Видео

Thanks for watching.

Hi. Glad it was interesting, and I’m always open to consider viewer comments. I’m just not sure what you mean by ‘leave the aperture rather than just coming and going’. Thanks for watching.

@WalksOnTheWildSide Hi there. I'll explain in simple words. With each photo you put f,/2,8 1.250 iso 200 Ect it helps to understand what the artist is trying to say 👍👍🙏🙏 Just leave it on the photo 📸. I hope I've been clearer ???

Hi. Glad you enjoy these videos and thanks very much for watching them.

Thank you so much for watching another one.

I’m very jealous. I was up on Skye a few weeks ago and I intended to get over to Lunga, but the weather was awful. There were days that the boats weren’t running, and on the days they were running the light was awful. So I didn’t go - there’s always next year. I hope you had a great time and got some fab photos. Thanks for watching.

@@WalksOnTheWildSide Thank you, I did. And some good foreground blur of bluebells, inspired by your "blur" method.

Hi Kathryn. Thanks for watching.

Much appreciated. Thank you for watching.

I agree, making every shutter press count is something we should all be aiming for. Glad you enjoyed the video and thanks for watching.

Much appreciated. Thank you for watching.

@@WalksOnTheWildSide your content is amazing is easy to follow

Hi puffins and much harder than gannets because they are so small. But it always puts a smile on my face when I see a puffin, let alone am able to capture a picture of one. I hope you enjoyed the experience. Thanks for watching.

@@WalksOnTheWildSide It was wonderful. I also enjoyed distant landscape shots of seabird colonies at Isle of May.

Hi Giuseppe. I hope all is well with you and thanks for watching.

I agree, often a not super close up macro photo give more information about the subject, more story.

Totally agree. It makes the world of difference with all sorts of subjects. Glad you enjoyed the video and thanks for watching.

You explained this so well in your great video Scott, thanks so much !

Thank you very much Raymond.

I'm glad you enjoyed it, thanks for watching.

Hi. I do make editing videos using software other than Adobe, but it's a bit of a jump to say that 'everyone' is uninstalling Adobe. There are lots of other software providers building a good customer base. But Adobe is still the market leader with a market share bigger than the combined users of all the other photo editing software added together - so there's a really big audience for Adobe based information.

Hi. Yes, absolutely. With the A7RV and the 200-600 you can use both together or neither. With that combination there is no option to turn off stabilisation (or Steady Shot, as Sony calls it) in the camera menu, it is all controlled by the switch on the lens. If it’s switched on at the lens both OS and IBIS are on. If it’s switched off at the lens both OS and IBIS are off. Thanks for watching.

Your Lessons are clear-cut. Learning a lot...

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. ruclips.net/video/OlgHNJTDTQg/видео.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.