Buying the 800mm as I HATE CROPPING

Archibald said:
Of course it is the lens that causes diffraction, not the sensor. There would certainly be diminishing returns with a high resolution sensor, but never a poorer resolution. In practice, we rarely see the effects of diffraction unless we are cropping hard. The effects are present, but not very noticeable with all the other issues of aberrations, small focus errors, motion blur, flare, noise, etc.
Click to expand...
You are indeed right that diffraction alone is only a fraction of the problem with budget optics.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com

In theory I would get about the same result by sticking 2X TC on my 400mm f/5.6L prime, at a fraction of the cost. On 50MP both options look, frankly, terrible, but 20MP R6 would hide the worst of it to some extent while having larger photosites and better high ISO noise performance, which you would really really need, besides focusing more accurately. However, you could also argue that I am just better off cropping 50MP image at 400mm f/5.6 down to 20MP or whatever it takes and potentially end up with better image.

Your best bet with one of these is to fill the frame and get a frame freezing exposure at whatever settings it takes, then use all the AI tools to clean up the resulting noise and sharpen all the way. I would even suggest this makes more sense as a surveillance tool.

With a good optic and controlled conditions such as shooting from tripod in particular the difference between diffraction limited and optimal apertures is actually very substantial. Just a stop over and you see a visible loss of acute sharpness. Hence my high res body is limited to f/8 max for general shooting. If I have some hard focus stacking job I may violate this rule every now and then and try to compensate back with Sharpen AI
 
Use the RF800 on an R3 and have been amazed at how good it is even with the 1.4tc to be fair.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
You are indeed right that diffraction alone is only a fraction of the problem with budget optics.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com

In theory I would get about the same result by sticking 2X TC on my 400mm f/5.6L prime, at a fraction of the cost. On 50MP both options look, frankly, terrible, but 20MP R6 would hide the worst of it to some extent while having larger photosites and better high ISO noise performance, which you would really really need, besides focusing more accurately. However, you could also argue that I am just better off cropping 50MP image at 400mm f/5.6 down to 20MP or whatever it takes and potentially end up with better image.

Your best bet with one of these is to fill the frame and get a frame freezing exposure at whatever settings it takes, then use all the AI tools to clean up the resulting noise and sharpen all the way. I would even suggest this makes more sense as a surveillance tool.

With a good optic and controlled conditions such as shooting from tripod in particular the difference between diffraction limited and optimal apertures is actually very substantial. Just a stop over and you see a visible loss of acute sharpness. Hence my high res body is limited to f/8 max for general shooting. If I have some hard focus stacking job I may violate this rule every now and then and try to compensate back with Sharpen AI
Click to expand...
No complaints with my for the R5 and 800; used this at length during my recent period in Canada and was delighted.
 
Most photos I took yesterday appear to be unsharp, like they're soft, others are better but are soft etc.


1.jpg2.jpg3.jpg4.jpg5.jpg
 
Last edited:
Lens resting on the window frame.

This one is better, but not great
7.jpg
 
Last edited:
Dael_Pix said:
Most photos I took yesterday appear to be unsharp, like they're soft, others are better but are soft etc.


View attachment 425653View attachment 425654View attachment 425655View attachment 425656View attachment 425657
Click to expand...
Are those still heavy crops ? To be satisfied what the lens is capable of I'd suggest a controlled test shot in decent light on a tripod e.g. cereal box in the garden. I know people may say that's not what you are going to be photographing but it will give you an idea of the capabilities of the lens. If those shots look OK it's ruled out being a lens issue and can move on to look at technique, atmospheric conditions etc
 
taxboy said:
Are those still heavy crops ? To be satisfied what the lens is capable of I'd suggest a controlled test shot in decent light on a tripod e.g. cereal box in the garden. I know people may say that's not what you are going to be photographing but it will give you an idea of the capabilities of the lens. If those shots look OK it's ruled out being a lens issue and can move on to look at technique, atmospheric conditions etc
Click to expand...
100% zoom in Lightroom

Edit: I've read that heat haze can be effect the lens when it's warm inside the hide, and it's cool outside.
 
Last edited:
This one isn't too bad. I'm happy with this one.

I think I need more light, but the photos I took should be sharp.

I used animal and eye detection. Some photos couldn't detect the eye and the body was shot instead.

1a.jpg1b.jpg1c.jpg
 
As @taxboy has mentioned, I have taken photos of a cereal box (at minimum focus distance). Photos can be downloaded via my Google Drive. Please let me know if you cannot download/edit files. Thanks

Files are .CR3

Link here
 
If you get a cheap hot/cold shoe mount and bolt a picatinny rail to the top you should be able to use most red dot sights that are designed for guns.
 
My own experience is that my RF 100-500 L (cropped) outresolved the 800/11. The zoom also focuses much closer. There isn't a great weight difference between those lenses. Advantage: the zoom (except for price). I sold my 800/11.
 
Erty said:
If you get a cheap hot/cold shoe mount and bolt a picatinny rail to the top you should be able to use most red dot sights that are designed for guns.
Click to expand...
Those things are very hard to use. They need to be calibrated for the anticipated shooting distance on every outing. You don't get confirmation that focus has been achieved, or where the focus is.

Some get great results with them though, so maybe worth a try.
 
taxboy said:
test shot in decent light on a tripod e.g. cereal box in the garden
Click to expand...
This would be pretty much a waste of time unless you are trying to rule out a very severe problem. Shooting some giant plain letters in the centre of the frame simply wouldn't tell you much. You are much better off printing a lens test chart, however TDP already did this and results are decidedly crap from this lens.

Dael_Pix said:
Edit: I've read that heat haze can be effect the lens when it's warm inside the hide, and it's cool outside.
Click to expand...
haze typically requires both significant distance and heat. At least the latter is certainly not present, and presumably your subjects are still close or you should rather work on getting closer instead.

Dael_Pix said:
This one isn't too bad. I'm happy with this one.

I think I need more light, but the photos I took should be sharp.

I used animal and eye detection. Some photos couldn't detect the eye and the body was shot instead.

View attachment 425664View attachment 425665View attachment 425666
Click to expand...
even this is not that great. Sharpen AI perhaps, but really this has at most 5K real resolution in it.

Also seems that R5 is pretty unusable above ISO 3200... not much different to 5Ds. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if AF accuracy goes down the toilet when you start seeing noise. R6 seems to behave the same way; it works great until it just starts missing everything in fading light.
 
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography said:
From my experience I would not pay ANY attention to this site whatsoever. They list some incredibly mediocre Canon lenses as resolving quite well, and have overrated Sigma 35mm DG by an order of magnitude.

They either use some very specific methodology that doesn't translate to real life such as dead centre, at infinity and wide open, or worse they are heavily biased or plain incompetent.
Click to expand...
DXO uses a variable MTF (contrast) based upon human vision (larger details require less contrast to see/discern). That makes their resolution numbers a bit different from any other MTF measurement. But, it is consistent and empirical... IMO it is accurate and useful for comparisons within that context.

However, many other tests seem to be highly variable/flawed when dealing with long focal lengths... long focal lengths are very sensitive to test conditions, which are often not controlled well enough to be considered accurate/reliable. Often the test standards are modified due to space/lighting constraints, without adequate consideration for how it affects the results.
 
Dael_Pix said:
100% zoom in Lightroom

Edit: I've read that heat haze can be effect the lens when it's warm inside the hide, and it's cool outside.
Click to expand...

LongLensPhotography said:
haze typically requires both significant distance and heat. At least the latter is certainly not present, and presumably your subjects are still close or you should rather work on getting closer instead.
Click to expand...
When operating from within a warm enclosure and it is colder outside you get an interface boundary of turbulence as the warm air moves towards, and mixes into, the cold air. It can happen in a hide and in a vehicle. The same thing can even happen if you take a lens out of a warm environment (auto/hide) into a cold environment... especially with a large/deep lens hood installed. It doesn't even really require "heat" perse; it only requires a notable temperature differential (e.g. the sun warming surfaces on a cold day).
 
Last edited:
TimHughes said:
.... this is the expensive slippery slope that led me to the big primes
Click to expand...
There are so many tradeoffs, and even once you get into the big primes you end up in almost the same spot no matter what you do; I call it "the circle of equivalence."

When it comes to compromises like an 800/11 lens, you aren't necessarily going to be better off than any other compromised option (TC on shorter lens/zoom). The one advantage TC's and longer FL's usually have is that they cause the photographer to use settings more appropriate for the crop they impose (i.e. higher SS's). My main gripe about lenses like the 800/11 (Nikon's PF lenses, etc) is that their light weight tends to lead people to want to hand hold them and rely on stabilization...

But different people have different standards and different use needs...
 
sk66 said:
My main gripe about lenses like the 800/11 (Nikon's PF lenses, etc) is that their light weight tends to lead people to want to hand hold them and rely on stabilization...
Click to expand...
I can't see much wrong with that unless you choose wrong shutter speed for the subject. I found tripod and monopod way too restrictive for action work, and my left wrist certainly didn't appreciate 7KG combo of 600mm f/4L IS lens! That was a nice kit but effectively it required a servant which for most of us is not really an option. Since i actually don't care about much of wildlife photography unless some pheasant just begs to be shot, 400mm f/5.6 is plenty for the occasional handheld shot, or a tripod based landscape.
 
Dael_Pix said:
As @taxboy has mentioned, I have taken photos of a cereal box (at minimum focus distance). Photos can be downloaded via my Google Drive. Please let me know if you cannot download/edit files. Thanks

Files are .CR3

Link here
Click to expand...
I can't view them for a couple of days but what are your thoughts after applying your normal processing
 
taxboy said:
I can't view them for a couple of days but what are your thoughts after applying your normal processing
Click to expand...
I'm marking them for delete. I'm editing the 'better' photos.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
This would be pretty much a waste of time unless you are trying to rule out a very severe problem. Shooting some giant plain letters in the centre of the frame simply wouldn't tell you much. You are much better off printing a lens test chart, however TDP already did this and results are decidedly crap from this lens.
Click to expand...
What it does do is potentially rule out any major issues with the lens and offer an indication of what the lens is / isn't capable of. Shooting wildlife has so many variables, so starting with confirmation that say the lens isn't decentred or has other issues allows you to consider what to look at next
 
taxboy said:
So are you saying those test images are poor quality ?
Click to expand...
Oh the test shots. I'm not editing them. Yes they're not sharp


I will say that all the photos I've seen on the internet and youtube are much sharper than my photos. I think there's something wrong with the lens, or its heat shimmer or both
 
Last edited:
taxboy said:
What it does do is potentially rule out any major issues with the lens and offer an indication of what the lens is / isn't capable of. Shooting wildlife has so many variables, so starting with confirmation that say the lens isn't decentred or has other issues allows you to consider what to look at next
Click to expand...
I would suggest if you are going to test something, then do a full stress test, not a half measures which only prolongs the problems and potentially causes you to miss a very short returns window.
 
Dael_Pix said:
I will say that all the photos I've seen on the internet and youtube are much sharper than my photos. I think there's something wrong with the lens, or its heat shimmer or both
Click to expand...
LOL. Your lens is a very representative copy, bar some decentering which you haven't tested for to the best of our knowledge. If you downscale to 4K and sharpen it to death like the paid youtubers do you will see the same. Likewise you will never ever ever see IQ anywhere near 600mm f/4 prime, or even 400mm f/5.6 prime even on a 20MP camera. I said this like 6th time now so if that doesn't get through good luck with your search of a "better" copy
 
Dael_Pix said:
Oh the test shots. I'm not editing them. Yes they're not sharp


I will say that all the photos I've seen on the internet and youtube are much sharper than my photos. I think there's something wrong with the lens, or its heat shimmer or both
Click to expand...
Ideally you'd want to rule out a lens issue. Did you use a tripod to take your test images ? You say they are not sharp is it a missed focus or camera shake issue ?
 
taxboy said:
Ideally you'd want to rule out a lens issue. Did you use a tripod to take your test images ? You say they are not sharp is it a missed focus or camera shake issue ?
Click to expand...
Lens Test Chart - Google Drive

Previous lens test and this test: Tripod, 2sec timer with IS off, spot focus, and electronic shutter. This time I turned animal detection Off, not that it will make any difference.

Before anybody says anything, I know it's not level. I have to do it outside and I don't really have anything suitable to put it on. Paper is taped to 2 sheets of corrugated (because that's all I have).


Best crap shot of a marsh harrier. 'Best' because it flew close and crap because the ISO is high, and I have a problem.

8.jpg
 
Last edited:
Dael_Pix said:
Lens Test Chart - Google Drive

Previous lens test and this test: Tripod, 2sec timer with IS off, spot focus, and electronic shutter. This time I turned animal detection Off, not that it will make any difference.

Before anybody says anything, I know it's not level. I have to do it outside and I don't really have anything suitable to put it on. Paper is taped to 2 sheets of corrugated (because that's all I have).


Best crap shot of a marsh harrier. 'Best' because it flew close and crap because the ISO is high, and I have a problem.

View attachment 425685
Click to expand...

ISO is not the only problem.
At f11 and 1/1250s shutter your shot noise is going to be high too as your sensor is starved of light.

This is why you notice more noise in shadows than at say midtones.

This is a pretty good article on noise
m.dpreview.com

What's that noise? Part one: Shedding some light on the sources of noise

How would you react if you were told that the aperture and shutter speed you choose make more difference to image noise than the ISO setting? You might be surprised to discover that a lot of the noise in your images doesn't come from your camera at all: it comes from the light you're capturing...
m.dpreview.com m.dpreview.com

Unless you are shooting is really bright condition with perfect lighting or static subjects, I really can't see this lens working well for action shots.
 
nothing wrong with trying but I think that it was indicated very early in the thread that you would have problems - sell it to someone in South Africa it may work there in their summer, (winter here) - I think that there is a Utube vid from SA testing the lens

You get from many the old expression, "it's not about equipment it's about the photographer" - but shooting birds you need good specific equipment and unfortunately it is relatively expensive
 
Last edited:
Agree its never going to provide the quality of a 600mm prime in poor light but then again in good light i think it should perform better than what you have posted but you do need to know the limitations to get the best from it.

Do miss my 500 f4 MKII but its so much easier taking the 800 out on walks etc and find that it gives reasonable results even with a 1.4tc and doesn't kill your arms when hand holding with no support.

Couple of images of mine and the second image with the 1.4x tc also so it can produce fair results in the right conditions including action shots.

0O3A6691-Enhanced-NR-XL.jpg


0O3A1215-Edit-XL.jpg


0O3A8223-Edit-XL.jpg
 
Last edited:
Should I ask if I can get a refund?
 
I have taken a lot of shots with the (very) old Nikon 300 f4 D lens, (non VR), plus the Nikon x 1.4TC attached to a now very old Nikon D300

You could buy all three above for what you paid for the 800mm f11

Cropped, (what's wrong with cropping??)

an example, taken in 2013

TP_Grass_bird.jpg


300mm with x 2 TC using D750 - ISO 1600 - taken in 2014

TP_Heron.jpg
 
Last edited:
Dael_Pix said:
Yes brand new
Click to expand...
I would probably see if you can return it and get your money back to be honest. Would personally hire one for a weekend from a lens rental company who check their stock and see if you get the same results as it will narrow down if its a duff copy or your just having problems getting the best from you camera with that combo.
 
I have only opened one of the test chart shots and it looks fine. Are the others OK?

Did you take any shots of that were quite close to you?

The shots you have posted look similar to those you first posted when you got the R5.

Perhaps try a different reserve.
 
Brentor said:
I have only opened one of the test chart shots and it looks fine. Are the others OK?

Did you take any shots of that were quite close to you?

The shots you have posted look similar to those you first posted when you got the R5.

Perhaps try a different reserve.
Click to expand...
Yes they do look the same as when I first got the camera. There's a couple don't though.

There's only one shot I took that was just out of minimum focussing distance whilst out yesterday, that was of a yellow iris. It looks ok fitted to screen, but bad when 100% zoomed in because it was at ISO 6400..

There's no close shots I took today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top