BIF: 7D w/ 500 F4 or 5D3 w/ 800 F5.6

For hand-held shooting birds in flight - which is the better option for larger migrants primarily (raptors), but also bee-eaters and swifts? For examples of what I shoot, see:

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=714849

scroll half-way down and the birds will appear...double-clicking on most of the images will enlarge them considerably.

I have access to both set-ups. I prefer the pixels of the 5D3...so if you have a moment, please suggest pros-cons of either (both) set-ups. And any configuration suggestions would be appreciated as well.

Note: I sit in an enclosed wooden shelter with benches - so after shooting a migrant, I lay the lens down on the wooden bench until another gets within range etc.

Thanks!

Robert- Your link simply takes people to a Thailand portfolio, which is not very useful. Could you be more specific about the comparison implied in your subject line.

Sure John - scroll halfway down that portfolio and the birds images begin.

As for specifics - which set-up would get me more pixels on a migrant - assuming the same distance from the camera; would giving up one f-stop in the 5D3/800 F5.6 set up still provide better image quality that the a 7D with 500 F4?

Or just on a basic level: if you had a choice between these two set-ups to shoot large birds in flight, which would you choose? and why?

With a fixed distance to subject the 5D3 will put more pixels on the subject (22 MP vs. 18), and the quality of the pixels will be a step up from the 7D. I think the better comparison would be 7D/500 vs. 5D3/600/1.4 because the 600/1.4 combo gives you either a 600 f/4 or an 800 f/5.6. The 7D/bare 500 combo will do better in tricky AF situations due to its f/4 aperture and resulting fast AF. The 7D also has a 2 fps advantage over the 5D3. But the 5D3 has that pro AF system that I love. In the final analysis I'd go 5D3/600/1.4; this is the combination that I've been using for all of my recent image posts, and it works great!

Are you shopping for a camera, a lens, or both? Canon should be announcing a 7D successor later this year, and rumor has it that it'll be a 1.3 crop body; that might be worth waiting for.

Another thing to consider here Robert is the Field Of View on both lenses when matched up with crop factor. I find it just about impossible with the 800 f/5.6 attached to a 1DMKIV to track small birds in flight and that includes Bee-eaters and Swallows even when shooting with both eyes open. (I'm hoping all things being equal the 1DX being Full Frame may change this fingers crossed).

With only 1 stop difference between the two lenses you're going to have to use a higher ISO with the 800 f/5.6 under some lighting conditions like early morning and overcast days to keep your shutter speeds up, the higher ISO will then produce more noise, especially with the 7D. (Coming from a 500 f/4.0 to the 800 my max ISO under those conditions went from 800 to 1200. I recently purchased Neat Image)

Weight is alo going to play a big factor in lens choice, don't kid yourself that the 800 f/5.6 is going to be hand holdable for and length of time even with its excellent IS. There's a particular spot I go to to shoot Peregrines and it's the only time I'll hand hold. For perched birds in the same area I squat and use elbows on knees for a tripod.

I'd go with Doug's recomendation for sure.

Richard

Hi Doug and Richard,

Thanks ever so much for your thoughtful responses. Yes I agree 100% - the 5D3 plus the 600 F4 would be the best combo for hand-held BIF images - the extra F-stop; lighter overall weight; greater field of view to find/frame the moving bird...etc. However, try as I may, the 600 F4 II is just not available in stores (yet). In 2011, I used the 7D/500mm F4 version 1 combo - and in good light, the 7D shines...I liked the number of pixels I was able to put on the subject (bird in flight) - the downside was the way the 7D handled high contrast subjects...for example, the top side, head and leading edge of a bird in flight has good light; however, the underside may receive 1-2 stops less - and with the 7D at 400/800asa, the underside of a light colored bird tends to go greenish...and is difficult to correct completely in post processing (Photoshop). This is where the 5D2/3 is (are) better - one can raise the shadow areas to a greater extent without the colors/image "falling apart."

So I am likely to go with the 5D3/800 F5.6 combo - the trick to getting fast moving birds in flight (bee-eaters) is to catch them when they begin to soar up, or otherwise pause as they hit a gust of wind...it is impossible to pan and photograph them while they are in straight-out flight. In that case the image ends up blurry (and IS is no help - I am shooting at 1/2000-1/3000 sec - that is the best hope). Larger birds (raptors) can be shot in flight - they fly slower and are less erratic in flight.

"Are you shopping for a camera, a lens, or both? Canon should be announcing a 7D successor later this year, and rumor has it that it'll be a 1.3 crop body; that might be worth waiting for." - Doug Brown...Yes I surely hope Canon comes up with an Exmoor (Nikon) type sensor - shadow areas on the 7D right now are tough to raise in post especially if they are 2 stops underexposed compared to other areas of a bird in flight. That is not an unusual situation either in Thailand - the leading edge of the bird (and topside) are often lit well...it is the underside that can be the big problem when shooting upwards (45 degree angle or so) on a moving bird...So I look forward to an Exmoor type sensor. Regarding 1.3x being the sensor size of the hypothetical 8D - I doubt it highly because Canon has all those wide angle lenses for a 1.6 sensor (the 10-22mm eg), and none for 1DIV type cameras - an evolutionary dead end...

For the 7D I try never to go above 800asa - images get too noisy. (The exception is strong, even light on a subject...then I might venture to 1600.) I only do full-stop increments (400/800/1600 and not 400/640/800/1200) because, from what I have read and seen examples of, the Canon cameras interpolate the 1/3 stop ISO settings - and are better with full-stop ISO's - better get Arash in here (this discussion) for some comments on the technical side of Canon sensors...

Thanks for your comments,

Bob

It depends on which lens you can handhold better. BIF is all about perfection in hand holding technique. If you pick a lens that's too heavy for you it won't work, no matter how good the camera is. Not that many people can handhold the 800 for flight day in and day out. It's doable but not easy.

As for the 1.3 crop sensor (APS-H) I doubt if Canon will ever make one anymore, because of the economics of semiconductor fabrication process. It is very unlikely. Right now the best overall camera for flight is MK4 IMO. It has been discontinued, if you don't have it I would grab one before stock depletes.

IMO the 1DIV is (a) too heavy; (b) sensor quality and resulting images are not better than 5D2/3 (and not enough pixels either); and (c) way way overpriced....

the new 1Dx is about $4k overpriced - and demonstrates again that Canon does not have a sensor that can do what the Sony/Nikon Exmoor sensor can achieve in DR (while also adding a significant number of pixels - look at D800).

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/stuff2/?p=1874

If only I could purchase Canon lenses and Nikon bodies...

If the 1D4 is too heavy for you I'm not sure if you can handhold the 800 or even the 500. The cameras weighs nothing compared to the lenses you mention. It puts more pixels on the subject compared to 5D3 from a given distance with better overall IQ (See Doug Brown's compression on his site). I don't agree it's overpriced. If you want to get avian quality BIF images like the ones you see on this site, you need to use a 1 series camera, there is no way around it.

The Nikon sensor is great in terms of DR and resolution but D800 is way too slow for BIF at only 4 or 5fps. It is not an action camera and it should not be compared to 1 series camera. The Nikon D4 isn't much cheaper from 1DX either and it's only 16 Mpixels for comparison. There is always a trade off between speed and resolution. Having shot thousands of BIF frames and many in most challenging conditions I have never had issues with dynamic range in real field conditions, even when I deal with black and white birds. For some landscape or long exposure conditions DR might be limiting but not for avian photography IMO (assuming a competent photographer who has a solid understanding of exposure of course).

Any ways, the biggest factor is handholding you need to hand hold your rig with full control to get sharp BIF shots.


Goo luck!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

I have never had issues with dynamic range in real field conditions, even when I deal with black and white birds. For some landscape or long exposure conditions DR might be limiting but not for avian photography IMO (assuming a competent photographer who has a solid understanding of exposure of course).

Any ways, the biggest factor is handholding you need to hand hold your rig with full control to get sharp BIF shots.

---

Arash,
Your statement implies that if a photographer encounters a high dynamic range situation they are not a competent photographer.

Roger

Robert,

There are many competent photographers who use gimbal mounts and obtain superb BIF. What may work well for one person, may not for another; there are many ways to do the same thing. Hand held BIF is not the only way. And some people may have physical limitations. They can still do great BIF with gimbal mounted lenses.

Regarding more pixels on subject: one need only compute the angular size of a pixel. There are 206265 arc-secionds in one radian, so the formula to get the angular size of a pixel is:

angular pixel pitch (arc-seconds) = 206265 * pixel pitch in mm / focal length in mm

7D + 500: 4.3 micron pixel pitch gives 206265 * 0.0043 /500 = 1.8 arc-seconds.
5d3+ 800: 6.25 micron pixel pitch gives 206265 * 0.00625 /800 = 1.61 arc-seconds.

Thus the 5d3+800 gives more pixels on subject as the smaller angular size means more pixels to cover the subject.

1D4+800: 5.7 micron pixels gives 206265 * 0.0057 /800 = 1.47 arc-seconds.
1D4+500: 5.7 micron pixels gives 206265 * 0.0057 /500 = 2.35 arc-seconds.
1D4+500+1.4x: 5.7 micron pixels gives 206265 * 0.0057 /700 = 1.67 arc-seconds.

As far as image quality, besides dynamic range, an important factor affecting shadow detail is fixed pattern noise. It seems that the canon cameras with larger pixels have more fixed pattern noise. The 5D2 has more fixed pattern noise than I would like (I currently own and use a 5D2, 7D, and 1D4). The 5D3 has reportedly similar fixed pattern noise (FPN) as the 5D2. The 7D has less FPN, and the 1DIV the least FPN I have seen in the canon line (probably better electronics in the 1D series). Even having the 5D2, I am using the 1DIV in more situations bEquatorial Africa is one area where the sunlight can get harsh ecause of the better sensor and lower FPN.

Yes, there are situations where more dynamic range than canon cameras currently deliver would be a help.

I understand it is hard to fathom spending around $5000 on a camera body, but if you can afford 500, 600 or 800 mm lens, it is well worth it as the performance is very impressive.

But whatever you choose, there are many ways to do BIF, both hand held and on a gimbal. (I do both.)

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

If you want to get avian quality BIF images like the ones you see on this site, you need to use a 1 series camera, there is no way around it.

---

Sorry Arash, but I will have to respectfully disagree with that statement! I've seen many, many fantastic BIF images here with lesser equipment...

Hi Robert- Thanks for the clarification earlier on. I'll add to Roger's excellent commentary that with a longer lens like the 800, on average you will tend to be farther away from your subjects and therefore be shooting through more air. Thus air quality- particulates, humidity, shimmer- will all play more of a role in IQ as the lens gets longer. Regarding BIF, I get better results with shorter lenses than longer ones, and with FF rather than crop bodies. With the shorter lenses and FF bodies I am able to pick up the target and track more consistently than with longer ones. For me 200-400mm is the range I use the most for BIF. I tend to photograph bigger birds like gannets, petrels and albatrosses in flight so these shorter lens work very well and are more forgiving for a duffer like myself.

Quote:

---

If you want to get avian quality BIF images like the ones you see on this site, you need to use a 1 series camera, there is no way around it.

---

This is pure nonsense -- and pure gear-snobbery. I've been shooting birds with the 7D since it was released and have a portfolio of excellent images, including BIF. And I've seen many other excellent BIF images produced by photographers using Canon cameras other than 1-series models.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Clark

I am using the 1DIV in more situations bEquatorial Africa is one area where the sunlight can get harsh ecause of the better sensor and lower FPN.

---

Oops, that got mangled. Here is what I meant to say:

I am using the 1DIV in more situations because of the better sensor and lower FPN.
Equatorial Africa is one area where the sunlight can get harsh shortly after sunrise, challenging dynamic range. Heat shimmer is often a problem with longer lenses (I agree with John in this regard). I too am using shorter lenses more and more. I took my 300 f/2.8 on my last African trip and will take it again, along with 7D and 1DIV and leave the 5D2 and 500 f/4 home.

Roger

Hi All - thanks for the info and commentary...and no worries about Arash or his comments...it is difficult to get a sense of "tone" on the internet...and I tend to roll with the punches anyway having grown up in NYC - and still doing much research here (Central Park eg), where one rubs elbows with all sorts of photographers.

Anyway, judging from the responses it seems there are many ways to "skin the cat" (solve the birds in flight scenario). Some folks like series 1 cameras for the FPS ability it gives them; others prefer the 1dIV (Series 1) for the combination of crop factor and image quality (larger pixels); for others like me, having a long telephoto lens (such as an 800mm) is tough enough to lift - and adding a large 1 series body puts that weight "over the top." With a smaller/lighter body, hand-holding the 800mm is doable - for someone like me.

I need to hand-hold a large telephoto (and not use a Gimbal) because I often need to maneuver quickly (a raptor comes up quickly from below and appears suddenly), and sometimes space is limited...or I have to run around to a different side of the shelter where I am stationed to get the bird back in my sights...so I have found hand-holding to be the most practical approach. (And sometimes I am on the side of a steep steep hill where I have trouble balancing myself...let alone a tripod with Gimbal). Finally, I can sit in the shade all day (have a roof over my head in a small, open, circular chalet (observation "booth that allows for a 360 degree view). Next to me are solid wooden benches where I put my equipment...so as I see a bird coming on I just need to reach for the lens and shoot a burst or two....and put the lens/camera down again. It is not like I have to hand hold this set up for more than 1-2 minutes at a time (all the while counting the migrants that pass and recording those data on my data sheets to transfer to Excel data sheets that night). Counting 300,000 raptors in s season plus bee-eaters (20,000), Pacific Swifts (20,000) and photographing - is quite a challenge. I come home brain dead each December...

As Roger correctly points out, the light in the northern parts of the hemisphere or way far in the south, is very different than equatorial light...I love the light in NYC compared to the light in southern Thailand. There the sun stays high from about9am through 4pm...and is harsh. Contrasts are the norm...and the sun sets (drops) like a stone...so the golden light hour is indeed very brief. As one moves north to Nepal or Turkey or NYC (all places I have shot birds in flight), the sun is not directly overhead for as much of the day...the light is superb in those places and contrasts are not as strong...so if one speaks for California light, especially the San Francisco Bay area light (I worked at Muir Beach with Peregrine Falcons for a while), photographing raptors there is a different experience in terms of light than Thailand...

Roger that was a superb, erudite response on which camera (7d with 500mm F4 or 5D3 with 800mm F5.6) would give me more pixels on the bird. Thank You for that explanation. It is the best one (by far and away) of how to compute this - Thank You for taking the time to do that.

Yes the 800 f5.6 has to cut through more "space" with atmospheric haze or particulates; it is heavy and bulky...and is a stop slower than the 600 F4 II that I wish I could get a hold of (it is on order from Camera Canada) - but it looks like that is what I will take with me...now knowing I will get more pixels on the subject than the 7D on the 500 F4.

Everyone - I read your comments and thought about your suggestions...I am so impressed with how people approach birds in flight photography - how each of you tries to solve your "problem" given the equipment you would like to have, and what we all have in reality. Thank You.

I will report back, and likely ask more questions along the way. Hopefully I will be able to post some images so that I can show that following a bird can be done with the 800mm F5.6 via hand-holding...I know it can be done. (Martti Siponen from Finland was doing that here in Thailand last year.) I imagine with some practice and exercise, I can do it too...

Thanks - advice and discussion much appreciated - that is where the internet shines and can enlighten,

Robert DeCandido PhD
NYC

Here is a nice discussion of Image Quality of the 5D3 vs the 1DIV:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1126406

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Clark

Arash,
Your statement implies that if a photographer encounters a high dynamic range situation they are not a competent photographer. Arrogant statements like this have no place on BPN.

Roger

---

Interesting Roger,

Please read my comments and get your logic right before making strong statements.

How does my statement implies as you suggest? I said DR is not a big deal for practical avian photography in my experience if you know how to expose properly. I said it might be an issue for landscape and long exposures. How does this imply if a photographers encounters a high DR situation they are incompetent?

Using a gimball for flight is about worst thing I can think about recommending to people. It is very misleading for people who want to learn flight photography and maybe reading this thread.

You had the same discussion with Jim Neiger in the past and he also explained why you don't use a tripod for flight. I am sure you can find that thread.

I have asked Doug Brown to chime in as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Cadieux

Sorry Arash, but I will have to respectfully disagree with that statement! I've seen many, many fantastic BIF images here with lesser equipment...

---

Any camera even a Rebel can make excellent BIF shots under some circumstances. It is just not productive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert DeCandido

Here is a nice discussion of Image Quality of the 5D3 vs the 1DIV:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1126406

---

Robert a more relevant and controlled test was done by Doug Brown, you can see it here:

http://www.dougbrownphotography.com/...k-iv-high-iso/

I have also done some side by side comparisons, my conclusion was the same as Doug.

hope this helps

Yes great...for those of us shooting at 800-1600 asa, which camera excels at image quality...12 fps I don't need...I am happy with 5 fps from my 1Ds3 days...the new 5D3 seems as good in a smaller package with a better LCD to review images...

Thanks!

Bob

Let's please try to keep this thread civilized!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Clark

Arash, Your statement implies that if a photographer encounters a high dynamic range situation they are not a competent photographer. Arrogant statements like this have no place on BPN.
Roger

---

Roger, I know that you and Arash rarely see eye to eye but I gotta say that nothing he said was at all arrogant... I agree 100%; if you get the right exposure with black and white birds you should have details in both the blacks and the whites. Are there lots of incompetent photographers out there? Absolutely yes.

A bunch of comments on the above.

#1: If you are able to hand hold a given lens that is long enough for a given situation then hand holding will enable you to get more good flight images than working off a tripod.
#2; Aside from Dan Cadieux, every serious bird photographer that I know who has tried the 7D prefers the image files from the Mark IV or the 5D III to image files from the 7D. And Dan really does not fit into that group as he has rarely if ever worked with the other bodies. He is just very skilled at what he does.
#3:The original question was 500 w/7D or 800 with 5DIII for flight. My answer: 5D III with a 500mm. And that goes for double if you are hand holding.
#4: Roger wrote: I am using the 1DIV in more situations because of the better sensor and lower FPN. I do not know what FPN is (and that has not affected my photography so far....) but its good to see that Roger is seeing that pixels on the subject is not the entire story, aka, "better sensor."
#5: Nobody is saying that you cannot make excellent flight images with a big lens on a Mongoose M3.6 or a Wimberley head. Many of my best flight images were made off a tripod. Do however see and read #1 above.

Respectfully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Roger, I know that you and Arash rarely see eye to eye but I gotta say that nothing he said was at all arrogant... I agree 100%; if you get the right exposure with black and white birds you should have details in both the blacks and the whites. Are there lots of incompetent photographers out there? Absolutely yes.

---

Artie, Arash and I often do see eye to eye. But I do, in general, believe there is usually more than one way to accomplish a task, and accomplish it well, whether BIF, other photography or other things in life.

Regarding a black and white bird, perhaps we are thinking differently. Consider this image of a black and white bird taken by Arash:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...read.php/99347

Where I see the dynamic range problem becoming an issue is the shadowed area under the wing. Sure, for portions of a black and white bird in direct sunlight, pretty much all DSLRs have adequate dynamic range. But add shadowed area, e.g. black under wing shaded areas, and dynamic range becomes a problem, as the dynamic range can easily exceed 10 stops. Arash's image was made with a 1D Mark IV at ISO 800 and the 1D4 has a dynamic range of 10.8 stops. Raising the shadowed area of the wing shows a lot of noise. A 1D3 in this situation would likely show fixed pattern noise (FPN) in the shadows, or what some call banding. The 7D might show a little FPN, but it would be small.

Regarding lots of "incompetent photographers, I really don't think that is proper way to put it. There are lot's of photographer who don't understand exposure and the effects of digital imaging (noise, expose to the right, ISO and the effects each has on a resulting image). That makes them ignorant, but not necessarily incompetent in my opinion. And isn't BPN about education, not about calling photographers incompetent?

Back to the original question. I gave in one post, the pixels on subject. Given the choice of 7D, 5D3 and 500 or 800 mm lenses, I would choose the 7D and 500 f/4. The reason gets into Etendue and fixed pattern noise. The only upgrade from there would be a 1DIV as the AF is twice as fast as the 7D (don't know about the 5D3--haven't tested it personally yet), and the FPN is less on the 1D4. But like I also said before, these days I'm choosing shorter focal lengths, and prefer my 300 f/2.8 for more outings.

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

#4: Roger wrote: I am using the 1DIV in more situations because of the better sensor and lower FPN. I do not know what FPN is (and that has not affected my photography so far....) but its good to see that Roger is seeing that pixels on the subject is not the entire story, aka, "better sensor."

---

FPN = Fixed Pattern Noise, or banding.

The 1D4 sensor has the least FPN of any Canon sensor I have tested. The 1D series also seem to have select sensors with fewer hot pixels.

Roger

I am leaning towards 5D3 with 800 - hand-held.

Regarding 7D: you give me good even light, and I can make a photo that is good enough; fine for publication - and a photo that will show all the details I need to show:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=14301432

that is with the 500 F4 version 1 and the 7D. That same shot with the 5D2/3 would not get me enough pixels on the subject. The bird was too far for a full-frame option. That being said, if the Chinese Sparrowhawk was closer, then yes the 5D2/3 would be fine...and likely the tones/color in the breast would have been slightly better than the 7D image. How much better - probably I would notice it if I made prints and compared them side by side. However, show the viewer only the 7D image, and that is his(her) only frame of reference - and the image is good enough.

So the 800 f5.6 is an experiment, a gamble...I did the Thai raptor migration with the 500 and the 7D...I got great images but could not get others because some birds such as bee-eaters never got close enough (and they are smaller to begin with), and/or where I could photograph them best (such as when they paused to circle up), they were too far. I am hoping that the 800 puts me closer. That's my decision for now - so I will report back and tell you what the results are...the good and the bad. I have seen folks hand-hold the 800 with a 7D...so it can be done. I need the 5D3 (and not the 7D) because the light in Thailand is harsh, contrasty - the sun gets high in the sky fast - and I get great light on leading edges, heads and such...but undersides can be 2 stops less exposed. When I process those files from the 7D, they are noisy and tend to go greenish in the whites...so I long for an Exmoor type sensor from Canon for more Dynamic Range - in the meantime I will shoot with a 5D3.

All things considered, yes the 5D2/3 makes a better image...but often photography, like life, is a series of compromises. I'll always prefer the 5D3 sensor to the one in the 7D...but I'd prefer the one in the Nikon 800 to any of the ones in the current Canon camp. And in five years time we will all look back and think how much better our images could have been if we had the current technology "back then."

Here is a 7D image I like, but I don't like the colors I am getting on the underside: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=14470414

Finally, I am hoping that the 23 or so megapixels of the 5D3 with the 800mm result in less "pixel smearing" when I am hand holding that combo than the 7D with the 500 F4...

We will see - to do my work in Thailand with migratory birds, I need the reach of a long lens...barring that, I need a lot of pixels = 7D. So I have settled on a compromise: the 5D3 with the 800...

If and when Deborah Allen shows up to visit me in October, and I still have a month of shooting, she might be bringing over the 600 F4 version 2. Then I will make the switch and do the 5D3 and the 600 F4 II...so hurry Debs, Thailand is calling you too.

Hey guys,

This thread has gotten a little ugly, possibly in part because of some of the things I've said. I was trying to be helpful with my gear advice, but I may have gone a little too far with a few of my statements. I think it is the nature of online discussions that sometimes things are taken in a different way than the poster intends.

Challenging exposures (black and white birds) require proper light and a solid understanding of exposure. This is an area that will trip up less experienced photographers. Obviously, if the light is harsh it can be pretty much impossible to get a frame with good detail in the whites and the blacks. But let's limit the conversation to conditions that are favorable to photographing black and white birds, because favorable lighting conditions are a necessary ingredient for top notch images. When the light gets harsh, I personally pack up my gear. There has been many times that my friend Doug and I have drived many miles to photograph birds only to see the light was poor. We went and got sushi instead ;)

As for FPN, Roger has valid points and it is indeed limiting for some applications like long exposures. I am no denying it. Unfortunately Canon sensors cannot compete with EXMOR technology in this regard. The EXMOR uses digital CDS circuit that is able to eliminate FPN, with Canon's analog CDS approach there is really no way to get rid of it. In addition to FPN the 7D has a poor color filter that results in increased color noise/artifacts and strange color shifts when you raise the shadows too much as Robert has been observing above. What I was trying to say is that in good light and with good exposure and post processing you should get nice results for black and white birds with either MK4 or 5D3 as Artie mentioned above.

Here is an example of what I had in mind in terms of DR for a black and white bird.

Example 1: skimmer

Example 2: Black-necked Stilt

Is the DR enough to get this shot when the sun is high in the sky? No but I wouldn't take pictures in those conditions any way. My comments were only for conditions like these examples.


Regarding hand held vs. tripod BIF photography, I'm obviously a big fan of hand holding, but if you can get the same images with a Gimball then that's great too. I just don't know how to do it or if it can be done.

My statement about definitely needing a 1-series body in order to get quality BIF images went too far. You can get excellent flight shots with any camera, even a digital Rebel. What I was trying to say was that while you can get good flight images with non-pro bodies, your keeper percentage will generally be much higher when you make the jump to a pro body, due to the improved AF, shortened shutter lag, the higher frame rate and the larger buffer.

The reason I worded my comments so strongly is I wanted Robert not to make the same mistake I made in 2009. I had two 7D bodies for a while and for about 7 months I resisted buying a MK4 pondering if it was worth it. I did make some nice flight images with the 7D but having switched to MK4 I saw how much I was missing. That was a time of high raptor activity in my area and the opportunities were very unique. If I had the MK4 at the time I would have had perhaps 5-10X times as many good images and this is something I have not come to peace with myself after 3 years. I wanted to help Robert maximize his productivity


Anyhow, I'm sorry if I offended anyone!

Nice photos Arash! So many people here making great images...so much to learn from. Thank You!

Understanding the habits/flight patterns of birds is another key element in BIF photography....

Perhaps I should bring a giant reflector (like a sandy beach), to get some light on the undersides of birds...Nickerson Beach on LI is such a reflector....

Thanks for the correction on the Exmor spelling...and Artie, we do miss you here in NYC, particularly at Jamaica Bay. No one is doing counts of shorebirds any longer. I doubt whether more than a handful of NY folks know the name Tom Davis either.

Best Wishes,

rdc/nyc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Clark

Artie, Arash and I often do see eye to eye. But I do, in general, believe there is usually more than one way to accomplish a task, and accomplish it well, whether BIF, other photography or other things in life.

Regarding a black and white bird, perhaps we are thinking differently. Consider this image of a black and white bird taken by Arash:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...read.php/99347

Where I see the dynamic range problem becoming an issue is the shadowed area under the wing. Sure, for portions of a black and white bird in direct sunlight, pretty much all DSLRs have adequate dynamic range. But add shadowed area, e.g. black under wing shaded areas, and dynamic range becomes a problem, as the dynamic range can easily exceed 10 stops. Arash's image was made with a 1D Mark IV at ISO 800 and the 1D4 has a dynamic range of 10.8 stops. Raising the shadowed area of the wing shows a lot of noise. A 1D3 in this situation would likely show fixed pattern noise (FPN) in the shadows, or what some call banding. The 7D might show a little FPN, but it would be small.

Regarding lots of "incompetent photographers, I really don't think that is proper way to put it. There are lot's of photographer who don't understand exposure and the effects of digital imaging (noise, expose to the right, ISO and the effects each has on a resulting image). That makes them ignorant, but not necessarily incompetent in my opinion. And isn't BPN about education, not about calling photographers incompetent?

Back to the original question. I gave in one post, the pixels on subject. Given the choice of 7D, 5D3 and 500 or 800 mm lenses, I would choose the 7D and 500 f/4. The reason gets into Etendue and fixed pattern noise. The only upgrade from there would be a 1DIV as the AF is twice as fast as the 7D (don't know about the 5D3--haven't tested it personally yet), and the FPN is less on the 1D4. But like I also said before, these days I'm choosing shorter focal lengths, and prefer my 300 f/2.8 for more outings.

Roger

---

Roger. The image that you linked to is in my opinion an outstanding image. No camera, digital or film, is going to provide detail in sunlit WHITEs and shaded BLACKs. I do not understand your point. And heck, after 28 years of success as a nature photographer I do not know what Etendue is nor do I know what FPN is. And it has not hurt my images.

As for the use of the word "incompetent," I agree that it was a poor choice of words. I have done far worse myself. But I stand by my point that nothing that he said here was arrogant.

As far as pixels on the subject, it seems that you are finally coming around to see the point that there is a lot more to image quality than pixels on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Clark

FPN = Fixed Pattern Noise, or banding.

The 1D4 sensor has the least FPN of any Canon sensor I have tested. The 1D series also seem to have select sensors with fewer hot pixels.

Roger

---

By following previous links that you provided I have only seen night sky images that show banding. I have never seen banding with in any of the digital images that I have created over the past 12 or so years. At times you use your night sky images as examples of problem that are specific only to night sky images but not to the vast majority of stuff that folks are doing here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

By following previous links that you provided I have only seen night sky images that show banding. I have never seen banding with in any of the digital images that I have created over the past 12 or so years. At times you use your night sky images as examples of problem that are specific only to night sky images but not to the vast majority of stuff that folks are doing here.

---

Artie,
I do not believe I linked to any night sky images in this thread. I did link to one of Arash's excellent images and the shadowed area under the wing would be a problem if one wanted to dodge the shadows to show feather detail, showing significant noise, and on some Canon cameras, that would expose banding (FPN).

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Roger. The image that you linked to is in my opinion an outstanding image. No camera, digital or film, is going to provide detail in sunlit WHITEs and shaded BLACKs. I do not understand your point. And heck, after 28 years of success as a nature photographer I do not know what Etendue is nor do I know what FPN is. And it has not hurt my images.

---

Artie,
The sensors in many DSLRs are capable of 14 and even 15 stops of dynamic range, but the downstream electronics in Canon's DSLRs limit dynamic range to under 12 stops. If canon had better electronics, detail from bright whites to shaded blacks would be possible. Indeed, some Nikon DSLRs have higher dynamic range than the Canons, and would do a better job in this situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

As far as pixels on the subject, it seems that you are finally coming around to see the point that there is a lot more to image quality than pixels on the subject.

---

I'm really not sure where that came from. The articles on my web site have always talked about more than just pixels on subject. For example, from 2005 (derived from a magazine interview I did): "The most important thing about an image is the subject, its composition and lighting. How many megapixels an image has is secondary to overall impact." http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...els/index.html And my articles on angle of light and fine image detail, e.g. in the educational forum should be clear that I believe image quality is more than pixel on subject.

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert DeCandido

...and Artie, we do miss you here in NYC, particularly at Jamaica Bay. No one is doing counts of shorebirds any longer. I doubt whether more than a handful of NY folks know the name Tom Davis either. Best Wishes, rdc/nyc

---

Well, I put in about 30 hours a week of volunteer work for 7 months a year. Can't understand why nobody took over where I left off....

ps: Hope to see you at the Seminar on Staten Island in DEC.

Hi Artie - thanks for the invite - but I cannot do a presentation for your group much as I would like to..I'll be in Nepal doing research on Steppe Eagle migration...for images from autumn 2011, see here:

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1021128

Robert DeCandido PhD
NYC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

A bunch of comments on the above.

#3:The original question was 500 w/7D or 800 with 5DIII for flight. My answer: 5D III with a 500mm. And that goes for double if you are hand holding.

Respectfully.

---

Hi Artie, can you share why you would choose the 5D Mark III with the 500mm? Or maybe you did somewhere amongst all these responses.

I am considering that very combo.

Thanks

Jamie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert DeCandido

For hand-held shooting birds in flight - which is the better option for larger migrants primarily (raptors), but also bee-eaters and swifts? For examples of what I shoot, see:

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=714849

scroll half-way down and the birds will appear...double-clicking on most of the images will enlarge them considerably.

I have access to both set-ups. I prefer the pixels of the 5D3...so if you have a moment, please suggest pros-cons of either (both) set-ups. And any configuration suggestions would be appreciated as well.

Note: I sit in an enclosed wooden shelter with benches - so after shooting a migrant, I lay the lens down on the wooden bench until another gets within range etc.

Thanks!

---

Hi Robert, I haven't read all this long thread. However, I used the 500mm for 7 years, I have been using the 800mm for the last 6 months or so. For what you describe the 5D Mark III and the Canon 800 f5.6 win with no doubt IMHO. The 800 is a superb lens which has no competition in the Canon line in this focal length. (even the new 600 plus the 1.4 converter is not as good when it comes to IQ and AF speed).
The IQ of the 5D III is way better than that of the older technology 7D.
If the weight of the 800 is not a problem (not much heavier than the 500) then it's a no brainer IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie_Douglas

Hi Artie, can you share why you would choose the 5D Mark III with the 500mm? Or maybe you did somewhere amongst all these responses. I am considering that very combo. Thanks
Jamie

---

Right now, the 5D III has the most accurate and convenient AF system of any Canon camera that I have used. It is light. It is a bit short on frame rate for most folks. 500 is a great focal length for most flight applications. And the 500 f/l IS II is very light. In Japan, the 300 f/2.8L IS II with the MIV and a 1.4X TC was great for flight with the sea eagles and the cranes (effective 546). When more focal length is needed I would not hesitate to add the 1.4X III TC.

The 1DX promises much of the above with the improved frame rate a plus and the added weight and expense a minus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ofer Levy

Hi Robert, I haven't read all this long thread. However, I used the 500mm for 7 years, I have been using the 800mm for the last 6 months or so. For what you describe the 5D Mark III and the Canon 800 f5.6 win with no doubt IMHO. The 800 is a superb lens which has no competition in the Canon line in this focal length. (even the new 600 plus the 1.4 converter is not as good when it comes to IQ and AF speed).
The IQ of the 5D III is way better than that of the older technology 7D.
If the weight of the 800 is not a problem (not much heavier than the 500) then it's a no brainer IMHO.

---

Hand holding an 800 for more than a few minutes at most for flight photography is not a realistic choice for most folks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Hand holding an 800 for more than a few minutes at most for flight photography is not a realistic choice for most folks.

---

I guess it depends on the age and physical fitness of the folks. I am not very young (50) nor very big (165cm...:tinysmile_shy_t:) yet, I have no problem in using the 800 HH for BIF. I got some decent flight shots of peregrines with it and there will hopefully be more in this coming nesting season. Furthermore, Robert describes the circumstances in which he will use the lens and it sounds like the 800 is great for him. He should have no problem with the large birds but the bee eaters and swift are a huge challenge with any lens. I agree the 500 is easier to HH than the 800 but with some practice it is doable especially if he can put the lens down every few minutes as we do anyhow. IQ will be better with the 800 for sure.

I am glad that it works for you. You are not most folks :)

While I respect Arash's opinions, I must strenuously disagree with his following statement:
"Using a gimball for flight is about worst thing I can think about recommending to people. It is very misleading for people who want to learn flight photography and maybe reading this thread."

I use a gimbal head exclusively. I'll not waste a lot of time listing the numerous national and international publications that have used my bird in flight images or post any (I'll include a couple of links). IMO I do OK with a gimbal and tripod.
Any one willing to have a hand held vs tripod shootout I'm in. Must use comparable body and lens. Sharpness, percentage of keepers and size in frame (no farmers:w3) should all be factors.
Oh yea, shooting while standing in the water.

All photos contained in the following links are from a gimbal head and tripod. Most with a 800mm lens and 1.5 crop body.
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...hp?albumid=244
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...hp?albumid=124

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James Shadle

While I respect Arash's opinions, I must strenuously disagree with his following statement:
"Using a gimball for flight is about worst thing I can think about recommending to people. It is very misleading for people who want to learn flight photography and maybe reading this thread."

I use a gimbal head exclusively. I'll not waste a lot of time listing the numerous national and international publications that have used my bird in flight images or post any (I'll include a couple of links). IMO I do OK with a gimbal and tripod.
Any one willing to have a hand held vs tripod shootout I'm in. Must use comparable body and lens. Sharpness, percentage of keepers and size in frame (no farmers:w3) should all be factors.
Oh yea, shooting while standing in the water.

All photos contained in the following links are from a gimbal head and tripod. Most with a 800mm lens and 1.5 crop body.
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...hp?albumid=244
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...hp?albumid=124

---

Hi James, I guess bird photography in Florida is a bit different than bird photography in most other parts of the world. As far as I understand birds in Florida are usually quite tame and where you can see them there are usually very good numbers. In other parts of the world including Australia, doing serious BIF photography using a tripod is almost impossible IMHO. I would like to meet the photographer who can get images of a Peregrine like the ones posted above when using a tripod. It is simply not possible IMHO. Of course it is quite easy to get good BIF shots even when using a tripod when you are shooting large birds with predictable flight pattern but for most other birds including peregrines it is usually not practical. You can get a decent image here and there but the number of opportunities will be significantly reduced. I support Arash's opinion based on my own experience and also because IMHO he is the most experienced and competent BIF photographer I know.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James Shadle

While I respect Arash's opinions, I must strenuously disagree with his following statement:
"Using a gimball for flight is about worst thing I can think about recommending to people. It is very misleading for people who want to learn flight photography and maybe reading this thread."

I use a gimbal head exclusively. I'll not waste a lot of time listing the numerous national and international publications that have used my bird in flight images or post any (I'll include a couple of links). IMO I do OK with a gimbal and tripod.
Any one willing to have a hand held vs tripod shootout I'm in. Must use comparable body and lens. Sharpness, percentage of keepers and size in frame (no farmers:w3) should all be factors.
Oh yea, shooting while standing in the water.

All photos contained in the following links are from a gimbal head and tripod. Most with a 800mm lens and 1.5 crop body.
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...hp?albumid=244
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...hp?albumid=124

---

hehe captain, your Sigmamonster is impossible to handhold :D (unless you are Arnold Schwarzenegger). I'm sure you would be hand holding if you got a Nikon 500VR. You won't have to tighten those screws on the Mongoose to tame the monster ;)

I accept your shoot out challenge and rules, as long as I am not handholding the Sigma :bg3:

What does the winner get?

Can't wait to get back on Hooptie Deux, it is always so productive. still dreaming about an OC shot banking topside with the prey!

Looking back I wished i'd kept my 500L and not made a pig out of myself by going for the 800, weight and Field Of View are the killers.

Agree with Ofer on the hand holding of the 800, only time I do that these days is with the Peregines I shoot here in Australia's Northern Territory, apart from that it's now always mounted on a mono-pod.

Richard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ofer Levy

Hi James, I guess bird photography in Florida is a bit different than bird photography in most other parts of the world. As far as I understand birds in Florida are usually quite tame and where you can see them there are usually very good numbers. In other parts of the world including Australia, doing serious BIF photography using a tripod is almost impossible IMHO. I would like to meet the photographer who can get images of a Peregrine like the ones posted above when using a tripod. It is simply not possible IMHO. Of course it is quite easy to get good BIF shots even when using a tripod when you are shooting large birds with predictable flight pattern but for most other birds including peregrines it is usually not practical. You can get a decent image here and there but the number of opportunities will be significantly reduced. I support Arash's opinion based on my own experience and also because IMHO he is the most experienced and competent BIF photographer I know.)

---

Ofer,
I do both hand held and gimbal mounted BIF all over the world. In my experience, trying to follow a small, fast erratic bird in flight can be difficult due to the mass of the lens. Hand holding a big lens means when following the bird, you are pivoting about your body, which means the heavy lens has to be swung over a large range. Moving a large mass means a lot of power to move that lens (basic physics here). Thus, it is quite tiring for many people. But on a gimbal mount, the pivot point is in the center of the lens, so moving about the center of mass means less than half the energy required to move the lens, and since the lens is supported, one does not have to hold the lens up and keep it steady, thus zero effort by the photographer to hold. As a result, I find following fast and erratic birds far easier with a gimbal mounted big lens than hand holding that same lens (e.g. 500 f/4 version 1).

I have seen mention here at BPN of cliff swallows being difficult to photograph. I posted the attached image and another one in Avian a while back. It is a cliff swallow made with a 1DIV, 500 f/4 L IS version 1, manual exposure, on a Wimberly mount, CF tripod, 1/3200 sec at f/4, ISO 800. This was a wild and free bird, no calls, no bait, and flying quite erratically catching bugs.

I've said before, that there is usually more than one way to do things well, and what may work well for one person, may not for another. Each individual needs to find what works best for them. That applies to most things in life.

Roger

Following my last post, another difficult bird type to photograph is a small black bird flying erratically against a varied background. Attached is an image of a boat tailed grackle made with 1DIV, 500 f/5 L IS version 1, 1/2000 second, f/5.6, ISO 200, manual exposure, mounted on a Wimberly and CF triopd. Wild and free. No calls or bait was used to acquire this image. The main difficulty was keeping a single AF point on the bird. If the AF slips off the bird for too long, the AF locks onto the background. In this situation, I found that I needed to have the AF sensitivity on fast (I usually have it on slow except for fast birds like this) because from the time of first acquisition, when the bird appears and was large enough to cover one AF point, to when it was flying by was not enough time for the AF to lock on if the sensitivity was set to slow. I found that following such a fast bird with the gimbal mounted lens enabled me to keep the AF point on the subject more consistently than I can hand holding the same lens. Now, on a much lighter lens, like the 300 f/2.8, I prefer to hand hold in many but not all situations. I acknowledge that another person may do it as well using different methods. Again, there is usually more than one way to accomplish a task well.

Roger

Roger - wonderful image of a Boat-tailed Gracke in flight!

Here are some Cliff Swallows in flight - all handheld (500 F4 version 1 and the 5D3):

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=15936352

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=15936354

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=15936353

All 1/5000 sec exposure at F4...800 ASA
--------------------------------------------------
It is interesting to see/read the different ways that folks are solving the "birds in flight" approach. Some swear by handholding; others use a Gimbal head...some want high frames per second (1DIV); others can wait and time their shots well (1Ds3 or 5D3)...and still others have good light but need the "reach" and opt for the 7D. Each is a viable alternative and I am greatly enjoying how each person approaches BIF photography. We all have different types of light to deal with...and birds behave differently at different locations. Yes those Florida birds come closer and seem (generally) to tolerate the presence of humans more than birds in other places. On the other hand, some locations because of the type of birds (peregrines) or the updrafts and deflection currents on the ridge where the photographer is standing - the birds are further away...so reach is needed.

It's like asking the best way to cook an egg..if some folks only have access to a microwave while others have a stove...anyway, the diversity of opinion expressed here from photographers from all over the world is the great strength of the internet.

Thanks!

Ofer said:
"Of course it is quite easy to get good BIF shots even when using a tripod when you are shooting large birds with predictable flight pattern but for most other birds including peregrines it is usually not practical."
How about Tree Swallows? Small enough and unpredictable enough? I've have photographed them with a tripod and gimbal.

The issue IMO is few folks have taken the time to learn how to get the most out of their tripod set up.

Hand holding should of be used from time to time (when you don't have time to set up your tripod:w3), it's smart to know both hand holding and tripod techniques.

Roger, scientific arguments aside, your image of the Cliff Swallow actually supports my argument as it is too soft to be considered a keeper in my book.
James, if you'll conduct a survey amongst the more competent bird photographers in the world you will realise that most of them don't use a tripod for BIF. Of course you can get a good shot of a swallow even with a tripod here and there but doing it HH will be much more productive.