Kingfisher munching a spider, Blackhawk & spider close up
Hello,
A mixed bag from this weekend. We took a trip to Moreton Island and I managed to grab this opportunistic shot of a Kingfisher munching on a spider. I’ve included a full frame image to show the size of the Kingfisher in the frame. Taken with the 400mm F5.6, 1/640s at F8 at ISO640 on full Auto – I was having a bad day!
The Blackhawk helicopter flying over Tangalooma took me by surprise. I accidentally set the Canon 7D to my Custom Setting C3, which I is set up for macro photography. Those settings are 1/250 sec, F11 and ISO100, not really appropriate for shooting fast moving choppers with a 300mm lens! Managed to get a little rotor blur as a result.
The spider was from our back garden today. I cropped the “fangs” at the centre of the full frame and I can just see the pair of grappling claws at the tips.
I've been looking at your images taken with the new 7D.Over the last few post you have done,How are you finding it?
I found your previous posts of wildlife/macro when you used the 40D better,these are good.But somehow do not have the crispness and depth
and just seem a tad washed out.I've had a look on different monitors and
they just appear not to quite have the ''Dennis Simions" magic,of previous times.I do hope you do not mind my observations.
The 7D does have more pixels, and smaller sensels - yes, more resolution, diffraction issues though rear their head imho @ f8 and above. Noise is also an issue too. Yes, sensel development can help improve the S/N ratio, but it can *only* do so much. I do think 12mp FF is about the realistic limit for resolution and noise performance imho. Nikon has it right with the D3s. Canon's new 1Dx is promising too, although it is 18mp vs the D3s 12mp.
Interestingly, myself, Troy & Andrew all came to similar conclusions today about a very well known macro photographer's images, who went from a 20D to a 40D 2 or 3 years ago. Said photographer will remain unnamed.
The 7D does have more pixels, and smaller sensels - yes, more resolution, diffraction issues though rear their head imho @ f8 and above. Noise is also an issue too. Yes, sensel development can help improve the S/N ratio, but it can *only* do so much. I do think 12mp FF is about the realistic limit for resolution and noise performance imho. Nikon has it right with the D3s. Canon's new 1Dx is promising too, although it is 18mp vs the D3s 12mp.
Interestingly, myself, Troy & Andrew all came to similar conclusions today about a very well known macro photographer's images, who went from a 20D to a 40D 2 or 3 years ago. Said photographer will remain unnamed.
Dave
Hi Dave-yes I have thought thst 10-12 mp is enough on crop sensors.Just to clarify my observation is not running Dennis's images down-these and the others from the 7D are of a high standard.My point was that I felt that when he use to post the images from his 40D and 400L /100 mm macro.They were better-they had more 'punch' and you felt OMG when you looked at them.
For example the image of Eastern Water Dragon eating grass hopper,and the macro images he posted around that time,were IMO of a standard that had far more impact on the viewer.I just wanted make that point clear-andnot get into trouble.
The newer cameras are far more complicated than a few years ago,they take time to learn how to manage.Jason (Kopati) mentioned he was having a learning curve to understand getting the best colours from his new 7D.
As an owner of a XXd and XXd camera.My next rung on the EOS ladder is a Xd either a 7D or or a 5D so,I have to make observations and engage in dialogue about such matters-the is not a critique of Dennis's fine images.
Quite a bit of variation there, Dennis. The blackhawk kinda looks out of place. When I read the title I assumed it was a hawk of the bird kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpastern
The 7D does have more pixels, and smaller sensels - yes, more resolution, diffraction issues though rear their head imho @ f8 and above. Noise is also an issue too. Yes, sensel development can help improve the S/N ratio, but it can *only* do so much. I do think 12mp FF is about the realistic limit for resolution and noise performance imho. Nikon has it right with the D3s. Canon's new 1Dx is promising too, although it is 18mp vs the D3s 12mp.
Interestingly, myself, Troy & Andrew all came to similar conclusions today about a very well known macro photographer's images, who went from a 20D to a 40D 2 or 3 years ago. Said photographer will remain unnamed.
Dave
For the record, I was talking about flash/lighting changes. I know he is using different camera these days, but I think it's more to do with lighting.
>snip
My point was that I felt that when he use to post the images from his 40D and 400L /100 mm macro.They were better-they had more 'punch' and you felt OMG when you looked at them.
For example the image of Eastern Water Dragon eating grass hopper,and the macro images he posted around that time,were IMO of a standard that had far more impact on the viewer.I just wanted make that point clear-andnot get into trouble.
In terms of the question “is the 40D better than the 7D”, this batch of photos are not suitable candidates for making that assessment. Taking the KF munching a spider, it is likely that I would not have attempted that shot with the 40D, as the bird would be too small in the frame. As already stated, the chopper was incorrectly exposed due to accidentally selecting my customised macro settings.
In the example that you quoted, the EWD series of photos in our back garden were taken under ideal conditions. I was able to fill the frame with the subject, the EWD was static, the lighting was good and the camera/lens was tripod mounted. In contrast, the KF was hand held, only fills a small part of the frame and being a bit of a flighty creature, there was little time to settle and prepare for the shoot.
In terms of my own “real world” experience, I have noticed that the 7D appears to return more detail under the more controlled conditions of macro photography. Some examples I have are of individual ants, eyes of flies and native bees; with the 40D, I was never pleased with the small apparent size of the ant, the lack of resolution in the fly eyes and the poorly resolved native bees. With the 7D, I have enjoyed better results in all of those departments.
There are also human factors involved. The 40D was my first serious DSLR and most of the photos I took with it were during my sabbatical where I could choose the best days and conditions to shoot under and had aeons of time to re-shoot the next day, thus putting the lessons learned into practice in a timely manner. By comparison, since my return to work, I have only dabbled so you may not be seeing the best that the 7D can produce.
Such comparisons can cover topics such as the technical specs, real world use and additional functionality of different bodies, so there are many variables to consider. You might choose the 7D over the 40D if you required increased functionality such as HD Video, built-in wireless flash control, 19 AF points with multiple configurations, more responsive AF, Quick Control menu, etc.
If the 19 AF points, fast AF and custom selection of AF points of the 7D is important, then the 7D certainly is an advance over the 40D. However, the 40D is no slouch and I still have it although it gets little use now compared to the 7D.
In terms of the question “is the 40D better than the 7D”, this batch of photos are not suitable candidates for making that assessment. Taking the KF munching a spider, it is likely that I would not have attempted that shot with the 40D, as the bird would be too small in the frame. As already stated, the chopper was incorrectly exposed due to accidentally selecting my customised macro settings.
In the example that you quoted, the EWD series of photos in our back garden were taken under ideal conditions. I was able to fill the frame with the subject, the EWD was static, the lighting was good and the camera/lens was tripod mounted. In contrast, the KF was hand held, only fills a small part of the frame and being a bit of a flighty creature, there was little time to settle and prepare for the shoot.
In terms of my own “real world” experience, I have noticed that the 7D appears to return more detail under the more controlled conditions of macro photography. Some examples I have are of individual ants, eyes of flies and native bees; with the 40D, I was never pleased with the small apparent size of the ant, the lack of resolution in the fly eyes and the poorly resolved native bees. With the 7D, I have enjoyed better results in all of those departments.
There are also human factors involved. The 40D was my first serious DSLR and most of the photos I took with it were during my sabbatical where I could choose the best days and conditions to shoot under and had aeons of time to re-shoot the next day, thus putting the lessons learned into practice in a timely manner. By comparison, since my return to work, I have only dabbled so you may not be seeing the best that the 7D can produce.
Such comparisons can cover topics such as the technical specs, real world use and additional functionality of different bodies, so there are many variables to consider. You might choose the 7D over the 40D if you required increased functionality such as HD Video, built-in wireless flash control, 19 AF points with multiple configurations, more responsive AF, Quick Control menu, etc.
If the 19 AF points, fast AF and custom selection of AF points of the 7D is important, then the 7D certainly is an advance over the 40D. However, the 40D is no slouch and I still have it although it gets little use now compared to the 7D.
Cheers
Dennis
Great points-very well articulated-(you should be a teacher,Dennis).
Can learn a great amount from this-thanks for taking the time to post this
Dennis.
