Camera & Drone Gear Blog
Info, Reviews, Comparisons, & News
DJI Mavic 3 vs. DJI Air 2S - Image Quality Tests, Comparison and Review
Well it’s finally here… the DJI Mavic 3! This announcement was exciting (if you’re a camera nerd like me) because it is the first time I’m aware of that we have a compact, foldable drone with a 4/3 sensor (17.3mm x 13mm). This size sensor was previously only available on a Zenmuse X5, which requires an Inspire to use. Ever since the Phantom 4 Pro was released in 2016 any drones smaller than an Inspire maxed out with a 1” sensor (13.2mm x 8.8mm).
Having a larger sensor should mean less noise and more detail. So naturally I wondered… does the new DJI Mavic 3 beat my previous compact favorite, the DJI Air 2S?
Is the Mavic 3 the best drone camera from DJI short of buying an Inspire 2? I tested it out in a few locations and compared it to the DJI Air 2S.
This page contains links to products, so if you find this site useful and use a link to make a purchase, I’ll get a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Enjoy!
Well it’s finally here… the DJI Mavic 3! This announcement was exciting (if you’re a camera nerd like me) because it is the first time I’m aware of that we have a compact, foldable drone with a 4/3 sensor (17.3mm x 13mm). This size sensor was previously only available on a Zenmuse X5, which requires an Inspire to use. Ever since the Phantom 4 Pro was released in 2016 any drones smaller than an Inspire maxed out with a 1” sensor (13.2mm x 8.8mm).
Having a larger sensor should mean less noise and more detail. So naturally I wondered… does the new DJI Mavic 3 beat my previous compact favorite, the DJI Air 2S?
Before we dive into image quality tests vs. the DJI Air 2S (a.k.a. Mavic Air 2S), let’s take a look at how the specs compare.
DJI Mavic 3 vs. DJI Air 2S - Specs
Mavic Air 2S
1” 20MP Sensor (3x2 Ratio)
22mm Focal Length
5472×3648 Photo Resolution
5472×3078 @ 24/25/30 fps Video
Fixed f/2.8 Aperture
Weight = 595g
Flight Time = ~30 Minutes
Wind Resistance = ~24mph
Mavic 3
4/3 20MP Sensor (4x3 Ratio)
24mm Focal Length
5280×3956 Photo Resolution
5120×2700 @ 24/25/30/48/50 fps Video
f/2.8 - f/11 Adjustable Aperture
Weight = 895g
Flight Time = ~45 Minutes
Wind Resistance = ~27mph
Besides having a larger sensor, the other interesting thing about the Mavic 3 is that it features a gimbal with TWO cameras. The telephoto camera not mentioned in the specs above is a smaller sensor with a lower resolution that only produces JPG’s, so I will go over that camera with samples after I compare the Mavic 3’s main camera to the DJI Air 2S.
PLEASE NOTE: I am overly meticulous about image quality and I think both of these drones are great for a variety of purposes. I am going to be nitpicking slight differences in image quality just because it’s interesting (to me anyway!) to see how different sensors can affect the details of your photos.
The first scene we will take a look at was a top down view of a park in the fall. Since the DJI Air 2S is 22mm and the Mavic 3 is 24mm, the Mavic 3 was at 300ft and the DJI Air 2S was at 275ft when these photos were taken in an attempt to make the comparison more similar. A perfect comparison was also difficult since the Mavic 3 is a 4:3 ratio camera and the Air 2S is 3:2 ratio.
Here are the overall images with no adjustments and default sharpening in Adobe Lightroom:
Looking at the above images you can see there is a bit of difference in color with no Lightroom adjustments and the white balance set to the default “daylight” settings. The DJI Air 2S seems a little on the red side, and there also seems to be more color in the Mavic 3 image straight out of the camera.
Let’s zoom in and compare some specific areas of the photos:
You can again see the color difference with these adjustment-free images. One of the things DJI promotes with the Mavic 3 is the “Hasselblad Natural Colour Solution” as a reason to consider paying the extra cost vs. the DJI Air 2S, and it looks like the Hasselblad sensor causes the color to “pop” a bit more. In the Mavic 3 image the red roofs are a cooler red and the ground is a warmer brown, which creates more color contrast for a more vibrant photo. The image from the DJI Air 2S seems a little bit more “drab” right out of the camera. You can certainly make colorful, compelling images with the Air 2S, but the Mavic 3 might have DNG files that start out with a slight advantage.
Even though I prefer the color of the Mavic 3, the DJI Air 2S definitely has a very sharp lens at the center and I’m impressed it was able to keep up with the larger camera on the Mavic 3 in the center of the frame. Both cameras are 20-megapixel and there’s not really much difference in detail.
Let’s see what happens if we venture a little farther away from the center of the lens:
In the above images we can start to see some differences in sharpness. When you look at this tree towards the edge of the frame you can see the photos taken at f/2.8 with both the Mavic 3 and DJI Air 2S are quite a bit softer than the Mavic 3 photo taken at f/5.6. The DJI Air 2S is always at f/2.8 because its aperture is not adjustable, whereas the Mavic 3 has an adjustable aperture. If you are taking photos in the daytime with the Mavic 3, you will almost always want to stop down and avoid using f/2.8 so you can maximize the edge to edge sharpness.
You can again see better color separation with the Mavic 3 over the DJI Air 2S. The colors are more vibrant and varied with the Mavic 3 and the DJI Air 2S almost seems more monochromatic.
Another notable difference in the tree crops is the DJI Air 2S is noisier in the shadow of the tree than in the Mavic 3 photo.
Let’s take a look at a scene with a lake. I tried to make these photos look fairly similar with global adjustment sliders in Adobe Lightroom, but an apples-to-apples comparison didn’t happen here because the sunlight was changing pretty quickly:
I took the above photos knowing the images would be different due to quickly changing lighting, but I wasn’t sure what differences I might find when I started looking closely on the computer. Let’s zoom in on some interesting differences I noticed in the shadows of the foreground:
Keep in mind that these are edited photos. I have saturation at +22 for the DJI Air 2S but just +18 for the Mavic 3. Looking at the above images, you can see the Mavic 3 managed to figure out all the various warm color variations of the leaves in the shadows and their color “pops” against the cooler green color of the grass. In the DJI Air 2S photo the leaves, grass, and trees all sort of blend together with a similar color. The Mavic 3 also managed to figure out the reddish-brown color in the edge of the woods under the trees on the left.
Let’s take a look at another area:
In the crops above it is apparent that there’s quite a bit more noise in the DJI Air 2S photo, which is a a close up of an area that was in the shadows. The Mavic 3 crop you can see individual waves on the water, but in the DJI Air 2S crop it’s a little too noisy to see the waves. You can also compare the brown-leaf tree on the right and the green tree on the left and see the Mavic 3 once again does better distinguishing the color differences of the brown and green leaves against the blue water. The DJI Air 2S crop (which is taken from towards the corner of the frame) is a bit softer than the Mavic 3 shot. The Mavic 3 shot is nice and sharp but shows a tiny bit of aberration on the white boat lift frame.
For my final test I took the drones indoors for a controlled test at ISO 1600 to see what the noise would look like. I used a chair with some crayons as a subject:
Both of these images are at f/2.8, ISO 1600, 1/8th shutter speed, with Vibrance & Saturation +/-0 in Adobe Lightroom. I did overcompensate the focal length difference and placed the Mavic 3 a little bit too far away (it was farther away than where the DJI Air 2S was placed), but we can still check out the noise difference when we zoom in on the crayons:
If you look at the top part of the wrapper of the yellow crayon, you can once again see the Mavic 3 creates better color separation with the orange mark on the yellow wrapper. The Mavic 3 sensor causes the orange mark to stand out as a different color than the wrapper, but the DJI Air 2S renders the orange mark as a similar color. You can also see that there is noticeably less noise on the red chair behind the crayons in the Mavic 3 crop vs. the DJI Air 2S crop.
Should you Buy the DJI Air 2S or the Mavic 3?
I have been using the DJI Air 2S extensively since it came out. It really is a great compact drone and the center of the lens is very sharp. There are a couple things I don’t like about it, however. The aperture is stuck at f/2.8, and if there’s one aperture setting I never imagined myself using to photograph sweeping landscapes it’s f/2.8 (haha)! Usually when I use my “big” camera to take landscape or architectural photos on a tripod I stay away from being “wide open” at the brightest aperture setting because that reduces my depth of field and can soften the edges of the frame, especially at wide focal lengths. With the DJI Air 2S your only choice of aperture is f/2.8. This also makes ND filters absolutely essential to control frame rates when shooting video.
One other thing I don’t like about the DJI Air 2S (and I’m really nitpicking here) is that the edges of the frame are not nearly as sharp as the center of the image, and this seems to be exacerbated by the fact that it is 22mm instead of 24mm. Objects at the edge of the frame are a little more distorted at 22mm than at 24mm.
Despite the aforementioned minor issues, overall the DJI Air 2S is great for a variety of purposes. It’s great for real estate, decent for landscapes, more than enough for hobbyists, and is a lot of fun. The reason I probably will be using the Mavic 3 for most landscapes is reduced noise, sharper frame edges, greater depth of field when stopping down to around f/5.6, and improved color rendition.
The basic Mavic 3 package is more than double the price of the DJI Air 2S. For that cost difference you get a little better image quality, an adjustable aperture, 50% more flight time, and slightly improved wind resistance. Due to the enormous difference in price the choice is certainly debatable, but if you’re serious about landscape photography and want more control over your photo & video settings the improvements might be worth the extra cost.
What’s Up with that Mavic 3 Telephoto Lens?
The gimbal on the Mavic 3 has two lenses and two sensors. The lower lens & sensor is the primary 24mm camera with the 4/3 sensor that produces JPEG & RAW images at 5280 × 3956. The upper camera is a 162mm fixed lens (7x optical zoom) with a 1/2-inch sensor that produces 4000 × 3000 images (RAW shooting only available if firmware is updated after May of 2022).
In order to use the telephoto camera you have to click the little binoculars icon on the right of the Go Fly app interface, which puts the camera into “Explore” mode. Once in explore mode you can click the “1x” button to see a variety of zoom levels all the way up to 28x.
One thing to be aware of is that most of the zoom levels are digital zoom, not optical. Both lenses on the Mavic 3 gimbal are prime lenses, not zoom lenses. Since there are two fixed focal length lenses, there’s really only two levels of detail you’re capturing. In “Explore” mode, 1x, 2x, and 4x are simply using a digitally zoomed (cropped) photo from the 24mm lens, and 7x, 14x, and 28x use the 162mm lens. To illustrate what this means, here are all the different zoom levels cropped into the yellow slide:
You can see a slight increase in detail going from “Explore Mode” 1x to 2x, but then 4x looks identical. I think there is an increase in detail going from 1x to 2x because at 1x it is using the 5280 × 3956 sensor to create a 4000 × 3000 image, which causes loss of detail (there’s less detail in 1x “Explore Mode” than in standard mode). The 7x, 14x, and 28x zoom levels all look pretty much identical.
If you’re not taking video, the only reason to use anything other than standard mode or 7x is If you want to use the different zoom levels to simply view your surroundings for fun (sort of like using flying binoculars). Many Mavic 3 pilots will find it fun to look around and zoom in on things in their vicinity from the air, and won’t be worrying about trying to print large photos with the lower resolution telephoto camera.
If you are creating a video, you can use the digital zoom functionality in Explore mode to add zoom effects to your video, but don’t expect to zoom in to 28x and capture super sharp details in your footage.
Mavic 3 Cine vs. Fly More Combo
Most of DJI’s recent drones offer “Fly More Combos” to purchase, which bundle the basic drone package with extra accessories like extra propellers, batteries, charging hubs, and other items at a slight discount to what you’d pay if you bought all the accessories separately. The basic drone package will get you flying, but if you buy the “Fly More Combos” you will be prepared for more frequent flights in a wider variety of situations. The Mavic 3 once again offers the “Fly More Combo,” but in addition you can instead buy the “Mavic 3 Premium Cine Combo.” You get the exact same aircraft whether you buy the base package or the “Fly More Combo,” but the “Mavic 3 Cine” is actually a special aircraft that includes 1TB of super fast internal storage and the capability to shoot videos in Apple ProRes 422 HQ.
Below are the different packages you can buy. For the “Fly More Combo” and the “Cine Premium Combo” I noted the difference between the combo and the standard package.
Mavic 3 Basic Package
The essential items included when you buy the basic Mavic 3 package.
Mavic 3 Fly More Combo
The items you get when you buy the Fly More Combo.
DJI Mavic 3 Cine Premium Combo
The items included with the Mavic 3 Cine Premium Combo.
DJI on Amazon.com
This page contains links to products, so if you find this site useful and use a link to make a purchase, I’ll get a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Thanks!
DJI Air 2S Review: Has DJI Finally Created a Superior Successor to the Phantom 4 Pro??
DJI has released the “DJI Air 2S” as the latest drone in the Mavic series. It has the same size sensor and photo resolution as the Mavic 2 Pro and the Phantom 4 Pro with 4K video @ 60fps or 5.4K video @ 30fps. Has DJI finally released a travel-sized drone that can replace my 4-year-old Phantom 4 Pro???
Testing the image quality of the DJI Air 2S vs. the trusty old Phantom 4 Pro. Will the latest Mavic be my new go-to compact travel drone? Or should I clean the bug guts off the Phantom 4 Pro and keep using it for another year?
I have had a Phantom 4 Pro since February of 2017. It has been my go-to drone for real estate photography and video for a few years. But at some point I can’t help but wonder, “How long do these things last? Is DJI going to release a superior compact travel drone for me to upgrade to someday? Should I just fly this Phantom 4 Pro for years until a motor fails and it crashes in a field?”
Back when the Mavic 2 Pro came out in 2018 many people thought of that drone as the successor to the Phantom 4 Pro, but the Mavic 2 Pro could only do video at 4K @ 30fps, whereas the Phantom 4 Pro could do 4K @ 60fps. So the Mavic 2 Pro failed to be a totally superior successor, though it has been a popular model.
When the DJI Mavic Air 2 came out in 2020 with a 48-megapixel camera (better thought of as a 12MP quad bayer sensor) that could shoot 4K @ 60fps I had high hopes about that being my new compact travel drone, but knowing it had a smaller sensor than the Phantom 4 Pro I had my suspicions. Once I got ahold of one I pitted the Mavic Air 2 against the Phantom 4 Pro in a series of photo quality tests, and I generally preferred the image quality of the Phantom 4 Pro’s camera over the Mavic Air 2. So the Mavic Air 2 didn’t end up replacing my trusty old Phantom 4 Pro.
Now in April 2021 DJI has released the “DJI Air 2S” as the latest drone in the Mavic series. It has the same size sensor and photo resolution as the Mavic 2 Pro and the Phantom 4 Pro with 4K video @ 60fps or 5.4K video @ 30fps. Has DJI finally released a travel-sized drone that can replace my 4-year-old Phantom 4 Pro???
This page contains links to products, so if you find this site useful and use a link to make a purchase, I’ll get a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Enjoy!
Shortly after my DJI Air 2S arrived I took it along with my Phantom 4 Pro (P4P) to a couple locations to test out the cameras, because I enjoy meticulously analyzing photo quality (i.e. I’m a dork). The first location was a park. Here are some unedited photos looking straight down at about 393 feet AGL:
The first thing you may notice in the two photos above is that the DJI Air 2S appears to be zoomed out more than the Phantom 4 Pro, even though they are about the same altitude. This is expected because DJI lists the Air 2S as having a 22mm full-frame equivalent focal length, and lists the Phantom 4 Pro as having a 24mm full-frame equivalent focal length. The Mavic 2 Pro has a 28mm focal length. Obviously one focal length is not better than the other, it just depends on the situation.
The other thing I noticed but was NOT expecting is that with these unedited DNG(RAW) photos the Air 2S has better color and contrast than the Phantom 4 Pro right out of the camera. Chalk that up as a win for the DJI Air 2S!
Now let’s see if we can see a difference in sharpness when we zoom in on these photos.
When looking at these crops keep in mind that the DJI Air 2S camera and the Phantom 4 Pro are both about the same distance from the subject (the ground at the park park), but the Phantom is “zoomed in” to 24mm while the Air 2S is “zoomed out” to 22mm. This should be an advantage for the Phantom 4 Pro when comparing crops of the same sized area of the park. If you have two cameras with equal lens sharpness and sensor resolution both the same distance from the subject, but one is at 22mm and the other at 24mm, the camera at 24mm should capture more detail of the subject since it is zoomed in farther.
In the extreme crops of the lower left, middle, and lower right areas of the park photos, the DJI Air 2S crops are 513 x 341 and the Phantom 4 Pro crops are around 570 x 380 (one of them is 576 x 384) due to the variance in focal length between the two drones. If both cameras/lenses were equally sharp the Phantom 4 Pro should have no problem winning, because it is zoomed in farther and has about 23% more pixels covering each cropped comparison area.
With that in mind, can the Air 2S can still win?
Before we jump in I would just like to say it’s obvious that either drone can produce great photos for a variety of professional purposes and I am cropping these more than anyone should ever need to crop them for a real project. We are just going to be looking at the fine details with extreme closeups to see if there’s a noticeable difference.
Here is the first crop from the lower left corner of the main park images:
Surprisingly, despite the Air 2S crop being only (513x341) vs. the P4P crop being (576x384), there is actually more definition in the Air 2S crop. The branches over the white table are sharper and more defined and you can see the brick lines better.
Let’s take a look at an extreme closeup near the middle of the full images:
In this close up of the middle of the photos it’s hard to say which crop has more detail, which in itself is a win for the DJI Air 2S since it’s accomplishing a similar amount of detail with fewer pixels in the crop.
Now let’s take a look at another crop from the lower right corner of the full images:
In this crop you can see significant green and magenta fringing around the edges of the white crosswalk paint and along the edges of the cement in the (570x380) P4P crop, and the fringing is almost non-existent in the (513x341) Air 2S crop. You can also see more detail and less color fringing on the yellow/green crosswalk sign with the Air 2S. Adobe Lightroom was applying lens corrections to both images.
Just so I don’t base my entire test around one photo, let’s take a look at some photos in the city!
These photos were both taken from about the same altitude and location (though it looks like I may have been 5 or 10 feet higher with the DJI Air 2S), and you can again see the difference between the focal lengths of 22mm and 24mm. The DJI Air 2S had better color and contrast right out of the camera for the city scene as well:
Now let’s check out an extreme crop of the left side:
The biggest difference in these drones really shows up at the edges of photos, which is where many lenses show their weaknesses. The (513x341) Air 2S crop of the left side is much cleaner, sharper, and more defined than the (570x380) P4P crop. You can compare the building edges & windows in these crops to see how there’s fairly significant green/magenta fringing on the edge of the P4P lens that’s almost non-existent with the Air 2S.
One more crop from the right side:
There isn’t a ton of difference in this crop, but something that I noticed quickly is how it looks like both cameras ran into a bit of a moiré issue with the right side of that building where the lines were close together. I used a radial filter in Adobe Lightroom to correct the moiré, and here’s the updated comparison:
With the moiré not distracting from the side of the building it looks like the window lines where the moiré was are slightly more defined and less noisy in the (513x341) Air 2S crop than the (570x380) P4P crop. There also might be a little more color fringing and noise with the P4P, but other than that there’s not a huge difference.
I wanted to do one more test in a high dynamic range situation after sunset where the foreground was very dark. In order to take photos at the exact same time identical lighting in each shot I just set both drones on a table and took the photos at the exact same time. Here are the original unedited photos taken at ISO 100, f/2.8, 1/25th shutter speed:
Here are the same photos with highlights reduced to -79 and shadows cranked to +95 in Adobe Lightroom:
And here are crops of the center of each photo:
If you compare the lower part of the tree trunk in the middle, the pine branches, and tree leaves, you can see how much sharper the Air 2S is right in the center of this high dynamic range scene.
Conclusion
The only thing I miss while using the included DJI Air 2S remote and the DJI Fly app is the ability to change camera settings with the wheel on the remote. With the remotes included with the Inspire 2 or Phantom 4 Pro you can press the right wheel to cycle through camera settings and then turn the wheel to change a setting in the DJI Go app. With the DJI Air 2S remote you have to tap on the screen and drag the slider to change values like shutter speed, ISO, or white balance.
Other than minor differences in the remote & app, after comparing the photo capability of the DJI Air 2S with my trusty Phantom 4 Pro in a variety of situations it is clear the Air 2S has a much sharper camera/lens combination. The sharper lens combined with the highest video resolution of any compact drone from DJI (i.e. smaller than an Inspire) has made the DJI Air 2S my new favorite travel drone.
If you found this article helpful and are planning on making a purchase, consider using one of the links on this page and I’ll get a small commission. Thanks!
DJI on Amazon
An In-Depth Review of Canon's RF 600mm & 800mm f/11 IS STM Lenses
Canon raised a lot of eyebrows when they announced the extremely affordable RF 600mm & 800mm f/11 IS STM lenses. “An 800mm lens for $899??? But it’s f/11??? What’s going on here??” Canon has so far been unique in this sub-$1,000 venture, especially considering the 800mm lens. What are the real trade offs with these smaller & cheaper f/11 600mm and 800mm lenses?
Canon raised a lot of eyebrows when they announced the extremely affordable RF 600mm & 800mm f/11 IS STM lenses. “An 800mm lens for $899??? But it’s f/11??? What’s going on here??”
Canon has so far been unique in this sub-$1,000 venture, especially considering the 800mm lens. As far as I can tell from looking at the websites of Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, Sigma, Rokinon & Samyang, the only other major camera or lens manufacturer that actively produces an 800mm lens is Nikon, and it costs over $16,000. Canon’s 800mm f/5.6 lens costs around $13,000. So what are the real trade offs with these smaller & cheaper f/11 600mm and 800mm lenses?
I own both the 600mm and 800mm f/11 IS STM lenses and use them both, but this article looks primarily at the 800mm since it lets me test more extreme focal lengths.
This page contains links to products, so if you find this site useful and use a link to make a purchase, I’ll get a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Thanks!
Can They Really Produce Sharp Images?
I wanted to see if these lenses are sharp, and I started with a very controlled environment that you probably wouldn’t be in whether you’re trying to have fun or make money. I mounted the 800mm f/11 on a tripod indoors, attached a wired remote trigger to my Canon EOS R5, and focused on some playing cards that were about 20 feet away. The distance of 20 feet is important, because 19.69ft is actually the minimum focusing distance for the 800mm f/11 (it’s 14.76ft for the 600mm). I got as close to the cards as I could while still being able to focus on the King’s face. I took one shot with the stabilizer on and one shot with the stabilizer off, both using Electronic 1st curtain shutter. The camera settings were ISO 100, 800mm, f/11, 2.5 seconds. Here are the results of those two shots:
When I looked at the first image on my computer screen (when the stabilizer was off) I had absolutely no complaints about image sharpness. In fact, I was impressed. No one should be complaining about the sharpness of this 800mm lens for the price! I can see more detail in the playing cards from 20 feet away that I would typically notice if I was holding the card in my hand.
The image with the stabilizer turned on showed a little bit of blur. I assumed this would happen because I could see it in the camera’s LCD before I took the shot… the image moved around ever so slightly and constantly, and it is clear that stabilizers in an 800mm lens are not designed for long tripod exposures. I have accidentally left the stabilizer on when using a Canon RF 15-35mm wide angle lenses on a tripod and had no detrimental effects on sharpness, but with these super-telephoto lenses the stabilizer is definitely designed for faster shutter speeds during hand-held shooting.
Here are cropped versions of the above photos with the stabilizer on and off:
You can see in the above cropped images that when the stabilizer is off it is sharp enough to see the tiny fibers on the top edge of the card and the texture of the card itself. But when the stabilizer is on, it is slightly blurry.
Call me crazy, but I wanted to see if the image was still sharp if I threw a Canon Extender RF 2x on the 800mm lens. Since I was already stuck at f/11 with the lens, adding a 2x Extender will cause me to be stuck at f/22! I did an 8 second exposure instead of a 2.5 second exposure. I also moved back about 10 feet in order to keep a few different cards in the frame. Here is the shot from about 30 feet away with a 2x Extender, both uncropped and cropped:
Once again I was impressed! Even at when using a 2x Extender to achieve 1600mm, the image was sharper than I expected. From 30 feet away I can see the tiny fibers on the top edge of the cards, the texture of the cards, and the texture of the fake plant leaf behind the cards.
Thumbs up for Canon’s glass quality & sharpness, for both the lens and extender!
How Good are those Stabilizers? Hand-Holding Shots for Stationary Objects
One of the biggest challenges with 600mm or 800mm lenses is camera shake. The tiniest movement or vibration can cause your image to turn out blurry. Even the shutter or mirror in your camera can cause the image to be blurry, which is why I used 1st curtain electronic shutter for the longer tripod shots and electronic shutter mode for shots quicker than 0.5 seconds. Very fast shutter speeds and lens stabilizers can overcome vibration from a camera’s mirror or shutter, but since I am trying to specifically test the stabilizers in these lenses at different shutter speeds I wanted to eliminate that potential cause of vibrations.
When you are hand-holding such a long lens for the first time, you might be surprised how hard it is to keep it still! The longer the lens, the more the subject will appear to be jumping around. This is why there is a “rule” about keeping your shutter speed about twice as fast as your focal length when you are shooting with your camera in your hands rather than a tripod. For example, if your lens is 50mm you’d want to use shutter speeds at least as fast as 1/100th of a second. If your lens is 15mm, you should only need a shutter speed of 1/30th sec. Does this rule still apply at 800mm? Let’s find out!
For the next test I found a couple of frogs playing a game, and payed them $20 to sit still for a few minutes (just kidding). I took at least 10 shots at each shutter speed with the stabilizer on and off. I used autofocus to focus on the left frog’s eye before each set of shots. Even though I was stuck at f/11 the background is blurred nicely, due to the fact that I was only about 20 feet away at 800mm. I adjusted exposures to make all the images somewhat similar, because in some shots I had slowed down the shutter speed without being able to change the aperture or lower the ISO further. I also had to move the frogs into the shade once I was testing slower shutter speeds.
For each set of photos, I had the Canon EOS R5 set to continuous shooting with the electronic shutter, which means it was firing at 20 shots per second. I just held down the shutter button until I got at least 10 photos. One thing to note on these non-stabilized shots is how much the photos jump around between shots, despite the photos only being 1/20th of a second apart! It’s a good indication of how hard it is to hold an 800mm lens steady.
My first test set was shot at 800mm, ISO 1000, f/11, 1/1600th sec, stabilizer off. When I looked at the 1/1600th sec shots with no stabilizer, it looks like the “rule” of using a shutter speed twice as fast as your focal length generally held up. I had 17 photos at this shutter speed and they all looked nice and sharp.
Now let’s see how a 1/800th sec. shutter speed did at 800mm since that “breaks the rule:”
Initially when looking at the 1/800th sec. shots on the computer I thought I “perceived” motion blur, but when I zoomed in I couldn’t necessarily prove it. So it seems like 1/800th of a sec. still produces usable images at 800mm, or have such a minor loss of sharpness that most people wouldn’t notice it.
At shutter speeds of 1/200th and 1/400th of a second it is hard to see the motion blur when looking at the whole images, but most of the images lose sharpness at these slower speeds. Here are four of the images at 1/200th:
Here are a couple crops to show the blur up close. One of these shots at 1/200th is fairly sharp, and the other shows a bit of blur:
At 1/100th of a second I took 13 shots with the stabilizer off, and only 1 lucky photo out of 13 was sharp. Once I got down to 1/50th of a second all 12 images I took had noticeable motion blur, and most of the photos were basically unusable:
To summarize the results of the non-stabilized test shots at 800mm:
1/1600th of a second produced all sharp images
1/800th of a second produced mostly sharp images, maybe a little blur creeping in on some
1/400th of a second produced a little motion blur on most images
1/200th of a second produced more motion blur than 1/400th, but still had a couple usable images
1/100th of a second produced 12 blurry images, but I had 1 lucky sharp one in there.
1/50th of a second produced 100% blurry images
So ultimately, the shutter speed that is double your focal length would be the safe choice if you were only taking one photo of a stationary object with the stabilizer off. If you take 20 shots per second like I did in this test, you could get away with lower shutter speeds than the rule suggests if your subject isn’t moving at all and maybe get a couple lucky sharp ones in there. =)
Now let’s see how far we can push shutter speeds with the stabilizer enabled. I am doing these tests with a Canon EOS R5, which has in-body image stabilization. This means if you were to put the same lens on an EOS R which does not have in-body image stabilization, you might not want to push the shutter speeds as low.
Let’s continue with shutter speeds of 1/50th of a second, but this time with image stabilization enabled:
When looking through these 1/50th sec. shots on my computer the one that had the most blur was the first image, captured right after I pushed the shutter button. I could have had a steadier first image if I had used the camera’s 2 second timer, and if I was trying to take a steady single shot that’s definitely what I would do. But generally speaking the stabilizer allowed me to shoot at 1/50th of a second. Also notice how the composition doesn’t jump around much at all! The stabilizer is making up for my slight hand movements that were clearly present in the non-stabilized galleries earlier on. Taking shots with the stabilizer on at 1/100th resulted in all sharp images as well, including the first shot as I was pushing the shutter button.
I ended up taking 12 images in less than a second with a shutter speed of 1/25th, and the photos ranged from being sharp to having a minor amount of blur. Here is a crop of a couple photos at 1/25th from one of the sharper photos and one of the blurriest photos:
So using 1/25th sec. shutter speed for stationary subjects is fair game with this lens, especially when using continuous shooting (aka burst shooting) drive modes and an electronic shutter. As quick as the R5 shoots photos you will probably end up with a couple sharp photos in less than 1 second of shooting.
My test results at 1/13th sec. brings me to the end of our shutter speed stabilization tests, because all of the photos had a little motion blur. The amount of blur was very consistent at 1/13th, and the photos weren’t necessarily unusable but they definitely weren’t perfectly sharp.
To summarize the stabilizer tests with the Canon RF 800mm f/11 IS STM Lens:
Most or all photos will be sharp when shooting at 1/50th of a second or faster when the stabilizer is on and your subject is still (no animals or people)
You can get away with shooting stationary subjects at 1/25th of a second if you are burst/continuous shooting (hit or miss sharpness)
1/13th second exposures and slower will probably have minor motion blur in all images
You would probably never want or need to be at ISO 100 with a 600mm or 800mm lens like I was in these tests, because most subjects you photograph are going to be moving so you’ll want very fast shutter speeds. Even flowers move in the wind. If you are using these lenses you will probably be using higher ISO’s because subjects move across the frame quickly at super-telephoto focal lengths. The stabilizers are great, but they don’t stabilize the motion of your subject… they only reduce the effect of movement created by your hands holding the camera.
One Interesting Scenario where the RF 600mm and RF 800mm f/11 Lenses Differ Significantly vs. the Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM
One interesting thing I’ve discovered with these lenses is the way they handle bright light sources in low-light scenes. To illustrate the issue, I took the same shot with the Canon RF 800mm f/11 lens and the Canon RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L Lens with an RF 2x Extender attached to the 100-500 at a lighthouse at night. Both shots were taken back to back with the same camera with a tripod in the same location with the same white balance settings:
Since the RF 800mm f/11 has no aperture blades it renders the glow from lightbulbs along the catwalk as round circles of light, whereas the RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L captures the lights as stars with 18 points since that lens has 9 aperture blades. Canon’s user manual for the RF 600mm & 800mm states:
“ … Color flare might appear around the light source depending on shooting conditions…” and “For scenes where a light source is inside the screen, colored flare may occasionally appear as a halo of light around the light source.”
Most photographers will probably prefer the look of lenses with aperture blades when rendering light bulbs in night scenes over bladeless Diffractive Optics lenses like the RF 600mm and 800mm. But most people will not be using these lenses at night, so that shouldn’t be a deal breaker.
Sample Gallery - Photographing Live Animals at 1600mm
For the live animal sample gallery I wanted to take things to the extreme and see what kind of ISO’s and shutter speeds I would be using if I was hand-holding 1600mm, so I attached the Canon RF 2x Extender to the RF 800mm f/11 and took my Canon EOS R5 camera to the zoo. I found the easiest way to walk around photographing animals was to simply put the ISO on Auto with a range of up to 12,800 and control shutter speed as desired. If the camera got tricked by the lighting situation I adjusted settings as needed. I used Animal Eye Autofocus the whole time, which usually made focusing a breeze.
Here is the sample gallery with settings embedded in the photos. None of these photos are cropped at all:
Since this was my first time walking around shooting live animals handheld at 1600mm & f/22 I was slightly concerned about using ISO’s ranging from 3200 to 12,800. I assumed that the noise would be distracting enough to make the photos unusable, but I was impressed with how well the Canon EOS R5 handled it. I had the noise reduction slider in Adobe Lightroom typically between 25 and 40, and that seemed to be enough to make the noise acceptable at these high ISO’s. The combination of high ISO’s and a little of Adobe’s noise reduction allowed me to maintain fast shutter speeds for motion-stopping photos even if the animal was moving.
Initially I didn’t consider trying to photograph animals if there was a chain link fence between me and the animal, but then I tried with the mountain lion and found that the chainlink fence was so out of focus that it didn’t really show up in the image (though it may have impacted sharpness slightly). I also tried it with the tiger and was again fascinated at how the fence was so out of focus it didn’t appear to block the tiger.
These lenses will be a lot of fun for people who want to get into wildlife photography for less than $900, especially if you have a Canon EOS R5, EOS R6 or newer. I imagine this experiment would have been a little more challenging with the Canon EOS R or RP, as those cameras have older sensors and don’t have Animal Eye AF.
Keep in mind I was photographing animals in broad daylight on a beautiful, sunny day. If it was darker outside I would expect autofocus to be slower and less accurate at f/22, and I would have to make some sacrifices with ISO or shutter speed with increased risk of noise or motion blur. For that reason I would imagine it could be difficult to shoot wildlife in the woods with these lenses, but that is an experiment for another day!
Conclusion
Pros of Canon’s 600mm & 800mm f/11 IS Lenses
Glass is surprisingly sharp considering the price & focal length
Stabilizers allow for hand-held shooting
Extremely affordable
Great for learning the challenges of super-telephoto photography
Lots of fun for bird & wildlife enthusiasts who don’t want to drop $13,000+ on a lens
You can add an RF extender for extreme telephoto focal lengths
Autofocus works great in the bright daylight
Cons of Canon’s 600mm & 800mm f/11 IS Lenses
You’re stuck at f/11 (can’t go lower or higher)
Diffractive optics with no aperture blades means lightbulbs at night could flare and won’t have pointy stars like people may prefer
No lens hood or case included
No rotation collar for using camera in vertical position on a tripod (you’d have to put some type of L-bracket on it)
No weather sealing like the higher-end Canon “L” lenses (don’t use outside if there’s a possibility of precipitation)
Products Mentioned in this Article
Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS vs. Canon 16-35 f/2.8L III - Which Lens is Sharper?
My philosophy for landscape photography (though I do love tilt shift lenses for architecture) is to get a small number of fast, sharp zoom lenses so I can cover any focal length I need without carrying a bunch of different prime lenses. That will save space in my camera bag and allow me to spend more time taking photos and less time changing lenses. The question I had was: Is the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L III able to capture sharp photos without comatic aberration, and provide fast wide-angle coverage?
This page contains links to products, so if you find this site useful and use a link to make a purchase, I’ll get a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Thanks!
I have been using the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS for a few years now, and it has been a reliable workhorse. Most reviewers consider it to be sharper than the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II, and it’s smaller and cheaper, so I never gave consideration to the bigger, faster, more expensive lens. The f/4 lens with image stabilization produces nice images, and I found it to be a worthwhile upgrade from the less expensive Canon 17-40mm f/4L I was using previously.
Lately, however, I have started to daydream (night dream?) about astrophotography and nighttime photography. Taking pictures of stars at night? Milky Way? Auroras? Yes please!
The problem with taking pictures at night is that it’s… at night. It’s really dark out. This means you might want a lens with a faster aperture than f/4 to minimize noise. The other potential issue with photographing the starry sky is something called “comatic aberration.” Camera lenses can suffer from varying degrees of comatic aberration, or “coma,” which causes stars to appear misshapen in your photos instead of round, especially at the edges of the frame. Lens aperture, sharpness, and the possibility of comatic aberration are all considerations when looking at lenses for night photography.
The philosophy of some photographers is to get multiple prime lenses at various focal lengths. A good prime lens can be small, fast, and sharp, but only at a single focal length (24mm, for example). With prime lenses, the manufacturer doesn’t have to make compromises to accommodate multiple focal lengths like they do with a zoom lens. The downside to prime lenses is that in order to cover multiple focal lengths, you have to carry multiple lenses.
My philosophy for landscape photography (though I do love tilt shift lenses for architecture) is to get a small number of fast, sharp zoom lenses so I can cover any focal length I need without carrying a bunch of different prime lenses. That will save space in my camera bag and allow me to spend more time taking photos and less time changing lenses. The question I had was: Is the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L III able to capture sharp photos without comatic aberration, and provide fast wide-angle coverage?
When researching Canon’s 16-35mm f/2.8L III there were multiple websites where I encountered statements like “Canon’s 16-35 f/2.8 III is the same as the f/4 version, except bigger and more expensive, so most people should just get the f/4.” I also saw other research that claimed the new f/2.8 III was sharper, but I couldn’t find image any comparisons of the two lenses for the purpose of astrophotography, so naturally, I had to check it out for myself.
First, I wanted to compare the lenses for standard daytime photography at the wide end (16mm), where most lenses reveal the most distortion. I setup a tripod and took a picture of the same trees from the same spot, with the same settings for the two lenses: Canon 5D Mark IV, 16mm, ISO 200, f/8, 1/320th shutter.
Before I continue, please realize that I am going to be zooming in over 1000% in order to notice slight differences. Both lenses can certainly produce images that are print quality, without question. I just wanted to dig out the pixels to an extreme degree to see if one lens is slightly better than the other.
First, let’s look at the daytime shots.
Here we see two 16mm shots from the two lenses. Settings: 16mm, ISO 200, f/8, 1/320th sec.
Overall, it looks like two standard, sharp daytime shots. In these images I have labeled the areas that I’ll be zooming in to (Auto Focus Point, Comparison Crop 1, and Comparison Crop 2).
Most people wouldn’t notice a difference in sharpness in the above two images.
Next, let’s zoom in to the center of the image, where I pointed both lenses at the top of a tree to autofocus.
Nothing substantial yet, still just looks like two sharp daytime photos at the center of the image. Still pretty difficult to see any difference between the two.
Next, let’s take a look at where lots of lenses tend to reveal their weaknesses… the edges. We can start with Crop area 1 on the left side of the frame.
I was surprised at how sharp the f/2.8L III lens was at the edges in crop area 1 compared to the f/4L! I wasn’t sure if there would be much difference, but the clear winner here was the f/2.8 III, hands down. Again let me reiterate that most people would not notice this if you were looking at the whole image, it’s only when we zoom in to 1300% that these differences become apparent near the edge of the frame.
Next, let’s take a look at crop area 2 on the right side of the frame.
In crop area 2 the f/2.8L III still wins but perhaps less dramatically. It’s most noticeable if you look at the needles on the right side.
Next, let’s take our lenses to a slightly more challenging environment: photographing stars at night.
First, we have the whole scene comparison shots. I added in constellations for reference, and for fun (because why not?). It’s worth noting that the f/2.8 III has an obvious advantage in that it can open up to f/2.8 and capture light twice as fast as the f/4L lens, so to keep it fair, I set both lenses to f/4 and auto focused on some of the house lights across the water.
Settings: Canon 5D Mark IV, 16mm, ISO 3200, f/4, 10 second exposures (stacked in Starry Landscape Stacker to reduce noise)
In those whole scene comparisons you wouldn’t notice any difference between lenses. So let’s zoom in to about 1000% at the center, above the constellation Serpens Caput.
I didn’t see much of a difference at the center, especially considering this is a tiny section of a 30-megapixel image. Next, let’s zoom in to the edges and see what happens. We can start near the feet of the constellation Hercules.
In the above images we can see a slight example of “coma” (comatic aberration) in the f/4 image now that we’ve zoomed in to an extreme degree near the left side of the overall image, near Hercules’ feet. Even though you wouldn’t see it when looking at the whole picture, when we look closely we can see the the stars in the f/4 lens image seem to be shaped like little paper airplanes that are leaking pixels, instead of round stars as they should be. The stars in the image produced with the f/2.8L III lens (set to f/4 to make the comparison even) are rounder and sharper. Since it is a 10 second exposure and we are zoomed in over 1000%, the star movement is slightly apparent, but I was pleased with how sharp the stars were on the f/2.8 III, and happy that it exhibited virtually no coma.
Let’s check the right side of the image near the constellation Virgo.
On the right side of the frame, near the constellation Virgo, the f/2.8L III lens is again the winner. The stars are sharp, round points that have moved slightly over the course of 10 seconds, but the f/4’s stars are slightly blurry from edge softness and shaped like little bats due to the minor comatic aberration going on.
While these slight differences are probably not noticeable to someone looking at the whole image, it is good to know that Canon clearly put a lot of effort into making the 16-35mm f/2.8L III lens optically superior to all of it’s previous 16-35mm offerings, with edge to edge sharpness and virtually no comatic aberration. This is reassuring if you are looking to make large prints of your photos, and a high quality lens with exceptional sharpness will be more able to support a higher megapixel camera in the future. In 2004, Canon’s EOS-1D Mark II was 8 megapixels, and the EOS-1D was only 4 megapixels in 2001! Camera companies in the not-so-distant past were making full-frame lenses for cameras that were either 35mm film or low-megapixel digital. But now that 20, 30, and 50 megapixel camera bodies are standard and meticulous people (like me!) are analyzing lens sharpness at 1300% zoom levels, lenses have to be able to support all those megapixels with high quality optics. What’s the point of all those megapixels if the lens isn’t sharp?
Hopefully you found this helpful in comparing a couple of Canon’s wide angle zoom offerings. I learned a little bit while making this comparison page, and that’s always a good thing. =)
Lenses Compared in this Article
Review: Pelican Air 1607 Protector Case (with Padded Dividers)
See Also: Pelican 1400 Protector Case - A Customizable Waterproof Case for DJI Mavic Series Drones
This page contains links to products, so if you find this site useful and use a link to make a purchase, I’ll get a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Thanks!
You have to give my frugalness credit. For a long time I carried multiple lights to job sites in whatever cheap cases they came with. My 600W lights came with a chubby, suitcase-sized soft case that I shoved a couple speedlights into, and my 200W lights came with cute little baby purse-sized cases. The 200W baby case is too small to leave the bare bulb attached, so I had to remove the bulb and reattach the fresnel head to fit them back in every time I used them. I kept my 200W bare bulb reflectors in my car since they don't fit in the baby case, which of course meant I was more likely to just settle for the fresnel head. If you read my post about the lighting I use, the fresnel heads of my 200W's are not nearly as soft and even for bounces, umbrellas, or direct flash as the bare bulb, but the bare bulb takes more time to setup if you're using the included case. Not only did I feel like somebody carrying too many bags at the outlet mall as I walked from my car to each job site, but I wasn't using the ideal lighting configurations available with equipment I already owned! Plus I was scared to set my cases down on snowy or wet pavement since they were basically just cloth and would soak up water. No good!
I finally decided to set my frugalness aside and figure out what rolling case to purchase. After all, it was for the sake of efficiency and excellence!
Pelican has been around for 40 years and always seems to get extremely good reviews, and I was pleased to see Pelican release a new line of cases called "Pelican Air." They say it's 40% lighter than their previous similarly sized cases, and if I'm going to be lugging it around to all my jobs that is a welcome improvement! They advertise their Air cases as being waterproof, durable, strong, and light. Pelican tests their cases submerged in 1 meter of water for 20 minutes and makes sure they can withstand being dropped and having things dropped on them.
I took a look at the Pelican Air 1535 Case initially and was trying to figure out if I could fit all my lighting in it. The 1535 Pelican Air Protector Case is notably the maximum size for airline carryon bags, and has wheels and a pull handle. Can I fit my typical lighting setup into a carryon bag? No... but I did make a mental note of that because I may get that case someday for traveling with my camera, who knows. The 1535 has 0.95 cubic feet of interior space and comes with the option of "Pick 'n' Pluck" foam (cheapest), Padded Dividers, or TrekPak dividers (most expensive).
The next case I looked at was the Pelican Air 1615. This case is notably the maximum airline checkin size for suitcases, so if you plan on taking lots of equipment in checked luggage, this beauty should be able to withstand being thrown around onto luggage carts, belts, and airplanes! It also has wheels and a pull handle. This seemed like it would be a little bigger than I needed, and the depth of dividers is probably more than I wanted. It also didn't have a high quantity of divided spaces (in the padded divider version), so fitting in smaller objects along with all my lights wouldn't be ideal. The 1615 has 2.49 cubic feet of interior space also comes with the option of "Pick 'n' Pluck" foam, Padded Dividers, and TrekPak dividers.
The last case I looked at was the Pelican Air 1607, which seems to be a newer model than the previous two. I say "seems to be newer" because as of the day I wrote this it is marked as "new" on Pelican's website and the other two are not. What immediately struck me about this case is a top level with lots of little dividers that can be lifted out to reveal the slightly wider bottom level of padded dividers – 2 levels of dividers for a total of 21 divided compartments with the default arrangement! The top level has a mesh that zips closed to hold in smaller items during travel. It also has wheels and a pull handle, which I figured would come in handy. With 2.24 cubic feet of interior space, it has more than twice the room of carryon size (like the 1535 case) but is slightly smaller than checked luggage size (like the 1615 case). It comes with "Pick 'n' Pluck" foam, or Padded Dividers, but does not offer the TrekPak divider option. Below are photos of the 1607 Air before I moved things around and loaded it up with my gear.
It turned out to be just what I needed! With some rearranging of the many included dividers I was able to fit one 600W light and two of it's lithium batteries, a 7" reflector, two 200W lights with bare bulbs and reflectors attached, and two speedlights... all in just the bottom level. In the top level I have lots of smaller items like transmitters, speedlight batteries, some umbrella adapters, chargers, and more. The many included black velcro straps are useful for securing small items to compartment walls (like speedlight feet) and dividing small items within smaller compartments. The height of both the top and bottom levels is around 4 inches, but as you can see some of my items (like the 7" diameter bowens mount reflector, which is about 5" tall) stick up above the divider walls. Since everything inside is padding or foam, you have a bit of wiggle room, so the removable top level still sits properly and the case closes without issue. There is a nice business card holder on the front, along with two spots for padlocks, and three heavy duty handles for lifting and carrying on the top, bottom, and side. There are 4 latches that snap shut to close the case securely. Overall the case feels very durable and tough, yet relatively light, and the wheels are quiet and smooth.
I have taken it to a few jobs already, and since it is currently winter here in Michigan, it's great to be able to stand it up in the snowy road without concern! I think it may have been possible to fit all my lights (two 600W's, two 200W's, and two speedlights) in the case if I really tried, but I don't really want the case to be that heavy and I usually don't need to use two 600W's. Having both 200W lights ready to go with their bare bulb & reflector attachments has been a huge benefit, and five lights is plenty for most jobs. I can set the extra 600W case on top of the Pelican 1607 and roll it in if I need it, and at least I won't look as awkward as I did when carrying a bunch of small cases. =) Reducing the number of cases also makes packing and unpacking more efficient, which is great.
For the Flashpoint XPLOR 600 / Godox AD600 users out there I took a picture of the Pelican 1607 next to the Godox/Flashpoint case, so you can get an idea of the size difference. The Pelican 1607 is only a few inches longer and is not quite twice as tall.
I couldn't find many reviews showing what kind of equipment people were fitting into this case, so hopefully this will be useful to somebody. If you find the information on this page helpful, feel free to use the amazon links on this page if you're making a purchase and I'll get a small commission. That will help keep useful reviews coming!