docsmith said:Now, I am just hoping that Ari responds to the Fredmiranda thread. Something happened between August and January and I am real curious as to what it was.
I am doubtful that 'better pictures' are part of the true rationale.
docsmith said:Now, I am just hoping that Ari responds to the Fredmiranda thread. Something happened between August and January and I am real curious as to what it was.
docsmith said:Ok...while most of this discussion has focused on Art, I've been wondering why Ari switched. That quote (and the picture if you follow the link below), this is just plain weird. Just a few months ago, he was talking based on experience that Canon was the same or better. If you read above, he also makes this quote "Usually switching systems (either side) is a waste of money and will not make you a better photographer."
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1505565/1#14155767
I actually came back to post on this to talk about lens/body combinations. If Ari was after the "Top 5%" then I have to think Canon having the 400 DO II, which he seemed to love, would be a distinct advantage.
Now, I am just hoping that Ari responds to the Fredmiranda thread. Something happened between August and January and I am real curious as to what it was.
If he was after better pictures, he would give up on birds and concentrate on kittens in boxes..... or if he really wanted a challenge, to take a sharp picture of bigfoot!neuroanatomist said:docsmith said:Now, I am just hoping that Ari responds to the Fredmiranda thread. Something happened between August and January and I am real curious as to what it was.
I am doubtful that 'better pictures' are part of the true rationale.
Good discovery Alan. Finally some hard proof that verifies the obvious many of us mentioned.AlanF said:Arbitrage has just dug this up on the fredmiranda site. Arash Hazeghi posted on April 24
"Hi,
I did not find the combination of the Nikon D5 with the 600FL to give more keepers than the Canon 1DXII and 600II. It is important to realize that with any camera, Nikon or Canon, if you let the camera decide and choose one of the entire AF array the AF will latch to the BG when photographing challenging BIF against any kind of varied BG, so the "3D tracking" in Nikon is just as useless as "iTR" in Canon and I don't expect any such system to work for the type of photos I like to take. The most productive method for photographing BIF is to use the center AF expansion for either camera so that it is forced to focus where you want it to focus.
Initially the D5 seemed to hold focus better when the bird was changing direction but upon close inspection on my computer, many of those shots were not what I'd call tack sharp compared to my Canon files, they were slightly soft which makes it unacceptable to me. I also found that the Nikon couldn't quite keep up with the bird coming at you at high speed where as the 1DXII would often nail at least a couple of those shots (e.g. below).
The Nilkon system falls apart quickly when you throw in a TC, whereas the Canon system does not care if a TC is attached, many if not most of my photographs are taken with a TC. So as a bird photographer, if I were to start today, I would again choose Canon without thinking twice but I will always keep my options open, if Nikon get's the job done better I have no problem buying an entire Nikon system, but they are still far from there IMO.
"
Don Haines said:If he was after better pictures, he would give up on birds and concentrate on kittens in boxes..... or if he really wanted a challenge, to take a sharp picture of bigfoot!neuroanatomist said:docsmith said:Now, I am just hoping that Ari responds to the Fredmiranda thread. Something happened between August and January and I am real curious as to what it was.
I am doubtful that 'better pictures' are part of the true rationale.
Talys said:ethanz said:Talys said:Oh, one other thing, though this could be purely my product ignorance. Does Nikon even have a wireless (radio) flash system yet, like Canon's RT? It did not, the last time I checked. The Nikon Commander, using infrared is HORRIBLE compared to RT. For starters, it won't work if you stick a flash in an umbrella-style softbox, like a Westcott Apollo, and those are the fastest to set up (and smallest when taken down) large softboxes. And secondly, it isn't compatible with third party strobes, at all (ie you can't mix a strobe with 2 Nikon flashes and control it remotely with Nikon Commander).
I believe with the D5 you can control multiple SB flashes remotely right in the menu system of the camera.
Yes, that's the Nikon Commander system -- but it uses infrared, right? 2.4Ghz is a zillion times superior, since you don't need line of sight. Not only is it more reliable, but it actually works, when the flash is inside a softbox or otherwise completely obscured (like behind a subject, or 12 feet up and behind a 70 inch softbox.
privatebydesign said:Nikon have a radio flash system, the SB5000, it costs $600 a flash. Some of the camera bodies can fit a dongle, the WR-R10, that enables wireless control from the menu (as all RT enabled Canon cameras can) it costs $110 and needs an adapter that cost $60. No Nikon cameras have the radio chip included.
Talys said:@tron, AlanF - I agree. Good find, Alan.
Though not remotely close to his skill level, the high number of photos that look great in on the little screen but are inexplicably "slightly soft" on the PC is what I experienced with a Sony A7RII + G-Master 100-400, and why I ultimately never bought one. Keep in mind that at the time, I was comparing it to 80D with Sigma 150-600 on bird portraits.
I seriously considered it at one point -- not to replace my Canon, but just because there had been so much talk of them. I wisely borrowed one first, spent a whole day with it, and then decided that it wasn't for me, though I would certainly place plenty of blame on operator error. Ultimately, I bought a 100-400LII and a 6DII instead, and I certainly don't regret that choice. The only reason I didn't buy a 5D4 was the lack of the flippy screen, which I need for some non-bird stuff.
Don Haines said:If he was after better pictures, he would give up on birds and concentrate on kittens in boxes..... or if he really wanted a challenge, to take a sharp picture of bigfoot!neuroanatomist said:docsmith said:Now, I am just hoping that Ari responds to the Fredmiranda thread. Something happened between August and January and I am real curious as to what it was.
I am doubtful that 'better pictures' are part of the true rationale.
Pfft. Bigfoot is overrated. Loch Ness. Or Ogopogo! Then he can crank those shadows in LR 8)
My cat, at 10 years of age, still jumps into any box or stiff bag on the ground. It's like some kind of Pavlovian response. Box: Can I fit into it?![]()
Talys said:privatebydesign said:Nikon have a radio flash system, the SB5000, it costs $600 a flash. Some of the camera bodies can fit a dongle, the WR-R10, that enables wireless control from the menu (as all RT enabled Canon cameras can) it costs $110 and needs an adapter that cost $60. No Nikon cameras have the radio chip included.
Hmm. So, if I read the stuff correctly, you need to buy 1 transmitter (WR-T10) for the camera, and 1 receiver (The WR-R10) for EACH flash, which is not just $100 per flash, but also something that sticks out of each speedlight (which must be a SB-5000).
That sounds crazy. Even if they don't put the chip in the camera, why on earth wouldn't the put the receiver inside the $600 flash? Or, at least, make a $700 version with the chip built in (talk about easy money). Or, if you're going to force someone to plug a piece into the flash, ffs, just make it attach to the hotshoe and make it usable for any flash (perhaps with limited HSS support).
privatebydesign said:No the SB-5000 is a direct comparison to the 600-EX-RT II, it has radio triggering and control internally.
The dongle goes on the camera body, it is, effectively, just a radio chip. You only need one WR-R10 per setup as it goes on the body, it replicates the ST-E3-RT but doesn't have any buttons or menus, Nikon went a different direction and use the camera menu only for the radio control.
The WR-T10 is a stand alone remote control from which you can trigger the camera, it is just a wireless trigger, you don't need one at all unless you want remote triggering of the camera.
I'd consider it "in the statistical noise." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_change_and_differenceprivatebydesign said:Orangutan said:My success rate with close-in swallows is less than 1%, maybe I should buy expensive Nikon gear to crank it way up to 2%.
Just curious: not having used top-end gear, I've always assumed they were "about equal," and it all came down to skill. Has he not gone out with Arash for lessons? Has Arash not handed him a pre-configured body and said "ok, do this..."?
If my success rate went for 1% to 2% I'd be increasing my success rate by 100%, so I'd consider that a very reasonable reason to swap.
Fair enough; however, when I see other people getting shots with gear that's equal or less than mine, my first assumption is that I should up my skills. OK, he did make some noises about it being partly his own skill, but...? ? ?I found using others settings just doesn't work for me yet I can achieve similar hit rates with my camera set up differently just because f the way my brain/button coordination works. Setting up AF for that final few percent of success is a time consuming and laborious process, it is work to get it right and there is limited value in others settings.
Thanks for the tip, I'll look at those videos some time.I find great variances in my ability to keep up with the action and so I find a case setting that works one day won't work another. For that reason I have abandoned case settings and have the three AF variables set up on a custom menu like Grant Atkinson recommends in his various AF guides on YouTube.
stevelee said:Just a general, and I hope not too impertinent a question comes to mind.
An online friend of many decades' duration is a photographer in Rhode Island. I recall that some years ago he said folks in his camera club would give him grief if his pictures of flying birds did not have even the tips of the wings razor sharp. I see some of you on this thread are referring to using flash.
Is this characteristic of the overall BIF community? I've not taken time to go through the many pages of BIF on this board. I have seen some lovely shots that look like birds soaring, riding wind currents, but no sense that their wings have ever moved. Are there photographers who like to take pictures that look like birds are actually flying, or is that considered gauche or a poor use of modern technology or something?
Orangutan said:I'd consider it "in the statistical noise." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_change_and_differenceprivatebydesign said:Orangutan said:My success rate with close-in swallows is less than 1%, maybe I should buy expensive Nikon gear to crank it way up to 2%.
Just curious: not having used top-end gear, I've always assumed they were "about equal," and it all came down to skill. Has he not gone out with Arash for lessons? Has Arash not handed him a pre-configured body and said "ok, do this..."?
If my success rate went for 1% to 2% I'd be increasing my success rate by 100%, so I'd consider that a very reasonable reason to swap.
Fair enough; however, when I see other people getting shots with gear that's equal or less than mine, my first assumption is that I should up my skills. OK, he did make some noises about it being partly his own skill, but...? ? ?I found using others settings just doesn't work for me yet I can achieve similar hit rates with my camera set up differently just because f the way my brain/button coordination works. Setting up AF for that final few percent of success is a time consuming and laborious process, it is work to get it right and there is limited value in others settings.
Thanks for the tip, I'll look at those videos some time.I find great variances in my ability to keep up with the action and so I find a case setting that works one day won't work another. For that reason I have abandoned case settings and have the three AF variables set up on a custom menu like Grant Atkinson recommends in his various AF guides on YouTube.
I'm a rank amateur, but enjoy both the art and the technical challenge of BIF. I much prefer the suggestion of movement, or intent, that gives life to photos of living things. I'm not fond of motionless photos of living taxidermy.stevelee said:Are there photographers who like to take pictures that look like birds are actually flying, or is that considered gauche or a poor use of modern technology or something?
Orangutan said:I'm not fond of motionless photos of living taxidermy.
neuroanatomist said:docsmith said:Now, I am just hoping that Ari responds to the Fredmiranda thread. Something happened between August and January and I am real curious as to what it was.
I am doubtful that 'better pictures' are part of the true rationale.