So what are you doing differently that lets you do that where others (experienced SX50 users) are struggling and giving up?
-
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 SX60HS in Action (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Neil
- Start date
So what are you doing differently that lets you do that where others (experienced SX50 users) are struggling and giving up?
Can't honestly remember the last time I took a shot using the SX50 that wasn't at full zoom with 2x converter (this is my default setting on start up)! With BIF, I differ in that I use the 'sports' mode (not that it improves things by much).
Cheers,
AndyM
birdboybowley
Well-known member.....apparently so ;)
I honestly don't know! Moved to the 60 from the 40 (never liked the 50 because of the shockingly bad evf) and never had any problems with it from the off
Tero
Retired
I just got the camera today. Shot some 170 pictures mostly AF. Did try the manual focus and leafed through the manual.
Since this is the main thread for the camera, I have to ask here:
What is the dial that is between the shutter and the shooting mode clearly marked dial?
http://www.gizmobeat.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/sx60-hs.jpg
It has no markings, does turn but does not seem to do anything.
It looks similar to the dial on the viewfier that I use to set the viewfinder for my eye.
Since this is the main thread for the camera, I have to ask here:
What is the dial that is between the shutter and the shooting mode clearly marked dial?
http://www.gizmobeat.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/sx60-hs.jpg
It has no markings, does turn but does not seem to do anything.
It looks similar to the dial on the viewfier that I use to set the viewfinder for my eye.
CalvinFold
Well-known member
On page 106 of the manual is the only reference to this dial, which oddly I've never used. Apparently it's to thumb-through images on the camera.
CalvinFold
Well-known member
Oh yeah, duh. Was trying to answer from work without the camera in front of me and the photo from the front threw me off. Yeah I do use that one all the time since I shoot in Shutter Priority and mess with shutter speed all the time. Good for quick fiddling with EV too.
For some reason was thinking of another camera where that dial is in front of the mode button.
The instruction manual apparently doesn't do good job of letting you look that button up easily.
This is what happens trying to be helpful with a mild headache...sorry about that.
Tero
Retired
This has been a long 24 pages so I don't know if this video came up yet, but the SX50 video has been handy for me. The dial around the back main "wheel" is now in the other dial I mentioned above, behind the shutter, for SX60.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh3567vQQVY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh3567vQQVY
Last edited:
CalvinFold
Well-known member
Some recent photos:
Photos are shot in:
Post-processing in Photoshop using the following filters/plugins in this order:
Typical workflow on a keeper photo (after pre-sort in Adobe Bridge) is:
Other info:
- American Shovelers and American Avocets at 65m
- Eurasian Wigeon (male) + Northern Shoveler (female) at 85m
- American Coot + Common Goldeneye, female
- Common Merganser, female
- Ridgway's Rail at 15m
- Northern Harrier (female) at 80m
- Northern Harrier (female) at 130m
Photos are shot in:
- high-resolution JPEG, minimum compression
- -2/3 EV
- various shutter speeds (usually around 1/650)
- Shutter priority mode
Post-processing in Photoshop using the following filters/plugins in this order:
- Adobe Camera RAW
- Topaz DeNoise
- Topaz Clarity (usually "Fur & Feathers I" preset)
Typical workflow on a keeper photo (after pre-sort in Adobe Bridge) is:
- Open JPEG and save to PSD
- Covert base layer to Smart Object
- Apply Camera RAW adjustments
- Pre-crop image of any elements I don't want, to center/align subject, and otherwise pre-compose the image
- Re-size (scale) image
- Apply Topaz DeNoise on image if needed
- Apply Topaz Clarity (note that I do not use Clarity in the Adobe Camera RAW filter, nor do I use any Sharpen filters, Topaz Clarity does this so much better)
- Final crop to meet 1024x900 BirdForum requirements
- Use Legacy Export and adjust JPEG settings to come in under 500 MB file size maximum
Other info:
- Percentage of reduction is usually 25%, 33%, or 50% of original size; these fixed percentages make it easier to remove sensor noise if needed
- Photoshop filters applied using Smart Object layers.
- I use RAW under very specific circumstances, none of these started as RAW.
- I use flash under rare circumstances, and a "better beamer" under even more limited circumstances (and none of these use either)
Last edited:
Cracking range of photos.
Rich
Rich
Could you post a "raw" version of some of these images? I always wonder how much the post-processing adds to the final result.
CalvinFold
Well-known member
I agree, I should because I've posted photos to my gallery that looked quite bad off the camera but were reasonably salvageable. And some were simply "better" because I routinely use post-processing.
I'll try to look for examples. I've been meaning to do this for a while, so it may yet be a while again, but I'll try to keep it top of mind. :t:
It should be noted too that even professional photographers with the fanciest gear often post-process. I've seen lovely photos in the galleries here on nice gear that my eye says could have been a bit better with a little nudge. I've seen photos in the galleries that needed severe help, but realized they could have been alot nicer in skilled hands.
So post-process is not evil or cheating; but I will agree that most small sensors cameras "need" post-processing (and clever camera setup) to get really good photos. DSLR vs. an SX60 in the same hands with similar settings will simply be better (or at least more salvageable) from the DSLR all things being equal. That's just the tradeoff when using inferior optics and sensors; is what it is.
CalvinFold
Well-known member
These aren't my best examples of before-and-after, and they still use a couple tricks, but these show the effect of using filters like Camera RAW adjustments, denoise, and sharpening.
Also, these two examples didn't need as much "help" as some of my photos.
I'll get better examples in the future.
You'll note some slight color differences, and to me those are acceptable because they are the colors I saw, not the flatter colors from the camera.
Also, these two examples didn't need as much "help" as some of my photos.
I'll get better examples in the future.
- Ducks & Avocets: Before
- Ducks & Avocets: After
- Say's Phoebe: Before
- Say's Phoebe: After
You'll note some slight color differences, and to me those are acceptable because they are the colors I saw, not the flatter colors from the camera.
Attachments
CalvinFold
Well-known member
Here are some bit better examples, which show the rescuing of photos from the muddy shadows:
On the blackbird, pay close attention to the chest and body feathers which go from being muddy to having a bit more detail.
The Kinglet was a great save for me...good details available and the lighting didn't look flat or artificial; the lighting was early morning and a bit hazy.
- Red-Winged Blackbird: Before
- Red-Winged Blackbird: After
- Ruby-Crowned Kinglet: Before
- Ruby-Crowned Kinglet: After
On the blackbird, pay close attention to the chest and body feathers which go from being muddy to having a bit more detail.
The Kinglet was a great save for me...good details available and the lighting didn't look flat or artificial; the lighting was early morning and a bit hazy.
Attachments
Thanks.
The 2nd set of photos show clear improvement after PP. The first one... I like the out of camera Ducks & Avocets better
The Say's Phoebe has a nicer background after PP (denoising?).
The 2nd set of photos show clear improvement after PP. The first one... I like the out of camera Ducks & Avocets better
The Say's Phoebe has a nicer background after PP (denoising?).
CalvinFold
Well-known member
Hey, that's fine by me. :t:The first one... I like the out of camera Ducks & Avocets better
That's the "art" part of photography and what the mind's eye of the photographer sees. I generally have two goals in mind duding PP:
- Restore the color, contrast, and overall lighting back to what I saw in the field. Either because of the camera, or because of my settings, the images straight off the camera are often a little flat and dull. I'm sure the -2/3 EV plays a part here, as does the small sensor and limited aperture at zoom.
- Show off the details as long as it doesn't affect the depth/contrast/curve of the photo, and it doesn't look artificial. It's a balance between seeing feather details and looking like I tried to use an electron microscope. :eek!: But I do shoot high shutter speeds to capture details, so not going to waste it.
Basically I try to never induce to the photo that which wasn't already there when I took the photos. I'm only trying to compensate for the deficiencies of the camera and my own photography skills. |
|
Last edited:
