dSLR thread

e_dawg

Storage Freak
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
1,903
Location
Toronto-ish, Canada
For example, going to a friend's kid's bday party, I wanted to take basic pictures for her and her kid. The lighting in the place was a horrible mix of florescent and incandescent lighting which I can't change. What do most people do in this situation? I don't have an extra helper with me to bounce light and hold flash sticks. So I rely on the 580EX as my source of flash and bounce it in various ways to get what I can. I tried a mixture of flash and no flash, with the images not having the flash contain more grain because the ISO was pushed higher.

Mixed lighting sources are a pain, especially when they involve fluorescent. Can you turn off the fluorescent lights? That's always the easiest solution. I guess you couldn't. What kind of fluorescent? If it's warm white / soft white around 2700 K like incandescents, that makes it a bit easier, since you can gel your flash towards tungsten (using say 1/2 CTO), and deal with the yellow/green spikes of the fluorescent by doing a custom WB during RAW conversion. You can also take a shot with an x-Rite/Gretag MacBeth colour chart in it and use that help get your colours right.

Depending on how bright the light sources are, you can try to blast them out of the equation by setting your flash to thermonuclear and use the fastest shutter speed that syncs with your flash.
 

Tea

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
3,749
Location
27a No Fixed Address, Oz.
Website
www.redhill.net.au
E_dawg, perhaps you can help me with this one that I'm struggling to get right. What is the correct colour temperature setting for street work with lighting via a small to medium-intensity thermonuclear war?
 

e_dawg

Storage Freak
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
1,903
Location
Toronto-ish, Canada
E_dawg, perhaps you can help me with this one that I'm struggling to get right. What is the correct colour temperature setting for street work with lighting via a small to medium-intensity thermonuclear war?

I dunno... what colour does simian fur glow upon vapourisation? LOL... :mrgrn:
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,742
Location
Horsens, Denmark
But E_dawg's complaints about PP carry more weight with me. Either the air in your part of the world is consistently grey and hazy, and the light terribly flat, or else there is something very odd about the look of these pictures. I hate over-saturation more than most people do, and I rarely trouble to disguise my contempt for self-styled "photographers" who think that every damn image should cover the full tonal range with plenty of that horrible artificial stuff they call "punch", but there is a persistent flatness there in most of the images that strikes me right away.

In an attempt to shake some of this, I went out looking for distinctly unnatural stuff to shoot. If the air is impacting things, perhaps my subjects should be closer? Perhaps not keeping the entire shot in focus? Something slightly less natural? Here is what I came up with...nope, still boring and flat.

I really want some punch or interest, but I find it really hard to find something between this and this.

I think the best "edgy" shots were these. I just can't figure out what made those work well, and how to reproduce it.

By the way, the sort of stuff you are doing says to me that there is definately a 5D II in your future.

I know...the end is near...
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,497
Location
USA
You think I should go Nikon? My impression is that they are currently in the lead WRT IQ, but that the glass costs considerably more.

Because you are probabaly too impatient to do what is necessary to get best from the Canon bodies, i.e., buy alternate prime lenses, etc. and carry a large bag-o-lenses. Nikon is more practical for anything wide. The 14-24 and 24-70 are an excellent combo. It is worth getting a D3X this summer just for those lenses.

You will see how mediocre much of the Canon wide and zoom glass is on the higher-res bodies. Beyond 16MP becomes less productive. Sony/Zeiss FF is also attractive, though the tele choices suck.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
The grass is always greener on the other side. My Dad was a big Canon FD (manual focus film) guy. He never went autofocus for film. He decided to go Nikon for digital, and it seems like he's always talking about how much nicer Canon's lens line-up is compared to Nikon's.

His usual complaint is that Nikon does not have F4 constant aperture "Pro" lenses like Canon does. You can either go with their less than stellar performing consumer lenses, or move all the way up to their large, heavy, & expensive F2.8 "Pro" lenses. Apparently the size and weight of the F2.8 "Pro" stuff is bothersome to a lot of non pros shooting Nikon.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,497
Location
USA
My 70-200/f 4 IS is exceptional under most conditions, but I can't think of any others that are uniformly so. Which lens(es) are you discussing?
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,742
Location
Horsens, Denmark
Because you are probabaly too impatient to do what is necessary to get best from the Canon bodies, i.e., buy alternate prime lenses, etc. and carry a large bag-o-lenses.

I don't think that is my problem. Half my lenses are primes, and my "walk around" set is 5 lenses. I'm also more than happy to walk around with only 2 primes (35/2 and 50/1.8 ). I can deal with limited lengths to get better glass.

You will see how mediocre much of the Canon wide and zoom glass is on the higher-res bodies. Beyond 16MP becomes less productive.

So what are the lenses you would suggest at the wide end? I have a 17-40/4L in my shopping cart right now, is the 20/2.8 a better lens? The 24/1.4L is a bit too dear for me at the moment.
 

e_dawg

Storage Freak
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
1,903
Location
Toronto-ish, Canada
I still don't think your equipment is the limiting factor here, but if you really want better wide-angle lenses, you can also look outside the Canon arena. The 17-40/4 L is good, but the 16-35 is kinda expensive for what you get. If you want zooms, an increasing number of Canon shooters use the Nikon 14-24 and 17-35 on a Nikon to EF mount adapter. The 14-24 is widely regarded as the best WA zoom money can buy on any system. Only the Olympus 7-14 is in the same class, optically. Note that you lose electronic control and need to focus manually.

If you're after some wide primes, Zeiss makes some fantastic manual focus ones in both Nikon and Canon mounts. I'd actually recommend getting a Nikon mount Zeiss (ZF) and use it with an adaptor because you can not only use it on the Nikon system should you decide to go that direction, but they're also lighter than the Canon mount versions (ZE). The Distagon 21/2.8 is based on a legendary design.

At the value end of the spectrum, look for used Olympus (OM 21/3.5) or Nikon (20/3.5 AiS) wide primes on eBay and mount them on an adapter. They won't perform any better than Canon's WA zooms, but they are a lot cheaper.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,742
Location
Horsens, Denmark
I am certain that my gear is not the limiting factor, but I likes me some toys. I have always been averse to getting non-Canon lenses for my Canon camera, but perhaps I need to shake that?

Trying to get some different compositional stuff going, and some more color. I think I am happiest with these two. As the title of the second one suggests, I have no idea where to crop it.
 

Will Rickards

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
2,012
Location
Here
Website
willrickards.net
Can you guys tell me what I'm doing wrong in my bird pictures.
Here is an example, nikon raw NEF file.
http://willrickards.net/images/DSC_0088.NEF

It doesn't look sharp enough to me.
Is it because I'm hand holding the camera and using the VR?
You think it is the filter on the lens? I bought it just for protective purposes.

Kind of frustrated. I've got 100s of these pictures of the birds in my new backyard. And they all seem kind of not focused enough.
 

P5-133XL

Xmas '97
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
3,173
Location
Salem, Or
Can you guys tell me what I'm doing wrong in my bird pictures.
Here is an example, nikon raw NEF file.
http://willrickards.net/images/DSC_0088.NEF

It doesn't look sharp enough to me.
Is it because I'm hand holding the camera and using the VR?
You think it is the filter on the lens? I bought it just for protective purposes.

Kind of frustrated. I've got 100s of these pictures of the birds in my new backyard. And they all seem kind of not focused enough.

Since you say you are hand-holding, what focal length is your lens and what is the normal shutter speed? The general rule for hand holding is that the shutter speed should be no slower than 1/(lens focal length) though that has quite a bit of wiggle room depending on how steady you are and image stabilzation. So with a 200mm lens you need 1/200's (or faster) of a second shutter speed to get a sharp picture.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,742
Location
Horsens, Denmark
Since you say you are hand-holding, what focal length is your lens and what is the normal shutter speed? The general rule for hand holding is that the shutter speed should be no slower than 1/(lens focal length) though that has quite a bit of wiggle room depending on how steady you are and image stabilzation. So with a 200mm lens you need 1/200's (or faster) of a second shutter speed to get a sharp picture.

Also don't forget that rule is for FF cameras, so if you have a crop sensor, you need it to be faster.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,497
Location
USA
I am certain that my gear is not the limiting factor, but I likes me some toys. I have always been averse to getting non-Canon lenses for my Canon camera, but perhaps I need to shake that?

Trying to get some different compositional stuff going, and some more color. I think I am happiest with these two. As the title of the second one suggests, I have no idea where to crop it.

It may be too late. Cropping does not substitute for positioning at the time. The image suffers from bad light, so there is not much to be done. Come back when the weather is better and be more selective in composition.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,497
Location
USA
Since you say you are hand-holding, what focal length is your lens and what is the normal shutter speed? The general rule for hand holding is that the shutter speed should be no slower than 1/(lens focal length) though that has quite a bit of wiggle room depending on how steady you are and image stabilzation. So with a 200mm lens you need 1/200's (or faster) of a second shutter speed to get a sharp picture.

In case you don't have the right software, basic EXIF is:

File: DSC_0088.NEF
File size: 5,206KB
Image counter: 10272
Camera Model: NIKON D40
Camera serial number: 3148139
Firmware: Version 2.10
Date/Time: 2009:04:19 15:18:41
Shutter speed: 1/80 sec
Aperture: 13
Exposure mode: Tv

Flash: Off
Metering mode: Spot
ISO: 200
Lens: 70 to 300mm
Focal length: 300mm
Focal length: 450mm (in 35mm film)
VR Image Stabilization: On
AF mode: AF-A
Image size: 3040 x 2014
Image quality: RAW
White balance: CLOUDY+2
Color mode: MODE3a
Color space: sRGB
Saturation: Normal
Sharpness: AUTO
Contrast: Normal
User comments:
"Will Rickards"

I bolded the problem areas.
 

udaman

Wannabe Storage Freak
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
1,209
In case you don't have the right software, basic EXIF is:

File: DSC_0088.NEF
File size: 5,206KB
Image counter: 10272
Camera Model: NIKON D40
Camera serial number: 3148139
Firmware: Version 2.10
Date/Time: 2009:04:19 15:18:41
Shutter speed: 1/80 sec
Aperture: 13
Exposure mode: Tv

Flash: Off
Metering mode: Spot
ISO: 200
Lens: 70 to 300mm
Focal length: 300mm
Focal length: 450mm (in 35mm film)
VR Image Stabilization: On
AF mode: AF-A
Image size: 3040 x 2014
Image quality: RAW
White balance: CLOUDY+2
Color mode: MODE3a
Color space: sRGB
Saturation: Normal
Sharpness: AUTO
Contrast: Normal
User comments:
"Will Rickards"

I bolded the problem areas.

I bolded the 'other' potential problem ares of concern.

Tv metering is what again? Shutter speed priority???

Both Tannin and Ken Rockwell would likely say you don't need the RAW, can get by with jpg. But we know the D40 is an older image processor, so with Nikon, lots of processing in camera for jpg's can lose fine detail. So assuming WR wants, intends to use RAW, to later extract better noise qualities w/PP and other corrections, WB etc...and hence allow for higher ISO...ISO should have been at least 400, and if not doing large blowups or extensive cropping, ISO 800 would have been acceptable. ISO1600 for smaller images.

450mm effective, means the lowest shutter speed you'd want w/IS /VR is around 3stops lower than 1/450th sec.= 112.5th. Ie 1/80th is really pushing your luck unless you have very steady hands. You could even get shake from just pushing down on the shutter release with a less than smooth action, assuming you had it locked down on a sturdy tripod.

So, if you absolutely need that much DOF to use an aperture of 13, then you'll need to hit ISO800, to be able to obtain a 2 stop shutter speed increase to 1/320th...which should get you acceptable sharpness handheld with VR on. Sweet spot of that lens is what aperture? @F13 you might get some diffraction effects, but probably not an issue, unless you require razor sharp images, extra fine detail...as LM probably would :p

Unless you really want the extra DOF (say shooting a portrait like shot of your 2 children playing at a park from an unequal distance from the camera), drop the aperture down 2 stops(open the lens up to let more light in) to minimum F4.5 (or is that lens limited to <F5.6 @max zoom?)

Spot metering could give a false/inaccurate exposure reading, depending on lighting conditions...don't know the actual lighting conditions---area of scene most important, difficult to determine over the Net.
 

P5-133XL

Xmas '97
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
3,173
Location
Salem, Or
Here's some solution suggestions:

Since you are running at ISO 200, how about trying ISO 400-800 (Isn't the noise far better than the blur problem you are currently having). If a tripod is out, try putting your camera on a mono-pod (basicly a long stick with a camera mount on it): that would much improve the shake and is much more portable and manuverable. The lighting may end up being somewhat unnatural, but a good flash can also solve blur problems like this too: I think it may be worth trying.

no LunarMist, I did not have the software to get the data you supplied: good stuff.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,497
Location
USA
I don't think that is my problem. Half my lenses are primes, and my "walk around" set is 5 lenses. I'm also more than happy to walk around with only 2 primes (35/2 and 50/1.8 ). I can deal with limited lengths to get better glass.

So what are the lenses you would suggest at the wide end? I have a 17-40/4L in my shopping cart right now, is the 20/2.8 a better lens? The 24/1.4L is a bit too dear for me at the moment.

RAAAGH! The board ate my post. I'll try again later.
 

e_dawg

Storage Freak
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
1,903
Location
Toronto-ish, Canada
WR,

Good suggestions to heed from LM, uda, P5. I concur that using a faster shutter speed and higher ISO would be the first things that come to mind. A few minor things to add to the discussion:

1. The 70-300/VR starts getting softer progressively above 200 mm or so. If you want maximum sharpness (and are willing to sacrifice a bit of reach), somewhere in the low 200's is about the sweet-spot in terms of more reach vs falloff in sharpness.

2. At long focal lengths, atmospheric particulate and haze become increasingly apparent. If you were shooting on a humid, smoggy, hazy day, this would be captured in your shot. No matter how sharp your lens or how stable your setup was at the time of the shot, your pics would be a little fuzzy and flat.

3. UV Filters can only usually detract from your image quality by adding reflections (flare and ghosting) to your shot. The best ones are multi-coated (I like B+W MRC) and minimize this effect; the worst ones are uncoated (e.g., Tiffen and most cheaper filters) and turn your expensive lens into a flare factory, reducing contrast. Looks like you may have some veiling flare / reflections around the periphery of your image.

4. Sometimes VR just doesn't work that well and results in slightly soft pics. I think of VR as something that greatly reduces your chances of getting a very blurry / shaky pic, but it doesn't really give you clinically "tack-sharp" pics.

At 300 mm, assuming you have addressed the other factors, to get the sharpest possible pics, you would need to turn OFF VR, mount your camera on a SOLID head on a STABLE tripod, and use a remote trigger or timer mode.

If hand-holding, try no VR and something like 1/640 sec + 400 ISO + f/8 in continuous multi-shot mode. Pick the sharpest pic out of the multi-shot burst.
 

Tannin

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
4,448
Location
Huon Valley, Tasmania
Website
www.redhill.net.au
Pretty good advice above, Will. But I'll add a bit to it:

You are a long, long way away from the bird. This causes two problems: (a) you have to crop hard and lose lots of detail; (b) your AF system struggles to get accurate focus with such a small target. Yes, it will focus, but it wil only be exactly right by accident.

1/80th is way, way too low for 300mm. I normally try for 1/1000th or better with bird shots. Now, in this light, you are not going to get it that high, but you can at least get a bit closer to it. ISO 400 is pretty much a standard setting for bird photography; go to 800 if you need to, only drop back to 200 when the light is superb. Your aperture should normally be as close to wide open as you dare, given the limitations of your lens. I'm not sure what your 70-300 is like, but most 70-300s are pretty ordinary and you do need to stop them down a bit - you have to find a balance between two two evils of low shutter speed on the one hand and substandard lens performance on the other.

In this case, you might get the best results at 1/500th, 400i, and f/8 (not really quite fast enough, but getting there). I'm not sure of the abilities of your lens and sensor, you you might want to experiment a bit. If the D40 is not too clean at 400i, you could try 200i, f/5.6 and still 1/500th. If the D40 does OK at 400-800 ISO, then you could try 800i and f/8 for 1/1000th. You have to get to know your own gear. But my guess is that you'll mostly do best at f/6.7 or f/8 and 400 ISO.

Rule #2 of bird photography is shutter speed, shutter speed, and shutter speed! (Rule #1, of course, is get closer to the bird!)

What about VR? Simple rule, doing bird work, you always use VR. There is never a reason to turn it off (other than flight shots, which we are not discussing here).

Some basic starter settings for bird work (Use these all the time unless you have a particular reason otherwise.)
  • ISO 400
  • Aperture priority, set wide open for a top-class lens (Cannon L Series primes, Nikon equivalents); half a stop down for near-prime lenses (Canon 100-400 IS, Nikkor 80-400 VR, any top-class prime with a teleconverter on it, Sigma 150-500, etc.); a whole stop down for anything else. (Stop down fiurther to increase depth of field as desired, but only when you have shutter speed to burn. Always sacrifice desired DOF to get decent shutter speed when in doubt.)
  • If your shutter speed is much less than 1/1000th, increase the ISO to 800.
  • If your shutter speed is still much less than 1/1000th, open up the aperture a bit more.
  • If your shutter speed is still much less than 1/1000th, go to 1600i if your camera can do it with half-decent results (most can't), or get closer and use a shorter lens.
  • Don't rely on tripods and self-timers to overcome low shutter speeds. Even when you get everything right and keep the camera perfectly still, you still have to deal with subject movement, and birds, especially small birds, move really fast. (There are exceptions to this, but thy are just that: exceptions.)

Good luck and stick at it!
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,497
Location
USA
I don't think that is my problem. Half my lenses are primes, and my "walk around" set is 5 lenses. I'm also more than happy to walk around with only 2 primes (35/2 and 50/1.8 ). I can deal with limited lengths to get better glass.

So what are the lenses you would suggest at the wide end? I have a 17-40/4L in my shopping cart right now, is the 20/2.8 a better lens? The 24/1.4L is a bit too dear for me at the moment.

Some individual ones are better than others, but you will need primes for good corners on FX/FF. The 20/2.8 is pretty poor and an old design. The original CZ 21/2.8 is the best in that range, though the moustache is annoying to some people, like me. There is a new Cosina/Zeiss 21/2.8 but only Nikon mount for now (of course you could adapt that one as well). The EF version will be more practical if you can wait until some time in H2. I doubt that you are into using the pricey old CZ and various Leica lenses with adapters. Some of the alternative wide lenses have short backfocus and hit the mirrors of the 5D series without modification, but are less likely to be an issue with the 1Ds series. Unfortunately only about 2 of the current generation Zeiss/Cosina lenses are available in EF mount compared to 9 for Nikon.

The Canon 24/1.4 version II is quite bulky, but a nice lens. I don't like the 24/2.8 EF, partly due to the loud AF and cheap design. The optics are OK, but not up to modern standards (and not better than a good 16-35/2.8 version I at that FL). I ditched it years ago. Ideally there should be a 24/2 L USM that is more compact, optically fine and more reasonably priced, but here again Canon has a gaping hole. 24/3.5 TSE was the weakest of the TSE lenses, but the new version is expected to be very good. It’s not a general purpose lens and is quite expensive. The 28/1.8 is disappointing – another old design. There are no really good 28 primes in the Canon lineup.

The 17-40 I tried was not much better than my original 16-35/2.8 at the wide end and worse at the long end (though I apparently have a very good copy of the latter lens). It did much better with flare however. My 16-35/2.8 version II is decent enough at the wide range (better than others at 16-20 mm), but nothing special from 24-35. Canon variability on the wide zooms is substantial, but at some point (buy 3-5 copies) you can see the limits of the designs. What looks very good on 1Ds(11 MP)/5D(12 MP) is more marginal on the 1Ds MK II (16.7 MP) is often subpar at 21 MP, and would fare worse yet in the future. Of course per pixel sharpness may not be critical, but print size is in many case limited by these lenses.

After you spend a small fortune on Canon stuff in just a few years, the continual lack of quality wide angles, reduced manufacturing quality of many lenses, and corporate deceit about defective pro cameras is just too much. Hundreds of thousands of people are moving (many back) from Canon to Nikon, so you can pick up a lot of used gear at sometimes quite reasonable prices. I will be running a mixed Canon/Nikon system for the next few years unless MF digital becomes practical.
 

Pradeep

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
3,845
Location
Runny glass
Tony you mentioned reliability and probs with the 40D. Anecdotedly the higher end models are no different. Had several 1Ds Mk IIIs DOA straight out of the box with E99 errors.
 

Tannin

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
4,448
Location
Huon Valley, Tasmania
Website
www.redhill.net.au
Not good, Pradeep. I can only go on my own experience (of course), but not too impressed with my 40Ds. All my other Canon SLRs have been faultless. Oh, and over on Bird Forum, there are a zillion 40D owners who have had shutter problems. It's not the sort of place where people join just to complain - all bird watchers, mostly long-term members - so I take that fairly seriously. (Unlike DPR, where anyone who isn't a troll is probably there by mistake.)
 

Pradeep

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
3,845
Location
Runny glass
With the 1Ds MkII the shutters were good for 300,000 on average. Eventually the mechanical shutter will have to go (already done with digital video).
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,742
Location
Horsens, Denmark
Crap, another post gone (my fault)

Thanks Lunar for the writeup. I've read it quite a few times, and have a few questions.

1. Can you show or link to an image that is lens limited? I understand the concept that the lens is not capable of treating all the pixels properly, but I don't know what it looks like.

2. You are correct that I would like to avoid adapters and whatnot for the lenses, but I also couldn't handle spending $1k+ on a lens while dropping $2.5k on a camera. Looking for a lens in the 18-22mm range, (prime or zoom), will I be better off buying something other than the 17-40L? I can work with a prime, but the added versatility is tempting.

I know what you (and others) are saying about Canon and their build quality and lens selection, but I'm just not seeing the feature set/UI that I would appreciate with Nikon (shy of the D3x, that is).
 

Will Rickards

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
2,012
Location
Here
Website
willrickards.net
Thanks for the advice, I'll try to shoot some more with the advice and post a revised shot if I can get some.

To answer some of the questions:
- I shoot in raw so I can adjust the picture later. I almost always need to brighten the images after I shoot them.
- Yes I'm shooting in shutter speed priority mode.
- I had ISO at 200 because it was a bright day and thought why would I need another ISO for a bright outdoor shot. Normally I leave it at auto. I'll just put it back on auto.
- The lens is AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED
- For DOF I was looking for the bird and the feeder to be in focus.
- My tripod sucks with this lens. The camera is too heavy for it. I found this out when taking moon shots back last year when the moon was the biggest it will be for a while. Of course that was with the tripod head pointed almost vertical. Well that is what you get for $15. Eventually I'll get a better one but these expensive purchases have to spread out and saved for. And most of the time the birds would be out of there by the time I get the tripod out and setup. I think pushing the shutter button is moving the camera though. Monopod will probably work in this situation as long as it comes up to eye level or near it.
- The wireless remote shutter on this camera requires you to be in front of it. I haven't researched remote shutter on it beyond that as that is useless most of the time.
- I'm not sure how much closer I can get to these birds without them flying away. I can zoom out and crop but this is only a 6MP camera.
 

P5-133XL

Xmas '97
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
3,173
Location
Salem, Or
If you can't afford a monopod, try converting your current tripod: Don't open up the legs and shorten up two of them so that only one is on the ground. You can adjust the one long leg to fit your height. It is also an inexpensive way to test it out to see if a monopod would work for you before you invest.

If pressing the shutter button is moving the camera, try getting a remote shutter release (a wired version). they should be inexpensive; as long as the cable isn't taut it can't move the camera; and you won't have to be infront of the camera.

I would recomend that you don't go back to auto, rather force the ISO to be higher (400-800). Since you have hundreds of shots that failed and normally you use auto, I think I can assume that auto is not the solution. The ideal would be if your camera had a depth of field function (I don't know -- I have not researched the feature list of your camera) so you can determine the proper aperture to get both the bird and the birdhhouse. Set the aperture and wait for the bird to be in the proper location. If your camera does not have that feature, then set the aperture to be wide open (ISO still between 400-800) and wait for the bird. Take the shot, and when you look at it the bird house isn't in focus then decrement the aperture and repeat till you get it right. It might take some time, but eventually you will get the shot and the process may teach a little as to how aperture effects the photograph.

Do note that as you decrease the aperture the shutter time is going to increase till potentially the shutter gets too slow and everything is blury again. If that happens, you will need to increase the ISO which will give you some extra room to get your shot. The monopod and the remote shutter can only improve the situation. In the end, it may be that your hardware is just not capable of actually getting the shot you want but I think you can get a lot closer than you are now.

One of the real benefits of a digital camera is that you can actually get good real time feedback and this process of repeatedly varying one parameter at a time and seeing what you get before going on to the next modification can be done. Unlike a film camera where you need to actually process the film to get good feedback. Take advantage of this!
 

e_dawg

Storage Freak
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
1,903
Location
Toronto-ish, Canada
2. You are correct that I would like to avoid adapters and whatnot for the lenses, but I also couldn't handle spending $1k+ on a lens while dropping $2.5k on a camera. Looking for a lens in the 18-22mm range, (prime or zoom), will I be better off buying something other than the 17-40L? I can work with a prime, but the added versatility is tempting.

If you want to get the IQ from your $2.5k camera, you need to use optics that will perform at that level. Otherwise, what's the point of getting a $2.5k camera? Might as well save your money and stick with the XSi.

BTW, don't you shoot mostly panos? If so, why not just get a cheap macro lens like a Sigma 50/2.8? I used one on a Nikon for this pano

I know what you (and others) are saying about Canon and their build quality and lens selection, but I'm just not seeing the feature set/UI that I would appreciate with Nikon (shy of the D3x, that is).

Psst, there's a D700x coming in early 2010... basically a D3x in a D700 body, just like the D700 was a D3 in a slightly bigger version of the D300 body. If top quality wide-angle optics is your thing (not sure; i thought you mainly did panos up until this point), a D700x + 14-24 or Sony A900 + Sony-Zeiss 16-35 is the way to go.
 
Top