August 30, 2014, 04:15:14 AM

Author Topic: Bird Photography Critique/Tips  (Read 11100 times)

Maxaperture

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
    • My two penneth worth
Re: Bird Photography Critique/Tips
« Reply #30 on: July 23, 2013, 09:40:24 AM »
Owners of the 100-400 should take the lens and body to Canon (especially crops cameras) and have them "paired".
You have $3000 worth of kit, it's worth the trip/trouble.
A friend of mine did this, and his 100-400 is banging out much sharper shots, he's so much happier.
5DIII  -  500mm f/4 IS  -  70-200mkII -  Tammy 24-70 2.8 VC  -  Siggy 150mm 2.8 OS macro and the stunning 2x MkIII TC

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Bird Photography Critique/Tips
« Reply #30 on: July 23, 2013, 09:40:24 AM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4095
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Bird Photography Critique/Tips
« Reply #31 on: July 23, 2013, 09:57:43 AM »
Owners of the 100-400 should take the lens and body to Canon (especially crops cameras) and have them "paired".
You have $3000 worth of kit, it's worth the trip/trouble.
A friend of mine did this, and his 100-400 is banging out much sharper shots, he's so much happier.

Pairing is only free if you are a CPS member, I believe. At least in the US, you have to pay (a fairly hefty price, if I remember) to have the two calibrated for each other.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13965
    • View Profile
Re: Bird Photography Critique/Tips
« Reply #32 on: July 23, 2013, 09:58:40 AM »
Owners of the 100-400 should take the lens and body to Canon (especially crops cameras) and have them "paired".

They don't really 'pair' them - they calibrate the body to a standard 'ideal' lens, and calibrate the lens to a standard 'ideal' body of the same type you tell them you have.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

AlanF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1042
    • View Profile
Re: Bird Photography Critique/Tips
« Reply #33 on: July 23, 2013, 10:50:18 AM »
Private
Sorry, packing my gear for a trip to France tomorrow. Here is a link.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/p40mvgq3k3rwc30/-EnCRluAhd

They are not terribly exciting. You can get all of the data from the exifs etc. The 100-400mm says 390mm, the Sigma Apo Tele Macro is 400mm (it is a cracking lens, seriously better than the Canon 400 f/5.6); and the 300mm f/2.8 II + 1.4 xTC is, of course 420mm). This is only one test, but I have shot zillions with all three lenses.
5D III, 70D, Powershot SX50, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, 70-200/4 IS, 24-105, 15-85, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 150-600.

chasinglight

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Re: Bird Photography Critique/Tips
« Reply #34 on: July 23, 2013, 10:53:03 AM »

One of the most important things in bird photography, more so than composition IMO, is head angle. You want the bird to engage the viewer...do a HA where the bill is 3-4 degrees inward towards the viewer tends to be best. Parallel to the sensor is ok, too. More than 5-7 degrees, and your getting into more specialized territory...it can work, but often not as well as a slighter angle. Any angle outward, away from the viewer, and the photo quickly loses its appeal, with a few exceptions (i.e a parent feeding a chick, where the parent may be facing slightly away.)

Once you get HA down, then worry about composition. ;) BTW, I should note that the HA in your posted photo is a good example of GOOD HA...so keep striving for that. I think as long as HA is good, explicitly following the "rules" of composition is less important (especially since they are guidelines, not rules, in the first place.)

Wow that is the first time I have read that, but it makes sense. I will try to make use of that. Thanks for the advice!

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2261
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Bird Photography Critique/Tips
« Reply #35 on: July 23, 2013, 10:56:47 AM »
Private
Sorry, packing my gear for a trip to France tomorrow. Here is a link.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/p40mvgq3k3rwc30/-EnCRluAhd

They are not terribly exciting. You can get all of the data from the exifs etc. The 100-400mm says 390mm, the Sigma Apo Tele Macro is 400mm (it is a cracking lens, seriously better than the Canon 400 f/5.6); and the 300mm f/2.8 II + 1.4 xTC is, of course 420mm). This is only one test, but I have shot zillions with all three lenses.

Alan, not interested in the lampshade image, I am interested in your first image, the bird with the plumage, an uncropped version of that would be greatly appreciated.

This one, but uncropped.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

chasinglight

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Re: Bird Photography Critique/Tips
« Reply #36 on: July 23, 2013, 11:03:26 AM »

Sure there are many "better" lenses, but the one he has is capable of much higher quality output. Why not move forwards with what we have, the 100-400 and PS, than spend other peoples money when there are basic techniques we can suggest to improve our skills and output that would need work even if he had a 600 f4 IS MkII.

For the record I think this is great advice. I want to learn to get everything out of the gear I have before I plunk down 4-12k. I would hate to upgrade and still get not stellar results solely because I don't have the proper knowledge or skills.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Bird Photography Critique/Tips
« Reply #36 on: July 23, 2013, 11:03:26 AM »

AlanF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1042
    • View Profile
Re: Bird Photography Critique/Tips
« Reply #37 on: July 23, 2013, 11:10:44 AM »
Private
I have placed it in the same linked folder as a Canon RAW file, 2U4A3256.CR2, with absolutely no PP.
5D III, 70D, Powershot SX50, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, 70-200/4 IS, 24-105, 15-85, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 150-600.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2261
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Bird Photography Critique/Tips
« Reply #38 on: July 23, 2013, 12:41:49 PM »
Thanks for that Alan.

Here are three images that I hope illustrate my point, that this is basically a distance/cropping issue and has nothing to do with the fact that the 100-400 is not "as good" as several other lenses. I agree that it isn't, but it is more than good enough to take some superb images of birds, assuming you have AFMA'd and your lens is not faulty and you get close enough.

First is a size corrected picture in a picture. It demonstrates how much bigger Alan's bird is than chasinglight's bird. By my calculations Alan's is around 3.5 times bigger, by area. I laid chasinglight's full image on top of Alan's and corrected for sensor size, so these two images are what they both saw through the viewfinder. The red bounding box in the 7D image is the 100% crop I posted earlier and represents less then 12% of the sensor area, around 5% of the 5D MkIII sensor area, the blue box.

Second is a crop of the same sensor area, for chasinglight I used the 100% crop from earlier, from Alan I cropped the same sensor area, so same magnification, of his bird's body. I have rotated Alan's bird body to better fit the comparison.

Third is a same magnification comparison of detail size. Yet again, I agree that the 100-400 is not the best lens available, but, it is clearly resolving detail comparable in size to the plumage in Alan's image.
 
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13965
    • View Profile
Re: Bird Photography Critique/Tips
« Reply #39 on: July 23, 2013, 01:37:25 PM »
...the 100-400 is not "as good" as several other lenses. I agree that it isn't, but it is more than good enough...

Human nature is also a factor.  My 7D had great AF...then I got a 1D X.  My 100-400L was a very sharp lens...then I got a 600 II.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

AlanF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1042
    • View Profile
Re: Bird Photography Critique/Tips
« Reply #40 on: July 23, 2013, 02:01:33 PM »
Private
Let's stop splitting hairs and get back to advice that we do in fact agree 100% on. It's not even fair comparing lenses on a 7D to those on a 5D III because the FF has better image quality. To get a good photo of a bird, you have to be close enough for the camera and lens you have in your hands. The better the camera and the better and longer the lens, the further away you can be and get a keeper.

The first tip is to get close enough, the closer the better, to resolve the plumage.
The second as pointed out is to get a good head angle.
The third is to get a decent composition in terms of background, foreground and placement.
Best of all is to have the bird doing something interesting instead of just sitting still.
Then clean it up as done by privatebydesign.
Plus lots more tips.

5D III, 70D, Powershot SX50, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, 70-200/4 IS, 24-105, 15-85, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 150-600.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4095
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Bird Photography Critique/Tips
« Reply #41 on: July 23, 2013, 08:17:01 PM »
Thanks for that Alan.

Here are three images that I hope illustrate my point, that this is basically a distance/cropping issue and has nothing to do with the fact that the 100-400 is not "as good" as several other lenses. I agree that it isn't, but it is more than good enough to take some superb images of birds, assuming you have AFMA'd and your lens is not faulty and you get close enough.

First is a size corrected picture in a picture. It demonstrates how much bigger Alan's bird is than chasinglight's bird. By my calculations Alan's is around 3.5 times bigger, by area. I laid chasinglight's full image on top of Alan's and corrected for sensor size, so these two images are what they both saw through the viewfinder. The red bounding box in the 7D image is the 100% crop I posted earlier and represents less then 12% of the sensor area, around 5% of the 5D MkIII sensor area, the blue box.

Second is a crop of the same sensor area, for chasinglight I used the 100% crop from earlier, from Alan I cropped the same sensor area, so same magnification, of his bird's body. I have rotated Alan's bird body to better fit the comparison.

Third is a same magnification comparison of detail size. Yet again, I agree that the 100-400 is not the best lens available, but, it is clearly resolving detail comparable in size to the plumage in Alan's image.

Just to point this out...I don't think your relative size comparison is fair. You have a "vertical" frame scaled to the vertical height of a horizontal frame. Technically speaking, would it not be correct to rotate the vertical frame such that it is in the same orientation as the horizontal frame? At which point, I believe the birds are the same size, if not even giving the edge to the RWB.

If the OP's photo was indeed taken with the camera in a vertical orientation, then I really do think his lens needs to be AFMAed. With proper tuning, the 100-400 can produce some pretty sharp results. Within a reasonably acceptable distance, the 7D and 100-400 can produce acceptably "razor sharp" results, even...although that distance is indeed fairly close.

I would also point out that (just for reference), with some extensive testing, it appears that the AF confirm dot technique DOES NOT seem to work with the 7D. I've tried it about 50 times now with every lens I own, and it gets different, often significantly different results from FoCal or simple manual AFMA. Manual and FoCal tend to be more similar to each other, and I often choose a setting in between the two (if there IS an in between). If the lens was AFMAed with the AF confirmation dot technique, I'd either reset to zero and manually zero in on a more ideal AFMA setting, or use FoCal, which will do a pretty darn good job these days if you use good light.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2261
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Bird Photography Critique/Tips
« Reply #42 on: July 23, 2013, 08:41:08 PM »
Thanks for that Alan.

Here are three images that I hope illustrate my point, that this is basically a distance/cropping issue and has nothing to do with the fact that the 100-400 is not "as good" as several other lenses. I agree that it isn't, but it is more than good enough to take some superb images of birds, assuming you have AFMA'd and your lens is not faulty and you get close enough.

First is a size corrected picture in a picture. It demonstrates how much bigger Alan's bird is than chasinglight's bird. By my calculations Alan's is around 3.5 times bigger, by area. I laid chasinglight's full image on top of Alan's and corrected for sensor size, so these two images are what they both saw through the viewfinder. The red bounding box in the 7D image is the 100% crop I posted earlier and represents less then 12% of the sensor area, around 5% of the 5D MkIII sensor area, the blue box.

Second is a crop of the same sensor area, for chasinglight I used the 100% crop from earlier, from Alan I cropped the same sensor area, so same magnification, of his bird's body. I have rotated Alan's bird body to better fit the comparison.

Third is a same magnification comparison of detail size. Yet again, I agree that the 100-400 is not the best lens available, but, it is clearly resolving detail comparable in size to the plumage in Alan's image.

Just to point this out...I don't think your relative size comparison is fair. You have a "vertical" frame scaled to the vertical height of a horizontal frame. Technically speaking, would it not be correct to rotate the vertical frame such that it is in the same orientation as the horizontal frame? At which point, I believe the birds are the same size, if not even giving the edge to the RWB.

If the OP's photo was indeed taken with the camera in a vertical orientation, then I really do think his lens needs to be AFMAed. With proper tuning, the 100-400 can produce some pretty sharp results. Within a reasonably acceptable distance, the 7D and 100-400 can produce acceptably "razor sharp" results, even...although that distance is indeed fairly close.

I would also point out that (just for reference), with some extensive testing, it appears that the AF confirm dot technique DOES NOT seem to work with the 7D. I've tried it about 50 times now with every lens I own, and it gets different, often significantly different results from FoCal or simple manual AFMA. Manual and FoCal tend to be more similar to each other, and I often choose a setting in between the two (if there IS an in between). If the lens was AFMAed with the AF confirmation dot technique, I'd either reset to zero and manually zero in on a more ideal AFMA setting, or use FoCal, which will do a pretty darn good job these days if you use good light.

The 7D sensor is 329mm², the 5D MkIII is 864mm², that makes a ff sensor 2.63 times bigger by area, a crop sensor easily fits inside a ff sensor vertically, a crop sensor is 22mm long, a ff sensor is 24mm high. My graphics are correct.

As I have demonstrated before, in a focal length limited situation (i.e. cropped) when using the same lens, the 7D will slightly out resolve a cropped 21mp ff sensor, not too sure about the 24mp 5D MkIII, but any differences will be absolutely minimal.

This is not a lens issue, it is just a distance/cropping issue.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2013, 08:44:23 PM by privatebydesign »
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Bird Photography Critique/Tips
« Reply #42 on: July 23, 2013, 08:41:08 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4095
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Bird Photography Critique/Tips
« Reply #43 on: July 23, 2013, 08:45:04 PM »

One of the most important things in bird photography, more so than composition IMO, is head angle. You want the bird to engage the viewer...do a HA where the bill is 3-4 degrees inward towards the viewer tends to be best. Parallel to the sensor is ok, too. More than 5-7 degrees, and your getting into more specialized territory...it can work, but often not as well as a slighter angle. Any angle outward, away from the viewer, and the photo quickly loses its appeal, with a few exceptions (i.e a parent feeding a chick, where the parent may be facing slightly away.)

Once you get HA down, then worry about composition. ;) BTW, I should note that the HA in your posted photo is a good example of GOOD HA...so keep striving for that. I think as long as HA is good, explicitly following the "rules" of composition is less important (especially since they are guidelines, not rules, in the first place.)

Wow that is the first time I have read that, but it makes sense. I will try to make use of that. Thanks for the advice!

Here are some examples of various head angles. Take note that a lot of the differences are very subtle, but there are clear issues with having a poor head angle that will pop out at you once you know what to look for.

First, a good HA. This is only a couple degrees forward. The lighting here is not ideal...I'd have preferred the side of the bird towards me be fully lit, but I did not really have that much control over it. The body pose and HA are within the ideal range, however:





This is an example of bad HA. It is a few degrees back. You should be able to see how the bill softens towards the end, as it moves out of the depth of field. You should also notice that the bird isn't quite looking into the frame, but ever so slightly ahead of it. Not readily visible to most viewers, but they usually still "sense" that the photo isn't quite as engaging. (Composition, in terms of scene contents, isn't great...but it demonstrates MUCH better lighting.)





Here is a head angle that is pretty much entirely parallel. This is usually quite acceptable, but not quite as engaging as a HA a few degrees towards the camera.




Finally, here is a HA turned much farther toward the camera than is usually ideal. I like the more cute pose here, and if I had increased my DOF a bit, I think it would have still been acceptable. I think this is a good example of why such a strong angle is less than ideal, however...again, you should see that towards the tip of the bill, it starts to soften a bit as it exits the depth of field. (I am still a relative beginner when it comes to bird photography myself...I have about a hear and a half under my belt. Keeping an eye on my DOF, and expanding it when necessary to include my whole subject, is an area I am still working on...as I do like the birds pose in this shot!)



Anyway, hopefully these Spotted Sandpiper photos will help demonstrate the subtle importance of head angle in bird photography. Aim for parallel or a few degrees forward (towards the camera), and you should be good.


Sure there are many "better" lenses, but the one he has is capable of much higher quality output. Why not move forwards with what we have, the 100-400 and PS, than spend other peoples money when there are basic techniques we can suggest to improve our skills and output that would need work even if he had a 600 f4 IS MkII.

For the record I think this is great advice. I want to learn to get everything out of the gear I have before I plunk down 4-12k. I would hate to upgrade and still get not stellar results solely because I don't have the proper knowledge or skills.

I'd say that is a good practice. If you are anything like me, you will know when your gear is holding you back. I also have the 100-400. I think the 7D is a fine camera, produces great IQ in most circumstances (which for my bird photography is usually in good to evening light, ISO 200 - 1600), and has great features that support bird photography. The 100-400, when properly tuned with AFMA, produces acceptably sharp images most of the time. It should be noted that at 400mm, f/7.1 tends to be the sharpest, while f/5.6 will be visibly soft. Before getting my new lens, I shot at f/7.1 almost exclusively, sometimes stopping down to f/8 and rarely opening up to f/6.3.

I would tune your lens for your copy of the 7D, and start shooting at f/7.1. You should see individual barbs of each feather (a feather is a central shaft, on either side of which is a vane of barbes, which are interconnected via barbules off each barb...you will RARELY see barbules in a photo, but in an acceptably sharp photo, you should see barbs.) There are three things that will soften the barbs of a birds feathers...distance too great, missfocus, bird motion or camera shake. Distance is usually the biggest problem early on. Depending on the type of bird, either learning the right behavior to exhibit that gets you close, or camouflaging yourself to hide in plain side, are was of solving that problem.

Missfocus is, sadly, just a fact of life with older Canon cameras (i.e. pre 61pt AF). The 7D does not have the most reliable AF system. When it nails it, it usually NAILS it. When it doesn't, its off just slightly enough that you can't really tell in the viewfinder, but definitely can in post. The best tactic here is to always shoot a burst. I try to get at least three shots in every time, if not five. That usually results in one of the frames being acceptably sharp. Sadly, the other two-four are usually soft, reducing barbs to mush. I use rear-button focus as well (I reconfigure the camera to unlink AF from the shutter button, and link it to the * button on the back of the camera...this direct control can be very useful in forcing AF to occur when and where you need it.) If you can't seem to grab focus, move the current AF point off the subject, press the * button to immediately force AF on the background, then return the AF point to the subject and press the * button to immediately force AF again. This will usually get you sharper results for a short time. It ain't perfect, but bursting definitely helps. You either just have to either buy a lot of disk space, or become a culling nutcase who rejects anything that isn't razor sharp.

Finally, bird motion, and sometimes camera shake, are the last culprit of soft barbs. You usually need pretty high shutter speeds to stop bird motion, especially songbirds and smaller shorebirds. A bird like a chickadee will often require over 1/1000s shutter speeds, with 1/2000s usually being more ideal. A bird like your RWB is usually less jittery than the ever-moving chickadee, so you might be able to get away with a shutter speed as low as 1/800th before you experience detrimental barb softening. As I'm sure you already know, high shutter speed means high ISO. I used to shoot at ISO settings as high as 2500, but I've come to the conclusion that the 7D is good up to 1600, and beyond that it is usually unacceptable. So long as you keep your hands steady with IS on, or use a tripod (with IS off!!), you should get sharp shots.

(NOTE: Regarding ISO...if you have really good light...such as light a couple hours after sunrise or a couple hours before sunset...bright, but at a good angle to shade well, with the sun behind and slightly over your shoulder, then if necessary you might be able to get away with ISO 2000, 2500, and maybe 3200. I suspect the diminished dynamic range will be a problem, but if you REALLY need the shutter speed, then go for it. Otherwise, the extra noise at those settings just isn't worth it (after ISO 1600, a secondary downstream amplifier kicks in, which is why noise performance falls off a cliff on the 7D at that point). I highly recommend Topaz DeNoise 5 as the best denoise tool for the 7D. Its default RAW settings are pretty good, it does a decent job automatically identifying and masking off detail areas, so it cleans up smooth backgrounds REALLY well. It is well worth the money, and it definitely cheaper than moving to the 5D III.)

Well, that is the best series of tips I can offer you right now. If you see sharp barbs, your doing good. If not, then one of those three things will most likely be the culprit. Keep an eye on HA, and composition will eventually work itself out as the other things become second nature and you have time to focus your attention on it.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4095
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Bird Photography Critique/Tips
« Reply #44 on: July 23, 2013, 08:49:51 PM »
Thanks for that Alan.

Here are three images that I hope illustrate my point, that this is basically a distance/cropping issue and has nothing to do with the fact that the 100-400 is not "as good" as several other lenses. I agree that it isn't, but it is more than good enough to take some superb images of birds, assuming you have AFMA'd and your lens is not faulty and you get close enough.

First is a size corrected picture in a picture. It demonstrates how much bigger Alan's bird is than chasinglight's bird. By my calculations Alan's is around 3.5 times bigger, by area. I laid chasinglight's full image on top of Alan's and corrected for sensor size, so these two images are what they both saw through the viewfinder. The red bounding box in the 7D image is the 100% crop I posted earlier and represents less then 12% of the sensor area, around 5% of the 5D MkIII sensor area, the blue box.

Second is a crop of the same sensor area, for chasinglight I used the 100% crop from earlier, from Alan I cropped the same sensor area, so same magnification, of his bird's body. I have rotated Alan's bird body to better fit the comparison.

Third is a same magnification comparison of detail size. Yet again, I agree that the 100-400 is not the best lens available, but, it is clearly resolving detail comparable in size to the plumage in Alan's image.

Just to point this out...I don't think your relative size comparison is fair. You have a "vertical" frame scaled to the vertical height of a horizontal frame. Technically speaking, would it not be correct to rotate the vertical frame such that it is in the same orientation as the horizontal frame? At which point, I believe the birds are the same size, if not even giving the edge to the RWB.

If the OP's photo was indeed taken with the camera in a vertical orientation, then I really do think his lens needs to be AFMAed. With proper tuning, the 100-400 can produce some pretty sharp results. Within a reasonably acceptable distance, the 7D and 100-400 can produce acceptably "razor sharp" results, even...although that distance is indeed fairly close.

I would also point out that (just for reference), with some extensive testing, it appears that the AF confirm dot technique DOES NOT seem to work with the 7D. I've tried it about 50 times now with every lens I own, and it gets different, often significantly different results from FoCal or simple manual AFMA. Manual and FoCal tend to be more similar to each other, and I often choose a setting in between the two (if there IS an in between). If the lens was AFMAed with the AF confirmation dot technique, I'd either reset to zero and manually zero in on a more ideal AFMA setting, or use FoCal, which will do a pretty darn good job these days if you use good light.

The 7D sensor is 329mm², the 5D MkIII is 864mm², that makes a ff sensor 2.63 times bigger by area, a crop sensor easily fits inside a ff sensor vertically, a crop sensor is 22mm long, a ff sensor is 24mm high. My graphics are correct.

As I have demonstrated before, in a focal length limited situation (i.e. cropped) when using the same lens, the 7D will slightly out resolve a cropped 21mp ff sensor, not too sure about the 24mp 5D MkIII, but any differences will be absolutely minimal.

This is not a lens issue, it is just a distance/cropping issue.

I think you are underestimating the pixel density of the 7D. If we stick to purely mathematical terms (ignoring noise for the moment, as it does not seem to be a problem in either photo), the 7D pixels are 1.45x smaller than the 5D III pixels. That means you can fit almost one and a half 7D pixels horizontally, and one and a half 7D pixels vertically, into each 5D III pixel. That is an increase in resolution, in two dimensions, of 111% (or 2.11x more spatial resolution than the 5D III):


Fig: A comparison of 7D pixels to 5D III pixels, actually to scale (blue squares are 625 pixels a side, green squares are 430 pixels a side.) You can see that you can pack in 100% of one 7D pixel, and another 111% of three other pixels in varying ratios, into the area of a single 5D III pixel. You can fit nearly nine 7D pixels into the area of four 5D III pixels.

Even if we cut that spatial resolution benefit in HALF, the 7D is still capturing 50% more detail than the 5D III. That isn't "absolutely minimal". You are correct about the dimensions (I missed mention of the 5D III in your post, and thought you were comparing two 7D photos), however if you rotate it by 90°, then increase its size by 50%, that would produce a much more accurate representation of the relative sizes of the birds as far as output image dimensions go.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2013, 09:03:50 PM by jrista »
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Bird Photography Critique/Tips
« Reply #44 on: July 23, 2013, 08:49:51 PM »