R5-800mm vs R5-500mm Cropped vs R7-500mm
May 2, 2023 09:32:58 #
You need a subject with much more details and much closer than 200 yards on a tripod and then make at least a 20X24 print ! Differences will be small and subtle ! The cropped image should be using pixel enlargement software of choice to restore the pixel count to the uncropped image also.
The R7 is capable of showing more optical deficiencies .......
The R7 is capable of showing more optical deficiencies .......
May 2, 2023 10:42:27 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
imagemeister wrote:
You need a subject with much more details and much closer than 200 yards on a tripod and then make at least a 20X24 print ! Differences will be small and subtle ! The cropped image should be using pixel enlargement software of choice to restore the pixel count to the uncropped image also.
The R7 is capable of showing more optical deficiencies .......
The R7 is capable of showing more optical deficiencies .......
I would suggest that if the question is the camera/lens combination, there should be no pixel enlargement or any other processing. That's an additional variable not part of the stated problem.
May 2, 2023 11:53:41 #
May 2, 2023 11:58:33 #
billnikon wrote:
Proof positive that your post proves nothing.
I didn't have the time to set up a tripod, set up controlled lighting, or control the sun.
I think it proves that any of these combinations works in the right situation. It proves that one is not clearly better than another all the time. If one of the combinations would have consistently produced poor results, I would sell that combination.
My purpose for posting this was to provide information to others that might be in my same situation or were contemplating buying gear.
Other than that, sorry to have bothered you. You always have the choice to skip the post and move on, rather than make a snippy remark.
May 2, 2023 11:59:35 #
Jimmy T wrote:
I have a Canon R5 fitted with the Canon RF 100-500... (show quote)
Thank you for your comments.
May 2, 2023 12:00:51 #
dbrugger25 wrote:
It would be intereting to see the R5 with the 100-500 plus a 1.4 teleconverter in the comparisons.
Agree. Don't have the 1.4X.
May 2, 2023 12:11:19 #
Chuckwal wrote:
What was iso?
Chuck
Chuck
The ISO was 500 for the 800mm shot, 800 for the R5-500mm cropped, and 1250 for the R7-500mm. So, yes, maybe the ISO should have been the same with all the photos. But I shot all three of them the way I would have shot them if I was out in the field. Shot in the manual mode, same shutter speed, f11, and auto ISO. Since that is the way I often shoot, that is the way I took these photos.
May 2, 2023 12:32:50 #
May 2, 2023 13:10:52 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
What I find interesting is that there is so little difference between these images.
R5 with 800mm f/11 lens... 1/1250, ISO 500, f/11
R5 with 100-500mm cropped... 1/2000, ISO 800, f/11 (500mm)
R7 with 100-500mm............ 1/2000, ISO 1250, f/13 (500mm)
At highest magnification, there's a bit more noise in the R7 images, most noticeably in the the sky. That's somewhat predictable since a higher ISO was used and the R7's sensor is much more densely packed with pixel sites. Noise is also pretty easily mitigated various ways. (Shoot RAW and use DXO PureRaw, for example.)
Shooting something two football fields away, there's probably some atmospheric effect as well.
R5 with 800mm f/11 lens... 1/1250, ISO 500, f/11
R5 with 100-500mm cropped... 1/2000, ISO 800, f/11 (500mm)
R7 with 100-500mm............ 1/2000, ISO 1250, f/13 (500mm)
At highest magnification, there's a bit more noise in the R7 images, most noticeably in the the sky. That's somewhat predictable since a higher ISO was used and the R7's sensor is much more densely packed with pixel sites. Noise is also pretty easily mitigated various ways. (Shoot RAW and use DXO PureRaw, for example.)
Shooting something two football fields away, there's probably some atmospheric effect as well.
May 2, 2023 13:15:05 #
May 2, 2023 14:04:44 #
lorvey wrote:
I didn't have the time to set up a tripod, set up ... (show quote)
Your post also proved that some people on the UHH are so insecure that they feel the need to be critical and/or make some condescending comments on a topic they could just as easily have ignored.
May 2, 2023 14:05:49 #
Thanks for posting. I posted a similar comparison back in October. Bottom line, the 100-500mm is a masterpiece of a lens with either body. The 800mm needs good light and good stabilization. With that, it can produce excellent photos. I'm primarily a wildlife photographer, so will often start out with the R7 and 100-500mm lens, with or without the 1.4x extender. However, my preferred combo, for many reasons, is the R5 body and 100-500mm. I shot a huge amount of images at Bosque del Apache and almost all were with the R5 and 100-500mm.
May 2, 2023 14:11:27 #
amfoto1 wrote:
What I find interesting is that there is so little... (show quote)
Thank you for your comments. I intended to have the settings indentical-SS and aperture. Don't know why they are not. I currently shoot RAW and use DXO and Topaz Denoise or Neat Image to remove noise if necessary, so a slight bit of noise is not a concern to me. If I would do this over again, I would be more precise with my settings, use a tripod, and shoot at a closer subject as noted by imagemeister.
May 2, 2023 14:12:35 #
Basil wrote:
Your post also proved that some people on the UHH are so insecure that they feel the need to be critical and/or make some condescending comments on a topic they could just as easily have ignored.
May 2, 2023 14:15:52 #
MtManMD wrote:
Thanks for posting. I posted a similar comparison... (show quote)
Thanks for your feedback. I will look for your Oct post. Do you find that using the 1.4x extender provides high quality images, as good as shooting without it, or do you see a slight degradation of the image?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.