What Am I Doing Wrong? Am I Crazy?

jsedlak

I can't figure this out... and I am not sure where to put this, but I figure since it is probably my fault, Technique would be a good place.

Recently we got a bird feeder for the backyard (yay!). My mother has been taking shots, lots of them, with the Canon 100-400L with very mixed results at the bottom end of the spectrum. I know she can take good shots so I start playing around with the lens on her camera and mine and cannot seem to get a decent shot anymore.

For lots of random shots with different lenses see http://jsedlak.smugmug.com - I can take good, sharp shots! For example:

XTi, 24-105L at 24mm, 1/20s, f/7.1, ISO100
I consider this a fairly show shutter speed, but look at that sharpness! The colors! The lack of grain or blur!


So there is at least one clean shot with a different lens. So my camera body is fine. Well maybe it is the lens?

XTi, 100-400L at 400mm, 1/640s, f/5.6, ISO400
I consider this a pretty darn good shot, especially for being handheld. No cropping here, just a resize from SmugMug and probably some color correction. Note the smooth bokeh, at least I think so.


But now I can't come close to that. Once and a while I get an image that I can crop and sort of save, but nothing is comparing to my earlier work.

Shot today, I consider this an immediate throw away.
XTi, 100-400L at 400mm, 1/100s, f/5.6, ISO100
I see blurry edge all around the bird, the feathers aren't in focus. The OOF area isn't too bad in this one but is horrendous in others.


Here is a recent shot with the 24-105L, I think this is very sharp where I wanted it (the edge of the cliff and has nice smooth unfocused areas).
XTi, 24-105L at 24mm, 1/400s, f/4.0, ISO100


To summarize, my shooting with the 24-105 lens has been consistently sharp since I got it. There are days when I take bad shots but in general things come out exactly the way I want them. The 100-400 on the other hand has recently become a nightmare between my mother and me in that it produces wildly inconsistent shots. Some of the best shots I have had with the lens (the hawk up above) have been handheld. Here it seems that using a tripod has no effect on the quality of the shot, although it definately helps sometimes to reduce lens shaking blur.

So what should I do? Is it just me? Should I upload more examples? Are there tests I can run? I am starting to go crazy here...

Thanks for the help!

dadwtwins

jsedlak wrote:

I can't figure this out... and I am not sure where to put this, but I figure since it is probably my fault, Technique would be a good place.

So what should I do? Is it just me? Should I upload more examples? Are there tests I can run? I am starting to go crazy here...

Thanks for the help!

Shoot in manual focus to see if the sharpness stays consistent. Then switch over to auto and see when it blurs and when it is sharp. The subject matter needs to stay consistent to really test the problem. keep good notes on the blurry pics to see if the shutter speed is too low...etc...

When you post the blurry pics, post the EXIF as well so we can see your settings.

ziggy53

The AF section of the camera may have become dirty.

More than likely it is just difficult subject matter. Birds can be tough to focus against because they lack both sharp edges and often, they also often lack coloration that would assist the AF to lock.

pathfinder

1/100th sec is a very long duration shutter speed for shooting at 400mm, even if the lens has IS.

The skill set for shooting technique with a 400mm lens is more demanding than the 24-105. If the 100-400 is being shot from a tripod, try turning off the IS, it will help.

The 100-400mm IS L is a good lens, but not a great lens also. It is sharper when not shot wide open as are many zoom lenses.

The 24-105 overall, is much sharper in my hands as well.

LiquidAir

1/100s is slow for 400mm, especially on a crop body. The IS on the 100-400 is an older design than the 24-105 and is good for, at best, 2 stops of stabilization. Bump your ISO up to 400 or 800 and do some tests to figure out what minimum shutter speed you can hand hold at 400mm.

Cygnus Studios

pathfinder wrote:

The 100-400mm IS L is a good lens, but not a great lens also. It is sharper when not shot wide open as are many zoom lenses.

very true. Most zooms require a stop or two below wide open. Try F8.

LiquidAir

Cygnus Studios wrote:

very true. Most zooms require a stop or two below wide open. Try F8.

If you pixel peep, the 100-400 is indeed a bit soft at f/5.6 but not so soft you can see it at web resolution. I have a 14x21 print from a 100-400L at f/5.6 (shot with a 5D) which looks fine.

jsedlak

What about this one?

XTi, 100-400 at 400mm, 1/800s, f/5.6, ISO400


Btw, it looks a lot sharper (this one only) in Canon's DPP before I convert it to jpg.

I am beginning to think it is a limitation of the shutter speed. That would be entirely unfortunate and I would have to be missing something because I see much sharper bird shots in low light settings. :S

Again, thanks for the help. I will look into it more tomorrow, this shot was pulled from the same batch as my bad example above. I forgot about this section of shots I took. It seems that all the shots of this particular bird were fairly sharp although the end quality wasn't great since I had to boost my ISO even in bright conditions (direct sun).

Again I am led to feel like something in my camera is preventing me from taking faster shots. Since I bought the camera I have felt it way under exposed most of the shots I take.

LiquidAir

jsedlak wrote:

I am beginning to think it is a limitation of the shutter speed. That would be entirely unfortunate and I would have to be missing something because I see much sharper bird shots in low light settings. :S

There are three things you are missing:
1. A tripod. Hand holding is for birds in flight (a generalization, to be sure, but use a tripod with a good head when you can).
2. Practice. There is a lot of technique in hand holding a long lens at slow shutter speeds.
3. A 500mm f/4 lens. There are times where there is no substitute for a big gun.

ChatKat

1/Focal Length!
The basic rule of thumb to hand hold is 1/focal length = slowest shutter speed for that shot! Iif shooting at 100 mm = 1/100 200mm =1/200 400mm = 1/400 - you can vary a little bit handheld to the rule, but the result will affect sharpness due to camera shake. Less than those focal lengths means Tripod time!

jsedlak

Thanks all.

I have been taking a lot of shots and have noticed a few things:
1. Shutter speed helps a lot, but not in a normal way. I can hold the lens at 400mm pretty steady and have been shooting it in places I can rest my elbows on something like a counter, bench or window sill. It seems that when I get up around 1/500s the birds are more in focus. This makes me think it is not a focusing issue but rather the tiny birds move a lot more and faster than I think.

2. I have no problems shooting other subjects at lower shutter speeds. I was shooting the squirrels today and had no problem keeping them in focus down to 1/80s in dim light and ISO200. An example (taken from a previous day) is below. This could mean the squirrels are slower or the lens does have focusing issues for the birds.

3. I need more light or something. I don't like shooting in ISO400 or above on my camera... it just produces horribly noisy photographs in most cases. The higher settings work if their is enough natural noise (ie, grass) but if it is an OOF area or a single color then the noise is rediculous. I still also think my camera underexposes and shooting at f8 just doesn't work most of the time because it doesn't let me get to a high enough shutter speed.

I am considering renting (or borrowing) a lens and a body for a week to see if I can vary my results just by switching up the equipment. I am thinking of a Bigma 50-500 and something like a 5D or 1D.

I have also thought about getting or renting a teleconverter. Because I am shooting a single location losing auto-focus shouldn't be too much of an issue. The big problem would be a loss of IQ for ~150mm.

Thanks again for the help.. the situation is improving!

ISO200, 1/250s, f8, 400mm
cropped and slightly resized, also did some color work

Danspage

quote

3. I need more light or something. I don't like shooting in ISO400 or above on my camera... it just produces horribly noisy photographs in most cases. The higher settings work if their is enough natural noise (ie, grass) but if it is an OOF area or a single color then the noise is rediculous. I still also think my camera underexposes and shooting at f8 just doesn't work most of the time because it doesn't let me get to a high enough shutter speed.


I think that at higher iso you photos are sharper, but its not the iso it is the faster shutter speed. So if you light is low use the higher ISO.

If the noise is bad try this program http://www.focusforensic.shorturl.com/

Picture cooler It Might be free now. or just $20.00.

Art Scott

LiquidAir wrote:

There are three things you are missing:
1. A tripod. Hand holding is for birds in flight (a generalization, to be sure, but use a tripod with a good head when you can).
2. Practice. There is a lot of technique in hand holding a long lens at slow shutter speeds.
3. A 500mm f/4 lens. There are times where there is no substitute for a big gun.

BUUUT.

Actually I am going to say you are missing 4 things....the 4th being..........

4 - A remote release either wired or wireless and I would recommend a wireless.

the gentlest of hands and pressing the shutter button can cause camera shake......I have gotten to where my remote release is almost always with me and I have learned to like using it also.............


If you are just not wanting to get a tripod and use it then you might want to look at the BUSHHAWK products .............

jsedlak

Danspage wrote:

I think that at higher iso you photos are sharper, but its not the iso it is the faster shutter speed. So if you light is low use the higher ISO.

If the noise is bad try this program http://www.focusforensic.shorturl.com/

Picture cooler It Might be free now. or just $20.00.

That is what I meant. The higher ISO allows me to get to a nice shutter speed but at great cost in image quality due to the noise at ISO400 and above.

I have a little tripod I use as well as a beefier one but will look into remote shutter tools as well.