HKBWS BBS 香 港 觀 鳥 會 新 聞 組
        (http://www.hkbws.org.hk/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl)
      

        Discussion Area 討論區 >> Photo Gallery 相片分享 I >>  Common Redshank 紅腳鷸
        
(Message started by: KK Hui on May 23rd, 2004, 7:38pm)
Title: Common Redshank 紅腳鷸
Post by KK Hui on May 23rd, 2004, 7:38pm
128 Common Redshank 紅腳鷸
Mai Po Nature Reserve 米埔自然保護區
23/5/2004
http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/kkhui/Avian/230504_50x.jpg
http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/PhotoG/kkhui/kkhui_34.jpg

One of the test shots taken this morning with my new EOS-1D Mk II ...  ::) ;D ::)

Flight shots will come later ...

EOS-1D Mk II, EF600/4L + EF1.4x
Incident @ zero, ISO 200

KK Hui ARPS
www.geocities.com/kkhui_001
Title: Redshank
Post by MikeTurnbull on May 23rd, 2004, 9:38pm
This is actually a Common Redshank, KK.

Notice the face pattern, and especially the bill length and patterning.

I think the flight shots should confirm this!

Mike Turnbull
Title: Re: Redshank
Post by KK Hui on May 23rd, 2004, 10:00pm

on 05/23/04 at 21:38:03, MikeTurnbull wrote:
This is actually a Common Redshank ...l


You are absolutely correct of course, Mike!  ;D
It was my oversight indeed ...

KK Hui ARPS
www.geocities.com/kkhui_001
Title: Re: Redshank
Post by me_domchan on May 23rd, 2004, 10:06pm
Cool! Mk 2 seems very good for birding!
Title: Re: Redshank
Post by Owen on May 23rd, 2004, 10:28pm
should posts some flight shot to show it's power~!!  ;) ;)
Title: Re: Redshank
Post by Lynx on May 23rd, 2004, 10:50pm
Nice photo with a new awesome machine ;D

Just wonder, as the magnifying ratio is smaller at 1.3X for 1D2 than 1.6X for 10D, is there any image quality loss as you have to crop the photo more?
Title: Re: Redshank
Post by Hendrix on May 23rd, 2004, 11:49pm
I think you still like the 1.6X for bird shooting,  8) but like the AF & shutter of markII  ;)
Title: Re: Redshank
Post by Forrest FONG on May 24th, 2004, 12:12am

on 05/23/04 at 22:00:50, KK Hui wrote:
You are absolutely correct of course, Mike!  ;D
It was my oversight indeed ...

Hi KK,

Thank you for sharing your experience on using the new camera.

May be we were too concentrated on our new cameras and I also made a wrong ID of this redshank as a spotted redshank at that moment! :P

Here is my photo of the same redshank to share with our BBS members.

http://www.hkbws.org.hk/fileServer/PhotoG/forrest/ffredshank.jpg
128 Common Redshank 紅腳鷸
Mai Po Boardwalk 米埔浮橋
23/5/2004
EOS-1D Mk II, EF500/4L + EF1.4x
Evaluative Metering, ISO 200

Forrest 8)
Title: Re: Redshank
Post by KK Hui on May 24th, 2004, 8:34am
Good to see you posting, Forrest!  ::)

Just a note on the Mk II ...
I'm thrilled with its AI Servo AF performance having extensively used Nikon F5, Canon EOS-1v etc previously. I think Canon now truly has a machine with precise AI Servo AF that matches its high speed 8.5 fps. Sharp flight sequence shots are now easily attainable letting the photographer to concentrate on important things such as composition, pose and lighting/exposure.   ::) ;D ::)

The 1.3x field of view has its advantage compared with 10D's 1.6x. In fact you can do more aggressive crop and still maintain image quality since you have more pixels in hand with the Mk II. ;)

KK Hui ARPS
www.geocities.com/kkhui_001
Title: Re: Redshank
Post by Daniel CK Chan on May 24th, 2004, 9:07am

on 05/24/04 at 08:34:17, KK Hui wrote:
Good to see you posting, Forrest!  ::)

Just a note on the Mk II ...
I'm thrilled with its AI Servo AF performance having extensively used Nikon F5, Canon EOS-1v etc previously. I think Canon now truly has a machine with precise AI Servo AF that matches its high speed 8.5 fps. Sharp flight sequence shots are now easily attainable letting the photographer to concentrate on important things such as composition, pose and lighting/exposure.   ::) ;D ::)

The 1.3x field of view has its advantage compared with 10D's 1.6x. In fact you can do more aggressive crop and still maintain image quality since you have more pixels in hand with the Mk II. ;)

KK Hui ARPS
www.geocities.com/kkhui_001


When mine will be available?!!!?  :'( Nice shot with new tool, KK. :D
Title: Re: Redshank
Post by Griffin on May 24th, 2004, 5:58pm

on 05/23/04 at 22:50:15, Lynx wrote:
Just wonder, as the magnifying ratio is smaller at 1.3X for 1D2 than 1.6X for 10D, is there any image quality loss as you have to crop the photo more?


Well, Mk2 has a 8MP sensor so I don't think it could be a problem. Moreover, it can retain AF up to f/8 lens....


Griffin.
Title: Re: Redshank
Post by Lynx on May 24th, 2004, 8:07pm
The sizes of pixel of the CMOS sensors of 1DII is bigger than 10D.

The sensor size of 10D is 22.7mm x 15.1mm with 6.3million pixels.

The sensor size of 1DII is 28.7mm x 19.1mm with 8.5million pixels.

Hence, to crop out the size of 10D image frame from a photo by 1DII, you have only 5.3 million pixels?  Am I right in the calculation?

Of course, the much better AF on 1DII alone is worth the money and saves a lot of priceless shots 8)  Bigger pixels have higher low light sensitivity too  ::)
Title: Re: Redshank
Post by KK Hui on May 24th, 2004, 8:58pm

on 05/24/04 at 20:07:52, Lynx wrote:
... the much better AF on 1DII alone is worth the money and saves a lot of priceless shots 8)  Bigger pixels have higher low light sensitivity too  ::)


The Mk II has pixels of 28.7mm x 19.1mm (APS-H size) CMOS sensor. It measures 8.2um square, similar if not quite, to the 8.8um square pixels of the full frame EOS-1Ds. It also has a new on-chip noise elimination circuit eradicates fixed pattern and random noise etc; far superior than the 10D!

In general pixel size does play an important factor in digital imaging resolution. As expected, pixels of digital compact P&S cameras are substantially smaller resulting in lower image quality ...  ;)

KK Hui ARPS
www.geocities.com/kkhui_001
Title: Re: Redshank
Post by Griffin on May 25th, 2004, 9:45am

on 05/24/04 at 20:07:52, Lynx wrote:
Hence, to crop out the size of 10D image frame from a photo by 1DII, you have only 5.3 million pixels?  Am I right in the calculation?


???  To add a gain of salt to KK's excellent comments: I guess you mix up the physcial size of sensor with resolution. Larger pixel on sensor does not make  larger pixels on screen!  :) To confuse you further, if you crop a 1D Mk.2 image (8.5MP) into a 6.3MP image (which is the resolution of 10D), the result image is still a 6.3 MP image! But to the best of my knowleddge, the result crop will have better quality (if all other factors are identical), because the physical size of individual pixel on 1D Mk.2 sensor is larger. :D

For detailed treatments,  check this:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml

and this:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/pixel-count.shtml

and this:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml

Have an enjoyable read.


Griffin.
Title: Re: Redshank
Post by KK Hui on May 25th, 2004, 4:36pm
Thanks for the links, Griffin!
All good stuff and fits for bed-time reading ...  ;)

Another point I notice using the Mk II is its excellent shadow and highlight rendition which is far beyond that of 10D's capability ...  ::)

KK HUi ARPS
www.geocities.com/kkhui_001
Title: Re: Redshank
Post by Lynx on May 25th, 2004, 7:52pm

on 05/25/04 at 09:45:06, Griffin wrote:
???  To add a gain of salt to KK's excellent comments: I guess you mix up the physcial size of sensor with resolution. Larger pixel on sensor does not make  larger pixels on screen!  :) To confuse you further, if you crop a 1D Mk.2 image (8.5MP) into a 6.3MP image (which is the resolution of 10D), the result image is still a 6.3 MP image! But to the best of my knowleddge, the result crop will have better quality (if all other factors are identical), because the physical size of individual pixel on 1D Mk.2 sensor is larger. :D

For detailed treatments,  check this:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml

and this:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/pixel-count.shtml

and this:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml

Have an enjoyable read.


Griffin.


I think you have misunderstood my argument.

Let's take the following sample photo as the discussion point:
http://www.9014316.com/birds/227_2704_1D2_10D.jpg

As 1D2 has a larger sensor size than 10D, we can imagine the red frame being 10D while blue frame being 1D2. For 10D, there are 6.3M pixels in the red frame while for 1D2, there are 8.5M pixels in the blue frame.

For bird photography, we always want the bird as large as possible to fill up the frame.  But in real world, we can never approach close enough.

When you shot by a 1D2, you get a raw image of the blue frame.  If you shot by 10D, you get a raw image of red frame which is smaller in field of view than 1D2, that's why you get 1.6X.   Using Photoshop, if you crop a portion of image from 1D2 (i.e. blue frame), with the same size as the field of view of 10D's sensor (i.e. red frame), you end up with only 5.3M pixels, because 1D2's pixel size is bigger. That's why 1D2 has lower noise and better tonal rendition, as rightly pointed out by KK 8)

Actually both the 1.6X of 10D or the 1.3X of 1D2 are "crop factor", instead of "magnifying factor", as pointed out by Luminous-landscape.  10D is actually 62.5% of full-frame (135 format) and 1D2 is 77%.

I agree that pixel count is not the single controlling factor for image quality, but it does affect how large the print image you can enlarge without significant decrease in print quality.
Title: Re: Redshank
Post by Hendrix on May 25th, 2004, 8:17pm
Look this  8)

http://www.cameraunion.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=209888
Title: Re: Redshank
Post by Lynx on May 25th, 2004, 8:30pm
No matter what you use, just happy birding  ;D
Title: Re: Redshank
Post by Griffin on May 25th, 2004, 11:55pm
Lynx,

Thanks for taking time to read the articles, but mind you, the photograph there is copyrighted! I suggest you remove it asap. Thank you.


Regards.
Title: Re: Redshank
Post by xyz_ps on May 26th, 2004, 4:06am
Image quality is not just a simple maths relationship between actual pixel size/no. of pixels etc.  As simple as you can imagine, the CMOS of 1DMk2 and the CMOS of 10D are already two very different animals and not to mention the image processores behind.  This simple analogy is just the same as comparing a consumer DC image quality vs a DSLR image quality.  My 2 cents. ;D
Title: Re: Redshank
Post by Lynx on May 26th, 2004, 2:34pm

on 05/25/04 at 23:55:16, Griffin wrote:
Lynx,

Thanks for taking time to read the articles, but mind you, the photograph there is copyrighted! I suggest you remove it asap. Thank you.

Regards.


Griffin, thanks very much for reminding me.

I have replaced the photograph by my own  ::)


HKBWS BBS 香 港 觀 鳥 會 新 聞 組 » Powered by YaBB!
YaBB 2000-2002, Xnull. All Rights Reserved.