What’s Up?
I photographed the entire morning at the cliffs with just the 100-400 II hand held. And enjoyed a nice stroll on one of my favorite La Jolla beaches with no birds and a pretty nice sunset. I am nearly finished with my Saturday morning program.
The Streak
In spite of having been buried by travel, teaching, and several major writing projects for the last two months, today’s blog post marks 71 days in a row with a new educational blog post. Please remember to use our B&H links for your major gear purchases.
Important Note
Please understand that if you are up in the air about selling any old gear that the price of your item is dropping every day….
Used Gear Apologies
Apologies to those who have written recently asking about selling their used gear through BAA. I will get back to y’all no later than next Monday (if not before) as I have been swamped with the IPT, the exhibit, and the Saturday morning program 🙂
Selling Your Used Gear Through BIRDS AS ART
Selling your used (or like-new) photo gear through the BAA Blog or via a BAA Online Bulletin is a great idea. We charge only a 5% commission. One of the more popular used gear for sale sites charges a minimum of 20%. Plus assorted fees! Yikes. The minimum item price here is $500 (or less for a $25 fee). If you are interested please e-mail with the words Items for Sale Info Request cut and pasted into the Subject line :). Stuff that is priced fairly–I offer free pricing advice, usually sells in no time flat. In the past few months, we have sold just about everything in sight. Do know that prices on some items like the EOS-1D Mark IV, the old Canon 500mm, the EOS-7D, and the original 400mm IS DO lens have been dropping steadily. You can see all current listings by clicking here or by clicking on the Used Photo Gear tab on the yellow-orange tab on the right side of the menu bar above.
New Listings
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
Caleb Putnam is offering a used Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM lens in very good plus condition with pristine glass for $649. The sale includes the original boxes with all the original contents: manuals and lens case, front and rear caps, cords, CD roms, etc., and insured ground shipping via major courier. Your item will not ship until your check clears unless other arrangements are made.
Please contact Caleb by e-mail or phone at 616-826-2098 (central time zone).
The 300 f/4 makes a great starter lens for all beginning nature photographers. As it is an image stabilized lens and you get all AF points with a 1.4X TC I consider this lens better than my beloved toy lens, the old 400mm f/5.6L lens. Even better, the close focus of the 300 f/4IS makes it great for large bugs and butterflies and medium- and large-sized flowers. artie
Caleb Putnam is also offering a used Canon 60D body in excellent condition for $349. The sale includes the original boxes with all the original contents and insured ground shipping via major courier. Your item will not ship until your check clears unless other arrangements are made.
Please contact Caleb by e-mail or phone at 616-826-2098 (central time zone).
Canon 800mm f/5.6L IS USM Lens
Andres Leon is offering a used Canon 800mm f/5.6L IS lens in Very Good Plus condition for the very low price of $7899. The lens has clean glass and is in perfect working order but has a few scratches on the finish. Feel free to request photos of the lens. The sale includes the lens trunk and keys, a LensCoat, the front leather cover, the rear cap, a Wimberley P-40 lens plate, and insured ground shipping via FED-EX Ground. Your item will not ship until your check clears unless other arrangements are made. Please contact Andres via or by phone at 1-954-621-6678 (eastern time).
I used this lens, often with a 1.4X TC, as my main super-telephoto lens for close to five years. It is a superb lens that offers lots of reach for those working with birds that are skittish. It is great from the car. I was astounded that about 15 of the 67 images in the exhibit were created with my 800. I often miss it terribly. As the lens sells new at B&H for $12,999, Andres’s lens is a superb buy; grab it now and save more than $5K! artie
|
|
|
This image was created at La Jolla, CA on the last morning of the hugely successful 2016 San Diego IPT with the Induro GIT 304L/Mongoose M3.6-mounted Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM lens, the Canon Extender EF 2X III, and the Canon EOS 5DS R. ISO 400: 1/640 sec. at f/11. AWB. Center AF point (by necessity)/AI Servo Expand/Rear Focus AF as originally framed was active at the moment of exposure. This is a very, very, small crop from the left and the top. Click here to see the latest version of the Rear Focus Tutorial. Click on the image to see the incredible fine feather detail in a larger version. Tight Crop of Brown Pelican bill pouch detail image |
Two 100% 5DS R Crops
Presented here today are two tight crops of 5DS R images from recent previous blog posts. I am not quite sure if they are true 100% crops but here is how I made them. I cropped the unsharpened master TIFF file approximately to 1200 pixels wide by 800 pixels tall and saved those as JPEGs. Then they were optimized to < 395kb and then presented as 800 wide JPEGs here on Word Press. I am quite impressed by the fine feather detail and sharpness.
Mud on Your Shoes?
A guest comes to your home with mud on their shoes. You ask him or her to remove their shoes before coming in. They proceed to walk all over your new white carpet. In general, such folks would not be invited back again.
The blog is my home.
|
|
|
Here is another one that was created at La Jolla, CA on Day 2 of the 2016 San Diego IPT, this one with the Induro GIT 304L/Mongoose M3.6-mounted Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM lens and the Canon EOS 5DS R. ISO 500. Evaluative metering +1 2/3 stops: 1/250 sec. at f/5.6. Cloudy WB. Center AF point (Manual selection)/AI Servo Expand/Rear Focus AF as originally framed was active at the moment of exposure. This is a very small crop from the right and the bottom. The active AF point was on the spot where the gray of the neck meets the white. Click here to see the latest version of the Rear Focus Tutorial. Click on the image to see the incredible fine feather detail in a larger version. Tight crop of Brown Pelican scratching image |
Airing Some Dirty Laundry
Some of you may have caught part or all of this exchange in the comments section of the blog post here. The initials have been changed to protect the guilty.
BM: Ok,I’ll put my two cents in, but reluctantly. I think Jon’s comment, “The image looks fine to me” is just the kind of faint praise this image deserves. I’m looking at it on my iPad Air 2 with Retina display which has a pixel density of about 400ppi and frankly I’ve seen much sharper (more detail) from my 7D II. My guess is that those 50MPs are of little value unless your going to make very large blowups or need to severely crop. I’m also fully aware that two cent opinions are almost always worthless to the recipient.
First, please realize that most folks would simply delete the comment above. My gut feeling that BM was at least trying to bait me. I for one have never seen a 7D II image that looked half as good as the pelican scratching image for fine detail and image quality. But I cut the guy some slack and posted this:
Maybe your i-pad is defective or you need new glasses, or perhaps I don’t know jack-_ _ _ _ about nature photography. If not, you are way over-rating the value of your opinion at 2 cents. For me, this image screams sharp and detailed off my monitor and is far superior to anything I have ever created with a 7D II.
In short order BM wrote back:
Sadly Art, your response is even more acerbic than I predicted.
To me, it was quite obvious that BM had been intentionally nasty in his original post. Why else would he have expected a nasty reaction from me?
Acerbic (adjective): harsh or severe, as of temper or expression.
I spammed him immediately for walking on my white carpet with mud on his shoes.
Please do not take this to mean that I will bear no criticism here on the blog. Folks who offer honest criticisms are welcome. I have learned a bunch from such comments over the years.
Not knowing that he had been spammed, BM wrote:
Art – It was you that asked for opinions, but when I offered mine you respond with a personal attack. I’m sure a 50mp full frame has many advantages over a cropped 20mp, but responding with such vitriol if far from enlightening.
I would point out to BM that I did not attack him personally. I did not, for example, call him a stupid idiot. I am 100% sure that BM’s original post was intended to raise my hackles. In that he succeeded. He is, however, no longer welcome as guest in my house.
“The faint praise that this image deserves…” Please. How’d that work out?
The San Diego Site Guide
Whether you are visiting San Diego for photography for the first time or live in the area and have done the pelicans many dozens of times, you will learn a ton by studying the San Diego Site Guide. Why spend days stumbling around when you can know exactly where and when to be depending on the wind direction and sky conditions? In addition to the pelican primer, there is great info on the best beaches for the gorgeous gulls, on Marbled Godwit, on the lower cliffs, Lesser Scaup, and Wood and Ring-necked Ducks as well.
Learn more or purchase your copy here.
Please Remember to use our Affiliate Links 🙂
To show your appreciation for my continuing efforts here, we ask, as always, that you get in the habit of using my B&H affiliate links on the right side of the blog for all of your photo and electronics purchases. Please check the availability of all photographic accessories in the BIRDS AS ART Online Store, especially the Mongoose M3.6 tripod heads, Gitzo tripods, Wimberley heads and plates, LensCoats and accessories, and the like. We sell only what I have used, have tested, and can depend on. We will not sell you junk. We know what you need to make creating great images easy and fun. And we are always glad to answer your gear questions via e-mail. I just learned that my account was suspended during my absence; it should be up and running by Monday at the latest.
I would of course appreciate your using our B&H affiliate links for all of your major gear, video, and electronic purchases. For the photographic stuff mentioned in the paragraph above we, meaning BAA, would of course greatly appreciate your business. Here is a huge thank you to the many who have been using our links on a regular basis and visiting the BAA Online store as well.
Be sure to like and follow BAA on Facebook by clicking on the logo link upper right. Tanks a stack!
Typos
In all blog posts and Bulletins, feel free to e-mail or to leave a comment regarding any typos or errors. Just be right 🙂
I bought a 5DsR when it came out, to be able to make bigger prints for my clients. I didn’t think i was going to use it for my personal wildlife photos. But now, it’s my main camera.
There are still many haters out there, saying things like “who needs 50mpx” or “you can the same results with a 7DII”. None of them has ever used a 5DsR. Because if they did, the would know it’s incredible.
Good morning–As a person that has taken pot shots at you in the past usually about non photography issues (photo knowledge way above my own)–I have gradually gotten used to NYC personalities with yours included. I certainly have learned a lot from your posts so keep on doing this but please do not feel the pressure to do it every day since we all know how “driven” you are ! Safe and healthy travels !
Hey Chas. Thanks for the advice. Here is my definition of a NYC personality: honest to a fault, caring and sharing, and at times, a bit brusque. a
Regarding the “dirty laundry” post – one instructional thing I would love to see on this blog is a basic lesson on how to critically look at these photos. I’m an experienced birder but am just starting to learn about photography basics. The lessons on this site about how to approach photography and using my camera are invaluable, but I still feel as though I have a hard time picking which photos are best or highest quality. Really, all the photos you show, whether they are from the 7DII or 5DR or whatever, all look (to me) similarly excellent. I am sure discerning eyes can pick out the differences amongst them. I want to train my eyes to be that discerning (for my own pictures sake), but may need some guidance. I trust your statement that the 5DR images are far sharper than the 7DII ones, but to me they all look great. I’d love some examples to show us what you are seeing regarding sharpnness in the 5DR pictures but not the 7DII ones.
Hi Art
Greetings.
Its more than a home. Its also a powerhouse of fine photography realted information.
Well there is no other photographer who openly shares so much fine info on photography. You openly blog about how exposure theory works and I think i have a finer understanding of exposure theory reading your blogs.
This https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2013/01/30/exposure-confusion-and-misconceptions-clarified/ and https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2013/01/28/learning-to-think-like-a-pro-in-the-field/ are my favourite blogs and i have read numerous times. Every time i read it i have a aha moment.
Thanks for the blogs and the great fine info you share.
YAW and many thanks to you Nikhil for your kind words:) a
Hi, Artie. I have used that analogy–this blog is Artie’s home–myself. We are your guests. If we don’t like our host, then we should just leave. Most of us do like our host and are grateful for his hospitality. 🙂
For me, the 7D2 is the best available Canon camera for wildlife action. But when I look through my images of landscapes I can tell which ones were made with my Canon 6D. They seem clearer, sharper, and more detailed, even though both cameras are 20 MP. I think sensor size does make a difference, as well as the extra resolution of the 5Dr/s.
David,
Your 6D is a full frame 20MP. This means that the pixels are a quite a bit larger than the pixels on the 7DII and that is why you certainly have better noise performance with the 6D. BTW I certainly agree with your take on Artie’s blog.
Question for Allan Lillich. Sorry, I just read your reply to my comment regarding pixel pitch. I bought and quickly sold a 7D2 because of the noise at high ISOs—1000 ISO and up. I assumed that the new 50 megapixel cameras were equally noisy since the pixel pitch is the same. Your comment suggests otherwise. I understand the 50 megapixel cameras have a bigger sensor but also more pixels so the pixel pitch is the same. Why and are they less noisy at high ISOs? Thanks. And Artie, what is your practical experience opinion?
Bill Richardson: sensor size has a much bigger effect on noise than number of pixels, all else being equal. Remember that light is made uo of photons and the whole sensor is sampling the photons, however much it is divided into pixels. In low light, background noise (random photons) becomes more important compared to the signal (light reflected or emitted from your photographic subject). This makes me skeptical about the 3 million ISO value of the new Nikon D5. But see also the 1.6 million ISO of the D500 with its smaller sensor.
This is more complicated than I thought. I still am confused. If the 7D2 and 5DSR have the same pixel pitch, it seems as though cropping the bigger sensor to 7D2 size results in exactly the same sensor which would seem to mean the same noise.
Yes, you’d get the same noise on the cropped 5Dr/s as the 7D2. But that would be more noise than on the uncropped 5Dr/s because you’re making the sensor smaller, and so sampling less light overall. See my expanded explanations below.
I want to add a little bit to what I wrote above about sensor size and noise. Photons fall on your sensor much as rain falls into a rain gauge, that is, in discrete packets. If you imagine 10 narrow-mouthed rain gauges, and you leave them out in the rain for a short time, some of the gauges will have more raindrops hit them than others just because of the random nature of the raindrops and you’ll see that some have more water in them than others. This difference among the gauges represents noise. If your leave them out for a long time, then they’ll all seem to be equally full, even though some still have collected more raindrops than others, because the signal (total amount of raindrops) overwhelms the noise (difference in the number of raindrops that hit each gauge). Now imagine 10 rain gauges each 10 times as big in area as the original ones, and you leave them out for the same short time. Now, each rain gauge is gathering ten times as many raindrops as the original ones, and so even in a short time, the signal–total amount of raindrops–overwhelms the noise. This would be true even if you divided each of the big rain gauges into 10 compartments.
And this is why large sensors are less noisy than small ones; THEY GATHER MORE LIGHT. But you see this only if you think about the overall image. When I look at an image captured with a full-frame camera on my computer, it’s the same size as one captured with a crop camera or a cell phone. But the full-frame image sampled more total light than the ones with the smaller sensors, and so the signal-to-noise ratio was bigger (more signal, less noise). And, as with the rain gauge analogy, the NUMBER of pixels makes a much smaller difference in the noise of the overall image than sensor size. You get what you pay for.
But in the case of the 5DRS vs 7D2, they rain gauges are all the same size. The 5DRS just has more. That is where I don’t get it. Per pixel, it would seem to point to the same result. I am not disagreeing with you but I just don’t get it.
No! The rain gauges aren’t the same size; the rain gauge is the sensor, not the individual pixels.
You are right about “per pixel,” but you don’t view images “per pixel,” you view the overall image, and that’s why you need to think more about sensor size, not pixel size.
David, I am a little hesitant to jump into this as I don’t want to offend you, but I really believe that your take on this is incorrect and that it is pixel size and not sensor size that matters.
Your rain gauge analogy makes sense ONLY if you consider the rain gauges to be equivalent to the individual pixels, not the whole sensor. Each pixel is a rain gauge that collects its particular bit of light depending on the light intensity falling on it and the time it is exposed to this light. For the same light intensity and exposure time, a big pixel absolutely will collect more light than a small pixel because its larger area means that more photons hit it than hit the smaller pixel.
So this collected light is the ‘signal’ and there is more of this signal hitting the big pixel than the small pixel. Sensor noise is dependent on how uniformly all the pixels convert this light signal to electrical signal and the electronics that amplify the electrical signal. The algorithms used in the software that interprets these electrical signals will also have an effect on what we eventually see as noise.
So sensor noise is essentially a variation in the electrical signals coming from the individual pixels that is not related to varying levels of light hitting the different pixels, but to the physics of the light conversion process and the quality of the electronics in the camera. Since the noise is not related to the varying light levels, the larger pixels that collect more signal (light) will provide a higher signal to noise ratio than smaller pixels all else (meaning conversion uniformity and electronics) being equal. The key here is that noise is a pixel to pixel variation that has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the sensor and very much to do with the amount of light that each individual pixel collects.
The reason a full frame sensor with the same number of MP’s as a 1.6 crop sensor is less noisy than the crop sensor is that the pixels are larger and individually collect more light, giving a larger signal to noise ratio. It is not because the overall sensor is larger.
If you take two shots, one with a 7DII and one with the 5DS R of the same subject with the same lens, lighting etc., there will be absolutely no difference in the amount of light that falls on the 7DII sensor and the 20MP in the middle of the 5DS R sensor. The light that falls on the outer 30MP of the 5DS R sensor has absolutely no effect on the middle 20MP so the extra sensor size will have no effect on the noise observed in the middle 20MP. If there is a an improvement in noise with the 5DS R, it is due to superior conversion uniformity and electronics of the 5DS R, not the larger size of the sensor.
Hopefully, I haven’t put anyone to sleep!
Steve: You have not offended me, but thanks for asking. My background is in science, where one can be right or wrong and nobody with any experience hasn’t been wrong at least a few times. There’s a famous and lovely quote by the great physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who on reading a paper said “This isn’t right. It isn’t even wrong!” But let’s get to your post. There are two ways to deal with it: one can do an experiment, and one can analyze the situation. So for the first way, let’s ask Artie (again) or anyone else who has a Canon 7D2 and a Canon 5Dr/s which one produces noisier images at the same exposure and ISO. They both have the same pixel density and pixel pitch, and so according to you, there’d be no difference in the noise between the two cameras. But the 5Dr/s has a sensor that is about 2.5 times bigger in area, and so according to me, it will be noticeably less noisy than the 7D2.
Now to the analysis. I do accept that I need to refine my rain gauge analogy, and will–thanks for pointing it out–but that doesn’t change the analysis. The key is that you are not looking at individual pixels to assess noise, you are looking at the whole image. Another way to look at things is to recognize that to make a final image for viewing of any given size–say the image on YOUR monitor or an 8X10 print–you have to ENLARGE the 7D2’s image more than the 5Dr/s’s image because the 7D2’s image is smaller to start with (that’s what “crop sensor” means). We all know and agree that noise gets more noticeable with increased enlargement. And the degree of enlargement is the degree of crop–and that gets you back to the sensor size. It has nothing to do with pixel size, density, or number.
I’m going to leave it there for the moment except to say that from my reading of your post–and I’ve already demonstrated that I can misread people’s posts by my misreading of one of Bill Richardson’s posts–you are confounding shot noise, which is a natural physical phenomenon, with read noise, which is related to sensor architecture, electronics design, and so on.
When I have a better handle on my own rain-gauge analogy I’ll return.
Hello, Steve, I am back. We might both be putting people to sleep, but so far Artie has tolerated all this. I hope we end up shedding more heat than light. I think the answer to the rain-gauge analogy is to agree that both the individual pixels and whole sensor can be thought of rain gauges. Let me take your post point by point.
“Your rain gauge analogy makes sense ONLY if you consider the rain gauges to be equivalent to the individual pixels, not the whole sensor. Each pixel is a rain gauge that collects its particular bit of light depending on the light intensity falling on it and the time it is exposed to this light. For the same light intensity and exposure time, a big pixel absolutely will collect more light than a small pixel because its larger area means that more photons hit it than hit the smaller pixel.” So far, so good.
“So this collected light is the ‘signal’ and there is more of this signal hitting the big pixel than the small pixel. Sensor noise is dependent on how uniformly all the pixels convert this light signal to electrical signal and the electronics that amplify the electrical signal. The algorithms used in the software that interprets these electrical signals will also have an effect on what we eventually see as noise.” Still good.
“So sensor noise is essentially a variation in the electrical signals coming from the individual pixels that is not related to varying levels of light hitting the different pixels, but to the physics of the light conversion process and the quality of the electronics in the camera.” Here you go astray. It’s absolutely related to the varying levels of light hitting the different pixels; this is shot noise, and it varies with sensor size. The “physics of the light conversion process and quality of the electronics in the camera” is the read noise, and as far as I understand things, it does NOT vary with sensor size.
“Since the noise is not related to the varying light levels, the larger pixels that collect more signal (light) will provide a higher signal to noise ratio than smaller pixels all else (meaning conversion uniformity and electronics) being equal. The key here is that noise is a pixel to pixel variation that has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the sensor and very much to do with the amount of light that each individual pixel collects.” This is muddled and wrong, for several reasons. Remember–and this is key–that we are looking at the whole image, NOT at individual pixels. Noise IS a pixel to pixel variation in light, but it has everything to do with the size of the sensor, because the bigger the sensor, the more light goes to form the whole image, and that makes the signal-noise ratio bigger (more signal, less noise).
“The reason a full frame sensor with the same number of MP’s as a 1.6 crop sensor is less noisy than the crop sensor is that the pixels are larger and individually collect more light, giving a larger signal to noise ratio. It is not because the overall sensor is larger.” This is exactly wrong; see above.
“If you take two shots, one with a 7DII and one with the 5DS R of the same subject with the same lens, lighting etc., there will be absolutely no difference in the amount of light that falls on the 7DII sensor and the 20MP in the middle of the 5DS R sensor. The light that falls on the outer 30MP of the 5DS R sensor has absolutely no effect on the middle 20MP so the extra sensor size will have no effect on the noise observed in the middle 20MP.” This is exactly correct; the sensor is the same size in both cases (and so are the pixels).
“If there is a an improvement in noise with the 5DS R, it is due to superior conversion uniformity and electronics of the 5DS R, not the larger size of the sensor.” Now you’ve switched from apples to oranges. If we are comparing 5Dr/s WHOLE IMAGES to 7D2 WHOLE IMAGES, the 5Dr/s will produce less noisy images at the same ISO and exposure than the 7D2, because it has a larger sensor, even though the pixel size and density is the same in both cameras, for reasons I’ve explained. I eagerly await Artie’s (and other people’s) response to the question of how the WHOLE IMAGE noise on the 5Dr/s compares with that of the 7D2. And we can test for any superior electronics of the 5Dr/s by comparing the noise of a cropped 5Dr/s image with that of an uncropped 7D2 image; I am confident that they will be similar.
And let me wrap this up. The noise I’ve been talking about is a fact of nature, and it’s called shot noise. You can’t make it go away; all you can do is minimize its effects by using good exposure and as large a sensor as you can afford. And one take-home message is that the more light you have available, the better your images will be. In bright sunlight, even a cell phone, with its tiny sensor, can produce high-quality images. In dim light, not so much. So this is why Artie always tells us to “expose to the right.” In other words, get as much light onto your sensor as you can without clipping the highlights. Let me finish with a word about pixel size. There does seem to be some effect of pixel size; bigger pixels are slightly better than smaller ones, but the effect of pixel size on image quality is dwarfed by the effect of sensor size. Again, all else being equal, including sensor technology, digital to analog converter, raw converter, electronics efficiency, and so on. All sensors and pixels are better now than they were 10 years ago.
Thanks for the info!
You are more than welcome; I hope it helps. I had to organize my own thinking and refresh my own knowledge on this topic, and it certainly has helped me!
David
As I understand it now, noise is a result of a combination of Pixel size and total light gathering ability of the sensor and that increased light gathering (larger sensor) canovercome the noise caused by smaller pixels on that sensor.
Bill: I don’t think that’s right, and I’m sorry if I have been unclear. Bigger sensors (let’s say “full frame”) are less noisy than smaller sensors (let’s say 1.6X crop) because they gather more light, and so they have more signal compared to noise than smaller sensors. This is true whether the “full-frame” sensor has 20 million pixels (Canon 6D) or 50 million (Canon 5Dr/s), so both those cameras produce images with less noise for the same exposure and ISO than the 7D2 does, with its crop sensor that has 20 million pixels.
I think we are best off if we say that the number of pixels or their size doesn’t make a difference in noise if the sensor and its technology are the same. So Canon 6D = Canon 5Dr/s in terms of noise, although I suspect the Canon 5Dr/s has newer, better technology and so it might even be less noisy than the 6D even though it has more pixels.
Now, the above paragraph that says pixel size doesn’t matter is not ENTIRELY true, for several reasons. But it’s close enough to being true that I think we can accept for our purposes here that it is true. So again, bigger sensor, less noise, all else equal.
OK, I re-read your post, and you are right. It’s just that the more pixels don’t make much noise. I’m sorry to have misread what you wrote!
Good Morning,
It’s a shame you had that dirty laundry exchange with BM, but I’m disturbed by your comment about the 7D Mark II which I just bought through your BH website link. After all the praise you’ve given it, and the great photos you’ve shown, your comments seem to suggest it is an inferior camera. The comment was “is far superior to anything I have ever created with a 7D II.” I hope I’m not disappointed.
Hi Terry,
Not a shame at all as far as I am concerned. It is what it is and I dealt with it. Folks have been taking pot shots at me for decades 🙂
The 7DII is a great camera. I have used it often on this trip. It does not, however, in my opinion, produce image files as detailed as the 5DS R. There are some who disagree. In addition, the 5DS R has much better noise control at the higher ISOs. Neither of those is surprising as a 5DS R costs three times as much as a 7D II…
artie
Also in my opinion, the 7D II is the greatest ever digital camera value.
Terry,
I have had a 7D II since day one as an upgrade to my Rebel T4i.
I am still unhappy with the noise I see at higher ISOs on cloudy days when I’m viewing an image at 100% on my computer monitor. Think about how nitpicky that response is.
When I look back at the noise on my T4i under similar situations, I wonder how I ever dealt with that. Actually, I know that answer…I was younger, more inexperienced, and demanded less out of my equipment. I was just happy to have a camera with an interchangeable lens. I felt like a “pro.”
By the way, prints look great from the 7D II and I have made many folks happy with them.
As Artie said, you will love what the 7D II can do at the price you’ve paid for it. As another wise man in my life has told me repeatedly, “Life is full of trade-offs,” and price vs. performance is one of them.
Good glass is helpful. Tripod is better. Sound photography techniques are best. If you had the budget for a full frame camera and decided to go with this crop sensor camera, then do yourself a favor and invest in one of the former three buckets.
Hopefully this will ease your buyers remorse (or prevent it). The 7D II is a great performing camera in capable hands. Reading this blog and getting out into the field will make those hands more capable.
Happy shooting,
Scott
While it’s surely true that a cropped image seen on an uncalibrated monitor of whatever quality is never going to fully show the full range of capability of a modern camera, I have been surprised by the images you have posted from the 5DS R. Sure I have seen similar pictures from other older and cheaper cameras but so far every image you have posted has had a quality to them that is hard to pinpoint. I don’t know if it’s the clarity of colour, sharpness, something else or a combination of them but it certainly seems an amazing camera in the right hands.
The difference is a bit like in the past where you could view a good print in average reflected light or a carefully backlit transparency dazzling the eye.
I saw the exchange and sighed to myself. The internet is just a tool but it seems to bring out the worst in people in that they are willing to say things they would not dream of saying face to face, especially to someone they don’t know well.
Most people seem to base their buying decisions on technical specs, 400ppi and other terms that are meaningless without context. Seeing the equipment used in a way that we as photographers may also employ it and being able to compare the results along with the experiences of a knowledgeable user are far more useful comparisons making your blog invaluable to the discerning user.