Streak-throated Swallow

Streak-throated Swallow (Hirundo fluvicola)
Gujarat, INDIA

EOS 7D, 500 f/4
1/4000, f/5.6, ISO 640
Jan 07, 2012, 12-34 pm

Heavy Crop

C&C Welcome

Would be tempted to try out some technique to reduce HIGH ISO nr keeping details as i find much struggle over this one.

good job catching one of these in flight, they are fast little suckers ;) the IQ is not great however. I am not sure what you mean by "reduce high ISO NR"... ISO 640 is certainly not high by any means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

good job catching one of these in flight, they are fast little suckers ;) the IQ is not great however. I am not sure what you mean by "reduce high ISO NR"... ISO 640 is certainly not high by any means.

---

Indeed not high 640 is arash.
High ISO mean at 640 the image shows artefacts on those tiny flyers body that too at high crop.

may be i am missing something for processing.

Very nice indeed, this must have been difficult. I don't find the noise objectionable. On an image like this I would consider using fairly minimal noise reduction on the subject and stronger reduction on the sky. In order to minimise noise generation in the first place I would shoot well to the right perhaps the ground was a neutral colour/luminosity this would be a good start point to set the camera meter to manual exposure, then check the histogram on the first swallow shot taken and adjust accordingly. How much of a crop was this image?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mital Patel

Indeed not high 640 is arash.
High ISO mean at 640 the image shows artefacts on those tiny flyers body that too at high crop.

may be i am missing something for processing.

---

I still don't understand what your problem is. What artifact? Can you post the original?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ashton

Very nice indeed, this must have been difficult. I don't find the noise objectionable. On an image like this I would consider using fairly minimal noise reduction on the subject and stronger reduction on the sky. In order to minimise noise generation in the first place I would shoot well to the right perhaps the ground was a neutral colour/luminosity this would be a good start point to set the camera meter to manual exposure, then check the histogram on the first swallow shot taken and adjust accordingly. How much of a crop was this image?

---

-deleted sorry

btw this is 7D image not 1D Mk IV..

Arash preparing the link for you to get raw.
Uploading the image.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mital Patel

btw this is 7D image not 1D Mk IV

---

Oh my bad sorry, then you are screwed that camera is noisy :S3:

how much of a crop is this? post the original.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

Oh my bad sorry, then you are screwed that camera is noisy :S3:

how much of a crop is this? post the original.

---

Thanks Arash,

I have PM'ed you the raw link
its huge crop.

here is another process version.

Mital i really appreciate your courage to freeze this guy the repost looks better than the original

Mital, you really did great job capturing this fast flyer in air...Re post looks much better to me.... I know how bad 7D files can be for ISO >=400..I shoot with 7D and struggle hard with the issue you have here..especially for crops more than 40%.

Awesome repost !! I think the noise and artifact is also getting pronounced due tot the fact that you are cropping a lot here . That said , this is one heck of a difficult one to get sharp and you have managed it quite well !!!

7D: "that camera is noisy"

Just to clarify. The pixels in the 7D have the same relative system efficiency (and actually measured slightly better) as those in the 1D Mark IV, The factor to understand is that the pixels are smaller, and that is simply equivalent to longer focal length. The pixels in the 1D4 are larger by 1.3x, so if you had a 1.3x TC and used the 500 +1.3x TC on the 1D4 and bare 500 on the 7D and used the same exposure time and same aperture diameter, you would get the same signal (#photons per pixel), same noise, same detail on the subject (e.g. bird small in the frame) and same depth of field as the 1D4 image. So just think of the 7D as having a permanent 1.3x TC compared to a 1D4. For those technically minded, this is all explained by the Etendue.

Nice image. I think it could show more detail with some Richardson-Lucy image deconvolution.

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Clark

7D: "that camera is noisy"

Just to clarify. The pixels in the 7D have the same relative system efficiency (and actually measured slightly better) as those in the 1D Mark IV, The factor to understand is that the pixels are smaller, and that is simply equivalent to longer focal length. The pixels in the 1D4 are larger by 1.3x, so if you had a 1.3x TC and used the 500 +1.3x TC on the 1D4 and bare 500 on the 7D and used the same exposure time and same aperture diameter, you would get the same signal (#photons per pixel), same noise, same detail on the subject (e.g. bird small in the frame) and same depth of field as the 1D4 image. So just think of the 7D as having a permanent 1.3x TC compared to a 1D4. For those technically minded, this is all explained by the Etendue.

Nice image. I think it could show more detail with some Richardson-Lucy image deconvolution.

Roger

---

Thanks a lot Roger. I think i'll have to read the entire algo guide to understand. cuz what i've seen is the difference of 1D Mk IV and 7D is very big. the softness and sharpness of the pixel visible in 1D Mk IV is much pleasing to eye than harsh over 7D and some glossy ness on colors too ..

I may be wrong but this is just an overview factor i have seen having both the bodies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mital Patel

Thanks Arash,

I have PM'ed you the raw link
its huge crop.

here is another process version.

---

Mital the IQ is still poor, I don't think this one can be improved by sharpening better luck next time ;)

Thanks Arash.
Totally agree with you. Just that i would love to look for the better technique to process if someone can post a different thing dont mind checking up. Sometimes people like me would love to have this as keeper as this is probably first photographic record and that too in flight for my location if i can boost a quality a bit and have small print that can be taken as archive for ornithologists.

also i have no idea if anyone else has recorded it previously but yes the field guide says almost no evidence in my region since long..

hope you got the reason why i am more into this image bro.:5

Excellent camera work !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mital Patel

Thanks a lot Roger. I think i'll have to read the entire algo guide to understand. cuz what i've seen is the difference of 1D Mk IV and 7D is very big. the softness and sharpness of the pixel visible in 1D Mk IV is much pleasing to eye than harsh over 7D and some glossy ness on colors too ..

I may be wrong but this is just an overview factor i have seen having both the bodies.

---

Mital, I agree. Anyone who actually takes pictures knows the difference between the two cameras is huge. It is a no brainier :w3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Clark

7D: "that camera is noisy"

Just to clarify. The pixels in the 7D have the same relative system efficiency (and actually measured slightly better) as those in the 1D Mark IV, The factor to understand is that the pixels are smaller, and that is simply equivalent to longer focal length. The pixels in the 1D4 are larger by 1.3x, so if you had a 1.3x TC and used the 500 +1.3x TC on the 1D4 and bare 500 on the 7D and used the same exposure time and same aperture diameter, you would get the same signal (#photons per pixel), same noise, same detail on the subject (e.g. bird small in the frame) and same depth of field as the 1D4 image. So just think of the 7D as having a permanent 1.3x TC compared to a 1D4. For those technically minded, this is all explained by the Etendue.

---

To Mital, you did well in capturing this speedy subject. I don't find the noise objectionable in the slightest.

To Roger, I don't really agree with your assertion that putting a 1.3x TC on a Mark IV would produce images of identical quality compared to a 7D with a bare lens. Scientific analysis aside, Mark IV RAW files look much better than 7D RAW files IMO. I think the majority of photographers who own or have used both bodies would agree with this statement.

<embed id="application/x-exifeverywhere" type="application/x-exifeverywhere" width="0" height="0">

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

Mital, I agree. Anyone who actually takes pictures knows the difference between the two cameras is huge. It is a no brainier :w3

---

I do take pictures with both cameras, and many more. The difference is huge if one changes the parameters of the test, which is what is commonly done, and what you appear to be referring to. But when one equalizes the test, there is no difference. Usually one changes exposure, and/or detail on the subject. For example, in a comparison of 500 f/4 on a 1D4 and 7D, the 7D has finer pixels which provides more detail. But the lens delivered only so much light. An analogy of only so much light: a single apple pie. There is only so much pie to go around. If you want more pieces of pie, each piece is less. In telephoto reach, to increase the 1D4 image detail to the same as the 7D, one needs a longer focal length. That longer focal length spreads out the light so there is less light per pixel (that is why exposure time increases when adding TCs). The lens hasn't collected more light when adding a TC. So the lens collects the light and the focal length + pixel size determines how much light per pixel and how much detail on the subject. When the two systems are equal (e.g, 7D and 1D4), one gets the same noise too. This is basic physics and is commonly applied in camera system design on spacecraft and aircraft remote sensing systems.

But this discussion is not appropriate here in a critique forum. I made the comment to dispel the common belief that the 7D is noisy. I'll post a more detailed explanation the gear forum.

Roger

Sorry in advance for the sarcasm coming up, but it looks like I will have to sell my 7D as it is a very bad camera and is too noisy even at ISO 400 and especially terrible at ISO 800 (where I spend half my time at). Sheesh, lets just take pictures and have fun man! I find the 7D very good and I consider myself a competent photographer!! People are making it sound like it has the IQ of a point and shoot...sorry, but nobody is "screwed" because they are using that camera!! Rant over.:bg3:

As for the posted image, I do not find it objectionable at all either and is rather pleasing to me. I know it is subjective but that is what it is for me. Repost looks especially good, I just wish the sky was bluer. Keep it up Mital, and don't despair on your gear...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Clark

I do take pictures with both cameras, and many more. The difference is huge if one changes the parameters of the test, which is what is commonly done, and what you appear to be referring to. But when one equalizes the test, there is no difference. Usually one changes exposure, and/or detail on the subject. For example, in a comparison of 500 f/4 on a 1D4 and 7D, the 7D has finer pixels which provides more detail. But the lens delivered only so much light. An analogy of only so much light: a single apple pie. There is only so much pie to go around. If you want more pieces of pie, each piece is less. In telephoto reach, to increase the 1D4 image detail to the same as the 7D, one needs a longer focal length. That longer focal length spreads out the light so there is less light per pixel (that is why exposure time increases when adding TCs). The lens hasn't collected more light when adding a TC. So the lens collects the light and the focal length + pixel size determines how much light per pixel and how much detail on the subject. When the two systems are equal (e.g, 7D and 1D4), one gets the same noise too. This is basic physics and is commonly applied in camera system design on spacecraft and aircraft remote sensing systems.

But this discussion is not appropriate here in a critique forum. I made the comment to dispel the common belief that the 7D is noisy. I'll post a more detailed explanation the gear forum.

Roger

---

I strongly disagree with this assessment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Cadieux

Sorry in advance for the sarcasm coming up, but it looks like I will have to sell my 7D as it is a very bad camera and is too noisy even at ISO 400 and especially terrible at ISO 800 (where I spend half my time at). Sheesh, lets just take pictures and have fun man! I find the 7D very good and I consider myself a competent photographer!! People are making it sound like it has the IQ of a point and shoot...sorry, but nobody is "screwed" because they are using that camera!! Rant over.:bg3:

As for the posted image, I do not find it objectionable at all either and is rather pleasing to me. I know it is subjective but that is what it is for me. Repost looks especially good, I just wish the sky was bluer. Keep it up Mital, and don't despair on your gear...

---

Dan, my point was 7D is noisier than a MK4. Do you disagree?

I think you missed the point, nobody was screwed because they use a 7D but you are screwed if you underexpose with a 7D at high ISO and then try to recover the darks in post :w3