The Math Behind the Pixels
There's a lot of confusion behind the number of pixels in a camera's sensor and what's right for the buyer. I'd like to explain it in terms of some pretty simple math so you realize that the number is not as big of an issue as it is often made out to be.
Consider a sensor that is 4 pixels long by 2 pixels high. It will have a pixel count of 8 since you just multiply the 4 by the 2. Quite small and totally useless for photography but it makes math easy to follow. If we double the number of pixels such that we end up with 16, it seems that we've made the sensor twice as large. But have we? It will really only give us dimensions of 5.6 x 2.8. Not much of an increase at all. Ignore that we can't have fractions of pixels but what's going on is that the total number of pixels is the product of the length and width. Doubling the number of pixels does not double both of the dimensions. It only doubles one. You would have to quadruple the number of pixels in order to get a doubling of both dimensions. The factor is based on the square root of 2, much like much of photography. The 5.6 and the 2.8 should sound familiar if you've played around with cameras long enough.
So, for the Canon R5 that has 45 MP and its little brother, the R6 which only has 20, it seems that the R5 has a much higher resolution. But when you look at the math, in any one dimension, there is only an increase of 41%! That's a considerable difference but it's nothing like twice the difference which is what the pixel count implies.
So, if you don't normally do heavy cropping of your images, you will likely find that the lower pixel count bodies are perfectly fine for most of what you shoot. On the other hand, if you are always craving that extra focal length and can't afford the bigger lenses, then a little extra pixel resolution may be what you need.
Tri-colored heron captured with an 18MP camera body
Personally, I rarely crop much if at all. I have long focal length lenses and I am able to position myself in order to get close to my subjects most of the time. So I don't need the few extra pixels that the higher resolution sensors provide. Sure, more is better if you can get it but more pixels almost always comes at a cost of either money or the introduction of noise and usually both. For me, I prefer the better dynamic range and low noise performance that are usually seen in the lower resolution sensors.
Each photographer will have to weigh their own needs and priorities but just realize that the discussion over the number of pixels is hardly worth debating. The professional cameras over the past 10 years have never had more than about 18 or 20 MP and they all put out beautiful images just like the one pictured here.
Stacking Canon Series III Extenders
If you had previous versions of the Canon extenders, you were able to stack them together and get extra magnification. In many cases, the extra hit to the aperture made this pretty useless and some people don't even care to use them at all. But as camera sensors have improved dramatically, it's becoming more effective to use them individually and even together.
With the latest extenders, the Series III, you can no longer physically attach them together because they protrude slightly into the rear of the primary lens. And because the extenders have a lens element that is flush with the rear of the extenders, you cannot mate them together. Fortunately, Canon saw fit to put a protective rubber ring on that protruding element so you will not damage your optics if you try to mate them together or with a lens that is not designed to take an extender.
For those of us who crave focal lengths longer than 1000mm and who have the gear and the experience to get decent images at the extra long focal lengths, there is a solution, and it's got a spin off as well. By using a simple 12mm extension tube in between the extenders, you can provide the space necessary to mate them.
I started off using an off-brand extender and although it worked, the connection was a little sloppy. For about four times the price, you can get a genuine Canon one. For the extra money you get a nice little drawstring bag and both a body and rear lens cap. You also get a better fit.
In the photo above, you can see my 500mm/f4 lens with a Series III 2X Extender, followed by the Canon 12mm extension tube, and a Series III 1.4X extender. That's a lot of connections but it is surprisingly tight.
So, how well does it perform? Like it was made to work that way! And here is one of my first examples using it in this configuration. A handheld shot of a pair of eagles at 1400mm (1412mm technically). Shutter speed was 1/1600 and ISO was 3200 at f11 on a Canon R6. I cropped this vertically from a horizontal shot so it's only cropped slightly on the left and right sides.
And what's the tradeoff - because there is always a tradeoff. Well, you lose your ability to focus at infinity. But unless I'm shooting the moon or the sun, my new infinity is so much farther away than I would normally shoot, that it's effectively unchanged. I am still able to focus at an object five miles away!
And the spinoff I mentioned is that I can leave the extension tube on even when not stacking extenders and it reduces my minimum focusing distance. It's not huge but it reduces it from 11 feet to about 9-1/2 feet. This difference can determine whether or not I grab the shot of that bird that just landed nearby.
If you have a good prime lens, consider getting an extender and even two so you can stack them.
Watermarking, Logos, and Copyrights
One question I see quite often is, "Should I place a watermark on my images?". The answer is quite individual and highly debated and can be very complicated. I'll touch on the basics here and show you what I do.
Watermarking is a way to leave a logo or some sort of identifier on an image, usually to try to prevent others from stealing or copying your work. It is often a semi-transparent logo or set of words that is placed across the center of the image. There are some digital watermarks that are not visual but rather are embedded in the data of the image.
One thing I really do not like to see is a watermark or a signature placed over the best part of the image as I have illustrated below. To me, it totally detracts from the image. You may think you are increasing security by doing so, but in my opinion, you are taking away so much of the image, especially in terms of composition.
Often confused with watermarks is a signature or a logo that serves as an identifier for the photographer. Although it can be used as a layer of protection for your images, it is most often placed as a way of simply identifying the artist.
Either or both of these methods can be used on your images but don't expect that you will be solidifying your copyright by using them. For the vast majority of photographers, nothing is going to stop people from stealing your work. I have come to the conclusion that I am not going to spend much energy tracking those who may use my work without my permission.
With the various social media platforms in existence, images are "shared" on a regular basis, most of which are without any intention to steal my glory. Only in the most blatant cases will I make a fuss about it.
For the most part, I choose to share freely but I do have my name on my art images, mainly so others will know who originated it. As my images are shared freely, my name goes along with them.
A case where that failed was that of a local online newspaper that grabbed one of my images for an article. What was strange was that rather than crop off my name, they use the entire image and actually took the time to "clone out" my name. It would have been so much simpler had they just contacted me and asked to use the image. I would have even sent them a high quality version. Instead, they literally stole the image, cloned out my name, and offered no byline. During our first conversation, they said they could not make any corrections to the image but after mentioning my attorney, they quickly accepted a high quality version and replaced it on their site.
So, what is most appropriate as a photographer? It depends. In many cases, such as with printed publications, photographs are used without any watermarks or signatures but rather credit is usually given immediately below the image. In other cases it may be mentioned at the beginning along with the author of the article. For advertising, usually the images are purchased under a license and no credit is given at all. Note that you rarely see image credits on television ads or in pamphlets or other printed advertising matter.
Stock photographers can make a living out of licensing images, none of which will ever be credited to the photographer but for which money can be generated on a regular basis. In any event, you should work out those details in advance but just expect that names and logos are likely not going to be on the actual images.
After generating many different logos for my photos, I finally decided to just "sign" mine with a digital signature. All attempts at generating something useable myself on Photoshop failed miserably so I purchased a signature from PhotoLogo.
You may have seen some of their ads. You select a few basic style descriptors about what you want, you pay the fee, and they send you a series of image files (large, small, black, white, transparent) that you can then drop onto your images with most any editing program. It's a little strange because you do not get to choose your final design but you can reject it. In my case, it was pretty much what I wanted and so much better than I could have done myself.
To apply my logos, I use one of two signature templates I set up a Photoshop files where the bottom layer is gray and the top layer is the signature. One is in vertical layout while the other is horizontal. I simply copy my desired image onto my clipboard and then open the corresponding signature file into Photoshop. I then paste my image on top of the gray background so the logo is on top. I resize the logo as needed, such as when the image is smaller than my template, and I crop it. I simply flatten the layers and I'm done.
I place mine in the lower right corner. Other places include the bottom center and top center. The left corner looks off balance to me for some reason.
A watermark can be applied in much the same manner except that you reduce the opacity so some of the image shows through. Like I already mentioned, I personally do not like watermarks and would only use them if I were sending images to someone for review who I would not trust. You see these on school photo proofs but it doesn't stop people from copying the images anyway, complete with the watermark intact.
Below are some examples of my older signatures that I've retired.
.
Watermarks, signatures, and logos are a great way to let others know you were the creator of your images. Just realize that using them will not prevent unauthorized use. Use whatever works for you and try not to let the bad apples out there keep you from showing your work.
Be sure to check out my other blog articles for useful photographic tips and techniques.
Focus Stacking in Photoshop
The Canon R series of mirrorless cameras, as well as various bodies from other manufacturers, feature focus stacking, which is the ability to take and then combine multiple frames of a scene and create a much greater depth of field than that which can be obtained by simply shooting with a smaller aperture. Although this is not new, and can be performed manually on any camera, many newer cameras offer the ability to take the multiple shots while changing the focus in incremental steps. The tricky part is the combining of the multiple images into one image with the different focus points combined. Here I will present the method I use with Photoshop.
The image I chose for this was a watch placed about six inches in front of the camera. I used a Canon EF 50mm/f1.8 lens (nifty fifty) and a 20mm extension tube so I could focus close enough to fill the frame. The exposure settings are irrelevant but for the sake of the impressive image quality of the Canon R6 and the built in image stabilization, I was shooting at ISO 3200 handheld at 1/100.
The process can be broken down into two steps: 1) the shooting with the focus automatic focus adjustments and 2) the combining of the multiple images into one.
For the Canon bodies, the first step in preparing to take the shots is to enable the focus bracketing.
Go to the 5th page of the red camera feature menu and select Focus bracketing and enable it.
The Focus bracketing set up menu is not so straight forward since the values are all relative and not absolute. You guess the maximum number of exposures and select the Focus increment (smaller is better quality but more frames). I enable Exposure smoothing to keep the exposures constant across the sequence. The camera is now set up to take as many frames as are needed (up to the max you specify) in order to cover the scene.
Start by focusing at some point at the near field of the subject.
One push of the shutter button starts the sequence. It's entertaining to watch the focus ring on your lens as the camera quickly goes through the frames and the lens moves throughout the process. When it's complete, you have a series of individual frames but taken at different focus settings. In the case of macro photography, it is very likely that none of the individual images are useful. Make sure you disable the feature when you are finished because it remains enabled until you either disable it or turn off the camera.
At this point, I edit the images in batch like i would for any individual one, including noise reduction and sharpening.
Begin the process of combining the individual frames by opening them into a stack in Photoshop.
Click on File- Scripts-Load Files into Stack.
In the dialogue, click to align the source images.
Once they are all loaded, you will see individual layers. Now select all of the layers.
Now click on Edit-Auto-Blend Layers.
In the dialogue, make sure to select Stack Images and check Seamless Tones and Colors and click OK. The images will become layer masks and all you have to do it flatten the image which leaves you with the resultant image with all the frames combined.
Just treat the image like an other and you are done. This example was the result of 34 individual frames. Since this was a moving subject (the second hand) you can see that it took about three seconds to capture the images.
Be sure to check out my other blog articles for useful photographic tips and techniques.
Thoughts on the Mirrorless Revolution
A Revolution?
I call it a revolution because I think it is the logical next step in photography.
In the early days, mirrorless was sold as a lightweight and compact alternative to the heavy and bulky DSLR bodies. I saw right away that this was not completely true. While the bodies were indeed more compact and lighter, when you started to attach lenses, and adapters, extra batteries, there really wasn't much of an advantage. Add to that the horrible electronic viewfinders, I figured it was going to be a while before I got my first one. I needed a lot more encouragement.
Why a logical next step? Sensor-based everything! It never made much sense to me to have a metering system, and especially a focusing system, that was not integral to the actual focal plane. Before the technologies were available though, the only alternative was either a dual lens set up of the twin lens era in the late 1920's or a reflex housing like many of us enjoyed during the SLR and DSLR days. They worked and they gave us an identical view of what the film or sensor was "seeing" for the most part. And with mechanical shutters and mirror boxes wearing out and the costs to have them replaced, it was time to remove the mechanical bulk much the way Tesla is removing the internal combustion from the automotive equation.
Not impressed
I held a few of the early mirrorless bodies of several makes and was so turned off by the fake look through the electronic viewfinders. I heard everyone talk about how small and light it was - when paired with their bulky 100-400mm lenses. My prime lens is a 500mm/f4, often with a 2x extender behind it so a smaller body is almost useless to me. In fact, I like a bulkier body to hold. So these early products were duds in my opinion. For a compact and lightweight snap shooting camera, I already had one smaller that would also make phone calls and wake me up in the morning.
The Solution is in the Software
My career at NASA involved developing software for digital imaging. Not the editing type of software like Photoshop, but the kind that is hardware-based and built into imaging systems for aircraft, for real-time processing during poor visibility flying. Our goal was to make the processing faster while making the hardware more compact and energy and computationally efficient. Focal plane processing was our end goal. I retired as the program money dwindled and priorities shifted so I never got to see the end.
The R6 Arrives
Fast forward to 2020 with the introduction of the Canon R6. I had been watching the market for some time but had not been impressed with the offerings. Coming from the 1Dx line and currently shooting a 1Dx MkII, nothing offered me much over what I already had. Finally, the R6/R5 that came out in the summer of 2020 caught my eye mainly because the amazing auto focusing that was now offered in the 1Dx MkIII was added, but expanded to include detection and tracking for animal eyes. The 1Dx MkIII was limited to human eyes.
Why the difference? After a couple of simple experiments, it seems the camera first detects a human face (some of the related work I was involved in at NASA) and then locates the eyes. Same with animals, especially birds (and cats and dogs as well as I have heard). Pattern recognition is an important first step in facial detection software and we are starting to see it in consumer photographic equipment now. Being that my main interest is in capturing wildlife, and the focus on the eye is so important, I was excited to see something that may increase my "hit rate" on my favorite genre of shooting.
So, after watching the roll out of these two products very closely, I decided to get the R6, mainly because of the larger pixels (larger pixels = greater signal-to-noise ratio = better low light performance) and the difference in price. Had I been interested in high definition video or had I not already been in vested in big glass, I would have leaned toward the R5. But coming from an amazing 18MP 1Dx and the even better 1Dx MkII with 20 MP, the R6 was a no-brainer to me. I ordered mine with the battery grip and the Kirk L-bracket, something I like for all of my bodies. There went the compact size and light weight of the R6.
In the Hand and out in the Field
My first impressions with the R6 were nothing short of amazing. My description continues to be that it's a "game changer". The image quality is no less than what I'm used to but the autofocus features make this a must-have camera for almost anyone, in my opinion. In just a few minutes with it in my hand, and with the first short venture out into the field, I couldn't say enough good about the performance and the features, especially for wildlife.
Crude cell phone video of the rear of my camera, showing how the animal eye tracking picked up the egret's eye as soon as it was visible.
Some of you may have seen the cell phone video I shared on Facebook, and in another blog post here, showing the back of my camera, as it picked up and focused on the eye of a preening great blue heron, and then continued to lock in on its eye as it moved. Gone was the need to focus and recompose - for two reasons. Firstly, the focusing area on this camera now has over 6000 locations as opposed to 61 for the 5D MkIv and goes nearly to the edges of the frame! And secondly, the tracking works so well, that all you need to do in most cases is compose your image and let the camera take care of the focusing for you. Those of you using back button focus may even find yourself forgetting to hit the back button because the tracking works so well, you may think it's also focusing for you. I found myself doing that while shooting eagles at Conowingo Dam. Fortunately I realized it early and corrected myself. But you may find that in many cases you can revert back to shutter button focus - Gasp! Yes, this camera is really that good.
The eagles of Conowingo Dam. An eagle landing at 20 frames per second. The animal eye autofocus detected and tracked this eagle as I followed it through its landing.
The only con I can come up with at this point is the viewfinder. While it is so much better than any I had seen of other brands (I admit I have not seen them all) in some cases, it does not render highlights very well. After all, it's an 8-bit jpeg representation of a 16-bit+ real world scene (when you factor in human dynamic range compression). But in most cases it looks wonderful and perfectly natural.
Notable Features
This article would be too long if I were to list all the great features of this body, like the articulating screen that allows you to select your focus point (and save your knees), and the touch screen capability, useful for so much of its operation. But I will go over a few of the features I expect to be enjoying.
Amazing Autofocus!
First of course is the amazing autofocus system. Not only is it fast but it's accurate and it seems to know what I want the subject to be. Only in a few cases have I had to do manual selection. But in a wildlife setting, it almost always picks out the animal, and if it cannot find it's eye, it will place a focus box around its head. I used it for a studio session and the human eye focus was perfect. With multiple people in the scene however, you have to do some manual selection among eyes, but it does detect that there are multiple eyes from which to choose. I did notice something about the way it tracks eyes. It apparently needs to detect a human face first. It's also obvious that this software was developed before the COVID-19 pandemic that has placed so many people behind masks. With a mask on, the subject's eyes cannot be found! Pull the mask down and it instantly find the eyes.
Great blue heron at ISO 12,800. The automatic animal eye detect immediately locked in on the eye even in the low light at f8.
Still use your older lenses
Next is the ability to continue to use your older EF lenses. All you have to do is pick up one of the EF to RF adapters for under $100. This is one of the cases where you are fine to go with an aftermarket product if you are using lightweight lenses since it's nothing more than an extension tube with electrical contacts that pass through it. I got one of the Vello ones from B&H and removed the tripod mount because it was in the way. And since the focusing is all done on the sensor and not by in intermediate set of optics, gone is the need for lens calibration! It worked great but it was rather sloppy when paired with my heavy 500mm/f4 lens and in fact, I lost connectivity occasionally, enough to disable my auto focus and make my image stabilization for haywire.
I ordered a Canon one and the fit was so tight that once locked into place, it feels like the adapter is part of the camera body. And the connection with my lens is much tighter too.
Image Stabilization
Another great advantage of the R6/R5 bodies is that they have really effective in-body image stabilization or IBIS. So even if you have the Canon 400mm/f5.6 lens for example, (a wonderful wildlife lens!) which has no image stabilization built in, once you couple it to the R6, you now have the benefit of the IBIS. And as an added benefit, if your lens does have IS, you now get the benefit of both!
Real-time exposure preview
Not unique to any brand or body but most of the mirrorless bodies allow you to preview the image before you take it. Even the DSLR bodies had that (Live View for Canon for example) but with the electronic viewfinders, it now becomes almost standard that you see what your exposure is before you press the shutter button. This is especially helpful when using exposures outside of the normal, human vision range such as when shooting slow exposures or those of dark scenes at very high ISO vales. Autofocusing with dark scenes is now easier than ever. When shooting with strobes it helps to turn this feature off. Otherwise your scene will likely be dark and otherwise not indicative of your final exposure.
Autofocus Loss at f8
In the lens department, now gone is that nasty minimum aperture limitation of f8. Well, since it's moved to f22, it's all but eliminated. That means that those of you with the 100-400mm/f5.6 lens (or the 400mm/f5.6 mentioned above) can now get the 2x extender and still have autofocus at f11.
Shutter Choices
Next is the electronic shutter. We've all experienced the silent shutters of our cell phones. Well, you now have it with the R6/R5. It so quiet in fact that during high speed bursts you will immediately lose track of how many you have shot. The nice extra is the presence of a real, mechanical shutter. This is useful when shooting under flickering lights and when your subject is moving very fast. I used the mechanical shutter during the studio session I mentioned because there were other lights in the room. And even the mechanical shutter is amazingly quiet.
Battery Life
The battery life on this body is severely underrated. Canon lists it at something like 380 exposures per charge at best. My day on the rail at Conowingo was seven hours long. I had not yet received my battery grip so I was relying on one battery, with ten backups, from my 7D MkII and older 6D, I had amassed. To my surprise, the one battery outlasted me. I shot just over 3400 images and the first battery was still going. Now, with a battery grip holding two batteries, and two backup batteries, I may be on battery overload.
Focus Bracketing
Focus bracketing was available on the R and the RP but it's new to me in the R6. It's simple to set up and perform and after a few minutes of testing, I'm hooked. It allows one to easily take multiple images while the camera automatically moves the focus distance deeper into the scene. In the end, you're able to produce one frame, blended from multiple shots, so you get it with all the sharpest edges combined. Like shooting at f5.6 but getting the depth of field of f64 or higher.
Example of focus bracketing. 50mm at f5.6 with the effect of having shot at f64.
Affordable High ISO Performance
Great high ISO performance. This is not new for high-end bodies, but for the first time, it's available to those who don't buy in to the professional level gear. For $2400 for the R6, you're getting essentially the same image quality you can get on the 1Dx MkIII which would cost you nearly $6000.
Support of Multiple Aspect Ratios
For those who do portraiture or who otherwise end up with 4x5 aspect ratio images, there is a nice feature which allows you to see cropping bars inside the viewfinder so you don't compose improperly and end up having to fix the image in post or end up cropping grandma's head and shoulder out of the picture.
Example of automatic cropping, in this case 6x6, for an Instagram session.
I used this when doing a recent studio job where the final product was to be on Instagram, with all the images being square. Easy. I just selected the 6x6 (not sure why it's not 1x1) crop and it tossed up bars in my viewfinder, making it easy to see what was going to be in my final product. And although it captured the entire frame, when bringing up the images in my RAW editor (Adobe Camera RAW), it automatically cropped them square for me. All I had to do was slide them around to center them the way I wanted. And since the client also wanted the full frame shots, they were all still there as well. The closest thing I had to this with my 1Dx MkII was an extra focusing screen onto which I had etched lines in a 4x5 aspect ratio.
Summary
The mirrorless revolution is less about removing the mirror and so much more about moving the essential photographic processes - focusing and metering - to the focal plane. It comes at a time when additional features can be added to control things that were reserved for the darkroom or the computer desk. At least for me, the time has come for me to start taking advantage of what these newer bodies have to offer. I'm expecting totally professional models to come out soon but it seems the big two (or three) manufacturers are trying to drag some of the old school photographers like me into the market to get a taste of it before the pro models come out, hoping to keep us loyal to the brand. So far, it's working for me.
While the 6D was an amazing body for it's time, being a slight step up in image quality over the 5D MkIII at half its price; the 1Dx was definitely a truly professional body; and the 1Dx MkII was the next step, the R6 has now taken over as my primary body. It's hard to think I've just pushed my beloved MkII into the second slot in my bag. But with all the great features of the R6 and the same image quality, it's not really a tough decision.
Be sure to check out my other blog articles for useful photographic tips and techniques.