Really nice video. What characters the birds are, especially the robins. The canal made me very nostalgic - years ago we lived near the canal that passes through Congleton in Cheshire. They are good for birding and other wildlife.
Really enjoy "coming along"! The winter weather is just like here, in the very south of Sweden. Not tempting ;) But you did get some really nice bird shots. Just loved the robin with wings up. I was quite impressed with what the 180-600 could do. But then the 400 came out, and yes I think it was worth it. Wish I could find one dirt cheap ;)
Nice shots, just goes to show you have to make the effort or you get nothing, lm really thinking about getting the Z8 and 180 600! But it’s hard to decide with so many kits to choose from, l just want to get it right so l can get on with the bird photography!
I was looking for some images in the snow from you, and you did not disappoint. Well worth the effort, and you had a chance to test out two lenses. I think the quality is still there with the 180-600 and you just have to become comfortable with it and work within its limitations. The price and the weight of that lens puts it over the top for me. Thanks for braving the elements, and I hope you got a nice cup of hot tea when you made it home.
@@RussandLoz I use an older 80-200 f2.8 with the FTZ adapter and the 180-600 but more for newspaper photography including American high school football games, other sporting events and general news photography like ribbon cuttings and city council meetings. I plan to do some wildlife and outdoor photography for my own enjoyment, and I appreciate the tips that you and other TH-camrs provide. It's very different as far as the approach goes.
Cold? I hardly think so. It looks like shorts and T-shirt weather. You're soft!😀 Come over here where it's -27℃ at the moment and then you can complain a little bit. The Robin pics. are adorable.
Robin at 3mins48. 600mm/6.3 gives an entry pupil of 95.24 mm (almost 4"). Shallow Depth of Field (DoF) is to be expected here. Indeed the camera did a great job focusing on robin's eyes. In forming your expectation of how deep/shallow DoF will be, we have to think of the variables/parameters in its formula. Effective focal length [1]. Effective aperture [2]. Distance. Circle of Confusion (CoC) [3]. At 8"*10" the nifty fifty of 35mm photography becomes 300..350mm. There are no "fast" lenses at that. There is little DoF. We needed tilts to rotate the focused-on-plane in the subject as a workaround for shallow DoF. And we could stop such lenses down to very high aperture numbers (numb er=45 in f/number being at the low end of how tiny we could stop down). Now you shoot 600mm with an absurdly fast f/6.3 ;) and [3] have a very sharp lens on a very sharp camera. There are no surprises here ;) . Works as predicted by the laws of optical physics. [1] In classical lens designs where all elements have a fixed arrangement, focal length increases when you focus closer by than infinity. See [2]. This effect is called focus breathing. Cine and modern lens designs may have a way to shift lens elements relative to other elements as a way to suppress focus breathing. This means the lens keeps a constant image angle and probably shifts its nodal point so it keeps a fixed focal length too. And with that the same effective aperture. [4] [2] With the increase [1] in focal length (the effective focal length at the set focusing distance), the entry pupil in mm does not change but the effective aperture however does change: my Nikon Z 105/2.8S macro lens (37.5mm entry pupil) goes from 2.8 to 4.3 when at its shortest focusing distance (1:1 ratio). This means that the focal length has become about 160mm. Because f/4.3 still is 37.5mm (because f/4.3=37mm is equivalent to f=4.3*37.5mm). I call this effect "aperture breathing". That's more annoying than focus breathing IMO. [3] CoC is actually a very important parameter that is not a single number all the time for a specific set of gear. It's a sort of mutt parameter that combines 6 parameters into a single number. If you don't understand how this works, you cannot precisely control DoF in your image renditions. a - film/sensor resolution - sharper gives shallower DoF b - lens resolution - sharper gives shallower DoF c - processing - better gives shallower DoF d - display/print resolution - sharper gives shallower DoF e - display/print size - larger gives shallower DoF f - viewer-display/print distance - shorter gives shallower DoF Note that classical lenses got designed for optimum (sharpness, distortion) performance at infinity. The exception would have been macro lenses. [4] Lenses that might suppress focus breathing generally have so called floating elements that allow for internal focusing too. In fact these are zoom lenses that compensate the narrowing of the angle of view when we focus closer by through zooming out to precisely compensate the effect. Internal focusing is not a guarantee that a lens suppresses focus breathing. Also, a lens sold as zoomlens does not mean it suppresses focus breathing.
Pixelation at 4mins15. I'm not sure it is pixelation (as matter of definition of the word). More abstract this would be called noise. The question is what is the source of the noise? The camera's dynamic range and the ISO used here? I think not. As EV are "relative" I usually convert them to LV (LV = EV @ ISO 100). I think that the exposure is at LV 9. There are a few uncertainties. But that's the ballpark. LV 9 is not darm enough to call it dim. It's not bright at all. But should not be a problem. If we understand how colour photography works in the Bayer paradigm, then the first hypothesis in explaining the noise MUST be "bad raw processing". By calling it something else, we give an alibi to decision makers that approve release to market of a new version of the raw processing software. Fluencers talking about "colour noise" or "luminance noise" or "not enough photons" make nerdy points but help Nikon or the Mudbricks [1] to improve nothing in the raw processing software. There are two forces at play in this image: (a) deBayerisation, and (b) a camera without OLPF. (a) As the (raw) Bayer image only has data elements (digital EV) in one spectral colour band, deBayerisation must make guesses about the colours missing from each data element. The extrapolation of missing colour is done by interpolation of the EV of photosite [x,y] with its direct and indirect neighbours in a weighted way. This works well in images with sharp detail, except this classical deBayerisation will generate digital artefacts (e.g. Moiré and bleeding of colour across the border between two differently coloured blobs). Together such artefacts are called "mosaic" and so raw processing got amended by "demosaicking". As the presumption of digital is that we have no empty space between photosites and that the photosites are square, plus we depict them on a display with square pixels, there is a possibility of pixelation in the sense we get jagged edges (tiny squares), jagged lines, potentially patterned gradation. This process is called "aliasing" and to remove aliasing, the industry developed anti-aliasing. Standard in the virtual worlds of your computer game and the AA is processed somewhere in software, between the game and the display in the GPU or the driver thereof. Between shooting an image and the Bayer (i.e. raw) file, it is easier to implement a hardware help that reduces aliasing and makes deBayerisation a bit easier. Such an idea in digital photography is not new - already implemented by developers of the Scanning Tunneling Electron Microscope (STEM) in the 1970s. (b) In our Bayer cameras this got implemented by a second filter layer over the sensor. If we underline its anti-aliasing (AA) effect, we call it "AA filter" but it also gets called Optical Low-Pass Filter (OLPF). This filter essentially disperses light travelling to photosite [x,y] in the sensor so that a fraction also hits the direct neighbours. This helps with AA but also makes deBayerisation easier on the deBayerisation (i.e. raw processing) software. The effect is that an OLPF reduces (contour) sharpness, reduces colour space, reduces low light sensitivity, reduces dynamic range (DR), reduces contrast envelope (DR in one shot), and the OLPF messes with vignetting. But it is easier for raw processing and this helps e.g. when we shoot movie - essentially raw processed "exported" JPEG frames with added data compression so as to get MPEG. Eliminating the AA/OLPF removes the disadvantage in (b) but increases requirements to processing power as well as doing a better job at it. Simply put, with the introduction of cameras without OLPF, the industry did nothing. Now, 12 years after Nikon released the D800E, Topaz addressed the noise issue first, then DxO, then Adobe put an option into Camera Raw (with very bad mosaicking). Now the removal of noise is easy where there's contrasty detail in the image. But it is much more difficult - from the AI point of view that we use in raw processing - when there is little detail, and/or low light darker zones, and/or blurry out of focus zones. Folk out there call this chroma or luma noise, colour noise or luminance noise. I call it "residual Bayer noise following from inadequate raw processing." It doesn't bother this old film photographer in this image. At all. When my brand of 5 decades Nikon released the D800E, the attitude was, you decide photographer: more sharpness and more noise or less sharpness and less noise. I feel that is a breach of the Bayer social contract. [1] a mudbrick is also called an adobe
Thanks for the excellent video and pictures.
Thanks Clive!
Fabulous photos 📸
Suffering for your art Russ, but some really nice images there. Thanks for another grand day out.
It's just my hands, seems better without gloves. But thanks, been an interesting start to the year!
Really nice video. What characters the birds are, especially the robins. The canal made me very nostalgic - years ago we lived near the canal that passes through Congleton in Cheshire. They are good for birding and other wildlife.
Really enjoy "coming along"! The winter weather is just like here, in the very south of Sweden. Not tempting ;) But you did get some really nice bird shots. Just loved the robin with wings up.
I was quite impressed with what the 180-600 could do. But then the 400 came out, and yes I think it was worth it. Wish I could find one dirt cheap ;)
400mm f2.8 a cleaner background but 180-600 mm for airshows
Great video 👍
Just seen your videos and photography! Amazing work!
@RussandLoz Thank you very much for the nice comment. Just subbed to your channel. Got see more later 👍🙂
Love these videos. Thank you and stay warm. No birds here in central Canada as it’s-28C plus windchill.
@@BernardFreeman-r4w ouch. That’s not for me lol.
180 600 mm is a great lens. It pairs great on my Z6ii and Z50ii. I prefer it on my Z50ii, because it has bird eye detection.
Nice shots, just goes to show you have to make the effort or you get nothing, lm really thinking about getting the Z8 and 180 600! But it’s hard to decide with so many kits to choose from, l just want to get it right so l can get on with the bird photography!
@@neilcole3406 z8 is awesome and the extra megapixels are great for cropping. The 180-600 is excellent if you don’t mind the weight
I was looking for some images in the snow from you, and you did not disappoint. Well worth the effort, and you had a chance to test out two lenses.
I think the quality is still there with the 180-600 and you just have to become comfortable with it and work within its limitations. The price and the weight of that lens puts it over the top for me.
Thanks for braving the elements, and I hope you got a nice cup of hot tea when you made it home.
Thanks Mookie, I am impressed by the zoom lens, but sure the prime is a step further in ability and quality. Which wildlife lens do you use?
@@RussandLoz I use an older 80-200 f2.8 with the FTZ adapter and the 180-600 but more for newspaper photography including American high school football games, other sporting events and general news photography like ribbon cuttings and city council meetings. I plan to do some wildlife and outdoor photography for my own enjoyment, and I appreciate the tips that you and other TH-camrs provide. It's very different as far as the approach goes.
Cold? I hardly think so. It looks like shorts and T-shirt weather. You're soft!😀 Come over here where it's -27℃ at the moment and then you can complain a little bit. The Robin pics. are adorable.
@@finesse49 it’s all relative! Lol. It was just my hands. Maybe I have circulation issues. Thanks
@@RussandLoz Definitely relative. Was on a video call with cousin from Florida yesterday, they were complaining about 60°F 😆
Robin at 3mins48.
600mm/6.3 gives an entry pupil of 95.24 mm (almost 4"). Shallow Depth of Field (DoF) is to be expected here. Indeed the camera did a great job focusing on robin's eyes.
In forming your expectation of how deep/shallow DoF will be, we have to think of the variables/parameters in its formula.
Effective focal length [1].
Effective aperture [2].
Distance.
Circle of Confusion (CoC) [3].
At 8"*10" the nifty fifty of 35mm photography becomes 300..350mm. There are no "fast" lenses at that. There is little DoF. We needed tilts to rotate the focused-on-plane in the subject as a workaround for shallow DoF. And we could stop such lenses down to very high aperture numbers (numb er=45 in f/number being at the low end of how tiny we could stop down).
Now you shoot 600mm with an absurdly fast f/6.3 ;) and [3] have a very sharp lens on a very sharp camera. There are no surprises here ;) . Works as predicted by the laws of optical physics.
[1] In classical lens designs where all elements have a fixed arrangement, focal length increases when you focus closer by than infinity. See [2]. This effect is called focus breathing. Cine and modern lens designs may have a way to shift lens elements relative to other elements as a way to suppress focus breathing. This means the lens keeps a constant image angle and probably shifts its nodal point so it keeps a fixed focal length too. And with that the same effective aperture. [4]
[2] With the increase [1] in focal length (the effective focal length at the set focusing distance), the entry pupil in mm does not change but the effective aperture however does change: my Nikon Z 105/2.8S macro lens (37.5mm entry pupil) goes from 2.8 to 4.3 when at its shortest focusing distance (1:1 ratio). This means that the focal length has become about 160mm. Because f/4.3 still is 37.5mm (because f/4.3=37mm is equivalent to f=4.3*37.5mm). I call this effect "aperture breathing". That's more annoying than focus breathing IMO.
[3] CoC is actually a very important parameter that is not a single number all the time for a specific set of gear. It's a sort of mutt parameter that combines 6 parameters into a single number. If you don't understand how this works, you cannot precisely control DoF in your image renditions.
a - film/sensor resolution - sharper gives shallower DoF
b - lens resolution - sharper gives shallower DoF
c - processing - better gives shallower DoF
d - display/print resolution - sharper gives shallower DoF
e - display/print size - larger gives shallower DoF
f - viewer-display/print distance - shorter gives shallower DoF
Note that classical lenses got designed for optimum (sharpness, distortion) performance at infinity. The exception would have been macro lenses.
[4] Lenses that might suppress focus breathing generally have so called floating elements that allow for internal focusing too. In fact these are zoom lenses that compensate the narrowing of the angle of view when we focus closer by through zooming out to precisely compensate the effect. Internal focusing is not a guarantee that a lens suppresses focus breathing. Also, a lens sold as zoomlens does not mean it suppresses focus breathing.
Pixelation at 4mins15.
I'm not sure it is pixelation (as matter of definition of the word).
More abstract this would be called noise.
The question is what is the source of the noise?
The camera's dynamic range and the ISO used here?
I think not. As EV are "relative" I usually convert them to LV (LV = EV @ ISO 100). I think that the exposure is at LV 9. There are a few uncertainties. But that's the ballpark. LV 9 is not darm enough to call it dim. It's not bright at all. But should not be a problem.
If we understand how colour photography works in the Bayer paradigm, then the first hypothesis in explaining the noise MUST be "bad raw processing".
By calling it something else, we give an alibi to decision makers that approve release to market of a new version of the raw processing software.
Fluencers talking about "colour noise" or "luminance noise" or "not enough photons" make nerdy points but help Nikon or the Mudbricks [1] to improve nothing in the raw processing software.
There are two forces at play in this image: (a) deBayerisation, and (b) a camera without OLPF.
(a) As the (raw) Bayer image only has data elements (digital EV) in one spectral colour band, deBayerisation must make guesses about the colours missing from each data element. The extrapolation of missing colour is done by interpolation of the EV of photosite [x,y] with its direct and indirect neighbours in a weighted way. This works well in images with sharp detail, except this classical deBayerisation will generate digital artefacts (e.g. Moiré and bleeding of colour across the border between two differently coloured blobs). Together such artefacts are called "mosaic" and so raw processing got amended by "demosaicking".
As the presumption of digital is that we have no empty space between photosites and that the photosites are square, plus we depict them on a display with square pixels, there is a possibility of pixelation in the sense we get jagged edges (tiny squares), jagged lines, potentially patterned gradation. This process is called "aliasing" and to remove aliasing, the industry developed anti-aliasing. Standard in the virtual worlds of your computer game and the AA is processed somewhere in software, between the game and the display in the GPU or the driver thereof.
Between shooting an image and the Bayer (i.e. raw) file, it is easier to implement a hardware help that reduces aliasing and makes deBayerisation a bit easier. Such an idea in digital photography is not new - already implemented by developers of the Scanning Tunneling Electron Microscope (STEM) in the 1970s.
(b) In our Bayer cameras this got implemented by a second filter layer over the sensor. If we underline its anti-aliasing (AA) effect, we call it "AA filter" but it also gets called Optical Low-Pass Filter (OLPF). This filter essentially disperses light travelling to photosite [x,y] in the sensor so that a fraction also hits the direct neighbours. This helps with AA but also makes deBayerisation easier on the deBayerisation (i.e. raw processing) software.
The effect is that an OLPF reduces (contour) sharpness, reduces colour space, reduces low light sensitivity, reduces dynamic range (DR), reduces contrast envelope (DR in one shot), and the OLPF messes with vignetting. But it is easier for raw processing and this helps e.g. when we shoot movie - essentially raw processed "exported" JPEG frames with added data compression so as to get MPEG.
Eliminating the AA/OLPF removes the disadvantage in (b) but increases requirements to processing power as well as doing a better job at it.
Simply put, with the introduction of cameras without OLPF, the industry did nothing. Now, 12 years after Nikon released the D800E, Topaz addressed the noise issue first, then DxO, then Adobe put an option into Camera Raw (with very bad mosaicking).
Now the removal of noise is easy where there's contrasty detail in the image. But it is much more difficult - from the AI point of view that we use in raw processing - when there is little detail, and/or low light darker zones, and/or blurry out of focus zones.
Folk out there call this chroma or luma noise, colour noise or luminance noise.
I call it "residual Bayer noise following from inadequate raw processing."
It doesn't bother this old film photographer in this image. At all.
When my brand of 5 decades Nikon released the D800E, the attitude was, you decide photographer: more sharpness and more noise or less sharpness and less noise.
I feel that is a breach of the Bayer social contract.
[1] a mudbrick is also called an adobe
Is he complaining again about the snow?
@@Ben_Stewart love the snow!
Brits are not snow proof.
@@n1ngnuo nope! Lol. Guess it is rare