# Had the chance to use the R5 for astrophotography



## Kit Lens Jockey (Aug 9, 2020)

I used my new R5 for some astrophotography this past week. I'm pretty happy with the results. Even pushing the shadows pretty hard at ISO 1600, the foreground detail held up _fairly_ well. Here is a sample image for anyone considering the R5 for astro work. Please note that I don't consider myself to be a pro at editing astro photos. This was just done with some quick basic edits and noise reduction in Adobe Camera Raw.

Taken with a Rokinon 14mm f2.8, 35 seconds, ISO 1600



And the original, no edits, for comparison.



And I know people want to pixel peep, so here's a 1:1 crop of the foreground detail in the first photo. This has some noise reduction applied. It's not perfect by any means, but I'm fairly happy with it, especially being that it's in the corner of the photo. Also keep in mind that this is a 45mp photo, so looking at 1:1 crops is looking a lot closer than what 1:1 would be from a 5D4 or EOS R.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 9, 2020)

That 1:1 doesn't look good to me. How much did you raise the shadows and or exposure by?


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Aug 9, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> That 1:1 doesn't look good to me. How much did you raise the shadows and or exposure by?


Pretty much as much as I could without the image totally falling apart. Again, not claiming to be an astrophotography pro, just putting this out there for people to look at what the camera can do and make their own decisions.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 9, 2020)

I made some attempts yesterday, of Milky Way shots as well as Cygnus (which is also a milky way shot, but not as bright a one) but had nothing satisfactory. I'm going to try again tonight. I might also try to bag Jupiter and Saturn with my 100-400 on my M6.


----------



## pmjm (Aug 9, 2020)

I grabbed the moon at 1200mm (Tamron 150-600 gen 1 with a 2X teleconverter @ f/11) on the R5, it came out decent, but not as sharp as if I had taken it without the teleconverter. I was just going for high pixel count on this one. I no longer have the original but here it is with contrast, detail tweaks.






For comparison, here it is the night before at 400mm with no teleconverter. Much sharper.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Aug 9, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> I used my new R5 for some astrophotography this past week. I'm pretty happy with the results. Even pushing the shadows pretty hard at ISO 1600, the foreground detail held up _fairly_ well. Here is a sample image for anyone considering the R5 for astro work. Please note that I don't consider myself to be a pro at editing astro photos. This was just done with some quick basic edits and noise reduction in Adobe Camera Raw.
> 
> Taken with a Rokinon 14mm f2.8, 35 seconds, ISO 1600
> View attachment 191999
> ...



Thanks for posting this. It looks like you could have gotten away with a brighter exposure as a starting point. Raising the shadows by +100 at 1600 iso is less than ideal


----------



## SteveC (Aug 9, 2020)

Well I got much better results with the Milky Way. The biggest problem is I can't lock the lens focal length and if I accidentally touch it fumbling in the dark, I have to focus again. But by putting the camera on spot focus and putting that spot against a light on the horizon, I can then back-button focus it. Then I just have to swing the camera back to where it should be. (I realize if you live in a wooded or urban area finding a single light several miles away on the horizon might be impossible.)


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 9, 2020)

You should be able to get a much cleaner image than that. Here is a badly underexposed test shot of a wall from a 1DX II (so last generation sensor) I input the same RAW settings as yours and then opened it in PS and resized it to the same size as the R5, 45mp. The first shot is before and after in LR and the second screenshot is a crop of 1:1 copy of that resized PS file. Only LR NR done nothing fancy, I only moved it to PS to resize it for a more relevant comparison.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 9, 2020)

No joy with Jupiter and Saturn, all I got were smudges. I most likely wasn't quite in focus but honestly I don't know how I can make it sharper in the viewfinder, a dot looks just like a slightly out of focus dot to me.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 9, 2020)

Nothing earthshattering here, but... In both cases I raised the contrast a bit, in one case I cropped out really bright ground.




The really bright "star" is Jupiter, up a bit and well to the left, that second brightest "star" is Saturn. They're going to get a LOT closer to each other in December...close enough to possibly appear in a telescope simultaneously. 24.0 mm 10sec, f/2.8, iso 10000.




The continuation of the Milky way upwards from the horizon takes you into the Summer Triangle (if you're in the Northern Hemisphere). Same exposure info. The bright star top and center is vega, the brightest star in the lower right quarter is altair, and Deneb is at about mid height, a quarter of the way into the image from the left. to the right of Deneb are three stars (fairly widely spaced) that form the "crossbar" of the northern cross, the other two stars in the vertical (which is horizontal in this picture) are a lot harder to pick out.


----------



## Joules (Aug 9, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> You should be able to get a much cleaner image than that. Here is a badly underexposed test shot of a wall from a 1DX II (so last generation sensor) I input the same RAW settings as yours and then opened it in PS and resized it to the same size as the R5, 45mp. The first shot is before and after in LR and the second screenshot is a crop of 1:1 copy of that resized PS file. Only LR NR done nothing fancy, I only moved it to PS to resize it for a more relevant comparison.
> 
> View attachment 192007


Your wall looks a lot brighter than the OP's image after the push to me. So it appears you have more signal here.

Also, as was mentioned by the OP, magnification matters a lot. The 1:1 crop from the OP can't be compared with a 1DX II shot. One that is downsampled to 20 MP could, but the OP would either have to upload the original file or give that to you.

And lastly, the OP's exposure time is 35 s. How long was yours? I don't expect Dark Current noise to be much of a factor here, but it tends to show up in strong shadow pushs in my experience, so is a thing worth considering.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Aug 9, 2020)

Joules said:


> Your wall looks a lot brighter than the OP's image after the push to me. So it appears you have more signal here.
> 
> Also, as was mentioned by the OP, magnification matters a lot. The 1:1 crop from the OP can't be compared with a 1DX II shot. One that is downsampled to 20 MP could, but the OP would either have to upload the original file or give that to you.
> 
> And lastly, the OP's exposure time is 35 s. How long was yours? I don't expect Dark Current noise to be much of a factor here, but it tends to show up in strong shadow pushs in my experience, so is a thing worth considering.


They did say they enlarged the brick wall photo to be equivalent to 45mp. But otherwise I agree with you. How long was the exposure of the brick wall? Unless it was also 35 seconds, I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Aug 9, 2020)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> Thanks for posting this. It looks like you could have gotten away with a brighter exposure as a starting point. Raising the shadows by +100 at 1600 iso is less than ideal


Yeah maybe. Like I said, not claiming to be a pro at astrophotography. Still figuring out the tradeoffs between running a higher ISO, or boosting it in post.


----------



## cornieleous (Aug 9, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Yeah maybe. Like I said, not claiming to be a pro at astrophotography. Still figuring out the tradeoffs between running a higher ISO, or boosting it in post.


Until the sensor is completely ISO invariant (not really an accurate term but a popular one) using the correct exposure is best or you end up adding back that perceived savings in noise plus more in post. While the latest Canon sensors are closer to the so called ISO invariance, still not quite there. Also I feel its better to see what the image will look like as a RAW than underexposed for noise in camera.

I leave dark areas dark in my astro landscapes, pixel peeling beyond print size for astro doesn't make sense to me, and use of denoise and stacking can help tremendously. From my first test of this sensor it is better than any previous Canon and very likely better than most cameras out there since for low light high ISO Canon has always been near the top.

Here is a quick test at F2.8, 15s, 6400, Samyang 24mm on R5. Image is extremely compressed for web and downsized to 20% original. Light post processing.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 9, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> They did say they enlarged the brick wall photo to be equivalent to 45mp. But otherwise I agree with you. How long was the exposure of the brick wall? Unless it was also 35 seconds, I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison.


I used the only 1600iso exposure I had that was also pretty underexposed (I normally delete them).

Anyway I wasn't trying to either put you down or pick a fight, merely point out that you should be able to process the image you got even better than you did even just with LR.

I took a picture of the inside of my wife's closet to get a 35 second 1600iso image that had a decent bit of underexposure.

Here is the before/after in LR with your same settings.




And here is the 1:1 of an upsized file to 45mp.




And then your 1:1 laid onto of my 1:1. Yours should be a touch better than mine if you are managing to get the cleanest results optimal processing can give you even just out of LR.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Aug 9, 2020)

There is no form of photography that excites me more than astrophotography. 

There is no form of photography that pisses me off more than astrophotography. 

I have spent many cold nights taking what can only be the most amazing photos while on site only to be revealed as the complete shit they are once downloaded on to my computer. 

I have read/watched everything I can on the subject and I am convinced the sky hates me and I will never never waste my time again with it....

Hmm there is a meteor shower this week.

I guess I can give it another go.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Aug 9, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I used the only 1600iso exposure I had that was also pretty underexposed (I normally delete them).
> 
> Anyway I wasn't trying to either put you down or pick a fight, merely point out that you should be able to process the image you got even better than you did even just with LR.
> 
> ...



No offense taken. I'm always open to learn and understand more. I'm curious to know how you got so much better results getting rid of the noise. I just played around with the noise reduction slider until I found a decent compromise between detail and noise.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 9, 2020)

I wonder if there is a significant difference with a R6 and its 20 MP sensor. I'm afraid I have no clue as to what is needed for astrophotography except for light sensitivity. Since individual stars are so tiny, does the extra resolution of a 45 MP sensor outweigh the extra light per pixel in a 20 mp sensor? I know that large sensors do much better, but they are still pretty specialized items.

Do the sensors used in big observatories use bayer filters or AA filters? I'm thinking the super large one made by Canon. 






World Biggest Camera Sensor - Made by Canon « NEW CAMERA







thenewcamera.com





I know it gets extremely complex with custom designed cameras linking many sensors to get the larger area. CCD's are also used but I don't know if thats because appropriate CMOS sensors are not available or if CCD's just work out better for the application.






Technical Details


Focal Plane RequirementsHigh QE to 1000nmThick silicon (> 100 µm)PSF 5 kohm/cm)High applied voltages (40 - 50 Volts)Small pixel size (0.2 arcseconds = 10 µm)Fast f/1.2 focal ratioSensor flatness 189-sensor mosaic (~16 square cm each)Industrialized production processesHigh throughput> 90% fill...




www.lsst.org


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 9, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> No offense taken. I'm always open to learn and understand more. I'm curious to know how you got so much better results getting rid of the noise. I just played around with the noise reduction slider until I found a decent compromise between detail and noise.


Sharpening and NR are not easy to standardize, especially as I started out with a lower resolution image, although, as you said, I did normalize mine to yours.

But try this as a starting point.




If you like PM me a link to the RAW and I'll do what I would do and send you the exact settings for that image, that would give you a much better starting point for your files.


----------



## Joules (Aug 9, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Do the sensors used in big observatories use bayer filters or AA filters? I'm thinking the super large one made by Canon.


I have no idea with regards to 'big observatories' but a lot of people in the astro photography enthusiast community use monochrome CCD cameras. So no bayer filters. You get more light, and pick the wavelength (a specific color, infrared, ultraviolet, specific molecule emissons like hydrogen-alpha, ...) that you want to capture by installing a filter.

As for resolution, if you capture stars, I don't think there's much of a benefit to be had from the additional resolution of the R5.


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 10, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Nothing earthshattering here, but... In both cases I raised the contrast a bit, in one case I cropped out really bright ground.
> 
> View attachment 192008
> 
> ...



Steve - as someone who has never tried this, what lens did you use to take these images? I’ve heard “the faster the better” But I’ve also seen some good images taken with the 16-35 f4..

Curious on your opinion.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 10, 2020)

I had never tried this in particular until two nights ago. (I had to give up the first night because the moon came up--the moon will blast the bejeezus out of this whole endeavor.) I used the RF 15-35 f/2.8 L for these. (I think I gave all other settings in the post--and I stole those from FRO's video on taking astro pictures with the R5; he did show some starscapes after his planet shots.) "The faster the better" is a good principle, but an f/4 should be fine...if you're willing to double your exposure time, or ISO, or some combo that adds up to a stop, to compensate. Zooming in I see short star trails so I'd not want to go with a longer exposure unless the ISO noise is intolerable.

I was originally thinking of getting that f/4 in fact, but decided at the last moment to splurge on the f/2.8 and then was talked into going RF native for yet more money (a smaller step though than going to 2.8 in the first place). The lens is bigger, but not hugely so. I'd certainly not bother _ugrading_ for this! (I had no wider full frame lens before this than the pancake 40mm.)


----------



## cornieleous (Aug 10, 2020)

Ramage said:


> There is no form of photography that excites me more than astrophotography.
> 
> There is no form of photography that pisses me off more than astrophotography.
> 
> ...


This is hilarious and I agree so much. The struggle is real. Images always look amazing on that tiny screen until you get home.


----------



## cornieleous (Aug 10, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Steve - as someone who has never tried this, what lens did you use to take these images? I’ve heard “the faster the better” But I’ve also seen some good images taken with the 16-35 f4..
> 
> Curious on your opinion.



I'm not Steve, so pardon the interruption, but I have done extensive reading, and then field testing with many lenses for astro and maybe someone will benefit from my time spent. For sharpness, coma, speed, and vignette concerns, the absolute best EF lenses I have found, when you want the best posssible image and noise levels for astrophotography are:

@14mm: Samyang/Rokinon 2.8. All manual, poor build quality, affordable. A good sharp copy is incredible for astro wide open, and ok as a very sharp lens during the day at 5.6. Terrible mustache distortion, 3 stops vignetting to corners. Can last probably a max of 5 years if used often.

@15mm-30mm: Tamron 15-30mm 2.8 V2. It's huge with bulbous element but has amazing coma performance (stars stay round) and corner to corner sharpness is good through most of the zoom. Its a nice lens during the day too, but can't put filters on it even with square holder setups without buying one of those huge clamps that go over the built in hood. The 16-35 F4L is slow, and the 16-35mm F2.8L V3 has awful vignetting (4.5 stops) despite incredible image quality for all subjects- that vignetting equals lots of shadow noise in the corners.

@24mm Samyang/Rokinon 1.4. All manual, poor build quality, affordable. A good sharp copy is incredible stopped down to F2 or F2.8. Can last probably a max of 5 years if used often. Very little vignette or distortions of any kind.

I've gotten passable shots with the 16-35mm F4L, it is a decent performer in all subjects and coma is ok, not perfect. It is of course, 1 stop slower than you'd like to start your astro, and a stop is a stop of more noise (at high ISO increases quickly).

For wide angle landscape astro, these are about as good as it gets. Sigma and Zeiss have a few options but none are really better and the price goes way up. Most lenses simply are not built with astro in mind, and suffer from distortions like coma or soft corners, or heavy vignette wide open.

I'd love to test the RF 16-35mm F2.8, but will be surprised if it is that much better with vignette than the EF. If it is, I could probably replace everything but my Samyang 24mm.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 10, 2020)

Joules said:


> I have no idea with regards to 'big observatories' but a lot of people in the astro photography enthusiast community use monochrome CCD cameras. So no bayer filters. You get more light, and pick the wavelength (a specific color, infrared, ultraviolet, specific molecule emissons like hydrogen-alpha, ...) that you want to capture by installing a filter.
> 
> As for resolution, if you capture stars, I don't think there's much of a benefit to be had from the additional resolution of the R5.


That makes sense. The built in UV filter is likely a big culprit.


----------



## RobbieHat (Aug 10, 2020)

A few perspectives from my experience. I shoot astro with the 5DSR and a Sigma 14mm f1.8. As was stated previously, the faster the lens the better. I own the 16-35mm f2.8 but will only use that in a pinch. I also own the 11-24 f4 and haven't tried that at 11 and f4 but might to experiment a bit. The challenge with a 16mm f4 shot is you are definitely going to get star trails above about 20 seconds. As a result you will need to be shooting at 3200 or 6400 ISO to get enough light to not have to lift the exposure a lot in post. As was stated, lifting higher ISO images in post introduces a ton of noise and it is quite difficult to deal with. 

I have heard great things about the potential of the R5 (which I have on order) for high ISO noise handling compared to the 5DSR. I can't wait to test it out. I would gladly work on someone's raw image if you want to shoot a shot of the milky way at f2.8 (or faster if you have it), 16mm or wider and ISO 3200 or 6400.

I am really hoping Canon comes out with a comparable 14-24 lens that is either 2.8 or my dream lens f2.0! I know it would be a beast, and expensive, but it would be the ultimate astro lens. I will keep using my Sigma in the meantime. It is quite a nice lens. 

Bob


----------



## jjct (Aug 10, 2020)

cornieleous said:


> I'm not Steve, so pardon the interruption, but I have done extensive reading, and then field testing with many lenses for astro and maybe someone will benefit from my time spent. For sharpness, coma, speed, and vignette concerns, the absolute best EF lenses I have found, when you want the best posssible image and noise levels for astrophotography are:
> 
> @14mm: Samyang/Rokinon 2.8. All manual, poor build quality, affordable. A good sharp copy is incredible for astro wide open, and ok as a very sharp lens during the day at 5.6. Terrible mustache distortion, 3 stops vignetting to corners. Can last probably a max of 5 years if used often.
> 
> ...



I’ve used the 16-35 f2.8 iii and been very pleased with results. The Rokinon SP f2.4 14mm is awesome, but I find 14mm a little too wide.


----------



## tron (Aug 10, 2020)

I do have 5DsR and 5DIV but I use only 5DIV for astrophotography. I used EF14mm 2.8L II that although it has coma it is medium so tolerable if you add in the equation the much less vignetting than my 16-35 2.8l iii. Last year I added Sigma 14mm 1.8 to my kit which reduced ISO a lot (OK it reduced it exactly by 1 1/3 of a stop  which is a lot when we are talking astro...nomical iso values). But it has no tolerance for flare (like 16-35 III has) which may or may not be a problem depending whether an early stage moon is on the sky (even not in sight).

I wonder if I would get significant improvement from R5 or R6 for this kind of photography. I dare not ask about 1DxIII for obvious reasons!


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 10, 2020)

cornieleous said:


> I'm not Steve, so pardon the interruption, but I have done extensive reading, and then field testing with many lenses for astro and maybe someone will benefit from my time spent. For sharpness, coma, speed, and vignette concerns, the absolute best EF lenses I have found, when you want the best posssible image and noise levels for astrophotography are:
> 
> @14mm: Samyang/Rokinon 2.8. All manual, poor build quality, affordable. A good sharp copy is incredible for astro wide open, and ok as a very sharp lens during the day at 5.6. Terrible mustache distortion, 3 stops vignetting to corners. Can last probably a max of 5 years if used often.
> 
> ...



Wow. Super post and thank you very much. Feel free to interrupt any time you like. 

A couple of follow-ups if you don't mind.. You ever notice when the doctor is in the house everyone crowds around for free advice? 

- you say "can last probably a max of 5 years if used often" and I don't understand what you mean. Is it going to fall apart? Do the optics degrade somehow?

- what would you think about the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8? Probably not wide enough?

Thanks again for the great response. I had to go lookup mustache distortion.. haha..


----------

