Running some test shots with my new
Canon EOS RP. I wondered if I had a small subject in the distance, would it would be better to use the presumably better RF 24-105L lens and crop it to the extreme or use the 75-300 USM with less cropping, or use the cheapo 2x extender with the 75-300 with even less cropping. I cropped all the reveal about the same portion of this birch tree, which was about 25 feet from me in each case. The results surprised me, because I thought the cheap extender would kill the image, but to my eye it didn't.
Interesting, and informative. Mirrorless seems to hold a clear advantage with extenders.
bleirer wrote:
Running some test shots with my new
Canon EOS RP. I wondered if I had a small subject in the distance, would it would be better to use the presumably better RF 24-105L lens and crop it to the extreme or use the 75-300 USM with less cropping, or use the cheapo 2x extender with the 75-300 with even less cropping. I cropped all the reveal about the same portion of this birch tree, which was about 25 feet from me in each case. The results surprised me, because I thought the cheap extender would kill the image, but to my eye it didn't.
Running some test shots with my new br Canon EOS ... (
show quote)
You should only use shots for comparism, that are in proper focus to begin with!
bleirer wrote:
Running some test shots with my new
Canon EOS RP. I wondered if I had a small subject in the distance, would it would be better to use the presumably better RF 24-105L lens and crop it to the extreme or use the 75-300 USM with less cropping, or use the cheapo 2x extender with the 75-300 with even less cropping. I cropped all the reveal about the same portion of this birch tree, which was about 25 feet from me in each case. The results surprised me, because I thought the cheap extender would kill the image, but to my eye it didn't.
Running some test shots with my new br Canon EOS ... (
show quote)
Did you use good testing technique, i.e., sturdy tripod, remote trigger, all to reduce shake? Given the failure to use a target with very distinct lines that can be magnified for comparison, I would suspect these were handheld shots that fail to lead to a valid comparison. If you used good technique then I would suspect that the 24-105 may need microadjustment. There's no way a 75-300 should outperform a 24-105 especially with a 2x on it unless you cropped the 24-105 to such a ridiculous degree that it just fell apart, a potential solution to which would be upsizing the 24-105 image with software like Topaz Gigapixel and the crop it.
gessman wrote:
Did you use good testing technique, i.e., sturdy tripod, remote trigger, all to reduce shake? Given the failure to use a target with very distinct lines that can be magnified for comparison, I would suspect these were handheld shots that fail to lead to a valid comparison. If you used good technique then I would suspect that the 24-105 may need microadjustment. There's no way a 75-300 should outperform a 24-105 especially with a 2x on it unless you cropped the 24-105 to such a ridiculous degree that it just fell apart, a potential solution to which would be upsizing the 24-105 image with software like Topaz Gigapixel and the crop it.
Did you use good testing technique, i.e., sturdy t... (
show quote)
There's no such thing as micro adjust on mirrorless cameras ...
But, you've hit on the right item: the image from the 24-105 isn't in sharp focus, period, so why our OP has presented that image as a choice / comparison is somewhat beyond logic ... It would seem the zoom made the process of focusing on the target tree easier, but not for creating a valid comparison. Posting TIFs simply made the discussion more difficult. Were the crops even taken from images all shot at 105mm? As a general practice, the larger the image you can place on the sensor, the better the results will be. So, if you want one small distant point, 300 or 600
could be better than cropping from 105, but I'd start with 105 in sharp focus first if trying to compare.
I'm happy you pointed out that the tree is not in focus. I guess I just relied upon the beep of the autofocus when it must have been targeting something else and assumed the blur was from the extreme cropping. Though the light is different, I reshot using manual focus until the red outlines of the focus attentuator appeared, and then recropped the small area out of the larger image, presented here.
The practical question is simply what to do if the cute bear cub is in the distance: put on the not as good but longer tele, with or without an extender, or use the better shorter range lens and pull a crop from that? Don't say get a better tele, but I could possibly manage a better extender, if that would make a difference.
CHG_CANON wrote:
There's no such thing as micro adjust on mirrorless cameras ...
But, you've hit on the right item: the image from the 24-105 isn't in sharp focus, period, so why our OP has presented that image as a choice / comparison is somewhat beyond logic ... It would seem the zoom made the process of focusing on the target tree easier, but not for creating a valid comparison. Posting TIFs simply made the discussion more difficult. Were the crops even taken from images all shot at 105mm? As a general practice, the larger the image you can place on the sensor, the better the results will be. So, if you want one small distant point, 300 or 600 could be better than cropping from 105, but I'd start with 105 in sharp focus first if trying to compare.
There's no such thing as micro adjust on mirrorles... (
show quote)
Dang, I wish you hadn't told me that. Here I've been collecting all your astute advisory comments thinking there might be a chance of having them added as another book in the "New Testament" but all that's out the window now, dammit.
Below are two pics, one is of the top of my Sony a6500 mirrorless camera, which is all I really know about mirrorless cameras, just for identification purposes, and the other, a shot of a menu selection that should interest you some.
bleirer wrote:
I'm happy you pointed out that the tree is not in focus. I guess I just relied upon the beep of the autofocus when it must have been targeting something else. Though the light is different, I reshot using manual focus until the red outlines of the focus attentuator appeared, and then recropped the small area out of the larger image, presented here.
On my monitor, this latest pic is even worse than the first one.
Well! That'll teach you to share information, eh! Thanks for posting. Some of the comments that followed seem to be attempts to inflate the poster's importance rather than to educate you or us. Facts taste best without dripping superiority.
gessman wrote:
On my monitor, this latest pic is even worse than the first one.
Do you mean to say that the tree is out of focus in the most recent one?
G Brown
Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK
I think the OP needs better glasses. Also cropping an image that much does not actually help. If you look at a billboard at a distance it is 'focused' if you crop it so that you are 'looking closely' you will discover that it looks blurry.
gessman wrote:
Dang, I wish you hadn't told me that. Here I've been collecting all your astute advisory comments thinking there might be a chance of having them added as another book in the "New Testament" but all that's out the window now, dammit.
Below are two pics, one is of the top of my Sony a6500 mirrorless camera, which is all I really know about mirrorless cameras, just for identification purposes, and the other, a shot of a menu selection that should interest you some.
Dang, I wish you hadn't told me that. Here I've b... (
show quote)
This might help, as well as being applicable to our OP's EOS RP rather then your equipment ..
https://digital-photography-school.com/3-reasons-why-mirrorless-cameras-are-better-than-digital-slrs-for-focusing/A little bit more time in your a6500 user manual should help as well ...
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.