Canon R7 with Sigma 150-600 C and 2X Extender

[Robert S]

I have been doing some testing with set up. My sums give a ff equivalent of 1920mm. From youtube it seems that the Sigma lens is not designed for use with the R7. A problem arises with 'pulsing'.

Putting a 2X extender on the set up is extreme. At first I set the thing up on a tripod. The results were not good, but there were a few images that were sort of OK. I then tried the set up hand held. Surprisingly the thing worked much better. I had the anti shake thing set up on both the lens and the camera body. The following is an image hand held and cropped to about 25% of the original, distance was about 35m.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Tomorrow I will try again using a monopod.

If anyone has tried this with similar gear, or for that matter other gear, I would be interested to know how things went.

This is the original image prior to cropping:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

Thanks but this looks blurry to me, which is a surprise with a body with a 32.5MP sensor -- perhaps your shutter speed was too low. Remembering this is an APS-C and you had 1,200mm + APSC (1.6) so 1,920mm effective -- even when on a tripod 1/2000th might not be enough -- it depends on how windy it was and other movements.

Please post exif data or at least the shutter speed, aperture and ISO used to take photos like this. Thanks for stating how much of a crop you made to the original image (it looks like you cropped into about 25% but that is a guess but you confirmed it).

I suggest taking a number of shots using a range of shutter speeds -- I start with the quickest I can justify -- so 1/5000th AND at various apertures - wide open, f/4 and f/8 etc... and then work my way down until the image becomes overexposed or very blurry due to motion blur. This way you can see the trade off between motion blur, diffraction and ISO.
I would also shoot with and without the TC at various focal lengths -- to see if the lens is sharper at different focal lengths. When I look at my 100-400, I agree with those who say this lens is softer at 400mm than it is at shorter FL.

 

[Robert S]

Thanks for the reply Andy. I forgot the exif data. It was f13 1/1250 second ISO 800. Tomorrow all being well I will up the ISO and see if it improves things.

 

[Len Shepherd]

even when on a tripod 1/2000th might not be enough -- it depends on how windy it was and other movements.

I am also interested in the results under more ideal testing conditions.

Another possible issue is where did you aim the auto focus point?
I assume Canon like Nikon Mirrorless does not accurately detect lines that are parallel to the long dimension of the frame.

One test method is find a suitable fixed firm static target and zoom in on live-view to focus. This should eliminate possible issues due to any wind and possible reduced AF efficiency at the small effective aperture.

 

[Robert S]

Thanks for the reply Len. Just did some tests inside. The previous images of the power line: the camera decided the thing on the right was a bird's eye and locked onto it.
Anyway indoor test:

This image is on a tripod [ didn't bother using a cable release ]: 1200mm [ plus x1.6 ] f13 3/10 second ISO 800 distance 4.4m




this image is handheld: f13 1/40 second ISO 12800






This image is the handheld one denoised:

 

[Robert S]

I am also interested in the results under more ideal testing conditions.

Another possible issue is where did you aim the auto focus point?
I assume Canon like Nikon Mirrorless does not accurately detect lines that are parallel to the long dimension of the frame.

One test method is find a suitable fixed firm static target and zoom in on live-view to focus. This should eliminate possible issues due to any wind and possible reduced AF efficiency at the small effective aperture.

Thanks for the reply Len. Just did some tests indoors.
Used tripod 1200mm x 1.6 for ff f13 3/10 second ISO 800

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Handheld 1200mm x 1.6 f13 1/40 second ISO 12800

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Distance was 4.4m

 

[Robert S]

I am also interested in the results under more ideal testing conditions.

Another possible issue is where did you aim the auto focus point?
I assume Canon like Nikon Mirrorless does not accurately detect lines that are parallel to the long dimension of the frame.

One test method is find a suitable fixed firm static target and zoom in on live-view to focus. This should eliminate possible issues due to any wind and possible reduced AF efficiency at the small effective aperture.

Seems I stuffed up a post.
Anyway this is the handheld version denoised:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

I'm getting a needle in my eye tomorrow, macular degeneration, so might not be able to do more tests till the weekend.
Reason I'm bothering with this is that I will be visiting Fogg dam soon and it will be dry season so extra length might be useful. https://nt.gov.au/parks/find-a-park/fogg-dam-conservation-area
Also I'm amazed that I can get an image at effectively 1920mm at 1/40 second handheld.

 

[Len Shepherd]

Thanks.

I speculate these are crops of the original.

Ignoring the significant tripod ISO of 800 and hand held 12,800 difference the hand held shot, while not critically sharp, is the sharper image.

At the focal lengths you are using a substantial tripod and good long lens tripod technique should produce a sharper tripod image.

The light level indoors should be much lower than outdoors.

It is possible outdoors making a shutter speed of 1/250 or more possible could produce a distinctly sharper hand held image.

 

[Dionigi Colombo]

A zoom with a Tc20, moreover on an Aps-c, can never have good quality. At a very short distance 4-5m the sharpness remains acceptable but at distances already from 20-30m it decays exponentially

 

[Robert S]

Thanks.

I speculate these are crops of the original.

Ignoring the significant tripod ISO of 800 and hand held 12,800 difference the hand held shot, while not critically sharp, is the sharper image.

At the focal lengths you are using a substantial tripod and good long lens tripod technique should produce a sharper tripod image.

The light level indoors should be much lower than outdoors.

It is possible outdoors making a shutter speed of 1/250 or more possible could produce a distinctly sharper hand held image.

Thanks Len. Only cropped a tiny bit to make them jpegs. I'm not sure what is going on, the tripod image should be better, but as I said in the original post it doesn't happen that way. I'm not claiming my tripod technique is good, but it should be much better than hand held. All a bit mysterious.

 

[Robert S]

A zoom with a Tc20, moreover on an Aps-c, can never have good quality. At a very short distance 4-5m the sharpness remains acceptable but at distances already from 20-30m it decays exponentially

Thanks for the post Dionigi. Never knew about the exponential thing. Not so sure about the 'never have good quality' but I'll take your word for it.

 

[Robert S]

I am also interested in the results under more ideal testing conditions.

Another possible issue is where did you aim the auto focus point?
I assume Canon like Nikon Mirrorless does not accurately detect lines that are parallel to the long dimension of the frame.

One test method is find a suitable fixed firm static target and zoom in on live-view to focus. This should eliminate possible issues due to any wind and possible reduced AF efficiency at the small effective aperture.

Forgot to mention:
The camera thought the black clamp on the lower cable was a bird and the blue box locked on it. Over the weekend I'll hopefully be able to get a similar thing happen with a real bird.

 

[jeffnles1]

Ibrahim,
I have a Sigma 150-600 and have used it with a Sigma 1.4X converter. Albeit this was on a Nikon D500, the similarities are close with both being crop. I was never happy with the performance of the 150-600 and 1.4X TC. Images were acceptable but not as crisp as without the TC. I tried it in numerous situations over the two years I owned the lens.

One thing that is true for any telephoto lens, the farther away your subject is, the more atmospheric distortion is going to creep in. Any pollen, dust, haze or heat shimmer in the air between you and the subject will be magnified. The farther away the subject is, the more junk in the air will be between you and the subject. While this analogy is not mathematically correct, the way I have talked about it with other photographers is I think of the atmosphere between the subject and my lens as layers. If the subject is close or under controlled conditions (i.e. a studio with air filtration, etc.) I have 1 layer. If the subject is say 50 yards off I may have 2 layers. If the subject is 200 yards away I may have 6 layers and if the subject is 500 yards away I may have 20 layers. Each layer contains some elements that will diffuse the light reaching my lens the more layers the more diffusion we will see. Again not mathematically correct or scientific but it is an easy way to talk about and to use "props" to show the effect.

Hope you get it straightened out. By the way, I am also shooting an R7 these days. Sold the D500 and several of my Nikon lenses to partially fund the R7 kit (R7, 100-500, 24-105 Fr, 100mm F2.8 macro (all R mount). Took a hit in the wallet but I am really enjoying this new system.

Also hope your trip to the wildlife refuge area goes well and looking forward to seeing your photos.

Jeff

 

[jeffnles1]

Forgot to mention:
The camera thought the black clamp on the lower cable was a bird and the blue box locked on it. Over the weekend I'll hopefully be able to get a similar thing happen with a real bird.

When I use the R7 for macro work, I turn off tracking and subject ID. for your test images you may want to try that.

One other question, on the Sigma lens, which stabilization mode are you using? Have you tried to turn off the lens stabilization when on the tripod? When I had that lens on the D500, sometimes it would capture better images while on a tripod with stabilization off other times it would capture better images on a tripod with stabilization on. Wasn't totally shutter speed related since it was a range of shutters and conditions. I'm not sure exactly what was causing the differences. What I would do, if my subject wasn't fleeting like a deer running across a field or something I only got one shot at, I would shoot a burst with stabilization on, and flip the switch turning it off and shoot another burst. At least I would have 2 to compare.

Hope this helps.

 

[bleirer]

Forgot to mention:
The camera thought the black clamp on the lower cable was a bird and the blue box locked on it. Over the weekend I'll hopefully be able to get a similar thing happen with a real bird.

As I understand Canon AF it is intended to do that. It will find an animal eye if it can, if not then a head, if not then a body, and finally any object. You can switch to spot AF if you can hold the camera steady enough on the target, or one of the larger areas.

 

[Robert S]

Ibrahim,
I have a Sigma 150-600 and have used it with a Sigma 1.4X converter. Albeit this was on a Nikon D500, the similarities are close with both being crop. I was never happy with the performance of the 150-600 and 1.4X TC. Images were acceptable but not as crisp as without the TC. I tried it in numerous situations over the two years I owned the lens.

One thing that is true for any telephoto lens, the farther away your subject is, the more atmospheric distortion is going to creep in. Any pollen, dust, haze or heat shimmer in the air between you and the subject will be magnified. The farther away the subject is, the more junk in the air will be between you and the subject. While this analogy is not mathematically correct, the way I have talked about it with other photographers is I think of the atmosphere between the subject and my lens as layers. If the subject is close or under controlled conditions (i.e. a studio with air filtration, etc.) I have 1 layer. If the subject is say 50 yards off I may have 2 layers. If the subject is 200 yards away I may have 6 layers and if the subject is 500 yards away I may have 20 layers. Each layer contains some elements that will diffuse the light reaching my lens the more layers the more diffusion we will see. Again not mathematically correct or scientific but it is an easy way to talk about and to use "props" to show the effect.

Hope you get it straightened out. By the way, I am also shooting an R7 these days. Sold the D500 and several of my Nikon lenses to partially fund the R7 kit (R7, 100-500, 24-105 Fr, 100mm F2.8 macro (all R mount). Took a hit in the wallet but I am really enjoying this new system.

Also hope your trip to the wildlife refuge area goes well and looking forward to seeing your photos.

Jeff

Thanks Jeff. I have the 1.4 and 2x extenders. I rarely use the 2x. Your way of explaining atmospheric problems makes sense. Nos 2 daughter tells me it is dry up in Darwin, and it's cooling down, and it's not humid. Hopefully the 'air' will be ok.
It makes sense to get the R mount lenses but I can't justify the cost. I'm in the process of figuring out what to take up to the Territory. The Sigma 120-300 is definitely not coming on the trip. Thinking so far is 150-600 C, 50mm, both R7 and 5Ds, monopod, tripod and gimbal. The two extenders can come too, they don't weigh much. Will also take the bag hide. Least it gets a holiday from the wardrobe.

 

[Robert S]

When I use the R7 for macro work, I turn off tracking and subject ID. for your test images you may want to try that.

One other question, on the Sigma lens, which stabilization mode are you using? Have you tried to turn off the lens stabilization when on the tripod? When I had that lens on the D500, sometimes it would capture better images while on a tripod with stabilization off other times it would capture better images on a tripod with stabilization on. Wasn't totally shutter speed related since it was a range of shutters and conditions. I'm not sure exactly what was causing the differences. What I would do, if my subject wasn't fleeting like a deer running across a field or something I only got one shot at, I would shoot a burst with stabilization on, and flip the switch turning it off and shoot another burst. At least I would have 2 to compare.

Hope this helps.

The stabilization mode was number 1. I'll give it a try switched off see what happens. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[jeffnles1]

The stabilization mode was number 1. I'll give it a try switched off see what happens. Thanks for the suggestion.

By the way, best wishes for success with your macular degeneration treatments.

 

[Robert S]

As I understand Canon AF it is intended to do that. It will find an animal eye if it can, if not then a head, if not then a body, and finally any object. You can switch to spot AF if you can hold the camera steady enough on the target, or one of the larger areas.

Thanks for the info Bill. My hands are not steady enough. One of the reasons I got the R7 was so the camera could do the hard work.

 

[Robert S]

By the way, best wishes for success with your macular degeneration treatments.

Thanks Jeff. I'm getting to the stage where I have a chat with the medical people and we decide which bit to treat next. I drive to and from the eye specialist. Sometimes things go ok, sometimes I feel a bit off. All part of of life. Beats the alternative.

 

[bleirer]

Thanks for the info Bill. My hands are not steady enough. One of the reasons I got the R7 was so the camera could do the hard work.

You would have to get into using back button focus, but it is possible to use something like expanded area to get in the general vicinity, then set the tracking AF to look first at that spot in the frame for something to focus on. But that is getting into the weeds of setting up bbf.

 

[Robert S]

You would have to get into using back button focus, but it is possible to use something like expanded area to get in the general vicinity, then set the tracking AF to look first at that spot in the frame for something to focus on. But that is getting into the weeds of setting up bbf.

I'm not too sure what the camera is doing Bill. I press the back button [ I think it uses the white box ] then the shutter button half way. If there is a bird around the blue box locks on the eye of the bird and I press click. Now that I'm not paying for film and processing I click and hope

 

[Robert S]

Took some more test shots today. The dog was hand held, the Rainbow was using a monopod. Light was not good.

Obie: R7 1200mm x 1.6 f13 1/50 ISO 1600 handheld

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Rainbow: monopod R7 1200mm x 1.6 f13 1/125 ISO 1600

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Len Shepherd]

Took some more test shots today. The dog was hand held, the Rainbow was using a monopod. Light was not good.

Obie: R7 1200mm x 1.6 f13 1/50 ISO 1600 handheld

View attachment 60978



Rainbow: monopod R7 1200mm x 1.6 f13 1/125 ISO 1600



View attachment 60979

Your dogs nose is the sharpest part of the first image - though when hand holding with such a narrow angle of view at 1/125 IMO often critical sharpness is a prayer rather than a reasonable expectation.

The Rainbow is interesting - as there is decent detail around the eye.
A good monopod I find can be worth 2 stops and sometimes 3 stops - you are getting near the 1x effective focal length speed where one can get some shots (as distinct from all shots) critically sharp.
Another test in brighter light at 1/500 oe 1/1000 should determine if critical eye and other detail is attainable.
The "semi smearing" particularly in the yellow lower third feathers may be a combination of not the highest MP body combined with reduced sensor resolution at the moderately high ISO, shallow depth of field and maybe the bird moving some of its feathers.

 

[Robert S]

Thanks for your post Len. I will try and get some photos with better light behind me rather than behind the subject. With luck it might be possible to get acceptable results with this set up.