Jump to content

Soft images with long lens


bob_bill

Recommended Posts

  1. dcstep. Thanks for the advice in the photo thread about my problem with a high percentage of soft shots. Didn't want to get too off topic so started this thread. I hit the wall on what I consider acceptable iso on my crop body, a 10 yr old d200 at about 400 iso. After that I seem to trade noise for faster shutter speed/sharpness and not sure it is a benefit. My bench test shot was at 1/800 so the camera movement is the problem and it was nearly tack sharp. Not sure if mirror lock up or a remote shutter release would help. I have been shooting at f/4.8, the lowest available with the 1.7 tc. on the 2.8 lens but will try some tests this weekend to try to find the optimum iso, shutter speed, aperture. Folks here that know me from the lighting side know the first thing I do is test to find the limitations of my lights/modifiers and what they actually do. Perhaps stopping down will get me into the sweet spot of the lens. However, I really like the bokeh at 4.8 and will also test that without the tc at 2.8 and at 5.6. Fortunately, Nikon hasn't provided me with a replacement for my d700, so while I wait for a replacement for the 810 perhaps a used crop factor d7100 or 7200 will provide me more resolution than the 10mp d200 and a more modern iso response for my wild life shooting. Anyone feel comfortable at 800 iso or above on those bodies? Much of my shooting will be in my back yard so can set up the tripod and not have to carry it much. Have constant wading birds, a roseate spoon bill last week, slow moving turtles, otters, egrets, herons, ducks and wood storks. And they are often totally still while stalking their prey. I will also try a monopod. Am I asking too much for steady shots with a 1000 mm equivalent on a monopod with no image stabilization? Is 680 more realistic? Do you folks use a 1 axis head on a tripod so you can keep the monopod vertical? I know the inverse lens length rule, but I seem to have wandered into a different universe with long glass. I have been shooting in 3 or 4 shot bursts to try to eliminate the movement from firing and releasing the shutter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which (f2.8?) lens are you using

Sounds like a 400/2.8 with TC-17EII (judging by the 680 (FX) and 1000 (DX)). In the other thread he also mentioned a 70-200/2.8 (don't know which version). Camera seems to be a D200. In Nikon land, it doesn't get any better than 400/2.8 (commonly accepted as being the sharpest of the superteles) but hand-holding that beast will certainly require some effort. If the 70-200 is the first version, then I am not surprised at mediocre results with the TC-17EII (from my own experience).

 

Two things come to mind: the TC-17EII reduces the image quality a lens delivers by one grade (turns a good lens into a mediocre one). I used a TC-17EII behind a 300/4 AF-S for a long time on a D200 and then on a D300 trying to convince myself that the IQ was acceptable. The D200 doesn't have high resolution but a fairly strong AA filter, which doesn't help matters much. Also, by today's standards, its AF system is quite antiquated.

 

d7100 or 7200

Forget the D7100, its limited memory buffer capacity makes it unsuitable for wildlife shooting. The D7200 will certainly give you better resolution and AF performance than your D200.

 

I will also try a monopod.

Never had much luck with them. They are fine to take the weight off but at least for me don't do much for steadying the shot. And they are a total hindrance when it comes to bird-in-flight photography.

 

Aside from the camera and TC shortcomings, the most likely cause for unsharp images is motion blur due to either camera shake and/or subject motion.

 

Another could be front- or back focusing of the lens; requiring AF fine tune to correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only use DX for the crop factor to boost the focal length of my 300mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 AIS Nikkors and occasionally my 105mm f/2.8 AIS Micro Nikkor. I recently retired my D300 for a D7100 because above ISO 400 the D300 gets a noisy. The D7100, from an IQ standpoint, is an outstanding camera. It performs quite well at least to ISO 800 (the highest I have tried it so far). As for tripod heads, you should really try a gimbal head. Once you get one will wonder why you waited so long to move away from a traditional 3 axis head. Monopods are fine, as long as you can shoot at 1/1000 or faster and are certainly more easily transportable than a tripod (even the light carbon fiber ones). I can consistently shoot with the D7100 or D700 with the 600mm f/4 and TC-300 (effective focal lengths of 1200mm and 1800mm) as long as I can use at least 1/1000 sec.

 

The D7100 does quite well with a carbon fiber tripod, gimbal head and 600mm f/4 ED-IF AIS NIkkor and TC-300.

 

Anhinga.thumb.jpg.63f5e06f65638377feee633255f62f5c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Utter nonsense. Not all of us have to shoot at 10 fps to get great wildlife shots.

Nobody said anything about 10fps! The D7100 slows down after 6 RAW images to a reduced rate of around 2fps (with the fastest SD card currently available). Quite frustrating when there's some action or when shooting birds in flight. Your opinion and experience may differ from mine but that doesn't give you the right to call mine "utter nonsense". Rude and unprofessional!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shun, was using a 70-200 2.8 vr1 with the 1.7 tele. Was not satisfied with the results. Probably why it went mostly unused for 6 years. Now using a 400 2.8 version II no vr. Pulled out the old d200 for the crop factor but this evening put it on a d700 and without a tc, sharp as a tack just resting on a camera stand arm at 500. Could crank the d700 to 800 or 1000 iso. Heres some shots, first looks to me to be camera shake, nothing including the sticks in focus. Ibis eye tack sharp body out of focus, seems to be a shallower dof than I would have expected at 40 feet. Getting to know the lens. Turtle at 20 feet seems to be pretty sharp on the eye. All taken with lens resting on a camera stand arm with some padding. Took some at 1/5000 and they are tack sharp. So seems I need to eliminate camera shake,keep shutter speed up around at least 800 or 1000. Rechecked the dof calculator and at 40 feet am only getting about 3 inches dof, only 1.5 or so in front. 1306063922_nothingsharp.thumb.jpg.5d73fa0db72396bfb20dd1843048165f.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone. Appreciate the feed back. Dieter, at nearly 10 lbs, it makes the 70-200 look like a light weight. On the ff body and no tc, got some sharp shots hand holding but bracing the lens against a door jamb. Full sun, 2.8 and 1/4000. Keep those great CA shots coming. Can tell some bicep curls are in my future. Edited by bob_bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At a minimum, I definitely wouldn't hand hold a 10-pound 400mm/f2.8 lens. With a 1.7x TC and the crop from a DX body, that is a lot of magnification such that camera shake is robbing you sharpness. For that heavy a lens, you need something like a Series 5 Gitzo tripod or the equivalent to provide proper support.

 

For wildlife photography with such a long lens, 400mm + 1.7x TC, at least I frequently use higher ISOs, 800, 1600, etc. The D200 is simply way too old a camera body to provide you the higher ISO when so many newer DX bodies can do a much better job in these days, D7100, D7200, D7500 and of course there is the D500.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Shun, this long lens/nature stuff is a new area for me. Someone had asked on another post to comment on something favorable about pnet, well, this is an example. I received advice from folks who's work I respect in a matter of hours. Got insight from folks who know the genre based on their years of experience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may be true with Nikon, but it's not true with Canon, not at all.

 

That is a tip I first learned from George Lepp back in 1990. Lepp is very much a Canon user, but of course 1990 was a long time ago. For one thing lens designs have improved in the last 2+ decades, and it also depends on the exact zoom lens and TC combo. (For example, I would imagine Canon's 200-400mm/f4 with a built-in 1.4x TC that cost $11K works together very well.) However, part of the issue is that zooms have a lot of elements, especially those with optical image stabilization. Adding a few more elements from the TC is typically counterproductive to sharpness.

 

But again, that is a general comment. Some specific combos are better than others.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may be true with Nikon, but it's not true with Canon, not at all.

 

Well, there are good and there are not-so-good teleconverters, ever since they were first introduced. As a general principle, their use will at the best not decrease the image quality. I don't think it's useful to make general statements. Each combination of lens and coverter has to be tested separately to see what really works.

 

If you want some background, I did some historical musing at In Search of Reach: Tele Converters

Edited by JDMvW
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shooting at ISO 400 with long lenses is equivalent to tying one hand behind your back. I got into wildlife and bird photography in 2009, with Canon 7D and 5D MkII. While not up to today's standards, I shot those bodies at ISO 800. The 7D really crapped out at ISO 1600, but the 5D2 was still very good at that and then acceptable at ISO 3200. I can't name the specific body for you, but Nikon was making very competitive stuff back then, as now. I think that you should consider upgrading your body.

 

Also, be careful when you pixel-peep. For birds, I've always looked at the eye at 100% and even 200%, judging critical sharpness of focus. Don't be too upset with the noise in the RAW file, because you can apply noise reduction and still maintain good detail. I use DxO's PRIME NR, which is part of their Optics Pro software. I lower the NR below DxO's Default level and add some micro-contrast to offset some of the softening. Also, experiment with keeping Luminescence NR low, because that does smear detail.

 

With today's lenses, hand-holding 1,000mm with a crop-sensor is quite achievable, for most men and many women. The latest lenses have 4-stops of image stabilization, making it a whole new world. Back in 2009, 2-stops was more the norm. I still hand held those lenses, but it's easier today.

 

Hand held, crop-sensor, 700mm (actual) and ISO 1600:

 

26087505022_2b794b47f4_b.jpgDancing With Dinner (Explored) by David Stephens, on Flickr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shun, was using a 70-200 2.8 vr1 with the 1.7 tele. Was not satisfied with the results. Probably why it went mostly unused for 6 years. Now using a 400 2.8 version II no vr. Pulled out the old d200 for the crop factor but this evening put it on a d700 and without a tc, sharp as a tack just resting on a camera stand arm at 500. Could crank the d700 to 800 or 1000 iso. Heres some shots, first looks to me to be camera shake, nothing including the sticks in focus. Ibis eye tack sharp body out of focus, seems to be a shallower dof than I would have expected at 40 feet. Getting to know the lens. Turtle at 20 feet seems to be pretty sharp on the eye. All taken with lens resting on a camera stand arm with some padding. Took some at 1/5000 and they are tack sharp. So seems I need to eliminate camera shake,keep shutter speed up around at least 800 or 1000. Rechecked the dof calculator and at 40 feet am only getting about 3 inches dof, only 1.5 or so in front. [ATTACH=full]1184764[/ATTACH]

 

For the egret, DOF is the main culprit. You got focus on the body, not the eye. We tend to forgive OOF areas, so long as the eye is in focus. To get the eye in focus, use single-point AF and put the point on the eye.

Edited by dcstep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ibis isn't too bad, if you'd gotten light on the eye. In this situation, I'll take a hundred shots, when the head-angle is toward me and hoping that I'll get a handful where the eye lights up.

 

I can't figure what's going on with the turtle. It needs higher ISO. The older AF systems are marginal in low light and it looks like you never got focus here. Take lots of shots, use higher ISO and make sure you're not inside the minimum focus distance. There's nothing right about this one, so I'm guessing what might be the problem, but older AF systems in lower light, with long lenses are very iffy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks dc. This lens reminds me of what I felt when I got a 7 foot octa and said, holy crap this thing is bigger than I am. Same the first time I tried moving a 6.5 x 6.5' scrim alone-now it's on a rolling stand, no big deal1898130269_bananasweb.thumb.jpg.d6ee51514d97e7dbaf81955e623bee1c.jpg . This lens weighs a ton, probably enough to break your wrist if it falls and you have the wrist strap on. A piece of gear that can kick my butt. Put it on a wimberley gimbal yesterday and even used a remote trigger at 1/80 sec and stopped down to 5.6 for more dof and looking for the lens sweet spot and got a pretty sharp image. On a gimbal, it effectively weighs nothing. More testing this weekend. I hope the critters don't get the bananas before I do. Thanks
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

bob_bill said:

d7100 or 7200

 

Forget the D7100, its limited memory buffer capacity makes it unsuitable for wildlife shooting.

 

Utter nonsense. Not all of us have to shoot at 10 fps to get great wildlife shots.

 

Well, yeah, but, you're more likely to get the perfect head-angle, perfect eye-light and perfect wing position shooting at 10-fps. Why tie one hand behind your back? Yes, you don't shoot willy-nilly and you wait for the head to sing around to an attractive angle before doing a burst of three or four.

 

Still, shoot what you brought. I've got a 10-fps body that stays mostly in the bag, because its AF is not as good as my 5-fps and 7-fps bodies. I think a sweet spot is around 7-fps. Remember, after shooting at 10, 12 or 20-fps (new Sony) you have to look at those images and pick out the best. I use PhotoMechanic and can storm through them pretty fast, but it still takes time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks dc. This lens reminds me of what I felt when I got a 7 foot octa and said, holy crap this thing is bigger than I am. Same the first time I tried moving a 6.5 x 6.5' scrim alone-now it's on a rolling stand, no big deal[ATTACH=full]1185043[/ATTACH] . This lens weighs a ton, probably enough to break your wrist if it falls and you have the wrist strap on. A piece of gear that can kick my butt. Put it on a wimberley gimbal yesterday and even used a remote trigger at 1/80 sec and stopped down to 5.6 for more dof and looking for the lens sweet spot and got a pretty sharp image. On a gimbal, it effectively weighs nothing. More testing this weekend. I hope the critters don't get the bananas before I do. Thanks

 

You have to consider holding the lens vs. lugging around the same lens on a tripod. Lot's of people use tripods, and I did at one time. If you can't, you can't. It sounds like you tried hand holding and it didn't work for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dc, I see you approach nature shots the way I approach portraiture. Only perfect is good enough. My strobes can pop 10 frames a second and my camera only 8, but in there is the perfect smile. I think Ansel said 12 good photos in one year is a good crop.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Attached is an image I captured recently with the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR @ 400mm, f4. It was a somewhat sunny day but I ended up using f4, 1/250 sec and ISO 640 on a D500. The bird wasn't flying but moved around a bit, and 1/250 sec was mostly sufficient to stop the motion, i.e. most frames are sharp but in some frames, the bird is blurred.

 

In other words, I think you are much better off upgrading to a modern (DX) body where you won't hesitate to use ISO 800 and maybe a bit higher. However, even on the D500, I would imagine that not everybody likes it at ISO 3200 or even 1600, especially when there is a lot of noisy, shadow areas.

 

_5000535.jpg.55f366ad85c80b2f42f64afd5a79e556.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Shun, no question time for an upgrade on the d200. It was my "disposable" body in bad weather or harsh conditions or when testing or practicing. It may be converted to IR. I shot a few on the d700 that I know I find acceptable at 1000. 1600, have to accept noise. But, sharp with noise is more acceptable than camera subject blur. A new crop body would round out my nature kit. Will do some testing this weekend as much of my shooting will be from my bedroom on tripod. will grid my distance and see if I am happy shooting a FF with the 1.7 tc, effective 680 mm.. I would think a crop sensor with no tc will give me 600 and ability to shoot at 2.8. You folks have educated me this week on how narrow the dof is with long glass. Most of the good backgrounds are within about 120 feet, most shots 40-80 feet. Thanks for all the help. I do have another question on Teleconverters. The 1.7 reduces me to minimum f/4.8. Will that give the same effect as closing down from 2.8 a bit to get closer to the lens sweet spot and getting somewhat sharper? Unfortunately, I expect the benefit is lost in the overall loss of sharpness from the TC. Should stopping down to 5.6, now 2 stops down, help with sharpness?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will that give the same effect as closing down from 2.8 a bit to get closer to the lens sweet spot and getting somewhat sharper?

No, it won't since your lens is still fully open; the f-stop reduction is simply because f-stop = focal length/entrance pupil diameter. For your 400mm f/2.8 lens, the entrance pupil diameter is 400/2.8 = 142.86mm. Now add the TC, which changes your focal length to 1.7*400 = 680mm. Your entrance pupil stays the same (you haven't changed your aperture setting, so the mere addition of the TC gives you 680/142.86 = 4.8 (your f-stop of the lens/TC combo when the lens aperture remains wide open).

 

Think of the TC as a magnifier lens that magnifies the central portion of the lens it is attached too (the best portion of the lens). It also amplifies all the lens imperfections in that area - and then superimposes whatever its own are. Nikon updated the 1.4x and the 2x to version III; only the 1.7x is still version II (there never was a version 1 though and for the 1.4x version 1 and version 2 are optical identical; the modifications are entirely external (I assume the same is true for v1 and v2 of the 2x)). What I am trying to say is, the 1.7x is currently Nikon's weakest TC and it definitely degrades the optical quality of the lens it is attached too (luckily, the optical qulaity of your 400/2.8 is quite high); you are better off though getting a more modern crop sensor body than forcing the TC between the lens and an FF body (especially one with as few MP and a strong AA filter as a D700).

 

Generally speaking, the superteles are already fairly sharp fully open and should reach maximum sharpness when stopped down 1 stop. To get the best out of the lens after adding a TC, one should at least stop down that 1 stop, if not 2. So with the 1.7x attached, set the lens to either f/4 or f/5.6 (which will give effective apertures of f/6.8 or f/9.5).

 

Quite frankly, if I had the luxury of owning a 400/2.8, I would make sure I can use f/2.8 whenever the conditions warrant or demand it. I certainly wouldn't degrade its performance by adding a TC; or if so, then the TC-14EIII would be the only one I'd use.

Edited by Dieter Schaefer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...