Some deer - M6 Mk II

Keith_Reeder

No apologies for not suffering fools gladly...
Feb 8, 2014
823
273
59
Blyth, NE England
I had a great time earlier in the week, shooting a deer rut in North Yorkshire - the M6 Mk II/100-400mm Mk II/1.4x TC combo did a bang-up job (click for full-size images).


Red deer


Fallow deer


Red deer


Red deer




Red deer, getting a move on. The camera locked on really well (Zone AF) - these are only two of a sequence, all perfectly focused.


Fallow deer


Red deer


I know that most of these are relatively static shots, but I'm really impressed by the sharpness and detail the camera/lens combo is capable of.
 

Cog

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 6, 2013
536
301
Qatar
I don't see the photos in the message body, but a rightclick + "View image" will open an image in a new window. Not convenient, I agree.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,809
3,303
Nice shots Keith! What do you reckon on the 100-400mm II vs lens + 1.4xTCIII? I find that there is an increase in resolution on my 90D on adding the TC, but am wondering whether it is worth it as it's getting into the region of diminishing returns with a small increase in resolution at the cost of a loss of a stop.
 

Tyroop

EOS 80D
Jun 30, 2013
124
12
Did you use the original M6 before? If so how does the original compare with the Mark II? I had my mind set on an M6 Mark II, but realised that an RP with adapter isn't that much more expensive. I still have a selection of EF lenses and a full frame mirrorless would be interesting. I have no need for speed. Not sure what to do now. I'm still very satisfied with my M6. Very nice shots. There seems to be a bit of a magenta cast on some of them, but nothing that can't be fixed in post.
 

Keith_Reeder

No apologies for not suffering fools gladly...
Feb 8, 2014
823
273
59
Blyth, NE England
Nice shots Keith! What do you reckon on the 100-400mm II vs lens + 1.4xTCIII? I find that there is an increase in resolution on my 90D on adding the TC, but am wondering whether it is worth it as it's getting into the region of diminishing returns with a small increase in resolution at the cost of a loss of a stop.
I rarely go without a TC, Alan - regardless of the camera, it's likely to be there. I can live with the loss of a stop for the most part, because of my faith in Photo Ninja; but on this trip I had plenty of light anyway.

But I can't remember the last time I removed a TC just because the light was poor.
 

Keith_Reeder

No apologies for not suffering fools gladly...
Feb 8, 2014
823
273
59
Blyth, NE England
Did you use the original M6 before? If so how does the original compare with the Mark II? I had my mind set on an M6 Mark II, but realised that an RP with adapter isn't that much more expensive. I still have a selection of EF lenses and a full frame mirrorless would be interesting. I have no need for speed. Not sure what to do now. I'm still very satisfied with my M6. Very nice shots. There seems to be a bit of a magenta cast on some of them, but nothing that can't be fixed in post.
This is my first venture into mirrorless, Tyroop - I wasn't sold on the idea previously, but a combination of the spec of the Mk II, and my desire for a lighter package than my usual 1D-x/500mm f4 Mk II/1.4x TC set-up, drew me in.

Not seeing a magenta cast on any of my calibrated screens - anyone else?
 

Photorex

EOS RP
Nov 19, 2016
249
38
Try refreshing the page - they weren't there for me either just now, but a refresh sorted it.
I needed to rightclick on each of the photo placeholders and choose reload picture from the contextmenu. That worked for me.
I do like the shots and am also impressed of the sharpness of that combo.

I also do see a slight blueish/cold temperature on the fur of the deers (2nd and last picture). But I do not know how the colors have been on location when you took the shots. So I guess for you the photos are showing what you remember from the situation.

Frank
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,809
3,303
I rarely go without a TC, Alan - regardless of the camera, it's likely to be there. I can live with the loss of a stop for the most part, because of my faith in Photo Ninja; but on this trip I had plenty of light anyway.

But I can't remember the last time I removed a TC just because the light was poor.
I too normally use TCs, and Noise Ninja is doing a great job. The 100-400mm II on the 5DSR and 5DIV has a real boost with the 1.4xTC as does the 400mm DO II, and as does the 2xTC with the prime on the 5DIV. The 1.4xTC with the 90D works well with the prime at f/5.6. But although there is improvement in resolution with the zoom at f/8, it's not as much and I'm beginning to see the degradation in IQ. I will continue to use the TC on occasion but not with BIF. Anyway, I am going on a big bird trip in sunny climes next week and I'll report back.
 

Nelu

5D Mark IV, 1Dx, EOS R
I had a great time earlier in the week, shooting a deer rut in North Yorkshire - the M6 Mk II/100-400mm Mk II/1.4x TC combo did a bang-up job (click for full-size images).


Red deer


Fallow deer


Red deer


Red deer




Red deer, getting a move on. The camera locked on really well (Zone AF) - these are only two of a sequence, all perfectly focused.


Fallow deer


Red deer


I know that most of these are relatively static shots, but I'm really impressed by the sharpness and detail the camera/lens combo is capable of.
Oh deer, no deer!:)
What happened to the photos, Keith?
Edit:
I had to right-click every image and choose: "Open image in a new tab". Weird...
Great shots and excellent light and sharpness. I love the second-last one!
Thanks,
Nelu
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keith_Reeder

Keith_Reeder

No apologies for not suffering fools gladly...
Feb 8, 2014
823
273
59
Blyth, NE England
Something odd going on with the pics - they're hosted on my own website and are instantly visible there, but they don't show up here on a refresh/reload for me now.

That's a pain - but it must be the forum software, as there's no problem with them on my site..
 

Keith_Reeder

No apologies for not suffering fools gladly...
Feb 8, 2014
823
273
59
Blyth, NE England
I also do see a slight blueish/cold temperature on the fur of the deers (2nd and last picture). But I do not know how the colors have been on location when you took the shots. So I guess for you the photos are showing what you remember from the situation.
Frank
Yeah, they were a bit difficult, colour and light-wise - they're actually close to "off camera", although I've lifted the shadow detail a lot: but I do that routinely, so I'm not introducing any blue/cold cast by doing so.

But my Raw converter of choice - Photo Ninja - doesn't officially support the M6 Mk II yet, so maybe we're seeing a symptom of that.

I'll have a play with them to see if I can improve things.
 

Photorex

EOS RP
Nov 19, 2016
249
38
Yeah, they were a bit difficult, colour and light-wise - they're actually close to "off camera", although I've lifted the shadow detail a lot: but I do that routinely, so I'm not introducing any blue/cold cast by doing so.

But my Raw converter of choice - Photo Ninja - doesn't officially support the M6 Mk II yet, so maybe we're seeing a symptom of that.

I'll have a play with them to see if I can improve things.
Maybe you can try to adjust the white balance partially in the shadow area of the 2nd shot.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,963
1,176
119
Keith and Alan, could either of you post an image or crop of one that you think Noise Ninja saved, a before and after? I ask because although I hate the noise reduction in Lightroom I find the noise reduction in PS to be much better even though they are supposed to be the same thing. I'd love to run a comparison on a bad file or two but dont have the Noise Ninja to compare and the ones I downloaded off their site I am able to get close enough within my current workflow to not make the differences I see worthwhile.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,809
3,303
Keith and Alan, could either of you post an image or crop of one that you think Noise Ninja saved, a before and after? I ask because although I hate the noise reduction in Lightroom I find the noise reduction in PS to be much better even though they are supposed to be the same thing. I'd love to run a comparison on a bad file or two but dont have the Noise Ninja to compare and the ones I downloaded off their site I am able to get close enough within my current workflow to not make the differences I see worthwhile.
Download free trial versions and try for yourself. Here are some recent articles.
 

Keith_Reeder

No apologies for not suffering fools gladly...
Feb 8, 2014
823
273
59
Blyth, NE England
Keith and Alan, could either of you post an image or crop of one that you think Noise Ninja saved, a before and after? I ask because although I hate the noise reduction in Lightroom I find the noise reduction in PS to be much better even though they are supposed to be the same thing. I'd love to run a comparison on a bad file or two but dont have the Noise Ninja to compare and the ones I downloaded off their site I am able to get close enough within my current workflow to not make the differences I see worthwhile.
I'd rather not, right now. Simply because - as I've noticed before - Photo Ninja seems to have a weird default NR for DNGs, so I'd be happier to wait until it properly supports native M6 Mk II files, so I don't have to profile the noise reduction from scratch.

One thing I will say though: Photo Ninja isn't about "saving" images. It's about not having to worry about the ISO the camera chooses, which is a different thing.

I use Manual/Auto ISO 100% of the time, and I can do that in no small part because with Photo Ninja (and assuming properly "tweaked" NR profiles - the work of a moment to do, and a one-time effort) it doesn't matter to the end result whether I'm at 400 ISO or 4000 ISO - or higher, for that matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,963
1,176
119
Thanks both. Personally I have yet to see anything that makes me think it is any better than anything else, but glad you are both happy with the output.

I did download some of the sample 'before' images they have on the website and played with them in PS, I couldn't really see any appreciable difference between the output of Noise Ninja and Photoshop. And that is what I was really looking for, I know what I can do in PS I was hoping somebody who knows what they are doing in Noise Ninja could post a before and after they were happy with that I could then do my thing to in PS so I'd know any differences were down to the skilled use of the program, free trials don't give you any experience in the programs use and it can take a big investment in time to come to the best use and workflow of a completely new (to the user) piece of software. I certainly haven't seen anything that makes me think that time investment is worth it.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,809
3,303
Thanks both. Personally I have yet to see anything that makes me think it is any better than anything else, but glad you are both happy with the output.

I did download some of the sample 'before' images they have on the website and played with them in PS, I couldn't really see any appreciable difference between the output of Noise Ninja and Photoshop. And that is what I was really looking for, I know what I can do in PS I was hoping somebody who knows what they are doing in Noise Ninja could post a before and after they were happy with that I could then do my thing to in PS so I'd know any differences were down to the skilled use of the program, free trials don't give you any experience in the programs use and it can take a big investment in time to come to the best use and workflow of a completely new (to the user) piece of software. I certainly haven't seen anything that makes me think that time investment is worth it.
Requirements for noise reduction and retention of detail depend on, amongst other factors, the fine detail present in the subject and the isos you shoot at. If you are shooting subjects without fine detail or want to smooth out skin blemishes, then DPP or PS is fine. If you are preserving feather details and go to high isos, then you want something more. If what you have already is good enough for your purposes and don't wish to learn new software (it doesn't take long, there are only a couple of variables to play with in both PhotoNinja and DxO Photolab), then stick with what you have - I am not a missionary for PN and PL, but can just tell you that they have enabled me to get better results for what I shoot.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,963
1,176
119
Requirements for noise reduction and retention of detail depend on, amongst other factors, the fine detail present in the subject and the isos you shoot at. If you are shooting subjects without fine detail or want to smooth out skin blemishes, then DPP or PS is fine. If you are preserving feather details and go to high isos, then you want something more. If what you have already is good enough for your purposes and don't wish to learn new software (it doesn't take long, there are only a couple of variables to play with in both PhotoNinja and DxO Photolab), then stick with what you have - I am not a missionary for PN and PL, but can just tell you that they have enabled me to get better results for what I shoot.
I didn't ask anybody to be a missionary, I asked either of the two keenest and vocal advocates of the software, and very regular posters here, to post an example that illustrated their enthusiasm. Neither would. All the rest I know.

I once asked a high end retoucher a question about a plugin vs results he got in PS, this guy gets paid good money to be an on site digital tech on high end shoots and is one of Canada's highest regarded retouchers. He replied by asking me for an image of mine in RAW format that he could use, I sent him one and he worked it then sent back the complete working file with all the layers and adjustments so I could dissect it. Now I wasn't asking for anything like that from him, or you or Keith, but it ably illustrated his original point, that if you take the time to learn the software you can get pretty much anything to match anything else. Whilst I don't doubt you and Keith are very happy with your results I was just trying to ascertain if those results were noticeably better than results I can get in PS. As I said, neither of you would, and that is fine, and of the testing I have done on images from the Noise Ninja site I can get close enough to not bother, which is a shame because you are both so vocal and enthusiastic about it that I have the feeling I am missing something.

Having said that I believe there is less and less difference between the outcomes of the various algorithms that pull and push our data now. It used to be that PS was bad at increasing resolution and everybody used plugins to resize for printing, now almost nobody bothers, resolutions and PS got better. I suspect the same of sharpening, noise reduction, distortion corrections and a myriad of other manipulations. One of the few plugins I still use regularly is FisheyeHemi, a great defishing software, but the truth is I can do the same thing in PS just with a lot more steps and no intuitiveness, I suspect the real difference between the programs/plugins now, apart from the way we pay for them, is the user interface and the way we, as individuals, interact with that specific aspect of the software.

I keep looking a Capture One as an alternative to Lightroom as so many people I respect advocate it's use, but each time I do I walk away from it because I have yet to see any aspect of it that I can't do with my Adobe products. Actually that's a lie, the one feature I would love from C1 in LR is the Lens Cast Calibration function as I use TS-E lenses and making good vignetting/falloff profiles for them in PS is no one click task.