Seagull hunting
 

decided to try something different and tracking, focusing and actually nailing a good shot of the bastard things, whilst simultaneously avoiding being treated to an offering from it's digestive tract is incredibly frustrating.

But here we are...

sweet pics buddy,

random question but it appears i can upgrade the 10d to a 30d for about £100 or near abouts (probably at the cost of not getting a battery grip on the 30d) is it worth it, mainly for the higher noise control

shoot them in a different way next time please :y:

1 is the best out of the lot. nice and sharp :)

I don't know why the EXIF isn't there but if you go to my flickr (sig), it's all there.

Jim, I rarely use the 10D now, I just leave it in the car with a 28-80 and a crappy 1gb card on it purely for those 'one off' occassions where I'd probably wished I'd had my other stuff... if you can just jump straight for the 40D rather than the 20 or 30 iterations of the xxD series. They can't be that expensive on the 2nd hand market now!

That was literally the only sharp one, soooo hard

yeah ive been looking at both the 30d and the 40d, if i can find a 40d going cheap then i will go for that. im not looking to spend loads on upgrade as ultimately looking to get a 5dmk2 or 7D at some point , so this would then become a back up. Just i am shooting a wedding in Jan and im worried that dark churches and crap noise on the 10d wont be a good mix

Yeah that's a bad mix indeedy, but as a fail safe if you are shooting with the 10D at high ISO just convert everything to black and white and it'll look fine.

you're going to need 2.8 and faster glass just to get even a remotely ok shutter speed (do you have any?!) especially in january in a church :fcuk: braver man than I am. Just get a shed load of fast primes rather than bunging money on single camera, 7d and 5d are two completely different cameras, one sports and one portrait respectively. 5D2 will blow the 7d into the weeds in terms of noise so I'd just go for that - 7D focus is more accurate though.

yeah i did think of that, only have a f1.8 niffy fifty and f4 70-200. 28-135mm has IS. just for colour prints on the 10d you cant really go above 400iso :S

Having the IS on the 28-135 wont help if it wont focus properly.

1.8 nifty fifty I find is still shite slow in low light at work.

PS on topic - Sayer bird photography is deffo not easy, bigger birds are easyer, I tried shooting really small birds in my garden once, it wasnt fun

mmm might hire some kit tbh canon 24-70 f2.8L usm £38 for the weekend, 5dmk2 £104 for weekend

If you are being paid for the wedding, I would deffo offset some of the profit with rental of decent gear.

Plus making sure I had decent public liability cover.

AdSayer ~ Seagull hunter ...

its difficult though because its for my aunt so its ment to be on the cheap but equally i dont want them to turn out crap. If i do rent then i wouldnt be paying for it.

sorry for the :hijack: mr sayer :hug:

now available on dvd :p

*sniggers*

800iso is just about ok... depends what you're printing to I suppose (I guess they will be printing)... it's important to distinguish between noise present at 100% and noise that is apparent on a print - as there quite a difference - increased pixels and reducing the size to fit a screen averages out noise that is present, so it might look bad at 100% but for a print it might actually be better blah blah.

Here's a useful site I've used for a bit for comparison and generally brushing up on my camera theory/electronic theory...
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng...rand3%29/Canon

I've laid out a comparison between the 10, 30 and 40D, check the important one which is the SNR tab... you have the option for screen and print. although the graphs look similar remember that's it's a logarithmic scale :wink:

Also it indicates the dynamic range for a given ISO in another tab, so you know how much contrast you'll lose as you bung up the ISO (perhaps a more important factor for a lot of things).... that's why I rarely go above 800ISO if I can ever avoid it as the DyR drops off after that on the 10d.... loads of interesting info if you're prepared to wade through it :y:

ryan raises a point here, we've both got 1d's and the AF is much better BUT only you have glass that is 2.8 or faster, as the AF sensor works using a more accurate cross sensor as opposed to less accurate horizontal type sensors... else it's wasted on other glass, same for the 7d (although it only has a 2.8 cross type centre in the centre which I rarely use anyway. So even though a 5d, 7d, 30d etc has a 'more accurate' AF sensor(s), it's only true to a point, if you're using slow glass then it's not going to be as significant as it would otherwise be.

here's what I'd rent
10mm f/2.8 fisheye Sigma
16-35mm f/2.8
70-200mm f/2.8 IS or 135mm f/2.0
85 f/1.2
and maybe a 24mm f/1.4
then a 5D mkI/II
2x 580EXs
2x pocketwizards



that way with the different crop factor you've essentially doubled your lens collection. That'd be my ideal setup :)

:cool:

No worries on the hijack! I like it when we start discussing stuff like this anyway! :D It's a toughy and this is why I won't do weddings. People think they can save money on the wedding photographer by using a mate/relative and then expect goodish pics just because they've seen them be able to do some shots in their own time and at their own pace... when it's a wedding it's completely different. you've got hundreds of one off moments coming one after the other that you've got to capture. Scares the shit out of me, especially if I'd be the only photographer.

AHHAAHHAHAHAAaaa that's class!

oh also... the conversion from RAW to Jpeg within the 10D is particularly weak... you'll find the noise isn't as bad in RAW format on it :)

Sayer telling james to rent half of my gearlist ;)

I actually find that theres a big hole with the 16-35 and 70-200 combo which the 24-70 will do mega nicely with.

yeah i pretty much shoot most things RAW these days, when its sunny and i can shoot at 100 or 200 iso then there is nothing really wrong with the 10d, i was pretty pleased with the images i got from brands, but it was noticable that as it started to get dark and i had to crank up the iso the pics suffered badly. Having said that i was using my dads 2x teleconvertor (manual focus panning - hardcore lol) later on in the day which ment the lowest i could shoot was f8, so in hindsight i would have probably been better to ditch the teleconvertor, shoot at 200mm on a lower iso and then crop them.
http://www.8-bg.co.uk/BTTC.html

cheers for the link/info buddy :y: