- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 25,422
- Reaction score
- 5,001
- Location
- UK - England
- Website
- www.deviantart.com
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
VI erm the image link is a private listed photo = we can't see it
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
VI erm the image link is a private listed photo = we can't see it
Consider a full-frame body, since if it's a FF, the sensor will be 2.5 times larger than his Rebel's sensor if he buys a Canon FF camera like even an original 5D.
A pro-AF system would be nice for birds in flight,which he also showed. Nikon D700 has pro AF at the same price as the EOS 5D-II with its pedestrian AF system. But clearly, the 44th-place Rebel XTi is not the best camera for nature work. Sensor performance is low, AF system is amateur. His Rebel XTi is a low-cost, entry-level Canon from around 2006. He's hit its limits.
Second, buy a good prime telephoto lens, or two. Something like a roughly $1,100 300mm f/4 prime and at either the $2,700 Nikon D700 or a Canon 5D Mark II--both will have HUGE sensors, with HUGE pixels,and superb sensor performance. The cost here isn't $14,000 as an Idiot might lead one to speculate on, but around $3,700 (including a prime 300mm f/4) to be able to create "razor-sharp" nature photos.
The OP wants to know how to create "razor sharp" nature photos....advanced photography isn't cheap and never has been...but the secret is to shoot somewhere North of the 44th Place camera, which is the Rebel XTi that he currently owns. The simplest thing is to realize that a BIG sensor, with even moderate quality lenses, will perform better than a very tiny sensor with very good glass,and the 100-400L classifies as only "very good" glass. Canon's 400/5.6 is significantly better optically, as is their 300/4 non-IS or Nikon's 300/4 AF-S lens.
No need to act like an Idiot and spend all that much money.
As I pointed out, he can either 1-Upgrade his camera or 2) Buy a good, Canon telephoto prime lens of 300 or 400mm or consider moving to something like the Nikon D700, which is Number 5 on the sensor performance list. He will lose almost no money by selling his 100-400L,and going to a professional-level body like a D700 for $2699,and buying a decent lens like the 300 f/4 AF-S.
And No, Village Idiot: I pointed out that a 150 watt-second monolight and the Canon 580 EX-II speedlight both share the SAME, identical Guide Number of 118,
Canon's 580 EX II flash is roughly the same power;
Sorry, Village Idiot, but you clearly are a novice flash shooter if you fail to realize that watt-seconds is about as reliable as EPA Mileage figures. You're in serious error in thinking that you know much about studio flash, or flash in general if you do not know your Guide Numbers in Feet from those stated in Meters, or do not understand that watt-seconds is just stored energy,and has very little direct relationship with actual, usable flash power output. You made a hilarious beginner's mistake. And now you're talking about car engines? I know you just got into strobism, but I've owned studio flash since the mid-1980's. I thought you'd be proud of your Canon system's 580 EX-II flash for being more efficient than a $99 Adorama Flashpoint 320 monolight.
Guide Number is what counts. Guide Number of 118 in Feet at ISO divided by 10 feet equals f/11.8. Both the monolight and the flash output is identical, requiring an f/11.8 exposure. One is a cheap, $99 150 watt-second monolight with a large 7 inch reflector, the other is a $450 Canon flash with a small but highly-efficient reflector and a Fresnel lens in front of it. Same power output,as measured by Guide Number. Lesson over, V-Idiot.
I am 100% agree with you Overread. The results are there at Juza site. The first time I went to the site, I could not believe a entry level camera can create those images (that was a month or 2 after I got my first DSLR) After all, that is the result of good gears at a pair of good hands.
I am 100% agree with you Overread. The results are there at Juza site. The first time I went to the site, I could not believe a entry level camera can create those images (that was a month or 2 after I got my first DSLR) After all, that is the result of good gears at a pair of good hands.
Exactly. I could capture beautiful shots with a 300D, an 85mm f/1.2, and the right lighting.
I notice too, the OP didn't mention what tripod they are using.
It's possible the tripod isn't steady enough, particularly with the 100-400 lens mounted.
I enjoy photographing wildlife and I'm always trying to get more detail. I've got a Canon XTi with a 100-400 L series lens, I've used apeture priority most, but also shutter priority, manual and the camera's auto settings. Some handheld and some tripod, but still trying to get more detail/sharpness. I've wondered at times if the camera has an issue, I've cosidered upgrading to another camera, or if it's just me. Any suggestions?