Can you tell the difference . . .

Started Feb 1, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 36,923
Re: Question:

Messier Object wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Over the past 2 years or so my shooting has become more specialised to the point where birds have become over 90% of my shots. I know it won't last and I'll eventually swing back to landscapes and Macro, but for now it's birds and I've got myself plenty of (too many?) camera/lens combo options covering different lighting situations, different situations where weather, weight and bulk are factors, and of course different birds, static and BIF

This afternoon, in good light I laid out my gear in the backyard and took some shots of a bird on my roof, curious to see if in ideal light and shooting a static bird, I'd really notice much IQ difference

Lenses used:
ZD150mm f/2 + EC-20 (300mm)
ZD50-200mm SWD + EC-14 (at 283mm)
ZD300mm f/2.8
Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 OS APO for Canon (at 500mm)
Canon 300mm f/2.8 L II + Canon 2xIII (600mm)
camera bodies: E-30, E-5, 5DIII

Each was shot hand held, with IS on, and I took a few frames just to make sure I got reasonably good focus.

The bird was at a range of about 25 metres.

To be fair on the gear, all were shot at ISO400, and 1/1600sec and I did stop down the 'lower grade' lenses just a bit - compensating in PP. I did my usual amount of NR in PP and also tweaked the white balance in PP just enough to hide any 'tells' that might ID the cameras.

How were they all shot at 1/1600 ISO 400, especially if the "lower grade" lenses were stopped down but the other lenses were not stopped down to the same f-ratio?

For example, if all were shot at f/8, it would make sense. But how would you have shot, for example, the ZD 300 / 2.8 at f/2.8 1/1600 ISO 400 and the Sigma 50-500 / 4.5-6.3 at f/8 1/1600 ISO 400?

the canon, ZD300, ZD150 were not shot wide open, and clearly I adjusted the exposure in PP.
This was not a serious test of lens quality, demonstration of equivalence, or comparison of FF to 4/3

Ah. So some of the photos were intentionally underexposed. That's what I was thinking, but it seemed to contradict your premise "to be fair on the gear".

Nothing was done "intentionally" apart from shooting the bird quickly before it flew away

Well, setting all the cameras to 1/1600 ISO 400 would seem to be intentional when the cameras would not meter the scene at different f-ratios for such a shutter speed and ISO in any of the modes, not to mention the fact that you said you did it that way "to be fair on the gear". In fact, I can't quite see how it could have been otherwise, but I'll just chalk it up to a lack of imagination on my part. 

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow