JimL
New member
A very helpful article- thank you. There certainly was heat haze and shimmer at the time.
What's gone wrong with my owl?
- Thread starter JimL
- Start date
JimL
New member
Pretty sure I did - the camera has recorded the focus point on the owl.
My take on it is the subject is too small in the frame plus the contrast of the owl to the background is not great.
JimL
New member
What a great forum!
Thank you all for sharing your wisdom - I have learnt a lot from this example.
In summary:
I think the focus is correct in this case, although I understand potential pitfalls better now.
I don’t think there is an issue with movement as target is still and shutter speed is 1/3200 and vr is on. I have a slight nagging doubt over vr and may turn it off in future for high shutter speeds- even though I don’t have good evidence about that.
Image noise is fine with iso 500 as there was plenty of light. In this situation with less light I should have been fine with a slower shutter speed.
Lens and camera well regarded and capable so not an issue here.
It was a hot day with noticeable heat haze and shimmer- mid summer in UK - in my notes I commented that I noticed this from10 am (sunrise around 4:30 am). This is the issue here - made worse by subject being far away over a flat stretch of heather and grass. I don’t think I could do much about this - I was in a small hut on a featureless moor - couldn’t get closer without disturbing the bird. I do have 1.4 TCEiii but this won’t change the physical distance to subject. Potentially might give a little help but unlikely.
Take home - get out of bed earlier! (I was up at 5 am) - I will be there again on Tuesday so try to get there sooner, although thunderstorms are predicted so it might not work out. Also I think the owls are coming to the end of breeding and will be dispersing soon. It has been the best year for SEO for many years due to peak vole numbers.
Thank you all again.
Thank you all for sharing your wisdom - I have learnt a lot from this example.
In summary:
I think the focus is correct in this case, although I understand potential pitfalls better now.
I don’t think there is an issue with movement as target is still and shutter speed is 1/3200 and vr is on. I have a slight nagging doubt over vr and may turn it off in future for high shutter speeds- even though I don’t have good evidence about that.
Image noise is fine with iso 500 as there was plenty of light. In this situation with less light I should have been fine with a slower shutter speed.
Lens and camera well regarded and capable so not an issue here.
It was a hot day with noticeable heat haze and shimmer- mid summer in UK - in my notes I commented that I noticed this from10 am (sunrise around 4:30 am). This is the issue here - made worse by subject being far away over a flat stretch of heather and grass. I don’t think I could do much about this - I was in a small hut on a featureless moor - couldn’t get closer without disturbing the bird. I do have 1.4 TCEiii but this won’t change the physical distance to subject. Potentially might give a little help but unlikely.
Take home - get out of bed earlier! (I was up at 5 am) - I will be there again on Tuesday so try to get there sooner, although thunderstorms are predicted so it might not work out. Also I think the owls are coming to the end of breeding and will be dispersing soon. It has been the best year for SEO for many years due to peak vole numbers.
Thank you all again.
Just remember you went from 24 MP to 21MP so crop in less.
Give it a try if it works with the 200-500, you already have it then you will know.
Have fun!
The pixel density of the APS-C sensor is quite a bit higher than the full frame 24mp sensor and should allow more crop than the 24mp full frame
This is one of the hallmarks of the D500 - closer is always better though in any shot
Clovishound
Senior Member
My experience has been that 24MP full frame and 24MP crop frame will allow approximately the same amount of cropping. Since the APS-C sensor is roughly half the area of a full frame, it must be enlarged more to get the same size as the FF. Higher pixel density only means more resolution when the sensor size is the same. A high resolution, FF, 46 MP sensor has roughly the same pixel density as a 24MP crop frame. I can tell you from personal experience that it will allow much more cropping than the 24MP crop frame.
The main advantage to a 24 MP FF is low light performance, as the individual pixels are larger and gather more light.
Both points are true - however we are not comparing the same size sensor that is the key point
So much has been documented on the smaller vers larger sensor (searchable both in mostly positive and a few negative ways) I don't want to beat it to death yet again. My experience is you need a 46mp FF sensor to equal the 20mp D500 APS-C sensor and then the higher ISO performance of the D500 can be a bit better in some shooting scenarios. That has been my experience having both available.
JimL
New member
Yes that was my thinking when I was considering which body to pair with my 500 pf. I did consider the D850, but went for the D500 as I find I am normally cropping in post. I was keen to keep weight down. The D500 is like the cropped D850 in crop mode. Also D500 is a little bit cheaper which meant I don’t feel so bad about keeping my D780 - so that I have dx and fx choice. My early observation is that the D500 images seem to have a bit more noise (compared to what I am used to on D780), although I haven’t done careful like for like comparisons. This is a price worth paying for faster focus and more reach I based on my first impresssion.
I recently purchased my D850 (before new are all gone) with the goal of it being very similar in layout (controls) and getting similar results as my D500 should something happen to it, and leave money for a 500pf in the future
As Clovishound indicated and I find the same the 46mp FF and the 20mp APS-C create very similar results at the same subject distance so for me I met my goal.
On noise - I find up to 12,000 ISO is very easy to midigate in post process with either body with the D500 being slightly easier (less aggressive de-noising) on a serious crop. It is slight however but note able.
Personal opinion it's advancement in camera processors are what made Nikon focus on FF as they could reduce noise after the photo is taken more easily.
Once you find a post processing software you like, getting that noise reduced is very easy
As Clovishound indicated and I find the same the 46mp FF and the 20mp APS-C create very similar results at the same subject distance so for me I met my goal.
On noise - I find up to 12,000 ISO is very easy to midigate in post process with either body with the D500 being slightly easier (less aggressive de-noising) on a serious crop. It is slight however but note able.
Personal opinion it's advancement in camera processors are what made Nikon focus on FF as they could reduce noise after the photo is taken more easily.
Once you find a post processing software you like, getting that noise reduced is very easy
Woodyg3
Senior Member
There was clearly a lot of heat haze, and I wouldn't overthink this, that is the main problem, here. There is a good deal of noise, as well.
Subject blur is not from motion, I don't think. Everything in the picture is blurry.
There is really nothing you can do about heat haze except shoot at a different time to day or location.
One more thing, how much has this photo been cropped? It looks like a severe crop, which multiplies any other problems.
Keep at it, you'll get there!
Subject blur is not from motion, I don't think. Everything in the picture is blurry.
There is really nothing you can do about heat haze except shoot at a different time to day or location.
One more thing, how much has this photo been cropped? It looks like a severe crop, which multiplies any other problems.
Keep at it, you'll get there!