Photo from R5 and RF 70-200 2.8 not as sharp as my expectation

Quarkcharmed wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

Quarkcharmed wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

Quarkcharmed wrote:

Electronic shutter on the R5 is not the best idea for any kind of landscape or astro photography due to its reduced 12-bit raw files. EFCS is the way to go.

It makes no significant difference at ISO 12800, or indeed anything beyond ISO 800.

But there's no need to shoot the moon at ISO higher than 100.

The OP was using ISO 12800.

... which was way too high for the given conditions. So you're suggesting to stay at high ISO and switch to ES for best sharpness/detail in the moonshot?

No, I keep saying that the tiny fraction of a stop of dynamic range the OP sacrificed by using ES at ISO 12800 is insignificant compared to the 4 stops the OP lost by not using ISO 800 or the 5/7 stops lost by not using ISO 100. We're both agreed that ISO 12800 was totally inappropriate for the shot and I've never said otherwise. And at the sort of ISO I use in concert or astro photography, there is no significant difference between ES and EFCS, but the former causes less disturbance and wear.

You missed out important parts of my reply too.

It makes no significant difference at ISO 12800, or indeed anything beyond ISO 800. Nothing like the four stops extra dynamic range you get by using ISO 800 rather than ISO 12800. They're isn't that much of a contrast range on the daylight side of the moon, but I don't think any sensor you can buy will show more than a couple of stars when the exposure is right for the moon. Planets at a push, but not stars.

The difference between an exposure for the moon and one for stars, nebulae, galaxies etc. is well over 15 stops, and you would need medium format (and a 2m to 4m focal length to frame the moon tightly) to get somewhere near that sort of dynamic range. But you don't need a huge dynamic range to get a nice picture of the moon's surface, just critical focus, the right exposure, and anappropriate ISO, so the ES or EFCS debate is irrelevant in this particular case.

You actually do need higher dynamic range if you want to improve on moonshot detail,

Critical focus is much more important, and a much longer lens would give a more noticeable improvement. Yes, there's a huge contrast range between the illuminated and shadow areas of the moon, but this is one time when it looks best to just let the shadows go black.

and you need a higher exposure to reduce the noise, which means, use the lowest ISO possible. With that lens, you can easily shoot at ISO 100 and about 1/200-1/400s which is more than enough.

Shooting for the stars/Milly way/nebulae would be a completely different story, yes.

-- hide signature --

https://www.instagram.com/quarkcharmed/
https://500px.com/quarkcharmed