Summary of my RF 200-800mm testing

Anyone else made some observations regarding the above matter?
The best presentation of R5 II with different ISOs is likely this video by Whistling Wings Photography. It is a comparison with the R1, but you can see what the noise looks like at high ISO. This article on Exposure Value may also be interesting, just to assess the aperture trade offs.

I do not have the R5 II, so I cannot be specific as to its performance at high ISO. With the R5 and the RF 200-800, here is a ISO 5000 image I cleaned up:
Small-8900.jpg

To make this work I was at 1/320th to get as much light in as I could and fired off a lot of shots. A few were sharp.
 
Upvote 0
Anyone else made some observations regarding the above matter?
Or use the noise comparison tool on TDP to compare noise of the R5 with the R5 Mk II:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Or use the noise comparison tool on TDP to compare noise of the R5 with the R5 Mk II:
The R5 isn't in focus or not as sharp for some reason, you can see it at iso 100 as well as is 6400.

 
Upvote 0
I have no problems with the R5 Mk II at high ISO levels, I usually use ISO 3200 as the maximum ISO. The noise levels of the R5 Mk II are comparable with the noise levels of the R5. I use LR (classic) with the Denoise feature for ISO 3200.

This was taken with the R5 Mk II and 200-800mm at 3200 ISO. I applied LR Denoise in post processing.

View attachment 222211
Pieter, try using DxO PL, the handling of noise is so much better.
 
Upvote 0
Pieter, try using DxO PL, the handling of noise is so much better.
I have tried DXO pure raw two years ago. At that time there was no way to influence the end result. I did not like the clear cut edges of the subject, to me it appeared as if the subject was cut out of the picture and pasted on to the background. I hope they have forgotten my e-mail address and download the trial version and try again.
 
Upvote 0
I have tried DXO pure raw two years ago. At that time there was no way to influence the end result. I did not like the clear cut edges of the subject, to me it appeared as if the subject was cut out of the picture and pasted on to the background. I hope they have forgotten my e-mail address and download the trial version and try again.
PR4 introduced 2 sliders for the denoise model and a drop down for the lens-specific sharpening.

Note that DxO likes to do things their own way, so setting a slider to zero does not mean it’s disabled or set to what reasonable people assume zero means in that context. So experiment with the complete range of the sliders, in the past I had to set the 2nd slider to -22 to get pleasing-to-my-eyes results.

If DxO has a profile for you lens+camera it does a, subjectively, better job than Adobe for nature and wildlife. For people it performs about the same for me, unless you have really noisy shots.
Another good thing about DxO is that its demosaicing algorithm is, at time time, a lot better than Adobe. So running ISO 100 shots through DxO is worth it, especially where Adobe has issues, like high contrast edges e.g. dark feathers against blue skies. Good for extreme crops or 1:1 pixel peeping :)

I’m eagerly awaiting support for the 50VCM in DxO next month.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
Thanks for your and @koenkooi tips: I’ve tried and purchased DxO Pure Raw.
You have provided me with another good reason to buy a new PC with a faster graphics card ;).
You (me!) naively buy a new camera (R5 II) or some new software (Topaz AI).
And then you find out you need a new computer, monitor etc...
Reminds me of my espresso machine... :unsure:
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
You (me!) naively buy a new camera (R5 II) or some new software (Topaz AI).
And then you find out you need a new computer, monitor etc...
Reminds me of my espresso machine... :unsure:
I you are doing any kind of work that involves serious computer use, you need to budget for a new computer every 2 to 3 years or you will waste a lot of time waiting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I have had the same coffee maker for 15 years and it still works just like it did when I bought it. Computers, OTOH, become obsolete in 2-3 years thanks to the ever increasing demands of software.
I'm in a similar situation with my current one - coming up for 12 years - although others tend not be so lucky! My current iMac (2015) is well and truly up for renewal, and I'll do that in the next couple of months ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You (me!) naively buy a new camera (R5 II) or some new software (Topaz AI).
And then you find out you need a new computer, monitor etc...
Reminds me of my espresso machine... :unsure:
After the second time the heater in our Gaggia broke, we switched to our trusty old Moka pot and since last year we also have an aeropress, that keeps coffee GAS contained :)
 
Upvote 0