A Hawk in the hood making me think of new lenses and even switching to Nikon, LOL!

This thread are the posts from here which should have their own thread. I'm starting to think about upgrading my long lenses and or switching DSLR bodies! So this discussion hopefully might be not only helpful to me but also others wondering about the options currently available for low light or birding work. ADK

Thanks to Canon CPS in Irvine my 5DII is working once again. The replacement for the CF card slot was about $180 so I now have 21 MP to devote to the Hawk as opposed to 8 MP from the Canon 1DII although with the factor of x1.3, the 8MP is worth 10.4 MP for this task.

Still a doubling of pixels available for the bird is hopeful even in the absence of real birding lenses. I have to make do with my 70-200 2.8M IS and the x1.4 multiplier extender.

I tried to figure out exactly what the bird was doing. I realized that it always had the breast feathers facing the sun and in fact was puffing them out. Also it was undergoing a persistent and continual labor of preening and removing feathers that for some reason bothered it. I never saw a feather flutter down so I wonder if it actually eats them!



Asher

Asher, Buy the Canon EF 1200mm f 5.6L that B&H has for sale used on there website!

Will Thompson said:

Asher, Buy the Canon EF 1200mm f 5.6L that B&H has for sale used on there website!

Click to expand...

Sure if I can pit it on your account, LOL! Truth is that 300 mm is in my sights as with a x2 it will give me a 600 mm which I can use on my 1DII or for the 5DII a x 1..4 to make it 420 mm which is a little better.

The 100-400 push pull lens seems to be a good option too for casual birding like this!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Truth is that 300 mm is in my sights as with a x2 it will give me a 600 mm which I can use on my 1DII or for the 5DII a x 1..4 to make it 420 mm which is a little better.

The 100-400 push pull lens seems to be a good option too for casual birding like this!

Asher

Click to expand...

Other than going into the big Canon guns, the 100-400 is probably one of the most versatile all-around wildlife lenses out there. It's main limitation is its speed: f/5.6 at 400mm, and f/8 at 560mm with the 1.4x Teleconverter.

I assume you're talking about the 300mm/f4 IS lens, which would be a reasonable choice. The 300/f2.8 would be even better (you get 600mm at f/5.6!), but that is dramatically more expensive. In the sub $2000 range, I think you're right, that it would be betweem the 100-400, and 300/f4 and possibly the 400/f5.6.

Don Cohen said:

Other than going into the big Canon guns, the 100-400 is probably one of the most versatile all-around wildlife lenses out there. It's main limitation is its speed: f/5.6 at 400mm, and f/8 at 560mm with the 1.4x Teleconverter.

I assume you're talking about the 300mm/f4 IS lens, which would be a reasonable choice. The 300/f2.8 would be even better (you get 600mm at f/5.6!), but that is dramatically more expensive. In the sub $2000 range, I think you're right, that it would be betweem the 100-400, and 300/f4 and possibly the 400/f5.6.

Click to expand...

Don,

Thanks so much for your helpful input. That hawk in the hood got me so fascinated. What was it doing facing the sun for hours. However the pictures surprised me allowing me to observe preening behavior unseen by the naked eye. Now I'm hooked, LOL!

One thing I'm concerned about is the limitation Canon has built in to their sub-1D bodies. They will not focus at f8.0 The limit is f5.6! That appears to apply to the 550 D Rebel, the 7D and the 5DII. I use the x1.4 convertor, but it's version I. Is version II going to improve the result? It would seem that, beyond going to a 1D Mark IV, the 550 D would substantially put more pixels on the bird! That 300 f4.0 x1.4 x1.6 would reach to 672 mm and that's nice. What shutter speed would you shoot at?

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Don,

Thanks so much for your helpful input. That hawk in the hood got me so fascinated. What was it doing facing the sun for hours. However the pictures surprised me allowing me to observe preening behavior unseen by the naked eye. Now I'm hooked, LOL!

Click to expand...

This is a very dangerous infection, Asher, and while it can't be cured, it can at least be controlled by a continuous infusion of cash!!

Asher Kelman said:

One thing I'm concerned about is the limitation Canon has built in to their sub-1D bodies. They will not focus at f8.0 The limit is f5.6! That appears to apply to the 550 D Rebel, the 7D and the 5DII. I use the x1.4 convertor, but it's version I. Is version II going to improve the result? It would seem that, beyond going to a 1D Mark IV, the 550 D would substantially put more pixels on the bird! That 300 f4.0 x1.4 x1.6 would reach to 672 mm and that's nice. What shutter speed would you shoot at?

Click to expand...

Regarding the focus/aperture limit, I see the ability of the 1-series bodies to use AutoFocus at f/8 to be one of the "perks" of having that kind of camera. I don't think they intentionally limit the other bodies, but at least theoretically, it requires more sophisticated AutoFocus and more sophisticated hardware to accomplish that.

Version 1 vs Version 2 of the 1.4x Teleconverter might produce a little better optical result, but the AutoFocus limitation would be unchanged, as that is a function of the body. I don't recall off-hand, but either the 1.4x or 2x added better weather sealing when it went from Version 1 to Version 2; you might check on that to see if that would justify looking at an upgrade.

As far as pixel density of the 550D vs other cameras, you'd have to check the specs, but there is more to consider in terms of final image quality. The more expensive bodies, with the larger sensors, will generally have better signal-to-noise properties, especially at higher ISO, more sophisticated digital signal processing, etc. I often think of the image quality I used to get with my ancient D30 (3.2 megapixels), CMOS sensor - I have a24x36 eagle print from this camera that looks quite good, and should compete against lesser cameras with double or quadruple the number of pixels.

Finally, regarding shutter speed, there's the old adage about going at least as fast as the reciprocal of the focal length to avoid camera shake: 400mm requires 1/400 second, etc. Image Stabilization will give you some leeway here, perhaps 2 stops. But there is also the subject movement, and with birds in flight, I'll typically want 1/1000 or more if at all possible. If they're still, with little wind, and I have a good, solid tripod mount for my gear, with careful technique you can get by with much slower shutter speeds. So it all depends on the setting.

Don,

The bodies I have now are the Canon 5D, 5DII and the 1DII. The 5DII seems to be pretty well state of the art as far as Canon's full frame offering at least from DXO, DPReview and what I've seen online as far as low ISO work and color depth and dynamic range.

The engine for Canon to move is the competition from Nikon with the 10 fps Nikon D3S which has the greatest DR and although just 12MP these appear to be the quality of pixels we'd choose.

I have been thinking of moving to either a D700 or D3S for the better function in low light. I wonder if birders have moved back to Nikon because of this. Obviously, if one owns a Canon 1D Mark III and a 600 mm lens, there's no need to switch. However, for me, it seems a good question.

Taking pictures of the bird partly in shade and partly in bright sun is a challenge. A few stops more of DR would do wonders. So before I buy a new long lens, I'd love to know what nature lovers are using these days on your Costa Rica trips.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

I have been thinking of moving to either a D700 or D3S for the better function in low light. I wonder if birders have moved back to Nikon because of this. Obviously, if one owns a Canon 1D Mark III and a 600 mm lens, there's no need to switch. However, for me, it seems a good question.

Taking pictures of the bird partly in shade and partly in bright sun is a challenge. A few stops more of DR would do wonders. So before I buy a new long lens, I'd love to know what nature lovers are using these days on your Costa Rica trips.

Asher

Click to expand...

For a number of years, I think Canon had been a step or two ahead of Nikon in DSLR image quality overall, but Nikon seems to have at least caught up, if not leap-frogged, in terms of at least some of their bodies.

I don't really know if any of the Canon pro bird photographers have switched to Nikon, but I'd tend to doubt it, given the larger investment overall in lenses and accessories.

On my Costa Rica trips, I definitely see a mix of Nikon and Canon. If I were starting completely from scratch today, I would definitely do some serious research on Nikon's latest bodies and image quality, and really don't know without doing that which way I'd go.

If you're actively interested in exploring this further, you might check in with some of the guys at the NatureScapes forum - there are a number of pro photographers there, and you might at least get a sampling of opinions from some of them.

Asher Kelman said:

..I have been thinking of moving to either a D700 or D3S for the better function in low light. I wonder if birders have moved back to Nikon because of this. Obviously, if one owns a Canon 1D Mark III and a 600 mm lens, there's no need to switch. However, for me, it seems a good question.

Asher

Click to expand...

I'm stunned...speechless.
You'd actually seriously consider crossing over to the dark side?
I'm impressed!

John Angulat said:

I'm stunned...speechless.
You'd actually seriously consider crossing over to the dark side?
I'm impressed!

Click to expand...

John,

One cannot have a hawk in a tree outside one's home and not try to make memorable images! The problem is that it's hard to achieve with the gear I have. So this makes me think of getting extra reach and better pixels for these high contrast evening shots where the birds chest is brightly lit and the back is dark. That made me look at longer lenses and also the sensors. Who would think that shooting a bird in a tree would make one rethink one's entire collection of gear!

Personally, I consider the Nikon D3S one of the best Cameras ever made. The little brother, the D700 is perhaps the best bargain in fine DSLR's. That and the Fuji's made with the same Nikon mount have the best Dynamic range for taking portraits in studio lighting and then the D3S has 2 solid extra stops of Dynamic range above the Canon bodies. True there are only 12 MP but the quality is superb. Getting back to my core work, for individual shots of performance on stage during a performance where flash cannot be used, I'd love to have the benefit of the Nikon's greater low light capability. I am not ready to go the Nikon system right away but I'm certainly interested and will try it out.

I still think the 5D Mark II is the better body for an entire orchestra or large landscape as there's more detail to acquire. However, we should really be willing to switch to a large sheet of film for such shots. Why are we so foolishly lazy? Film is what should be used for large groups of people! When I'm doing that, I'll be satisfied.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

... and then the D3S has 2 solid extra stops of Dynamic range above the Canon bodies. True there are only 12 MP but the quality is superb.

Click to expand...

Whoa, hold your horses. The difference isn't quite that dramatic, especially when you compensate for the difference in MP (downsampling reduces noise, increases apparent DR). According to DxOmark (select the Dynamic range tab and then the print comparison), the difference is less than 1 stop (something like 0.8 to 0.9 stops of DR at the higher ISOs).

The D3s also exhibits higher color sensitivity scores, which suggests that the higher sensitivity and lower noise in the Nikon is electronic component based and not, like I assume happens in the Canon, by using a more transparent Bayer CFA. Let's see what Canon's response will be, perhaps coming Photokina 2010, September 21 to 26.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

Whoa, hold your horses. The difference isn't quite that dramatic, especially when you compensate for the difference in MP (downsampling reduces noise, increases apparent DR). According to DxOmark (select the Dynamic range tab and then the print comparison), the difference is less than 1 stop (something like 0.8 to 0.9 stops of DR at the higher ISOs).

The D3s also exhibits higher color sensitivity scores, which suggests that the higher sensitivity and lower noise in the Nikon is electronic component based and not, like I assume happens in the Canon, by using a more transparent Bayer CFA. Let's see what Canon's response will be, perhaps coming Photokina 2010, September 21 to 26.

Cheers,
Bart

Click to expand...

What you are implying, Bart, is that it might be just as smart to invest in longer prime lenses. If one has more pixels devoted to a subject and then can afford to down-sample, one can gain DR and decrease noise. Any special technique for the downsampling to achieve this?

In any case, Photokina 2010 is not at all long to wait!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

What you are implying, Bart, is that it might be just as smart to invest in longer prime lenses. If one has more pixels devoted to a subject and then can afford to down-sample, one can gain DR and decrease noise

Click to expand...

That's correct, as long as the FOV is sufficient and camera shake can be controlled. It also means that there may be less of a reason to change all of one's lenses to another brand ...

Any special technique for the downsampling to achieve this?

Click to expand...

Just regular Bicubic (not the Sharper variation PS offers), preceded with a mild Gaussian blur (0.25 radius per full factor of downsampling) will do reasonably well in many cases, followed by some sharpening at the final size. A program that offers better quality downsampling can achieve somewhat better results. BTW, Lightroom 3 seems to do a better job at downsampling, even without pre-blurring, than Photoshop. In the case where the output is large, it allows to get closer to the required PPI without upsampling (which would make the lower MP count, but also its noise, more visible).

In any case, Photokina 2010 is not at all long to wait!

Click to expand...

That's right. Let's hope Canon gets of their lazy ass (with their usual small evolutionary steps), and starts upping the ante again. Even with current technology there is more that can be done to reduce noise, such as multiple readouts of the CMOS sensor (although at the expense of frames/sec.), and higher quality electronic components, but I'm afraid they are still feeling too comfortable to spur a revolutionary step ahead. Their anticipated 1Ds IV technology is probably closer to the 1D IV technology than a next step ahead, but let's wait and see.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

Just regular Bicubic (not the Sharper variation PS offers), preceded with a mild Gaussian blur (0.25 radius per full factor of downsampling) will do reasonably well in many cases, followed by some sharpening at the final size. A program that offers better quality downsampling can achieve somewhat better results. BTW, Lightroom 3 seems to do a better job at downsampling, even without pre-blurring, than Photoshop.

Click to expand...

Good to know!

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

That's right. Let's hope Canon gets of their lazy ass (with their usual small evolutionary steps), and starts upping the ante again. Even with current technology there is more that can be done to reduce noise, such as multiple readouts of the CMOS sensor (although at the expense of frames/sec.), and higher quality electronic components, but I'm afraid they are still feeling too comfortable to spur a revolutionary step ahead. Their anticipated 1Ds IV technology is probably closer to the 1D IV technology than a next step ahead, but let's wait and see.

Click to expand...

Bart,

They also have 2 CMOS designs, one 100% their own which address individual pixels as cameras that can be shut off one by one as they collect enough photons to be accurate and reduce noise. This has so many applications. They may be focussing on industrial cameras for robot work or just holding back and getting this ready just in case. Canon seems to have no interest in bringing the whole technology forward, rather to maximize it's market share and ROI! That's why we should switch on mass to Nikon, LOL! If folk did, fireworks would happen! Who knows, they'd give us a $10,000 Leica S2 vanquisher with new ultrafine lenses to be the new flagships!

It really is unjustifiable for a major company like Canon not to have caught up with the wide DR at low ISO that Fuji can deliver! Even though Canon could match and surpass that, they have no pressing need as Fuji's share of the market is minimal! Now thank goodness for Nikon, giving weather sealing in the inexpensive D700, it spills over to Canon's 7D being sealed too. So I'm grateful for every advance Nikon has. Each time I see an array of mostly black lenses at a sporting event, I feel, "Great, another nudge for Canon!"

Asher

Hawk

Asher:

I have Hawks in the trees here too. The 100-400 does well on the 5d2. I have hand held that lens to create photos of the nest and Mom - you could probably search back and find it here. I have no clue where it is.

Jump forward to 2015!

The hawk had not returned but the relatively low cost of full frame sensors with 30-50 MP, does offer us a new opportunity to get pictures that previously would require the most costly Nikon or Canon 400-600 mm lenses. Now one can even get an excellent zoom to 600mm for the micro 4/3 format at prices more folk can afford without suffering!

So shoun't we be seeing many more beautiful bird pictures from our neighborhoods?

Where are they?

Asher

No, Asher. This is not taken by me. But is a calendar page for the month of Oct/2015. It has white stallions too!!

Things in my neck of the woods ( or sands ).


Now that is worth a trip to the desert.