Click said:

Beautiful series, Noreaster. A real couple on the second one, the female is easily identifiable.

Click to expand...

On both ## 2 and 3 the female is easily recognizable: #2 as you say "real couple" ("old family"). the #3 should be an old family photo from the honey month !

EOS 4 Life said:

It could just be the weight of the lens.
That is not at all a factor in the CIPA test.
Robots do not get tired.

Click to expand...

And people get less tired when using OIS instead IBIS?
Or does OIS just work better when you are tired than IBIS?

I'd be interested in a variable focal length macro lens that achieves 1:1 magnification moreso than a higher-magnification lens. Something like a 50-150mm macro lens. Doesn't have to be fast for my uses. F4 or F5.6 is fine enough for me for such glass.

Great photos!

OldDudePhotog said:

Yes, you will need to play with your aperture and ISO settings to get the right exposure. Your R6 has vastly superior capabilities to any phone out there. If you are a newer photographer, there are many resources on the web to learn how to perfect the craft. Look for exposure settings and you will be heading down a rabbit hole that is vast but worth the journey.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I played around with the iso settings when I was shooting the video. My camera lens only goes to f4, while the phone can go to below f2.8. I didn’t play with the shutter speed or white balance, though I will try adjusting those next time. Eventually I want to get the RF 70-200 f2.8, but that’s a ways off. Do you think that lens using the f2.8 will make a significant difference?

EOS 4 Life said:

RF would give you better stabilization than an EF lens that does not have coordinated IS, but that has nothing to do with the flange distance.

Click to expand...

I was talking unstabilised RF lenses. I'd gladly take a 200 to 300mm unstabilised RF lens if IBIS allowed me to drop shutter speeds to around 1/100th and, at least up to 200mm I know it does, because I paired my old EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM with my R6 for years and could easily get to 1/50th.
If sacrificing IS allowed new groundbreaking faster lenses, and/or more interesting zoom ranges, within these limits I'd happily accept such trade-off.

josephandrews222 said:

The IBIS seemed to offer about two stops. To be honest, I was thrillled that a 15+ year old (adapted) third-party lens worked as well as it did on one of Canon's best new bodies.

Click to expand...

Exactly, I had a very nice experience too, with my old EF 70-200mm non-IS, in that regard. 1/50th was perfectly fine, and I could get some keepers at slower shutter speeds too, just not as consistently.

Yes, you will need to play with your aperture and ISO settings to get the right exposure. Your R6 has vastly superior capabilities to any phone out there. If you are a newer photographer, there are many resources on the web to learn how to perfect the craft. Look for exposure settings and you will be heading down a rabbit hole that is vast but worth the journey.

m4ndr4ke said:

I'm aware, that's why I mentioned my experience with the old EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L, that took me to 200mm with IBIS alone, and using the adapter. I still had 2 stops of stabilisation - I always found that to be quite good, all things considered.
A RF lens would stand closer to the sensor, which would probably allow IBIS to be slightly more effective, perhaps even getting two stops at 300mm. I'd take that

Click to expand...

I (still?!) own a decent copy of the [nonstabilized] TAMRON SP AF 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD IF Macro A001...and upon acquisition of an R5MkII body (months ago) I did a bit of (non-rigorous) testing of this lens.

The IBIS seemed to offer about two stops. To be honest, I was thrillled that a 15+ year old (adapted) third-party lens worked as well as it did on one of Canon's best new bodies.

very much alive and active insects, handheld, but maybe not a macro shot

neuroanatomist said:

What ‘real world use’ would differ from CIPA by 8 stops?

Click to expand...

It could just be the weight of the lens.
That is not at all a factor in the CIPA test.
Robots do not get tired.

neuroanatomist said:

Is that because of the reliance on IBIS with MILCs?

Click to expand...

I think that is true.
Tamron had a lot of SLR lenses in the standard range with IS.
They have very few in mirrorless.
Canon has gone the other way, but they have many cameras on the RF mount that do not have IBIS.

EOS 4 Life said:

CIPA uses robots.
Human hands are different, and we will all get different results.
If CIPA did not use robots, then they could not give a number, but your mileage will definitely vary.
Someones real world use differing from CIPA is to be expected.

Click to expand...

I was replying to someone who stated, “I was shocked to see how I can see the lack of IS on the images…” Sure, maybe someone using the R5II + 28-70/2 gets 6-stops of stabilization and not the 8-stops per CIPA’s testing protocol. What ‘real world use’ would differ from CIPA by 8 stops? Having advanced Parkinson’s disease and taking pictures while riding a mechanical bull during an earthquake?

m4ndr4ke said:

A RF lens would stand closer to the sensor, which would probably allow IBIS to be slightly more effective, perhaps even getting two stops at 300mm. I'd take that

Click to expand...

The distance from the sensor at 300 mm would be exactly the same.
The back focus makes up for the flange distance.
RF would give you better stabilization than an EF lens that does not have coordinated IS, but that has nothing to do with the flange distance.

mimbu said:

IBIS is most effective at shorter focal lengths due to the nature of how it works

Click to expand...

IBIS is most effective at standard focal lengths, but I guess that it was what you meant.
I wish Canon would let us turn IBIS off and only use lens IS for UWA.
*I more than wish, I have requested several times.
Canon responded by improving their IBIS, but not enough for me.
A lot of more influential people than me really like being able to turn off IBIS from the lens.
I use my R5 C or PowerShot V1 for UWA, so it does not impact me personally

neuroanatomist said:

It's not that Canon didn't tell us, it's that Richard didn't pass along the full explanation. He hints at it, though, right at the start: "I had previously discussed these as quarter-wave optical designs...," in reference to the quarter wave plates (QWP) that convert linearly polarized light to circularly polarized light and back.

Details are in the patent, and the light manipulation you're missing is polarization, more than once in the optical path and both linear (POL) and circular (QWP2, QWP1), plus selective reflection/transmission.

View attachment 228270

Click to expand...

Thanks, this now makes sense for most items. The items that make my head scratch are:

The sensor only receives horizontal polarization component of the light, so you basically have polarization filter inside your lens which you cannot remove.

But furthermore, switching from linear to circular (or back) should reduce light by 1 stop, so you wouldn't get much light in the end. Counting the light path for conversions: E D B B B

C (HM) probably also cut 1 stop on that first pass but I'm not sure so I'm leaving it out the calculation.

So that's 5 stops (or 6 if count HM) of light right there. Maybe I should go read the patent as this is interesting although I'm not yet sure if it's practical.

Also, QWP are fairly frequency sensitive so I'm wondering how much different the far ends of light spectrum will behave on that.

neuroanatomist said:

Your camera has IBIS. For the 28-70/2, the camera’s IBIS provides the maximum possible stabilization (8-stops based on the CIPA standard) that can be achieved by any current Canon system including the RF 24-70/2.8 IS. In other words, putting IS in a future 28-70/2 II lens will have zero benefit unless the lens is used with a body lacking IBIS (like the R8 or C50).

Click to expand...

CIPA uses robots.
Human hands are different, and we will all get different results.
If CIPA did not use robots, then they could not give a number, but your mileage will definitely vary.
Someones real world use differing from CIPA is to be expected.

EOS 4 Life said:

It is easy not to realize that as a Canon user, but lens IS is very rare in other camera systems under 200 mm of focal length.

Click to expand...

Is that because of the reliance on IBIS with MILCs? Is that also true of Nikon's VC lenses (since they transitioned to MILCs on a similar timeline to Canon)?

Nemorino said:

No, because I am to lazy to carry a tripod!

Click to expand...

Tripods come in many sizes. Maybe you just need a smaller one?

scyrene said:

I have seen it said that cinema cameras are usually used with rigs (is that the word?) to stabilise them?

Click to expand...

Cinema cameras are often rigged up because they do not come with everything we need.
It does add to stability, but that is not the main purpose.
Canon Cinema EOS cameras generally come ready to use out of the box.
I use the R5 C handheld and ready to go.

scyrene said:

Cinema lenses don't usually have IS, do they?

Click to expand...

Canon has plenty of cinema lenses with IS.
They are very popular in ENG, wildlife, and sports.
You are correct that most cinema lenses do not have IS.
However, that is also true of most photo lenses.
It is easy not to realize that as a Canon user, but lens IS is very rare in other camera systems under 200 mm of focal length.

P-visie said:

I like this one best

Click to expand...

My favourit are the last with the long shadow of the beak.

P-visie said:

I would crop out the tiny strip of light on the right.

Click to expand...

Yes You are right. I should have done so.

And thank You and Click!

Very nice series. I really like the first one. Well done, Nemorino.

Very nice series. Well done, Nemorino.

By the way, isn't every lens changing magnification when changing focus distance?

Nemorino said:

Some Nuthatch shots
R5m2 + RF 200-800
View attachment 228283

Click to expand...

Great pictures. I like this one best, beautiful light on its head, catchlight in its eye and the tree’s bark as habitat and background. I would crop out the tiny strip of light on the right.

No, because I am to lazy to carry a tripod!