New Canon 600mm f/4 Design Uses Spotting Scope Trick

[AlanF]

I think this guy knows his stuff, so lets treat each other with a bit more respect here.

Search, and you shall receive! There are lots of photos on DPR in Birdshooter's posts - https://www.dpreview.com/search/forums?query=birdshooter

I haven't treated him in any way with any disrespect - I just asked him to post here as it would be nice. Perhaps, you should treat people with respect by not making supercilious comments like that.

 

[LogicExtremist]

Sorry, but it’s hard not to talk to you like you don’t know what you’re doing, when your own statements show that you don’t know what you’re doing.

Maybe try a Scott Kelby of Michael Freeman book. I hear there’s this thing called YouTube that has a tutorial or two on exposure basics.

Or shoot in P mode and let your camera handle the exposure calculations, since you seem to have trouble with them.

Two stops down from f/4 is f/8.

Cmon Neuro, you know that one gotcha moment on a calculation doesn't negate the guy's whole knowledge and experience...

To keep this educational for readers, the f/stops represent a doubling of light at each step, and run in the order of f/1.4, f/2.0, f/2.8, f/4.0, f/5.6, f/8.0, f/11, f/16
Each step increases x1.4
Teleconverters increase effective focal length, but sacrifice light, as there's no such thing as a free lunch. They also add additional lens elements in the light path, which can soften the image.
A 2x teleconverter drops the light down by 2 stops, so you count two up the scale as Neuro mentioned in his correction. A 1.4x teleconverter drops the light down by 1 stop.

 

[LogicExtremist]

I haven't treated him in any way with any disrespect - I just asked him to post here as it would be nice. Perhaps, you should treat people with respect by not making supercilious comments like that.

With respect Alan, it honestly did look like a challenge of Birdshooter's credentials. His images are out there for the public to view so I posted a link on DPR to be helpful, and prevent a potential ego war from brewing.

I wouldn't have said anything, but your comment didn't come across right, which is out of character as you're one of the most helpful and respected members on this forum that sets the standard here. The way I see it, we have two people who know their bird photography stuff here. If they bicker, they just reinforce stereotypes about older guys on forums, if they compare experience in a civil manner, us newbies to bird photography have a lot to learn from such an opportunity.

If there are different approaches to bird photography, and there's a sound rationale for them, we learners are all ears!

 

[AlanF]

With respect Alan, it honestly did look like a challenge of Birdshooter's credentials. His images are out there for the public to view so I posted a link on DPR to be helpful, and prevent a potential ego war from brewing.

I wouldn't have said anything, but your comment didn't come across right, which is out of character as you're one of the most helpful and respected members on this forum that sets the standard here. The way I see it, we have two people who know their bird photography stuff here. If they bicker, they just reinforce stereotypes about older guys on forums, if they compare experience in a civil manner, us newbies to bird photography have a lot to learn from such an opportunity.

If there are differences in the way bird photography can be done, and there's a sound rationale, we learners are all ears!

You jumped to an unjustified conclusion and are now doubling down. You are now making it worse and turning it into something confrontational: ego wars, come off it.

 

[LogicExtremist]

You jumped to an unjustified conclusion and are now doubling down. You are now making it worse and turning it into something confrontational: ego wars, come off it.

I just reported what I perceived, and offered an explanation after that, in order to clear up any misunderstanding.
No problem, continue as you were if I made a false assumption about potential conflict brewing. I may be mistaken, but it didn't look like your conversation got off on a good start. Hoping I'm wrong, as I'm looking forward to the constructive discussion between you guys who have plenty of experience in the same photography genre. Peace

 

[neuroanatomist]

With respect Alan, it honestly did look like a challenge of Birdshooter's credentials.

I didn’t see anything condescending about Alan’s earlier reply, although it seems @Birdshooter took it that way.

My reply, OTOH, was intentionally condescending. I make no apologies for that. When someone says ‘I have 15 years experience as a photographer, don’t treat me like an idiot’, then goes out of his way to ‘correct’ an accurate statement by posting something that is factually incorrect involving a very basic principle of photography, I feel some condescension is warranted.

 

[AlanF]

Cmon Neuro, you know that one gotcha moment on a calculation doesn't negate the guy's whole knowledge and experience...

To keep this educational for readers, the f/stops represent a doubling of light at each step, and run in the order of f/1.4, f/2.0, f/2.8, f/4.0, f/5.6, f/8.0, f/11, f/16
Each step increases x1.4
Teleconverters increase effective focal length, but sacrifice light, as there's no such thing as a free lunch. They also add additional lens elements in the light path, which can soften the image.
A 2x teleconverter drops the light down by 2 stops, so you count two up the scale as Neuro mentioned in his correction. A 1.4x teleconverter drops the light down by 1 stop.

Teleconverters don't sacrifice light - they let in the same amount of light, but spread it over a larger area. This is not splitting hairs but goes down a fundamental principle of S/N in images: double the focal length of a lens with a teleconverter and you still have the same number of photons hitting a duck even though you have doubled the f-number and possibly cranked up the iso 4x - it's the statistical fluctuation in number of photons that determines the light noise, not the iso number. It's important to understand this fact. For example, the 800mm f/11 gets attacked because f/11 needs higher isos. But, it has the same entrance pupil as a 400mm f/5.6 and so gives the same S/N under limiting light in the cropped image of a duck at 4x the iso of the 400/5.6.

 

[AlanF]

I didn’t see anything condescending about Alan’s earlier reply, although it seems @Birdshooter took it that way.

It's the usual jumping to conclusions without actually reading though a post (or in other cases understanding it). I had clearly written that I was in the lower league of bird photographers and admired the guys (and gal) who handled 600/4s, but birdshooter had missed that and mistook the "CR Pro" under the avatar, which just means you have paid not to view ads, as being I was a Pro, which I am not.

 

[robinlee]

Hmmm, the good old Canon marketing Kool-Aid about how photographers can lower their standards (shoot higher ISO, pay the same money for darker lenses) without any loss in performance because of "ISO performance". Why do people believe this marketing garbage???

It looks like many people aren't aware that as ISO increases on a digital sensor, the noise floor increases, and the dynamic range decreases.

I thought that the internet holy wars were fought over dynamic range in photography forums long ago, and everyone was incessantly ranting about how important an EV or two of difference was. Does it not matter any more now?

The new sensors may have less noise, but cranking up the ISO on an expensive Canon R5 is a good way to reduce its much lauded dynamic range down to the level of an entry level Canon RP.

The simple fact is that there is no substitute for more light, but we compromise for lens weight and price.

From https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

View attachment 202994

Lmao...

 

[entoman]

I think that the OM-1 with a 100-400 zoom will also be a contender. The combination will have an effective reach of up to 800mm.

Particularly for beginners this should be an excellent starting point for bird photography. It will not be bad for people with experience. However, it might not be that attractive if you have lots of long EF or RF glass.

In theory I'd agree with you. I don't want to start yet another M43 vs FF debate, but what I'll mention is this:

M43 only goes to 20MP (OM) or 25MP (Panny). If a photographer is extremely competent at locating, framing and following a bird in flight with marksman-like skill, these lower resolutions are fine.

But birds can move very fast, and their flight direction and speed is often quite unpredictable (even for experienced birders), so it can be very difficult (especially for a beginner) to keep the bird in the frame. This means that most people will probably prefer to leave a safety margin of space around the bird at the time of shooting, and then compose and crop in post. Which demands more MP, and that in turn means going for a FF sensor.

(for context, I've been photographing BIF for about 2 years, with a high degree of success, but I'm a general naturalist not a bird specialist)

 

[Otara]

Hmmm, the good old Canon marketing Kool-Aid about how photographers can lower their standards (shoot higher ISO, pay the same money for darker lenses) without any loss in performance because of "ISO performance". Why do people believe this marketing garbage???

It looks like many people aren't aware that as ISO increases on a digital sensor, the noise floor increases, and the dynamic range decreases.

You are making the assumption that most peoples concern in this area is primarily with maximising DR.

It isnt really - its avoiding noise that is visibly apparent in the final picture, which with modern NR and sensors is easily removed, while still retaining good levels of apparent detail.

If all was equal I doubt many would miss out on an F4, but when you can get a 6.3 for a 1/3 of the price, theres a reason this has only been released by Nikon, and it certainly wont be because Canon thinks the performance loss is too great. Its far more likely that it would be too close from the markets perspective.

 

[tarjei99]

In theory I'd agree with you. I don't want to start yet another M43 vs FF debate, but what I'll mention is this:

M43 only goes to 20MP (OM) or 25MP (Panny). If a photographer is extremely competent at locating, framing and following a bird in flight with marksman-like skill, these lower resolutions are fine.

But birds can move very fast, and their flight direction and speed is often quite unpredictable (even for experienced birders), so it can be very difficult (especially for a beginner) to keep the bird in the frame. This means that most people will probably prefer to leave a safety margin of space around the bird at the time of shooting, and then compose and crop in post. Which demands more MP, and that in turn means going for a FF sensor.

(for context, I've been photographing BIF for about 2 years, with a high degree of success, but I'm a general naturalist not a bird specialist)

Most photographers seems to exaggerate the difference in resolution between something like a R5 and a R6. But if you plot the resolution as rectangles with a common center, you should realize that the difference is not as great as imagined. Most probably think of the difference as if the R5 has a 80Mpx sensor. 80Mpx means 50% increase in pixels on all sides compared to the R6. For the R5 it is around 25%. It is a difference, but not a dramatic one.

The Olympus Capture Pro mode may be devastatingly effective in getting difficult shots which depends on reaction time, since it captures both before and after the shutter is fully pressed. As I understand, it has very good slow motion video.

There is a number of professional photographers which uses Micro Four Thirds cameras. They appears to not complain much about the quality of their images.

I am fully invested in Canon EF glass. If that changes, my interest in something like the OM-1 will rise dramatically.

 

[entoman]

Most photographers seems to exaggerate the difference in resolution between something like a R5 and a R6. But if you plot the resolution as rectangles with a common center, you should realize that the difference is not as great as imagined. Most probably think of the difference as if the R5 has a 80Mpx sensor. 80Mpx means 50% increase in pixels on all sides compared to the R6. For the R5 it is around 25%. It is a difference, but not a dramatic one.

The Olympus Capture Pro mode may be devastatingly effective in getting difficult shots which depends on reaction time, since it captures both before and after the shutter is fully pressed. As I understand, it has very good slow motion video.

Yes, some people mistakenly believe that they're doubling the linear width when going from 20MP to 40MP, when it is only increasing 50%. But 50% is still a lot.

I have a 30MP 5dMkiv as well as a 45MP R5, and the difference in pixel width is even less, but as far as I'm concerned, the more pixels the better (provided it doesn't impact on fps or IQ).

For landscapes, portraits and many other types of photography, where it's much easier to frame the subject tightly, 20MP is fine, and I agree about the value of Pro capture. But for wildlife, especially BIF, it can be very difficult to keep a fast-moving subject tightly framed, so it's extremely useful to be able to leave space around the subject at the time of shooting, and crop in post.

I've used M43, APS and FF. I've owned cameras ranging from 8MP to 50MP. While there are certainly advantages to M43 in some circumstances, for wildlife including insects and BIF, I'll take a hi-res FF every time. If others find M43 or APS suits them better, or are happy with lower MP that's absolutely fine, I wouldn't try to steer people away from gear they are happy with.

 

[entoman]

There is a number of professional photographers which uses Micro Four Thirds cameras. They appears to not complain much about the quality of their images.

Yes, there are a small number of professionals using M43 for wildlife and BIF.

But note 2 things -

Firstly, they are in your own words "professionals", which means that they will have acquired considerably more skills and "marksmanship" in locating and following a rapidly and erratically moving subject, and keeping that rapidly and erratically moving subject nicely positioned in the frame for a good composition, compared to the average CR reader. So they can "get away" with lower resolutions, whereas many amateurs prefer the safety margin of hi-res, and crop more heavily in post.

Secondly, you have to consider the end usage of their photographs. Most of their images will end up as smallish reproductions in books, magazines or on the internet, and for such purposes even 10MP is more than adequate. I've had many images reproduced in books and 10MP is more than enough for full page A4. So 20MP is fine. Also consider that most of a pro's clients will not be photographers, and will in most cases not even notice differences in image quality. This is all very different from the world that many here live in - where people pride themselves on getting the sharpest image possible, with minimal noise. Serious hobbyists tend to be much more demanding than the non-photographer clients of most professionals.

 

[melgross]

... top manufacturers who dominate the market have sold what they wanted and not the customers! And, the link goes to an interesting article about marketing and product development.

Nonsense! If you don’t oroduce what your customers want, then you aren’t successful. Look at Pentax, or Olympus, or even Nikon, which has been slipping significantly over the years, even before mirrorless.

 

[neonlight]

Count me among those who are pretty bitter about the slap in the face on the RF superteles. Overpriced. Out of touch. And lacking effort. At this point, seeing that new 800PF MTF chart and pricing, the Z9 and pricing, I’m shifting some budget this year to the Z mount for wildlife. I’m not really sure what Canon is thinking at this point, honestly. The pricing is out of control and it always feels like Canon is holding a little something back so they can sucker you later, giving us just enough to keep us spending. Love the R5. Love the 100-500. Will remain here and invested in the RF system, but Canon spending is officially on hold and going to Nikon for now.

Seems I am not the only one rather disappointed with the new lens announcements.
From the published MTF curves it appeared that the EF600 III was not quite as good as the mk II and the RF seems to be the EFIII with a bit cut off the back end and the RF mount stuck on. And maybe a small mod in the lens arrangements.
I was hoping for an intermediate priced 600 not the f/11, and as for the new RF600, 800 1200 they're well out of my price range. The 600 is now £12k or more in the UK.
Something like a 600f/6.3 costing less than £5k would have been nice.
Maybe I'll have to aim for the 100-500 when updating my 100-400II, though an RF body focussing fast with the 1.4x might work.
On the other hand it seems Nikon have sensed a gap in Canon's marketing strategy. Too much Canon stuff for me to change at the moment though.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Maybe I'll have to aim for the 100-500 when updating my 100-400II, though an RF body focussing fast with the 1.4x might work.
On the other hand it seems Nikon have sensed a gap in Canon's marketing strategy. Too much Canon stuff for me to change at the moment though.

The 100-500 performs very well with the TCs.

 

[AlanF]

Nonsense! If you don’t oroduce what your customers want, then you aren’t successful. Look at Pentax, or Olympus, or even Nikon, which has been slipping significantly over the years, even before mirrorless.

The gist of the link, if you didn't read it, is that that a very successful manufacturer can sell a product that is not fully what the customer wants.

 

[Jack Douglas]

The gist of the link, if you didn't read it, is that that a very successful manufacturer can sell a product that is not fully what the customer wants.

Hmm, so that's what happened to me... more than once! Sure wish I knew how to avoid it.

Jack

 

[melgross]

The gist of the link, if you didn't read it, is that that a very successful manufacturer can sell a product that is not fully what the customer wants.

I’m going by what was said in the post.