4bcsmith wrote:
I too am new to photography and took a couple of courses at our CC as well. I'm a couple of years into it and having a blast! When deciding on which camera I wanted, my main consideration was the primary subjects I'm interested in shooting. I also knew that I would buy only one camera outfit (body, lenses etc.) and wanted a camera that I could graduate to as I learned more. In my case, my main interest is wildlife/birds/landscapes. Of course I want to photograph the usual stuff like portraits and family events, but just about any camera/lens can do that. For wildlife/birds I need a camera and lenses to capture animals in motion and birds in flight. Landscapes aren't as particular. Sports need a fast camera for runners and catching balls in action etc. After doing my research I decided on a Canon 7D Mark II. It is definitely more of a camera than I need, but it has so many possibilities and options that regardless of where my interest takes me in the future, I will have a camera that will accommodate just about anything I desire. I hope I've helped.
I too am new to photography and took a couple of c... (
show quote)
...if you can afford it....totally agree.
Going to Hawaii in 4 weeks. I think I will be challeneged to get anything close to the raw beauty in these photos. You know the photos have captured something when my first instinct wa s NOT to critique but just enjoy.... well done.
80D has slightly better IQ in low light. More focal points and an interval capability (time lapse work etc) and higher resolutuon (24 vs 20mp) Net: Is the 80D worth $200 more?
I have the 70D but would not sell it to upgrade. If I did not own either...I would try to get the 80D. I usually make a decision based on AF and low light capaility as the deciding factors...but thats me. 80D is better on both fronts but not enough to make me upgrade from 70D
Both will offer more capability than what you have now especially in video. The 70D was a gamechanger for video.
No bad choice here. If $ are a concern. Get a 70D refurb. Enjoy!
Digital1022 wrote:
Crazydadio
Does your 600mm have vibration reduction. I have used a Nikon 200-500 hand held to shoot pelicans in flight and as long as I had the shutter speed at 1/500 they were always tack sharp My ISO for those types of shots is generally 400 for morning light with average sun. I just don't understand why you would have to use a 1600 and such a high ISO unless you were in a very low light situation. I never had much success in shooting birds in flight from a tripod with any kind of head. I guess I am just not quick enough. If you have some form of vibration reduction, you might want to have the lens checked out. Just does not seem right. I would be curious to hear what you find.
Digital1022
Crazydadio br Does your 600mm have vibration reduc... (
show quote)
I will check into that. It does have OS (Sigmas VR/IS). Could be just practice since I dont shoot with it that much...at 150 no problem...500ss is fine. At 600mm, results are generally poor below 1200 and variable to 1600.
(And I rarely use a tripod unless its a stationary subject with long exposure. :-)
Ben's nana wrote:
Thanks for the compliments. I have a Nikon D750 and tamron 150-600. I did use tripod, worked well for the stills, but much harder to manipulate with following flight. I tried hand held but they were awful!
Thanks
Fran
...hence my question on shutter speed :-)
I found anything under 1600 at 600mm handheld was a crapshoot. 250 shutter on a tripod was fine. 1600 at 6.3aperature means high ISO or a really well lit subject. If you are not getting good results handheld....it may be ss...
My first L also....best value for price of any lens sold IMHO !
(Since bought the 4x more expensive 2.8ii for indoor but the F4 outdoor was fantastic! )
These look pretty sharp. At 500m and f6.3 and assuming you were at least 50ft away, you have almost 1ft DOF. Bird looks sharp all over to me. Your camera/lens/tele and shutter speed may be contributing more to any perceived lack of sharpness but to me, these are very good and zoomed in, I dont see any shake, just grain from the sensor. Well done ! (Did you use a tripod?what lens/body and what shutter speed? ....reason I ask is that I am guessing this is a Tamron or Sigma 150-600 which i own and always looking for some tips :-)
Have status with an airline so i board first and ensure my bag finds a home in the overhead. Fits in the 2x2 jets and the jumbos. Have over 12k of equipment in it . If they wont let me board with it...i wont fly. Got a scare heading to Guatemala when they said my bag was over the 22lbs limit for a carry on. (First time in 25years of flying they weighed my carry on !). In this case it was not my normal carrier but i was flying business class so i educated the attendant on their airlines allowances for bizclass and was able to board. (Know the rules). Thinking about pelican case now as that scare is waking me up...
Manual- anything that you need to take control of to get the artistry you are looking for in a photo.
Auto - when you are ok to let the latest technology decide for you.
With that definition:
Aperature (bokeh),
Shutter speed (blur/freeze/panblur/water-milk)
Iso - proper exposure when the light in the frame is bright to black
AF - not MF BUT selecting the kind of AF (spot mostly). Only need MF in low light where the technology is limited or you own a Sigma Art50mm 1.4 that cant focus on a Canon...lol
...and ETTL from flash....unless running and gunning....thats always manual.
Net: you can get lucky on auto and take great photos. But in manual you can choose to create the photo you want.
Auto technology will never be able to guess the artists intentions. ...yet...
texaseve wrote:
Have been in a light airplane and wind is very difficult as stated above. I would take an awesome point and shoot, like the Sony RX100V and enjoy the ride. July will find me on a boat watching a lava flow hopefully; not sure what I will use either.
Great camera. Only pro P&S that exists. Cost more then mid-range DSLR! Wife would kill me if I bought more gear. Have a bad case of GAS (gear acquistion syndrome). .... on 2nd thought... :-)
The ones you really like but are not sure how they got such a great picture are probably really well post-processed photos
Good post processing makes a good photo great. Bad PP usually makes a good photo look ..post processed :-)
98% Lightroom. 2% photoshop...and i usually need to have a youtube video running to get what I want done :-)
Photoshop is magical but unless you work in it every day, you will lose the skill....