November 24, 2014, 05:42:18 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Jackson_Bill

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19
1
No problem for the tripod.
Although:
1. Canon specifies a lower operating temperature around freezing for their cameras. I've had my 7D in much colder than that, but YMMV.
2. Beware condensation! Put your gear in a plastic bag before you bring it inside.

2
Photography Technique / Re: Game Ranches for photography
« on: November 19, 2014, 09:35:40 AM »
I'm not out to piddle in anyones pond, but I prefer to shoot in Mother nature. ...
I, too, have never photographed animals in zoos or game ranches, in part because the photo is only part of the experience. My wife and I have learned a lot about animal behavior watching the critters.
That said, a recent event around Grand Teton National Park brings another series of questions into play. What impact do wildlife photographers have on the wildlife? Grizzly 760 was one of the more photographed bears in Yellowstone/GTNP. He was exposed every year of his life to dozens, if not hundreds, of photographers (of which I was one, I'll admit) and became completely acclimated to them. Large crowds have watched him eating his way along a roadside for hours.
He was captured and moved a couple of years ago (hence the collar and his number) and returned to the Yellowstone/GTNP area. He was captured and moved again this year. This year, a couple of issues led to him being put down. So, the question is - do photographers acclimate wild animals to humans which then lead them to being shot by hunters or put down by Game and Fish? Would it be better to be taking photos on ranches?

3
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: November 14, 2014, 06:25:47 PM »
western grebes in May

4
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: November 14, 2014, 06:14:11 PM »
Western Grebe- Clear Lake 28 May 2010 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr

Nice reflections.
I think I'd call those Clark's Grebes.
If you took the photo in May they'd be in breeding plumage and the black on the head covers the eye on the Western Grebe.

5
Ya'll are a bit too technical for a simple guy such as myself. I am usually limited by reach shooting wildlife with my 400 f5.6 on a 5D3. I know there are better lenses out there but that lens fits my needs pretty well other than being a bit short. Performance with a tele can be a challenge as there is no IS, f8 focus speed etc. If the 7D2 yields images that out-resolve images from my 5D3 cropped (8mp?) or the 5D3 with a 1.4x tele (with all of the issues that brings) I assume I come out ahead. So far that seems to be the case. The fact that the 7D2 is in many ways a more robust camera for outdoor work is just icing on the cake. Am I missing something? I get that full frame has advantages if/when you fill the frame but that just isn't always possible when photographing wild animals.


This is exactly right. There is a reach benefit to a camera like the 7D II. A lot of vocal members here strongly push the notion that because of the bigger pixels, FF cameras like the 5D III or 1D X can be enlarged and have better quality than the 7D II. When it comes to noise, it was a fine line in the case of the 7D (and other 18mp APS-C parts), however there has clearly been an improvement on the 7D II high ISO noise. Maybe not by stops, but a third to two thirds of a stop.


More important than now much noise you have, though, is the simple fact that smaller pixels resolve more detail. More reach is all about detail. Grabbing an 8mp crop out of the 5D III is never going to result in the kind of sharpness or detail you can get out of a 7D II.


There are other benefits, though, to using a sports crop instead of a full frame when you are reach limited: Maximum lens aperture. You nailed it on the head here.


With the 5D III, you can always slap on a TC, but when you do, you lose a stop to two stops of maximum aperture. That in turn affects the number of AF points you can use, how sensitive they are, whether they are cross type or not, and how fast AF occurs. A 5D III with say a 400 f/4 +1.4x TC is going to lose the ability to use f/4 capabilities of many AF points, and the AF speed will drop. A 7D II with the bare 400 is going to have effectively the same reach, but it will be able to use all of it's 65 AF points, in full cross type mode, with more light than the 5D III.


So you get the AF improvement on top of the increased spatial resolution. Since you are reach limited, there is no full-frame benefit to cropping the FF, you aren't gathering more light in total, just more light per pixel. You can always downsample the 7D II image to the same dimensions as the cropped 5D III image, and your noise will drop while concurrently the image will get sharper. This fact should be more recognizable with the 7D II, with it's higher resolution sensor and slightly newer sensor technology, than it was with the 7D (which, to this point, is generally what these debates have revolved around...whether the 7D had a "real" reach benefit or not.)

Well said, guys

6
Technical Support / Re: Question about " FORMAT" of the memory cards.
« on: November 06, 2014, 06:45:01 PM »
Hello Surapon,
Only recently have I been in the position to worry about this problem, having recently bought a 5Diii to go along with my 7D.
According to the 5Diii manual:
"If the card is new or was previously formatted by another camera or computer, format the card with the camera." The 7D manual says the same thing.
So if your question was regarding using the 5Diii to format all your cards, I'd say no, you should not.
I haven't had a problem when I used a card formatted in the 7D that was completely erased (rather than formatted) in the 5Diii but I suspect that if there were protected images on the card (which formatting erases) it might confuse things.

7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7d mk2 seems very soft?
« on: November 04, 2014, 06:44:20 PM »
So far I'm not happy with my shots.  They all seem soft.  I have been messing with my settings though and not having LR is a major drawback.  I've never had jpgs out of a camera so I'm not sure if in camera settings are doing something or what with the jpgs. 

Detail is missing from bird feathers and while AF is spot on, all of the shots are soft.

I don't have the 7Dii but with my 7D and 5Diii I've noticed that the default sharpness settings are lower than I would normally use. I suggest you shoot some RAW files and use DPP to convert to jpg.
If it still looks soft, check your MFA.

8
and finally the sheep ...
the boys are feeling amorous, the ewe, not so much.

9
and, of course, the moose...

10
and the goat ...

11
no deer handy, how about a couple of elk...

12
bison...

13
I can't pass up this topic...

antelope

14
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: October 28, 2014, 02:44:55 PM »
I'm guessing these are immature golden eyes - anybody have any other thoughts?
Oh yeah,
7d, 500 f/4 IS USM, ISO 400

15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 24, 2014, 12:35:50 AM »

If you have a larger sensor with the same pixel count, the shot noise per pixel is lower.
True, because the pixels are larger and the standard deviation of the photon count is proportional to the square root of the count.

You can use software (noise reduction and downsampling) to trade all that extra resolution for much lower noise in the overall image with the same sharpness (resolution), and in fact that's what you end up doing when you compare the two images at the same final size.
That's something else again. This discussion was related to the discussion regarding the intensity and total quantity of light and whether how that was affected (if at all) by the size of the sensor [before post processing].

All those photons that are collected by all those extra pixels count in the total signal (sharpness) to noise (noise) of the final overall image, and that's the reason that a larger sensor out-performs a smaller sensor in low-light despite having the same sized pixels.
No, those extra pixels don't count (again, before post processing). Consider a FF sensor with pixels that are the same size as an APS-C, taking a photo of a uniform 18% gray background and that APS-C taking the same photo under the same conditions. There will be no difference in the shot noise between those photos.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19