FS7: Long Lens Image Stabilization

I've been with O'connor for 35 years and I have no intention of changing brands now. O'connor has served me very, very well over the years and whatever stabilization problems I was having were due to the VCT mount and ENG dock -- not the Oconnor head. With those accessories stripped off my F55, my rig is a few pounds lighter and much more rigid. What a difference. I went out shooting birds in flight this afternoon and it the camera felt better than it has in a long time.
 
This is probobly off subject but this film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O0_oScr-tI looks pretty good on my large screen tv,i dont know what tripod was used but getting steady footage at 3000mm with this camera is the the hardest i have found but i getting a massive tripod to use now at my age is out,i was always interested in the FS7 is the 4K video mode cropped,400mm is not very long.
 
I don't think that video is good at all and most of it is NOT steady even though the camera is usually locked down. Okay, yes it might be impressive for the crappy little camera it was shot on . . . but why waste your time shooting on a crappy little camera? There are dozens of missed opportunities in that video where the guy was at the right place at the right time to get great video . . . but didn't have gear that was up to the task. Most of the telephoto shots are not steady and have micro jitter. I can see the exposure fluctuate on many shots. Shutter speed was set way too fast on some action shots. I only saw a two or three telephoto shots where the camera actually panned or tilted with to follow the action. Almost every telephoto shot is just a lock-down stationary shot. I didn't see a single shot that would have required tracking focus. A lot of the bird feathers are blown out. Most shots are too contrasty. He allowed too much man-made clutter (power lines, houses, etc.) into the background. Too bad the guy is hampered by not having a decent camera and tripod. If you're going to shoot wildlife, then you must be able to smoothly move the camera to follow action, otherwise it is just a slide show of animals standing still.
 
Doug Jensen said:
I don't think that video is good at all and most of it is NOT steady even though the camera is usually locked down. Okay, yes it might be impressive for the crappy little camera it was shot on . . . but why waste your time shooting on a crappy little camera? There are dozens of missed opportunities in that video where the guy was at the right place at the right time to get great video . . . but didn't have gear that was up to the task. Most of the telephoto shots are not steady and have micro jitter. I can see the exposure fluctuate on many shots. Shutter speed was set way too fast on some action shots. I only saw a two or three telephoto shots where the camera actually panned or tilted with to follow the action. Almost every telephoto shot is just a lock-down stationary shot. I didn't see a single shot that would have required tracking focus. A lot of the bird feathers are blown out. Most shots are too contrasty. He allowed too much man-made clutter (power lines, houses, etc.) into the background. Too bad the guy is hampered by not having a decent camera and tripod. If you're going to shoot wildlife, then you must be able to smoothly move the camera to follow action, otherwise it is just a slide show of animals standing still.
Click to expand...

Wow i hope you have told him on youtube what a rubbish film he has put on with his crappy little camera that costs less than the tripod mount of the tripods being talked about here,its tue this camera is only suitable for stationary subjects on long telephoto,perhaps the guy cant afford a decent camera .
this is one of mine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCxuyVaS7oA probobly worse than the other guys and mostly stationary subjects plus all the faults you criticise in his but at least the close ups needed 3000mm as there was no way to get closer.On tv wildlife programns i have seen plenty of poor quality material.

Still need to know the FS7 spec crop factor if any.
 
Last edited:
The crop factor of a Sony FS7 is about 1.5

I think long-distance-nature-shots made with extreme long lenses aren't very interesting. The same shots from 3 meter are often more interesting.
And most of the time these long-shots push the limits of the camera, the tripod, the sensor and the operator.

A camouflage tent or an old fashioned Harry Potter invisibillity cloak is a better investment.

That said, I am still saving for a decent telezoom. The quest is narrowed to a few lenses. The one I still have to rent and test is the Sony 100-400. No more bloody adapters needed and it seems a good lens.
 
Last edited:
Publimix said:
The crop factor of a Sony FS7 is about 1.5

I think long-distance-nature-shots made with extreme long lenses aren't very interesting. The same shots from 3 meter are often more interesting.
And most of the time these long-shots push the limits of the camera, the tripod, the sensor and the operator.

A camouflage tent or an old fashioned Harry Potter invisibillity cloak is a better investment.

That said, I am still saving for a decent telezoom. The quest is narrowed to a few lenses. The one I still have to rent and test is the Sony 100-400. No more bloody adapters needed and it seems a good lens.
Click to expand...

You may be lucky and have wildlife subjects come up near you i very rarely do,i dont understand the difference in nature shots from a long distance not being interesting than a closer subject with a wider lens but the same field of view,thanks for the crop info,the Canon 50-1000 with its built in 1.5x extender would be nice on an FS7 2250mm then and the better quality than the P1000 can give,i need to rob a bank first sadly.
 
Last edited:
Well part of nature filming is finding spots were animals come closer.
I still have to see the first stunning nature images shot with a 2250 mm or a 3000mm lens. I think nature filming is about animal behaviour and not about 'I filmed this not-so-rare duck from 3 kilometer distance.'
That is my problem with the nikon coolpix. Of course the zoom range is impressive, but none of the long shots in the clip are.
 
Publimix said:
Well part of nature filming is finding spots were animals come closer.
I still have to see the first stunning nature images shot with a 2250 mm or a 3000mm lens. I think nature filming is about animal behaviour and not about 'I filmed this not-so-rare duck from 3 kilometer distance.'
That is my problem with the nikon coolpix. Of course the zoom range is impressive, but none of the long shots in the clip are.
Click to expand...

The Kingfishers in my film never allow close contact there are always plenty of people around so would you not film them at 3000mm ?. My GH5 is pretty good at 2400mm with digital zoom with the right lens.It would be too easy if everything came near to say hi,i agree animal behaviour is important in films.Of note i have just watched countryfile in HD on uk tv,some pretty poor quality picture content at times from what was obviously filmed on broadcast cameras ,but later Dynasties about a pride of Lions was top notch but it was nearly all close ups the wide shots were all drone filmed,in the final part showing the programns making it came to light the crew were on terms with the lions and very close to them and with their Red cameras and Canon 50-100mm lens it showed the reason for all the extreme close ups.
 
Last edited:
Publimix said:
Well part of nature filming is finding spots were animals come closer.
I still have to see the first stunning nature images shot with a 2250 mm or a 3000mm lens. I think nature filming is about animal behaviour and not about 'I filmed this not-so-rare duck from 3 kilometer distance.'
That is my problem with the nikon coolpix. Of course the zoom range is impressive, but none of the long shots in the clip are.
Click to expand...

+1, especially the part about capturing animal behavior. And if you don't have gear that will allow you to smoothly follow the animals as they fly, swim, crawl, run, slither, or whatever, and nearly every shot is basically wildlife standing still, then you might as well be shooting still photos instead of video. Also, you must have manual control over focus (including the ability to be able follow-focus) and also to have manual control over shutter speed, gain, and aperture at all times.
 
Yes I agree, sadly another cheap cam.
But what's wrong with slow motion? I hardly shoot any wildlife that isn't slow motion.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Yes I agree, sadly another cheap cam.
But what's wrong with slow motion? I hardly shoot any wildlife that isn't slow motion.
Click to expand...

Its strange in all the many years out filming,many hundreds of occasions i would not be able to fill the number of fingers i have where i have seen a person filming with the large heavy expensive kit you say is only fit for wildlife filming,i dont say there is anything wrong with slow motion just people who look down on people who use consumer equipment,but considering the amount i have spent on lenses for mty GH5 i best leave that.
 
flinty said:
Wish i could put Dynasty by the BBC on here contradicts everything the experts on here say,sometimes slow motion looks pleasing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFu--XUsgfI Sadly another cheap cam
Click to expand...

This is the internet after all and maybe YouTube screwed up the playback, but most of it looked like it was real-time and there was one to two shots that looked like interpolated slow-mo that was missing frames

And I'm not sure where the "contradicting the experts on slow-mo" comment was going exactly, but wildlife is full of slow-mo capture. Or did I misinterpret what you said?
 
flinty said:
Its strange in all the many years out filming,many hundreds of occasions i would not be able to fill the number of fingers i have where i have seen a person filming with the large heavy expensive kit you say is only fit for wildlife filming,i dont say there is anything wrong with slow motion just people who look down on people who use consumer equipment,but considering the amount i have spent on lenses for mty GH5 i best leave that.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, when did I look down on anybody in this thread? Please point out where I have done so. I acknowledged in an earlier post that it takes hard work and skills to be in the right place at the right time, but all that time and effort is a waste of time if the gear isn't good enough to capture it. It is sad if someone can't see how they are being hampered by their choice of gear.

Yes, I do look down on low-end equipment when it is clearly pushed beyond it's capabilities and produces poor results. If someone thinks the video they get with a consumer camera and a tripod that is so under-powered that it can't be used for movement, is good enough for their own purposes, and they are satisfied with the results, that is just fine by me and I hope they get enjoyment from it. But please don't post videos here and expect others to agree with you and pretend that poor video is somehow acceptable because it was shot on low-end equipment. I looked at the first video you posted and I made some specific comments that I stand by. If you don't like my analysis, that is too bad.

And just for the record, I NEVER see anyone else out shooting with heavy-duty gear like I own either. Not once. What does that matter? What is your point with that statement? Are you saying we should all settle for half-assed consumer gear just because professional equipment is rarely seen in the wild? Do you know why you don't see professionals with high-end gear too often -- because there is really no money in shooting birds, landscapes, nature, etc. unless you are hired on a long-term assignment or willing to put the time and effort into getting something really unique. Professionals, with expensive gear, are usually off shooting something that actually pays. I happen to shoot wildlife because I enjoy it and I already own the gear I need -- that was paid for by other types of work. The money I earn from stock is just icing on the cake.

And what was your earlier comment meant to say about slow motion?
 
Last edited:
Doug Jensen said:
Excuse me, when did I look down on anybody in this thread? Please point out where I have done so. I acknowledged in an earlier post that it takes hard work and skills to be in the right place at the right time, but all that time and effort is a waste of time if the gear isn't good enough to capture it. It is sad if someone can't see how they are being hampered by their choice of gear.

Yes, I do look down on low-end equipment when it is clearly pushed beyond it's capabilities and produces poor results. If someone thinks the video they get with a consumer camera and a tripod that is so under-powered that it can't be used for movement, is good enough for their own purposes, and they are satisfied with the results, that is just fine by me and I hope they get enjoyment from it. But please don't post videos here and expect others to agree with you and pretend that poor video is somehow acceptable because it was shot on low-end equipment. I looked at the first video you posted and I made some specific comments that I stand by. If you don't like my analysis, that is too bad.

And just for the record, I NEVER see anyone else out shooting with heavy-duty gear like I own either. Not once. What does that matter? What is your point with that statement? Are you saying we should all settle for half-assed consumer gear just because professional equipment is rarely seen in the wild? Do you know why you don't see professionals with high-end gear too often -- because there is really no money in shooting birds, landscapes, nature, etc. unless you are hired on a long-term assignment or willing to put the time and effort into getting something really unique. Professionals, with expensive gear, are usually off shooting something that actually pays. I happen to shoot wildlife because I enjoy it and I already own the gear I need -- that was paid for by other types of work. The money I earn from stock is just icing on the cake.

And what was your earlier comment meant to say about slow motion?
Click to expand...

You did look down on someone in this thread with your pretty low comment regarding the Nikon film i posted and say so in the second paragraph.You say filming non moving subjects in wildlife is a waste of time well i would rather watch a film of a bird singing or a young Cuckoo being fed by one of its foster parents etc than look at a still of the same.Your sarcastic remark about a Panasonic HC-X1000 Cam i once owned another pretty low remark,that cheap prosumer cam was not bad at all.As i said i like slow motion but only use it if i have 50P available and my GH5 is the only camera with that option at present,i shall not bother you again in this thread.
 
I think it's sad when people react in the wrong way, and it's so easy to do that on the net. Pity because all of us have so much to learn from each other, no matter what our level. I've been at this game for more years than I will ever admit to, starting with home movies on the 8mm Bell and Howell mechanical camera that my dad bought and lost interest in, up to broadcast stuff with three different national stations, but I know beyond doubt that I still have lots to learn. And I also know, from having taught a bit, that "amateurs" (almost useless definition) are just as capable as me at producing good results. In fact, the best photographer I ever saw in action (far better than me) was a woman in her late sixties, a total novice who had almost zero technical knowledge but an incredible ability to make stunning images. I was the teacher but I learnt more from our association than she did. But back to the subject...

Re your film, flinty, I have some observations designed to be helpful. I think your sense of composition is good, and certainly up with some of the stuff your see broadcast. You must have a lot of patience to get the CUs you did, particularly the kingfishers. Great shots. There's also no doubt that you would get even better results, ie, less jerky, holding focus better and more evenly exposed, with more technically able gear - which I think is the point that Doug is making. He's no silver-tongued diplomat (to his credit IMHO) but he does make good points! Re the bit about speed: I was frustrated by the speed you chose for many of the shots. They definitely would have benefited from being at least at normal speed, and possibly some of them in slowmo. For me, they were artificially fast, which incidentally also exaggerated the instability of the long shots. But overall, I felt it was a good short by someone who has skill and a love for the subject. Thanks for being brave enough to post. Just my two cents.
 
stewhem said:
And I also know, from having taught a bit, that "amateurs" (almost useless definition) are just as capable as me at producing good results. In fact, the best photographer I ever saw in action (far better than me) was a woman in her late sixties, a total novice who had almost zero technical knowledge but an incredible ability to make stunning images. I was the teacher but I learnt more from our association than she did. But back to the subject...
Click to expand...

Exactly. I have had nearly the same experience where amateurs I've met are every bit as good (or better) than so-called professionals.

My point is that if someone has excellent skills and talent at shooting, and they're going to invest a lot of time into being at the right place at the right time, why would they want to use crappy equipment -- or push the equipment they do have beyond it's limitations? What bothers me is when people say equipment doesn't matter and that we should just ignore the flaws we see in someone's video because it was the best they could do with what they had. I hate that attitude and you're not going to get a participation trophy from me. Someone who's skills have exceeded the limitation of their gear really has three choices: 1) Invest in better gear that won't hamper their talent and skills. 2) Work within the technical the limitations of the gear they have. 3) Just accept that their video may not meet the standards of others even if they like it themselves.

What they should not do is get all angry and defensive about gear that they chose to buy. Geeze, its not like someone actually built their own camera or tripod and I'm pissing on it. It was just a purchase decision THEY made, yet they take any criticism of what they chose to buy personally.

Here's the equation: GEAR + SKILLS + EFFORT = RESULTS

You can't cut corners on any of those three variables and still expect to get the best results. Or at least you need to accept that RESULTS will be lowered if you do. I accept that all the time in my own work and take responsibility of what came up short when the results are not what I had hoped for. That is not just being a professional, that is being an adult.
 
Last edited:
"Here's the equation: GEAR + SKILLS + EFFORT = RESULTS

You can't cut corners on any of those three variables and still expect to get the best results. Or at least you need to accept that RESULTS will be lowered if you do. I accept that all the time in my own work and take responsibility of what came up short when the results are not what I had hoped for. That is not just being a professional, that is being an adult"


Agree with all that Doug. When I don't perform I have learnt to put my hand up. Took a while, mind you!
 
JCummings said:
Poor flinty. Took a wrong turn and got mugged.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think so. Certainly my post was mostly positive and Doug offered concrete suggestions, at least how I read it. Okay, Doug was Doug (which is fine IMHO) but I don't think he was offensive, which, unless I misunderstand you, is not mugging.

edit: should add I'm just trying to calm the waters here. Hope I didn't inadvertently cause offence. Certainly none intended.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top