind yet..... we'll see....
 
nandbytes said:
the feeling I got was cropping was giving him undesirable results due to increased visibility of noise and/or loss in details (well not really a loss if it wasn't captured in the first place due to subject being very far and/or lacking light etc)

which is why I didn't think he'd really get along with f8/9/11 type lenses or combinations, not in the UK anyway shooting wildlife+action.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's one of the problems of shooting wildlife/action in the UK - far to many days sat at home pondering what gear to buy while waiting for the weather to be good enough to actually go out and use it :LOL:
 
f11 to f4 - 8 times the amount of light for about 24 times the price…
 
TimHughes said:
f11 to f4 - 8 times the amount of light for about 24 times the price…
Click to expand...
Yes, but it gets a lot cheaper when you get closer, or decide not to bother altogether
 
your can always

TP_Pray.jpg



for the light
 
4wd said:
With 800mm the field of view will be very narrow this makes it difficult to even locate what you want to photograph in viewfinder - it is bad enough at 600mm
Click to expand...
Use both eyes when locating/focusing
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Just to add my input to the discussion ,I use Olympus which has a 2x crop factor to start with ,my main lens is a 300 mm f 4 with a 1.4 tc fitted . I shoot wide open at f5.6 99% of the time .. this gives me an equivalent to ff reach of 840mm with up to seven stops of I.s making hand holding perfectly feasible .. the camera a OM1 has built in bird I.d and is usually spot on .it also has a inbuilt 2X digital t.c which gives really good results so turning the combo into a 1680mm reach at f5.6 with I.s .. not used a tripod or monopod in 6 years with Olympus .. ..you can argue the toss as much as you like mine and others results speak for themselves
 
Dael_Pix said:
I have returned the lens back to WEX and have ordered a 1.4x extender for the 100-400mm instead.

Be warned:police: if you're planning on buying the RF 200-800mm because there's up to a 4 month wait according to the Leeds branch.

Thanks to everyone who replied. I appreciate it. (y) :)
Click to expand...
@robinsslee
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top