Yeah, it looks bad ‘ooh the noise is higher’ but what that graph doesn’t say is what that noise actually means, what it looks like and wether or not it’s acceptable to you.

I agree with that sentiment for most photography, especially with how good software is getting at dealing with noise. But, it can destroy all feather detail and is hard to recover and with how cloudy the UK can be or being in woods, having a high shutter speed and well stopped down to get a workable depth of field on a telephoto, you run in to high iso very quickly

Posted 1 month ago

“Also shoot raw and learn how to process. You’ll be amazed how much information is hiding in that flat looking image.”

I’d like to do this, I even have the Adobe stuff bundled on my computer. I’ve opened it up and don’t know where to start. Googling takes me to Youtube videos of shouty Americans and I end up learning nothing. Is there a “learn how to process for Dummies”? I have lots of those “flat looking image(s)” above.

Posted 1 month ago

@smiffy there is an Adobe Lightroom for Dummies publication iirc

re RAW processing in particular you could do worse than this instructable re Adobe Camera Raw:

https://www.instructables.com/A-Complete-Beginners-Guide-to-Raw-Files-And-Raw-Pr/

Posted 1 month ago

Monopod or tripod (or a tripod where one leg screws off to become a monopod)
Big glass with a low F stop number at its longest length for good image separation and fast shutter speeds.

In most other type of photography I’d say pixel count is pretty meaningless unless you are printing great big physical prints but wildlife maybe different – no one needs a 48mb image but it does allow you to heavily crop and still have a printable 16mb image (or whatever) left afterwards.

Then there’s a very fast (and intelligent) auto focus and a high fps (number of shots you can take per second) to help you capture that perfect shot.

And a re-mortgage follows shortly after if you go too far down that rabbit hole!

Posted 1 month ago

thanks. I shall have a play.

Posted 1 month ago

Bit of a thread-Jack but…

@smiffy that instructables @p7eaven linked to is pretty good.

Also try lightroom Queen https://www.lightroomqueen.com/

Importing into lightroom is one step where I have a few minor things automated:
rename files with a custom name and sequence
store in folders named by year, Month, and date
tag with things relevant to the shoot
apply a color preset e.g. adobe landscape.

That last step often gives sufficient effect that the only other step needed for some pictures is to remove any blown bits and crop and straighten. I only started poking the color presets last year after playing with them.

Then it’s into the library, on to last import, and ‘x’ or ‘p’ to rapidly unpick or pick the pictures based on obvious flaws or features.

Then Develop filtered for ‘picks’ for any further tuning. I give star ratings here to photos of ‘merit’.

now I’m adding an export to jpeg step at the end so ‘nice’ versions are shareable

OP. Like folks say, MPs aren’t all that. forget digital zoom. Instead get closer or get a bigger and fast lens.

Posted 1 month ago

OP. Like folks say, MPs aren’t all that. forget digital zoom. Instead get closer or get a bigger and fast lens.

Thanks! I’ve had a word with my ex boss to see what he uses. He gets some stunning wildlife & has had a fair bit published in magazines. I think getting closer is the key, that’s what he does & doesn’t mind paying for guided photoshoots, he’s using a Canon D500 with a 200-400 lens.
For instance..

Posted 1 month ago

Some excellent images here.

“Surely the crop factor isn’t a greater zoom, it’s just less image. Extrapolating this, you could get a compact camera with a sensor the size of a pinhead and photograph Jupiter.”

Seems to be some confusion about crop factor; I would suggest reading this for clarity:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/understanding-crop-factor

Posted 1 month ago

Thanks! I’ve had a word with my ex boss to see what he uses. He gets some stunning wildlife & has had a fair bit published in magazines. I think getting closer is the key, that’s what he does & doesn’t mind paying for guided photoshoots, he’s using a Canon D500 with a 200-400 lens.

Whilst you may be correct, that is a slightly odd set up – a 12 year old base level camera (assuming you mean a Canon 500d) and an £11k lens…Maybe a Nikon D500?

But anyway – getting closer is great, with the crucial caveat that the wildlife is not disturbed in anyway. Unfortunately it is often hard to know how disturbed the animal is until it suddenly sees you and buggers off.

Well set up photo hides are a great way of getting good images though.

Posted 1 month ago

I think it’s probably like fishing. You have to enjoy hanging about in nature waiting for stuff to happen, and fine-tuning your kit. The results are a bonus.

Posted 1 month ago

Whilst you may be correct, that is a slightly odd set up – a 12 year old base level camera (assuming you mean a Canon 500d) and an £11k lens…Maybe a Nikon D500?

No, I was just talking complete bollox. He’s actually using a Canon 7D MK2 a a 100-400 lens. I’d had a drink earlier & had been talking to someone about Nikons, & all the model numbers confuse me!! Haha!

Posted 1 month ago

Canon R7 announced today looks a fantastic value proposition for action/wildlife

Posted 1 month ago

No, I was just talking complete bollox. He’s actually using a Canon 7D MK2 a a 100-400 lens. I’d had a drink earlier & had been talking to someone about Nikons, & all the model numbers confuse me!! Haha!

Ah, that makes a lot more sense, and is a very decent starter wildlife set up. The 7d suffers in terms of iso performance but is available second hand pretty cheaply. The 100-400 mk2 is a great lens, with good reach on a crop body like the 7d.

Yeah, that R7 does look very decent value – the latest focus and tracking technology is amazing.

Posted 1 month ago

And a re-mortgage follows shortly after if you go too far down that rabbit hole!

Just been chatting to a guy with a Canon R5 & some top whack 600 lens, at Cley Marsh, Norfolk. Must’ve been £12K+ worth. Then he had a 3K scope too.
His shots of the Curlew Sandpiper were outstanding.

Posted 1 month ago

quick half hour with the Local Peregrines tonite

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2nopUp7]Peregrine[/url] by robb d, on Flickr

[url=https://flic.kr/p/2nojsbQ]Peregrine[/url] by robb d, on Flickr
[url=https://flic.kr/p/2nopGkv]Peregrine[/url] by robb d, on Flickr

Posted 1 month ago

Great shots @mav12!
What’s your kit?
I’m still deliberating.

Posted 1 month ago

What’s your kit?

If you click his name under the photos it will take you to his flickr and shows you the camera, lens, focal length and settings for each photo

Posted 1 month ago

Sony a7iii Sony 200-600

how much are you planning on spending

Posted 1 month ago

I picked up a canon R6 just before Christmas, the eye tracking AF is great. I’ve used it to track my wee boys behind bushes.

I’ve paid it up with canon EF 17-40 f4, 70-200f4 and a 300f4. I got the 17-40 and the 300 used. And have had them both for a good few years now. I’m assuming the native RF lenses are betterer but I’ve no issues with the EF lenses which can be picked up used.

Posted 1 month ago

Just been chatting to a guy with a Canon R5 & some top whack 600 lens, at Cley Marsh, Norfolk. Must’ve been £12K+ worth.

With the emphasis on the ‘+’…

It will produce some beautiful shots though, and carrying it will keep you fit!

Posted 1 month ago

how much are you planning on spending

Probably not enough, although Iv’e seen some 7Dmk2 bodies on Fleabay for between £550-700 & Canon EF100-400 lenses for similar.
So may stretch to £1300-1400 used.
I wouldn’t/couldn’t buy new!

Posted 1 month ago

If you know what you are after, usedlens.co.uk is good as it searches all the main secondhand outlets

Posted 1 month ago

i would go for the sigma 150-600 used over the canon 100-400 much better lens.

Posted 4 weeks ago

Just watched a youtube video that reminded me of this thread. The talk at the end of cropped sensors and long lenses- maybe useful?

Posted 5 days ago

Has anyone said zoom in the glass not in the pixels (or something like that) yet?

To do a 2x zoom / crop and expand digitally and get the same image quality, you’ll need 4 time the pixels (3x >> 9x and so on).

And as stated earlier each of those pixels will be in itself lower quality.

Optical zooms ain’t perfect (prime is nice, but harder to work with) but is normally better than digital zoom.

Or in other words there won’t be much improvement in your zoom / crop quality at 24mp as opposed to 16mp.

Posted 5 days ago

@ctk Ooh – I’ll watch that tomorrow, thanks.

Posted 5 days ago