Gear choice upgrade for birds

[valmofab]

J'ai 7d 400 f5.6, sigma 500 f4.5, 5d3 Tamron 150 600 puis je suis passé au d500 500 pf ma femme r6 800 rf, je suis ensuite passé au xh2s 500 pf car je voulais aussi faire de la vidéo, ma femme est passée au r7 100 500 et aujourd'hui j'ai un z8 avec le 500 pf et je viens de passer au 800 pf.

Eh bien, si la vidéo n'est pas importante pour vous (pour la mise au point automatique), le meilleur pour la photographie d'oiseaux que j'ai trouvé est le xh2s 500 pf ou le z8 800 pf. Bien sur j'ai une préférence pour le z8 800 pf pour le bokeh mais je préfère le poids des xh2s et 500 pf. Il faut que la bague s'adapte.

J'ai aussi un a6700 que j'ai testé avec le 200 600 et c'est plus difficile pour moi d'avoir des photos nettes.

Les r7 et 100 500 ont un bon piqué mais un peu moins que les xh2s et 500 pf et le volet roulant n'est vraiment pas bon.

on peut aussi envisager le r6 ii avec le nouveau 200 800 Je pense.

Fabien.

 

[ricardo00]

Dynamic range is measured in stops, which is an exponential scale. Approximately a stop per sensor size change, meaning doubling. Two stop, quadrupling.

The dynamic range of a particular sensor will vary with ISO. Not sure how that fits in with the different sensor size?

 

[Nimi]

The dynamic range of a particular sensor will vary with ISO. Not sure how that fits in with the different sensor size?

The larger the sensor, the higher the DR and lower the noise across ISO ranges. Here for example are MFT, FF and LF sensors, all same generation, all manufactured by Sony. As you can see from the graph, cameras with small sensors apply in-body noise reduction at some point, similar to cell phones (triangle down).

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[ricardo00]

I decided that the next purchases for me would be full frame with a long zoom. Not in place of the OM-1 but to use in lower light conditions when weight isn’t an issue (perhaps wouldn’t travel with the heavier gear) Maybe a prime but personally might need it to be a zoom. The main thing is full frame. I had a tight timeframe I was under but that is no longer the case so can wait. But I’ve learned a lot during this process.

As mentioned in prior posts, you might rent a Z8 and 600mm PF (or the zoom) and try it before purchasing it? Everyone's choices and thought processes are different. I do know people who have one set of gear for traveling (ie. the OM system) and another to use around their home. Personally, I find it hard enough dealing with one of these complex cameras, can't imagine using two different sets of gear. But that is me. And if for example a Nikon is much better for low light and one is on a photographic excursion and has the OM system which isn't as good, what is the point of having the better gear at home? Anyway, good luck with your choices.

 

[tclune]

Dynamic range is measured in stops, which is an exponential scale. Approximately a stop per sensor size change, meaning doubling. Two stop, quadrupling.

But DX is half the size of FX, which would make the relationship between sensor size and dynamic range linear, which strikes me as more plausible.

 

[Nimi]

But DX is half the size of FX, which would make the relationship between sensor size and dynamic range linear, which strikes me as more plausible.

Nope.

When I described the decay in DR as exponential (as opposed to linear) I was generalizing for sensor sizes for the 3 or 4 commercially available photographic sensor sizes. About a stop per change in format. A stop is doubling, two stops is quadrupling, so a geometric sequence which is a subset (sort of) of exponential function (exponent is ^2). The algebraic reason is that the scale itself is a geometric, not a linear sequence.

Spefifically about DX/FX. The difference in dynamic range for a D850 for example, at ISO 400, is a about one stop when switching from FX to DX.

With modern sensors, the pixel size is not as important as the shear surface area of the sensor when it comes to noise and dynamic range. Larger sensors gather more light which in turns improves the signal to noise ratio, especially in the shadows.

Pixel size still matters when trying to discuss equivalency. A 3.36 micron sensor will exhibit worse noise than a 4.35 micron sensor. When you couple that with a physical sensor area difference of 400% you have a difference that cannot be compensated with optics or cleaning up in post.

 

[tclune]

@Nimi : DX is half the size of FX without regard to pixel count.

 

[Nimi]

@Nimi : DX is half the size of FX without regard to pixel count.

Actually a little less. 42%.

With geometric sequences you have to look past one interval to see that they are not linear because 1+1=1+1^2. For this discussion, you simply have to understand that stops, while measured at 1, 2, 3, etc actually depict a geometric not a linear relationship (2 stops is 2^2, etc).

 

[tclune]

For this discussion, you simply have to understand that stops, while measured at 1, 2, 3, etc actually depict a geometric not a linear relationship (2 stops is 2^2, etc).

I not only understand that: I also understand that area is not one-dimensional. Kirk out.

 

[Redive]

Nope.

When I described the decay in DR as exponential (as opposed to linear) I was generalizing for sensor sizes for the 3 or 4 commercially available photographic sensor sizes. About a stop per change in format. A stop is doubling, two stops is quadrupling, so a geometric sequence which is a subset (sort of) of exponential function (exponent is ^2). The algebraic reason is that the scale itself is a geometric, not a linear sequence.

Spefifically about DX/FX. The difference in dynamic range for a D850 for example, at ISO 400, is a about one stop when switching from FX to DX.

With modern sensors, the pixel size is not as important as the shear surface area of the sensor when it comes to noise and dynamic range. Larger sensors gather more light which in turns improves the signal to noise ratio, especially in the shadows.

Pixel size still matters when trying to discuss equivalency. A 3.36 micron sensor will exhibit worse noise than a 4.35 micron sensor. When you couple that with a physical sensor area difference of 400% you have a difference that cannot be compensated with optics or cleaning up in post.

Wow! Thank you for such a clear and intuitive explanation. Light bulbs going off in my head.

Mark

 

[StefanSC]

Pixel size still matters when trying to discuss equivalency. A 3.36 micron sensor will exhibit worse noise than a 4.35 micron sensor. When you couple that with a physical sensor area difference of 400% you have a difference that cannot be compensated with optics or cleaning up in post.

Having shot with various generations of m43rds, APS-C and FF cameras over the past 13 years, I must say that is true... in theory.

In practice, I've seen more often than not situations like this:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

An m43 shot at at ISO 3200 and FF sensor shot at ISO 12800, both at 1/30s, the ISO compensated via 2 stops of aperture and the FF downsized to match the height of m43rds one.
Both shot with the same equivalent FL, both ran through Adobe Denoise.

I'm seeing more impact from the color cast of the lenses, the T stop of the lenses and the way Adobe interprets the RAWs than from any particular sensor difference.

 

[Andrew Lamberson]

All that math hurt my tiny brain! My advice: Buy the lens you think you want and take a bunch of images. If they are "good" keep it, if not, return it and get lens choice #1 !!! Simple.

 

[orangecafe]

Hi Tom, I’ve got the OM-1 100-400. What would alleviate backbutton focus zeroing in on something other than the bird? ie Upon pressing, it is focusing on a branch or something else. Perhaps removing tracking and making sure the focus point is small and center. I’m still learning.

 

[Palmor]

Hi Tom, I’ve got the OM-1 100-400. What would alleviate backbutton focus zeroing in on something other than the bird? ie Upon pressing, it is focusing on a branch or something else. Perhaps removing tracking and making sure the focus point is small and center. I’m still learning.

Yes, use a smaller focus point to get through branches etc. Still use subject recognition but turn off the tracking, the consensus is that tracking on OM bodies just isn't good.

 

[orangecafe]

Yes, use a smaller focus point to get through branches etc. Still use subject recognition but turn off the tracking, the consensus is that tracking on OM bodies just isn't good.

Thanks so much.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Subject ID: Bird, C-AF no tracking.

The image needs to be properly exposed for the subject ID to work at its best. With my OM-1 100-400, I almost never find the rig focuses on something other than the bird and it usually finds the eye.

 

[ricardo00]

Subject ID: Bird, C-AF no tracking.

The image needs to be properly exposed for the subject ID to work at its best. With my OM-1 100-400, I almost never find the rig focuses on something other than the bird and it usually finds the eye.

Curious, why no tracking? If the bird takes off, no tracking?

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Curious, why no tracking? If the bird takes off, no tracking?

The subject ID will track the bird in the frame. Tracking predicts where the subject ID is.

Subject ID looks at the image and zeros in on the subject and eye. The OM-1 readout speed is fast enough to find and focus on a flying bird. Tracking and Subject ID and tracking don't work together. That's OM Systems recommendation anyhow.

Tom

 

[ricardo00]

The subject ID will track the bird in the frame. Tracking predicts where the subject ID is.

Subject ID looks at the image and zeros in on the subject and eye. The OM-1 readout speed is fast enough to find and focus on a flying bird. Tracking and Subject ID and tracking don't work together. That's OM Systems recommendation anyhow.

Tom

Thanks