Some Wildlife

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1

@ f/5.6, 1/1500 sec, ISO 400, -0.3EV.

---

I noticed that you were using 1/1500th secat ISO 400. You could have used ISO 200 and still get avery handholdable shutter speed. Unless you are like me and don't pay attention all the time and use less than ideal stettings.[img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]


Overall I really like your image, besides that its kinda loosely framed. But pratice helps alot,a whole lot!


That picture is definitely worth posting in the "Post your best bird shots"thread.


John.

---

So John, what would I have improved specifically by using ISO 200? I used ISO 400, to be honest, because I was trying to emulate the success, to some extent at least, that is evidenced by Nate's shots, and I see him using 1/1000+ a bunch with his 400 f/5.6. That is the primary reason the ISO is higher, to get the shutter speed up. You're probably right, 1/750 would have given me comparable sharpness and hand-holdability with that same shot. I didn't have confidence that I was good enough to handhold that slow with that lens. I'll try to crop a little tighter and re-post, but I kind of like the fence as a compositional element. Let me know what you think.


EDIT:


Okay, here is a tighter, recomposed crop.


[View:http://community.the-digital-picture...awaii/utility/http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/l..._3206tight.jpg:800:0]

Well I don't think ISO 400 is really a problem. The picture looks nice as it is. Maybe at 100 percent the iso-noise would be more visible then with iso 200. And yes it would still be a good handholdable picture, probably even at iso100. But then the bird flies away and you manage to take one more picture while it's in flight....would you be more happy with iso200 1/750 or iso400 and 1/1500? [:D]

Welcome Alex....this a great area to get info w/many various opinions on how to's.


Suggestion for bird photography; use your Highlight Tone Priority when shooting birds w/white coloring....note the over exposure on the Nuthatch's head and neck areas. The HTP will help w/this and also w/the rest of frame's exposure. On a 40D it's located at C.Fn ll-03...I don't know if this will help in locating on your 50D


You'll find the 70-200mm fine for controlled birding settings, e.g. backyard feeding stations, but you'll soon discover when you're out and about, it will prove to be too short even w/an extender. The 300 w/an extender would have been a better choice as well as the 400mm and 100-400.


bburns; I'm looking at purchasing the 70-200 2.8 IS for photographing hummingbirds in my HB garden this spring.....also gymnasium and hockey rink shooting. Would you kindly post the links for info concerning the statements you've made regarding; IQ sharpness 175-200 and many cheaper lenses are noticeably better.


If I can find a lens that will be cheaper w/better IQ (no pixel peeping articles, e.g. 70-200 f/4 IS) that would be great and less stressful on my wallet.


Regards


Bill

Bill W. This is a quote taken from Brian's review of the 70-200 F/2.8


"I have received some comments on the ISO 12233 resolution chart samples for this lens - some think they are too soft at f/2.8. As I get time, I retest questionable results - Or even buy another copy of the lens to insure accurate but expectable results. I re-tested this lens and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L non-IS USM Lens at the 200mm focal length using AF, MF and bracketing - obtained results were identical. The chart is tough on optical performance, and real life images do seem sharper. I use this lens wide open much of the time - the results are quite satisfactory to me. Stopping down from f/2.8 to f/4 will show a difference - and will make this lens very close in performance to the remarkable Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Lens at the same aperture."


From this I take it that at 200mm wide open it is a little soft. I don't have this lens but have the F/4 version and it is really sharp. I am wanting this lens though for some of the same situation you are talking about. Think I will be waiting though to see if they come out with a version II this year as rumors have it since they are supposed to be upgrading the IS and fixing that wide open softness, as rumors have it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1

So John, what would I have improved specifically by using ISO 200? I used ISO 400, to be honest, because I was trying to emulate the success, to some extent at least, that is evidenced by Nate's shots, and I see him using 1/1000+ a bunch with his 400 f/5.6.

---

You guessed it right, I was talking about shutter speed. Since there was no action and that you were cropping heavily and you probably would seenoticble differance in noise. Well, mabye.[:D] But definitely you would want to use a high shutter speed when you are shooting action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1

Okay, here is a tighter, recomposed crop.

---

Love it, love it, love it! That is much better. Now you can confidently post itin the "Post your best bird shots".


Keep up the good work and enjoy the fruits of your labor!


John.

Wow! I'm blushing. Thank you so much for the encouragement. I will post it right away!

Thanks Wes....I've read this review more than a few times and the lines I take away are; "The chart is tough on optical performance, and real life images do seem sharper. Stopping down from f/2.8 to f/4 will show a difference - and will make this lens very close in performance to the remarkable Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Lens at the same aperture." My take away is the capture, by either lens, would be difficult to differentiate w/my eyes w/out pixel peeping.


I used the 2.8 lens a few weeks ago (at 200mm) and I thought the result was excellent, until I saw the same bird taken (at approximately the same time and angle) w/a 300 2.8 (prime)...wow (but the price tag falls into WOW)....feather detail (soft at 200 in comparison) was noticeably different (sharper w/300) w/out the post processing.


I need the 2.8 (and want a zoom) for my HB garden falls into the shade early in the day....so I'm assuming bburns' statement about price and "noticeably different" IQ means cheaper than the 2.8 w/better (?) IQ at 200mm. I would like to read these reviews and make my own decision on the matter.


Alex....I apologize that this post is veering off your topic line, but this may be helpful down the road.


Also Alex, another recommendation; pay attention to Sinh Nhut Nguyen's, a.k.a Nate, entries....good pix and good advice for birding.


Regards


Bill