1600mm F22 handheld

[gimp_dad]

Clearly hitting diffraction limits as well as my handholding limits but sharing anyway.




R5 + RF800/11 + 2.0x

 

[peterpet]

Clearly hitting diffraction limits as well as my handholding limits but sharing anyway.


R5 + RF800/11 + 2.0x

Wow..!

Is it no crop at all?
I cannot imagine handheld 1600mm..

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Franz Kerschbaum]

If the moon would not be that low in the sky now and if you would stack/drizzle a longer series of pics with eg free AutoStakkert3 you could further push the sharpness...

 

[9VIII]

Need a "Crop vs. Extender" shootout.

I suspect the sharpness and light gathering of F11 when paired with the R5 will be more beneficial than a 2X extender.

I suspect the extenders are more for the R6.

 

[manasij7479]

I don't think diffraction is the issue in this image.


You need a much higher shutter speed to get sharp images of the moon handheld.

I have a 400 f5.6, moon-shots need as fast as 1/1000s or more to be sharp iirc.
I imagine you would need to go much faster than that with 1600mm. Also, it's probably okay to increase ISO to ..say.. 3200 to compensate..

 

[gimp_dad]

Clearly hitting diffraction limits as well as my handholding limits but sharing anyway.


R5 + RF800/11 + 2.0x

Wow..!

Is it no crop at all?
I cannot imagine handheld 1600mm..

Thanks for sharing.

Yes. Uncropped.

 

[gimp_dad]

I don't think diffraction is the issue in this image.

You need a much higher shutter speed to get sharp images of the moon handheld.

I have a 400 f5.6, moon-shots need as fast as 1/1000s or more to be sharp iirc.
I imagine you would need to go much faster than that with 1600mm. Also, it's probably okay to increase ISO to ..say.. 3200 to compensate..

Yea. I can see the diffraction (along with air quality given the magnification), but I'm sure my movement was a factor too. This wasn't an attempt to take the ultimate moon photo. I would have used my EF600/4LIII + 2.0III on a tripod to do that. 1/250s is enough to freeze the motion of the moon even at that magnification.

But, I'm surprised that I was able to handhold as well as I did. Handholding at 1600mm and also having AF work is a first for me. Not bad for a $900 lens.

 

[BirdShooter7]

I don't think diffraction is the issue in this image.

You need a much higher shutter speed to get sharp images of the moon handheld.

I have a 400 f5.6, moon-shots need as fast as 1/1000s or more to be sharp iirc.
I imagine you would need to go much faster than that with 1600mm. Also, it's probably okay to increase ISO to ..say.. 3200 to compensate..

Yea. I can see the diffraction (along with air quality given the magnification), but I'm sure my movement was a factor too. This wasn't an attempt to take the ultimate moon photo. I would have used my EF600/4LIII + 2.0III on a tripod to do that. 1/250s is enough to freeze the motion of the moon even at that magnification.

But, I'm surprised that I was able to handhold as well as I did. Handholding at 1600mm and also having AF work is a first for me. Not bad for a $900 lens.

How much was the 2x? That probably cost almost as much as the lens

 

[Emile15]

Cf. with https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64210976

 

[fredlord]

I don't think diffraction is the issue in this image.

You need a much higher shutter speed to get sharp images of the moon handheld.

I have a 400 f5.6, moon-shots need as fast as 1/1000s or more to be sharp iirc.
I imagine you would need to go much faster than that with 1600mm. Also, it's probably okay to increase ISO to ..say.. 3200 to compensate..

Yea. I can see the diffraction (along with air quality given the magnification), but I'm sure my movement was a factor too. This wasn't an attempt to take the ultimate moon photo. I would have used my EF600/4LIII + 2.0III on a tripod to do that. 1/250s is enough to freeze the motion of the moon even at that magnification.

But, I'm surprised that I was able to handhold as well as I did. Handholding at 1600mm and also having AF work is a first for me. Not bad for a $900 lens.

How much was the 2x? That probably cost almost as much as the lens

Pretty close. https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/lenses-flashes/extenders

 

[gimp_dad]

I don't think diffraction is the issue in this image.

You need a much higher shutter speed to get sharp images of the moon handheld.

I have a 400 f5.6, moon-shots need as fast as 1/1000s or more to be sharp iirc.
I imagine you would need to go much faster than that with 1600mm. Also, it's probably okay to increase ISO to ..say.. 3200 to compensate..

Yea. I can see the diffraction (along with air quality given the magnification), but I'm sure my movement was a factor too. This wasn't an attempt to take the ultimate moon photo. I would have used my EF600/4LIII + 2.0III on a tripod to do that. 1/250s is enough to freeze the motion of the moon even at that magnification.

But, I'm surprised that I was able to handhold as well as I did. Handholding at 1600mm and also having AF work is a first for me. Not bad for a $900 lens.

How much was the 2x? That probably cost almost as much as the lens

 

[9VIII]

Interesting thing with IBIS, if they can make the tracking content aware it's a good bet the system would take very high quality Moon shots handheld.

Quite frankly it would nearly make Tripods obsolete in this application.

 

[Wezre]

Cf. with https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64210976

Agreed, Bob’s moon photos are exceptional. Shows you how good the Fuji 100-400 and TC are.

 

[John Sheehy]

Need a "Crop vs. Extender" shootout.

I suspect the sharpness and light gathering of F11 when paired with the R5 will be more beneficial than a 2X extender.

I suspect the extenders are more for the R6.

The R6 will certainly get more benefit with a TC, but that does not mean that the R5 doesn't benefit some.

Let's not forget that many of the situations in which one chooses to demonstrate IQ with a TC are ones that are already challenging situations, in terms of distance, and all of the problems that come with distance.

In this case, we are seeing a combination of lens flare, diffraction and aberration, plus TC aberrations and contrast loss (both likely small), and all of the junk and distortion in the atmosphere.