dSLR thread

[Handruin]

That or you'll need a lot more light and a lot faster shutter! Did you buy or rent it?

 

[ddrueding]

Bought it. Just a Sigma 170-500; 6.3 is as quick as it gets, and sharp it isn't. Autofocus is pretty slow, too. But used from B&H, the price was right (<$600, IIRC).

Of course, now I'm tempted to get a good Canon "L" telephoto. But that would be crazy with the other expenses I'm considering at the moment.

 

[ddrueding]

BTW, that was a 1/1250 shutter speed @ ISO400, so there was quite a bit of light. As the sun set I went to -1EV; ISO800 isn't the greatest on the XSi.

 

[LunarMist]

That or you'll need a lot more light and a lot faster shutter! Did you buy or rent it?

Check the EXIF data. It is high noon, which is part of the problem. :blue:

 

[LunarMist]

A better lens will do nothing for horrid lighting. You need to shoot early or late on sunny days.

 

[ddrueding]

I'd agree Lunar, but then it is darker, and harder to shoot. Can you specify an area of the image where the poor lighting is most significant? Or is it a general effect thing?

 

[udaman]

A better lens, like the 800mm that Roger sed would give better handheld shots than the 600mm, bcuz of superior IS *will* give 'better' results....for a price .

horrid lighting is wat someone who's not being *paid* for the shot might have to get buy with when they don't have the luxury of time to be there all day long...for days on end. The right lighting as well as the correct exact time of day, as well as the photographers 'eye' & skillz get that once in a blue moon moment.

LM is offline, so I will chime in with my most worthy 'armchair' expert opinion...meh, almost as good as Ken R. lol.

I don't find the lighting 'horrible', just not the best. If you were on a road trip and you saw a moment that you wanted to capture, will you just say 'ah F'it...I'm not here at the best time of day, with the best lighting...etc' and refuse to capture the moment?

Overall the high contrast lighting is a problem, no particular area is 'worse', but if you want to be picky, blown/overexposed areas like the hind quarters/behind the head of the rabbit are what you wouldn't get with better lighting.

But I wouldn't say higher shutter speed accomplishes the desired objective...if you want to convey the speed/movement of the hare/bunny (btw, with dialup I was expecting something much better to appear with a title like 'beach bunny' ) going faster just gets you 'frozen' in time image. Sure *you* or someone experienced at viewing the image will notice the hare in gallop, but to the casual viewer/non-photographer...blurred feet in motion gives that sense of movement.

Handheld shots w/o IS on a super heavy cam/long lens setup is not easy.

Was that the best of images in a series of 3.5fps shots (I forget how fast the continuous shooting is on the XSi)?

Just thinking, maybe a 2x teleconverter with a faster IS L prime lens like a 200mm would get you better results? You'd lose 100mm in reach, but you could crop enough to make it work? Yeah I know, even a used 200L is going to cost >2x the Sigma.

Not sure how much you could gain with the leading edge 1D Mk4 or D3s doing higher ISO, as with any of those, the DR is reduced as ISO increases.

LM is assuming the Exif data is correct...I don't always remember to set for daylight savings time .

2010:04:25 12:52:03.03-07:00

Q? If I bought a top-of-the-line consumer camcorder with still capability, tiny sensor, smaller than the XSi, but zooms out to 500mm equiv, could I have done better than this example??? IS + much ligher weight system...would the shot be sharper or not??? Probably be worse with greater blown highlights...or maybe not.

ND filter would not have helped, but would a polarizing filter done anything to affect contrast?

 

[ddrueding]

Shooting at 3.5fps, that was the only frame that included a full rabbit. Most included an ear or a foot and a bunch of plants. He was headed pretty much right for me, so tracking and focusing was more than I could handle.

Thanks for the tips Uda, filters for that size (86mm) would be pretty pricey.

This wasn't a photo-shoot, just a walk with the wife after lunch, so the timing wasn't really in my control. Though I always believe that excuses and circumstances don't mean a damn in the real world, and that if your work can't stand on it's own, it can't stand at all.

A camera that can handle ISO 1600 without too much noise is probably the best equipment upgrade for me at the moment.

 

[udaman]

I think U should rent the 100-400 w/2x TC for a week, that gives you all the reach of the 800mm prime, w/o the cost. Sure the fastest it will go w/TC is F11, so no shallow DOF, but sometimes u don't need shallow DOF. New it costs $1600 + $150 for the TC. Might be able to find it for less used?

70-200f2.8 L you can afford now, w/TC you'll get slightly more shallow DOF than the lens you have now, but 100mm less reach...can crop? It's in the same price range, and would give greater zoom range+ sharper images w/IS. 70-400

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon-100-400mm-f4.5-5.6-l-is/for-canon

Roger’s Take: This is a compromise lens. It’s not quite as sharp as the 300 and 400mm primes, and has a telescoping zoom which some people don’t like (personally I do, its faster to zoom). The 70-200 f/2.8 is sharper than this lens is from 100-200. But trip after trip I pack up 2 or 3 “best possible” lenses, and then unpack them and put a 100-400 in my bag, because while it is a compromise, it’s a very good compromise. It’s nearly as sharp as the primes (and far sharper than a consumer lens). The huge range means getting the shot framed just right and not having to change lenses, and it’s relatively small and easy to shoot hand-held.

Actually u could rent any number of lenses for a week, along w/some of those pesky expensive filters to see if they gain u much in different lighting situations (^both above), not too expensive, and get a feel for what you'd like to buy.

 

[ddrueding]

I've held that 100-400 quite a few times, but haven't bought it yet. If it were pixel-sharp, even with the 100mm worth of crop it would be sharper than the Sigma.

 

[udaman]

Though I always believe that excuses and circumstances don't mean a damn in the real world, and that if your work can't stand on it's own, it can't stand at all.

A camera that can handle ISO 1600 without too much noise is probably the best equipment upgrade for me at the moment.

Yes, but the difference btw U & Ansel Adams making that once in a lifetime shot in Mexico ...Sierra wutz it called (brain fart ATM) is he had all the time, and with skillz got the shot at the exact moment. As you say, it's casual shooting where U can't determine the conditions/lighting...so u go with what you have.

Earlier/later, you'd get less contrasty light---less DR needed to capture nicer images, different shadow angles, but the real problem is handheld w/o decent IS. IS would allow either slower shutter, and lower ISO. The jackrabbit's face should have come out sharp in one of the 3.5fps images, while feet in motion is what you want, not higher shutter in combination with more noise in the 1600ISO shot.

YOu can look at the DXOmark comparisons (take a 550D or 7D and compare) and see you'll not get that much improvement (other than full size viewing or necessary cropping) with an 'upgraded' cam. The IS is more important here to getting more options/better images (unless you plan to lug around the tripod/monopod). A Nikon D3X w/2+stops better DR *might* have gotten you less blown highlights, overall capture of the wide DR range of that scene. A similar priced Nikon 5000D has 1.5 stops greater DR than the 450D, but will it matter enough in that kind of harder/harsh lighting situation?

Yeah sure get a 550D and shoot @ISO1600 @1/2000th and you'll have the rabbit 'frozen' on the image, but not convey any motion...is that what you prefer?

I'd rather have a slightly less than tack sharp image but using IS, that shows motion like the one you have, even slower shutter along with lower ISO to capture more fine detail or allow cropping when using shorter FL lens.

on these night shots, u can't tell any difference in DR under their DR tab on dxomark, the streetlights blowout at any ISO, with any dSLR, even the shadow areas are minimally different. Not the best example to show off DR. (move cursor/mouse along the right side by the green to red color column to get the movable graphics working)

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Nikon/D3s


The 550D *drops* off 2 stops in DR from low ISO by the time you get to ISO1600, not what you want in your example:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Canon/EOS-550D

 

[LunarMist]

A camera that can handle ISO 1600 without too much noise is probably the best equipment upgrade for me at the moment.

Perhaps a D700?

 

[LunarMist]

I've held that 100-400 quite a few times, but haven't bought it yet. If it were pixel-sharp, even with the 100mm worth of crop it would be sharper than the Sigma.

100-400 is actually a rather good lens for a zoom. Stop it down to f/8 and make sure that the AF is calibrated at distance. I suspect a crop is similiar to that Sigma at 500 and noticeable better without cropping. There is the new Sigma 50-500 OS that seems to be OK, but not great. At f/6.3 is slower yet and quite heavy. Sigma AF on Canon bodies is not so hot either.

 

[LunarMist]

Shooting at 3.5fps, that was the only frame that included a full rabbit. Most included an ear or a foot and a bunch of plants. He was headed pretty much right for me, so tracking and focusing was more than I could handle.

Knowing when to shoot and not is at least half of the battle. I would just watch the animal in that situation.

I don't have many hares/rabbits but they are all at slower speeds such as 1/125-1/320 taken late in the afternoon or early in the morning.

 

[ddrueding]

Perhaps a D700?

Perhaps something that wouldn't make me replace all my glass? A 7D?

 

[ddrueding]

Knowing when to shoot and not is at least half of the battle. I would just watch the animal in that situation.

I don't have many hares/rabbits but they are all at slower speeds such as 1/125-1/320 taken late in the afternoon or early in the morning.

I didn't even have my camera up when I first saw him, and I knew he wouldn't stop anywhere within my view, so I actually started shooting before the camera was even up to my eye.

 

[LunarMist]

Perhaps something that wouldn't make me replace all my glass? A 7D?

Not for high ISO, but for other reasons.

 

[Stereodude]

FWIW, Ken Rockwell swears the 5D MkII is now a totally different camera with the 2.04 firmware update that he now loves.

Link (you'll have to scroll down a bit since I can't link directly to it)

 

[ddrueding]

I'm still waffling between a 5DII and a 7D. No money to do either, really.

 

[LunarMist]

FWIW, Ken Rockwell swears the 5D MkII is now a totally different camera with the 2.04 firmware update that he now loves.

NO, it is not. :tdown:

 

[Stereodude]

NO, it is not. :tdown:

Well, you'll just have to put yours back on the shelf to collect dust then. :lol:

 

[LunarMist]

Always keep each version of the old firmware.

 

[LunarMist]

I'm still waffling between a 5DII and a 7D. No money to do either, really.

I'd say the 7D in your case. FX will require larger and heavier lenses for reach if you are not willing to carry a full setup with multiple bodies.

 

[ddrueding]

Happy with the subject, but not the quality.

 

[ddrueding]

Interesting tech from Microsoft.

 

[LunarMist]

That is not new. It's done frequently for astrophotography. Of course they chose an extreme example that required significant levels correction.

 

[ddrueding]

I am familiar with image stacking, but the most I've heard of is about 20 images. This has the potential to do a lot more. I'm tempted to experiment with that.

What is your favorite astrophotography-like image stacking program?

 

[LunarMist]

:dunno: I am not allowed to do that.

 

[LunarMist]

I'd agree Lunar, but then it is darker, and harder to shoot. Can you specify an area of the image where the poor lighting is most significant? Or is it a general effect thing?

In the middle of the day seek subjects in the shade.

 

[Stereodude]

:dunno: I am not allowed to do that.

Ahh yes, the typically cryptic response.

 

[LunarMist]

The actions required to reasonably achieve the prerequisite of image capture would be against medical advice. It is a peculiar situation.

 

[Stereodude]

Your doctor advised you against using a tracking astrophotography mount and intervalometer for your camera? :dunno:

It sounds very peculiar indeed.

 

[LunarMist]

Your doctor advised you against using a tracking astrophotography mount and intervalometer for your camera? :dunno:

:roll: Of course MD was not that specific.

 

[LunarMist]

Printing is killing me. Over $200 in a few hours and weekend is far from over.

 

[ddrueding]

Printing is killing me. Over $200 in a few hours and weekend is far from over.

Failed prints?

 

[Pradeep]

Probably ink costs.

 

[BingBangBop]

Duhh, $200 in paper cost is a very large amount of paper to go through in just a few hours.

 

[LunarMist]

There are no failures, though I may redo a few later. Paper is $3-5 per sheet and each 80mL ink is $50 or so. They are supposed to be more economical than the inks in smaller printers, but almost everything from the project is printed larger than was typical a few years ago. :cheese:

 

[ddrueding]

The big photo printer I use costs quite a bit in supplies.

$370 paper
$230 ink (each, it uses 8 )

Of course, the printer isn't cheap, either. But I didn't have to pay for it.

 

[BingBangBop]

OK, I'll eat my words. You can definitely rack up some money quickly with $3-$5/sheet.