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

Hello,

I am an amateur, and I took this photo.

First, the file size is only 5MB and I set in my R5 for RAW and JPG, both for the maximum size.

Second, if I zoom into the moon, it is blurry.

Could be my skill which is not good enough or hardware issue, or even it should be like this?

Thanks

It is a small file size because there is essentially nothing in the image.

Now that you realize that 200mm is simply not long enough to take photos of the moon go and test the lens with targets closer to home.

The moon is more challenging to shoot properly than many think.  Lots could have gone wrong with your photo.

John Crowe wrote:

It is a small file size because there is essentially nothing in the image.

Now that you realize that 200mm is simply not long enough to take photos of the moon go and test the lens with targets closer to home.

The moon is more challenging to shoot properly than many think. Lots could have gone wrong with your photo.

Exactly !

JPG compression works well with an empty picture ! So the final weight is small.

For the lens, true, 200mm is not enough for the moon... if you want a close portrait of course !

Even my 600mm is too short.

Then take care of time value (TV) : if you shoot hand held, don't choose too slow values. If you're very stable, with a 600mm or higher, I would suggest at least 1/200 to 1/400s.

Don't shoot thru an open window of a heated room, you'll have blur due to air turbulensces .

JJJPowell wrote:

Hello,

I am an amateur, and I took this photo.

First, the file size is only 5MB and I set in my R5 for RAW and JPG, both for the maximum size.

Second, if I zoom into the moon, it is blurry.

Could be my skill which is not good enough or hardware issue, or even it should be like this?

Thanks

Why ISO 12800, f/5 and such a high shutter speed?  Generally it's best to shoot the night sky from a tripod. With your settings, your exposure is quite low and the camera applies a lot of noise reduction which  causes the loss of detail.

For the max sharpness of your moon shots, put the camera on a tripod, ISO 100, f/3.2, shutter speed will be around 1/200-1/400s.

charlyw64 wrote:

A mixture out of: It can't look any better (depending on conditions), unrealistic expectations and user skill deficiencies. The moon is a rock in direct sunlight - ISO 100, f/11 and 1/100 of a second is the rule of thumb to expose that correctly (looney 11 rule)...

f/11 would be a bad idea for someone seeking the max sharpness.

Well, first of all, you don't have very many pixels on your subject; that's not a good start.

Use a tripod, and either electronic first curtain (EFCS) or full electronic shutter to minimize camera shake.  It is best to use a timer, or a remote release.

Shoot at, or near f5.6 for maximum sharpness.  A lower ISO is best.  And remember that the moon is a daylight exposure.  Depending on how you have metered the shot (especially where your subject is so small, in a vast sky of black), your camera is going to think you are shooting a very dark scene.  But while it is night time here on Earth, it is daytime on the moon, and that's your subject.

You've got a lot of good advice. Mine is to use a much lower ISO value and much lower shutter speed. You definitely don't need to use a tripod. The IS on that lens, combined with IBIS, allows you to shoot at very long shutter speeds without camera shake. I wouldn't go too long, though, because of subject movement (the moon is moving quite fast, relative to the Earth). I would probably use 1/125-1/250. Also, bracket your exposures. And, don't expect too much using such a short lens on a subject that's a quarter of a million miles away! Given your equipment and shooting settings, I actually think your result is pretty good. I was expecting a blurry mess from your post, but it's not nearly as bad as my expectation. If you change your settings, you should be able to get a better result, but you really need a much longer lens. I've had some very good results using the RF 100-400 with 1.4 extender. That means shooting at F11, but that's OK. You'll also get better results with a fuller moon.

charlyw64 wrote:

Quarkcharmed wrote:

charlyw64 wrote:

A mixture out of: It can't look any better (depending on conditions), unrealistic expectations and user skill deficiencies. The moon is a rock in direct sunlight - ISO 100, f/11 and 1/100 of a second is the rule of thumb to expose that correctly (looney 11 rule)...

f/11 would be a bad idea for someone seeking the max sharpness.

Not with this kind of subject.

It is, because diffraction starts to become a real issue with high mp sensors. F8, or even f5.6 will produce sharper results with high quality lenses.

On budget lenses it's possible that f11 produces sharper images but this isn't the case here.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

You've got a lot of good advice. Mine is to use a much lower ISO value and much lower shutter speed. You definitely don't need to use a tripod. The IS on that lens, combined with IBIS, allows you to shoot at very long shutter speeds without camera shake. I wouldn't go too long, though, because of subject movement (the moon is moving quite fast, relative to the Earth). I would probably use 1/125-1/250. Also, bracket your exposures. And, don't expect too much using such a short lens on a subject that's a quarter of a million miles away! Given your equipment and shooting settings, I actually think your result is pretty good. I was expecting a blurry mess from your post, but it's not nearly as bad as my expectation. If you change your settings, you should be able to get a better result, but you really need a much longer lens. I've had some very good results using the RF 100-400 with 1.4 extender. That means shooting at F11, but that's OK. You'll also get better results with a fuller moon.

Alastair,  It is not often that I disagree with your posts, but here, I do.

Depending on what his image goals are, OP might get "acceptable" sharpness handheld (vs. using a tripod), but it will never be better.  If he is looking for maximum sharpness (which seemed to be the issue here), he should absolutely be using a tripod.

Going a step further, it is my experience that I get the very best results when I use a good, solid tripod, a remote release, and turn the IS off.  While I love IS for most shooting, it can have a (slightly) negative effect on critical sharpness, in a stationary setting.

William Woodruff wrote:

Well, first of all, you don't have very many pixels on your subject; that's not a good start.

Use a tripod, and either electronic first curtain (EFCS) or full electronic shutter to minimize camera shake. It is best to use a timer, or a remote release.

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.

What was your experience level prior to purchasing this set up?   It’s exceptional when used within the context of its strengths.

Consider adding the RF 800mm f/11 and a tripod.

The full moon diameter is 0.50 degrees of the night sky.  At 200mm in full frame has an angle of view of 12 degrees.  You’re putting maybe 41,000 pixels on subject if the moon were full with that set up on a 45,000,000 pixel sensor.  One tenth of one percent of the area.  And yours is a crescent moon.  Maybe a tenth of that.

Sittatunga wrote:

Quarkcharmed wrote:

William Woodruff wrote:

Well, first of all, you don't have very many pixels on your subject; that's not a good start.

Use a tripod, and either electronic first curtain (EFCS) or full electronic shutter to minimize camera shake. It is best to use a timer, or a remote release.

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. And EFCS produces no shutter shock.

High speed continuous shooting and silent shooting are probably the only cases where ES is justified.

Also ES limits the exposure time to 0.5 seconds. Basically it's totally useless for landscape/astro.

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?

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, 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.