Astroscope + DSLR = Gallery! (1 Viewer)

[Tord]

Made a detour for a quick visit to this reserve with a unique habitat consisting of flooded meadows. There was plenty of water which is good, attracting many waders. The peak usually occurs during second half of May, this year everything is ahead of schedule.

 

[JGobeil]

Made a detour for a quick visit to this reserve with a unique habitat consisting of flooded meadows. There was plenty of water which is good, attracting many waders. The peak usually occurs during second half of May, this year everything is ahead of schedule.

Nice photos. You're lucky, here the season is 3 to 4 weeks behind...

 

[Richardmg9]

Tord, I really like your super low shots! In my area, trying this is asking to eaten by an alligator : /

 

[DanC.Licks]

True, it is always good to get onto roughly the same level as your subjects. I wish my back would understand that!

 

[Tord]

True, it is always good to get onto roughly the same level as your subjects. I wish my back would understand that!

Have you tried these lightweight back supports, reminding of a chair without legs? Essentially a seating pad and a back rest, articulated joint and adjustable straps so the angle can be optimized to fit your preference.

 

[Tord]

Tord, I really like your super low shots! In my area, trying this is asking to eaten by an alligator : /

Thanks Richard! Only species that would eat me here are mosquitoes (we have many of them at places, but it is still too early in season).

Sharing some more pictures from today, taken at same level as bird eye. The Skylark and Meadow Pipit were a bit tricky to get clear shots of, always on the move and more often concealed than not.

TS102 and EM-5, it was overcast and had to push the ISO.
The Sedge Warbler is with EC14 added.

 

[Paul Corfield]

Nice pics Tord. The noise is the one thing that stopped me going micro 4/3.

Paul.

 

[JGobeil]

Nice pics Tord. The noise is the one thing that stopped me going micro 4/3.

Paul.

Paul,

In order to have less noise, one has to go full frame. All the serious M43 reviews will confirm that. Then you loose the crop factor and you have to add a lot of weight. It is a matter of choice and priorities.

I find that noise is easy to control in post-processing most of the time and I don't consider it to be a problem.

I have experience with Olympus OM-Ds, both EM-5 and EM-1. IMO, their weakness is not noise but focusing. Focus can be difficult at times in tough situations like multi layered images. Also, although improved on the EM-1, focus on BIF is still so-so.

Regards
Jules

 

[DanC.Licks]

I picked up a good used 5D MkII "tank" last fall thinking that it would be far superior to the E-M1 in terms of noise etc. I isn't! It is more disturbing, blotchier, and only slightly better at higher ISO settings. E-M1 noise is very fine grained and far less obtrusive. In spite of its great AF (compared to Oly) I sold it. FF is not for me, unless someday I get a big white monster, which doesn't seem likely. Then I would get a 5DIII, or the 7D II if it ever makes it onto the market. I bought a D7100+80-300 VR for the same money as the Canon body, which I will get tomorrow. I expect it to be somewhat better than the E-M1 in terms of noise and DR, with roughly the same resolution (pixel pitch) and it will give me a chance to really compare the 7100 with the E-M1 on the scope. I am very curious about that. The EVF sometimes drives me crazy and I often feel the disadvantages out-weigh the advantages.
FF is not for us!....unless you want to carry the extra weight and have a 3" focuser etc.....

 

[Paul Corfield]

I can go to ISO 3200 on my Nikon D3300 and not have to worry about the noise. It's small for a dslr and the crop factor is 1.6X. Personally I do find the noise on the m4/3 images obtrusive because it is so uniform across the image. Something I'm glad of now is virtually no post processing for the images I post on here.

Paul.

 

[Paul Corfield]

An example of ISO6400 with the D3300 on a murky morning with a 2.5X TN. Noise still isn't too bad for high ISO. No noise has been removed from the image and the Nikon RAW editor doesn't remove any either. There's not even a slider for noise removal in the Nikon RAW editor but apart from that I like the software.

Paul.

 

[Tord]

That Robin is looking good, Paul.

Is it the noise on the more or less uniform background that bothers you? I did not bother about applying any noise reduction when developing.

(and maybe we are deviating from the original purpose of this thread)

 

[Paul Corfield]

This thread always deviates, the other day it was all about methods for shooting low to the ground etc. I don't mind that, certain photos are going to prompt a discussion.

But yeah, if I owned a camera costing what the m4/3 ones do then I wouldn't be happy with the noise levels at low ISO. For me it would be like going back in time 10 years to my first dslr noise levels.

Paul.

 

[JGobeil]

... But yeah, if I owned a camera costing what the m4/3 ones do then I wouldn't be happy with the noise levels at low ISO. For me it would be like going back in time 10 years to my first dslr noise levels.

Paul.

I remember the Canon 10D that I bought in 2003, which was considered state of the art at that time. I also remember the noise levels - maximum ISO was 1600, 3200 on extended mode... If I remember well, at 3200 you could barely see the bird in the snow storm !

 

[Paul Corfield]

My first dslr back in 2005 was a budget brand Samsung GX-1L and at ISO800 the photos are very similar to ISO1000 in Tords images. Now I can shoot at ISO6400 and have photos that look better than my old ISO800 images, I can keep the TN on and still get decent speeds on dark days. In the past there were always compromises to make in various situations but that's not the case anymore.

Paul.

 

[DanC.Licks]

Damn good for ISO 6400 from a "crop" sensor!

 

[Tord]

I realize I have by inadvertance used less appropriate sharpening parameters when processing the full size output JPEG in ImageMagick, which has negatively impacted the noise visible on uniform backgrounds. Attached are equivalent crops, now exported to JPEG 1024 x 768 and LightRoom "standard screen sharpening" applied. (no noise reduction has been applied, and no further processing after LR)

For some reason I haven't found out yet the colors are slightly different, but anyhow I believe these are fair samples.

@Paul - would you mind sharing some photos having similar large uniform backgrounds?

 

[Paul Corfield]

I realize I have by inadvertance used less appropriate sharpening parameters when processing the full size output JPEG in ImageMagick, which has negatively impacted the noise visible on uniform backgrounds. Attached are equivalent crops, now exported to JPEG 1024 x 768 and LightRoom "standard screen sharpening" applied. (no noise reduction has been applied, and no further processing after LR)

For some reason I haven't found out yet the colors are slightly different, but anyhow I believe these are fair samples.

@Paul - would you mind sharing some photos having similar large uniform backgrounds?

Probably be Monday now as I will be away for a couple of days, got to go and sign a load of prints today and then staying away the rest of the weekend with the family. I should think on my camera that ISO3200 to ISO6400 would produce similar results to yours.

Paul.

 

[DanC.Licks]

The problem with NR is that it always kills some detail. I would rather have a little "noise/grain" than have a smeared picture. Grain was never such a bother in film days, after all. We have become somewhat allergic to it.
One thing you can do is use layers in PS, one for de-noise, and one for detail, and by selectively combining them with the eraser, you can keep all the detail you want in the bird and smooth out the background. You can also come close using adjustment brushes in LR. Just have to play around with them a bit. The short of it is that I still prefer the first version of the LYJ (little yellow jobbie) to the LR version.

 

[PM01]

Maybe that would help, but still the length would be same.

Tried the spotting scope + DSLR adapter today. Got the perspective I wanted, but the IQ is sub-par. Must have forgotten how superior IQ the astroscope deliver.

Spotting scopes won't have the IQ of your astroscope. Spotters usually have a pentaprism or some sort of other prism inside. Baader prisms, considered the best among the astro crowd, still lose detail. Best thing to use if you need a different angle is a 90 degree Maxbright or some other dielectric prism. The ones from Astro Physics and Televue are excellent. Other brands are iffy on their quality control and flatness of the dielectric blank.