100-500 vs 200-800

[John Crowe]

You mean the 500mm for the GFX? On a 100 MP GFX body by the time you crop to the same size as the R5II and 100-500 at 500mm, you get 80 MP. So, theoretically the detail would be stunning. However, using a medium format system, even for perched/standing birds would be quite the challenge and likely overkill. There should be a 1.4x for that lens, which could be fun! Gosh, don't get me thinking about using one for my manual focus sports shots!

A Sony 60MP FF body would be more useful. I doubt AF with your lenses would stand up with the adapter, and I much prefer Canon lens selection over Sony.

For a fraction of the cost of RF primes, or a GFX system, a used EF 500/4 L IS, 600/4 L IS or 800/5.6 L IS (any versions) would be your next step for image quality, if you can manage the weight!

 

[Reza Raquib]

You mean the 500mm for the GFX? On a 100 MP GFX body by the time you crop to the same size as the R5II and 100-500 at 500mm, you get 80 MP. So, theoretically the detail would be stunning. However, using a medium format system, even for perched/standing birds would be quite the challenge and likely overkill. There should be a 1.4x for that lens, which could be fun! Gosh, don't get me thinking about using one for my manual focus sports shots!

A Sony 60MP FF body would be more useful. I doubt AF with your lenses would stand up with the adapter, and I much prefer Canon lens selection over Sony.

For a fraction of the cost of RF primes, or a GFX system, a used EF 500/4 L IS, 600/4 L IS or 800/5.6 L IS (any versions) would be your next step for image quality, if you can manage the weight!

Indeed, the GFX500 F/5.6 has a 1.4x extender. A 700mm F/8 on a 100MP would do nicely with perched birds. I was reserving the FUJI for portrait works, but I may have to try for birding as well.

 

[John Crowe]

You have one already...wow. Check out Medium Format Forum. There may be some use of the 500 there. I know one user doesn't like it for landscapes, but he did get some closer shots.

Too bad you can't go RF to GFX. One of those EF lenses I listed could work really well on GFX and save some money.

 

[BirdShooter7]

Gred browsed through your impressive work with the 200-800. I should give myself more time to work with this lens. However, switching from R7/100-500 to R5ii/200-800 there is an IQ drift I was not expecting. I need to go out and find more birds.

 

[BirdShooter7]

Gred browsed through your impressive work with the 200-800. I should give myself more time to work with this lens. However, switching from R7/100-500 to R5ii/200-800 there is an IQ drift I was not expecting. I need to go out and find more birds.

I am about to go an a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Brazil's Pantanal region and decided to take the R5II with the 200-800 instead of the 100-500 or my MFT gear with its much more expensive Olympus 150-400 lens. I have enough confidence in the 200-800 (and in Topaz sharpening) for that.

But then, I am not one to strive for perfection when looking at image sharpness on a 4K monitor in 100% view. I strive for perfection when looking at the whole image's artistic qualities and how others react to it.

Normal humans don't pixel-peep. ;-)

-----------------------------
Take a look at some of my images at http://www.thisbeautifulplanet.de if you like.

The Pantanal is awesome, I just returned from there and as always had a fantastic time. I used the heck out of my 200-800 during the trip and had no regrets bringing it.

--
Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

 

[BirdShooter7]

You mean the 500mm for the GFX? On a 100 MP GFX body by the time you crop to the same size as the R5II and 100-500 at 500mm, you get 80 MP. So, theoretically the detail would be stunning. However, using a medium format system, even for perched/standing birds would be quite the challenge and likely overkill. There should be a 1.4x for that lens, which could be fun! Gosh, don't get me thinking about using one for my manual focus sports shots!

A Sony 60MP FF body would be more useful. I doubt AF with your lenses would stand up with the adapter, and I much prefer Canon lens selection over Sony.

For a fraction of the cost of RF primes, or a GFX system, a used EF 500/4 L IS, 600/4 L IS or 800/5.6 L IS (any versions) would be your next step for image quality, if you can manage the weight!

Indeed, the GFX500 F/5.6 has a 1.4x extender. A 700mm F/8 on a 100MP would do nicely with perched birds. I was reserving the FUJI for portrait works, but I may have to try for birding as well.

 

[Reza Raquib]

I just ordered the lens and extender a few minutes ago. I should have them by next week. North Florida is a bit dry with bird species at the moment, but should pickup next month.

 

[John Crowe]

Let us know how you make out, and let the medium format forum know to. I wonder how long you will have to wait.

I remember now that I don't think my particular supertelephoto lenses for FF cover enough of the GFX 100 MP sensor to warrant the expense. Will think about it though.

 

[Reza Raquib]

The lens will be here on Monday, but the extender is on back order. This will give me some time to get used to the 500.

 

[J A C S]

Of course, it is less sharp. Having said that, you duck looks a bit misfocused. The chest has better feather detail but it is very dark. You'd need to lift the shadows a lot to see it, and this reveals a lot of noise.

 

[Reza Raquib]

Hence, I posted the RAW file. It was shot in eye focus mode, so the focus should have been on the eye. The duck was pretty still.

 

[Reza Raquib]

According to DPP

--
I wish my photos would evoke the emotions that led me to take them in the first place.

 

[Reza Raquib]

Here is the post-processed final rendering.

--
I wish my photos would evoke the emotions that led me to take them in the first place.

 

[lokatz]

My question is about the perceived differences between the two systems. I might get myself a Fuji 500mm with TC for static birds and use this system for Moving subjects. Yes, I am a proud pixel pipper.

So you're a "pixel pipper", whatever that is supposed to be. And proud of it.

I know from experience that this will stir a bunch of nasty posts, but I cannot help but observe that most pixel peepers I have seen posting images on this website failed the motto you show in your signature, "I wish my photos would evoke the emotions that led me to take them in the first place." Their images are perfectly sharp but BORING.

There is a bit of a dichotomy in your statement versus your motto. Somehow, pixel peeping and capturing shots worth taking do not seem to align well.

Don't get me wrong: I know (and admire) a few outstanding wildlife photographers who manage to capture amazing AND technically well executed shots. However, all of them seem to be worried about getting the lighting, the timing, the posture of the animal, the framing, etc. right, much more so than about getting their shots perfectly sharp. The latter is merely a byproduct of them mastering their equipment, not a goal or objective in itself.

I also strive to take technically perfect shots, which sometimes I manage to do and sometimes I don't. Equipment plays a role here, though skill matters even more.

Whether a shot is worth keeping, however, is nearly independent of this, unless the IQ is horrible. Great images require FAR more than being sharp, and some of the world's most famous images turn out to be a bit fuzzy upon closer inspection.

 

[J A C S]

Hence, I posted the RAW file. It was shot in eye focus mode, so the focus should have been on the eye. The duck was pretty still.

Yes, it is on the eye. Which does not mean that the camera actually focused there. BTW, the DOF in your case was around 8cm.

BTW, why is your RAW file 6mp only?

 

[Reza Raquib]

Let's not nitpick here; our requirements are different.

 

[Victor Engel]

understand you have less depth of field at 800mm then you do at 500mm

I'm not sure what the difference is - depends on the aperture setting I guess. With the sample picture of the whistling duck, though, look at the grass. The blades in front of the duck's legs are in focus. The legs are not. Now compare that to the rest of the duck body. Expect feathers on the head to be in focus, perhaps also much of the neck, but the body is behind the plane of focus.

Let's see, at the far end, we have 500mm at f/7.1 wide open vs. 800mm at f/9. The entrance pupil sizes would thus be 70mm and 89mm, respectively. So, relative to the subject, the 800mm has a shallower depth of field. I like to think of it in these terms, but it seems other people have difficulty understanding the concept.

Look at it from a slightly different perspective. When the lens is focused on a subject, a point source at infinity will be spread out the size of the entrance pupil. A distant, "bokeh ball" would appear at the location of the in focus subject to be the size of the entrance pupil, so in the case of these lenses, a blurred star right next to the duck's head would be 70mm across on the image taken with the 100-500mm lens at 500 wide open and 89mm across with the 200-800 at 800mm wide open. This is a useful way of thinking of blur, in my opinion.

--
Victor Engel

 

[Victor Engel]

Hence, I posted the RAW file. It was shot in eye focus mode, so the focus should have been on the eye. The duck was pretty still.

Yes, it is on the eye. Which does not mean that the camera actually focused there. BTW, the DOF in your case was around 8cm.

BTW, why is your RAW file 6mp only?

What are you using to edit? Maybe it's looking only at the thumbnail. I see this in Photoshop.

--
Victor Engel

 

[Victor Engel]

-0.67 exposure compensation - no wonder it's so dark. Was that intentional? I've read posts that underexposing reduces focus accuracy. I don't know how much truth there is to that.

 

[J A C S]

Hence, I posted the RAW file. It was shot in eye focus mode, so the focus should have been on the eye. The duck was pretty still.

Yes, it is on the eye. Which does not mean that the camera actually focused there. BTW, the DOF in your case was around 8cm.

BTW, why is your RAW file 6mp only?

What are you using to edit? Maybe it's looking only at the thumbnail. I see this in Photoshop.

I was using DPP. I am not sure what happened, it is full size now... My bad.