Proposing a Bird Photographer's test standard for DSLRs

[Alan Stankevitz]

I'm sure many of you here have seen comparisons between various DSLR's found on the Internet. Typically however, these tests are taken in a studio at a subject or series of subjects that are framed identically. In other words, the photographer moves closer or farther to/from the subject to frame the subject identically. This will occur any time a comparison is done between a full-frame vs. cropped sensor.

In the world of a bird/wildlife photographer, we typically are unable to do this. We must shoot from a set distance -- a focal-length limited scenario.

How about a standardized test that would compare camera's taken from a set distance? This would seem to me, to be a more relevant test of a camera's capabilities for bird/wildlife photography.

Comments?

Alan

[allanrube]

I don't think there is a best. We have our favorites and for me the ergonomics are important. Also, lighting and flight/stationary would make a difference. If I shot a flying duck with my camera and then a Canon, there would be variables of the camera, particular shot, and operator profeciency.
I understand what you want but I do not think it could be done.
If you are interested in Nikon vs Canon af, or pro-bodies vs prosumer, you could ask people who have used both to give their impressions of each in conditions that matter to you.

[Roger Clark]

Standards...so many to choose from!

Actully, what you propose is already being done, e.g. see the thread:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=56394

Just like in the field, conditions vary, so testing with different conditions is valid, and that may lead to different but still valid results.

Roger

[Ian McHenry]

While rather unrealistic to get BIF identical flight paths it could be possible to emulate flight shots using a skeet shooting device, one person to fire off the skeets and another to take pix with different cameras.
Results could be interesting.
To me, and I believe from recent poll it's the performance of the AF which is top priority for bird flight photographers.
Ian Mc

[Desmond Chan]

How about a standardized test ...[snip]...of a camera's capabilities for bird/wildlife photography.

Comments?

Alan

Don't see any point there. We do not photograph under standardized environment, do we?

[Desmond Chan]

it could be possible to emulate flight shots using a skeet shooting device, one person to fire off the skeets and another to take pix with different cameras.

It would be interesting to see one that simulates the free flying of a swallow :)

[Roger Clark]

Don't see any point there. We do not photograph under standardized environment, do we?

While we don't photograph in standardized environments, standards are vital for establishing performance and if not for standards photography would be total chaos. For example, if no color standards, how would you be sure your color reproductions were accurate. Without ISO standards, how would you know your exposure? Standards are a vital need to establish performance. However, you are correct that a standardized environment may not simulate important conditions found in the real world. The most recent (photo) example is the 1D3 AF performance problems were found by users in the field. So in reality, both standardized testing and in the field experience are important.

Roger

[Desmond Chan]

[snip] a standardized environment may not simulate important conditions found in the real world.

That's my point.

I'm not against standards. We all go through stardardised tests throughout our lifetime. But some standards are pretty much not of much practical use. And I'm not sure why somebody would like to see more standards, rules and regulations, etc. when all one needs to do is to use the camera and take some photographs to find out.

Sure, if you want to know if "my-camera-is-better-than-yours", do the standardized test.

[Alan Stankevitz]

I realize that testing cameras for BIF photography is highly subjective and even with controlled conditions such as a skeet shooter, the photographer's own skills could greatly skew the results.

With that stated, I still think there are valid parameters that can be tested. I for one, do read camera reviews and I do look at sample images for resolution, noise, dynamic range and color rendition.

What I find frustrating however is that most camera reviews do not test cameras in focal-length-limited scenarios...something that I deal with every day I am photographing birds in the wild.

Depending upon the camera's crop factor, results can sometimes be surprising when identically framing an image taken with a 1.3x sensor vs. 1.6x sensor. Something that is rarely brought up in camera reviews.

To give an example, I have done a comparison between the Canon 5D Mark II, Canon 7D and Canon Mark III cameras photographing a bird from a set distance. Cropping the bird identically between all three cameras at 300ppi, has the 7D with the best resolution of all three cameras (no real surprise here) but noise levels are about equal to that of the 5D Mark II and 1D Mark III at all ISO settings. The reason for this has to do with the heavier cropping required by full-frame and 1.3x sensors.

Of course if I could walk up to the bird, the 5D Mark II would have the best resolution and lowest noise of all three cameras but photographing from a set distance makes for some interesting comparisons.

Alan

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Alan,

In order to exclude as many variables as possible, you probably would have to use some mock-up specimen with real feathers or a cooperative pet bird that is not moving too much.

[Alan Stankevitz]

Hi Axel,

Yup, and a smooth, blurred background of different colors to show background noise. Some kind of a test box that has a fair amount of depth would be required.

Alan

[Doug Herr]

You'd also need to account for the birds' reactions to the equipment. I've found that many birds are more wary of the larger entrance pupils of faster lenses.