Simon Walker's picture

Blue Tit

Observed: 27th September 2012 By: Simon WalkerSimon Walker’s reputation in BirdsSimon Walker’s reputation in BirdsSimon Walker’s reputation in BirdsSimon Walker’s reputation in BirdsSimon Walker’s reputation in Birds
Blue Tit, Little Paxton, 2012-09-27 001
Description:

This style of feeder's a new one on me. It seems popular though.

Identifications
Species interactions

No interactions present.

Species with which Blue Tit (Cyanistes caeruleus) interacts

Comments

chrisbrooks's picture

Image

A nice shot Simon and with that all important uncluttered background, was that planned ?

Simon Walker's picture

I Can't Say PLANNED, exactly...

...more spotted and taken advantage of. I'm still a bit of a beginner, though.
The 500mm F4 gives a really shallow depth of focus, so the background often tends to blur out. Sometimes though the dof is so shallow you have to force it by reducing the aperture to f5.6 or more, or the subject won't be in focus. Then the ISO and noise goes up, or the exposure time increases, and they both present their own problems. Always a balance, photography, isn't it? (Incidentally, regarding ISO and noise, I've just bought a Canon 5D Mk III, and the noise on that is much lower than the Canon 7D I was using before).
Thanks for your kind remarks, Chris.

Regards

chrisbrooks's picture

Canon

I still have the 5D Mk1 and use it for landscape / holiday images, great camera; however for wildlife I found the full frame put me at a disadvantage as I was missing the crop factor of DX formats, what's your opinion on the full frame aspect ?

Simon Walker's picture

I'm No Expert But Here's What I Think.

The 7D has a 1.6 crop advantage over the 5D Mk III. When I got the new camera I was a bit worried by that, so I set up my macro lens on a tripod, set the two cameras to the same settings, and took several shots or the same object with each. The 7D at first looked like it would come out on top, but it was an illusion. When I cropped the 5D/III to bring the images to the same borders and printed the results side by side, the 5D seemed better to me.
Since then I've used the 5D with the 500mm F4 almost exclusively, and I reckon the results are better than the 7D, especially in low light.
Is it worth twice the price for the 5D/III? I don't know, that's subjective. But the 5D/III is in my opinion better than the 7D.
I've never tried a 5D/I so I can't comment on that.