• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

The 7D has landed!!! (1 Viewer)

Roy C

Occasional bird snapper
I did that originally as well. But missed the flexibility of increment iso. So went back to using them and I have to say I am seeing no problems with it at all (Im very criticial of my own work and would be the first to complain if I could see any camera related issues on my photos.)
This was at iso2000 which is an increment.
To be quite honest Pete, I have always set my on full stops because I can judge the exposure better, I almost always shoot in manual and by using full increments I know the correlation between ISO, aperture and shutter speeds is double or half if you know what I mean.
It all stems back from using ISO 400 and f5.6 on my previous lens for so much of the time, I could judge the shutter speed needed for the ambient light and tone of the bird off-pat.When I go out know I can judge that the ambient light (at 18% grey) for ISO 400 and f5.6 is, for example 1/800 sec, so if I am shooting at f8 I know I need 1/400 sec. similarly if I am shooting at ISO 800 at f8 I know I would need 1/800 sec - my little brain could not coup with 1/3 increments ISO's :-O
 

Islandergirl

Well-known member
Just thought I would update you re my 7D. I returned it to the suppliers and they sent me out another one. The difference is fantastic. I have been trying it out over the past couple of weeks and am very pleased with it. I knew the original one was faulty and am so pleased I returned it.
 

Nikon Kid

Love them Sula Bassana
Just thought I would update you re my 7D. I returned it to the suppliers and they sent me out another one. The difference is fantastic. I have been trying it out over the past couple of weeks and am very pleased with it. I knew the original one was faulty and am so pleased I returned it.

I must have missed it some where in the thread, what was wrong with your 7d ?
 
Last edited:

senatore

Well-known member
Remembered yesterday to follow Tim's advice ( make sure you've got a fast speed dialled in to counter any negative effect the high pixels might have).Had to dial in ISO 1600 for this shot to get a fast speed which was new ground for me never going above ISO 800 with the 40D.Quite pleased with the result.

Max.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4598A (Large).jpg
    IMG_4598A (Large).jpg
    133.5 KB · Views: 195

hampers

Hampers
I'd be happy just seeing one like this, I like the image, shutter speed does seem to be a significant factor.

Phil
 

GYRob

Well-known member
Remembered yesterday to follow Tim's advice ( make sure you've got a fast speed dialled in to counter any negative effect the high pixels might have).Had to dial in ISO 1600 for this shot to get a fast speed which was new ground for me never going above ISO 800 with the 40D.Quite pleased with the result.

Max.

very nice Max if you get chances like this with a Bittern its well worth going a few times .
Its better to get a sharp shot with more noise then a blured one with none :)
Rob.
 

tdodd

Just call me Tim
Remembered yesterday to follow Tim's advice ( make sure you've got a fast speed dialled in to counter any negative effect the high pixels might have).Had to dial in ISO 1600 for this shot to get a fast speed which was new ground for me never going above ISO 800 with the 40D.Quite pleased with the result.

Max.
It's not that the smaller pixels have a negative effect. The only concern is that the smaller pixels, being able to resolve more detail, are also able to resolve blur/shake more easily too. At the image level a file from a 7D shot at 1/1000 will have the same amount of blur/shake as an image shot at 1/1000 from a 30D, 40D or 50D as well. At the pixel level, 7D photos may show up shake/blur that the cameras with larger pixels simply don't reveal.

So the 7D doesn't need faster shutter speeds than the other cameras, but you may see no benefit from the higher resolution either, if you don't use faster speeds. Balancing pixel level shake/blur vs pixel level noise is a fine art and the right solution will depend on the individual circumstances for each picture. Certainly it is true that noise is easier to fix in an image than blur, but there is no need to go mad with shutter speed either. To maintain equivalent levels of blur, per pixel, a 7D would need shutter speeds 34% higher than those for a 40D. But if you are not scrutinising individual pictures then you probably don't need a higher shutter speed with the 7D. Using a tripod, monopod or IS lens should help reduce the need for such high shutter speeds, although there is still subject blur/motion to consider.

For the bittern picture above, which is essentially moving quite slowly (not a BIF) I would suspect that 800 ISO and 1/1500 might have been a better choice, but whether that is true or not depends on many things. With a tripod then 400 ISO and 1/750 should have been even better. Maybe even 200 ISO and 1/375 would have been better still.

Please remember that these guidelines about shutter speeds and focal lengths vary depending not only on the individual's own abilities to hold the camera steady, but also on the final size at which the image is viewed and from what distance it is viewed. Going back to the original guideline.....

For a 35mm frame printed/displayed at a size of 10"x8", shutter speed should be at least 1/focal length, for viewing from 12" away.

From that premise you can work out the shutter speed you need in order to render a visibly shake free image from other sensor sizes and other display sizes. If we assume use of a 400mm lens, that gives us some examples as follows....

400mm on full frame, printed/displayed at 10x8 requires SS >= 1/400
400mm on APS-H, printed/displayed at 10x8 requires SS >= 1/500
400mm on APS-C, printed/displayed at 10x8 requires SS >= 1/640

If you were to display such images for the web, without cropping, at half the size above -i.e. as a 5"x4" image on screen, then you would only need shutter speeds half as fast as the guidline figures above.

In contrast, if you were to make prints of 20"x16" or so then you would need to double the shutter speeds shown above, for viewing from 12" away. If you were to view 7D files at 100%, that would yield an image of somewhere around 40"x27", requiring shutter speeds 4X greater than the guideline speeds above. 40D files, viewed at 100%, would only need shutter speeds around 3X greater than the guidline speeds above.

If you first crop your images, thus making them smaller then you change the calculations again. In effect, cropping your images is the just the same as changing your crop factor. The more you crop, the higher the shutter speed you need for any given final image display size.

So, for pixel peeping, or extreme cropping, 1/3000 might well be in order, but for viewing at more normal magnification levels, 1/1000 ought to be more than adequate, unless you really struggle with stability, or your subjects are exceptionally lively. Of course, at 1/1000, wing blur can often be significant, although not without its appeal, so 1/1000 probably makes for a good shutter speed to aim for, for general bird photography. That's not to say that there is no place for 1/250, 1/6400, or anything else in between or even beyond those figures. It all depends.

In fact, to cut to the chase, it is not the camera, the sensor, or the pixel density that drives the need for a given shutter speed. What matters is how much you enlarge the captured image and from how far away you view it.
 
Last edited:

Roy C

Occasional bird snapper
The shutter speed thing is only applicable if you hand hold or do not have good support - I regularly shoot 600mm at around 1/250 sec or lower and still get very sharp shots, even when cropped heavily BUT I am using a good quality tripod and gimbal head.
 

tdodd

Just call me Tim
Dean, the site requires one to login to see the file and I don't have a Facebook account and never will. Any chance you can attach the image to your post rather than linking to Facebook?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top