Eurasian Magpies taken with cheap and pro lenses.
My new gear was stolen. It was Canon 7D mk II with 100-400 Canon lens. SO I have recollected the times I was only starting to take pictures of birds. I have had a crop sensor (Canon 650D) and a Sigma 70-300 lens on it.This lens provides an excellent picture despite being CHEAP by all measurements.
I was really amazed by quality of the pictures I could take with Canon 6D (Full frame) camera and this lens. The magpies themselves were posing quite dynamically and lack of that extra 100mm (300mm at the Canon 7D mk II) was really a problem. However I have been forced to keep closer to birds to fill the entire frame with them. This will lead to the conclusion later on!
I have used Canon 100-400 f4-5.6 L lens for more then a year now. I have been using it first with 650D and then upgraded to 7D mk II. And none of them were providing results that pleased me. (According to subjective impressions from at most "handheld shoots" of birds). Yes 7D mk II is a great camera. However it can not even compare to the quality of RAW files my old 6D provides.
Main reason is because it is still a crop! Best of the one's I have ever seen. But it's a
Again this is only subjective and in practice conclusions. However here are my results. I have been using 6D with the same Sigma lens (70-300) before buying a 6D camera on a 650D. (Mid range expensive Canon crop). And guess what. The results are similar if not identical in most cases. I do not include the picture taking capabilities. 7D mk II has much better autofocus system, faster (near double as fast) shutter speed and higher dynamic range. However this does not add amount of light that spills on the sensor. This means it all depends of the lens. I thought in time of buying the 7D mk II, and upgrading from 650D, that I could use those camera RAW files in their full resolution (like I do with 6D RAW's). But it did not work this way. I still did require to have entire image downsized at near of 2x because of either less usable ISO. Thing is in Canon 6D - ISO looks nicer throughout the range. Mostly because the lens is covering sensor that is greater in size then a cropped one, with near the same amount of megapixels (20 vs 20 - 6D vs 7D mk II). So the amount of light typical EF lens will provide is working "as designed" by the EF mount standard. Basically you are using all the "glass" size not only an "amount" of center of it's radius. This is extremely important. It means we use lens's "designed" light conducting capacity and in fact perceptual resolution. Because not only camera resolution matters, but lens has one to consider. And this leads to a conclusion that 7D mk II would have been much better camera with a new generation of 100-400 Canon lens. But thing is 6D would be much better this way too.
Main conclusion of this subjective thinking is:
- DO invest in better lens.
- DO invest in mastering photographing techniques. (more about this later on).
- DO NOT invest in greater and better body! (really do not listen to camera manufacturer's marketing! They tend to sell things that will not improve your final picture dramatically.)
Here are that previous day results:
Several days before that gear stolen I was walking the same place in the park and doing the same pictures with Canon 6D and 100-400 L lens. They were looking like **** because of the grey and foggy weather. Despite I have had a much greater lens. I was much farther from the birds (obviously because I have had a 400mm lens. So atmospheric conditions did do it's job.
Minor fog did reduce the image sharpness. I would have to use higher ISO number, because to keep handheld lens that is longer by 300mm is much harder, despite it has an image stabilisation. This is one of my best pictures taken that day...
The problem with Sigma 70-300 is that you are far from the objects. With sensitive to photographers movements objects, like birds, you have to use masking techniques. You have to behave "humanly": walk, talk to others, do not pay attention to birds at all (at least pretend this). Be a ninja! It's harder then buying a lens, however more rewarding. Main idea of this:
The problem with Sigma 70-300 is that you are far from the objects. With sensitive to photographers movements objects, like birds, you have to use masking techniques. You have to behave "humanly": walk, talk to others, do not pay attention to birds at all (at least pretend this). Be a ninja! It's harder then buying a lens, however more rewarding. Main idea of this:
- Just a few steps closer to the bird will make a much better picture. Thus making a 200 lens into 2000 lens. Really it's just a few steps difference.
Bad thing is that you usually do not have it with birds. But you can use tent's and blinds and some other great "hunting" hideout techniques. You could really have better pictures with that knowledge then with better lens.
Other way of improving final picture quality, besides buying a 5000$ lens of course, is holding it right. Most people try to keep the camera with long lens like a camera with a normal lens. And that's really not right! Long lens is potentially much more sensitive to shake then, say a wide is. thus having relatively steady hands is not an option. Just google the web for "Long lens holding technique". In general the main idea is for keeping the end of the lens steady laying on your elbow, while eye looks into a viewfinder. This technique makes "points of contact" more reliable. Thing is your fingers aren't. They muscles that are guided by your nervous system and they constantly fighting each other on where to pull to keep relatively in a steady position. Thus learning to keep the long lens "right" is more important then a Pro lens in a bag.
Anyway knowing all of those things Pro lens is great! It usually has image stabilisation systems, helping you to handhold it more steady and an eye blink quick autofocus. However those things are mostly exaggerated. Again:
Another nice tool worth mentioning is a DXO mark website. It has tests (more or less scientific) done for most of the common camera-lens combinations. Thus providing a "subjective" lens resolution parameter. Despite mostly criticised and stated to be "Nikon glorified" resource it provides an accurate enough picture of the lens resolution. It is called Sharpness and measure in perceptual megapixels.
Other way of improving final picture quality, besides buying a 5000$ lens of course, is holding it right. Most people try to keep the camera with long lens like a camera with a normal lens. And that's really not right! Long lens is potentially much more sensitive to shake then, say a wide is. thus having relatively steady hands is not an option. Just google the web for "Long lens holding technique". In general the main idea is for keeping the end of the lens steady laying on your elbow, while eye looks into a viewfinder. This technique makes "points of contact" more reliable. Thing is your fingers aren't. They muscles that are guided by your nervous system and they constantly fighting each other on where to pull to keep relatively in a steady position. Thus learning to keep the long lens "right" is more important then a Pro lens in a bag.
Anyway knowing all of those things Pro lens is great! It usually has image stabilisation systems, helping you to handhold it more steady and an eye blink quick autofocus. However those things are mostly exaggerated. Again:
- Holding lens right
- Selecting better weather conditions to shoot on
- Learning masking techniques (like hunters do)
Another nice tool worth mentioning is a DXO mark website. It has tests (more or less scientific) done for most of the common camera-lens combinations. Thus providing a "subjective" lens resolution parameter. Despite mostly criticised and stated to be "Nikon glorified" resource it provides an accurate enough picture of the lens resolution. It is called Sharpness and measure in perceptual megapixels.
That's most of the things i learned a "hard way". Hope this article helps someone to miss my mistakes.
Comments
Post a Comment