I've found that the vast majority of birders' distance estimation is horrendous. My rule of thumb is to take half the distance that most people quote and that is generally closer to the truth :-O.
That first Red Grouse shot is fantastic by the way!
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Canon SX50 Specs (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Roy C
- Start date
I've found that the vast majority of birders' distance estimation is horrendous. My rule of thumb is to take half the distance that most people quote and that is generally closer to the truth :-O.
That first Red Grouse shot is fantastic by the way!
Wildmoreway
Well-known member
Thank you, a reasonable distant shot then, so it should be ok for shots of them in the middle of a bed of nettle (without you going there and getting stung) and it should also be possible to get shots of Purple Hairstreaks in trees.
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
I thought exactly the same but did not like to say anything. A Grouse at that distance would be nothing more than a very tiny dot even at 2400mm.
It could be that Chris meant 300 feet.
Roy, this request might run against the grain, because it is clear that you like the images you post to be as good as poss, but do you think that you could just post a couple of before and after shots wrt processing with an editor?
It might inspire some of the laziest of us, like me, to invest in software, learning and practice to get better images.
David
It might inspire some of the laziest of us, like me, to invest in software, learning and practice to get better images.
David
crazyfingers
Well-known member
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
David, I have not shot much at all with the SX50 and have not really done that much photo editing on any of the shots so have nothing to show you from the little Cam.
Attached is an extreme before and after example just for fun, the shot was not taken with the SX50 but gives you an idea of what can easily be achieved. When editing photos it is widely accepted that removing minor elements such as stray branches etc is perfectly in order and all part of the work-flow. BUT for extreme makeovers like this I would always declare the amount of clutter that has been removed.
What is not acceptable, unless you declare it, is adding elements to an image - here I have toned the bland white background as a bit of fun.
BTW I do not claim to be anything more than average when it comes to photo editing - there are far better editors than me out there but this gives you an idea of what can be achieved.
Attachments
Last edited:
Wildmoreway
Well-known member
I think that you are seriously understating your photo editing skills Roy. You are a much better editor than quite a few of the the so called "experts" and modest with it :t: 
goodallian
Well-known member
I think that you are seriously understating your photo editing skills Roy. You are a much better editor than quite a few of the the so called "experts" and modest with it :t:
I couldn't agree more!
I haven't a clue just how this amazing "make-over" was achieved with this Fieldfare.
Where do you start Roy??
Ian
Thanks for correcting that. 175 yards is still a long way. Any chance you could show us the one you took at 400 yards? It should be pretty fuzzy, but I'm still interested in what it can do at that distance.
I'm interested in how well this camera does with fringing. My old Canon S3IS was ok except with bright white birds, and then there was red fringing.
I remember one shot of a Black-winged Stilt from perhaps 100m, and the bottom half of the bird was entirely red. An unusable shot, even by my low standards.
Has anyone taken any shots with the SX50 where there was bad fringing? And if it's improved over the S3, how have they done it? Better lens or just software?
I remember one shot of a Black-winged Stilt from perhaps 100m, and the bottom half of the bird was entirely red. An unusable shot, even by my low standards.
Has anyone taken any shots with the SX50 where there was bad fringing? And if it's improved over the S3, how have they done it? Better lens or just software?
By 'fringing' are you referring to chromatic aberration?
I don't see a lot of it.
This isn't a bird pic, but on Google Earth it is approx 9000 ft by the ruler. Cropped.
ETA to about where I think the people are.
http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp275/dble_photo/IMG_2317monkstonecrop_zpsb1fb1a37.jpg
David
I don't see a lot of it.
This isn't a bird pic, but on Google Earth it is approx 9000 ft by the ruler. Cropped.
ETA to about where I think the people are.
http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp275/dble_photo/IMG_2317monkstonecrop_zpsb1fb1a37.jpg
David
crazyfingers
Well-known member
Do you mean the purple edge that you get in areas of high contrast? I don't recall the technical name.
There is a lot of that in this old up-skirt shot of a hawk I took with my old Nikon superzoom.
I don't see anywhere near as much with the Canon but I'm told that others notice it.
Attachments
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
The SX50 can give very bad CA (at least compared to a decent DSLR set-up) in some high contrast situations but it is easily corrected in post processing.
It was just the same with the SX40 and from what I have seen most of these small sensor Cameras - this is a trait of the lens which is understandable when you consider the low cost of these Camera's.
I have no experience of any other small Camera but if CA has been 'improved' in various models I would suspect that it has been done by in-camera software.
pooleparrot
Ian Ballam
kennethwfd
Well-known member
I have EOS utility & DPP which came with my 550d, so is this software compatible with the sx50. Still on Win XP, but connecting a new camera brings up the "Found new hardware" balloon then confirmation that "your new hardware is ready for use" Have you seen this?
sometimes turning the camera off and on again makes the computer recognise it.
Or purchase a card reader. This will appears as removable dirve whatever in my computer
sometimes turning the camera off and on again makes the computer recognise it.
Or purchase a card reader. This will appears as removable dirve whatever in my computer
Last edited:
