08-04-2020, 12:50 AM
Greetings Klaus, and Dave!
@ Dave: You're welcome. I just think in the spirit of keeping it real it needed to be said. If one likes birds and wildlife, then one has to acknowledge what the right camera in the right hands can do!
Your example with the EOS 5D Mark ii, with the EF 100 F.2.8L is an interesting example. That combination is sitting about 10 feet away from me right now! I should also mention there is a ring flash on it. This sort of exemplifies my shooting approach: Not complicated. Some people only use natural light. I don't think that is going to work for a lot of macro photos. Most people, including myself shoot macros at F/11, lighting permitting. Because of the depth of field. Now I know the results above are not representative of macro distances because your testing method is not optimized for that, so it was shot at a "normal distance" Maybe a meter or 2?
Then if I were YOU, I would say the best performance is at 5.6 to 8. Now, my assumption was (wrongly) that f/16 should be almost as good as f/11. And f/11 was the smallest I could usually get away with. It's just one of those things, I guess. I don't like f/16 very much. I like f/11 for macros. It looks like I should be shooting 5.6 to 8 for normal distances. unless we want to blur the background, and even f/2.8 is very acceptable at times.
In a way I am beginning to see the real problem here! The 600-800 f/11's have very little versatility. And yes diffraction may be the problem. but maybe it is simply that have more depth of field means more things, even dust, even sensor dirt is in focus? LOL if you never shoot f/11 you may never notice dirt on your imager!
Dave, your kind of photos require a high level of perfection. I always thought Nikons were the kings of low noise ISO! With my canons I don't really like going above 800, but 1600 isn't that bad, and I try 3200 or even 6400. But I always regret it. So for me 800 to 1600 is acceptable. But I get a kick out of the thought of 800mm x1.4 on a high end full frame imager. At this point I would have to have it reviewed by you, or some other great bird photographer. That is the acid test. I don't care about what someone who isn't into telephoto thinks. I'll say it this way.
The person to test it is the one using your old set up: D500 & 150-600 using it skillfully.
I doubt I can be trusted. I use a 100-400L Mark ii + a 1.4x tele on a 90D. Happily at ISO 800 or more! I want to see far, but carry less weight!
Can these set-ups be seriously beaten by the R6, 800/11 setup. I'm not going to say until the right person has tried it!
Oh, Dave I did see the MTF chart for the 500mm F/5.6. I don't know anyone who uses one. It would be my choice if I had Nikon...but, still, most people use the 200-500. For whatever reason.
@ Dave: You're welcome. I just think in the spirit of keeping it real it needed to be said. If one likes birds and wildlife, then one has to acknowledge what the right camera in the right hands can do!
Your example with the EOS 5D Mark ii, with the EF 100 F.2.8L is an interesting example. That combination is sitting about 10 feet away from me right now! I should also mention there is a ring flash on it. This sort of exemplifies my shooting approach: Not complicated. Some people only use natural light. I don't think that is going to work for a lot of macro photos. Most people, including myself shoot macros at F/11, lighting permitting. Because of the depth of field. Now I know the results above are not representative of macro distances because your testing method is not optimized for that, so it was shot at a "normal distance" Maybe a meter or 2?
Then if I were YOU, I would say the best performance is at 5.6 to 8. Now, my assumption was (wrongly) that f/16 should be almost as good as f/11. And f/11 was the smallest I could usually get away with. It's just one of those things, I guess. I don't like f/16 very much. I like f/11 for macros. It looks like I should be shooting 5.6 to 8 for normal distances. unless we want to blur the background, and even f/2.8 is very acceptable at times.
In a way I am beginning to see the real problem here! The 600-800 f/11's have very little versatility. And yes diffraction may be the problem. but maybe it is simply that have more depth of field means more things, even dust, even sensor dirt is in focus? LOL if you never shoot f/11 you may never notice dirt on your imager!
Dave, your kind of photos require a high level of perfection. I always thought Nikons were the kings of low noise ISO! With my canons I don't really like going above 800, but 1600 isn't that bad, and I try 3200 or even 6400. But I always regret it. So for me 800 to 1600 is acceptable. But I get a kick out of the thought of 800mm x1.4 on a high end full frame imager. At this point I would have to have it reviewed by you, or some other great bird photographer. That is the acid test. I don't care about what someone who isn't into telephoto thinks. I'll say it this way.
The person to test it is the one using your old set up: D500 & 150-600 using it skillfully.
I doubt I can be trusted. I use a 100-400L Mark ii + a 1.4x tele on a 90D. Happily at ISO 800 or more! I want to see far, but carry less weight!
Can these set-ups be seriously beaten by the R6, 800/11 setup. I'm not going to say until the right person has tried it!
Oh, Dave I did see the MTF chart for the 500mm F/5.6. I don't know anyone who uses one. It would be my choice if I had Nikon...but, still, most people use the 200-500. For whatever reason.