Curlew in flight

[William Dickson]

Canon 7D
Canon f/2.8 300mm with 1x4 TC = 420mm
f/4 SS 1250
ISO 1600

Captured this image on a blustery, dull day, at Kirkcaldy, Scotland
Cropped for comp in CS6

Any advice is greatly appreciated
Thanks in advance

[IMG][/IMG]

[Randall Farhy]

William, not a whole lot to critique- it's sharp, nice wing position, nice clean background etc. PP looks good, no halos, nice contrast and color balance looks decent too. Maybe there are a few hot pixels in the whites but that's not a big issue here. My only suggestion-try flipping the image so the bird flies from right to left. As the eye naturally travels from left to right, it might give the bird a little more impact in the frame. -R

[Diane Miller]

Looks good to me with good shooting settings -- great light and wonderful pose captured. My only suggestion for improvement would be that it doesn't look as critically sharp and detailed as some of the flight shots we see here. But that's asking a lot -- there are some awesome flight shots posted here and I can't say I can come close to them with my 5D III. Most of them seem to be done with the 1DX, and you may be facing some limitations with the 7D -- not that you couldn't get a sharper image, but that it might be rarer to do so. Autofocus limitations are a common problem.

I often shoot birds that are sitting still and I look at everything at 100% (1:1 in Lightroom) so I know what to expect for my best sharpness with various lenses, and my percentage of sharp flight images falls well below the average for still subjects, for a variety of reasons. But I think a major one is the camera body and it's ability to achieve critical focus on a moving subject.

There is also a lengthy discussion going on over in Digital Photography Workflow, titled Maintaining Image Fine Detail, about how best to retain image sharpness throughout the workflow and how to get the sharpest JPEG for posting here. It has gone onto a second page which is easy to overlook.

If your image is critically sharp when the RAW file is viewed at 100%, that discussion would be of concern.

[William Dickson]

Thanks for the comments, thats the first image I have taken, without having to adjust anything apart from the crop, so I am very pleased with it, I would love to take all images without any post processing, I know its difficult, but it feels good when it is 'straight from the camera'

[Diane Miller]

Unfortunately, with digital capture, there is really no such thing as "straight from the camera." The information from the sensor isn't an image until certain parameters are applied to it. You either choose parameters in a RAW converter (or accept the defaults) or let the camera do it for you by shooting JPEG with setting you have made in the camera menu. Similar to making a choice of which film to use in the old days.

There isn't much you can do after the fact to minimize poor technique (low image quality). But with the best technique, light and exposure, you can certainly minimize the need to do anything. But I love the freedom to shoot in less than ideal conditions and to be able to make a nice(er) image out of it. It usually takes about 1-2 minutes.

[Randall Farhy]

Diane, I can't help but wonder if what you're experiencing with the 5DIII is the same thing 7D shooters are when it comes to moving subjects-Something I think is known as as pixel smear (I may or may not be using the correct term). AFAIK, it has to do with high pixel density and actual pixel size/pitch in relation to the surface area of the sensor. As the light from the subject travels across the pixels, the apparent sharpeness varies., Smaller denser pixel sensors appear to have less critical sharpness because the amount the light travels covers a larger percentage of each pixel, where on a full sensor of ~ the same MPEG, the light travels across a smaller part of each pixel surface, rendering a sharper image. At least that's my unscientific understanding of it. I believe your 5DIII, even though it's a full size sensor, shares a similar density to the 7D or am I confusing it with the newer Nikon?

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi William, glad the weather has broken at last, so good to see your getting out there.

Firstly is this FF or a crop? I appreciate it's a trade off, but I do feel you need more DoF, but as I said, it's a trade off so without increasing ISO you will lose SS which is not ideal. If you pre plan the shots knowing they are going to fly, try pre setting your FP and or expand them too, p89 and ensure you have AI Servo on. Daniel C shoots with the 7D and you see the IQ he gets, so you should be able to achieve good results with what you have, it just comes down to practice. This is a good start, just build on it.

BTW Upload from you HD (hard drive) and avoid pulling it in if you can from Flickr.

cheers
Steve

[William Dickson]

Not sure Steve how to upload directly from my hard drive. Cant see a method to do this. I was attempting to subscribe as a member, but cannot get the price to subscribe, to upload on the membership page. Is it,you have to subscribe, to upload directly ?? Not sure about this??
Its a crop, I wasn't expecting it to fly past, as I was concentrating on perched waders at the time, I did manage to switch from one shot to Al Servo on a 9 point focus.
HELP

[Sidharth Kodikal]

Nice pose and framing. Pretty good sharpness.

I most definitely don't subscribe to the suggestion that you need a 1DX to photograph birds in flight.
BPN and many photosharing sites are replete with phenomenal flight shots taken with lesser cameras.
Check out Daniel Cadieux's work with a 7D (and 40D before that), Stuart Bowie's work with the 50D, and a master of flight photography Jim Salywoda who won image of the year the year before last.
While I agree that a 1DX will autofocus much better than others, and this might save your bacon against difficult/varied backgrounds in low light etc., most cameras will easily handle a sky bg like this at a minimum.
The 300 f2.8 with the 1.4x has lightning fast AF (I own this combo) and the 7D is more than a capable camera from what I've seen (I've never one).
Your gear is perfectly capable. Just put some practice into it, and you'll be flight nailing shots in no time.

[Diane Miller]

Yes, you do have to subscribe to upload directly. And it's worth it just for that alone.

Maybe you don't "need" a 1DX but I'm betting it helps. There are a lot of variables with birds in flight. I think, from everything I've read here, and experienced with my 5D3, that the "better" bodies will give sharper flight shots *more often*. (Many other things being equal.) I can get tack sharp shots of birds sitting still, easily. BIF is a much lower percentage.

There are a lot of great 7D shots here, but for the BIF ones, what was the percentage of success compared to still shots? There is a reason for the price difference in the bodies.

But that doesn't mean to quit trying -- it means to try harder.

[Diane Miller]

Diane, I can't help but wonder if what you're experiencing with the 5DIII is the same thing 7D shooters are when it comes to moving subjects-Something I think is known as as pixel smear (I may or may not be using the correct term). AFAIK, it has to do with high pixel density and actual pixel size/pitch in relation to the surface area of the sensor. As the light from the subject travels across the pixels, the apparent sharpeness varies., Smaller denser pixel sensors appear to have less critical sharpness because the amount the light travels covers a larger percentage of each pixel, where on a full sensor of ~ the same MPEG, the light travels across a smaller part of each pixel surface, rendering a sharper image. At least that's my unscientific understanding of it. I believe your 5DIII, even though it's a full size sensor, shares a similar density to the 7D or am I confusing it with the newer Nikon?

I don't remember the specs, and haven't heard this idea, at least not that I recognize. Maybe someone else can comment. But I would expect that there is some reason a body costing twice as much as mine (and -- what -- 3.5X a 7D?) has some advantages besides better weather sealing and a faster burst rate. I think I'm wringing out about as much as I can.

[Sidharth Kodikal]

The 5DIII has excellent autofocus. I don't own one but from my limited use, have found its AF to be as good, if not better than the 1D4, which is an awesome camera for BIF.
I wish the frame rate on the 5D3 was higher, but AF is pretty darned good.

[William Dickson]

Yes, you do have to subscribe to upload directly. And it's worth it just for that alone.

Maybe you don't "need" a 1DX but I'm betting it helps. There are a lot of variables with birds in flight. I think, from everything I've read here, and experienced with my 5D3, that the "better" bodies will give sharper flight shots *more often*. (Many other things being equal.) I can get tack sharp shots of birds sitting still, easily. BIF is a much lower percentage.

There are a lot of great 7D shots here, but for the BIF ones, what was the percentage of success compared to still shots? There is a reason for the price difference in the bodies.

But that doesn't mean to quit trying -- it means to try harder.

Diane, I dont have a paypal account, and I wish to pay by debit card. On the payment page, it asks for preferred method of payment, but always returns to the paypal option???

[Diane Miller]

There have been some issues with payments and the managers are struggling to fix them. Someone else had the same problem recently and made arrangement to pay through Arthur Morris' store, I believe. You might drop an email to him. I know he's really busy, too, but always seems willing to have people email about things like that.

Not sure why there isn't a credit card or debit card option. Lots of things are under review by an overworked tiny staff donating their time.

Hope it gets fixed for you!

[Steve Kaluski]

It's already in hand Diane, thanks.

[Ian Cassell]

This is one I would love to have in my files. Good wing position and head angle. It's nicely positioned in the frame.

[William Dickson]

This is one I would love to have in my files. Good wing position and head angle. It's nicely positioned in the frame.

Thanks Ian, appreciated

[William Dickson]

I don't remember the specs, and haven't heard this idea, at least not that I recognize. Maybe someone else can comment. But I would expect that there is some reason a body costing twice as much as mine (and -- what -- 3.5X a 7D?) has some advantages besides better weather sealing and a faster burst rate. I think I'm wringing out about as much as I can.

As you said Diane,its not what you have, its the way that you use it

[Diane Miller]

But some of it is more challenging to use...

[William Dickson]

and thats why it is so good an expedition