HOME | DD
MichelLalonde — Cardinal Needing Gel
Published: 2014-01-18 15:10:26 +0000 UTC; Views: 4741; Favourites: 338; Downloads: 49
Redirect to original
Related content
Comments: 62
That's the Bird of my State that is Indiana.
Great shot.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hehe, that's cute. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
LOL. yeah, the weather-proof kind.
Your title made me laugh out loud. Thank you!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hahaha Look at that mohawk!
Wonderful photo and wonderful background too!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
j'adore le contraste du rouge et vert de cette photo. cela est magnifique a cause de l'harmonie des couleurs dans cette photo. bravo.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I love how it's rockin' the red mohawk look. Awesome capture right there.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
? Did you take this recently? If so, then I must know your secret ways of summoning greenery this time of year. I'm actually a bit South of you (Port Huron, across the water from Sarnia) and I haven't seen green outside in a while. A very nice shot, the D3 handles the high iso very nicely doesn't it, or did this require noise reduction in post? Well done catching the head in the light ^_^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Where you found that it was taken with a Nikon D3 you also get the date it was taken. The low noise at that high ISO is tributed to the larger sensor on the camera (full frame sensor). That's is exactly why I would only buy full frame sensor camera, specially for wildlife & low light photography.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Where is that at? I knew it was a D3 by looking at the picture. Well, not exactly, the low noise is related to the pixel size (among other things), rather than the format size. Often full frame will have larger pixels than smaller formats, but this isn't necessarily the case, just is almost always the case. It's also affected by noise from heat and the electronics, etc.. With pixel size it's a trade-off between resolution and dynamic range. I have seen a number of papers where they calculate the ideal size of a pixel to get the overall best image assuming modern manufacturing techniques (for determining read noise, etc..). They usually come up with a number between 5 and 7 microns for the width of the pixel (so pixel area from 25 to 49 square microns). It's probably no coincidence that the 1D Mark IV and D4 have pixel sizes right around this range. Was kidding about knowing it was a D3 from the photo... didn't notice the date somehow, lol, just didn't think to look there for some reason, maybe because DA leaves out so much of the other EXIF data. I'm sticking with my NX300 as the best choice for the money overall, also since it's not exclusively for wildlife or low light, but I do appreciate shooting with my mom's 5D, which has a very similar sensor to the D3, though the ISO range is a bit more limited.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I retired 18 months ago from teaching photography at the collegiate level (2 years program), just to explain why I had a chance of working with not only Nikon & Canon but also with the Hasselblade and Phase cameras. I never was interested in pixel size since I had I choice of trying all those cameras. While the other photographers were working in low ISO, I was shooting more sport and wildlife and higher ISO. So for me, in the 2000-3200 ISO range, no FX Format beats the full frames. In my last months, I wanted to try the H4 or H5 for some wildlife shoots but the Nikon D4 and D800 were our new babies to test before the beginning of the Sept. session.
BTW.. I don't even have a DSLR of my own yet.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lucky ^_^. I was just going into pixel size so that it was a bit more clear for anyone reading why full frame would have better iso performance, because when I was starting to learn this puzzled me a bit. That is, as the format is defined it is simply the size of the sensor, if the pixels on each sensor are the same, then why should the larger sensor perform better in low light? As we know, the answer I found is that the pixels are not the same. I come from a background of math, biophysics, and computer science, so the technical details are fun for me as well as the shooting.
I went out and did a by eye test of ISO between My NX300 and the 5D. The NX300 performed much better than I expected, I actually preferred the result from it, but we are talking about two cameras with several generations of sensor technology between them. Also I don't know if measurements corroborate my taste test or not. I do try hard to stick with low iso though, and I feel that faster glass is a world of difference (having shot with the SX10IS for a few years, being able to use a f/1.8 nifty fifty is awesome, you can actually shoot things indoors without a flash, almost like magic, lol), more so than good iso performance (of course good iso with fast glass is even better.
About the NX300, the camera was cheap, the lenses are much cheaper than their comparable full frame equivalents, even than the 3rd party ones, crop factor does get me closer to filling the frame with critters, and the 30mm pancake makes this camera pocketable. Yes, I do want the fast tele lenses of Canon and Nikon, but I couldn't afford them anyway, so it wasn't really an applicable plus during my shopping. Even looked at a lot of old FD lenses, why do lenses have to keep their value so well, lol. Also, 8.6 fps is kind of tough to find at this price, it's pretty much Samsung or maybe Sony. For this money, to get a DSLR, it would pretty much have had to have been a crop sensored one anyway, probably 4-7 fps, etc... D4 is definitely better, but I still think the NX300 is the better choice for my budget. Maybe I'll drive up to Canada and borrow the gear you use ^_^.
One area I feel Samsung has been quite weak in is flash, but their upcoming SEF58 goes a long way towards catching them up in that area.
Too bad you missed out on the H4 and 5, that would have been quite the experience.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yep, bring a nice chair, a good book, and some tea or coffee ^_^. That's actually something I would like on the NX300 as well, tethered shooting or even to pull double duty as a webcam, they do have the wireless shooting app, but I haven't got a smartphone. My phone still is a Samsung phone actually, but it's an old dumb phone that does what phones were meant to do. Oh, and wait for some good weather of course.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wikipedia says: "The oldest wild Cardinal banded by researchers lived at least 15 years and 9 months, although 28.5 years was achieved by a captive bird. Annual survival rates for adult Northern Cardinals have been estimated at 60 to 65%;[20] however, as with other passerine birds, the high mortality of juveniles means that the average lifespan is only about a year. "
But really cool photo ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Much appreciated, dear friend.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Amazing work!
Keep up the wonderful job!!
Cheers!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks Emerson... I will!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you dear friend!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>