Відео

Hi. It's hard to say without seeing your photos, but many macro photographers shoot from the wrong angle and so too much of the background is in focus. Here's another video of mine which describes it, but with birds rather than insects. But it's exactly the same principle. ua-cam.com/video/OlgHNJTDTQg/v-deo.htmlsi=gapzBBrWEBkh4x4s&t=126 Thanks for watching

Hi there. The idea that smaller sensor sizes have more noise than larger ones has been kicking around for a while, and it's a vast over-simplification of things. People say this when comparing individual sensor's photosites (which is the correct way of describing pixels in your sensor: pixels are in images, photosites are in sensors). So if you have two cameras that are both 24mp, one is full frame and the other is cropped, each photosite in the crop sensor receives less light than the equivalent photosite in the full frame. But this doesn't necessarily mean there will be more noise to achieve the same exposure. Here's an article that describes it well, except for that the writer calls photosites pizels, but if you ignore this the article is good. www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise/2 One other thing to mention is that you shouldn't use the graphs on the photonstophotos website to compare one camera with another. There is a note below the graph to say "These raw values are not appropriate for comparing camera models because they are not adjusted for gain or area." What this means is that you should just use the shape of the line to see how noise increases from the base ISO for an individual camera model, but the base ISO read noise isn't comparable between cameras. I hope that helps and thanks for watching.

Thank You for the in-depth reply and clearing up my confusion.

Glad you found it useful. Thanks for watching.

Hi there. No, I haven’t, unfortunately. I would love to photograph wildlife in many parts of the world in the future. Thanks for watching.

@WalksOnTheWildSide I will invite you across once our new lodge is finished with its photographic hides having 53 one way photographic glass windows which are 55cm x 300cm .

Wow, it sounds great. I look forward to it.

Glad it was helpful!. Thanks for watching.

Glad you enjoyed it. Welcome to the channel.

Hi. This was in the UK, on the Yorkshire coast at a little place called Bempton Cliffs. Thanks for watching.

Good choice, I hope you enjoy it. Thanks for watching.

Thank you as always Raymond.

Hi Tim. You could be right, it would affect the slower shutter speeds of landscape photography far more. But I do think there is something in the variation between camera brands and the different algorithms they use for stabilisation. I was shooting some long exposure seascapes after sunset a couple of nights ago, needing roughly a 13 minute expose due to the darkness. I had stabilisation on the whole time and the photos were perfectly sharp. But I know landscape photographers who use other gear who would swear it needs to be switched off. I think I want to do a bit more investigation on this one. Thanks for watching.

@@WalksOnTheWildSide I recall an evening out when I was photographing a cityscape in the dark and it was with a camera that did not have IBIS, but the lens had OIS. The first shot was unsharp -- the OIS was still on. After I turned on the OIS, all shots were sharp. However, with IBIS in my other bodies I find that it is quite OK most of the time, to leave IBIS on and long exposures will often come out sharp. That's of course not a scientific study, but a datapoint to keep in mind, for myself!

Hi Dez, that's very kind of you to say so. Thanks for watching.

Hi Fred. No, image stabilisation was invented for stills photography and remains to be the main use case for it. Since the camera market has been making cameras to suit videographers, so that people can do both in one body, they've been trying to make stabilisation that works for video. The problem is that it doesn't work very well for video. I used the example of the dampeners in optical stabilisation being a bit like suspension on a car. It's a perfect example because optical stabilisation smooths things out a little bit, just like suspension lessons the effect of a bump in the road. It doesn't stop you feeling it, it's just not as harsh as a car without suspension. Image stabilisation can smooth things out just enough for the split second it takes to get a picture, but video can still look really bumpy even with it. In the world of film making they don't use video cameras with stabilisation for this very reason. If you ever see a film or TV crew doing any hand held filming they use video gimbal stabilisers that look like a big long pole with counter weights and is often attached to harness on the camera operator's body. m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61LMNe8vkZL._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg Stabilisation has got a long way to go before it works well for video. Thanks for watching.

No, but you can be forgiven for thinking that. With some Sony cameras if you have both the lens and camera with steady shot (Sony’s phrase for stabilisation) you can only switch it on and off via the lens switch. The menu option in the camera is disabled. So that means it can only be on for both OS and IBIS, or off for both. You only see the option to switch on steady shot in the camera menu if you have a third party lens, or a Sony lens without steady shot. Thanks for watching.

@@WalksOnTheWildSide That actually seems like a really good move from Sony. It's confusing when a visible control has a state that doesn't match the actual state of the system it's supposed to be controlling. So until lens manufacturers start building in motorized switches and knobs it makes sense to disable the virtual switch when there's a physical switch in place for the same control. Although they don't do that for AF/MF for some reason. In principle they could add an additional position on the physical switch that means "controlled by virtual switch", like Fuji do on their aperture and shutter speed dials.

Hi. It probably depends how you are using the tripod, how windy it is and how the wind is affecting your lens. If you've got the lens locked in position and it's not moving at all, you might not even need stabilisation switched on. If it's on a gimbal head or a fluid head so that you can photograph something moving, look at what happens to the lens when you're not holding it. If it's blowing from side to side, you want mode 2. If the vibrations are in all directions you want mode 3. Thanks for watching.

Hi Bill. Absolutely - if it’s locked in position on the tripod, using something like a ball head or a geared head, there is absolutely no point in using stabilisation. I use the stabilisation when I have the camera on a gimbal head or fluid head, photographing something moving. Thanks for watching.

Thanks for watching.

Hi. I've experimented with this a couple of years back by having OS on and IBIS off, then vice versa, then both on and I can definitely get sharp pictures with the lowest shutter speeds when both are on. I don't think this was the case though back in the mid-2010s when image stabilisation was first becoming wide spread. But that experimentation was with the Sony system. However all manufacturers seem to say that their OS and IBIS are designed to work together when native lenses are used. So if people have got newer gear (the last five years or so) I always recommend using both. But give it a go. Find a subject you can photograph over and over again and try the different variations to see what gives you the best results. Thanks for watching.

Interesting. The Nikon scenario isn't one that I've seen much about, but on googling it, it appears Z series cameras can also detect when they are on a tripod. I agree that there is little point in using image stabilisation if your camera is locked in position on a tripod, but usually I'm using it with a gimbal head on my tripod to get smooth motion as I'm tracking a bird moving - in which case I would definitely want optical stabilisation on. I'm going to look into this a little bit more and see if I can find some firmer answers on it. Thanks for watching.

@@WalksOnTheWildSide Yes, thanks for the reply, I use VR in sport (panning mode) on a Gimbal head, never had a problem..

I'm just a beginner and notice that many of your photographs are at f9 and quite low iso and shutter speeds. I have had the chance to take photos of juvenile Australian Gannets here and I tend to put the shutter speed up high with auto iso. My photos tend to be silhouettes needing noise reduction post processing. I am always afraid of blown out highlights or backgrounds and don't seem to be able to get the right balance of the three elements. I haven't watched your seabird video yet. It may help. Thankyou for all your videos. They are always informative and well thought out and produced. (I use Olympus 100-400mm and OMD M1)

They use that technique in astrophotography for noise reduction. It would probably only work with wildlife in very limited scenarios. Firstly the subject would need to be perfectly still, but secondly you'd need nothing in the background (ie a subject shot against a clear sky or something like that) otherwise you've get all sorts of weird perspective artefacts in the blend. It might be worth an experiment though to see what can be achieved.

Absolutely, or at least a little symbol that represents what they do. Something like 1 is a dot, 2 is a straight line, 3 is a squiggle.

Hi Barney. Yeah I guess so. If you think of pitch and yaw as roll around the axis perpendicular to the plane of the roll, then you're just missing movement along the fore/back spatial axis.

@@WalksOnTheWildSide Right. And I read that although it's marketed as 5 axis that refers to the sensors, not the movement of the sensor. The movement of the sensor relative to the camera chassis is I think only happens within the plane, i.e. x,y, and rotation around the front to back axis. And for photographing subjects at a distance no small transnational movements of the camera matter, only rotations affect the image. But measuring and compensating for translations matters for macro photography.

Absolutely. The stabilisation is to detect and counter the motion in the five axes they refer to. But the sensor doesn’t move in all five axes, only in the x-y plane. If you’re careful and nudge the sensor housing you can see how it moves.

Good stuff, I'm glad it's useful to you and thanks for watching.

Thank you. It's great to know this is useful to you and thanks for keeping watching.

Thank you for your lovely comment. I'm glad you enjoyed the video, and thanks for watching.

Excellent - I hope you enjoy using it and thanks for watching.

Hi John. Unfortunately I think most, if not all, of the major photo editing software developers have switched to the subscription model. Is it fair to people like yourself who bought a full version before this new subscription model came out - no, it's not. But they would probably argue that the cash flow allows them to put more money into developing new features. I have certainly noticed a much faster rate of development from all the software providers I use. But this just means that the gap between the old desktop version and the new cloud/subscription version will get wider and wider each year. I'm not trying to justify their position, just to explain it. However, I might be able to help - I'm going to work on a video for people like yourself with some alternatives to think about. So look out for it coming up at some point in the future.