artsupreme wrote:
Those were all shot with the 5D2 and lovely 100-400
Brett,
I'm so confused it's pretty easy actually, must have been looking at a 5D3 post before yours, still a really nice set and the 5D2's IQ is quite stunning...hmmm, now what do I do, 5D2 or 6D
A question for ya, has there been any new construction, ie. boardwalk put up, laid down, down near the Wedge? It's been 4+ yrs since I've been in Newport rolling about, last time I was there was winter of 07; love winter swells I'll be headed that way in November, was wondering if I need to bring something bigger that a 300?
PetKal wrote:
Jerry, there was no wind.....what you see is OoF bush and sticks in the background which the lens couldn't blow out fully even at f/3.2 because they were not far enough behind the bird.
I have a couple of perches with a perfect geometry and the fall background, however, the GB pijun hasn't gone there lately.
Here is another one from the same series, the same effect of OoF sticks and scrub.
Peter,
My uncle is a painter of the canvas variety, those OoF backgrounds have the look of an oil painting, quite attractive
With a BIF I imagine panning would be okay with the 1DX, but how about tracking a pijun/BIF; would the new AF do well or might it get confused with that background clutter?
Jerry
StillFingerz wrote:
Peter,
My uncle is a painter of the canvas variety, those OoF backgrounds have the look of an oil painting, quite attractive
With a BIF I imagine panning would be okay with the 1DX, but how about tracking a pijun/BIF; would the new AF do well or might it get confused with that background clutter?
Jerry
Jerry, sure thing, 1DX jumps to the background here and there when shooting a smaller bird. Now, with a bigger bird close up, that shouldn't happen although one has a DOF problem there, and a shot like the one below is harder on the photographer than on the camera/lens..
PetKal wrote:
Jerry, sure thing, 1DX jumps to the background here and there when shooting a smaller bird. Now, with a bigger bird close up, that shouldn't happen although one has a DOF problem there, and a shot like the one below is harder on the photographer than on the camera/lens..
Thank you, Edd and Jerry, glad you like that one, although I tend to see flaws in it as opposed to strengths. Some things need to be done better, and that's the challenge of most human endeavours, be they a craft, science, sports or whatever.
Here is a more peaceful fallish scene done with 1DX + 300 f/2.8 IS MkI.
I have a quick Q Peter. I remember seeing a similar photo of yours of a GB pulling at his/her feathers as in post p17#20 but it was with your 1D2N and 400/2.8. That photo was a whole lot sharper in terms of feather detail than the current one with the 1Dx.
Shreeni, I can not quite recall that 1DMkIIN image you are referrring to, however, all images I keep, regardless of what equipment they are taken with, must pass a basic IQ standard. If not, they get deleted......I do not do photoshop salvaging work.
sritri wrote:
I have a quick Q Peter. I remember seeing a similar photo of yours of a GB pulling at his/her feathers as in post p17#20 but it was with your 1D2N and 400/2.8. That photo was a whole lot sharper in terms of feather detail than the current one with the 1Dx.
Are all these SOOC ?
Sritri...I've noticed the same, did some research, compared some jepgs and found out the 1DIIN and the 5D classic have the same pixel size...might be just my eyes but the old gears IQ looks truly amazing at lower ISO's; up to 800!
@ Peter, the fact that you don't post process other than reducing size for FM posts is a testament to your seeing, mastery of imaging making
I don't recall completely why that thread started but I think it was about controlling whites, shadow detail and such!
Jerry : After I sold my 5D Mark II, I am forced to shoot with the old 20D and with the current s/w I feel the same
I almost popped for a 20D but stayed only film until late 07 when the 40D hit. It's been tough for me to decide which FF to go after, I just got a used 50D tbh don't see a huge difference in IQ, I like the 40D's. The only new option that I like is the 50D's LCD and that's when, for me, either a 5D2 or more likely a 6D will be my entry into FF.
Give me a 12Mp sensor with better ISO and DR with an articulated screen and I'd be
But I doubt Canon will go backwards on MP...it's all the rage
StillFingerz wrote:
@ Peter, the fact that you don't post process other than reducing size for FM posts is a testament to your seeing, mastery of imaging making
Jerry, I do postprocess here and there.........sometimes more, sometimes less, but my pp time is measured in minutes per image, not hours, let alone days.
One reason for that is that I discard lottsa shots and keep only those that look good enough SOOC.
Consequently, my keeper rate is quite low.
As far as 1DX is concerned, it is a very good camera. I still have not optimised my long range JPG shots with it, but I will eventually get there.
PetKal wrote:
Jerry, I do postprocess here and there.........sometimes more, sometimes less, but my pp time is measured in minutes per image, not hours, let alone days.
One reason for that is that I discard lottsa shots and keep only those that look good enough SOOC.
Consequently, my keeper rate is quite low.
As far as 1DX is concerned, it is a very good camera. I still have not optimised my long range JPG shots with it, but I will eventually get there.
It's funny Peter, I still fall back into my old film mindset. A high keeper rate was mandatory, I shot slide film exclusively, if you weren't prepared, knew your gears inside/out, you didn't take your time, know how to compose, what light to shoot in, this hobby got real expensive...not just film costs but time lost
My keeper rate is quite low with digital, if it ain't sharp it's in the bin, no PP can fix an out-of-focus shot or botched exposure. The huge advantage with digital for me is the ability to crop, sometimes a bit of extra frame helps given my wheeled challenges!
Jerry, indeed, the digital format has given a new life to the craft/art of photography.
I used to have two cameras and three inexpensive lenses which I used for 30 years on special occasions only: birthdays, family vacations etc. Merely a sparse family memories record of hit and miss technical quality.
Where's all the pics from the midwest? I'm hearing Michigan has some of the best fall foliage they've had in years....bright reds, yellows, oranges, let's see it.
Do you think comparable results as these can be obtained from the 400 f/2.8 + TC?
Db
Thanx dB.......400 f/2.8 IS MkII + 2xTC MkIII can do a bit better re IQ, and it will AF quite a bit faster than this combo. In addition, the OoF blur and bokeh will be deeper and more diffused, for a noticeably more pleasing overall effect .
Take a look at the pic. #1 as an example. The water ripples are breaking the yellow reflection, and I am not too keen on that. If the same scene was shot with 400 II + 2xTC MkIII, that background would have probably become a smooth and uniform coloured yellowish blur.
I'll be headed that way in November, was wondering if I need to bring something bigger that a 300? 
but I will eventually get there.