# Some deer - M6 Mk II



## Keith_Reeder (Nov 3, 2019)

I had a great time earlier in the week, shooting a deer rut in North Yorkshire - the M6 Mk II/100-400mm Mk II/1.4x TC combo did a bang-up job (click for full-size images).






*Red deer*





*Fallow deer*





*Red deer*





*Red deer*










*Red deer, getting a move on. The camera locked on really well (Zone AF) - these are only two of a sequence, all perfectly focused.*





*Fallow deer





Red deer*

I know that most of these are relatively static shots, but I'm really impressed by the sharpness and detail the camera/lens combo is capable of.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Nov 3, 2019)

Is it only me or is anyone else also not able to see the photos?

Frank


----------



## Cog (Nov 3, 2019)

I don't see the photos in the message body, but a rightclick + "View image" will open an image in a new window. Not convenient, I agree.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 3, 2019)

Nice shots Keith! What do you reckon on the 100-400mm II vs lens + 1.4xTCIII? I find that there is an increase in resolution on my 90D on adding the TC, but am wondering whether it is worth it as it's getting into the region of diminishing returns with a small increase in resolution at the cost of a loss of a stop.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Nov 3, 2019)

Photorex said:


> Is it only me or is anyone else also not able to see the photos?
> 
> Frank


Try refreshing the page - they weren't there for me either just now, but a refresh sorted it.


----------



## Tyroop (Nov 3, 2019)

Did you use the original M6 before? If so how does the original compare with the Mark II? I had my mind set on an M6 Mark II, but realised that an RP with adapter isn't that much more expensive. I still have a selection of EF lenses and a full frame mirrorless would be interesting. I have no need for speed. Not sure what to do now. I'm still very satisfied with my M6. Very nice shots. There seems to be a bit of a magenta cast on some of them, but nothing that can't be fixed in post.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Nov 3, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Nice shots Keith! What do you reckon on the 100-400mm II vs lens + 1.4xTCIII? I find that there is an increase in resolution on my 90D on adding the TC, but am wondering whether it is worth it as it's getting into the region of diminishing returns with a small increase in resolution at the cost of a loss of a stop.


I rarely go _without_ a TC, Alan - regardless of the camera, it's likely to be there. I can live with the loss of a stop for the most part, because of my faith in Photo Ninja; but on this trip I had plenty of light anyway.

But I can't remember the last time I removed a TC _just _because the light was poor.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Nov 3, 2019)

Tyroop said:


> Did you use the original M6 before? If so how does the original compare with the Mark II? I had my mind set on an M6 Mark II, but realised that an RP with adapter isn't that much more expensive. I still have a selection of EF lenses and a full frame mirrorless would be interesting. I have no need for speed. Not sure what to do now. I'm still very satisfied with my M6. Very nice shots. There seems to be a bit of a magenta cast on some of them, but nothing that can't be fixed in post.


This is my first venture into mirrorless, Tyroop - I wasn't sold on the idea previously, but a combination of the spec of the Mk II, and my desire for a lighter package than my usual 1D-x/500mm f4 Mk II/1.4x TC set-up, drew me in.

Not seeing a magenta cast on any of my calibrated screens - anyone else?


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Nov 3, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Try refreshing the page - they weren't there for me either just now, but a refresh sorted it.


I needed to rightclick on each of the photo placeholders and choose reload picture from the contextmenu. That worked for me.
I do like the shots and am also impressed of the sharpness of that combo.

I also do see a slight blueish/cold temperature on the fur of the deers (2nd and last picture). But I do not know how the colors have been on location when you took the shots. So I guess for you the photos are showing what you remember from the situation.

Frank


----------



## AlanF (Nov 3, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> I rarely go _without_ a TC, Alan - regardless of the camera, it's likely to be there. I can live with the loss of a stop for the most part, because of my faith in Photo Ninja; but on this trip I had plenty of light anyway.
> 
> But I can't remember the last time I removed a TC _just _because the light was poor.


I too normally use TCs, and Noise Ninja is doing a great job. The 100-400mm II on the 5DSR and 5DIV has a real boost with the 1.4xTC as does the 400mm DO II, and as does the 2xTC with the prime on the 5DIV. The 1.4xTC with the 90D works well with the prime at f/5.6. But although there is improvement in resolution with the zoom at f/8, it's not as much and I'm beginning to see the degradation in IQ. I will continue to use the TC on occasion but not with BIF. Anyway, I am going on a big bird trip in sunny climes next week and I'll report back.


----------



## Nelu (Nov 3, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> I had a great time earlier in the week, shooting a deer rut in North Yorkshire - the M6 Mk II/100-400mm Mk II/1.4x TC combo did a bang-up job (click for full-size images).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh deer, no deer!
What happened to the photos, Keith?
Edit:
I had to right-click every image and choose: "Open image in a new tab". Weird...
Great shots and excellent light and sharpness. I love the second-last one!
Thanks,
Nelu


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Nov 4, 2019)

Something odd going on with the pics - they're hosted on my own website and are instantly visible there, but they don't show up here on a refresh/reload for me now.

That's a pain - but it must be the forum software, as there's no problem with them on my site..


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Nov 4, 2019)

Photorex said:


> I also do see a slight blueish/cold temperature on the fur of the deers (2nd and last picture). But I do not know how the colors have been on location when you took the shots. So I guess for you the photos are showing what you remember from the situation.
> Frank


Yeah, they were a bit difficult, colour and light-wise - they're actually close to "off camera", although I've lifted the shadow detail a lot: but I do that routinely, so I'm not _introducing_ any blue/cold cast by doing so. 

But my Raw converter of choice - Photo Ninja - doesn't officially support the M6 Mk II yet, so maybe we're seeing a symptom of that.

I'll have a play with them to see if I can improve things.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Nov 4, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Yeah, they were a bit difficult, colour and light-wise - they're actually close to "off camera", although I've lifted the shadow detail a lot: but I do that routinely, so I'm not _introducing_ any blue/cold cast by doing so.
> 
> But my Raw converter of choice - Photo Ninja - doesn't officially support the M6 Mk II yet, so maybe we're seeing a symptom of that.
> 
> I'll have a play with them to see if I can improve things.


Maybe you can try to adjust the white balance partially in the shadow area of the 2nd shot.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 4, 2019)

Keith and Alan, could either of you post an image or crop of one that you think Noise Ninja saved, a before and after? I ask because although I hate the noise reduction in Lightroom I find the noise reduction in PS to be much better even though they are supposed to be the same thing. I'd love to run a comparison on a bad file or two but dont have the Noise Ninja to compare and the ones I downloaded off their site I am able to get close enough within my current workflow to not make the differences I see worthwhile.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 4, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Keith and Alan, could either of you post an image or crop of one that you think Noise Ninja saved, a before and after? I ask because although I hate the noise reduction in Lightroom I find the noise reduction in PS to be much better even though they are supposed to be the same thing. I'd love to run a comparison on a bad file or two but dont have the Noise Ninja to compare and the ones I downloaded off their site I am able to get close enough within my current workflow to not make the differences I see worthwhile.


Download free trial versions and try for yourself. Here are some recent articles.








Photo Ninja - Contender or Pretender? - Andy Bell Photography


Photo Ninja - a relatively unknown RAW image development tool. Is it any good? See my review and decide for yourself...




www.andybellphotography.com












DXO PhotoLab 2 Vs Photo Ninja - Andy Bell Photography


DXO Photo Lab V2 has been released. What's new? Is it worth the upgrade? How does it compare with Photo Ninja? Read my review to find out.




www.andybellphotography.com


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Nov 5, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Keith and Alan, could either of you post an image or crop of one that you think Noise Ninja saved, a before and after? I ask because although I hate the noise reduction in Lightroom I find the noise reduction in PS to be much better even though they are supposed to be the same thing. I'd love to run a comparison on a bad file or two but dont have the Noise Ninja to compare and the ones I downloaded off their site I am able to get close enough within my current workflow to not make the differences I see worthwhile.


I'd rather not, right now. Simply because - as I've noticed before - Photo Ninja seems to have a weird default NR for DNGs, so I'd be happier to wait until it properly supports native M6 Mk II files, so I don't have to profile the noise reduction from scratch.

One thing I will say though: Photo Ninja isn't about "saving" images. It's about not having to worry about the ISO the camera chooses, which is a different thing.

I use Manual/Auto ISO 100% of the time, and I can do that in no small part because with Photo Ninja (and assuming properly "tweaked" NR profiles - the work of a moment to do, and a one-time effort) it doesn't matter to the end result whether I'm at 400 ISO or 4000 ISO - or higher, for that matter.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 5, 2019)

Thanks both. Personally I have yet to see anything that makes me think it is any better than anything else, but glad you are both happy with the output. 

I did download some of the sample 'before' images they have on the website and played with them in PS, I couldn't really see any appreciable difference between the output of Noise Ninja and Photoshop. And that is what I was really looking for, I know what I can do in PS I was hoping somebody who knows what they are doing in Noise Ninja could post a before and after they were happy with that I could then do my thing to in PS so I'd know any differences were down to the skilled use of the program, free trials don't give you any experience in the programs use and it can take a big investment in time to come to the best use and workflow of a completely new (to the user) piece of software. I certainly haven't seen anything that makes me think that time investment is worth it.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 5, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Thanks both. Personally I have yet to see anything that makes me think it is any better than anything else, but glad you are both happy with the output.
> 
> I did download some of the sample 'before' images they have on the website and played with them in PS, I couldn't really see any appreciable difference between the output of Noise Ninja and Photoshop. And that is what I was really looking for, I know what I can do in PS I was hoping somebody who knows what they are doing in Noise Ninja could post a before and after they were happy with that I could then do my thing to in PS so I'd know any differences were down to the skilled use of the program, free trials don't give you any experience in the programs use and it can take a big investment in time to come to the best use and workflow of a completely new (to the user) piece of software. I certainly haven't seen anything that makes me think that time investment is worth it.


Requirements for noise reduction and retention of detail depend on, amongst other factors, the fine detail present in the subject and the isos you shoot at. If you are shooting subjects without fine detail or want to smooth out skin blemishes, then DPP or PS is fine. If you are preserving feather details and go to high isos, then you want something more. If what you have already is good enough for your purposes and don't wish to learn new software (it doesn't take long, there are only a couple of variables to play with in both PhotoNinja and DxO Photolab), then stick with what you have - I am not a missionary for PN and PL, but can just tell you that they have enabled me to get better results for what I shoot.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 5, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Requirements for noise reduction and retention of detail depend on, amongst other factors, the fine detail present in the subject and the isos you shoot at. If you are shooting subjects without fine detail or want to smooth out skin blemishes, then DPP or PS is fine. If you are preserving feather details and go to high isos, then you want something more. If what you have already is good enough for your purposes and don't wish to learn new software (it doesn't take long, there are only a couple of variables to play with in both PhotoNinja and DxO Photolab), then stick with what you have - I am not a missionary for PN and PL, but can just tell you that they have enabled me to get better results for what I shoot.


I didn't ask anybody to be a missionary, I asked either of the two keenest and vocal advocates of the software, and very regular posters here, to post an example that illustrated their enthusiasm. Neither would. All the rest I know.

I once asked a high end retoucher a question about a plugin vs results he got in PS, this guy gets paid good money to be an on site digital tech on high end shoots and is one of Canada's highest regarded retouchers. He replied by asking me for an image of mine in RAW format that he could use, I sent him one and he worked it then sent back the complete working file with all the layers and adjustments so I could dissect it. Now I wasn't asking for anything like that from him, or you or Keith, but it ably illustrated his original point, that if you take the time to learn the software you can get pretty much anything to match anything else. Whilst I don't doubt you and Keith are very happy with your results I was just trying to ascertain if those results were noticeably better than results I can get in PS. As I said, neither of you would, and that is fine, and of the testing I have done on images from the Noise Ninja site I can get close enough to not bother, which is a shame because you are both so vocal and enthusiastic about it that I have the feeling I am missing something.

Having said that I believe there is less and less difference between the outcomes of the various algorithms that pull and push our data now. It used to be that PS was bad at increasing resolution and everybody used plugins to resize for printing, now almost nobody bothers, resolutions and PS got better. I suspect the same of sharpening, noise reduction, distortion corrections and a myriad of other manipulations. One of the few plugins I still use regularly is FisheyeHemi, a great defishing software, but the truth is I can do the same thing in PS just with a lot more steps and no intuitiveness, I suspect the real difference between the programs/plugins now, apart from the way we pay for them, is the user interface and the way we, as individuals, interact with that specific aspect of the software.

I keep looking a Capture One as an alternative to Lightroom as so many people I respect advocate it's use, but each time I do I walk away from it because I have yet to see any aspect of it that I can't do with my Adobe products. Actually that's a lie, the one feature I would love from C1 in LR is the Lens Cast Calibration function as I use TS-E lenses and making good vignetting/falloff profiles for them in PS is no one click task.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Nov 5, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Neither would.


I _will_, just not right now, for the reason I explained.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 5, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I didn't ask anybody to be a missionary, I asked either of the two keenest and vocal advocates of the software, and very regular posters here, to post an example that illustrated their enthusiasm. Neither would. All the rest I know.......



You wrote:


privatebydesign said:


> ...free trials don't give you any experience in the programs use and it can take a big investment in time to come to the best use and workflow of a completely new (to the user) piece of software. I certainly haven't seen anything that makes me think that time investment is worth it.



If you can't be bothered to invest your time to educate yourself, don't expect Keith or me to jump to it and invest our time to do so, especially as you think we would be wasting our time anyway.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 5, 2019)

AlanF said:


> If you can't be bothered to invest your time to educate yourself, don't expect Keith or me to jump to it and invest our time to do so, especially as you think we would be wasting our time anyway.


Alan, really? My request was a simple one that would take virtually none of your time at all, just posting a before and after image of something you already have. If that is considered a big imposition then don't, I don't care. But don't turn and twist that simple request into me asking you to do all my learning as that simply isn't accurate or fair, you have posted hundreds of comparative images here proving obscure points before, that you aren't inclined to do that for this is absolutely fine but don't try and accuse me of being unreasonable or lazy.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 5, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> I _will_, just not right now, for the reason I explained.


I stand corrected; neither have. 

But I didn't ask for an M6 MkII image, any image you already have that you feel Noise Ninja did a really good job on was all I asked for. But it doesn't matter, it seems like I have hit a raw nerve so won't ask for such an imposition again from high profile posters.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 5, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Alan, really? My request was a simple one that would take virtually none of your time at all, just posting a before and after image of something you already have. If that is considered a big imposition then don't, I don't care. But don't turn and twist that simple request into me asking you to do all my learning as that simply isn't accurate or fair, you have posted hundreds of comparative images here proving obscure points before, that you aren't inclined to do that for this is absolutely fine but don't try and accuse me of being unreasonable or lazy.


I am not accusing you of being lazy - it was you who wrote that you did not wish to invest your time.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 5, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I am not accusing you of being lazy - it was you who wrote that you did not wish to invest your time.


I was saying to get the best out of any program it takes time, you and Keith have already invested that time and have both been very effusive and complimentary of the results you have gotten, I was simply asking to see those same results. I thought that was one of the things we did here, pointed people in directions that might make their results 'better', I have posted literally hundreds of illustrative images here, as have you, for the sole purpose of illustrating points and giving people truthful and unbiased visual confirmation of equipment and processes, I truthfully didn't think this was a big deal, or indeed any kind of intrusive request at all.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 5, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I was saying to get the best out of any program it takes time, you and Keith have already invested that time and have both been very effusive and complimentary of the results you have gotten, I was simply asking to see those same results. I thought that was one of the things we did here, pointed people in directions that might make their results 'better', I have posted literally hundreds of illustrative images here, as have you, for the sole purpose of illustrating points and giving people truthful and unbiased visual confirmation of equipment and processes, I truthfully didn't think this was a big deal, or indeed any kind of intrusive request at all.


You were pointed in the right direction: I posted you two links where an expert had written extensively about the programs, much more and better than I could have done.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Nov 5, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I was saying to get the best out of any program it takes time, you and Keith have already invested that time and have both been very effusive and complimentary of the results you have gotten, I was simply asking to see those same results. I thought that was one of the things we did here, pointed people in directions that might make their results 'better', I have posted literally hundreds of illustrative images here, as have you, for the sole purpose of illustrating points and giving people truthful and unbiased visual confirmation of equipment and processes, I truthfully didn't think this was a big deal, or indeed any kind of intrusive request at all.


Without really wishing to either get into, or extend, someone else's bun fight, I'd have to say that PBD has to be one of the most helpful of forum members here when it comes to sharing knowledge about what he knows, for no personal gain, including showing what he means. 

Keep posting PBD, and if there's anything I could ever do to point you in a helpful direction (probably unlikely, due to my own shortcomings), I would!


----------



## AlanF (Nov 5, 2019)

Well, if you really want an example, a pair has been posted in another thread.



Sharlin said:


> Need more chroma noise, more like this:





AlanF said:


> One round of Noise Ninja


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 5, 2019)

Alan, I'd suggest taking another look at Photoshop, this is what I got after running my standard noise reduction and sharpening levels on the left hand image. Clearly Noise Ninja, whilst reducing noise to zero has a negative impact on color and detail.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 5, 2019)

StoicalEtcher said:


> Without really wishing to either get into, or extend, someone else's bun fight, I'd have to say that PBD has to be one of the most helpful of forum members here when it comes to sharing knowledge about what he knows, for no personal gain, including showing what he means.
> 
> Keep posting PBD, and if there's anything I could ever do to point you in a helpful direction (probably unlikely, due to my own shortcomings), I would!


Many thanks StoicalEtcher for those kind words, and Sporgon for agreeing. Mostly we can all help each other, sometimes we just get off on the wrong foot and it is easier to spend time writing clever insults than actually helping, but all is good.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 5, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Alan, I'd suggest taking another look at Photoshop, this is what I got after running my standard noise reduction and sharpening levels on the left hand image. Clearly Noise Ninja, whilst reducing noise to zero has a negative impact on color and detail.
> 
> View attachment 187407


No, it's no good. You can see the Moire in the feathers on the right half way down. Moire is the kiss of death.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 5, 2019)

AlanF said:


> No, it's no good. You can see the Moire in the feathers on the right half way down. Moire is the kiss of death.


No that's just the reduction to size for the forum, the original shows no moire. Oh, and FYI, Adobe do actually have an amazing moire filter, effectively a local color desaturation technique, it doesn't do much for pattern/interference moire but is very effective on this type of color interference.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 5, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Moire is the kiss of death.



You should have bought a 5DS Alan


----------



## AlanF (Nov 5, 2019)

Sporgon said:


> You should have bought a 5DS Alan


You are joking but here is some serious stuff from the help menu of PhotoNinja where you have a choice of what demosaicing to use. There is one setting for a conventional sensor with an AA-filter and others for those without, and it has an effect on Moire. It did work on one example better than PS and DPP, but I think I binned it. I have never found that anti-Moire filters be of any use with bird feather Moire.

_From PhotoNinja

Photo Ninja uses a sophisticated demosaicing algorithm that yields natural-looking results with few interpolation artifacts, particularly when the camera uses an effective antialiasing filter. For cameras with inadequate antialiasing, Photo Ninja includes a more powerful algorithm that is among the best available for avoiding or reducing demosaicing errors.
The *Strength* setting determines which demosaicing algorithm is used:_

_The *Conservative* mode yields high-quality results with few artifacts for cameras that have proper antialiasing filters. This mode is the default and is recommended for most cameras._
_The *Moderate* and *Aggressive* modes are specifically intended for cameras that lack antialiasing filters (usually certain medium-format and specialist SLRs). They can reduce directional artifacts and some cases of moire for such cameras. Demosaicing in the presence of aliasing is nearly pathological mathematically, so the algorithms are not perfect, and there is some risk that non-aliased edges will be adversely affected. However, on our suite of test images they work better than other algorithms that we have encountered. The Moderate and Aggressive modes are unnecessary and not recommended for conventional, antialiased cameras._


----------



## AlanF (Nov 5, 2019)

I have dug out some examples taken earlier this year with the 5DSR + 400mm DO II + 1.4xTC of a female kingfisher. Top is processed with DxO PL with PRIME noise reduction and lens sharpening on. Middle is PhotoNinja with standard conservative demosaicing, Bottom with Moderate demosaicing (all 100% crops). There is Moire in the wing feathers above the tail, which is least in the Moderate demosaicing. PN also automatically corrects highlights, which are noticeable in the DxO one.


----------

