u/NoFan7861

First attempt at photographing the Milky Way, and let me preface this by saying I'm just a beginner amateur.

Since I had a pleasure trip planned, I used Maps and PhotoPills to plan this shot. I chose this location because of the low light pollution and the spectacular views. When I arrived, I selected the optimal shooting spot, the best time of day, and the best orientation. My modest equipment—an R10 lens and a Sigma RF-S10-18 f/2.8 lens, along with a decent tripod—was all I had. I was very lucky to have a window of 2 to 3 hours to take the photo, as the weather was very changeable: cloudy skies during the day, rain, but clear spells between 2 and 5 AM that gave me the opportunity I'd been waiting for. The problem was that the area is really dark, and focusing using hyperfocal distance didn't work, as the stars came out blurry. Finally, I focused directly on the stars and took several shots of them all. It's true I went a little over the exposure time, as you can see the star movement (I used 30 seconds), but between tests, editing, focusing, and framing (I couldn't even see where I was framing), time slipped away and I couldn't do any shorter exposures. I took one series in complete darkness, and another using a flash (Godox iT32) on the waterfalls in the lagoon. Back home, I did some stacking, but since I'm not familiar with the specific software (I used SIRIL), I didn't get good results, and I ended up with single photos to edit with Pixelmator. I think (apart from the unwanted star movement) the sky turned out decent, but I haven't managed to bring the foreground landscape to life enough without ruining the photo. Clearly, I have a lot to learn... Any criticism, comments, and advice are welcome.

The truth is, paired with my R10, this lens takes fantastic photos, but I really struggled with focusing at 400mm. Although these samples (basic RAW editing with Pixelmator) are quite decent, they seem to lack sharpness. I lost quite a few of the photos I took because they weren't sharp, and the success rate was really low. I'm a bit disappointed, to be honest. I guess we still need to get used to it and really understand how it works.

Tenía el sitio ideal, buen tiro de cámara, un monumento religioso imponente, y la contaminación lumínica por la derecha de la toma, lo que hubiera iluminado el borde de la luna. Peeeero, no hay quien acceda (legalmente) por la noche 😩 . Hay que pedir dos permisos, uno al ayuntamiento, y otro a los sacerdotes del complejo.... quizás uno se consiga, pero obtener los dos y que coincidan, va a ser bastante complicado.... En fin, que si alguien es de la zona y se anima para ver si se arma una solicitud grupal, quizás sea más fácil. En mi caso, que no soy ni profesional, ni estoy vinculado a ninguna asociación local, lo tengo muy negro... Me quedo en que hubiera sido una foto tremenda......

This morning the RF100-400 arrived to complete my camera family. In just a few months, I've gone from having nothing to take photos with (except my phone) to a setup that I think is quite complete. Since I prefer urban and architectural photography (not street photography), landscapes, nature, and some sports (mountain biking), I think I have the perfect trio of mid-range lenses for my R10. The all-rounder, and in my opinion the most versatile of the three, is the RF18-150mm, which performs well in any situation. Its price-to-quality ratio is one of the best for these mid-range cameras. For wide shots and interior buildings, there's the Sigma 10-18 f2.8, whose distinctive character I love. And finally, the newly arrived RF100-400 is perfect for capturing birds, distant insects, details in nature, and some semi-macro. Finally, to shed some light on the two Canons indoors or in low light, the Godox iT32 is simply extraordinary and versatile; except, of course, for its power, which is unusable outdoors in good light. But since portraits are what I do least, I think I have a pretty decent setup. I know there are much better lenses, but any of them would come with the label "you've earned your divorce"... I'm adding two photos of my newly acquired RF100-400 in case anyone has doubts about the quality of this lens. The photo of the clock was taken at 400mm from about 1.5 meters, and the one of the (almost dead) bonsai at 150mm... I think we're going to be great friends... what do you think?

Everywhere I've checked, it's mentioned that using the electronic shutter and/or shooting in H+ mode (high-speed burst) reduces the color depth of the Canon R10 to 12 bits. I haven't been able to find this information on Canon's website, but I have found it in expert opinions and other more or less reliable publications. Similarly, all the AIs I consulted gave me the same answer, but citing the same sources. So, with the help of two free AIs, I asked for some tests to verify this. The test consisted of taking several photos with different shutter speeds, shooting modes, etc., and the results all pointed to 14-bit files in every case. As a summary, I've uploaded two photos taken at f/8, 1/100 sec, electronic shutter, with the lens cap on, and in H+ burst mode. The other photo was taken under the same conditions but with an ISO of 3200. I shot until the buffer slowed down, and selected the last photo of each series. We can see the captures from RawDigger, and I believe it shows evidence that the files are 14-bit. There was also the possibility that the Canon CR3 file always uses a 14-bit "container" and embeds the 12-bit image within it, but then the resulting values, being scaled, would be multiples of 14-bit, which is not the case at all.

Finally, I've added a third photo from RawDigger, the last in the series shot in H+ mode with an electronic shutter, where values ​​close to 16000 are visible, which would demonstrate that it is a 14-bit RAW file (or so I believe). Since I'm not an expert in these matters, but I am interested in knowing the capabilities of my equipment, I'm asking, from a position of near-ignorance. Have I reached a valid conclusion? Am I wrong (and why)? Have we been misled?

Perhaps cameras with higher quality and resolution, but the same processor, might have to reduce color depth to process more images and achieve very fast burst shooting. However, the R10 has a good processor and a more modest resolution and slower burst speeds than its higher-end siblings, but under these conditions, the quality shouldn't suffer because the electronics allow it.

Note: I would appreciate well-founded answers to avoid repeating the same misconceptions.

Everywhere I've checked, it's mentioned that using the electronic shutter and/or shooting in H+ mode (high-speed burst) reduces the color depth of the Canon R10 to 12 bits. I haven't been able to find this information on Canon's website, but I have found it in expert opinions and other more or less reliable publications. Similarly, all the AIs I consulted gave me the same answer, but citing the same sources. So, with the help of two free AIs, I asked for some tests to verify this. The test consisted of taking several photos with different shutter speeds, shooting modes, etc., and the results all pointed to 14-bit files in every case. As a summary, I've uploaded two photos taken at f/8, 1/100 sec, electronic shutter, with the lens cap on, and in H+ burst mode. The other photo was taken under the same conditions but with an ISO of 3200. I shot until the buffer slowed down, and selected the last photo of each series. We can see the captures from RawDigger, and I believe it shows evidence that the files are 14-bit. There was also the possibility that the Canon CR3 file always uses a 14-bit "container" and embeds the 12-bit image within it, but then the resulting values, being scaled, would be multiples of 14-bit, which is not the case at all.

Finally, I've added a third photo from RawDigger, the last in the series shot in H+ mode with an electronic shutter, where values ​​close to 16000 are visible, which would demonstrate that it is a 14-bit RAW file (or so I believe). Since I'm not an expert in these matters, but I am interested in knowing the capabilities of my equipment, I'm asking, from a position of near-ignorance. Have I reached a valid conclusion? Am I wrong (and why)? Have we been misled?

Perhaps cameras with higher quality and resolution, but the same processor, might have to reduce color depth to process more images and achieve very fast burst shooting. However, the R10 has a good processor and a more modest resolution and slower burst speeds than its higher-end siblings, but under these conditions, the quality shouldn't suffer because the electronics allow it.

Note: I would appreciate well-founded answers to avoid repeating the same misconceptions.