I have been extremely pleased with the quality of images coming from my new RF200-800 lens on the R5 in low light. I use Auto ISO and Adobe Camera RAW DeNoise on RAW image, which produces a DNG file. In Photoshop I run through Topaz AI and it will sharpen a tiny bit. I used Olympus cameras for 10 plus years and loved the images, except I couldn't go over ISO 800 back then. Canon Mirrorless cameras and Denoise software have made shooting in F6.3-F11 with ISO 12,800 an acceptable setting to create beautiful images in any light.
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.
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've had the 200-800 for a coupe weeks, using it with the R7. We've had nothing but overcast days here, and still I'm getting incredible shots with the lens. I really did not expect to get as good of shots as I've been getting. Maybe consider renting or borrowing the lens and try it out for a couple days. Having the higher megapixels is so much more versatile I think. I don't have the R5 so I don't know how bad the noise is, but I'm pretty amazed with the R7. Although I sometimes wish I had the R6 Mark or R8 for even lower noise. There's no perfect camera lol
@@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 ruclips.net/video/roRuxwzbMJE/видео.html
Even on the R7, I haven't had much issue going fairly high on the ISO. The combination of IS with the high ISO performance makes this combination just fine.
@@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.
@@OhhhhhhhBugger 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.
Om is coming is out a 150-600mmf6.3. Will be a good additional choice for m43 users. Topaz is a great software and it will change the way you take photos, especially action shots that requires high iso.
m4/3 is great. i had the OM1 II and the G9 II and every system has their good and bad points. i wanted better image quality, detail, subject isolation, and low light performance so i went to Canon R6II and R5. i do miss the pre-capture of m4/3.
Hi Dewey, I notice from your reactions on other comments you'll give the 200-800 a try .. be aware it may well change your mind ;-) I'd agree your OM setup is a lot lighter which is a clear advantage. But you should also be careful about comparing f stops between m43 and FF. Your 400mm/f5.6 om m43 has the same bokeh as a FF 800mm/f11 .. Some pro birders admit they shoot their 600/4 often at f8 when the bird is relatively close, because wide open their dept of field would be too narrow and have a sharp eye but an out-of-focus beak. So the f9 may not be too stupid to keep the weight and price at this doable point instead doubling both to have it at f6.3. I'm on waiting list for the 200-800, but I'll keep my 100-500 and intend to use 200-800 from the time I'd now pop on the 1.4x
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 sensor is not half the size its only 26.1%. Thus the advantage of your f5 smulders completely away compared to the full frame. Furthermore the background blur of the f5 on your micro four third is the equivalent of f11.
RF 200-800 is not for low light. You can get RF 800 f5.6 for $17k. I just got the 200-800 and it is as sharp as the 100-500. Use the right tool for the right situation.
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
But essentially it’s a worse combo when you scale up your crop factor with the f stop and ISO. Comparing to the FF R5 you’ve got half the res and much worse ISO because of the light gathering ability. The only benefit is the size. If you’re shooting small birds and larger animals you need to stop down anyway. I mostly shoot f8 for wildlife to get front to back in focus so it’s just a change in the way you think about your photography.
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.
If you using Canon you can put the 100-400Lii on the R5, in crop mode you have 680mm reach, I bought one recently for £1100 as I could not justify £2,800 for the RF100-500. Shooting video you won't know the difference,, with a 1.4x you are 952mm. As a professional I used 4mp sensor for years, you don't need big numbers, especially for video. I admit, the weight of the Olympus is causing a lot of us old folk, especially with arthritis, to look at M43, but I have been using Canon since 1973 [Canon F1], I can visualise switching.
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.
Thanks for the video, a nicely balanced opinion. I am in Western Australia and we get a lot of very bright sunlight, so smaller apertures are not such a problem. regarding the 200-800, it is tempting but I have the RF800 f11 with the R8, very rarely feel the need for a shorter focal range, but I do have the EF 100-400 L series mkii for those occasions, plus I have seen a few video’s that say the RF800 gives a sharper image..
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.
certainly with the 1.4 extender, I'm not overly impressed with the Canon 200-800's sharpness (as compared with the larger Canon EF500 f/4 IS ii, also with the same extender, and also on a Canon R5.
1. I can't afford it right now. 2. I'm not so sure how often I'd use it. 3. The larger size means I'll have to reconsider my sling bag, maybe get a backpack. 4. If money were no object, I would probably get the more compact 100-500 as an upgrade to my rf 100-400. The 1.4 extender seems to optically work well with the 100-500, not so well with my rf 100-400. As I don't have the money, and the 200-800 would be on backorder anyhow, there's no rush for me. 5. See number 2. 6. If money were really no object, I'd get both the 200-800 and the 100-500!
I will probably buy that 200-800, maybe end of 2024. I am still waiting for that one youtuber who will argue that it is not that sharp. But so far they all agree. 😆 It is very sunny in the Philippines, so... Unless Nikon comes out with a magic cropped sensor. 😁 If they do, then i go Nikon 600 F6.3... it looks so light, sharp, and cool. Cheers!
Well, I guess some people are born the just contradict. You could have done this about any other similar lens on the market, Sigma or Tamron150-600mm for example. It is obvious that you haven't even tryed the 200-800mm so why are you talking about it ? I have the 200-800mm and the R6 mkii and I can tell you that even at F9, there is no lighting conditions you can't use this lens. The R6 mkii is simply incredible for managing ISO. I often go over 12,000 ISO whitout any noise and with the help of a good noise reduction software 20,000 is not an issue. You will never ever get close to those results with your kit.
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.
Its a stunning lens that produces super sharp images, its worth every penny. The zoom range is fantastic especially for wildlife shooting, the 200-800mm is way sharper than the 800m f11. You are missing out on a beast of a lens.
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.
Well, let me just put it this way > I have absolutely killed it with my "even slower" 800 F11 + my R7 for a 1280mm equivalent. By all accounts, the 200-800 is just a better lens in every respect "except price and weight". I get it that you don't like to do a lot of AI and processing. But IMPO, that is just what it takes if you want to keep up with the guys producing the most amazing shots today. How about at least using DXO Pure RAW to convert your RAW files to DNG's. This very first step will remove 90-100% of any noise, and give you some nice colors for a starting point > with almost zero settings or sliders to mess with < ! Heck yea, I'm going to get it. And every reason to believe I will absolutely kill it with this lens :)
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.
@@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.
ummmm... think this is a played out point you're making here with the apertures. i'd much rather lose a stop of aperture and have the build quality/IQ/AF performance, and there is zero possibilty that OM setup you showed can even touch it. believe if you were persuing the type of images the 200-800 is capable of, you'd find the $1900 for the lens is rather affordable. zero reason to not embrace lightroom denoise AI or similar btw; it's not destructive, works extremely well, and is only going to get better. seeing hardware & tech working together is what makes the 200-800 (and similar glass) a viable lens for a lot of shooters. 🤷♂
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.
For me the better option would be the 100-500. I don’t like the 7.1 aperture on the long end but it’s better than F9. I’ve never been a fan of TC’s. I’ve used them over the years but I’m never happy with the results. Thanks for the comment Ted.
I am becoming increasingly frustrated with Canon's philosophy when it comes to this RF system. I've been a Canon shooter since 1995. While I was fortunate enough to be able to purchase a new EF 500mm f4 L IS USM II a few years ago, I was hoping for something a little more user friendly in the f5.6 range for situations where it is not feasible to lug out that massive lens. The Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM just doesn't seem right for me. That f 7.1 at 500mm just sounds terrible and at $3,000 with tax, it puts it beyond what I want to spend for it. I feel like I would be throwing away money for less performance. The RF 200-800 feels equally compromised in performance in all but the brightest and harshest light.
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.
What a bunch of garbage. Why the hell would Canon owners care what you think about Olympus gear? I have used Olympus gear and will take my R5 and the 200-800 over your Oly combo any day.
Haha Comedy. APS-C is nothing for you an you prefer a Olympus with a smaler Sensor. Sorry this ist a bad Joke..... It's smaler...ok this is correct...the only thing...🤣
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.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
I have been extremely pleased with the quality of images coming from my new RF200-800 lens on the R5 in low light. I use Auto ISO and Adobe Camera RAW DeNoise on RAW image, which produces a DNG file. In Photoshop I run through Topaz AI and it will sharpen a tiny bit.
I used Olympus cameras for 10 plus years and loved the images, except I couldn't go over ISO 800 back then.
Canon Mirrorless cameras and Denoise software have made shooting in F6.3-F11 with ISO 12,800 an acceptable setting to create beautiful images in any light.
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.
Two minutes before you say your first word; life's too short.
Thanks for the critique. I will work on using less b roll at the start in the future.
I've had the 200-800 for a coupe weeks, using it with the R7. We've had nothing but overcast days here, and still I'm getting incredible shots with the lens. I really did not expect to get as good of shots as I've been getting. Maybe consider renting or borrowing the lens and try it out for a couple days. Having the higher megapixels is so much more versatile I think. I don't have the R5 so I don't know how bad the noise is, but I'm pretty amazed with the R7. Although I sometimes wish I had the R6 Mark or R8 for even lower noise. There's no perfect camera lol
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 ruclips.net/video/roRuxwzbMJE/видео.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
Even on the R7, I haven't had much issue going fairly high on the ISO. The combination of IS with the high ISO performance makes this combination just fine.
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.
@@OhhhhhhhBugger 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.
What is your opinion of an APSC kit like a Canon R7 with a Sigma or Tamron 150-600?
It would be equivalent to a 240-960 in Full frame
Thanks
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!
Om is coming is out a 150-600mmf6.3. Will be a good additional choice for m43 users. Topaz is a great software and it will change the way you take photos, especially action shots that requires high iso.
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.
m4/3 is great. i had the OM1 II and the G9 II and every system has their good and bad points. i wanted better image quality, detail, subject isolation, and low light performance so i went to Canon R6II and R5. i do miss the pre-capture of m4/3.
Hi Dewey, I notice from your reactions on other comments you'll give the 200-800 a try .. be aware it may well change your mind ;-)
I'd agree your OM setup is a lot lighter which is a clear advantage. But you should also be careful about comparing f stops between m43 and FF. Your 400mm/f5.6 om m43 has the same bokeh as a FF 800mm/f11 ..
Some pro birders admit they shoot their 600/4 often at f8 when the bird is relatively close, because wide open their dept of field would be too narrow and have a sharp eye but an out-of-focus beak. So the f9 may not be too stupid to keep the weight and price at this doable point instead doubling both to have it at f6.3.
I'm on waiting list for the 200-800, but I'll keep my 100-500 and intend to use 200-800 from the time I'd now pop on the 1.4x
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 sensor is not half the size its only 26.1%. Thus the advantage of your f5 smulders completely away compared to the full frame. Furthermore the background blur of the f5 on your micro four third is the equivalent of f11.
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.
RF 200-800 is not for low light. You can get RF 800 f5.6 for $17k. I just got the 200-800 and it is as sharp as the 100-500. Use the right tool for the right situation.
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.
But essentially it’s a worse combo when you scale up your crop factor with the f stop and ISO. Comparing to the FF R5 you’ve got half the res and much worse ISO because of the light gathering ability. The only benefit is the size. If you’re shooting small birds and larger animals you need to stop down anyway. I mostly shoot f8 for wildlife to get front to back in focus so it’s just a change in the way you think about your photography.
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.
If you using Canon you can put the 100-400Lii on the R5, in crop mode you have 680mm reach, I bought one recently for £1100 as I could not justify £2,800 for the RF100-500. Shooting video you won't know the difference,, with a 1.4x you are 952mm. As a professional I used 4mp sensor for years, you don't need big numbers, especially for video. I admit, the weight of the Olympus is causing a lot of us old folk, especially with arthritis, to look at M43, but I have been using Canon since 1973 [Canon F1], I can visualise switching.
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 video, a nicely balanced opinion. I am in Western Australia and we get a lot of very bright sunlight, so smaller apertures are not such a problem. regarding the 200-800, it is tempting but I have the RF800 f11 with the R8, very rarely feel the need for a shorter focal range, but I do have the EF 100-400 L series mkii for those occasions, plus I have seen a few video’s that say the RF800 gives a sharper image..
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.
certainly with the 1.4 extender, I'm not overly impressed with the Canon 200-800's sharpness (as compared with the larger Canon EF500 f/4 IS ii, also with the same extender, and also on a Canon R5.
I’m not impressed with Canon’s overall RF lens offering. Nikon and Sony have more lenses that impress me. Thanks for the comment.
Video starts at 3:25
Thanks for the comment
Micro 4/3rds seems to be a better fit for my style of photography. The R5 is a great camera. Enjoy. Thanks for your comment.
Alright
@@SnoopySenpai Thanks for the comment.
1. I can't afford it right now. 2. I'm not so sure how often I'd use it. 3. The larger size means I'll have to reconsider my sling bag, maybe get a backpack. 4. If money were no object, I would probably get the more compact 100-500 as an upgrade to my rf 100-400. The 1.4 extender seems to optically work well with the 100-500, not so well with my rf 100-400. As I don't have the money, and the 200-800 would be on backorder anyhow, there's no rush for me. 5. See number 2. 6. If money were really no object, I'd get both the 200-800 and the 100-500!
Its truely said.
Thanks for your comment. I really enjoy your videos on your channel.
I will probably buy that 200-800, maybe end of 2024.
I am still waiting for that one youtuber who will argue that it is not that sharp. But so far they all agree. 😆
It is very sunny in the Philippines, so...
Unless Nikon comes out with a magic cropped sensor. 😁
If they do, then i go Nikon 600 F6.3... it looks so light, sharp, and cool.
Cheers!
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.
Well, I guess some people are born the just contradict. You could have done this about any other similar lens on the market, Sigma or Tamron150-600mm for example. It is obvious that you haven't even tryed the 200-800mm so why are you talking about it ? I have the 200-800mm and the R6 mkii and I can tell you that even at F9, there is no lighting conditions you can't use this lens. The R6 mkii is simply incredible for managing ISO. I often go over 12,000 ISO whitout any noise and with the help of a good noise reduction software 20,000 is not an issue.
You will never ever get close to those results with your kit.
You may be right. You may also be wrong. Regardless I’m happy with my choice. Good luck with your combo.
I'd be interested if it was L Glass and a faster lens, even if it cost more. Let's say $3,000 US.
I agree with you.
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 agree with you.
Aperture of this canon lens is too small! For wildlife photography, f9 is a no go!
I agree with you. However, many disagree with us. I am now convinced to give it a try.
Its a stunning lens that produces super sharp images, its worth every penny. The zoom range is fantastic especially for wildlife shooting, the 200-800mm is way sharper than the 800m f11.
You are missing out on a beast of a lens.
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.
Well, let me just put it this way > I have absolutely killed it with my "even slower" 800 F11 + my R7 for a 1280mm equivalent. By all accounts, the 200-800 is just a better lens in every respect "except price and weight".
I get it that you don't like to do a lot of AI and processing. But IMPO, that is just what it takes if you want to keep up with the guys producing the most amazing shots today. How about at least using DXO Pure RAW to convert your RAW files to DNG's. This very first step will remove 90-100% of any noise, and give you some nice colors for a starting point > with almost zero settings or sliders to mess with < !
Heck yea, I'm going to get it. And every reason to believe I will absolutely kill it with this lens :)
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.
ummmm... think this is a played out point you're making here with the apertures. i'd much rather lose a stop of aperture and have the build quality/IQ/AF performance, and there is zero possibilty that OM setup you showed can even touch it. believe if you were persuing the type of images the 200-800 is capable of, you'd find the $1900 for the lens is rather affordable.
zero reason to not embrace lightroom denoise AI or similar btw; it's not destructive, works extremely well, and is only going to get better. seeing hardware & tech working together is what makes the 200-800 (and similar glass) a viable lens for a lot of shooters. 🤷♂
Good points. You may be right. Thanks for the comment.
Lower Fstop on your MFT?? mft F5.6 = F11.2 on a full frame. fyi f4 on MFT is f8 on full frame. MFT if you enjoy the crop factor and high Fstops.
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.
if sigma was to bring out a 150-600mm f6.3 in RF would that change your mind ?
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.
Price is 1899.00
Thanks for the information. The price is lower than I heard but it doesn’t change my mind.
For me the better option would be the 100-500. I don’t like the 7.1 aperture on the long end but it’s better than F9. I’ve never been a fan of TC’s. I’ve used them over the years but I’m never happy with the results. Thanks for the comment Ted.
2 minute into a got to go
I am not buying it either, too expensive. At that price it should be a L series.
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 am becoming increasingly frustrated with Canon's philosophy when it comes to this RF system. I've been a Canon shooter since 1995. While I was fortunate enough to be able to purchase a new EF 500mm f4 L IS USM II a few years ago, I was hoping for something a little more user friendly in the f5.6 range for situations where it is not feasible to lug out that massive lens. The Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM just doesn't seem right for me. That f 7.1 at 500mm just sounds terrible and at $3,000 with tax, it puts it beyond what I want to spend for it. I feel like I would be throwing away money for less performance. The RF 200-800 feels equally compromised in performance in all but the brightest and harshest light.
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.
are you interested in appearing in my photography livestream show ?
Yes, If I can fit it into my schedule.
What a bunch of garbage. Why the hell would Canon owners care what you think about Olympus gear? I have used Olympus gear and will take my R5 and the 200-800 over your Oly combo any day.
We are both entitled to our opinions. Thanks for the comment
Haha Comedy. APS-C is nothing for you an you prefer a Olympus with a smaler Sensor. Sorry this ist a bad Joke..... It's smaler...ok this is correct...the only thing...🤣
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.
funny . You don't have a lens but you come and comment about that lens?
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.
Longest introduction on RUclips
Who cares?
You're entitled to your opinion. Thanks for the comment
Utter nonsense.