Help

JSPhotography

I've been trying catch this woodpecker for quite some time. I found a little patch of woods the other day that was very active. Stalking has not worked for me so I planned on sitting. Sure enough after a couple hours he went to work on a tree about 15 yards away. I was pretty fired up about what I got until I did a search and looked at the examples previously posted. Below is the shot straight(converted raw to jpg) out of the camera and the best I could do with Elements 9. What did I do wrong?

JSPhotography

Here is another shot same settings but he is on the sunny side.

mom2sage

My guess is that a faster shutter speed is needed. The face looks a bit soft. I like the composition of the second shot. I would probably crop the first one to bring mote attention to the bird...but I like really tightly cropped images. I have never been that close to a woody, so you are doing better than me!

JSPhotography

For those that cannot pull the Exif data. I was using my 7D, Sigma 100-400, both shots at 400mm. No flash, maybe that is the problem, I do have a Beamer. Sun was going in and out of heavy clouds. Shot in Aperture. First was at F9, ISO 1600 gave me a shutter of 1/2000. For the second I dialed down the ISO to 640, Ap to F8 and got 1/500 shutter. I'm thinking my problem is the heavy crop or flash. Sunday I took the flash with me but got nothing to shoot.

Bifurcator

Woody!!!!

JSPhotography

Bump. Come on people. With all the fantastic stuff posted from this group somebody has to have some words of wisdom for me.

JSPhotography

Still no advice?

ashrugged

JSPhotography wrote: »

For those that cannot pull the Exif data. I was using my 7D, Sigma 100-400, both shots at 400mm. No flash, maybe that is the problem, I do have a Beamer. Sun was going in and out of heavy clouds. Shot in Aperture. First was at F9, ISO 1600 gave me a shutter of 1/2000. For the second I dialed down the ISO to 640, Ap to F8 and got 1/500 shutter. I'm thinking my problem is the heavy crop or flash. Sunday I took the flash with me but got nothing to shoot.

Is this lens a sigma 120-400?

kithylin

I almost always prefer to shoot daytime shots with my ISO as low as possible, ISO-200 for my nikon D70. No matter the camera or how good it is at it, you lose some quality going above the 4-5 lowest ISO settings, lower being clearer and sharper typically. Also typically most lenses produce better images with f-stop a few stops above the widest. For me usually in direct sunlight i can get away with ISO-200, F/7 - F/9 and still have enough light to use around 1/800 - 1/1000 shutter speed, if in direct sunlight. Although sometimes I'll drop down to F/4 - F/4.5 with my tele lens and shoot with a higher shutter speed if I want more DOF on my shots. Just my 2 cents. Also i have no idea about your brand of camera, but mine has a visual lighting meter graph inside the view-finder that lets me see how the exposure will end up based on my current settings, and alternate shutter speed up/down until the meter is where it needs to be. Also read the histogram and search on google about histograms and how to read em correctly. I've learned that from a friend of mine. I used to rely on how things looked in the LCD after the shot, but now I just rely on the histogram and shots turn out more-perfect for me almost all the time now.

JSPhotography

ashrugged wrote: »

Is this lens a sigma 120-400?

Yes, Sorry, 120-400.

JSPhotography

kithylin wrote: »

I almost always prefer to shoot daytime shots with my ISO as low as possible, ISO-200 for my nikon D70. No matter the camera or how good it is at it, you lose some quality going above the 4-5 lowest ISO settings, lower being clearer and sharper typically. Also typically most lenses produce better images with f-stop a few stops above the widest. For me usually in direct sunlight i can get away with ISO-200, F/7 - F/9 and still have enough light to use around 1/800 - 1/1000 shutter speed, if in direct sunlight. Although sometimes I'll drop down to F/4 - F/4.5 with my tele lens and shoot with a higher shutter speed if I want more DOF on my shots. Just my 2 cents. Also i have no idea about your brand of camera, but mine has a visual lighting meter graph inside the view-finder that lets me see how the exposure will end up based on my current settings, and alternate shutter speed up/down until the meter is where it needs to be. Also read the histogram and search on google about histograms and how to read em correctly. I've learned that from a friend of mine. I used to rely on how things looked in the LCD after the shot, but now I just rely on the histogram and shots turn out more-perfect for me almost all the time now.

It was pretty cloudy that day and I was in the woods. I thought an ISO of 640 should have been acceptable. My widest Ap at 400 is 5.6 so I wanted a bit smaller than that. I was thinking F8 would be crisper and give me more DOF to insure focus. Birds can be twitchy so I didn't want to go below 1/500. If I could have gotten 1/2000 at ISO 200 and F8 you can bet I would have been there. My meter showed I was exposed properly and the histogram looked correct. I have found that those are great tools for exposure but have nothing much to do with sharpness.

kithylin

JSPhotography wrote: »

It was pretty cloudy that day and I was in the woods. I thought an ISO of 640 should have been acceptable. My widest Ap at 400 is 5.6 so I wanted a bit smaller than that. I was thinking F8 would be crisper and give me more DOF to insure focus. Birds can be twitchy so I didn't want to go below 1/500. If I could have gotten 1/2000 at ISO 200 and F8 you can bet I would have been there. My meter showed I was exposed properly and the histogram looked correct. I have found that those are great tools for exposure but have nothing much to do with sharpness.

I had assumed you probably already knew everything i was saying, when i was saying it. I just thought i'd share anyway... in case you didn't.

basflt

JSPhotography wrote: »

Bump. Come on people. With all the fantastic stuff posted from this group somebody has to have some words of wisdom for me.

IMO there is nothing wrong with the pics ,
considering the distance .
try to get closer ,
at 400mm there is not mutch room for cropping .

Harryb

Its not a bad capture under the conditions. The subject was not close enough at 400mm and you didn't have the best light. You can get away with a close crop under good conditions but you didn't have them so every flaw will be clearer with a close crop.

ashrugged

I agree, looks like you need to get closer. I suspect the sweet spot of that lens is going to be closer to 300mm. You are using a tripod?

JSPhotography

ashrugged wrote: »

I agree, looks like you need to get closer. I suspect the sweet spot of that lens is going to be closer to 300mm. You are using a tripod?

Nope, no tripod. Wondered about that. I was hoping the shutter speed would cover the hand held. The next day when I went out I took my monopod but didn't get any shots. I was going to take the tripod out today with me but did not make it into the woods.

Do most of you birders use a tripod?

ashrugged

I think there is no doubt pictures such as these can be very sharp hand held. If you are questioning the sharpness of your equipment, a tripod can only help.

JSPhotography

ashrugged wrote: »

I think there is no doubt pictures such as these can be very sharp hand held. If you are questioning the sharpness of your equipment, a tripod can only help.

I think a Canon 7D with a Sigma 120-400 can provide very sharp images. I'm trying to figure out why it didn't in this case. Maybe it was just a combination of no tripod, no flash, heavy crop.

Bifurcator

JSPhotography wrote: »

I've been trying catch this woodpecker for quite some time. I found a little patch of woods the other day that was very active. Stalking has not worked for me so I planned on sitting. Sure enough after a couple hours he went to work on a tree about 15 yards away. I was pretty fired up about what I got until I did a search and looked at the examples previously posted. Below is the shot straight(converted raw to jpg) out of the camera and the best I could do with Elements 9. What did I do wrong?

--

Bump. Come on people. With all the fantastic stuff posted from this group somebody has to have some words of wisdom for me.

• ISO 1600 on the 7D I guess is fine. It would be on the new 1D or 5D cameras for sure.
• 1/2000 is OK!
• Flash? I wouldn't but it might help - who knows... Lighting IS part of the problem here IMO.
• Sigma 120-400, Not the best lens choice! It's about the right FL tho. 400mm x 1.6CF = 640mm Equiv. and that's close to what's needed. But that glass in inferior (especially at 400) and for birds it makes a HUGE difference - more difference than the camera body by FAR! Get a nice 400 L - it will make a massive difference! Can't afford it? Convert (or have converted) an old FD 400/2.8 L. Still can't afford it? Convert the nFD 400/4.5 - it'll still blow away the Sigma!
• Get and use a tripod? This is critical! Honest! Even at 1/8000 ISO 200... still needed!
• "I think a Canon 7D with a Sigma 120-400 can provide very sharp images. I'm trying to figure out why it didn't in this case." No, it's not good enough for birding. Especially not past 300mm. That sigma will process to sharp bird images if you can fill the frame with the bird at 250mm or less. Flash is kinda goofy really, you can try it - it might be educational. But it won't produce the kind of images I think you're after. Which brings us to...
• Lighting. Only the very best lenses produce decent bird images (at 15 meters) in diffuse indirect (shade) daylight. And even then you must make sure you're on the bright side of the bird for optimal detail.

Here's some probable evidence that the lens and lighting are the critical mistakes (if you can call them mistakes) in your shots here. I'm shooting an inferior camera the GH1 with a crop factor of 2.01, and below is what I get with a good position to the light, with a nice lens attached, and always on a tripod - always. I hope you don't mind if I flood the post with images but for me personally it makes a tremendous difference if I can see 5 or 10 instead of 1 or 2 when I'm trying to evaluate these kinds of things for myself. First I'll show some FD 300/2.8L samples and then some FD 300/4.0L ones. 300mm on my camera is about 601mm and the 400mm on yours is about 640mm - so petty close to the same. My sensor sucks compared to yours tho - which just means I can't really go above about ISO400 (for birding) and I get less Dynamic Range (DR) than you - err, it also mean I get a little lees detail (resolution) as your cam is 18mp and mine is only 12.

All of these are 100% crops, all manually focused, all have EXIF embedded, and all are wide open (f/2.8 or f/4.0 respectively), here goes:

Even tho there's some motion blur, notice that the direct light on my side of the bird really brings out the detail.








You can see some noise added because I bumped the exposure in PS. This is also using the 2X-A Canon FD Extender. So this is 1,200mm equiv actually.








This exposure is also bumped way up.








Exposure bumped considerably.








Exposure Bumped considerably.








Exposure Bumped somewhat. Slightly OOF too. With these last three I wanted faster shutter without changing the ISO so
I underexposed with the intent to push it in PS. Here's another one of him slightly better focused but his pose sucks.

OK, so that was the nFD 300/2.8L. I dig this lens! They go for between $600 and $1,200 depending on how beat up they are. Of equal IQ is the nFD 300/4.0L - the only difference being that it's not as bright. The 2.8 has fluorite elements to maintain the same IQ while also allowing the wider f/2.8. Here then is the 4.0L - typically $400 ~ $600. Some of these are BIFs so there is some motion blur too.

And you can see more of the nFD 300/4L here: http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Image_By_Lens/Canon_FD_300mm_F4L/ or navigate around to see other lenses I've sampled for on-line. Almost all of my bird shots are 100% crops or very near that. So if you come across a bird shot it's probably 80% ~ 100% somewhere abouts.

Anyway that's my input. I have a lot of images that look like yours (not on-line tho) and most of the reason is less than excellent glass mixed with poor lighting. BTW, if it's an easier fit there are some Nikkor ED lenses that are on par with the 300 and 400mm Canon L lenses too!

Have fun!