Thank you so much, I am a beginner photographer and your video was just what I needed. you explain things very clearly in a simple way that is easy to understand. Being new to photography and starting on birds is probably not the best idea but that is where my interest is. I struggle with focus and I dream of getting a shot like your Mallard image. All of you images are just stunning! Thank you for sharing your work and your instruction is invaluable.
Great stuff, Tim. Thanks for the in-depth information. Sometimes I just go out there and shoot while not realizing the effect of your settings. This video really helps!
Thanks Tim. I usually shoot wide open at f4 for songbirds, but I am learning by closing down one stop I can get the feet of the bird more sharp. I think in your example with the nice blurry foreground element, wide open is best. One thing is for sure, I would rather have a nicer background as my priory and the slightly blurry feet come second for my taste. Then again, the funny thing is that we value these things way more than most of our audience. In other words, you can have some stick monsters poking out of the birds head and some of these photos can still amazingly get published. For me, I strive for the cleanest images of course but I do find it interesting some of the poor images I see that get notoriety.
Thanks Tim. Found this video super helpful and your teaching was really clear. I particularly like your photos where the birds are shown in there environments.
This is one of the nicest instructional videos on aperture that I have ever seen. Sharpness is a vital compositional tool and Tim uses it with skill and creativity. My only concern, however, is that there are some pesky basic laws of physics that interfere. You cannot ignore diffraction blur and you cannot ignore the resolution of the densely-packed sensor grids in modern cameras. Blur is usually measured as a length. Suppose you took an image of a single point of light. Virtually all kinds of blur have the effect of spreading this single point into a blob of light on the sensor, whether it is a piece of film or a silicon grid of pixels. Generally it makes sense to draw a circle around "most" of the blob. You can then call the diameter of this circle the "blur spot diameter". Since most lenses are round, the blur spots from diffraction blur and focus blur (bokeh) really are almost round. OK, how does this blur spot diameter impact the world of creative photography? First, it is the basic measurement that determines DOF, or depth of field. There are many inexpensive smart-phone applications out there to help you determine DOF for various camera configurations. You might have to poke around to find it, but all such apps have a blur spot diameter parameter. I personally use the TrueDoF-Pro app. This is not an endorsement, it is simply that I am most familiar with this particular one. There on the bottom left corner of the display you will see a blurry gray dot with a number above it. The default is 30 mu, which stands for micrometers or millionths of a meter. For comparison, red light has a wavelength of about 0.7 micrometers. A typical full-frame digital sensor array has a pixel stride (grid distance) of about 5 micrometers. In any case, this size blur is what the DOF app uses to determine the boundary between "blurry" and "sharp". I'm not certain where 30 micrometers comes from, but I suspect that it is related to the chemical grain size of color film. Note that it is much bigger than a typical sensor grid spacing. A 30 micrometer blob of blurry light will cover about 36 elements of a 5 micrometer sensor grid. If your DOF app allows you to change the blur spot diameter, you might want to try different values and see what that does to depths of field. Humans respond to blur in a complicated way, so I'm a big fan of doing what Tim has done and looking at actual pictures, but keeping the basic laws of physics in mind. What I notice is that the sharpest parts of each image correlate nicely with f/number. All of the f/2.8 images are clearly sharper than I can see on UA-cam (nice work, Tim!). By f/8 there is a noticeable loss of detail. For a bird, look at the barbules on the feathers. For f/2.8, you can see each one. On my computer, the head feathers of the mallard (f/11?) show that there are barbules but don't show the details any more. For all of the test images above f/8, Tim has various explanations for why each image is soft. A simpler explanation more in line with basic physics is that for modern full-frame camera bodies, diffraction blur starts to be noticeable somewhere around f/4 and gets more noticeable if you stop the lens down beyond that. Tim also makes a really good case that, from a creative standpoint, some overall blur can be a really nice thing. You could say that the blur spot pattern for diffraction blur has especially nice bokeh. If you want to see what diffraction blur looks like, look up "Airy Disk" in your favorite science reference.
@@GodwitMediaLLC , I did better on Physics Class rather than Art Class but both are important. One of the advantages of being retired is the chance to work on things that you suck at but care about. Your images definitely show the way to live with the constraints of physics rather than just trying to blast past them with expensive, heavy gear.
Thank you once again for your wonderful work - wish I could come over to the US from Germany for your WS :-) Really enjoyed the overview helping me a lot for my bird pictures. The only thing I miss is understanding the effect of crop sensors vs. fullframe on DoF and aperture.
I always enjoy your videos and thank you for your educational approach. Please review 10:30 - 10:50 minutes into this one. I believe there is an error in your statement that could confuse a beginner if they only remembered that and not the rest of your video. Thanks.
Sir, I want to ask one question. Can I take such photos like yours with NIKKOR 70 - 300 ED VR lens. Please guide. It has been more than 6 months I have been clicking photos; but no such good pictures of birds have come in the camera till now. Or I will have to purchase tele photo lens in order to get beautiful pictures of birds. Please help!
+Sandra McMillan-Cato I shoot in both Manual Mode and Aperture Mode depending on what I'm doing for birds in flight and flash photography I prefer Manual and for more creative work I prefer Aperture because I like to vary the Depth of Field. Thanks
On the first pic, you mentioned a very high shutter speed, what was the iso? I’m using a mark7Dii and have to be careful with noise. As long as light conditions are good, I can go to 800, but prefer to keep it at 400. My shutter speed is usually at 1600-2000 but i want to start using a higher shutter speed for possible better pics.. I’m just worried about noise.
When I had the 7D Mark II, I tried to keep the ISO below 640, I'd go to ISO 800 is I had too but I didn't like the noise generally at that level. ISO 200 on the Western Screech Owl, it was late afternoon and lots of light .
There is no such lens which can shoot at f/2.8 and 420 mm. The only lens, which gives you f/2.8 upto 500 is USD 25,000 Sigma 200-500, which is not used here.
My bad it's a typo, I just looked up the image it was taken with the Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS II lens I borrowed for Canon on their loaner CPS program. Good catch, thanks
Thank you. Beautiful photos. I got a question: the aperture is the same for any camera/ lense format? For example f4 in your Olympus is the same as f4 in your Canon? If you shoot in aperture mode at f4 in both and same ISO will you get the same shutter speed? Thank you
+Diego Butera The Aperture opening is going to be close to the same, the sensors and how they read ISO varies greatly. I think Tony Northrop did a video on how the ISO standard isn't really standardized anymore.
What camera and lens are you using? I will have a more comprehensive Birds in Flight video out soon, but there's a lot on birds in flight info in the videos I've already posted.
You deserve millions followers
Thank you so much Tim! You explaine everything very well...great information!
Excellent pictures!! Thank you for everything and love your videos!!
Thank you so much, I am a beginner photographer and your video was just what I needed. you explain things very clearly in a simple way that is easy to understand. Being new to photography and starting on birds is probably not the best idea but that is where my interest is. I struggle with focus and I dream of getting a shot like your Mallard image. All of you images are just stunning! Thank you for sharing your work and your instruction is invaluable.
Thank you for the great explanations, and awesome images
really this is info about the Aperture It's amazing, thanks Mr Tim
Great stuff, Tim. Thanks for the in-depth information. Sometimes I just go out there and shoot while not realizing the effect of your settings. This video really helps!
Thanks Tim. I usually shoot wide open at f4 for songbirds, but I am learning by closing down one stop I can get the feet of the bird more sharp. I think in your example with the nice blurry foreground element, wide open is best. One thing is for sure, I would rather have a nicer background as my priory and the slightly blurry feet come second for my taste. Then again, the funny thing is that we value these things way more than most of our audience. In other words, you can have some stick monsters poking out of the birds head and some of these photos can still amazingly get published. For me, I strive for the cleanest images of course but I do find it interesting some of the poor images I see that get notoriety.
Thanks Tim. Found this video super helpful and your teaching was really clear. I particularly like your photos where the birds are shown in there environments.
You are amazing 😉
Thanks for your time and efforts to help improve my bird images.
Really helpful and great shots, thanks :)
This is one of the nicest instructional videos on aperture that I have ever seen. Sharpness is a vital compositional tool and Tim uses it with skill and creativity. My only concern, however, is that there are some pesky basic laws of physics that interfere. You cannot ignore diffraction blur and you cannot ignore the resolution of the densely-packed sensor grids in modern cameras. Blur is usually measured as a length. Suppose you took an image of a single point of light. Virtually all kinds of blur have the effect of spreading this single point into a blob of light on the sensor, whether it is a piece of film or a silicon grid of pixels. Generally it makes sense to draw a circle around "most" of the blob. You can then call the diameter of this circle the "blur spot diameter". Since most lenses are round, the blur spots from diffraction blur and focus blur (bokeh) really are almost round.
OK, how does this blur spot diameter impact the world of creative photography? First, it is the basic measurement that determines DOF, or depth of field. There are many inexpensive smart-phone applications out there to help you determine DOF for various camera configurations. You might have to poke around to find it, but all such apps have a blur spot diameter parameter. I personally use the TrueDoF-Pro app. This is not an endorsement, it is simply that I am most familiar with this particular one. There on the bottom left corner of the display you will see a blurry gray dot with a number above it. The default is 30 mu, which stands for micrometers or millionths of a meter. For comparison, red light has a wavelength of about 0.7 micrometers. A typical full-frame digital sensor array has a pixel stride (grid distance) of about 5 micrometers. In any case, this size blur is what the DOF app uses to determine the boundary between "blurry" and "sharp".
I'm not certain where 30 micrometers comes from, but I suspect that it is related to the chemical grain size of color film. Note that it is much bigger than a typical sensor grid spacing. A 30 micrometer blob of blurry light will cover about 36 elements of a 5 micrometer sensor grid. If your DOF app allows you to change the blur spot diameter, you might want to try different values and see what that does to depths of field.
Humans respond to blur in a complicated way, so I'm a big fan of doing what Tim has done and looking at actual pictures, but keeping the basic laws of physics in mind. What I notice is that the sharpest parts of each image correlate nicely with f/number. All of the f/2.8 images are clearly sharper than I can see on UA-cam (nice work, Tim!). By f/8 there is a noticeable loss of detail. For a bird, look at the barbules on the feathers. For f/2.8, you can see each one. On my computer, the head feathers of the mallard (f/11?) show that there are barbules but don't show the details any more.
For all of the test images above f/8, Tim has various explanations for why each image is soft. A simpler explanation more in line with basic physics is that for modern full-frame camera bodies, diffraction blur starts to be noticeable somewhere around f/4 and gets more noticeable if you stop the lens down beyond that.
Tim also makes a really good case that, from a creative standpoint, some overall blur can be a really nice thing. You could say that the blur spot pattern for diffraction blur has especially nice bokeh. If you want to see what diffraction blur looks like, look up "Airy Disk" in your favorite science reference.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, I think I did better on Art Class rather than Physics Class. Always more to learn in this photography field.
@@GodwitMediaLLC , I did better on Physics Class rather than Art Class but both are important. One of the advantages of being retired is the chance to work on things that you suck at but care about. Your images definitely show the way to live with the constraints of physics rather than just trying to blast past them with expensive, heavy gear.
Very informative video, lots of great information!
Thank you once again for your wonderful work - wish I could come over to the US from Germany for your WS :-) Really enjoyed the overview helping me a lot for my bird pictures. The only thing I miss is understanding the effect of crop sensors vs. fullframe on DoF and aperture.
Tony Northrup and teh f-stop guys have great videos on crop sensors and the effects they have on depth of field.
I always enjoy your videos and thank you for your educational approach. Please review 10:30 - 10:50 minutes into this one. I believe there is an error in your statement that could confuse a beginner if they only remembered that and not the rest of your video. Thanks.
Sir, I want to ask one question.
Can I take such photos like yours with NIKKOR 70 - 300 ED VR lens. Please guide.
It has been more than 6 months I have been clicking photos; but no such good pictures of birds have come in the camera till now.
Or I will have to purchase tele photo lens in order to get beautiful pictures of birds.
Please help!
I currently have a 6D but would like a better camera. I shoot landscape and wildlife. Would you recommend the EOS R or the 5Div?
The 5D Mark IV or the new 90D, the R frame rate is a little slow, but it does great video.
Great video do you recommend shooting in manual or aperture? I have Sony a7r3 and now using 200-600mm lens with 1.4 teleconvertor
+Sandra McMillan-Cato I shoot in both Manual Mode and Aperture Mode depending on what I'm doing for birds in flight and flash photography I prefer Manual and for more creative work I prefer Aperture because I like to vary the Depth of Field. Thanks
Great work Tim. Out of interest, what lens were you using to get 420mm at f2.8 on the Peregrine Falcon?
+Phillip Allaway I was using the Olympus 300mm f/4 with the 1.4 Teleconverter so 840mm effective focal length on the 4/3's sensor.
On the first pic, you mentioned a very high shutter speed, what was the iso? I’m using a mark7Dii and have to be careful with noise. As long as light conditions are good, I can go to 800, but prefer to keep it at 400. My shutter speed is usually at 1600-2000 but i want to start using a higher shutter speed for possible better pics.. I’m just worried about noise.
When I had the 7D Mark II, I tried to keep the ISO below 640, I'd go to ISO 800 is I had too but I didn't like the noise generally at that level. ISO 200 on the Western Screech Owl, it was late afternoon and lots of light .
Thankyou!!😊
Hey Tim can you make a video on best budget telephoto lenses for entry level canon dslrs
There is no such lens which can shoot at f/2.8 and 420 mm. The only lens, which gives you f/2.8 upto 500 is USD 25,000 Sigma 200-500, which is not used here.
My bad it's a typo, I just looked up the image it was taken with the Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS II lens I borrowed for Canon on their loaner CPS program. Good catch, thanks
Thank you. Beautiful photos. I got a question: the aperture is the same for any camera/ lense format? For example f4 in your Olympus is the same as f4 in your Canon? If you shoot in aperture mode at f4 in both and same ISO will you get the same shutter speed? Thank you
+Diego Butera The Aperture opening is going to be close to the same, the sensors and how they read ISO varies greatly. I think Tony Northrop did a video on how the ISO standard isn't really standardized anymore.
@@GodwitMediaLLC thank you very much
@@GodwitMediaLLC hi I do have problems taking photos of birds in flight and settings for this. can you help please?
What camera and lens are you using? I will have a more comprehensive Birds in Flight video out soon, but there's a lot on birds in flight info in the videos I've already posted.
@@GodwitMediaLLC hi have a canon 7D mark2 use sigma 150/ 600 ml and a canon 400m .
Is OK, but actually this is a teaching about DOF. Very for beginners.