Category Archives: equipment

This Stabilization is Amazing

Another episode in the testing of the RF 200-800 for today’s post. This is more focused on the image stabilization in the lens. When shooting stills, I have commented on the slightly odd jerking effects visible in the viewfinder. I think this is most apparent when panning very slowly and I think the camera is trying to work out if you mean to stay still or not. However, one area which is really effective at showing the capabilities of the stabilization is video.

I have some footage below that is taken with the lens at 800mm and hand held. No tripod or monopod here. The rabbit was at the other end of our back yard while the bees were on the lavender plants in our beds. You can see that the image is remarkably stable. It is amazing to see it lock on so well. I have also shot some video of an F-35B in the hover, also at 800mm. It was interesting to see a lot of movement in the viewfinder for a moment and then it seemed to lock in on what it was doing and then things get really solid. This tech is most impressive.

The Hummers Are a Quick Test for the New Lens

Leave a reply

One of the things that I knew would be a limitation of the RF 200-800 was the aperture which is a lot smaller than for really expensive lenses (yes, it is also expensive but not in the tens of thousands type of expensive). In low light, this is going to be an issue and it would be interesting to see how things worked out. When I got home with it, I was sitting on the deck when some hummingbirds started feeding on the flowers in one of our beds. This area is in shade a lot of the time so light was limited. I was rather pleased with the effectiveness of the focus, the sharpness at full zoom and the relatively limited noise related issues from the R3. This is a combination that looks like it could be quite useful for a wide variety of occasions. Not the solution for everything but definitely versatile.

Initial Impressions of the RF 200-800

Leave a reply

When Canon announced the RF 200-800 lens, I was mildly interested but not too bothered by it. However, in an example of how easily a weak mind can be influenced, when I watched some reviews by those that had used the lens, I started to be more curious. The focal length range was always of interest, but the aperture range had initially put me off. The reviewers suggested that the excellent ISO performance of modern mirrorless cameras meant this wasn’t an issue. Also, while not in anyway cheap, the lens was very well priced for the range it offered.

I went to my local shop and placed a deposit for one of the lenses. This was many months ago. After that, things got very quiet. I was beginning to think that I would never see an actual lens. Then I saw something on a Canon rumor site that said August was likely to be a time when a lot of lenses got delivered. Whatever the blockage had been, there seemed to be some relief. The last Tuesday of July (stuff seems to get delivered to stores on Tuesday I guess), I get a phone call telling me that my lens has arrived. Hurrah!

After work, I headed down to pick it up. I then headed down to the water in Kenmore – a short distance from the store – to give it a quick go. I didn’t have a lot of time, but I got a quick feel for some of its quirks. Initially I was a little unsettled. The stabilization seemed very effective, but it did make tracking things that were moving slowly a bit jerky as if the stabilization didn’t believe that I actually wanted to be moving. I worried that this would be an issue. However, the images seemed to be rather sharp so maybe it knew what it was doing.

When I got home, I did spend a little time looking at the hummingbirds on the bushes. The light was very low, which should be a problem for a lens with smaller apertures, but it seemed to work very well and the images were surprisingly sharp and clean. I then took it to its first airshow. Again, results were really very pleasing. The 800mm reach was so helpful since the show line was quite distant and I was veery happy with the framing I could get. The jumpiness in the viewfinder is still something I find rather distracting but it doesn’t seem to be an issue for the images, so I guess the stabilization knows what it is doing. I also shot some video at 800mm handheld and, while there was initial wobbling, there comes a moment when it seems to get what is going on and then it is rock steady. Quite bizarre. I think this lens could be a key part of my shooting going forward. We shall see as my experience grows with it.

What is Wrong with My Phone’s Longest Lens?

Leave a reply

The quality of modern phone cameras is really impressive. I will often have the main camera with a longer lens and use the phone for the wider shots. Other times, it will be the only camera I have. Quite often I will shoot multiple images with the longest of the three lenses and then stitch them together when I get home. This can be quite effective. However, in playing with some images recently, I was getting very odd results from the shots. I shoot RAW on the phone, but I understand it isn’t a true RAW file but one that Apple’s software pre-processes to some extent. This seems to be resulting in some strange image qualities.

The shots will have the resolution that they are supposed to, and the file size is certainly large enough to suggest that is what is happening. However, the shots look ridiculously smudgy. Here are a couple of examples that show the problem. The Allegiant jet I shot at Mesa Gateway is a particularly bad example. It isn’t even the one shot. All three of them are rough. I have had some shots with really great quality from this lens on the phone so I have no idea why this should be bad. The odd thing is that, if I look into the file properties and compare with other shots with this lens, it shows a different focal length. If anyone has any experience or background on this, please let me know.

iPhone RAW Image Exposures

Leave a reply

When RAW capture first became available on my phone, I started to use it. Initially, I had to use a third party camera app which was fine but it did have some quirks about it and some things that just didn’t work right, despite some extensive communication with the developer. Then the camera app of the phone got updated to allow RAW capture and I have been using that ever since. There is something very strange about it, though. When I import the images in to Lightroom, they are always about one stop overexposed. I am curious whether this is a function of the raw format for Apple in order to preserve details in the shadows or whether it is a weirdness with my phone. Included are two images – one with the base settings after import and one edited. This is representative of what I get. It doesn’t hurt the end result but it is rather strange. Anyone have similar results?

Time Lapse Experiments With Ice

Leave a reply

I used to play with time lapses a fair bit. I would shoot a series of images and use LRTimelapse to process them. However, that software had a license agreement that meant, when they upgraded the software, they required you to update your license and the old version was deactivated. This was very annoying. I figured I would be able to keep using the old version but apparently not. I don’t do it that much to justify the cost and was disinclined to use that software after this experience.

My latest cameras have a time lapse function built into them which I had been meaning to try out. I had done this on my little M6 but not with the latest bodies. What to use them on, though. I figured an experiment doesn’t require me to be original in the subject. Just try it out and see how it works. Consequently, I thought melting ice would be good enough. My first effort was not successful. I hadn’t given it enough time to record the melting fully. Second was better but, while the timing was okay, I had focused on the ice cube when it started melting and it slid across the plate as it melted and out of frame. The mode on the camera sets focus and exposure on the first shot so this meant everything was well out of focus.

This is why you experiment with things. The last try worked pretty much as intended. (I should note that I did all of these in the evening, so the lighting didn’t change during the shoot.) I had a long enough time for the ice cube to almost fully melt, it didn’t move, and the lighting was fine. Watching the ice disappear and the cube gradually sink into the water that is progressively growing was rather fun. This isn’t some epic revelation of the nature of melting ice, but it did teach me about some functionality of the camera.

Filming Crews and Their Serious Gear

Leave a reply

We came upon a few filming crews while we were in the Maasai Mara. There were professional photographers but more of the video teams. National Geographic had a crew out working and there were others filming too. You would sometimes find vehicles that were scouting crews for the filming. The thing I found funny was that they often had signs saying that they were filming crews and not to follow them. I might never have paid attention to them until I knew that they were filming crews and might well have good intel about where animals were!

Modified vehicles which allow the camera operator to sit outside the vehicle and shoot looked like just the sort of thing I would like to have. They weren’t always in use, though. I did see one operator sitting inside the vehicle with his feet up while checking stuff on his phone. Looking at the very pricey lenses attached to the camera rigs was almost as fun as looking at the animals. Nat Geo also had a vehicle with a gimbal mount out on the front of the vehicle. It would have been fun to see that in use!

One thing that occurred to me as I watched these teams at work was the volume of material that they would collect that would be culled down to make a TV show. Sure, this would be a vast amount of data to store and sort but how different this must be from the days of wet film. Those crews shooting things like the early Big Cat Diaries must have been carrying a ton of stock and then had to manage all of it through processing and cataloging. That must have been a very time consuming and expensive proposition.

Playing With the Insta360

Leave a reply

I did a little filming on a bike ride with an old GoPro Hero 5 of mine. The current generation of action cameras has all sorts of clever tech built in which can deal with rotation of the camera and stabilizing the image. The Hero 5 doesn’t have any of that and I ended up spending a lot of time stabilizing the images in post processing to try and get something usable out of it. I was surprised how badly it came out and started thinking about an upgrade to incorporate all of the newer capabilities. It was at this point that I got a little silly. I had seen videos before about the Insta360 cameras and had found them intriguing but not so much that I wanted to get one. Now I was looking for a new camera, the capabilities that they have seemed like it could be a good step forward.

For those that haven’t seen one, the Insta360 in its current X3 form has two cameras on opposite sides of the body with fisheye lenses with over 180 degrees of coverage. The sensors are 5.7K resolution and the camera can stitch the two outputs together to give spherical coverage. It also has a stick on which you can mount it which the camera will recognize the location of and take both images to effectively remove the stick from the video. With the high resolution of the original files, you can then use their software – either on your phone or using the desktop app – to pan and zoom around the original files and generate video output of whatever you want.

What this means is that you don’t have to frame a shot when you are shooting. The only thing you have to do is have the camera in the right place. You can worry about where it is pointing later on which is great when you are already doing something else. The removal of the stick is very impressive, only slightly undermined but the fact your hand that is holding it now looks a little odd. Also, if the shadow of the stick is in shot, the software doesn’t know to do anything about that! (As an aside, there is a mode where you only shoot with one side like a normal action camera if you want.)

What is the downside to all of this? Big files! You are shooting a lot of data on two cameras simultaneously so you can fill up cards fast. You do also have to then review each clip and pick your angles for the shots, but you would have had to do that beforehand otherwise so no great loss. Other than that, not a lot to complain about. I have tried it on a few occasions so far. The length of the stick makes it seem like you have a drone flying above you if you put it up there. A cool result. I took it out on a bike ride to see how things came out and I have a short video below that shows you the result. No great cinematography here but an introduction to what can be done. Remember that each shot is only moving the camera around and the panning and zooming is all done back at home. Amazing tech!

Lightroom Noise Reduction Update Testing

Leave a reply

One of the software tools that I find a lot of people talking about these days is DeNoise from Topaz. I have never been terribly bothered by noise in my images. Modern cameras do a pretty remarkable job of handling noise and, for most usage purposes, the noise is not really an issue if it is there. I have posted my efforts with PureRAW in its various forms where I have tried it out to see how the noise reduction comes out and, while I have seen strengths and weaknesses in it, I have never seen it as something I needed to spend on.

Lightroom Classic had one of its periodic updates recently. The big new feature was their own denoise functionality. Much like my experimentation with PureRAW, it analyzes the shot and creates a new DNG file with the noise suppressed. I was curious to see how it would perform and, seeing as it is included in the price of my subscription, I have it anyway. I decided to take some shots I had recently used for the PureRAW3 trial I had done and compare with the Lightroom version.

It defaulted to a 50 level of noise reduction. I don’t know whether this is a percentage and what of but it is a scale so I played with it. I did some at 50 and some at 75 to see whether more aggressive noise reduction had detrimental effects on other parts of the image. Comparing these things and then sharing the results is a touch tricky so I have created a single image from four layers. They are the original Lightroom develop settings, the PureRAW3 version, the 75 denoise settings and the 50 denoise settings. I mask them to make the image into four sections. Then, to make it useful on here, I have zoomed in to show the borders between them to provide some sort of comparison.

The PureRAW3 result is very aggressive on noise reduction. However, I find it can make some odd artifacts in the images where details were not that clear to begin with. The 75 setting in Lightroom provided a very similar level of noise reduction to PureRAW3. It is slightly noisier but barely enough to matter. A setting of 50 does show more noise. It is still a significant improvement over the basic Camera Raw settings and very usable.

What do I conclude from all of this? First, as I have said before when testing the PureRAW trials, it provides some interesting results but it is not relevant to enough of my work to matter to me sufficient for me to spend a bunch of money on buying it. Having denoise in Lightroom now provides me with a very similar option but within the existing price I am paying for Lightroom. Therefore, I will make use of it when the situation dictates. It would be a regular part of my workflow because really high ISO shots are only an occasional thing for me but having it there when I want it will be handy.

Experimenting with PureRAW3

Leave a reply

This blog includes a very infrequent series of posts reviewing the processing powers of PureRAW. The third version of this raw image processor has just been released and I downloaded the trial to see how it performs. I was impressed by what the previous version did to clean up some high ISO shots but the need was limited and the price was high enough that I didn’t see the point in signing up for it. I was curious as to whether the third version would change my mind.

When I download one of these trials, I always try to avoid installing it until I have time to play with it. The trial last 30 days so I want to make sure I make good use of the time. Once I got around to installing it, I put it to work. I was disappointed to find the trial was limited to 20 images at a time which is a little restrictive but, for the purposes of evaluating it, I could work around this. I had two things I wanted to do. First, I wanted to convert some shots that I had previously tried for PureRAW2 to see how different they were. Second, I had some recent night shots which I also wanted to try.

So, how did it perform? Results were mixed. I found the conversion process was quick sometimes and would slow down or stop on others. This was annoying but I suspect is something that they will fix before too long so I wasn’t that worried. What I was surprised about was that, when starting the process in Lightroom, the new DNGs will be reimported into Lightroom. However, this was unbelievably slow. I would set it off, the conversion would finish and then, a long time later, they would suddenly get added. Again, something that is probably going to get fixed but bloody annoying in the mean time.

As for the output, I was quite amazed by the results. I will show here some of the Lightroom edits along with PureRAW2 and PureRAW3 versions of the files. As you can see, the latest version really does clean up images a lot. However, I don’t think it is all good. Some of the shots feel like they have been over sharpened and look too crunchy. Also, the algorithm seems to get imaginative when it comes to lettering on airframes. Some of the results have created shapes that just are not there in the original shot. For some shots, this might not be an issue but, when something is supposed to be recognizable, the odd artifacts show up conspicuously. If the shot had been soft and noisy, you wouldn’t have worried but, because it is supposed to be clear and sharp, the weird results stand out.

Is it worth it? Not for me. I used it on some more normal exposures and couldn’t really see much benefit. Certainly not enough to make the effort worth it. For high noise, it does provide some nice results and some odd side effects but, I don’t shoot enough of them to make that really worthwhile. For now, it shall sit in the interesting but not interesting enough category. Maybe we shall have the fourth installment of this series when PureRAW4 comes out!