On my work monitor sharpness appears fine Jeff. Will check in about 10 hours at home (once I wake up). Wow you already got a 500? Congrats my friend. Hope you get lots out of it. One fine lens. Happy holidays to you as well.
Hi Jeff. Hope you don't mind if I pick your brain a bit/express my preferences. I know from a reply you gave me recently that you like to keep your iso low to avoid noise, yet to me I find the shallow DOF here a little... I don't know... displeasing. I'm assuming you prefer the shallow DOF over the risk of introducing some noise by raising iso to allow stopping down? Also, it seems to me that focus is on the shoulder, and even at the eye I'm starting to see some softness. I guess I'm curious about the thought process... e.g. if you were looking for shallow DOF or if it was simply the result of staying in the exposure range you prefer?
FWIW, the Tufted Titmous is my favorite feeder visitor. They're quite entertaining. The detail in the in-focus areas looks quite good.
Bob, good questions, the light was low due to a cloudy/rainy day and yes I am not a fan of high ISO on Canon 40D & 7D's. Still playing with the 7D and will experiment with higher ISO's - the 7D is suppose to support them. I have the AF set to zones (an option on the 7D) and the zone I used was right center (eye and chest). Still playing with that too, might change back to single sensor.
The larger aperture was to gather as much light as possible, I could have gone ISO=500/600. Since there was no background to blur, I was totally gathering light and trying to keep ISO around 400i/500ish - you were correct - it was all about the exposure range I like to use.
I will ask Al for some help regarding the DoF but I believe at this subject distance (12 feet) the DoF will not change significantly If I stopped down and if so, I would lose what little light I had and kill the already slow shutter speed. (remember I do not like ISO's above 400).
This shot was really more to practice NR/sharpening techniques. I just downloaded the trial version of NIK NR & sharpening 3.0 software. The best practice would be to capture the bird in a more pleasing pose. Going forward, I will try a smaller aperture maybe stop down 1 or 1.5 stops to see what results I get - solid advise - thanks.
Last edited by Jeff Cashdollar; 11-24-2009 at 10:58 AM.
At that distance the dof is not much At 4.0 is .02 Ft and at f 8.0 .04 ft Best to get the af point right on the eye and let it rip.
Noise wise it is always good to use the lowest possible ISO but I don't mind going up when needed, in the summer for insects my normal ISO is 1600 with the MK3 Will worry about noise later. With a MK3 I would have started at ISO 800 just for safety. Haven't used the 7D but seems to perform well !!!
Jeff About all I can suggest is using fill flash, will help with light and sharpness !!! Fine image !!
DoF is Aperture and Subject Distance: (contect from an internet web site)
Much like lens strength, subject distance, plays a big part in determining the possible size of depth of field. The closer you are to your focal point, or subject, the less depth of field is possible. To illustrate this effect, hold your hand at arm's length in front of your face. Even when focusing on your hand you can probably see a good bit of the surrounding environment in reasonably clear focus. Slowly move your hand towards your face until you reach the half-way point. Notice how much less of the area surrounding your hand is in focus. Continue moving your hand towards your face until it is as close as your eyes can focus on it. Very little of the area surrounding your hand can now be seen.
This same effect occurs with your camera lens. This effect, combined with high magnification factors, results in the tiny depth of fields seen in macro photography. It also makes the huge depths of field in many expansive landscapes possible when using a lower magnification factor lens.
Bob,..this was another facter that caused the DoF to fall-off so fast - open aperture and a close subject,..both creates less DoF.
Al makes a great point, fill flash might have strenghten this image.
Last edited by Jeff Cashdollar; 11-24-2009 at 01:45 PM.
Good info above....Jeff agree with all the comments above - for my tastes I just find it a little too IN my face - just personal taste though.
Good show
Thanks for the insights into your thinking, Jeff. Much appreciated. I use shallow DOF/Selective focus quite a bit in my portraiture. Many times, in that discipline, it is an artistic choice rather than something caused by environmental factors. I don't think I'm used to seeing birds presented that way, which probably creates some pyschological bias on my part.
Bob,..additionally, the longer the lens and the closer the subject the shorter the DoF. In the case it was a 500MM at 12 feet - that will cause a shallow focus point.
If you read APB or APBII, Artie is a fan of shooting wide open which will cause shallow DoF. In bird photography we often want to make the BG OOF and emphasis the main subject matter - the bird. Again, this photo was used for testing a new sharpening technique but it allowed us to talk about the effect distance and focal length have on DoF. Additionally, shallow DoF is often used in birds, read APB, APBII and Digital Basics - thats where it all starts.
Last edited by Jeff Cashdollar; 11-24-2009 at 08:22 PM.
Nice image. While you are shooting in low contrast conditions (overcast) I wish you would experiment in overexposing and cranking up the ISO! Try it out, use manual exposure and try overexposure bracketing. Use your histogram, expose to the right, try not to have that much of the graph left of center. That is where the noise is! Don't worry too much about the blinkies. In soft light, although you can actually blow whites, the camera is a bit too sensitive in indicating them. The images will look washed out on your camera LCD, but open it in Adobe Camera Raw, play with the recovery slider, Curves; light and highlight slider, and the overall exposure slider, and drop the exposure down to normal.You will be amazed. It is not the camera, but the way all sensors act to light.
Becoming comfortable shooting at high ISOs is very important, and will make the world of difference in your photography. Shooting in soft light, as opposed to direct sunlight is also critically important, and only by mastering higher ISOs will you be able to take advantage of it. regards~Bill
I have moved up to ISO 600 with the 7D and continue to experiment. I have a MacBook, not sure it supports Camera raw - but LRII & CS4 have like or same sliders. I do not get too excited about a few tiny blinkies, most often I can recover these. I love soft light and do not have any ISO issues in that regard. Bill, you have opened my mind,...I need to experiment more but also need to find the limits of the 7D as well - thanks partner. I will play with the ranges some and go from there based on given light and flash options.
I thought I read in APB bulletins that several Canon nature photographers shoot in 200 & 400 ISO. Do not quote me on that, I need to confirm my sources. Anyway - interesting and cool conversation - happy holidays Bill.
Last edited by Jeff Cashdollar; 11-24-2009 at 08:52 PM.
I was experimenting with NIK NR & Sharpening S/W,..has anyone else tried it? Neat feathers, where one can apply NR and sharpening based on image colors, control points and manual settings - might make the selection processes easier in CS4 - maybe not?
Last edited by Jeff Cashdollar; 11-24-2009 at 08:52 PM.
SonyA700~Sony70-400G@400mm~ISO1000~F7.1~1/200 sec~manual exposure~hand held~11-24-2009~CS4
To illustrate what I've been talking about I shot this image a few hours ago, overcast, getting close to sunset. ISO 1000. I did no noise reduction at all. The image was overexposed at least 2 stops, and looked washed out for sure. Everything on the histogram was on the far right. I didn't even need the recovery slider, just dropped the exposure down. I know the image needs a little work, but it is for illustration purposes. Hope I've been helpful. regards~Bill
Last edited by WIlliam Maroldo; 11-24-2009 at 08:54 PM.
Thanks Bill, but not sure I get the direct relationship between overexposure and high ISO? In my earlier example, the high ISO,,,>600 was causing high digital noise in the 7D. This created the need for extra NR processing and the possible loss of fine detail.
Moreover, I am a big fan of creating histogram info in all five stops with bias to the right, in fact 75% of all tonality is developed in the two stops to the most right. Maybe Sony process ISO better than Canon. I can tell you that my 40D would not handle ISO's of 1000 very well and I think Artie said he shoots with 400 range ISO's on his Canon equipment (could be wrong here). So I can understand, did you overexpose via ISO. Moreover you could have used maybe ISO=250, the shutter and aperture look solid and why did you want to overexpose 2 stops to start with - image looks great my friend.
Last edited by Jeff Cashdollar; 11-24-2009 at 11:28 PM.
The noise we see in an image displayed on a computer screen is often much less noticeable when the image is printed, Jeff. Wedding photograhers, for example, will use fairly high iso settings knowing that in the album or final print the results will be quite acceptable. (Then again WPs will convert a noisey image to B&W if necessary to make it acceptable). How one plans to use the final image can impact how high one is willing to push the iso. The 7D has the reputation of being able to handle higer iso's much better than the 40D or 50D.
I saw some images taken on a pre-production Mark IV last night. They were shot in very dark conditions at a wedding using an iso of 12,800. The lack of noise in them was really very, very amazing. I have a hunch we're not far away from a time when technology will really be reducing our concerns about noise at higher iso's.
Jeff, don't be afraid the raise the ISO if it is necessary to get you the picture that you want. Here is a link from ER forum which contain information on ISO usage http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=46088 plus some other information as well
lots of good information in this thread, love it.
Just a recap on things that affect DOF, correct me if I'm wrong too.
1. Distance between your camera and subject, the closer the subject the less DOF
2. The f stop, the larger f stop (the smaller f number) the less DOF
3. The focal length, the longer the focal length the less DOF
hey bill, you say that your shot of the bird was two stops over. are you sure you werent at or mean +2.0EV? that would make sense more than the entire image being two stops over. in order to properly expose the bird, the bg is going to be totally blown which would give you data looking blown and the bird's data being in the fifth box.
Harold. Yes you are correct, not 2 stops but +2EV. Sorry about that. My main point was that by using overexpose, without blowing the whites so they are not recoverable, reduces noise at high ISOs. I know, its not my idea, and after figuring it out on my own, I read about it here. For me, at least, it was sort of a breakthrough. I first noticed the effect when I was playing around with ISO 2500 right after sunset and accidentally overexposed the image alot, and it looked totally washed out. Just before I was to delete it in the computer, I went ahead opened in ACR and dropped down the exposure to normal. The image contained less detail than normal ISOs, but most importantly, very little noise. I must add that high contrast(direct light) images are far less forgiving as far as overexposure goes, so the low contrast(soft light) is a prerequisite. regards~Bill
I do not think Artie and Chas use high ISO's (mostly 200 & 400) and I plan to stay in that range as well, I keep data in all five boxes but stay low as possible on the ISO. Exposure theory is a game of trade offs and I use other compensating balances. Review Artie's APB bulletins on ISO's regarding his Canon camera.
I will put in an e-mail to Chas tonight about this too, I value his perspective.
Bob, ISO issues on the 7D are still being sorted out, I know owning one.
William, I do not overexpose my pictures, I might go as far right as possible but not over. I have a MacBook it does not support ACR. Thanks for the example but it has several variables - still good stuff as always my friend - well done.
TJ, hope you enjoyed the DoF info provided in this thread, using a 500MM at 12 feet allowed me to show the effects otherwise not seen in most images. The earlier info I provided was from "Shutter Bug" and Wildbird" publications. The longer the focal length and the closer the subject distance to the lens the less DoF. Read "Basic Techniques of Photography" An Ansel Adams Guide for more info in this regard in addition to Ed forum.
TJ my friend, did you read the entire article in your link? It was the same thing I mentioned in my messages above (smile), that is why I ask? Artie sayes, with his pro MKIII he likes to use 400 or lower ISO's. "My favorite MIII ISO is 400. In very bright sun I will sometimes drop down to ISO 320 or even 250",..." Another part in my thinking has to go with how much noise I am willing to deal with. As you can see, there are many complex factors involved in choosing an ISO setting".
Moreover the theme of this article IMO was to understand your ISO setting not just "crack er up" IMO, with exception he has used high ISO but that is not the general rule.
Just tasked with Chas and he say's not afraid to go 800 in low light and moving critters. Sharp images rule and trumps noise in the majority of all cases. Now, that might be on a pro bodies and I still maintain one can use flash or other variables as well when possible as an offset. So like most technical solutions the answer in the end is "IT DEPENDS".
Thanks to everyone for the great thread.
Last edited by Jeff Cashdollar; 11-27-2009 at 11:58 PM.
Totally agree with the "IT DEPENDS" and not just crank up the ISO when it is not necessary, and there are other variable that help (flash, tripod, etc), but my point is don't let your photo opportunity be limited by ISO ;)
Tufted Titmouse
Posting Permissions
