R5 @ 500 mm versus 1DXIII @ 700 mm

[Jonathan Huyer]

Here's the 1DXIII image after running it through Sharpen AI. I used the "Too soft - normal" setting with auto parameters after that. Definitely it fixes the issue fully, and doesn't make it look artificially sharpened either. I didn't apply a mask --- the sharpening on the tree ended up being very minor anyway.



And here's a close-in crop of the same shot:

[Jonathan Huyer]

I agree completely with your comments about DOF and the eye.

For what is worth I would have done the same thing you did. Pixel peeped and tried to see if I could have cropped.

But I have to say I prefer the 1Dx III for the uncropped photos, and I preferer the uncropped over the cropped. The tree appears to be in sharper focus in the 1Dx III. The eye isn't that much of a factor other than for pixel peeping. The bokeh is much better and gives good separation. The owl is bushed out and puffed up. The small tree on the right is in focus and gives it some character. The f/4 500mm and 1.4x uncropped for the win IMO.

That's great feedback -- thanks!

[HDNitehawk]

The sharpening did help.

I am editing the wedding photos from the other night, the wife walked up behind me and said wow that's great when did you take that? It kind of confused me because she was at the wedding, but quickly I figured out she was referring to your last uncropped owl which I had pulled up from smug mug on my second monitor. No compliment for me, but ......she really liked your owl.

[Jonathan Huyer]

The sharpening did help.

I am editing the wedding photos from the other night, the wife walked up behind me and said wow that's great when did you take that? It kind of confused me because she was at the wedding, but quickly I figured out she was referring to your last uncropped owl which I had pulled up from smug mug on my second monitor. No compliment for me, but ......she really liked your owl.

Ha ha that's awesome . I will pass the news along to the owl next time I see it!

[Fast Glass]

So I'm seeing a couple things, there seems to be a noticeable difference in sharpening between the two. Maybe it is just because of the ISO, but it looks like it is sharpened more. I would process both identically and with pretty mild sharpening as to not exaggerate the noise. It should be easier to see if it is miss focused a touch, but it seems like it is.

I still prefer the 700mm shot more as HD has said, the resolution looks more organic to me even if not as sharp. And there is more background blur and I like the framing better. It's quite a nice shot.

Lol, I made that comment last night and didn't send it till now. I just saw what you did with the 700mm shot and it did a fabulous job! Very impressive.

[Jonathan Huyer]

Lol, I made that comment last night and didn't send it till now. I just saw what you did with the 700mm shot and it did a fabulous job! Very impressive.

Thanks! I appreciate the feedback. Yes there's a lot to be said for a wide aperture and nice background blur. As I looked through my images, I could see that within a single burst from my 1DXIII, there would be a few shots that are soft and then a few more that are tack sharp. I was trying to hold the focus point on the owl's eye, but there was probably a bit of movement during the burst. Whereas with the R5 and 100-500, every single image in a burst was sharp. That's probably due to the wider depth of field, plus the auto tracking AF holding on the eye.