First shots with Canon EOS 1DX

PGM

Not much stirring around here, but I got the first few shots with my Canon 1DX:

1) I think this is a Barred Owl, and appreciate if any of you birders know for sure. f/6.3, ISO 5000, 500mm Canon lens, 1/60 second. Too slow, I know, but it was almost dark, and the owl thankfully was sitting still. I don't have a feel for how high the ISO can go without getting a lot of noise yet, but it is surely much higher than my other cameras. If any of you have more experience, all guidance is appreciated! Many thanks, Pam



2) Same owl. I was glad to get the owl shot, as I haven't gotten too many of them over the years. One sits not far from our bedroom at night, and hoots, but I rarely see him or her. f/5.6, ISO 5000, 1/80 second, same lens:



3) Great Blue Heron f/6.3, ISO 400, 1/160 second, same lens:

kdog

I don't know whether to be more jealous of your camera or that you have owls to photograph in your area. A little of both maybe.

Great shots!! And yeah, watch your shutterspeeds, you'll get better shots in general with a faster shutter. Aside from using higher ISOs, you can probably shoot that 500 wide-open at F4 with that new body of yours and still get perfect shots. That's more than a stop you gain over f/6.3 which is what your EXIF shows. Congrats!!

PGM

Thanks, Joel. I will try shooting at F4 next time out, and appreciate the suggestion. About the owls, though, we are not here all the time, but when we are, Edmund and I drive around at least twice a day, and in 16 years, this is only the second time I have gotten a good chance to photograph an owl. I know they are around, but they are hard to see and mainly active at night. I was thrilled to get this owl who perched long enough for me to get a few shots! Best, Pam

Andy

uh, can you please explain what you did to this photo, in post?
https://img.skitch.com/20120908-cu7k7ym4f8k8gfwq5siwsm69kd.jpg

There's horrible artifacts and some nasty selection (?) issues.

PGM

Andy wrote: »

uh, can you please explain what you did to this photo, in post?
https://img.skitch.com/20120908-cu7k7ym4f8k8gfwq5siwsm69kd.jpg

There's horrible artifacts and some nasty selection (?) issues.

Andy, I might if you could be more polite. I am a paying customer of your company, and expect better from everyone at Smugmug. Your tactless comments are offensive to me, and I would prefer not to hear from you again. Best regards, Pam

SciurusNiger

Beautiful owl; not bad for first time out, as you state. I've only caught a screech here and mostly a barn owl's butt as it tried to sleep high up in one of our pine trees.

I do have one question (and anyone else can chime in, too). Why such high ISO? I'm seeing it used an awful lot now and personally don't believe it is always necessary. Is it simply because you can? You say it was almost dark when you saw the owl, but at least on my laptop monitor here it looks like it was shot on a bright but cloudy midday. Is that the intention?

PJ.

babowc

Pam, are #1 and #3 cropped?

babowc

SciurusNiger wrote: »

Beautiful owl; not bad for first time out, as you state. I've only caught a screech here and mostly a barn owl's butt as it tried to sleep high up in one of our pine trees.

I do have one question (and anyone else can chime in, too). Why such high ISO? I'm seeing it used an awful lot now and personally don't believe it is always necessary. Is it simply because you can? You say it was almost dark when you saw the owl, but at least on my laptop monitor here it looks like it was shot on a bright but cloudy midday. Is that the intention?

PJ.

PJ, the high ISO was probably to capture as much ambient as possible. Allowing her to make the shot without losing too much shutter speed.
ISO 5000 and it was still 1/60,
I think you could've pushed it higher! :P

PGM

babowc wrote: »

Pam, are #1 and #3 cropped?

Yes, Mike, they all are cropped. At first the owl flew over my car and landed on the worst backlit branch possible--so close that I could not get the whole bird in view. But then, it flew over to the branch you see it on here. I am traveling today, but will post the originals when I get home in a few days. Best, Pam

PGM

SciurusNiger wrote: »

Beautiful owl; not bad for first time out, as you state. I've only caught a screech here and mostly a barn owl's butt as it tried to sleep high up in one of our pine trees.

I do have one question (and anyone else can chime in, too). Why such high ISO? I'm seeing it used an awful lot now and personally don't believe it is always necessary. Is it simply because you can? You say it was almost dark when you saw the owl, but at least on my laptop monitor here it looks like it was shot on a bright but cloudy midday. Is that the intention?

PJ.

PJ, it is as Mike said. It was dusk when the owl flew over my car and landed on the nearby branch. I would generally hope to get a shutter speed of at least 1/500 in order get a sharp shot of a moving bird or animal, and even at ISO 5000 I didn't come close, at 1/60. I have had the same difficulty as you in even getting the chance to photograph an owl, and I had just taken the camera out of the box and was none too familiar with it, so I snapped away for fear the bird would fly off, which it did! I'm going to take Mike's advice and see how far I can push the ISO without getting noise.

Best, Pam

Andy

PGM wrote: »

Andy, I might if you could be more polite. I am a paying customer of your company, and expect better from everyone at Smugmug. Your tactless comments are offensive to me, and I would prefer not to hear from you again. Best regards, Pam

Hah.... first - I don't work for SmugMug anymore.
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=224464

Secondly - I'm sorry you are offended, and there was no offense intended. I'd still love my questions answered if possible... You're posting in the cameras forum about a new camera. If that owl photo was SOOC then something is really wrong with the camera - if you did stuff in post, we, those interested in the camera would like to know.

Harryb

Good thread here with lots of stuff to respond to.

First congrats Pam on your new camera. Its high ISO performance will open new doors for you with your photography.

PJ, as to high ISOs - wildlife photography often requires high ISO. When I shoot a landscape I put the camera on a tripod, set the ISO to its base ISO, step down the aperture for increased DOF, and shoot at low shutter speeds because that mountain ain't about to move. Now wildlife is a different story. The light is best in early morning or late afternoon so you are not shooting in bright light. Often your camera is not mounted to a tripod because unlike a mountain your subject may not give you the time to set up a tripod. Then you are shooting a long lens, in Pams pics 500mm. Finally you have a mobile subject which usually is not standing stock still. You usually want a shutter speed of no less than 1/1000 sec. You usually shoot with the aperture wide open because for most pics you don't want a deep DOF because the BG is a distraction that takes attention away from your subject. I find that most of my captures run from ISO 800 up to ISO 6400.

Now the problem with shooting at high ISOs is that noise becomes an issue. Also I find that the high ISO files are more "fragile". By fragile I mean I have to be more conservative in my post processing. I can be fairly aggressive with my sharpening or use of plug-ins on a file shoot at ISO 200 but if I applied those same settings to an image taken at ISO 1600 I won't be happy with the results.

Now Pam, Andy first response was a tad blunt but he was accurate. Initially I thought he was being a tad picky using the original file size to show the funky artifacts but when I viewed the size in your original post I saw the same artifacts at that smaller size. I'm just about 100% sure its not the camera that's the culprit here. I've seen the same artifacts in some of my images when I was sloppy with my processing. Usually they occur when I brush in sharpening or the Detail Extractor or Tonal Contrasts filters from Nik's Color Efex Pro and I apply some of the effect to the BG instead of the subject.

Having had the privilege of shooting with Andy for a few years in NYC and having gone to Africa with Andy I know that he was trying to be helpful. He saw a problem and pointed it out. If the only response we get is "great pic" then we will never learn or grow our skills. Andy is an excellent photographer (he should be I taught him most of what he knows about photography ) and a fantastic teacher. If you want to grow your photography skills you wouldn't go wrong by signing up for one of his and Marc's workshops.

PGM

Harryb wrote: »

Good thread here with lots of stuff to respond to.

First congrats Pam on your new camera. Its high ISO performance will open new doors for you with your photography.

PJ, as to high ISOs - wildlife photography often requires high ISO. When I shoot a landscape I put the camera on a tripod, set the ISO to its base ISO, step down the aperture for increased DOF, and shoot at low shutter speeds because that mountain ain't about to move. Now wildlife is a different story. The light is best in early morning or late afternoon so you are not shooting in bright light. Often your camera is not mounted to a tripod because unlike a mountain your subject may not give you the time to set up a tripod. Then you are shooting a long lens, in Pams pics 500mm. Finally you have a mobile subject which usually is not standing stock still. You usually want a shutter speed of no less than 1/1000 sec. You usually shoot with the aperture wide open because for most pics you don't want a deep DOF because the BG is a distraction that takes attention away from your subject. I find that most of my captures run from ISO 800 up to ISO 6400.

Now the problem with shooting at high ISOs is that noise becomes an issue. Also I find that the high ISO files are more "fragile". By fragile I mean I have to be more conservative in my post processing. I can be fairly aggressive with my sharpening or use of plug-ins on a file shoot at ISO 200 but if I applied those same settings to an image taken at ISO 1600 I won't be happy with the results.

Now Pam, Andy first response was a tad blunt but he was accurate. Initially I thought he was being a tad picky using the original file size to show the funky artifacts but when I viewed the size in your original post I saw the same artifacts at that smaller size. I'm just about 100% sure its not the camera that's the culprit here. I've seen the same artifacts in some of my images when I was sloppy with my processing. Usually they occur when I brush in sharpening or the Detail Extractor or Tonal Contrasts filters from Nik's Color Efex Pro and I apply some of the effect to the BG instead of the subject.

Having had the privilege of shooting with Andy for a few years in NYC and having gone to Africa with Andy I know that he was trying to be helpful. He saw a problem and pointed it out. If the only response we get is "great pic" then we will never learn or grow our skills. Andy is an excellent photographer (he should be I taught him most of what he knows about photography ) and a fantastic teacher. If you want to grow your photography skills you wouldn't go wrong by signing up for one of his and Marc's workshops.

Thanks, Harry. I really appreciate the guidance on ISO and how high I can go, as well as post processing information for high ISO photos. I think Andy was definitely accurate. I was certainly sloppy and in a hurry in post processing, but the original photos also weren't too good either--I don't even have a cable release yet and the camera was far from steady. I wouldn't think it would be fair to judge the camera by these shots.

I am happy that you and Andy have such a fine friendship and that he is a good teacher. His style would not be the best fit for me, but I am sure many others will benefit from his workshops and I wish him great success.

Best, Pam

Ric Grupe

PGM wrote: »

Andy, I might if you could be more polite. I am a paying customer of your company, and expect better from everyone at Smugmug. Your tactless comments are offensive to me, and I would prefer not to hear from you again. Best regards, Pam

Pam,

I've been irritated more than once by Andy over the years.

He's to the point and could use some polish, but I assure you his intentions are nothing but the best.

I suspect that Harry is correct in his analysis....but would like to here it from you nonetheless.

Ric Grupe

PGM wrote: »

Andy, I might if you could be more polite. I am a paying customer of your company, and expect better from everyone at Smugmug. Your tactless comments are offensive to me, and I would prefer not to hear from you again. Best regards, Pam

Ric Grupe wrote: »

Pam,

I've been irritated more than once by Andy over the years.

He's to the point and could use some polish, but I assure you his intentions are nothing but the best.

I suspect that Harry is correct in his analysis....but would like to here it from you nonetheless.

* I see you wrote a reply to Harry while I was authoring this....disregard.

PGM

Original photos
Here are 2 of the 3 original photos, in case any of us can learn from them. Again, though, they are far from great photos. They were not shot in raw, the camera was not anchored very well, and the shutter speed was way too low. For some reason I can't get the 3rd to load, and don't have time right now to figure it out. Best, Pam

PGM

Ric Grupe wrote: »

Pam,

I've been irritated more than once by Andy over the years.

He's to the point and could use some polish, but I assure you his intentions are nothing but the best.

I suspect that Harry is correct in his analysis....but would like to here it from you nonetheless.

Ric, sometimes New York blunt equals Southern rude. I totally believe Andy is a fine person with many great qualities. I'm not mad or upset. Not a big deal. And thanks for your thoughts. Warmest regards, Pam

Ric Grupe

PGM wrote: »

Ric, sometimes New York blunt equals Southern rude. I totally believe Andy is a fine person with many great qualities. I'm not mad or upset. Not a big deal. And thanks for your thoughts. Warmest regards, Pam

Well...I forgot to congratulate you on your new camera....so....

Enjoy.

SciurusNiger

Thanks to all for the responses to my question. All of them are great and educational. With wildlife my primary subject, I certainly understand the need for a fast shutter in what is inherently the day's most beautiful yet also often wonky light (and other environmental) conditions. But isn't the fact that wildlife is often seen in those wonky conditions exactly what we, the photographer, are trying to capture? If I wanted a "perfect daylight" portrait of a wild animal, I would go to the zoo or private reserve (or make Harry groan by shooting furballs in my backyard at high noon). But what I want (and this is really the root source of my question) is to show not only the subject but HOW I saw it at any given time. In my heart of hearts, I've come to realize I am first and foremost a documentary photographer so misty morning, high noon, or the golden hour of late afternoon heading into dead of night, for me it's all about the light and WYSIWYG, relatively speaking.

That doesn't mean I don't up my ISO and I will often do some post-processing "magic", but what it does mean is that if I see an owl at night I want others to see that I saw it at night, too. So that is why this thread prompted me to finally post the question that has been bothering me for a while now. I see these incredibly high ISOs in all kinds of shots (not just here in the wildlife forum), many of which I personally wouldn't think necessary. (I want to insert here that this is simply how I'm wired as a photographer and is in NO way a reflection on what others do/want to do, etc. It's just fine with me if others think or work differently but I do like to understand how others think and work since I learn from it.)

Now with all that said, I'll give you some more insight. When I went pro, I bought a Nikon D2Xs and what I have found is that going above 400 ISO on it gives me fits because of all the noise. Technology has surely advanced so perhaps my next question is whether I should save more seriously for a new pro body or am I simply missing something when trying to push the ISO on the D2Xs? I've seen plenty of shots done in higher ISO with this camera by more experienced pros so am inclined to think I've not yet mastered it but what say all of you?

PJ.

Harryb

SciurusNiger wrote: »

Thanks to all for the responses to my question. All of them are great and educational. With wildlife my primary subject, I certainly understand the need for a fast shutter in what is inherently the day's most beautiful yet also often wonky light (and other environmental) conditions. But isn't the fact that wildlife is often seen in those wonky conditions exactly what we, the photographer, are trying to capture? If I wanted a "perfect daylight" portrait of a wild animal, I would go to the zoo or private reserve (or make Harry groan by shooting furballs in my backyard at high noon). But what I want (and this is really the root source of my question) is to show not only the subject but HOW I saw it at any given time. In my heart of hearts, I've come to realize I am first and foremost a documentary photographer so misty morning, high noon, or the golden hour of late afternoon heading into dead of night, for me it's all about the light and WYSIWYG, relatively speaking.

That doesn't mean I don't up my ISO and I will often do some post-processing "magic", but what it does mean is that if I see an owl at night I want others to see that I saw it at night, too. So that is why this thread prompted me to finally post the question that has been bothering me for a while now. I see these incredibly high ISOs in all kinds of shots (not just here in the wildlife forum), many of which I personally wouldn't think necessary. (I want to insert here that this is simply how I'm wired as a photographer and is in NO way a reflection on what others do/want to do, etc. It's just fine with me if others think or work differently but I do like to understand how others think and work since I learn from it.)

Now with all that said, I'll give you some more insight. When I went pro, I bought a Nikon D2Xs and what I have found is that going above 400 ISO on it gives me fits because of all the noise. Technology has surely advanced so perhaps my next question is whether I should save more seriously for a new pro body or am I simply missing something when trying to push the ISO on the D2Xs? I've seen plenty of shots done in higher ISO with this camera by more experienced pros so am inclined to think I've not yet mastered it but what say all of you?

PJ.

Some of my favorite images were taken with the D2X but as you said ISO 400 is about as far as you want to take it. When I bought the D3 upon its release a whole new world opened up for me. I took this just after sunset in Kenya with the D3s at ISO 6400.


It captured the moment in a documentary manner and its a capture I would never have gotten with the D2X. Now I love the D2X and I think its IQ is superior to Nikon's current line-up of DX cameras but I can't imagine shooting wildlife and being limited to ISO 400.

I apologize to Pam for sticking one of my pics in her thread. I just couldn't come up with another way of demonstrating my point.

Andy

PGM wrote: »

Ric, sometimes New York blunt equals Southern rude. I totally believe Andy is a fine person with many great qualities. I'm not mad or upset. Not a big deal. And thanks for your thoughts. Warmest regards, Pam

Haha I promise you I don't have a rude bone in my body... I really wanted to see what was done to the photos, that's all. Sorry I posted so briefly and didn't add more words, I should have done that. Congrats on your new camera, Pam!

ETA: I looked at the originals and I can see that the artifacts came from post-processing, so thanks for showing them, that helps a ton.

Harryb

PGM wrote: »

Here are 2 of the 3 original photos, in case any of us can learn from them. Again, though, they are far from great photos. They were not shot in raw, the camera was not anchored very well, and the shutter speed was way too low. For some reason I can't get the 3rd to load, and don't have time right now to figure it out. Best, Pam

OK, I can understand being tempted to shoot jpegs while trying out a new camera but don't do it.

RAW is the way to go. The captures are OK. They aren't works of art but are quite good when you consider the shooting conditions. I would have opened up the aperture and bumped up the ISO. The 1DX is a high ISO marvel so don't be afraid to push it.

PGM

Andy wrote: »

Haha I promise you I don't have a rude bone in my body... I really wanted to see what was done to the photos, that's all. Sorry I posted so briefly and didn't add more words, I should have done that. Congrats on your new camera, Pam!

ETA: I looked at the originals and I can see that the artifacts came from post-processing, so thanks for showing them, that helps a ton.

Thank you, Andy. You have a fine friend in Harry. Can you show me what you mean by artifacts? I see the sloppy selection issue clearly, but not the artifacts. Best, Pam

Andy

PGM wrote: »

Thank you, Andy. You have a fine friend in Harry. Can you show me what you mean by artifacts? I see the sloppy selection issue clearly, but not the artifacts. Best, Pam

Sure - look at the inner circle here
https://img.skitch.com/20120909-gc9ff6wcktsix6d8pt56bmj8t1.jpg

PGM

Harryb wrote: »

OK, I can understand being tempted to shoot jpegs while trying out a new camera but don't do it.

RAW is the way to go. The captures are OK. They aren't works of art but are quite good when you consider the shooting conditions. I would have opened up the aperture and bumped up the ISO. The 1DX is a high ISO marvel so don't be afraid to push it.

Well, Harry, now you are too kind. I cannot at all understand being tempted to shoot jpegs while trying out a new camera. It happened by accident, as I intended to shoot RAW, and thought I had set the camera that way, but not so. I had a hard enough time just figuring out where the battery goes and how to open the card slot--this camera is so different from my 7D. I am the least mechanical person ever. I also bought a new Wimberly gimbal tripod head, and a tripod, both of which are still boxed up at Avery island. I am hoping for divine intervention when I have to set that up.

Best, Pam

PGM

Andy wrote: »

Sure - look at the inner circle here
https://img.skitch.com/20120909-gc9ff6wcktsix6d8pt56bmj8t1.jpg

Got it! Thanks, Pam

SciurusNiger

Have to go off-topic here and say that I messed up something yesterday evening so all my shots were coming out "black" (had been testing the high ISO on the D2Xs...no idea what I later mucked up in the camera menu). An in-camera menu reset fixed my problem but after I got home from doing a couple of night shots for my dailies, I discovered I'd shot them in JPG.

I don't think I've shot JPG for 7 years now. So...JPG happens!

PJ.

PGM wrote: »

Well, Harry, now you are too kind. I cannot at all understand being tempted to shoot jpegs while trying out a new camera. It happened by accident, as I intended to shoot RAW, and thought I had set the camera that way, but not so. I had a hard enough time just figuring out where the battery goes and how to open the card slot--this camera is so different from my 7D. I am the least mechanical person ever. I also bought a new Wimberly gimbal tripod head, and a tripod, both of which are still boxed up at Avery island. I am hoping for divine intervention when I have to set that up.

Best, Pam

raptorcaptor

Congrats on your new camera, Pam!

PGM

raptorcaptor wrote: »

Congrats on your new camera, Pam!

Thanks, Glenn! Now I just have to learn how to use it! Best, Pam

Brian_S

nice captures Pam, congrats on a great camera

PGM

Brian_S wrote: »

nice captures Pam, congrats on a great camera

Thank you, Brian. Hope to get a chance to practice more in the next couple of weeks. Best, Pam