arbitrage wrote:
I am shooting the R4 more and more now. With the 600GM it is amazingly good. With the 200-600 I'm getting better and better results as I've discussed in other 200-600 threads but it isn't perfect with that lens.
I am using the A7r IV for anything except for fast flying birds, like falcons. But if they are stationary, I prefer the A7r IV, too. The 61MP sensor of that camera is just amazing, even if the image is cropped to about APS-C format just like this one. The lens was stop down to f/5.6 to get more DOF and that enhances the details, too.
I took a look at the image after it was posted and I didn't realize how much details was lost just compared to the JPG version on my iMac that has the same resolution, let alone compared to the TIFF file before it was exported .
I set the camera at 20fps and captured the sequence from perching to this one, which is the last frame before the falcon disappeared behind some cliffs.
AGeoJO wrote:
I set the camera at 20fps and captured the sequence from perching to this one, which is the last frame before the falcon disappeared behind some cliffs.
Now how can you tell that I was shooting with Geoff this morning?
He was shooting with the a7RIV, and me with the a9 with 1.4, so I think this shows that when you have situations with good light and non-challenging focusing, the a7RIV is the better body.
This is the middle frame of 3 sequence of a flying tree swallow that gathers nesting material; all 3 are in focus just fine but this one for whatever reasons seems to be the best. It is not to show case the optical performance lens but more the AF prowess of the camera and lens combo. I also had another sequence of a fast flying swallow that flew towards me but I had to crop quite a bit for that sequence to render a decent magnification. Although the sequence is in focus alright but the magnification makes it visible that it was cropped...
AGeoJO wrote:
This is the middle frame of 3 sequence of a flying tree swallow that gathers nesting material; all 3 are in focus just fine but this one for whatever reasons seems to be the best. It is not to show case the optical performance lens but more the AF prowess of the camera and lens combo. I also had another sequence of a fast flying swallow that flew towards me but I had to crop quite a bit for that sequence to render a decent magnification. Although the sequence is in focus alright but the magnification makes it visible that it was cropped......Show more →
Fantastic photo. How much cropping for this shot ?
sparadise wrote:
Fantastic photo. How much cropping for this shot ?
Thank you, Steve! It was basically 100%. What impressed me is the ability of the camera/lens combo to keep up. Here is the next frame, again cropped to approximately 100% and centered more. I just wish the A9 or A9 II had 36MP... for a bit more cropping ability.
Ronny Olsson wrote:
Awesome shot Joshua !
Thank you, Ronny!
The second image is the first frame of a sequence of a flying tree swallow flying directly towards me. But it was cropped more than 100% though and although it in perfect focus, the image doesn't look that good and I posted it here to just show the conditions. That amount of cropping would have been fine with the A7r IV. Yes, it swerved to the right shortly after the last frame.
Tree swallow in-flight with some nesting material
Tree swallow flying directly towards me with some nesting material.
I always find these smooth transition backgrounds hard to render on flickr. I added a bit of noise back into the image to avoid jpeg compression artifact pixelation blotches. Any tips to avoid this? https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49764986666_43dba1635b_o.jpg
Hillrg` wrote:
I always find these smooth transition backgrounds hard to render on flickr. I added a bit of noise back into the image to avoid jpeg compression artifact pixelation blotches. Any tips to avoid this?
I find that the blotchy "posterization" occurs when the file is compressed, like with Facebook's compression filter, so not applying too much denoise to the background helps avoid that. *Does Flicker compress the files?
Colin F wrote:
I find that the blotchy "posterization" occurs when the file is compressed, like with Facebook's compression filter, so not applying too much denoise to the background helps avoid that. *Does Flicker compress the files?
Nice shot!
Flickr says they do not compress the original jpeg further and I think that is true.
Sat down to take this (and many other) picture, not realizing that they would find me interesting.
They ended up coming within a couple feet of me, well within the minimum focus distance of this lens (I ended up taking out my cell phone for a couple of pics).
The first one is when they were still a ways away. Second is when they were at the minimum focus distance.
