Paul

[Michaeljf]

found my main problem.... I'd read I need a polarizing filter up front

Blimey - some odd advice there! Nice picture of your compound-eyed friend. All you need to do now is stick a pin through it and he'd be ready for your first stacking experiment, and just remove the pin in photoshop later...
Michael

[Paul]

ooowwwwch

[Paul]

Well, I'm getting in some practise... wandered up the Dale where I knew the Small Coppers would still be around.... didn't bargain on this little beauty, I believe a female Black Darter (Sympetrum danae)....




will follow up with some Coppers when I have a moment.



I'm still working on the resolution, graininess etc... obviously some way to go!

[Jack Harrison]

I’m an addict for buying camera averaging a new one every 18 months (And yes my wife does know!) I reckon that it takes the best part of six months each time to get the best out of the new one. Numerous experiments are carried out on things like best operating mode, optimum aperture, ISO value, use of flash or otherwise, filling or not filling frame – the list goes on. As I have said before, I find all this experimentation is almost as much fun as the actual pictures. At least Paul you had anticipated all this when you got the new camera.

You mentioned “grain” (noise by any other name). I now swear by a product called Noiseware.

http://www.imagenomic.com/

My FZ38 is noise-free at ISOs of 80 and 100 but noise does begin to creep in at ISO 200 and becomes quite obtrusive at 400. The use of Noisewear can make ISO 400 almost as usable as the lower ISOs so is valuable when light levels are poor and flash is not an option. The “Community” version is free but I very quickly upgraded to the pay-version which enables amongst other things, batch processing.

Not sure Paul that’s a Black Darter (although the underside is intriguing). Possibly immature or female Common Darter but don’t quote me.

Jack

[Rogerdodge]

Paul
The LACK of grain (noise) is extraordinary, considering you have the ISO at 3200 (at least on the smopper)
This gives 1/1600 sec shutter speed!!!
1/250 would be good enough to hand hold your combination
I suggest knocking it back to 400 - then you will be grain (noise) free.
I know we had discussed the steepness of the learning curve!
Good luck - good rsults so far all things considered.
Are you using a mono/tripod?

[Michaeljf]

Paul The LACK of grain (noise) is extraordinary, considering you have the ISO at 3200 (at least on the smopper)

Hmm...mind if I step in as a fellow Canon user?

I thought the first shot was a bit grainy, so I think you must have upped the ISO a bit much by accident!! Having used Canon's since I was a nipper ( ), I think you'll find with the newer EOS bodies you can go up to 1000 ISO withought the grain showing much at all, unless you start doing some post-production that might bring it out. As to hand-holding, I would suggest you can easily try it at 400 or 500 without much of a quality problem. I have met folks at reserves who shudder at the thought, but I can't see a difference and I guess until you start blowing up the images past A2 you're not going to see anything. I only use ISO 100 if I am using a tripod with landscape photography, and then I am using a very small aperture (F22 as opposed to nearer say, F8 with butterfly shots).

To change the ISO just press the ISO button on the top right of the 7D body, and using the top right dial, shift the ISO number by turning the button to the left (less ISO = less grain) or to the right (higher ISO, more grain but more speed to pay with) presuming you are off the automatic 'green square' option!

However, I freely admit I have seen a lot of photos on here recently that are gently persuading me to think about using a tripod for my butterfly photos next year...

[Michaeljf]

Nice pics by the way - I told you it should be easier than your 'early' Small Tortoiseshell shots!!

Michael

[Paul]

Right, thanks for all that excellent advice and I will try those settings now....

I went out yesterday without the monopod I've been trying - and missed it enormously, even though I find it extrordinarily difficult to handle... another story - so I'm already thinking tripod. The lack of resolution was beaten by the fast shutter speed, ie shake was the issue, but the high iso was the trade off (had the iso on auto). I have spent so much time wondering what settings other people find best - so I really appreciate the above advice.

The fast stuff was OK in yesterdays strong sun, but the dragonfly ( I would like someone to change/ confirm ID - Jack.. I know nothing!!!) was in the more watery early evening light.... but there you go..

I've got it set on M and use the Q button to set everything - as it all seems there together... really quite fast and user friendly ( pleasant suprise) - will be trying 1/400, iso640 and f8.0 next - with something to stand it on....

have a hunch when I next venture to unknown territory for never seen before species, I will take both cameras.... use the Lumix to get record shots as scale perfect as I can, then switch to see what Canon shots I can get as they begin to settle out towards roosting... cannot ever see a high brown behaving.... so respect to those who I've seen submit them!!!! ( and all the other wildly energetic species)

PS Jack- have just downloaded free version of noiseware... thanks for the tip.

PPS You all produce fantastic shots - I'm looking at them with new eyes now!!

[Rogerdodge]

Paul
The biggest mistake people seem to make with a monopod is the choice of head.
You really need a simple one - after all, most of the camera placement is manual.
A good ball-head is adequate (but can result in the body crashing down onto the monopod if it isn't tightened enough when in transit).
Personally I favour (and so do many others on this list) the Manfrotto monopod head - the 234RC.
The RC relates to the quick release plate - very handy.
There is only one plane of movement - removong complication.

On the matter of exposure-
All cameras offer either Shutter Speed Priority or Aperture Priority - in these you tell the camera what ISO and either Shutter Speed or Aperture you want to use - and it then alters the Aperture or Shutter Speed to achieve the average grey picture.
I would love to have another mode - where I tell it the Aperture AND Shutter Speed I want, and it then sets the appropriate ISO.
Do any cameras offer this option? I would have mine set to f8 and 1/500 for most of the time I reckon.
HTH

[Paul]

Thanks... that's definitely on my list then... I've a ball head, but it keeps falling apart

I like the noiseware..... I think these are now better

[Michaeljf]

All cameras offer either Shutter Speed Priority or Aperture Priority - in these you tell the camera what ISO and either Shutter Speed or Aperture you want to use - and it then alters the Aperture or Shutter Speed to achieve the average grey picture.
I would love to have another mode - where I tell it the Aperture AND Shutter Speed I want, and it then sets the appropriate ISO.

The DSLR on most of the EOS Canon bodies also have an M button - where you set everything manually, i.e. Aperture, ISO, Shutter speed (and you have to have a look therefore at what the light reading comes out as!!). But I guess Roger is after something slightly different?

In general, when shooting butterflies I shoot in Av (Aperture Value), when shooting fast moving birds or sports photography I will shoot on Tv (Time Value), when I'm shooting landscape I alternate betwee Av and M (Manual) - if I'm shooting a digital panorma, for example, I should be using Manual. When using Av and Tv I'll adjust the ISO according to the conditions (low light higher ISO, faster object higher ISO, good light lower ISO). With butterfies I'll often shoot between 400 and 800 ISO. If you're using a bigger Aperture (3.5) you won't need a higher ISO, because the camera will automatically be shooting faster. I tend to shoot nearer 800 ISO in changeable weather and if I want the whole of the butterflies wings in focus. Again, with a tripod you can shoot in lower ISO.

Regarding some of my sports photography - I normally want a Time Value of between 1250 and 2000 per second. Shooting Red Kites feeding and Golf Swings - for example - you need that sort of speed, otherwise you are going to end up with motion blur when you don't want it. Unless you want motion blur...

Michael

[Michaeljf]

Roger,
useful tip for the Monopod head though!
Michael

[Rogerdodge]

Michael
Present exposure modes are a throw back to the days of film.
In the old days of film we were stuck with the ISO of the roll of film we had just wound onto the reel.
The exception to this was when you were happy to fiddle about in the darkroom "pushing" or "pulling" a deliberately under/over exposed reel - but any change was restricted to the whole roll - not just a frame or two.
In those days, and today, we "fix" 2 of the three variables (Always the ISO and either A or T) and let the camera set the third.
Because, with film, we could only vary 2 of the 3 (ISO being effectively fixed) we only had 2 auto-exposure modes.
This has been maintained into digital cameras, despite the ISO being variable at the flick of a button.

My suggestion is that we should be able to set BOTH the aperture and shutter speed we want, thus getting both the DoF and motion blur (or lack of it) that we want. The camera would then select the ISO required for accurate exposure.

I am, incidentally, well aware of Manual mode, and how to find it on my 2 Canon bodies. Indeed I use it frequently for photographing "whites" or the darker "browns" which both fool the exposure meter into giving an over or under exposed result.
Metering from grass and under-exposing by 1/2 a stop is ideal I find. It is also invaluable when photographing in snow (not many butterflies about then though!).

[Paul]

Ok - now you've lost me... will have to read this all again over & over again

[Michaeljf]

I am, incidentally, well aware of Manual mode, and how to find it on my 2 Canon bodies.

Sorry Roger...

I did used to have a film camera (in fact, I still have two under the stairs, and one gave me fantastic results: the other was a medium-format I bought off Ebay, and I still haven't gone through the first roll of film) and I frequently bought different speed films for golf photography. In fact, even in multiple-shot mode these were a lot more silent than the current Canon brutes. As you mention, now we can effectively change the equivalent 'speed of film' or ISO half way through the day. No wonder photography has boomed since digital SLR's came down in price.

I have found though that the curve of learning on a digital SLR is a lot quicker than an old film camera where, if you didn't have a darkroom, you waited several weeks for a film to be returned via post, at which point you couldn't remember half of your settings or the ideas you had when taking the photo in the first place.

The good news for Paul is that he should be able to learn quickly with the DSLR (even if he doesn't think so at the moment)

[Paul]

More photographing, processing and general mucking around gave me these today....

all taken with.. 1/250 f8.0 iso640.... ( I think)

[Michaeljf]

Paul,
I don't know why you've got the face, unless it's because you're not sure what settings you've been using! Excellent progress. Lovely shots. I especially like the design of the last shot with the Small Copper, even if the Small Copper could be showing a bit more wing for you!
Michael

[Paul]

Thanks very much - I liked the whitish highlights on one of them.

I have really appreciated your help in all of this

[Jack Harrison]

Paul

You have a width of over 5,000 pixels compared with your old Lumix under 4,000 pixels. Moreover you now have a massive sensor size of 22.3 x 14.9 mm. I have done the sums and it works out that each individual pixel on the new camera is more than 2.5 times the linear size of a pixel on the Lumix. This is what gives a DSLR the advantage, bigger dynamic range, and so on.

Now with so many pixels to play with - far more than are needed for web use - I’d love to see the results from that experiment I suggested of only filling part of the frame. It should mean, amongst other things, that hitting the exact focus is less critical and the failure percentage lower.

Jack

[Paul]

Will try in due corse Jack.... still working on scale sharp focus presently, haven't done anything remotely artistic yet ( how true )