Advice needed for sharp bird shots

gustafson

Senior Member
I was out at our neighborhood park and happened to see a plover hanging about a construction ditch across a fence. It was sunny and seemed to be a good opportunity to put my 200 f/4 Q.C through its paces. The bird must have been all of 30 feet away. I mounted the 200 f/4 on my modified TC-16A (to make a 320 f/6.4) and proceeded to take about 10 shots, figuring I would get at least a couple of keepers. Well, when I reviewed the pics during PP, I was disappointed to find that the sharpness after cropping was just not up to the mark. Wondering if this is par for the course for a ~300mm lens shooting ~30 feet out, or rather a limitation of my setup? I have been able to get sharp pics with this setup in the past of a gull that was perhaps 10 feet away, so I preliminarily assumed that it was viable for bird photos.

I'll add samples to this post as soon as I get a chance.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I was out at our neighborhood park and happened to see a plover hanging about a construction ditch across a fence. It was sunny and seemed to be a good opportunity to put my 200 f/4 Q.C through its paces. The bird must have been all of 30 feet away. I mounted the 200 f/4 on my modified TC-16A (to make a 320 f/6.4) and proceeded to take about 10 shots, figuring I would get at least a couple of keepers. Well, when I reviewed the pics during PP, I was disappointed to find that the sharpness after cropping was just not up to the mark. Wondering if this is par for the course for a ~300mm lens shooting ~30 feet out, or rather a limitation of my setup? I have been able to get sharp pics with this setup in the past of a gull that was perhaps 10 feet away, so I preliminarily assumed that it was viable for bird photos.

I'll add samples to this post as soon as I get a chance.
Things to Consider: Was your shutter speed at or above 1/500? What ISO was used and how much cropping were you trying to do?

Using a TC, and combined with a lot of cropping, would degrade sharpness almost certainly. Not having a fast enough shutter speed, especially at focal lengths like we're discussing here, would almost certainly introduce motion blur if shooting hand-held. And finally, a high-ISO could compound any these (potential) issues by making the image appear soft.
 

Kevin H

Senior Member
30' I could take that with my 18-105mm

Why are you gung ho on Telle's??? every post is about them lean your lenses first :D
 
Last edited:

gustafson

Senior Member
Things to Consider: Was your shutter speed at or above 1/500? What ISO was used and how much cropping were you trying to do?

Using a TC, and combined with a lot of cropping, would degrade sharpness almost certainly. Not having a fast enough shutter speed, especially at focal lengths like we're discussing here, would almost certainly introduce motion blur if shooting hand-held. And finally, a high-ISO could compound any these (potential) issues by making the image appear soft.

Fair points. I recall shooting at 100 ISO and 1/500s and stopped down one or two stops, but need to look at the EXIF to confirm. There was a lot of cropping involved - I'll post before / after pics to capture that.

Your post reminded me of a question that I forgot to mention in my previous post: I'm seeing that my TC-16A (single or stacked with another TC-16A) gives acceptable results for nearby subjects, but as the subject distance increases, the performance seems to drop quite significantly. Have others noticed the same, or is it just me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

gustafson

Senior Member
30' I could take that with my 18-105mm

Why are you gung ho on Telle's??? every post is about them lean your lenses first :D

Why gung ho on teles? Just the eternal quest for tack sharp bird photos lol.

In my previous tests, my 200 f/4 Q.C with the modified TC-16A seemed to outperform by 55-200 VR. However, I'm thinking I may have incorrectly reached that conclusion based on close-in subjects, and may have to to repeat the comparison for further-out subjects.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Kevin H

Senior Member
Why gung ho on teles? Just the eternal quest for tack sharp bird photos lol.

In my previous tests, my 200 f/4 Q.C with the modified TC-16A seemed to outperform by 55-200 VR. However, I'm thinking I may have incorrectly reached that conclusion based on close-in subjects, and may have to to repeat the comparison for further-out subjects.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Buy a 500mm or 600mm F4 and use teles or a 300 mm 2.8

Heres one at 220mm no tele on my sigma 150-500

 
Last edited:

Blacktop

Senior Member
If you want sharp bird shots the 2 most important things IMO are good light and a high enough SS.
You said that you were at ISO 100 and a SS of 1/500th.

With only a 2 stop increase of your ISO to 400,you could have took the shot at 1/2000th and gotten a much sharper shot.



Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk
 

STM

Senior Member
I may burst a few bubbles here, but cameras are not nearly as smart as many think, in fact they can be outright dumb at times. When you rely on autofocus, you are taking what the camera thinks you should be focusing on, however it may not be what YOU want to focus on. This is especially critical with long focal lengths, either prime or with TC's. I have no choice, all of my lenses are AI/AIS, so I focus everything manually. When I focus birds which are not moving, I always focus on their eye. Just like you should do in portraiture. Have just enough aperture to cover the depth of the bird with a little bit of margin on either side. And if practical use some kind of support. A monopod is an absolute necessity with my 600mm f/4 beast. At 20 pounds (lens, D700 and battery pack) it is way to much to support and manually focus. You should use at least a monopod if you are going to be shooting over a 300mm.

This Great Egret was photographed with the D700 and 600mm f/4 on a monopod. It is as sharp as a razor in an 11x14 print.

Heron.jpg
 

gustafson

Senior Member
Thanks for the input. I misspoke on the shutter speed, turns out the shots were at 1/250 because I was using the built-in flash. The 200 f/4 was stopped down to f/8, so I was effectively shooting at 320mm @ f/11. Looks like I used 100 ISO throughout.

I have attached the photos from the set in the link below, plus a 5-ft close-up of a dragonfly which shows that close-up performance with the setup is OK. Comments welcome.

https://www.flickr.com/gp/89411942@N04/q9V52A
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Thanks for the input. I misspoke on the shutter speed, turns out the shots were at 1/250 because I was using the built-in flash. The 200 f/4 was stopped down to f/8, so I was effectively shooting at 320mm @ f/11. Looks like I used 100 ISO throughout.

I have attached the photos from the set in the link below, plus a 5-ft close-up of a dragonfly which shows that close-up performance with the setup is OK. Comments welcome.

https://www.flickr.com/gp/89411942@N04/q9V52A
In looking at your last couple of bird shots, are you 100% certain your focus point was actually on the bird? I could be wrong, but it sure looks to me like your focus point was well in front (of the bird).
 

gustafson

Senior Member
In looking at your last couple of bird shots, are you 100% certain your focus point was actually on the bird? I could be wrong, but it sure looks to me like your focus point was well in front (of the bird).

I recall trying to ensure that the center focus rectangle (D7100) was on the face of the bird and was using back button AF, so I'm relatively sure of the focusing, but may have missed a couple. Will double check. Thx!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I recall trying to ensure that the center focus rectangle (D7100) was on the face of the bird and was using back button AF, so I'm relatively sure of the focusing, but may have missed a couple. Will double check. Thx!
I've looked a few times and I keep coming to the same conclusion. Bear in mind I'm only looking at the last two bird shots when I say this. What appears to me to be in cleanly sharp focus are some of the rocks that are... I don't know... Maybe one foot in front of the bird? I'm guessing, really, but the point I'm trying to make is, I don't think this is a front/back focus problem; I think your focus point was off for some reason.

I'd like to hear what others think about this, though; I could be completely off the beam.
 

gustafson

Senior Member
I've looked a few times and I keep coming to the same conclusion. Bear in mind I'm only looking at the last two bird shots when I say this. What appears to me to be in cleanly sharp focus are some of the rocks that are... I don't know... Maybe one foot in front of the bird? I'm guessing, really, but the point I'm trying to make is, I don't think this is a front/back focus problem; I think your focus point was off for some reason.

I'd like to hear what others think about this, though; I could be completely off the beam.

Thanks for clarifying. FWIW I did check for front / back focus later in the evening by placing a lawnchair on the lawn at a similar distance, and focused on the nearest leg, and couldn't conclude based on the blades of grass if there was a front/back focus issue, so you might well be right. I do keep my focus point locked to prevent my nose from moving it via the rocker switch, but that's not to say other focusing errors may not have occurred.
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
I've looked a few times and I keep coming to the same conclusion. Bear in mind I'm only looking at the last two bird shots when I say this. What appears to me to be in cleanly sharp focus are some of the rocks that are... I don't know... Maybe one foot in front of the bird? I'm guessing, really, but the point I'm trying to make is, I don't think this is a front/back focus problem; I think your focus point was off for some reason.

I'd like to hear what others think about this, though; I could be completely off the beam.

Looking at these shots now that I'm on my big screen and not my phone, it seems that the focus was on the rock in front of the birds feet. So either the focus was missed or the lens is front focusing.

The dragonfly looks ok, it's just a little soft. Could have been camera shake or there was a breeze. Those guys are tough to get sharp at that shutterspeed if there is any movement.
 

gustafson

Senior Member
Looking at these shots now that I'm on my big screen and not my phone, it seems that the focus was on the rock in front of the birds feet. So either the focus was missed or the lens is front focusing.

The dragonfly looks ok, it's just a little soft. Could have been camera shake or there was a breeze. Those guys are tough to get sharp at that shutterspeed if there is any movement.

Thanks for confirming Paul's observation. Guess I need to retest for front focusing, and eliminate using AF Fine Tune, if appropriate.

As for the dragonfly, I believe this shot was with a PK-13 between the TC and lens, and I was on my tippy toes, which is likely the reason for the soft focus. Is it possible for front focusing to be minimal at short distances and become more significant at greater subject distances? If so, that could be a possible issue with this setup.
 
Last edited:

Vincent

Senior Member
My first conclusion: Can you see more sharpness on the ground, not clear from the pictures, but could be.
You might have reached a limit on your combination, I do also see that near focus sometimes performs different then far focus on the same TC + lens combination (see an MTF graph on lens performance which will confirm, TCs accentuate this effect).

One point not mentioned here, in sunny weather the air movement can make your picture blurry. I did not see this particularly in your examples, but it is an effect. Also the position of the sun can work on the contrast, depending on the lens. You have to learn about the set-up you are using.
 
Top