Canon EOS-R5 images
- Thread starter H. Jones
- Start date
RF 85 L , f1.2 , 1/1000s, iso 12800.
it was very dark, and I tried the electronic shutter for the first time. I’ve had poor hit rate with the mechanical, but the electronic was very impressive. Cropped quite a bit.
this not processed the way I usually do it, it’s from camera to iPhone and upload.
it was very dark, and I tried the electronic shutter for the first time. I’ve had poor hit rate with the mechanical, but the electronic was very impressive. Cropped quite a bit.
this not processed the way I usually do it, it’s from camera to iPhone and upload.
Attachments
Some coverage from the other night of 2,400 bales of hay burning after a fire rips through a 400-foot barn.
EOS R5, EF-RF adapter, EF 16-35mm F/4L IS, ISO 400, 1/3 sec, F/4.
Next few images, R5, RF 70-200 F/2.8L IS, F/2.8, ISO 1000, 1/800th.
EOS R5, EF-RF adapter, EF 16-35mm F/4L IS, ISO 400, 1/3 sec, F/4.
Next few images, R5, RF 70-200 F/2.8L IS, F/2.8, ISO 1000, 1/800th.
I've been impressed with the low light to the point I was pushing it as much as I could to see what I could get away with.. so lesson learned.. at 12800 ISO there isn't a lot of dynamic range in low light to bring out shadows ;-) while this shot is not particularly exciting.. didn't think it was possible except with a tripod. This was handheld for a full SECOND..... ISO 160 F 5.6 yes there is some blur, but a fair bit of that is the wind as the cars go by.
Red, white, and blue.
EOS R5 + RF 35mm F/1.8 STM Macro. ISO 1600, F/5, 1/125th.
Gettysburg Battlefield.
EOS R5 + RF 35mm F/1.8 STM Macro, ISO 400, F/1.8, 1/30th.
EOS R5 + RF 35mm F/1.8 STM Macro. ISO 1600, F/5, 1/125th.
Gettysburg Battlefield.
EOS R5 + RF 35mm F/1.8 STM Macro, ISO 400, F/1.8, 1/30th.
Tried out F/11 autofocus with the 2X teleconverter today. Insane reach at effectively 1,280mm when you see the crop mode through the viewfinder. Hard to spot your target at that focal length!
Autofocus worked great, sometimes would lose track and end up searching through quite a long distance, but I normally corrected that with the manual focus ring quickly. Rough ISO outside of daylight, but totally usable with the EOS R5/R6. I think this experience today makes me totally understand the F/11 lenses. Even in the shade, it was totally usable for social media and really made for some impressively long reach. For the vast majority of amateur photographers who just post to social media, I very little reason why they wouldn't be happy with the results of a 800mm f/11.
EOS R5, EF-RF Control Ring Adapter, 2X teleconverter III, 100-400mm F/4-5.6L IS II. ISO 5000, F/11, 1/200th. 17 megapixel 1.6X crop mode, effectively 1280mm F/11. Somehow, even at 1280mm, bit of a crop in post as well.
Autofocus worked great, sometimes would lose track and end up searching through quite a long distance, but I normally corrected that with the manual focus ring quickly. Rough ISO outside of daylight, but totally usable with the EOS R5/R6. I think this experience today makes me totally understand the F/11 lenses. Even in the shade, it was totally usable for social media and really made for some impressively long reach. For the vast majority of amateur photographers who just post to social media, I very little reason why they wouldn't be happy with the results of a 800mm f/11.
EOS R5, EF-RF Control Ring Adapter, 2X teleconverter III, 100-400mm F/4-5.6L IS II. ISO 5000, F/11, 1/200th. 17 megapixel 1.6X crop mode, effectively 1280mm F/11. Somehow, even at 1280mm, bit of a crop in post as well.
pushing limits with night time planes.. I may have to get a better noise processing software
Vancouver.. 3rd one this month, very unusual. Chartered by govt for personal protective equipment shipments.. been very lucky lately with unusual planes here.. sorry a couple more, but these are prior to getting my R5 EF adapter.. so with my 80d.
Last edited:
The high wing with the engines underneath is very distinctive and I don't know (though I'm no aficionado) of anyone other than Antonov who does that for civilian airliner-sized planes.
Well when you consider the fact they were designed as military transport planes then look to the worlds military transport options to see many other similar designs. The Lockheed C5 Galaxy springs to mind, but the C17, Airbus A400 etc etc all have the same layout. The difference is ex military planes in the West don’t tend to be civilianized the civilian need is satisfied by converting end of passenger life commercial aircraft to civilian transport duties.
