Show your Bird Portraits

[docsmith]

Thanks. 1/200s is too slow in my experience for really sharp shots of small birds.

Yes, of course, for most wildlife, a much higher shutter speed is better if a tack sharp image is the goal.

I am curious, have you reached a different conclusion regarding the RF 200-800? Do you find the AF to perform well with the R5 RF 200-800 in all light conditions?

I really have found it to be a great performer given enough light. But with lower light, I have issues. This has been a consistent theme for me and the R5 200-800 combination. Still very much well worth it in my mind.

Even going back to my initial tests...taken from this post, using 1/1000 sec:
This is very subjective, and a small sample size, but under ~EV 13 conditions, out of the 30-60 images I took with each combination, I considered the following to be "sharp":

Sigma 150-600S: 87%
EF 100-400 II w/ 1.4tc: 76%
EF 500 II: 100% cool
EF 500 II w 1.4tc: 87% (I shot less with this combination and hit one bad stretch)
RF 200-800: 68%

This experience has pretty much held up. Great lens, does something other lenses don't, reasonable size/weight combination, but the AF needs light.

 

[AlanF]

Yes, of course, for most wildlife, a much higher shutter speed is better if a tack sharp image is the goal.

I am curious, have you reached a different conclusion regarding the RF 200-800? Do you find the AF to perform well with the R5 RF 200-800 in all light conditions?

I really have found it to be a great performer given enough light. But with lower light, I have issues. This has been a consistent theme for me and the R5 200-800 combination. Still very much well worth it in my mind.

Even going back to my initial tests...taken from this post, using 1/1000 sec:
This is very subjective, and a small sample size, but under ~EV 13 conditions, out of the 30-60 images I took with each combination, I considered the following to be "sharp":

Sigma 150-600S: 87%
EF 100-400 II w/ 1.4tc: 76%
EF 500 II: 100% cool
EF 500 II w 1.4tc: 87% (I shot less with this combination and hit one bad stretch)
RF 200-800: 68%

This experience has pretty much held up. Great lens, does something other lenses don't, reasonable size/weight combination, but the AF needs light.

It's pretty well summed up in the first post in https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/summary-of-my-rf-200-800mm-testing.43239/ The RF 200-800mm has only one AF motor compared with two in the RF 100-500mm, and it shows. At 800mm, it's hit and miss for BIF in flight even in bright light. At 500mm, it's definitely much better, and so I zoom out for both better AF and easier fov. The RF 100-500mm is really good, latching on very quickly and accurately.

 

[josephandrews222]

M6MkII + adapted EF 100-400 @ Solana Beach California

Crow

 

[Click]

Strange eye on the second one.

 

[Noreaster]

Busy day in Marsh

 

[Noreaster]

Strange eye on the second one.

He is blinking

 

[Click]

He is blinking

That makes sense...At least it's not a zombie bird

 

[ISv]

That makes sense...At least it's not a zombie bird

I hope this is kind of educational: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/13/23/3656
In many birds the "blink" is only movement of the nictitating membrane. Others are by far more pronounced - like the fabulous "Nasty Owl" posted here by Cog (where is Cog - I miss his photos?)!

 

[Click]

Thank you for this info, ISv.

 

[AlanF]

I hope this is kind of educational: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/13/23/3656
In many birds the "blink" is only movement of the nictitating membrane. Others are by far more pronounced - like the fabulous "Nasty Owl" posted here by Cog (where is Cog - I miss his photos?)!

 

[ERHP]

I'm often told I 'should' push the ISO up instead of shooting 1/80 - 1/160 shots in the shadows. Does cause some misses at times, especially with really active subjects but the R5 RF600 f/4L IS w/1.4 with IBIS/IS enabled usually functions very well. Its normally on a tripod(so no IBIS/IS) but as subjects come in from the sides/behind, I shift to handheld as moving everything is time consuming and usually disturbs the subject, often 15-30' away. Advantages to me are fewer steps in rearranging pixels in post and mini-workouts at times.

A little Mountain Chickadee checking the seasonal creek for water/snack before the sun crested the ridge. DTS = 4.99M

R5 RF600 f/4L w/1.4x 1/100 : f/7.1 : ISO 800

And a juvenile Black-headed Grosbeak investigating the water remaining in a small pool for a bath. DTS = 5.88M

R5 RF600 f/4L w/1.4x 1/100 : f/8 : ISO 800

 

[Click]

Beautiful shots, ERHP.

 

[MSH411]

Cedar Waxwing

 

[josephandrews222]

I hope this is kind of educational: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/13/23/3656
In many birds the "blink" is only movement of the nictitating membrane. Others are by far more pronounced - like the fabulous "Nasty Owl" posted here by Cog (where is Cog - I miss his photos?)!

...that is a wonderful link. Thanks...links such as these are part of the reason I read CR.

 

[meywd]

I hope this is kind of educational: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/13/23/3656
In many birds the "blink" is only movement of the nictitating membrane. Others are by far more pronounced - like the fabulous "Nasty Owl" posted here by Cog (where is Cog - I miss his photos?)!

 

[MSH411]

Young Red-bellied Woodpecker

R5 - RF 100-500

 

[AlanF]

Yes, of course, for most wildlife, a much higher shutter speed is better if a tack sharp image is the goal.

I am curious, have you reached a different conclusion regarding the RF 200-800? Do you find the AF to perform well with the R5 RF 200-800 in all light conditions?

I really have found it to be a great performer given enough light. But with lower light, I have issues. This has been a consistent theme for me and the R5 200-800 combination. Still very much well worth it in my mind.

Even going back to my initial tests...taken from this post, using 1/1000 sec:
This is very subjective, and a small sample size, but under ~EV 13 conditions, out of the 30-60 images I took with each combination, I considered the following to be "sharp":

Sigma 150-600S: 87%
EF 100-400 II w/ 1.4tc: 76%
EF 500 II: 100% cool
EF 500 II w 1.4tc: 87% (I shot less with this combination and hit one bad stretch)
RF 200-800: 68%

This experience has pretty much held up. Great lens, does something other lenses don't, reasonable size/weight combination, but the AF needs light.

Just recalled this review that chimes with my own experience https://uk.pcmag.com/lenses/151545/canon-rf-200-800mm-f63-9-is-usm - inconsistent AF that is worse in dim light and not as good as the RF 100-500mm, sharpest at 600mm, similar to RF 100-500mm at 500mm on Imatest. I find the AF better at 600mm and regard the 200-800mm as a very sharp 200-600mm that has an extra 200mm when you need to add in more pixels without increasing the resolution.

 

[MSH411]

Thanks for posting this Alan, still waiting on mine.

 

[docsmith]

Just recalled this review that chimes with my own experience https://uk.pcmag.com/lenses/151545/canon-rf-200-800mm-f63-9-is-usm - inconsistent AF that is worse in dim light and not as good as the RF 100-500mm, sharpest at 600mm, similar to RF 100-500mm at 500mm on Imatest. I find the AF better at 600mm and regard the 200-800mm as a very sharp 200-600mm that has an extra 200mm when you need to add in more pixels without increasing the resolution.

Next time I am having AF issues in dim light, I’ll try 500-600 mm. Looking at the specs, the lens is f/8 from 455-636 mm, f/9 from 636-800 mm. As the pupil is greatest at 800/9 = 88.8 mm. I wonder if it isn’t light gathering ability but rather something about the AF mechanism itself, perhaps having to move shorter distances.

Anyway, always happy to try something that could help out. Thanks for the tip..

 

[Canon Rumors]

Striated Heron (I think) // Zaminga, South Africa // Leica SL2-S // Leica 90-280mm f/2.8-4​