Thanks for the critique. I will work on using less b roll at the start in the future.

I have tried everything but Topaz. I can get a good image with the AI denoize tools. I prefer to try to capture images without using it. Based on all of the comments I may need to let go and just embrace AI.

Hi, let's try DXO, it's better for denoise raw file

The thing that sucks about this is that we’re being charged a premium price. New world way (less for more $) for lenses that have less glass and inferior engineering than older EF lenses. Aren’t we supposed to be more technologically advanced? It’s a scam the fact you have to use software in post to fix what we shouldn’t have to in the first place totally sucks! I was a huge Canon advocate I have lots of EF L glass and DSLR camera bodies and now the R5 and I’m about to switch brands due to Canons new lens line up and ridiculous cost for basically all plastic slow aperture lenses with no internal zooming telephoto’s. We all know these will have dust in them after time being an external zoom lens/ vacuum pump. I bought the R5 a couple months ago in hopes that they were going to open up the RF system to third party and nope we were just kidding about that only for apsc wtf Canon! Nikon made a 200-500 f5.6 back in 2015 for $1500.

I don’t care for APSC cameras. You get a little extra reach with the same size and weight. I would stick with full frame over APSC.

​@@Deweybingwhat aggression!

You are correct. That’s important if you are worried about depth of field. I am not concerned about depth of field so it doesn’t matter to me.

I’m not impressed with Canon’s overall RF lens offering. Nikon and Sony have more lenses that impress me. Thanks for the comment.

What kind of ISO’s are you getting on your images? I may rent it and give it a try. Thanks for your comment.

@@DeweybingIt's been between 6400 and 12800. The noise is not too bad. Some shots I put through Denoise, but literally on the lowest possible setting. And really most shots I find I don't need to use it. I don't like using Denise at higher settings, it makes the image look cartoonish the higher you go. Here is a video of Wild Alaska using the R8 with the 200-800, might be a better option if you want to avoid using Denise all together, also it's lighter! But of course less reach kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qNWCqNuo38ixenk.html

@@giannizombie thanks for the info. I will check out the video.

@@giannizombie Awesome video. Thanks for sharing.

There's no perfect camera but the r3 sure does come close

I’m not too worried about depth of field for now. I’ll do a video when I get a chance to try the RF 200-800. I will see If I can work in some depth of field comparison shots if I can.

The images from the RF 800 F11 are very good as long as you have good light. For my style of shooting anything over F6.3 doesn’t work very well. Thanks for the comment.

I have never tried Topaz. I plan on looking into it. I am looking forward to trying out the new 150-600 from OM-Systems once its available.

I agree that it’s not for low light. The problem not everyone can afford the Big dollar lenses. If the Fstops were let’s say F5 to F6.3 it would be a little easier to capture a good image without the need of AI to make the image usable.

@@Deweybing Lightroom Classic has a very good denoise feature now. I like it. F6.3 at 800 mm means bigger, heavier and more expensive lenses. Could be $4k. Canon targets consumers, not prosumers, around $2k or less. I am sure people complain about heavier, bulkier, and costly lens when it is f6.3 at 800 mm

@@kennethlui2268 That’s why I use the Olympus 100-400. It’s light, and I get 800mm on the long end at F6.3.

@@Deweybing how is the noise using Micro four third?

​@@kennethlui2268,the 800PF 6.3 is like 6k.

What ISO levels are you shooting at?

@@Deweybing Depends obviously. I am perfectly comfortable going to ISO 3200 and above even into the 5000's and just using Topaz afterwards to fix any noise.

@@Deweybing Very acceptable shots.

@@OhhhBugger I always find that with High Fstops I end up at ISO 12800 and above. I shoot normally in early morning light with shutter speeds of 1/500 or faster.

@@Deweybing You must be shooting on cloudy days or something. I haven't ever had to go that high.

Micro 4/3rds definitely isn’t perfect either. For the type of shooting I have been doing it seems to work better. I am going to try the 200-800 and also try to change my shorting style to see if I can make it work. Thanks for the comment.

@@Deweybing I suppose because of the 4/3s crop size of 2x vs FF at F5 your equivalent is F10 anyway so that lens is technically slower than the 200-800, especially when if you consider you have F6.3 at the wider end, on the longer end you are pretty much at F13 equivalent. So really worrying about F9, your a stop + slower anyway. Add the fact you have 50% the light gathering for low light photography the micro 4/3s doesn't compete in fact I would think the IQ is really not great at all in comparison.

@@tomscott88 You may be right. In my opinion I’m getting better results with Micro4/3rds at f6.3 ISO 6400. I did stop by Dodd Camera today and I placed an order for the RF 200-800. I’m going to try it and find out for myself.

Thanks for your comment. I really enjoy your videos on your channel.

I agree with you.

I’m sure it’s a great lens for what it is. I’m not a fan of cropped sensors. For me it’s full frame or Micro 4/3rds.

When I switched to Canon my plan was to only use RF glass. I know that I can adapt older lenses, I have tried to not do it. I recently looked at an older version of the 400 mm F4. It was $1,100 and a little heavy but it was a very nice lens. I am going to look at a 200-800 when it’s available at my local camera store. I like the size and weight of Micro 4/3rds. My main concern with the system is longevity. Will it be around 5 years from now.

@@Deweybing Camera companies are forever trying to get us to buy something we don't need. APS-c originated from 35mm film, the film stored data and you could choose a crop, which, apart from exif data, you could do on 35mm anyway. Do you remember 110, Disc, need I say more! What is more annoying is that a printing system, Fuji Pictography was lost to us because the circuit boards used lead solder. I just loved that system.

@@blisteringbooks2428 I do remember 110 and the disk. I also remember the Kodak instant camera. Changing technology makes life fun and expensive.

Thanks for the comment. At some point I may go to a camera store and try it out. I did see that it weights 4.5 lbs. that’s a lot more weight than I want to add to my bag right now.

​@@DeweybingI shot hand held all day and yes it's heavy but worth the workout when you see the quality of the images it delivered.

@@chimpy9823 Good to know. At some point I will give it a try for a day.

Thanks for the suggestion. I have never tried DXO or converting to DNG files. I will look into it. You may be right. I might need to get used to the idea of processing high noise images more. Thanks for your comments.

@@Deweybing DXO is very easy to use and will be very useful with images up to a certain ISO, depending upon which camera you are using. With my R3, images are totally usable up to and including ISO12800. Above that, even with DXO, the images no longer look great to my eyes. Lightroom's built in NR AI is also very good, I'd rate it better than Topaz Denoise AI. DXO is better than both. Caveat: I'm using v2 of DXO Pure RAW, haven't bothered with v3.

@@davepastern Thanks for the Info. I will look into DXO. Thanks for the comment.

@@Deweybing you’re welcome. The 100-500 will have the same aperture with the 1.4x TC and still have less reach. The only way around this is to pay the big $$$ for something like a 600f4 prime. I suggest having a look at both Jan Wegener’s and Duade Paton’s review on the 200-800. Phil Thach and Scott at Wild Alaska both have excellent reviews too. Hope this helps.

@@davepastern I have watched those reviews. Everyone seems to love the lens. I will try one in the future to see how it does. Thanks for the comment.

I agree with you. However, many disagree with us. I am now convinced to give it a try.

I agree with you.

You may be right. You may also be wrong. Regardless I’m happy with my choice. Good luck with your combo.

I had Sigma 150-800 I sold it for rf 200-800 cuz of my R8. If Sigma made RF. I'd kept it.

@@DeafPapi52809 sigma 150-800???

I would definitely give it a try.

Good points. You may be right. Thanks for the comment.

Thanks for the information. The price is lower than I heard but it doesn’t change my mind.

I think I would not agree with that respectfully. A F5.6 lens is a F5.6 no matter what. It will gather the same amount of light attached to any camera. The problem here is just that he has a very small sensor. So a less blurred background and theoretically more noise. But with only 20MP the noise still is ok I guess. Happy if anyone can prouve me wrong. Cheers!

I’m not worried about depth of field. I worry about light and ISO. I go out early in the day or late in the evening. I need lower Fstops to help keep ISO down.

@@Deweybing I've moved away from MFT, I also see smaller form factor is a benefit to you and i agree with that use case. DoF is not a factor as you say but light gathering as the density of photons between MFT and Full frame is a factor as arguably the Fstop is the same. As MFT will receive less density of light for area covered compared to the Full Frame sensor for a given "exposure" being the same for MFT and Full frame; there will be more noise due to the "electronics" having to boost more power to each sensor/photo receptor and therefore more noise. ( I have designed IC and semiconductors before retiring) . If you are happy with MFT i say go full speed. I prefer to enjoy your beautiful images than crank about physics and circuit designs. More noise doesn't matter in present time anyways as software can almost eliminate that challenge. Please continue with your great content, i have greatly enjoyed our videos. Thank you.

@@Chrispitchwildlife Thank you for your kind response. Gathering light and light density on a "area surface" can be a point of discussion. It's true FF and MFT will receive photons via the lens the same way; so F5.6 is F5.6 through the lens. The FF will receive more photons on the larger surface of the sensor and MFT will receive via a smaller square area therefore less photos on a cropped size X2 times.. There is the "rub" the density of the photos is much less for the smaller pixel/ sensor and results in more noise ....why?..... Same amount of light - and the density of the light received on the photo diode will affect noise factor will have to be driven with more "transistor gate" power delivered, this equates to signal noise in the circuit (unavoidable). We will see better sensor design to not worry about noise and pushing the ISO to achieve dynamic range etc....the noise will therefore be less agreeable than a FF sensor. As stated in other response; I agree with you the 20mp sensor and current software(s) makes noise a less of a problem. Thank you for the discussion and i apologize in advance for the wall of text.

Thanks for sharing your insight. I enjoy all of the comments. I’m beginning to think that I need to reconsider my stance on high ISO images. The software available today makes a lot of my concerns a non issue. I have always tried to make a good image that didn’t need much in the way of editing. With today’s tools you can make a bland image look amazing. We are getting close to where you can tell your computer what image you want and it will spit out an image that looks better than you can take yourself. I don’t want to go down this path. I enjoy the challenge of trying to do it right on my own.

Thanks for the comment

Yes, If I can fit it into my schedule.

Thanks for the comment. What long zoom do you use today?

@@Deweybing Sigma 150-600 EF with adapter for my R5

@@grumblewoof4721 Do you like the images you are getting?

I completely agree with you. I feel like Nikon is more in tune with what I’m looking for.

Engineering is often a matter of tradeoffs. You want speed that comes with size and weight. You want convenience you lose some speed. I don’t worry about ISO. The cameras today do a good job of keeping noise manageable with recent software improvements. And I shoot birds late in the evening in swampy areas often covered by trees. I prefer lighter lenses and don’t have any problems with the RF 100-500mm and will shoot at 4000 ISO or higher if needed. If the exposure is accurate that will also lower the noise.

Yes I prefer Micro 4/3rds over APSC. I like the smaller size of the Micro 4/3rds system. With APSC you get a smaller sensor but still the same size a weight. There is nothing wrong with APSC. I feel that if your going to have the size and weight you might as well go FF.

No I don’t own it. As I said in the video, I’m sure it’s a good lens. I don’t like the high minimum aperture. It doesn’t work well for my style of photography. Thanks for the Comment.

We are both entitled to our opinions. Thanks for the comment

You're entitled to your opinion. Thanks for the comment