That's freaking gorgeous ?
Of course anyone who knows your photography, wouldn't expect anything else
One thing comes to mind though, I often "cheat" with low light shots, by warming up the color balance, to the point that nobody knows they were taken in low light. Not saying this is right or wrong, it's just something I've had a hard time breaking away from....
Thanks for your reply,
Hello,
Hello, it is clear that to make the most of such a large focal length, I would say from 500mm, on a sunny and hot day, you should not go taking pictures later than 9am and at the earliest 2 hours before sunset. And this even over short distances, such as small birds.I do try my best to get as close as reasonably possible, 20-30m is typical. Nothing beats having good quality light and I do always try hard to get the best lighting I can. There are plenty of times I don’t bother to even take a shot because the subject is just too far away or it’s bright overhead sunlight where I know the pictures will look bad. A big problem I deal with is heat shimmer so sunny days are not my favorite unless it’s early morning or late evening. I have found that I can get good results in the jungle where there’s not much light as long as the subject is still. I was able to get plenty of nice Antpitta photos in Ecuador and Colombia in very low light though there are obviously limits. I typically take short bursts instead of a single shot. Say 6-9 photos in a quick burst when the light is low and usually get a couple of nice sharp ones. However, if I’m having an off day/not well rested it can be a real challenge to get sharp shots, I can definitely tell when my technique isn’t at its best.Hello, your photos on Flickr are magnificent.I performed this test not too long after I got the 200-800 but must have deleted the files afterwards as I can’t locate them. For that reason I decided to do the test again and thankfully the results are consistent with my first run-through. These were performed on my R8 at a distance of about 30m. They are jpegs right out of the camera with no post processing other than cropping. They are actual pixels crops. Each crop is the best of 20 shots, lens mounted on a solid tripod from the same distance.
I have the same combo as you but I'm disappointed.
At what distance do you usually find small birds?
Even at a reasonable distance of 20m or 30m, if the light isn't perfect, it's a disaster, I lose too much detail.
I live in Switzerland, and I am close to forests where the light is not always great, and for this reason I hesitate to take the 100-500.
Hello, HERE you show exactly what not to do in photography, have a super expensive camera with a low-end lens.In my experience 800F11 is a good lens, and it looks the best on 24MP sensor (like on my R8). With 45MP sensor it does not look as crispy to my eyes (R5 before and R5M2) but it is still very good. My biggest problem with 800F11 is that busy backgrounds look like .... busy backgrounds. Here is my shot from yesterday with the new R5 Mark 2 with 800F11
The 200-800 isn’t as sharp at 800mm as the 100-500L is at 500mm but that only really matters if 500mm is enough focal length. If you are photographing a more distant subject where you can’t simply move closer and get the same composition at 500mm and 800mm I’ve found with the copies that I have available to me that the 200-800 performs better. Also, once you post process your images the differences really start to disappear. Here in the US the 100-500L is substantially more expensive, especially if you factor in the 1.4x.
I no longer have the lens and haven’t had it for a few years now. I did always do my best to keep the firmware up to date. The lens I had was the 150-600C though not the 60-600 though I have used a friend’s copy of the 60-600 on several occasions and was impressed with it. I would just see if you can try it before you buy it or at least return it if you’re not happy with it. It’s a really nice lens when everything is working properly.
I have to disagree with you in some areas. Yes, at 700mm, the 100-500L with the 1.4x extender is sharper than the 200-800 at 700mm, but you're talking pixel peeping there. I have both the 100-500L and the 200-800 along with the 1.4x extender. Yes, the 100-500L is the better lens. It better be, being an L lens. But the 200-800 is NOT soft at 800mm. It is more than acceptably sharp, and is not soft. Also, I have both the R5 and R6 Mark II, and the 200-800, just like the 800 f11, performs better on the R6 Mark II than the R5. Both of those non L lenses seem to work better on the lower mp bodies.
First off, very nice example photos. Not only are the two lenses mentioned “better” on the 24MP sensor than the 45MP sensor, so is the 100-500L and any other lens for that matter if you’re talking about perceived sharpness at the pixel level because you’re magnifying the image more. The 32MP sensor of the R7 is even more taxing yet we still have many very nice examples of “sharp” images with all of these lenses from the R7.
Again, this is my personal experience having all of these lenses, and using them almost every day.
Would you consider these images soft? (I'm not trying to start an argument, just showing examples in my experience)
I agree with this, with one caveat. For me, the 100-500L is better on my R5 than the R6 Mark II, and even the R7. I don't have the R7 anymore, but was taking a look at my photos with it again. Yes, it got amazing photos, but the camera just had some inconsistencies.
So you are saying that you are seeing sharper results with both images blown up to 100%? So this is where the R5 image is larger on the screen than the R6 mk2 image. If so, that might suggest that there’s a stronger AA filter on the R6 mk2. It certainly doesn’t make sense to me if all else is equal.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Again, it's not a big difference, but when I edit my RAW files, I always check them at 100%. To me, the R5 is producing slightly sharper images with my 100-500L than the R6 Mark II. It's really being nit-picky, but I can see it. And at the same time, the 200-800 looks better on the R6 Mark II.
I’m guessing that’s a difference with the AA filter. Do you have any examples handy? If not that’s cool, I know it’s work to produce them.
Hello, of course you should always be as close as possible to the subject. The recommended distances in wildlife photography with lenses with a focal length of 500mm are a maximum of 35m. With the 800mm not necessarily further.
No, they are very beautiful, but as Jeanine from Pangolin wildlife photographie suggests, these lenses should not be used beyond 30, 35m distance, even for large subjects.I have to disagree with you in some areas. Yes, at 700mm, the 100-500L with the 1.4x extender is sharper than the 200-800 at 700mm, but you're talking pixel peeping there. I have both the 100-500L and the 200-800 along with the 1.4x extender. Yes, the 100-500L is the better lens. It better be, being an L lens. But the 200-800 is NOT soft at 800mm. It is more than acceptably sharp, and is not soft. Also, I have both the R5 and R6 Mark II, and the 200-800, just like the 800 f11, performs better on the R6 Mark II than the R5. Both of those non L lenses seem to work better on the lower mp bodies.
Again, this is my personal experience having all of these lenses, and using them almost every day.
Would you consider these images soft? (I'm not trying to start an argument, just showing examples in my experience)
I disagree. At least in this shot, that bird is so far away, yet so close to shore that you can’t get background blur no matter what… unless you use AI in post processing.Hello, HERE you show exactly what not to do in photography, have a super expensive camera with a low-end lens.In my experience 800F11 is a good lens, and it looks the best on 24MP sensor (like on my R8). With 45MP sensor it does not look as crispy to my eyes (R5 before and R5M2) but it is still very good. My biggest problem with 800F11 is that busy backgrounds look like .... busy backgrounds. Here is my shot from yesterday with the new R5 Mark 2 with 800F11
Besides, we can see the result, it's soft.
I'm not criticizing you, but we know that the quality of the photo is 90% the lens.
The same photos with a RF 100-500L would certainly have been better, and with 45Mp you have enough to crop.
For information, a 4K image is 9Mp...
This situation is actually quite different from how it was with SLRs. The AF is still quite effective with say the R7 and 800mm f/11 in lighting conditions that my old 7d mk2 would have struggled with even with my EF 500mm f/4.
Yes the 60-600 for $1300 sounds like an attractive choice.
I've only had it for 2 weeks but coming from the 800 f11 which I've taken some very *lucky* flight shots, I'm actually having a bbit of trouble with the 200-800 with something like a fast-flying raptor or. Part of it is the extra weight and being used to the not zooming on the 800 prime, which sometimes leads me to forget to zoom in or out when I could.I disagree. At least in this shot, that bird is so far away, yet so close to shore that you can’t get background blur no matter what… unless you use AI in post processing.Hello, HERE you show exactly what not to do in photography, have a super expensive camera with a low-end lens.In my experience 800F11 is a good lens, and it looks the best on 24MP sensor (like on my R8). With 45MP sensor it does not look as crispy to my eyes (R5 before and R5M2) but it is still very good. My biggest problem with 800F11 is that busy backgrounds look like .... busy backgrounds. Here is my shot from yesterday with the new R5 Mark 2 with 800F11
Besides, we can see the result, it's soft.
I'm not criticizing you, but we know that the quality of the photo is 90% the lens.
The same photos with a RF 100-500L would certainly have been better, and with 45Mp you have enough to crop.
For information, a 4K image is 9Mp...
I bought the 600mm f/11 for $400, which was a great deal. But I think even the shorter 600 is quite a difficult lens to use, because how often is your subject so far away that it fills the frame at 600, yet so close that it’s not minuscule? This is why I prefer a telephoto zoom, but they’re more than 4x the cost of my 600mm
