I too might be in situations of moving from perched to flying birds, or often (on migration) flying raptors that might be against a hillside one moment and the sky a moment later. It's important that they are correctly exposed - I can't stand shots of a silhouette of a bird against a blank sky, that often result from a camera being left to set the exposure, yet I never use exposure compensation. It's too much like being busy when I've got other things to be doing, such as getting the shot.I find all this very interesting. I'm now using the R7 with 100-500RF and my two dials are set up top dial shutter speed, front dial exposure compensation (because I often go immediately from perched bird below the horizon to flying bird/aircraft above it, on which I want some positive exposure comp: and, obviously, back again).
I rarely want to mess about with the aperture during a particular burst and am generally happy to let the ISO float.
John
I hear what you say, but what exposure measuring area are you using to set the exposure in the first place? If it's averaged across the entire frame, you will end up with a silhouette against the sky that you need to correct in PP or a dark image overall as you revert to below the horizon. If its centre-weighted or the image is very big in the frame you might get away with it I suppose.I too might be in situations of moving from perched to flying birds, or often (on migration) flying raptors that might be against a hillside one moment and the sky a moment later. It's important that they are correctly exposed - I can't stand shots of a silhouette of a bird against a blank sky, that often result from a camera being left to set the exposure, yet I never use exposure compensation. It's too much like being busy when I've got other things to be doing, such as getting the shot.
I simply do what I had to do when I first had cameras back in the days before automatic exposure and exposure compensation. I expose for the light falling on the subject, rather than the average light falling on the film or sensor (which is what happens if you leave it all to the camera computer). The advantage these days is that I can change the ISO, whereas with film cameras I couldn't, unless I used a different film speed for the next roll.
The light falling on the bird (or aircraft) doesn't change when it suddenly decides to fly above a skyline. It's lit by the same source, so the correct exposure doesn't change either. If the exposure was 1/2500 at ISO 1000 against the hill, then it's still going to be 1/2500 at 1000 if it flies up against the sky. That's why I shoot in Manual. I take an exposure based on the current light, for instance by pointing the camera at a patch of ground or grass lit by the same light. I set the shutter speed to what I want, given the likelihood of subject movement, and ISO to match (the aperture is probably wide open anyway and doesn't get changed) and away I go, shooting on those same settings until the light changes (eg a cloud in front of the sun), then I simply repeat the exposure test on a bit of grass or something of similar tone, and adjust the shutter or ISO accordingly until the sun comes out again. If the subject is going to be very light or dark, say an egret or a crow, then I make adjustments 'off the cuff' by reducing or increasing the exposure to avoid highlight or shadow clipping. No faffing about with exposure compensation mid-way through a burst required.
An example here: Two shots with the R7 of the same booted eagle on 1st September, 5 shots apart, in a sequence of 9 or 10. No time for messing about with dials as the bird passed and I was fighting to keep it in the frame in the high wind that is so common at Tarifa. I've left both shots uncropped and unedited to show the different average light falling on the scene. The first shot (99) has a large area of sky, the second (104) has a background of bushes, some in shade. No doubt the camera's light meter was screaming at me for the second shot to change the exposure, but they both have exactly the same settings of shutter speed, aperture and ISO and both are properly exposed, (give or take a bit of tweaking in post, that I haven't done here). The important thing is that whatever happens to the background, the light falling on the subject, and so the correct exposure, remains the same. No compensation adjustment required.
Whether you use spot, centre-weighted, evaluative or whatever, the old rule of thumb is to direct the camera light metre to an area that would appear mid-grey in tone in a monochrome image and that equates to the area of the frame covered by your chosen measuring area. A patch of grass is often quoted as being about the right tone, but that's only one example. If you've got no grass, choose something else of the same tonal value. The effect is to do what the camera auto settings are trying to do anyway, which is to present the area covered by your metre selection of choice, whether spot or full frame as a 'mid-grey', but once you've got your setting, you don't touch anything. You can leave it like that all day, as long as the light doesn't change, but if it does, you just change the settings to match the change in light, and again don't change them unless the light changes againI hear what you say, but what exposure measuring area are you using to set the exposure in the first place? If it's averaged across the entire frame, you will end up with a silhouette against the sky that you need to correct in PP or a dark image overall as you revert to below the horizon. If its centre-weighted or the image is very big in the frame you might get away with it I suppose.
If I don't use EP I can correct in PP but I get a better result if I don't have to, or have less far to go - and the aircraft photography community all favour "exposing to the right" when shooting against the sky. I find it easy to roll EP in and out on the front dial but then I do it a lot: I imagine each of us improves by practice in whatever we do!
Cheers
John
I have the R7 and my wife has an R5 with the 100-500. Her images are consistently far superior to any I have produced. In low light there is simply no comparison, the R7 struggles to focus and the images are sometimes okay if you don't crop at all. Her R5 just reached into a bush and pulled out images of a rare bird that my R7 couldn't even focus on.I use the R5, tc 1.4 and 100-500. Do I need an R7?
Colin
R7 photos in low light with high ISOs. 55° 15'N on the last day of October. ISO 5000, 4000 and 8000I have the R7 and my wife has an R5 with the 100-500. Her images are consistently far superior to any I have produced. In low light there is simply no comparison, the R7 struggles to focus and the images are sometimes okay if you don't crop at all. Her R5 just reached into a bush and pulled out images of a rare bird that my R7 couldn't even focus on.
R5 in crop mode will accomplish pretty much the same thing as an R7, only with much improved AF.
Those appear far sharper than any image I have obtained yet. Are they cropped?R7 photos in low light with high ISOs. 55° 15'N on the last day of October. ISO 5000, 4000 and 8000
They'll do me.
I particularly like this one.Hmmm.... I hear what you say and will try to make time to test it when I'm not doing anything important. Certainly I'm impressed with the detail drawn out on the Lanc shots because I know how hard it can be to get anything but black underneath that aircraft!
TYVM
John
The middle shot is uncropped, which is an extreme rarity for me. I was able to do it because the bird was very confiding and used to my presence.Those appear far sharper than any image I have obtained yet. Are they cropped?
Here's one of the best I've been able to manage, it is is nowhere near as sharp as yours.
1/1250, f5.6, 365mm, ISO 4000.
Another shot in dull conditions with the R7, taken this autumn on a particularly dull and wet morning after heavy overnight rain and a north-east wind, 28th October. A song thrush sheltering in a hedge, probably after arriving from the other side of the North Sea overnight (Denmark is the next land to the east from us, with Norway/Sweden to its north) with other migrants and taking advantage of its first landfall after the perilous crossing. The place was alive with recently arrived goldcrests and various thrushes.Those appear far sharper than any image I have obtained yet. Are they cropped?
Here's one of the best I've been able to manage, it is is nowhere near as sharp as yours.
1/1250, f5.6, 365mm, ISO 4000.
Well done with the starlings. Small and quick stuff isn't easy, especially on the approach. It makes a focus system really work hard.Some Brent Geese and Starlings at Cut Bridge in Hampshire the other week (one of my first essays with the R7 and the 100-500 instead of my old 100-400 Mk II) - nice conditions and some decent results, I think.
John
View attachment 1549716View attachment 1549717View attachment 1549718
Tend to forget that there is a state, to be honest, it’s all about the city. We did a New England road trip in 2019 and drove up through Vermont, almost to the Canadian border. Very close to New York State, obviously, so I bet the scenery is just as nice.A bit off topic but a question for you Britts, what first comes to mind when you hear "New York", The city or the state? What do you hear about the state?