BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
- Thread starter Dylan777
- Start date
tonial said:
Great shot, Tonial!
Catching a Kingfisher BIF like that... It's marginally easier (just barely) than getting a lock on a SR-71 in mid-flight.
Upvote
0
tonial said:Hi, in balearic island. Albufera de Mallorca
1d4 300 2.8 is 2xIII
780mm
Nice shot, particularly if the crop isn't too heavy as that is a fast pan.
But a 300mm + 2xTC is 600mm not 780mm.
Upvote
0
Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- Spring Migration in the Central Flyway
Long time viewer of this great forum and all of the great posts. First time poster so we'll see how my attempts at attachments to post work out.
The spring migration is in full swing for the snow geese. Flocks of 10,000 and more are now along the Platte River in Nebraska. These photos are from a shoot this past weekend.
You can find more of my photos on 500px at: https://500px.com/chrishpetersen
Thanks, Chris
Long time viewer of this great forum and all of the great posts. First time poster so we'll see how my attempts at attachments to post work out.
The spring migration is in full swing for the snow geese. Flocks of 10,000 and more are now along the Platte River in Nebraska. These photos are from a shoot this past weekend.
You can find more of my photos on 500px at: https://500px.com/chrishpetersen
Thanks, Chris
Attachments
Upvote
0
Hi privatebydesign.
Isn't it 780 due to 1.3 crop sensor in 1D4?
Hi tonial.
Very nice shot.
Very nice shots from all too.
Cheers, Graham.
Isn't it 780 due to 1.3 crop sensor in 1D4?
Hi tonial.
Very nice shot.
Very nice shots from all too.
Cheers, Graham.
privatebydesign said:tonial said:Hi, in balearic island. Albufera de Mallorca
1d4 300 2.8 is 2xIII
780mm
Nice shot, particularly if the crop isn't too heavy as that is a fast pan.
But a 300mm + 2xTC is 600mm not 780mm.
Upvote
0
Valvebounce said:
Hi Valvebounce,
No, not really. The lens focal length is the lens focal length, cropping it doesn't give you a longer focal length.
Imagine this, I take a picture with a FF camera of a bird sitting on a fence in landscape format, the bird takes up around 30% of the image but the framing is really nice and the light is great, it is a really nice environmental portrait of the bird. So back at home editing the days shots I decide that because I used a 5D MkIII I have more than enough pixels to crop the frame to portrait orientation, the bird is now the main point of the image and occupies over 60% of the frame.
Did I use a 600mm lens? Of course not, I just cropped, well that is all a smaller sensor is doing, it is not capturing as much, it isn't extending anything.
Upvote
0
Valvebounce said:Hi privatebydesign.
Isn't it 780 due to 1.3 crop sensor in 1D4?
Hi tonial.
Very nice shot.
Very nice shots from all too.
Cheers, Graham.
privatebydesign said:tonial said:Hi, in balearic island. Albufera de Mallorca
1d4 300 2.8 is 2xIII
780mm
Nice shot, particularly if the crop isn't too heavy as that is a fast pan.
But a 300mm + 2xTC is 600mm not 780mm.
Hello, this is.
But if I shot my 1DX distance is 300 x 2 = 600
The Suje this 180mm closer to 1d4, but not crop the image.
300 x 2 = 600 x 1.3 = 780mm.
Upvote
0
EXIF data does not mention or include any crop factor, however it does take convertors into consideration; this is why we use the focal length of the lens plus any added convertor. Technically speaking yes the crop factor exists, but is not generally used as part of the calculation.tonial said:
Upvote
0
fragilesi said:
I've seen a Space-shuttle piggybacked on a jumbojet, but when I read that article (in translation on a Swedish nature site) this morning I'd to admit it was the very first time I'd seen a piggybacked weasel on a Woodpecker.
Upvote
0
Hi Jock, PBD.
Not trying to be contrary, but I have seen it worked that way more often than not here, also just to add some more to the discussion, the 1/ focal length calculation for hand held minimum shutter speed, given no IS to complicate things, and not withstanding some people saying we should be using 1/ twice focal length.
(for joe average, not some of you guys that hand hold better than a cheap tripod!)
300mm lens on full frame 1/300s. Correct?
300mm + 2x converter i.e. 600mm on FF 1/600s
As above 600mm on 1.6 crop? Equivalent FOV of 960mm are we ok to shoot at 1/600s or are we more likely to have camera shake?
Edit Also the crop from the camera is a fixed physical fact, and surely exif really does mention the crop, not specifically in any lens calculation but it clearly lists camera make and model which determines crop!
Also many program's give us crop shooters the option to display lenses in crop or 35mm format, just saying.
Have a good day chaps.
Cheers, Graham.
Not trying to be contrary, but I have seen it worked that way more often than not here, also just to add some more to the discussion, the 1/ focal length calculation for hand held minimum shutter speed, given no IS to complicate things, and not withstanding some people saying we should be using 1/ twice focal length.
(for joe average, not some of you guys that hand hold better than a cheap tripod!)
300mm lens on full frame 1/300s. Correct?
300mm + 2x converter i.e. 600mm on FF 1/600s
As above 600mm on 1.6 crop? Equivalent FOV of 960mm are we ok to shoot at 1/600s or are we more likely to have camera shake?
Edit Also the crop from the camera is a fixed physical fact, and surely exif really does mention the crop, not specifically in any lens calculation but it clearly lists camera make and model which determines crop!
Also many program's give us crop shooters the option to display lenses in crop or 35mm format, just saying.
Have a good day chaps.
Cheers, Graham.
TheJock said:
Upvote
0
Sporgon said:DominoDude said:
Didn't see that fragilesi beat me to it
Shouldn't be a problem. Good to have multiple sites that links to this story. It's so unique that the petite Swedish site that I found it on was swamped with traffic to the extent that it crashed. BBC & ITV should be better prepared to take on the visitors. People will need to see it for themselves to believe it, or to scrutinize the photos to figure out if they're manipulated in some way.
Upvote
0
Hi fragilesi.
Thanks for sharing, do you think they reached an agreement not to both die fighting in mid air! ;D
Cheers, Graham.
Thanks for sharing, do you think they reached an agreement not to both die fighting in mid air! ;D
Cheers, Graham.
fragilesi said:
Upvote
0
DominoDude said:Sporgon said:DominoDude said:
Didn't see that fragilesi beat me to it
Shouldn't be a problem. Good to have multiple sites that links to this story. It's so unique that the petite Swedish site that I found it on was swamped with traffic to the extent that it crashed. BBC & ITV should be better prepared to take on the visitors. People will need to see it for themselves to believe it, or to scrutinize the photos to figure out if they're manipulated in some way.
This link shows all the frames the guy got off: no manipulation
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-03-02/incredible-image-shows-weasel-flying-on-woodpeckers-back/
Upvote
0
Valvebounce said:Hi Jock, PBD.
Not trying to be contrary, but I have seen it worked that way more often than not here, also just to add some more to the discussion, the 1/ focal length calculation for hand held minimum shutter speed, given no IS to complicate things, and not withstanding some people saying we should be using 1/ twice focal length.
(for joe average, not some of you guys that hand hold better than a cheap tripod!)
300mm lens on full frame 1/300s. Correct?
300mm + 2x converter i.e. 600mm on FF 1/600s
As above 600mm on 1.6 crop? Equivalent FOV of 960mm are we ok to shoot at 1/600s or are we more likely to have camera shake?
Edit Also the crop from the camera is a fixed physical fact, and surely exif really does mention the crop, not specifically in any lens calculation but it clearly lists camera make and model which determines crop!
Also many program's give us crop shooters the option to display lenses in crop or 35mm format, just saying.
Have a good day chaps.
Cheers, Graham.
Not contrary at all, this is how useful discussions are had!
Ok, a lens has a focal length. A lens has an aperture. Both of those intrinsic values are independent of sensor size, indeed they are true even if the lens is not mounted to a camera, like binoculars or a spotting scope.
If we are going to start throwing 'equivalents' out there then one, why, and two, shouldn't we be all inclusive, why just arbitrarily pick focal length?
It is true that on a 1D MkIV a 300mm + 2xTC lens gives you the field of view of a 780mm lens on a ff camera, but it doesn't give you the subject magnification of a 780mm lens on a ff camera, nor the dof. It gives you the subject magnification of a 300mm + 2xTC on a FF camera. Few people ever point out the 300mm f2.8 + 2xTC on a 1.3 crop is equivalent to a 780mm f8, why not? Because it isn't relevant, who cares what the equivalent is unless you want to take the same shot from the same place with a different sized sensor. A 300mm f2.8 on a FF camera is exactly the same as a 300mm f2.8 on a crop camera, it is a 300mm f2.8.
Now you ask about shutter speed, and that is a good point. Why, if a 300mm lens is just a 300mm lens on ff or crop would I need to use a faster shutter speed on the crop camera? Because of enlargement, the CoC for a crop camera is smaller because the output size is taken as a constant, if the CoC is smaller then any movement will be enlarged more, hence the need to use a faster shutterspeed. To be sure, if you take two pictures of a scene one with a ff and 300mm and the other with a crop and 300mm and made two prints such that the subjects were the same size on paper in both prints the shutter speeds could be the same, but what we do in real life is make two prints the same size, this means the subjects are bigger in the crop image print so any movement is enlarged more. Nothing to do with focal length, it is all to do with post capture enlargement.
Upvote
0
