 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Photo Technique / Nature Photography / April 2005Lens advice, please
I have looked through a lot of NGs but could not find one that seemed to give the kind of advice I am looking for, so I hoped that someone here might be able to help. I am very new to digital SLR photography and bought a Canon 300D a few months ago (couldn`t afford a better one, alas), together with a 75-300mm f4-5.6 IS USB lens. I am most interested in wildlife photography, especially dragon/damselflies and birds. However, I find that I am not getting good, clear, shots with this lens at 300mm, either with or without a tripod (I know to turn off the IS with the tripod). Even at that zoom, in order to fill the resulting picture with the subject I am having to crop the image, after resampling. I then have to sharpen them which exaggerates noise and chromatic aberrations. It is very frustrating. The question I specifically wanted to ask is this : bearing in mind the quality of the Canon body, would I get much better results if I invested in an L series Canon lens - say, the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM? Many thanks Kate > I have looked through a lot of NGs but could not find one that seemed > to give the kind of advice I am looking for, so I hoped that someone > here might be able to help. > > I am very new to digital SLR photography and bought a Canon 300D a few > months ago (couldn`t afford a better one, alas) It's a good one. Don't feel bad about the choice. > , together with a > 75-300mm f4-5.6 IS USB lens. I am most interested in wildlife [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > tripod). Even at that zoom, in order to fill the resulting picture > with the subject I am having to crop the image, Is this due to not being able to focus close enough or not being able to get close enough to the subject? I think this is where you need to focus your attention. You want to be able to take advantage of the entire sensor. If you need to crop you are dumbing down your camera. I don't think you have a quality issue with either the body or the lens. > after resampling. I > then have to sharpen them which exaggerates noise and chromatic [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Many thanks > Kate  SignatureJoseph Meehan 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math >> I have looked through a lot of NGs but could not find one that >> seemed [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >> Many thanks >> Kate The problem could be that I cannot get close enough to the subject. As the odonata aren`t about yet in this part of the world, I have been concentrating on birds. I have built a hide but the closest I can get it to the feeders in the garden is about 18 feet, so the birds are but a small part of the image as a whole. That is why I crop. I have experimented, and when I stand about 8 ft away, images are sharper in the camera view screen and I would only have to crop the sides a little. Unfortunately, the birds won`t let me get that close! I have set the camera up so that the centre spot is where I want the focus, using Tv mode, and have also tried some of the pre-set modes. When it comes to the odonata season, I had hoped that I would be able to get good shots of them from several yards away, as, inevitably, they will perch in inaccessible places. Previously, using a Nikon CoolPix 4500, I had to wait until they perched nearby and then sneak up on them. I did get lots of good, sharp, shots that only needed minimal sharpening (they still needed cropping, but not so much), but missed many that I might have got with a zoom or telephoto lens. I know that with telephotos you get a very shallow depth of field, but with the 75-300mm at 300 it is so shallow I can get a bird`s beak in focus, but not the feet. I think there may be something that I am doing wrong or not doing at all, but cannot think what it might be. Any suggestions would be very helpful, please. I really don`t want to spend over ?1K on a lens and find that, after all, it is my technique that is at fault. Paul : I have downloaded a demo version of Dfine v.1.0, which not only removes noise but jpeg artifacts as well but it does seem to soften the images too much. I have tried converting the images to Lab mode and blurring the magenta and cyan channels, but then I get left with black speckles. I have also tried using RAW but didn`t notice much improvement. As I have been using continuous rather than single-shot mode, there was also the problem of the time it took to send them to the CF card. Thank you again Kate > .. The problem could be that I cannot get close enough to the subject. > As the odonata aren`t about yet in this part of the world, I have been > concentrating on birds. I have built a hide but the closest I can get > it to the feeders in the garden is about 18 feet, so the birds are but > a small part of the image as a whole. That is why I crop. .. I do feel for you. I have the same problem, but I am not yet ready to spend the kind of money I would need to get a lens long enough and fast enough to get to job done. Your primary problem is you need to crop too much. Your suggested solutions will not help enough to be worth the cost. You are going to be spending a 2 or more thousand ?. to get what you need. SignatureJoseph Meehan 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math > The problem could be that I cannot get close enough to the subject. Have you considered using a teleconverter? B&H carries them: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q= You'll lose light using one and your autofocus may not function. Personally, I almost never use autofocus with a long lens anyway. Quite a bit cheaper than buying another lens though. > Paul : I have downloaded a demo version of Dfine v.1.0, which not only > removes noise but jpeg artifacts as well but it does seem to soften [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > mode, there was also the problem of the time it took to send them to > the CF card. Paint Shop Pro 9 has a Digital Camera Noise Removal filter that works wonders. It does take some skill to use the filter properly. I do have .pdfs on both DCNR and the Chromatic Aberration Removal filter if you decide to download the PSP9 demo. They're rather large, as .pdfs usually are, but I could email them to you if you wanted to see them. SignatureAngela M. Cable Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source: http://www.neocognition.com/ PSP Tutorial Links: http://www.psplinks.com/ 5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and more: http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/ > The problem could be that I cannot get close enough to the subject. > As the odonata aren`t about yet in this part of the world, I have been [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > spend over ?1K on a lens and find that, after all, it is my technique > that is at fault. The 75-300 softens a little bit at the 300mm end, and this is typical of most zooms. However, it usually sharpens up if you're using an aperture of f11 or f16. Which will also help your depth of field. As the aperture is reduced in size (the f-number increasing), your depth of field will increase. Small errors in focus can also be compensated for in this way. The problem this leads to is that your shutter speed will become even slower. The IS in the lens will assist this, but I'd recommend using a tripod instead. This may lead to a couple of additional problems: 1. The subject is moving faster than the shutter speed will be able to catch sharply. Not much you can do about this, except try to get more light on your subject. 2. If the camera is on a setting allowing it to choose the ISO, it may be defaulting down to a high speed such as 800 or 1600, which will increase image noise by a considerable amount. I would suggest setting ISO within the range of 100-400, which should keep image quality higher. But this means the shutter speed may remain slow... And that's the problem of nature photographers everywhere :-(. Trust me, I deal with this all the time. Eventually, you seek subjects that you can exploit better. Or start looking at using strobes, especially with extenders or multiple strobes set up around your subject for more natural- looking light... At greater distances or with smaller subjects, don't trust autofocus. The focus sensor may be either not accurate enough, or the subject so small that the sensor isn't getting the subject at all, but the background. Go with manual focus, and if the subject is close, use your Depth Of Field Preview on the 300D to examine the subject for necessary focus (another fun thing to do, since the viewfinder will darken down when you do this). As for getting closer focus, an inexpensive set of extension tubes will shorten the close-focusing distance of that lens (which is just under 2 meters, right?). They have no lens elements so will not effect the image quality, nor is it required to go with expensive or OEM makes - however, they *will* reduce the light a little bit, like closing down the aperture another stop. I have a set of three Kenkos that work just fine with every lens I own, including the non-IS version of your lens. Do a websearch on macro work and you'll learn more about extension tubes. Sharpening: Try converting to LAB and selecting the Brighness channel, and sharpen within that only. What this does is adjust contrast only in brights and darks, and not the contrast between different colors, and works much better for sharpening without increasing noise at all. View the results at 200% and watch high contrast areas - if 'halos' appear, you're going too far, so back off some. Noise can be treated a couple of different ways. You know about blurring within color channels, which can help, but try it in different image modes like RGB or CMYK too - noise differs from camera to camera, and some sensors tend to favor green noise over red, for instance. Additionally, you can select the color itself that gives you the worst problems and blur that (I usually prefer the Noise/Median command in Photoshop for this, rather than any of the Blurring), or select the color where the noise is most visible within, like dark greys, and Median *that* instead. In other words, don't treat the color of the noise, but the color it's most visible within, which usually leaves the detail areas of your image alone. Again in Photoshop, you can select a color range like dark grey, but then use the polygonal lassoo tool and hold down the Alt key to *Deselect* key areas of the image, where you want to retain the most detail. Also look into using the History Brush, which will convert key areas back to original appearance before you started alterations. So what happens is, you blur out the noise, but then wipe the detail areas with the History Brush to restore them, and only them, to the starting point. That may give you an edge in a couple of areas - hope it helps. Good luck! - Al. SignatureTo reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net >> As the odonata aren`t about yet in this part of the world, I have >> been concentrating on birds. I have built a hide but the closest I [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> technique >> that is at fault. > The 75-300 softens a little bit at the 300mm end, and this is > typical [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] > To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below > Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net Lots of helpful advice and useful suggestions, so thanks for that. I have mostly been using shutter speed mode (Canon call it Tv mode) and trying to get f.8 by using a higher ISO, but even at 400 ISO I notice a considerable increase in noise, so I do try to use 200 ISO or lower most of the time. Unfortunately, with photographing odonata, the option to set up flash units is impossible. However, this is compensated for somewhat by their preference for warm, sunny conditions. They do move very quickly and change direction in an instant, so I have to wait until they have perched, but I still like to use a high shutter speed if possible. As I mentioned earlier, they tend to use awkward places to land (for a photographer), say, reeds in the middle of ponds, or outer branches high up in trees. Hence my need for a zoom lens : you never know how near or far they will be when they come to rest. With the bird photography, I did consider getting some remote flash units, but as I understand that they are triggered by the flash unit on the camera and I am in a hide with just the lens sticking out, I didn`t think it would work. Regarding choosing less demanding subjects, I _like_ photographing dragonflies and birds! Perhaps a teleconverter would be a possibility, and certainly cheaper than a longer zoom lens, although I have read that with the lens I have already, they do not give quite such good results as with lenses with better optics. Angela : thanks for the tip about Paint Shop Pro. I already have Photoshop v.6, Photoshop Elements v.2, and Corel PhotoPaint vs.9 and 11 and don`t know if I could stand having yet another program! I have been looking on line for plug-ins and stand-alone software that deals with jpeg artefacts and noise, and am trying some demo versions. Still, as a perfectionist, I feel as if I should get it right in the first place without having to make extensive corrections. As regards using manual focus, I am not sure that I would have the time : with odonata and birds you have to seize the moment sometimes. Al : I am going to try your suggestion of converting to Lab and sharpening in the Brightness channel, although it does seem that shadows and darker areas generally give the most problems, regardless of colour, so sharpening in the Brightness channel might make it worse? I checked out information on extension tubes and as they reduce the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to get _closer_ to the subject? What I was hoping to achieve was to almost fill the picture with the sharply-focussed subject (a bird or a dragonfly, for example) whilst still remaining, say, 5.5 metres away. Am I asking for too much on a limited budget? I think Joseph is probably right when he says that having to crop so much is my main problem, and I gather that he does not think the 100-400mm lens I suggested earlier would be sufficient? Even with a teleconverter, Joseph? And thanks for your sympathy BTW :-) I shall persevere and hope to get it right before the odonata season starts in May, but any further advice would be much appreciated. Regards Kate > ... I checked out information on extension tubes and as they > reduce the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to get > _closer_ to the subject? It is handy to be able to stand back & zoom in <grin>. I don't know what combination gives that, obviously a long lens but whether macro, tubes, diopter I don't know. > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > combination gives that, obviously a long lens but whether macro, tubes, > diopter I don't know. None of those three things will do what she wants. All three require that you basically "zoom with your feet", something she can't do without frightening off the subject. All of these will let you fill the frame with a small subject, but it's at the expense of focussing distance. I have a set of three diopters (+4, +2. +1), if I stack them all on a lens, I can get within inches of what I want to photograph. This works great for stuff like floral portraits. Obviously, if I tried to use them with something like a butterfly, the butterfly would just fly off when I got too close. The only option I see for her, short of buying a longer lens, is to use a teleconverter and then just deal with the loss of light as best she can. Speaking of longer lenses, somebody posted this in another group today: http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php SignatureAngela M. Cable Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source: http://www.neocognition.com/ PSP Tutorial Links: http://www.psplinks.com/ 5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and more: http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/ >> > >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > another group today: > http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php Exactly, Angela! Perhaps I didn`t make myself clear earlier, but you have defined the problem perfectly. However, will a 100-400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter fill, or nearly fill, the frame with a subject that is only about 4-6 ins. high if I need to stand 18ft away from it? Or, from the other way around, what set-up would I need to do this, please? Is there a mathematical formula I could use? I have read quite a lot of reviews about zoom lenses, but have yet to find one that answered this vexing question. Of course, the lens featured on your link would do the job, if I could stand in the next county and had muscles like Arnold Schwarzenegger (used to have?) ;-) Kate >>> > >>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > fill, the frame with a subject that is only about 4-6 ins. high if I > need to stand 18ft away from it? By my rough calculations that would be about right for the typical digital camera for a 35mm you will need more like 600mm lens. > Or, from the other way around, what > set-up would I need to do this, please? Is there a mathematical > formula I could use? h = subject size I = image size (film or sensor size) v = distance to subject f = focal length of lens I x v f = ---------- h > I have read quite a lot of reviews about zoom > lenses, but have yet to find one that answered this vexing question. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Kate SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia's Muire duit >> However, will a 100-400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter fill, or nearly >> fill, the frame with a subject that is only about 4-6 ins. high if I >> need to stand 18ft away from it? I have posted a few images using the 100-400 with both 1.4x and 2x converter that might help you decide. Ease of use and loss of autofocus is another matter!! http://www.virtually-unlimited.co.uk/test/test.html John >>> However, will a 100-400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter fill, or nearly >>> fill, the frame with a subject that is only about 4-6 ins. high if I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > John Some very nice shots and clearly not just a fast click and go, you worked for a few of those. SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia's Muire duit > I have posted a few images using the 100-400 with both > 1.4x and 2x converter that might help you decide. Ease of use and loss > of autofocus is another matter!! > > http://www.virtually-unlimited.co.uk/test/test.html These are great! I especially like the last two. I like seeing birds actually doing something, the berry it its beak is perfect. The floral, I just plain like, composition, lighting, color, all of it taken together. SignatureAngela M. Cable Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source: http://www.neocognition.com/ PSP Tutorial Links: http://www.psplinks.com/ 5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and more: http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/ >>>>>... I checked out information on extension tubes and as they >>>>>reduce the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > By my rough calculations that would be about right for the typical > digital camera for a 35mm you will need more like 600mm lens. A 200mm with a 2x converter has a 600mm FOV for a D70 (or 640 on a Rebel). I have that for a D70 with a +2 diopter for closeups and I did the following diagram: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/Misc/photography/lenses/closeup-range.pdf> I mighta screwed it up, very tedious & I'd need to go through the whole thing again more carefully but this should be approximately what to expect. The circles indicate the size of the long end of the frame to scale at the distance captured. Most of the possible variations with this setup are shown. With TC (teleconverter) & DO (diopter) the focus ring moved you between 1/2" filling the frame at 2 ft away from the sensor and 3" filling the frame at around 32" distance. With closeup diopter and no teleconverter, the 70-200 goes from around 1-1/2" to 4" at around 4-feet. Without the closeup diopter, 5" fills the screen at about 5 feet to infinity, 10" at 10 feet. The teleconverter with no diopter fills the screen with 2-1/2" at 2-feet to infinity. It's about 6" wide at 10 feet, great for small birds. If you need to be back 20 feet then you need 800mm. There ought to be a simpler way to diagram this, I can hardly understand it. I think it's just different for any given lens design but the basics should be similar. >>Or, from the other way around, what >>set-up would I need to do this, please? Is there a mathematical [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> >>Kate > However, will a 100-400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter fill, or nearly > fill, the frame with a subject that is only about 4-6 ins. high if I > need to stand 18ft away from it? Or, from the other way around, what > set-up would I need to do this, please? Is there a mathematical > formula I could use? I see somebody else posted a formula. Don't forget that if your lens is a regular EF, you have additional focal length when you put it on the Canon digital body. The multiplier for the D-Rebel is 1.6. So a traditional EF 100-400mm lens is a 160-640mm when mounted on the digital body. Adding a 1.4x teleconverter gives you 896mm or a 2x gives you 1280mm. I can't remember now if you said you were or were not using a tripod. You're going to have to use one at this kind of focal length. > I have read quite a lot of reviews about zoom > lenses, but have yet to find one that answered this vexing question. > Of course, the lens featured on your link would do the job, if I could > stand in the next county and had muscles like Arnold Schwarzenegger > (used to have?) ;-) Isn't that thing something? I just can't imagine anybody using it, you'd have to hire somebody to do nothing but cart it around :-) SignatureAngela M. Cable Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source: http://www.neocognition.com/ PSP Tutorial Links: http://www.psplinks.com/ 5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and more: http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/ > The only option I see for her, short of buying a longer lens, is to use > a teleconverter and then just deal with the loss of light as best she > can. Speaking of longer lenses, somebody posted this in another group > today: > http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php 17,000 mm telephoto ought to do the trick. It says you need full daylight for best results. At what distance would a butterfly fill the screen on this? > I have mostly been using shutter speed mode (Canon call it Tv mode) > and trying to get f.8 by using a higher ISO, but even at 400 ISO I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > instant, so I have to wait until they have perched, but I still like > to use a high shutter speed if possible. You're highly unlikely to get anything even remotely decent, if you're not after perched shots, unless you go for a really elaborate setup or get extremely lucky. They're the most unpredictable flyers. And trying might just drive you nuts ;-) One of the better traits, however, is their preference for returning to the same perch. Patience and slow stalking can get you a lot closer. Also, early morning helps a tremendous amount, especially if the night was cool. Odonata need their flight muscles to be warm to work properly (which is why they perch and sun themselves), so chasing them before they get warm enough means they either don't move, or perch frequently. > As I mentioned earlier, they > tend to use awkward places to land (for a photographer), say, reeds in > the middle of ponds, or outer branches high up in trees. Hence my need > for a zoom lens : you never know how near or far they will be when > they come to rest. Don't accept any one locale, but always seek out new places to find them. Some may provide ideal conditions, such as reeds close to shore and at a good height. This is where I've gotten most of my insect shots. > With the bird photography, I did consider getting > some remote flash units, but as I understand that they are triggered > by the flash unit on the camera and I am in a hide with just the lens > sticking out, I didn`t think it would work. Regarding choosing less > demanding subjects, I _like_ photographing dragonflies and birds! Not less demanding subjects, but less demanding conditions. Even traveling to an area where your subjects are allowing closer approaches can do wonders. As for flashes, some are triggered by the camera flash, and these are typically called "optical slaves". Others can be triggered by radio - see the Canon 550EX for example, or check out instruments by Quantum and Pocket Wizard. Then there's a simple trick with optical slaves - cover the flash unit on the camera with a piece of unexposed, developed slide film (in other words, black). This blocks nearly all of the visible light, but not the infra-red, which will trigger the slaves. If you get creative, you can use multiple flashes and slave triggers (from Wein, for instance), maybe a few PC cords, to create an entire outdoor "studio" flash setup. > Perhaps a teleconverter would be a possibility, and certainly cheaper > than a longer zoom lens, although I have read that with the lens I > have already, they do not give quite such good results as with lenses > with better optics. A teleconverter is always a possibility, but they come with a price. The first is, you're going to lose at least some image quality, though with the better converters this is minimal. Second, you lose some light, giving you an effective f-stop even lower than before - one stop (f8 to f11) with a 1.4X converter, two stops (f8 to f16) with a 2X. Better lenses always help, but perhaps not as much as you would like, especially for the price. Be careful about getting trapped in the process of chasing equipment - no matter what you buy, you'll still need good technique. Think of it in these terms: Purchasing a 600mm f4, to the tune of several thousand dollars, still only doubles the subject's size on the film, and this is in overall area, not body length (only 1.4 times body length). The quality will indeed increase, and you may be delighted at the sharpness. But will it be enough? Because if it isn't, you're now out a bucket of money and still have to find alternate ways to get closer. And sometimes, all this takes is throwing some bird food out. Or even using a small fine net and catching the odonata before they're fully alert, and shooting them in a makeshift studio *in your house* ;-) > Al : I am going to try your suggestion of converting to Lab and > sharpening in the Brightness channel, although it does seem that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > reduce the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to get > _closer_ to the subject? Yes. And I think we're at a slight misunderstanding as to some of your difficulties, but you did mention not being able to focus close enough. This is something I've seen many times, where the photographer can get close enough to the subject with a longer zoom, but it won't focus within the short distance. Doesn't sound like this is your problem though. > What I was hoping to achieve was to almost > fill the picture with the sharply-focussed subject (a bird or a > dragonfly, for example) whilst still remaining, say, 5.5 metres away. > Am I asking for too much on a limited budget? Bluntly, yes. Every nature photog wants the image to be a lot bigger, but getting that kind of performance tends to be expensive - shortcuts always leave something lacking. So, you cheat whenever possible ;-). Set up a feeding station. Shoot within an aviary or butterfly house. Travel to a place that sees a lot of people so the birds and insects are far more accustomed to close approaches. Use a long remote for the camera and put the camera right smack in the reeds, prefocused on a favorite perch, and shoot "blind". Hatch the little beggars yourself in an aquarium ;-) Some subjects are just damn tricky, and you have your work cut out for you. But don't try to conquer it all at once. Experiment and learn, and do some research too. Some of the best insect photos are obtained by elaborate setups such as multiple infra-red trigger beams and large forced- air tubes that guide a flying insect to right where the camera's pointing. And that's because those photographers found out the same thing you have, and got frustrated enough to find alternate methods ;-) Good luck! - Al. SignatureTo reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net > Some subjects are just damn tricky, and you have your work cut > out [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > - Al. This will be my third year photographing odonata, but the first using a digital SLR with zoom. I have been using a Coolpix 4500 which is very good for close-ups, but it was because I had to stalk them in order to get close that I decided to get a camera to which I could attach a long lens. I did get lucky several times - one dragonfly even landed on my knee so I got some good `portrait` shots, and a pair of Anax Imperators `in cop` were so engrossed I could have shoved the lens up the male`s nose, if it had one! I have not taken any shots of dragonflies in flight, or even attempted it, although I might try this year. I do get somewhat despondent if I am out for hours and don`t get anything, but the sense of achievement when I do is very satisfying. That is why I prefer to take my photos in the wild. If I went to an aviary or butterfly house, or photographed captive dragonflies, I wouldn`t get that feeling of accomplishment. I have only just started photographing birds, and we do have feeders in the garden, but the species of birds visiting is quite limited. I intend to get out and about to find more species, so a long lens will be important unless I am very lucky indeed. I have never had such an expensive hobby (obsession?) before, so I have to think very hard before buying extra equipment. I can understand the need to always want something better or different to get that elusive shot. However, I have always said that in order to do the job properly, you have to have the right tools, otherwise you usually end up bodging it, which is what I feel I am doing at the moment. I have been on a very steep learning curve for the past few weeks and all the responses to my original query have given me plenty to think about. Improving my technique should be my first priority, I suspect, but I still feel that better glass will give me sharper shots, regardless of which length I eventually decide to go for. Maybe then, if I do have to crop, there won`t be so many imperfections to exaggerate by having to sharpen so much. with thanks and best wishes to all Kate > This will be my third year photographing odonata, but the first using > a digital SLR with zoom. I have been using a Coolpix 4500 which is [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > with thanks and best wishes to all > Kate Hi, Things I did not see discussed so far is your tripod setup. Is your tripod sturdy enough? Most amateur setups are not once you get into longer focal lengths of 300+ mm. Test your tripod using the following: mount your camera + telephoto on the tripod, then tap the lens and see how much it vibrates and how long it takes to dampen. Look through the viewfinder at full zoom and tap it again. Grab the camera + lens and twist the tripod back an forth and look at the flexure in the legs. Now go to a camera store and do the same with some of the tripods there (even without your camera mounted, you can twist the head and tap the legs and look for flexure and vibration. Some common tripods for comparison: Bogen 3001: small an light but better than most consumer tripods: not good enough for telephoto work in my opinion. Bogen 3021: heavy (~$130 for legs, aluminum tripod): minimal tripod for 300 mm, inadequate for 600+mm (equivalent) in my opinion. Gitzo 1228 or 1225 carbon fiber (carbon fiber dampens vibrations much better than aluminum): good up to about 500mm (with a good head). Gitzo 1325 carbon fiber: Good for 500mm and 600mm big telephotos. Get a good tripod head too. Legs + head are not cheap for a good telephoto setup. A gitzo 1225/8 is ~450 (if I remember correctly), an arca-swiss B1 monoball ~$400, and a wimberly sidekick ~$250. This will be good up to ~500mm. Beyond 500mm, a gitzo 1325 (~$700) and full wimberly (~$650) is needed (very approximate prices from memory). Improving your tripod may be a big step in image quality. Second, I suggest using Av (aperture variable; aperture priority) mode. This way you can set the aperture to maximum opening to maximize shutter speed. Moving animals need maximum shutter speed you can get. Birds in flight can require 1/2000 second and faster. After you've improved your image stability, contrary to others suggestions, I don't believe you will get great results with a 75-300mm zoom. These consumer zoom lenses are soft compared to prime lenses. So in your future, you may want to plan for a prime lens. Several years ago I bought a 500mm f/4 lens, and it has been a life changing lens for me, allowing me to get images never before possible. But last night I just returned from Australia, where because of weight restrictions, I only took a 300 mm f/4 L IS telephoto as my longest lens. That with a 1.4x TC did surprisingly well. I used a gitzo 1325 + arca-swiss B1 monoball + wimberly sidekick tripod and head configuration. Even then I see some of my images were blurred due to tripod movement (but a small percentage). I would recommend a 300 mm f/4 L IS lens as a great starter lens for wildlife photography. The IS works on the tripod and with the 1.4x TC gives 420mm f/5.6 with autofocus and IS that is really sharp. I got frame filling (and over-filling) images of wild lorikeets and flight images of cockatoos (as well as other wildlife, and scenic photos). I'll get some up in a few weeks. Roger Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com > Hi, > Things I did not see discussed so far is your tripod setup. Is your [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > Roger > Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com I did consider tripod stability, as I only have a cheap one. For this reason I keep IS switched on, just in case. I`m afraid that, at the moment, an expensive tripod is not an option. I would rather put the money towards a better lens, I think. As regards buying a prime, it is very tempting, but it could turn out to be a problem when I never know where a dragonfly will land. The darters are fairly predictable, as are the skimmers, but the hawkers can land anywhere from right in front of your nose, to yards and yards away. Can you tell me what the minimum focussing distance is of the 300mm f/4 L IS lens with the 1.4x TC, please. I do like the idea of the versatility of a zoom, but if it is at the expense of image sharpness, I may have to think again. I doubt very much if I shall ever be able to have a 500 or 600mm lens. Not only is the price prohibitive, but I have osteoarthritis in my hands and would find handling such heavy lenses very difficult. For the hide in the garden I have now bought a camping toilet tent and have draped the frame with the camouflage net we already have. As it is free-standing now, I have been able to move it closer to the bird feeders, but the wretched birds haven`t been back since so I haven`t been able to see if my images will be better. Trial shots of the feeders alone do seem to be improved, though, even at maximum zoom, and I don`t think I will have to crop so much. I have started using RAW mode, although it is agonisingly slow through the buffer. It may be that I have been losing some sharpness by the way in which I was processing the images, but until I can get some more shots from this new hide, I cannot tell for sure. There is no getting away from the fact that a better lens would make a lot of difference, but if I can improve my technique with the lens I have at the moment, it should stand me in good stead for the future. Lucky you to visit Australia. Did you get any pics of dragonflies, by any chance? Thanks for your suggestions. Kate > I did consider tripod stability, as I only have a cheap one. For this > reason I keep IS switched on, just in case. I`m afraid that, at the > moment, an expensive tripod is not an option. I would rather put the > money towards a better lens, I think. Ah, but your lens does not work correctly on a tripod with IS on. IS on when on a tripod could cause an instability causing soft images. Try imaging a target with lots of detail with the camera on a rock (a bean bag on the rock may help). Then do the same with your tripod. Are the tripod ones just as sharp? Do this at different exposure times, e.g. in bright sun and cloudy days or sunset to see the variability in softness. Tripod stability is very important, and too often overlooked. One problem is the vibration caused by mirror slap. At slower shutter speeds, like longer than about 1/250 second, vibration from mirror slap can influence image sharpness. Mass and a sturdy tripod and head can minimize this and push the region of image blur to slower shutter speeds. Thus a heavier lens and camera body as well as sturdy tripod help. Try putting one of those ankle weights (used for exercise) around your camera (be careful around the lens; it might put too much weight on the lens mount) to add stability. > As regards buying a prime, it is very tempting, but it could turn out > to be a problem when I never know where a dragonfly will land. The > darters are fairly predictable, as are the skimmers, but the hawkers > can land anywhere from right in front of your nose, to yards and yards > away. Can you tell me what the minimum focussing distance is of the > 300mm f/4 L IS lens with the 1.4x TC, please. The 300 L has a minimum focus distance of about 4.9 feet, and the 100-400 is 5.9 feet. > I have started using RAW mode, although it is agonisingly slow through > the buffer. It may be that I have been losing some sharpness by the > way in which I was processing the images, but until I can get some > more shots from this new hide, I cannot tell for sure. There is no > getting away from the fact that a better lens would make a lot of > difference, Only if your tripod is good enough. > but if I can improve my technique with the lens I have at > the moment, it should stand me in good stead for the future. Yes! > Lucky you to visit Australia. Did you get any pics of dragonflies, by > any chance? No. I did not see any, nor any in New Zealand. Roger > On 4/10/05 6:11 PM, in article d3c8bo$t5v$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk, > "Kate" <@*slamaspam*.demon.co.uk> wrote: > For the hide in the garden I have now bought a camping toilet tent and > have draped the frame with the camouflage net we already have. As it > is free-standing now, I have been able to move it closer to the bird > feeders, but the wretched birds haven`t been back since so I haven`t > been able to see if my images will be better. It takes a little while for them to get accustomed to a new object near their feeders. You might not need the camouflage net. They will get use to almost anything. Plus you need to make sure the netting doesn't flap in the breeze. As movement like that can scare the birds. Do you know the trick of putting a small branch or twig within a foot or two of feet of the feeder. Many birds will fly to and from this branch to go to and then leave the feeder. Take the pictures when they land and fly off this branch. This also makes the bird portraits look a lot more natural and not so obvious that it was shot at a feeder. Plus you can change the branch every so often for different looks. Put it into the best position for great bird portraits. > I have started using RAW mode, although it is agonisingly slow through > the buffer. It may be that I have been losing some sharpness by the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > difference, but if I can improve my technique with the lens I have at > the moment, it should stand me in good stead for the future. Make sure that incamera settings are set correctly. It could be that your camera is set for "No Sharpening." Good lenses are very important. SignaturePWW (Paul Wayne Wilson) Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, http://PhotoStockFile.com >> On 4/10/05 6:11 PM, in article >> d3c8bo$t5v$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk, [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Good lenses are very important. The hide has been in the garden for several weeks, and it is only recently that we have built a portable one. Previously it had been fixed to the fence, but was too far away from the feeders for sharp pictures. I have pinned the camouflage net down with tent pegs to stop it flapping. The idea of using a twig for the birds to perch on prior to visiting the feeders is a good one. However, what seems to happen is that the birds fly into the garden from the trees at the back and straight on to the feeder perches, then back the way they came. Today I was able to get some better shots of a greenfinch, and some even better ones of a robin. The greenfinch was about 10 feet away but the robin only about 6 ft. It does seem as though at 6ft, objects are _much_ sharper, but as the distance increases, sharpness drops off. This is all at 300mm BTW. The in-camera sharpness setting was plus 1, so I have pushed it up to plus 2 and hope noise isn`t increased. My tripod, although a heavy one, _is_ a bit unstable, particularly as it is standing on loose gravel, and I did take two identical shots, one with IS enabled and one without, both with the camera on the tripod. The light was good and I was able to shoot at 1/200th f/8. There was very little difference, with maybe just a little more sharpness with IS turned on. I did read the manual <grin> regarding turning IS off if the camera is tripod-mounted, but surely wobbly is wobbly, whether hand-generated or tripod-generated. I haven`t yet tried with the camera resting on a solid object, but will do so shortly. I expect when I go out in the field, I shall have to use a monopod, as carrying a tripod as well as camera and lens(es) will be difficult, as will hand-holding the camera for any length of time because of the arthritis in my hands. Regarding shutter speed and f stops, I have read that, as birds move so quickly, even when feeding, anything less than 1/160th will not do. Elsewhere I also read that the "sweet spot" for sharpness is f8. Also, that to increase DOF, an f stop of between 11 and 13 is necessary. I do try to shoot at above 1/160th and at around f8, but sharpness always seems to come down to how far away I am from the - admittedly - small subject. As I mentioned above, 6ft seems ideal with this lens at maximum zoom. Roger : does the minimum focussing distance of the 300mm prime remain the same, then, whether a TC is attached or not, please? As I always seem to be shooting at 300mm, it does seem rather pointless to have a zoom after all. Also, will AF still work with this lens and a 1.4x TC attached to a Canon EOS 300D do you know? My husband is getting a bit grumpy with me because I want a new lens, a new tripod, a new this, a new that, and I`ve only had this camera and lens since Christmas! Thank you for your help. Kate > The in-camera sharpness setting was > plus 1, so I have pushed it up to plus 2 and hope noise isn`t > increased. I suggest no in camera sharpening. Do it post processing where you have more control. > My tripod, although a heavy one, _is_ a bit unstable, particularly as > it is standing on loose gravel, Hang a bucket from the tripod and fill it with rocks, dirt or something else heavy. That will improve stability. > I expect when I go out in the field, I shall have to use a > monopod, as carrying a tripod as well as camera and lens(es) will be > difficult, as will hand-holding the camera for any length of time > because of the arthritis in my hands. That is an advantage of carbon fiber tripods as they are much lighter as well as sturdier and dampen vibrations. > Regarding shutter speed and f stops, I have read that, as birds move > so quickly, even when feeding, anything less than 1/160th will not do. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > admittedly - small subject. As I mentioned above, 6ft seems ideal > with this lens at maximum zoom. While the sweet spot for sharpness for many lenses is f/8, the telephoto pro primes by canon, nikon and others often are as sharp wide open as at f/8. For Canon, this is the L series lenses (which technically does not mean pro, but means low dispersion glass is used in a more exotic design which tends to give better image quality). My experience with birds, unless they are completely still, is that shutter speed is paramount. The percentage of soft images I get goes up rapidly as shutter speed drops below 1/500 second. Try imaging at f/5.6 or f/4 (if you can). Boost ISO until you get 1/500 second or faster. For movement (and small birds move really fast, 1/1500 or faster is needed. Second, change the autofocus sensors to use only one sensor, and keep that sensor on the bird's eye(s). A sharp bird photo will usually show feather detail, and that is quite small. A sharp lens and fast shutter is critical to freezing any movement. Check the shutter speeds on my website: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird Last week in Australia, I found a fair number of Cockatoo images are not sharp due to movement; I was imaging in shade and not watching my shutter speeds. Now I find I was only at 1/200 to 1/400 second. I should have boosted the ISO (I was at 100). > Roger : does the minimum focussing distance of the 300mm prime remain > the same, then, whether a TC is attached or not, please? As I always > seem to be shooting at 300mm, it does seem rather pointless to have a > zoom after all. Also, will AF still work with this lens and a 1.4x TC > attached to a Canon EOS 300D do you know? I do believe the minimum distance is the same (seemed like it was last week when I was in Australia). I do not have it with me, but can check it in a couple of days. The 300D, like all canon consumer SLR bodies, needs f/5.6 or faster to autofocus well (some 3rd party TCs will still autofocus at f/8, but often the camera does not do well, hunting and missing focus). I use Kenko pro 300 TCs which are very sharp and a little cheaper than the canon TCs. So the 300 f/4 will autofocus with a 1.4x TC giving f/5.6 at 420 mm. > My husband is getting a bit grumpy with me because I want a new lens, > a new tripod, a new this, a new that, and I`ve only had this camera > and lens since Christmas! Good luck! Roger > I suggest no in camera sharpening. Do it post processing where > you have more control. I`ll give it a try, or go back to the default of plus 1. > Hang a bucket from the tripod and fill it with rocks, dirt or > something else heavy. That will improve stability. I`ll try that, too, although it wouldn`t be very practical away from the garden! > That is an advantage of carbon fiber tripods as they are much > lighter as well as sturdier and dampen vibrations. I would like a carbon fibre monopod, but don`t think my husband would spring for a tripod, unfortunately. > My experience with birds, unless they are completely still, is that > shutter speed is paramount. The percentage of soft images I get > goes up rapidly as shutter speed drops below 1/500 second. Try > imaging at f/5.6 or f/4 (if you can). Boost ISO until you get 1/500 > second or faster. For movement (and small birds move really fast, > 1/1500 or faster is needed. I try to increase shutter speed as much as possible, although I do find at f/5.6, say, the DOF is so shallow that the beak of the bird will be sharp, but the feet won`t, or vice versa. I have tried increasing ISO but don`t like all the noise that appears. When the background is blurry it shows. I have tried some demo versions of plug-ins and stand-alone programs that remove noise, but find they can make things "blocky". > Second, change the autofocus sensors to use only one sensor, and > keep that sensor on the bird's eye(s). I have already selected the centre spot for autofocus - did that very soon after getting the camera - and focus on the bird`s head. If the bird is sideways on, everything is OK, but face on and the feet are out of focus (see above). > A sharp bird photo will usually show feather detail, and that is > quite small. A sharp lens and fast shutter is critical to freezing > any movement. Check the shutter speeds on my website: > http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird I have managed to get some images which show the feather detail, even the little wispy bits, but that has been when I was only 6 ft away. >The 300D, like all canon consumer SLR bodies, > needs f/5.6 or faster to autofocus well (some 3rd party TCs will > still autofocus at f/8, but often the camera does not do well, > hunting and missing focus). If I find that autofocus is having difficulties, I try to find another object the same distance away, focus on that and then re-focus on the original subject and the camera seems to find it more easily. Doesn`t always work though, because sometimes the subject has flown away by the time I am ready! >> My husband is getting a bit grumpy with me because I want a new >> lens, a new tripod, a new this, a new that, and I`ve only had this >> camera and lens since Christmas! > > Good luck! I`m working on it...<grin> Kate > > Hang a bucket from the tripod and fill it with rocks, dirt or > > something else heavy. That will improve stability. > > I`ll try that, too, although it wouldn`t be very practical away from > the garden! If you hang your camera bag, or similar, from the tripod that'll help stabilise it. Roger > A sharp bird photo will usually show feather detail, and that is > quite small. A sharp lens and fast shutter is critical to freezing > any movement. Check the shutter speeds on my website: > http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird Just had a look at your photos. They are quite beautiful. I did notice, though, that they were taken with longer telephotos than the 300mm that I aspire to. I know you said that you took only the 300mm with TCs on your latest trip to Australia, so look forward to seeing the results. Would you post on this thread when they are ready to view, please, Roger? Many thanks Kate >>A sharp bird photo will usually show feather detail, and that is >>quite small. A sharp lens and fast shutter is critical to freezing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the results. Would you post on this thread when they are ready to > view, please, Roger? Kate, I have gotten a first peak at my trip photos. I did process one image and included full resolution sections so you can see the sharpness. It is an image of a Rainbow Lorikeet (parrot) with the 300 mm f/4 L IS + 1.4x TC (Kenko pro 300) on a tripod with IS on: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW/web/lorikeet.c04.07.2005.JZ3F89 62.b-700.html There are edges in the image where intensities change by a factor of 10 within 2 pixels and where adjacent pixels have factors of 3 to 4 change in intensity (an indicator of very good sharpness). Roger >> This will be my third year photographing odonata, but the first using >> a digital SLR with zoom. I have been using a Coolpix 4500 which is [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> with thanks and best wishes to all >> Kate Hi Kate. I like to do bugs and birds. I have previously used a sony f707 for bugs because of the really short focus distance. On my 20d i have a 75x300 is ef lens. It doesn't make it - particularly with birds - they are a bit more sentient. The people i see getting nice macros use a 300 and up with generally a 1.4 teleconverter. The faster the lens, the better. Ususally they manually focus because the auto takes too long and isn't as consistent.. Sooo..more than 300 and fast...better than f4 if you can afford it . I suspect a tripod when possible is the way yo go. Alot of patience..and perhaps bait. I agree with your conclusion on glass. If you can kill a particular bug...a really great technique is to pin it down and take 6 or 20 shots with varying focus lengths. Then composit them to get really super dof. That's part of it right there. Good luck and if in your search you have any suggestions, would be glad to hear them. rgds Ken > Hi Kate. I like to do bugs and birds. I have previously used a sony > f707 for bugs because of the really short focus distance. On my [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > rgds > Ken Firstly, to Roger : thank you for letting me see the images of the lorikeet. They look super so I think that the 300mm L prime with TC could be the way for me to go, although I shall probably keep the 75-300 IS USM for use at the lower end, where it is supposed to be sharper. Thank you for all your help. Ken : last year I was using a Nikon Coolpix 4500 for the dragonflies and got some good, sharp images - whenever I could get close enough. For macro work, the Nikon is very good, I think, and it will focus at 2cm from the subject. I shall probably only use it for that now. I caught a hovering Southern Hawker dragonfly last year (fastest hand in the west - of England!) and held it in the prescribed manner in one hand, while taking shots with the Coolpix with the other. I couldn`t have done that with the Canon. Nor could I haved killed it; also, most dragonflies lose their colours very rapidly after death. One of the difficulties I have is the unreliability of the English summer weather, but, although I would not say that I am a particularly patient person, I am very tenacious and won`t give up until I`ve got the shot I want. I am hoping that with a telephoto I won`t have to wait so long... best wishes Kate >> Hi Kate. I like to do bugs and birds. I have previously used a sony >> f707 for bugs because of the really short focus distance. On my [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >best wishes >Kate Sounds like you'll be happy with a good telephoto of sufficient length. Alas...i think this year will see me using the f707 yet againt (nice color though). Actually...forgive me.. i like d-flys too much to kill them. Thinking more of beetles and bees. The great thing about a good tele will be you probably can take your time and focus really nice..and then i know one of the first things i would like to try would be a composit foto and try to amplify the dof. Like i said..i've seen it done by a fellow out in washington with pinned bees. Fab shots. Well good luck, let us know what lens works for you. Dump a pic or two to alt.binaries.photos.original if you've no site and would like to share them. rgds - Ta Ken > I am very new to digital SLR photography and bought a Canon 300D a few > months ago (couldn`t afford a better one, alas), together with a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > then have to sharpen them which exaggerates noise and chromatic > aberrations. If you have to crop, then a longer lens should certainly help. Are you certain it is lack of sharpness in the lens? Sharpening is usually needed for all digital images. Noise might not be as bad as it looks on screen when printed, there are software solutions for the chromatic abberation & noise reduction. It's possible you could get a little better results shooting raw with dcraw converter can be a little less antialiasing softness added (but more noise). > It is very frustrating. The question I specifically > wanted to ask is this : bearing in mind the quality of the Canon body, I don't think that body is hurting you, unless you have several thousand more to spend for full frame. You will be able to tell the difference in a better lens even at 6MP. If your lens is soft, more MP won't help. > would I get much better results if I invested in an L series Canon > lens - say, the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM? I'm getting much better results with a much better telephoto on a Nikon D70. Mine was a more dramatic change though from a $350 28-200 3.5-5.6 which is not sharp at 200 & has bad bokeh with all but the softest backgrounds to a $1,600 70-200 2.8 VR. Then a 2x teleconverter turns that into a 400/5.6 & a +2 diopter lets it do macro. It is nice to have the option of f/2.8 without the teleconverter & the lens is good enough quality to be doubled in zoom. The blur is beautifully soft and it is definitely sharper. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.