I May Jump Ship

[BackdoorArts]

Yeah, there are a lot of things I'm hearing about Nikon that lead me to believe that they are in a really bad place. My brother's worried for their future while rooting for their success, because healthy competition motivates companies to innovate.

I need to amend my statements about the raw files. Adobe does not have any R5-specific camera profiles in Camera Raw, they only added the R5 as an option to the "Adobe" listed profiles. This makes more sense, and I'm hopeful that at some point they will add camera-specific profiles for the R5. This is the difference between a camera standard JPEG (right) and Adobe's Standard raw profile (left)...

I got closer choosing "Landscape" but it's still not there. And yes, we bucket feed our deer. This Mama has twins that are bedded down just over the rock wall. She's learned my wife's morning routine in the garden and filling feeders and will come out and wait for her to spread some on the ground. Yesterday she felt it watching her so she just put the seed bucket down and it gobbled up the millet (which is good because most birds want the sunflower). Today I'm in the office and I see it walking out of the brush and know that my wife's in the shed. Sure enough, she comes out with the bucket, puts it down at her feet and the Mama comes to her. I rushed to get outside as quickly as possible to capture it but my wife had walked away by then. I like knowing that they know we're not a threat to them so the babies come around...

 

[hark]

I echo Dangerspouse's comment - you always do a great job explaining your assessments.

I'm not surprised seeing the difference between the Camera Standard and Adobe Standard renderings. Even with the Nikon profiles, the Camera RAW profiles are quite different especially in the greens. Sometimes I choose one of the Landscape options because it seems to slightly lighten the shadowed areas and blacks - but I only choose one if the greens aren't WAY off which they sometimes are.

Amazing crop of the female bluebird with a treat! Lots of detail. :encouragement:

So I have a question for you. The one bluebird shot (which you also cropped) was taken at ISO 3200. How do you feel the sensor handles high ISO noise and details compared with Nikon's sensors?

 

[BackdoorArts]

So I have a question for you. The one bluebird shot (which you also cropped) was taken at ISO 3200. How do you feel the sensor handles high ISO noise and details compared with Nikon's sensors?

Here's two completely unprocessed ISO 3200 images side by side from Lightroom - similar subjects, similar conditions, 20MP D500 on the right, 45MP R5 on the left. I'd say the difference is negligible. It looks like there are more details in the bird from the D500, but that's because there's more pixels on the bird. When I look at the noise off the subject they're pretty darn similar. Only real difference is that Topaz Denoise AI takes a looooooong time on a 45MP image. LOL

 

[Danno]

Congrats on your new equipment. Sounds like a good move for you. Hope you enjoy it for many years to come.

 

[hark]

Here's two completely unprocessed ISO 3200 images side by side from Lightroom - similar subjects, similar conditions, 20MP D500 on the right, 45MP R5 on the left. I'd say the difference is negligible. It looks like there are more details in the bird from the D500, but that's because there's more pixels on the bird. When I look at the noise off the subject they're pretty darn similar. Only real difference is that Topaz Denoise AI takes a looooooong time on a 45MP image. LOL

Ahh...since I'm not familiar with any mirrorless specs, I didn't realize the R5 has 45MP. That will be beneficial for cropping. Thanks for your thoughts on the sensor comparisons.

 

[BackdoorArts]

Congrats on your new equipment. Sounds like a good move for you. Hope you enjoy it for many years to come.

Not mine yet, just a loaner. Now I need to find one that I don't have to pay sales tax on. Normal place is out of stock, but I can wait a bit.

 

[BackdoorArts]

Someone on another forum asked me if I was concerned about losing the wonderful backgrounds I get with the 500mm PF. I got this yesterday, unintentionally, testing the focus on the dragon/damsel fly...

And once again, I'm impressed with the overall sharpness of the zoom...

And I know it's a Nikon forum, and I'm not trying to pull anyone away. Just know that in mid-May I'd reaffirmed my belief that there was no reason to switch. Right itch, right time, right scratcher.

 

[hark]

Someone on another forum asked me if I was concerned about losing the wonderful backgrounds I get with the 500mm PF. I got this yesterday, unintentionally, testing the focus on the dragon/damsel fly...
...
And once again, I'm impressed with the overall sharpness of the zoom...
...
And I know it's a Nikon forum, and I'm not trying to pull anyone away. Just know that in mid-May I'd reaffirmed my belief that there was no reason to switch. Right itch, right time, right scratcher.

My Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 (non-OS) has that onion-skin type of bokeh. It is quite different than what I've experienced with Nikon lenses. How do you feel about it? Is it something you can live with?

As you know, this subforum is for non-Nikon cameras so I hope you will continue to share your images and experiences when you switch.

 

[BackdoorArts]

Following up on my Camera Raw/Lightroom color matching issue. Someone recommended I check out Color Fidelity's R5 raw profiles. They're on Gen 5 and once you buy them ($25) they will continue to take user feedback and send all future updates free. I applied them to some shots I took yesterday and then took those same raw files and created TIFFs from Canons Digital Photo Pro software. They're almost a perfect match. What you don't get is Canon's lens profile corrections, which may or may not matter to you.

Just leaving this for future generations so they don't wonder if I ever got an answer.

 

[Fred Kingston_RIP]

Look at DXO's PureRaw program. They sell it as a pre-process to anything else. It creates a DNG file from your RAW images, applies their (unquestionably, the best) camera lens correction and and various levels of noise reduction and sharpening... it then sends your "prepared" DNG (Raw) file to the editor of your choice, I.E., Lightroom as an Import...

 

[BackdoorArts]

Look at DXO's PureRaw program.

Nope. I'm soooo locked into a simple workflow that I'm not looking to go anywhere else, and particularly no DxOMark for purely personal reasons. But I appreciate the suggestion. As I said, $25 to stay with what I've got is a bargain.

 

[BackdoorArts]

So one of the other lenses I got to play with is an 800mm f11 prime that retails for under $900. None of those numbers make any sense when taken together, I know, and after shooting with the 100-500mm with a 1.4x I don't know why I'd ever want the extra 100mm. But I had to play with it. It's light as a feather and feels like a toy. It has an ingenious mechanism that collapses a part of the barrel (like an old fashion telescope) to make it shorter for transport but must be extended for use - simple unlock the ring, extend, lock. At f11 you're going to want decent light, and because of the minimum aperture it will only focus in the center portion of the censor, but the squirrel shot below locked just fine even if I had to shoot at ISO 12800. I'd imagine this would be perfect for the backyard birder who doesn't want to drop twice what they paid for their camera body on a lens that still doesn't get close enough.

Anyway, I thought you might want to see what it can do. Images are run through Topaz Denoise and Camera Raw only.

 

[BackdoorArts]

Returning the borrow today - my R5 arrives Saturday. Going to likely need to wait a while on the 100-500mm as there are long waits everywhere, but I'm getting a 100-400mm EF mount w/ TC as a loaner from my brother, so we'll get to play.

Had our resident deer family visit this morning. They are adorable (one reason I'm showing them) and were shot at ISO 12800. I couldn't believe it when I saw the number - really impressive how low the noise is considering. Not sure I could crop in a lot for a small bird, but for subjects like this it's impressive.