Nicely Posed in the Snowstorm

I thought this was a lucky catch:

http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg

--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com

On 2/8/10 1:41 PM, in article
, "M-M"
wrote:

I thought this was a lucky catch:

http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg

Would be nice to be able to see it.

In article ,
George Kerby wrote:

On 2/8/10 1:41 PM, in article
, "M-M"
wrote:

I thought this was a lucky catch:

http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg

Would be nice to be able to see it.


It's there. What are you getting?

--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:58:22 -0600, George Kerby
wrote:




On 2/8/10 1:41 PM, in article
, "M-M"
wrote:

I thought this was a lucky catch:

http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg

Would be nice to be able to see it.

All clear at this end :-)

Mike P

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:41:52 -0500, M-M wrote:

I thought this was a lucky catch:

http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg

Shame about that vertical branch cutting the red bird in half.

On 2/8/10 2:03 PM, in article
, "M-M"
wrote:

In article ,
George Kerby wrote:

On 2/8/10 1:41 PM, in article
, "M-M"
wrote:

I thought this was a lucky catch:

http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg

Would be nice to be able to see it.


It's there. What are you getting?

Now it's fine. The first time, it wanted a name and password for viewing.

Being a native Houstonian, I never realized the soft reflectivity factor of
snow, since it is so rare here. I assume that is what is providing the light
on the birds' bellies. Very interesting.

In article ,
George Kerby wrote:

http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg


Being a native Houstonian, I never realized the soft reflectivity factor of
snow, since it is so rare here. I assume that is what is providing the light
on the birds' bellies. Very interesting.

That, but a little Photoshop helped also

Interesting also that when you take a photo of snow on a sunny day, it
comes out blue- reflecting the sky.


--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:14:53 -0500, M-M wrote:

In article ,
George Kerby wrote:

http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg


Being a native Houstonian, I never realized the soft reflectivity factor of
snow, since it is so rare here. I assume that is what is providing the light
on the birds' bellies. Very interesting.

That, but a little Photoshop helped also

Interesting also that when you take a photo of snow on a sunny day, it
comes out blue- reflecting the sky.

Composition is pretty bad overall, but with some strong cropping you could
still get a decent composition out of it because the birds posed themselves
fairly nicely.

But why is it so blurry? Shot through a few panes of glass or something?

Looks more like the DOF is so shallow that only the mid-point of the twig
the male cardinal is sitting on is the part in focus. Aren't those giant
sensors and huge apertures wonderful?

Just checked the EXIF. Sheesh, f/5.6 and you still couldn't get both birds
in focus. Yeah, I'll pass on those kinds of cameras, thanks anyway. When
I'm shooting wildlife I have to make sure I have a useful image when I get
back home.

In article ,
Observant One wrote:

Shot through a few panes of glass or something?


That and the heat coming out of the house.

--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:00:08 -0600, Observant One wrote:

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:14:53 -0500, M-M wrote:

In article ,
George Kerby wrote:

http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg


Being a native Houstonian, I never realized the soft reflectivity factor of
snow, since it is so rare here. I assume that is what is providing the light
on the birds' bellies. Very interesting.

That, but a little Photoshop helped also

Interesting also that when you take a photo of snow on a sunny day, it
comes out blue- reflecting the sky.

Composition is pretty bad overall, but with some strong cropping you could
still get a decent composition out of it because the birds posed themselves
fairly nicely.

But why is it so blurry? Shot through a few panes of glass or something?

Looks more like the DOF is so shallow that only the mid-point of the twig
the male cardinal is sitting on is the part in focus. Aren't those giant
sensors and huge apertures wonderful?

Just checked the EXIF. Sheesh, f/5.6 and you still couldn't get both birds
in focus. Yeah, I'll pass on those kinds of cameras, thanks anyway. When
I'm shooting wildlife I have to make sure I have a useful image when I get
back home.


Interesting. Using an online DOF calculator, if those birds were only 50
ft. away, your camera and lens would only have a useful DOF of 9.9 inches.
I'm guessing that's probably pretty close to the situation, considering the
blurriness and their seemingly apparent positions on the twigs. Or else
they might even be closer, diminishing the DOF even further.

In order to get the same useless DOF with that focal length on a 2/3"
sensor P&S camera, I would have to use a 450mm EFL at about f/0.8 (?
possibly even wider). Instead, I can always get a useful DOF of about 22
inches at f/2.0. But since my favorite wildlife P&S camera only opens up to
f/2.4 at that focal length (f/2.0 at shorter focal lengths), then I get 26
inches of useful DOF to adequately capture both of those birds in sharp
focus. The other upside is that I can shoot at that same ISO noise-free
(easily) but use a shutter speed of 1/700s instead of the 1/125s that was
used, which probably also added to your image blur. What with that shutter
and mirror slap and all adding to the blurriness too.

With a 1/2.5" sensor P&S camera then at widest aperture of about f/3.5 on
most of them with that focal length, then you would get a 55 inch DOF at
that distance with that focal length. Still a much more useful DOF and both
birds would have been in sharp focus. Plus that's still 1.3 EV stops
advantage, meaning it could be shot at a shutter speed of 1/320s.

Well, that was a fun thing to calculate.

1.3 to 2.3 stops aperture advantage to the $250-$350 P&S cameras and both
providing a useful DOF. Then you would have come back home with a useful
printable image. Rather than what you have now. One that can't even stand
up to being published at 968x648 pixels, which means it can't even be
printed at 3-4 inches in size horizontally. Seems that an awful lot of
money was used to attain all that wonderful DSLR blur that everyone brags
on. What a shame.

Boy, the cost of that thing must be really burning about now.

Thanks for providing yet another example that proves P&S camera excel for
wildlife photography.