Capturing Wildlife

[fldspringer]

Keoeeit wrote:

A "trick"(?) I use in my Sony where it also temporarily blanks out the EVF between shots is to first set my camera to a manual parafocal distance and f/stop so most everything I shoot will be in focus. Then look through the viewfinder with my right eye, while also looking at the scene the camera is seeing with my left eye (unobstructed by the camera). I can superimpose the two scenes and learn what is in my left eye (no viewfinder) is also what the camera will see. By visualizing that rectangle out in front of the camera in reference to the edge of the front of the lens (keeping my face firmly planted against the camera so there's no shift), I get a pretty close approximation of a make-shift sports-finder. Alternately, you can make (or buy) a sports-finder to attach to your camera's hot-shoe or tripod socket. (I REALLY need to make myself one of those things, for as many times as I mention it you think I would have by now. But using the above method I usually get by without one.)

(For newbies, a "sports-finder" is a zero-magnifying framing device, with a small peep-hole sight to look through or line your eye up with it, and a larger rectangular section out in front that you can see through. Most often made of clear plastics with rectangles inscribed on it to match your camera's field-of-view, or just an open-wire frame or nested frames for different zoom settings. You can easily see what is outside of your camera's field-of-view (FOV) and bring or keep your subject within the area the camera sees while panning around rapidly.)

This is exactly why I use a DSLR exclusively for action shots. Read through the two paragraphs and think what a convoluted mess this really is vs just looking through the lens and seeing what the sensor will see.

There is a lot to be said for keeping your fingers on the zoom ring and quickly zooming and having the changes relayed to the viewfinder at the speed of light. For action, I won't use anything but the DSLR, even though I also own a pro-sumer point and shoot.

Having tried the point and shoot for action, I could hardly believe how easy the results are with the DSLR by comparison. If action is your thing, there is no substitute.

The last images of the birds were nice. The primary reason is the secret to great wildlife pics. GET CLOSE! Nothing else, including camera choice,is as important.






DSLRs are not for everyone. The choice is a personal choice based on cost, ease of use, shooting style, and convienence. DSLRs are not old history, but they are not the all to end all either. They have an advantage in some areas, and action is one of those areas.

[fldspringer]

Keoeeit wrote:

Yeah right. That's why the only sports-finders I could find pre-made online from manufacturers were made for Nikon SLR's.

LOL

Replying to these dSLR trolls is getting old, and way to easy to prove them 100% wrong every time.

You mean the device that modifies the through the lens viewfinder? You have to excuse me, but I'm not up to speed with such devices.

EVFs are not reliable for fast moving subjects, at least that's my experience. There is certainly a difference in a device to avoid the EVF vs one that enhances (and still uses) the optical viewfinder of the SLR.

BTW, this is the first time I've been labeled as a troll. If you or anyone else wants to use P&S full time it makes me no difference. Have at it. Nothing the matter with that at all. I'm relating personal experience using both for action photography.

I'm glad to be labeled as 100% wrong for understanding there is no perfect camera system. There are trade offs for each and every system you could possibly choose.

Here's one that's stationary.

[Corpsy]

Keoeeit wrote:

Corpsy wrote:

But it wasn't taken with ANY camera, it was taken with P&S. So then you admit that a good P&S camera is every bit as good as any dSLR. About time you admitted it.

You took one decent photo in direct sunlight and therefore your camera is as good as the most professional cameras available. Solid logic.


Keoeeit wrote:

Corpsy wrote:

100% crop? Try more like 100% of the original frame. Downsized, and compressed so badly that nobody can use it for their own needs. My normal method of theft prevention if I am ever posting anything on the net. What you read as noise and over-sharpening and whatever other things you want to invent into it can be attributed to downsizing and over-compression. I could look at any of the dSLR photos posted on the net and say the same things about them. Deal with it.

And thus endeth my participation answering to a low-life dSLR troll.

So you're saying you add multicolored sensor noise to your images, smudge them up and oversharpen them so people won't steal them? Why not add a watermark like any sane person, it would be a lot easier.

Look, if your p&s is as good as a DSLR, show us some decent photos taken in less than perfect light. People inside a bar, an indoor basketball game, your back yard under a full moon, etc...

Here's a local cemetery around midnight, taken handheld without a flash:










Here's a shot taken in a pitch black warehouse, camera in one hand and flashlight in the other:





Despite being taken in the worst possible conditions, they are cleaner looking than your contest photo.

[fldspringer]

Keoeeit wrote:

Here's another one for you that I posted in another thread, again taken with that P&S camera. Odd, looks like someone must have used a dSLR to take a photo like this one.

Keep dreaming and hoping that I'll help you to justify why you wasted all your money in dSLR equipment.

An advantage of the P&S is its versatility. Nice bug pic. I use my P&S as my macro setup at the current time.

Really, macro to wide angle to extreme telephoto with one tidy, light, and inexpensive (in comparison to DSLR)package. I don't think the pack of DSLR trolls have really said anything bad about these wonderful cams. There are somethings they do better than others. For me, bugs are one thing (that they do well), action is another (this time not as well).

[JohnG]

Keoeeit wrote:

Replying to these dSLR trolls is getting old, and way to easy to prove them 100% wrong every time.

Interesting logic. Every time you've tried to post shots they've proven to be lower quality:

1. Bird in flight? Lower quality

your response - choose an easier subject - stationary bird

2. Stationary bird? lower quality

your response - choose an even easier subject - macro

So, rather than trying to pick easier and easier shots till you find a subject so easy of course any camera can take the shot, let's get a little tricky and VERY specific. Try to stick to the exact theme please and not switch to something completely different and technically very easy.

Photo 1 - let's see your ISO 1600 shot of a subject moving DIRECTLY TOWARD YOU from about 15 feet away (not from 100 feet but about 15):



Photo 2: Let's see some of your ISO 3200 shots of a moving subject about 25 yards away:



Photo 3 - let's see your ISO 1600 still shot from 40 feet away:





Photo 4: Indoor shallow-dof portrait shot from 8 feet away (not 30 but8 )- sometimes you can't back up any further after all:



Photo 5: Any f1.8 aperture shot of your choice:



Photo 6 - Actually a series - any 7 shot action burst of your choice (action please) - preferably in under 2 seconds of elapsed time (please pardon the watermarks):















See if you can stay within the stated criteria for each shot. Feel free to let me know which specific shots your camera is physically unable to provide.

[fldspringer]

JohnG wrote:

See if you can stay within the stated criteria for each shot. Feel free to let me know which specific shots your camera is physically unable to provide.

My E500 Olympus DSLR won't do those either:-)

[tjsnaps]

This thread is getting silly, my dad can beat up all of your dads.

The main reason I am looking at DSLR's is DOF control and the fact I have a bag full of Nikon glass sitting here. (Though it's all old manual focus) But if I go that route the fist accessory I will save for will be a zigview….I take that back… a super wide then a zigview.

eric s
I played with a D40 in the store the other day, moving from subject to subject I could definitely focus faster manually than the camera could. But then the D40 is bottom of the line.

As for image quality I have been looking at a lot of pics in Steves reviews and elsewhere lately. I'm not seeing the big quality difference the DSLR crowd keeps talking about. But this depends a lot on the individual camera and the shooting circumstances.The majority of non-slr's are not aimed at serious users.

JohnG
I would like to know what shutter speed you used in pics 1 & 2 of your challenge. I'm not doubting you but it seems to the iso speed you gave are awfully high for an indoor basketball court and a lit football stadium.

[JohnG]

tjsnaps wrote:

JohnG
I would like to know what shutter speed you used in pics 1 & 2 of your challenge. I'm not doubting you but it seems to the iso speed you gave are awfully high for an indoor basketball court and a lit football stadium.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #666666"

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #666666"1/400 for Basketball at f2.0
1/320 for football at f2.8

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #666666"HS facilities are not as brightly lit as you may think.

[fldspringer]

tjsnaps wrote:

This thread is getting silly, my dad can beat up all of your dads.

The thing started when one person made a ridiculous claim that a quality P&S is better than any DSLR for every situation. Of course that is not correct.

The optics of a $4000 300mm prime lens is not going to be matched with a $400 digicam. That should be no surprise.

Same thing at the other end of the spectrum. The $1000 wide angle DSLR lens will be corrected for distortion much better than the P&S.

Does that mean that everyone should run out and buy the $5000 worth of lenses, as well as a $3000 full frame DSLR? Of course not. You can't even say that the $8000 would be a better camera than a P&S for everyone.

No matter what, I don't think were going to convince that one person. I don't think its necessary. If he's happy, it should be enough.

[JohnG]

fldspringer wrote:

If he's happy, it should be enough.

Thats it in a nutshell. Every person has to make their own choice. If you as the OP do not see a quality difference then by all means save money and buy a digicam - it's foolish for you to spend more money when you don't see a return on that investment.

Good luck and happy shooting!