photos not crisp using EOS Rebel XSi

[darcy_ogada]

<p>I bought this camera new in 2010 and I am using it with a used Canon 70-300 mm lens. My problem is that ever since I've had it my photos (mostly of birds and often at a distance) are blurry when zoomed it. I feel as though this camera should be capable of giving better quality photos, but perhaps the number of megapixels is not sufficient? I have swapped my lens and used it on a friend's Canon camera and the photos were crisp. <br>

I have posted a photo of an eagle flying in the distance on the No Words forum to illustrate this problem. <br>

<br />Please let me know what could be causing this? Or do I need to upgrade my camera?<br>

<br />Thanks!</p><div></div>

[jean_yves_mead]

Looks like you should have chosen a much higher shutter speed. The motion blur makes it difficult to see

if there's also a focussing issue.

 

Edit - looking at the EXIF data, you used 1/160s with a focal length of 300mm, f/14, ISO 200. Hand shake, plus the subject's own motion, is going to give you an unsharp image, no matter what else happens.

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Darcy, as Jean-Yves said... your problem is your camera settings. Megapixels have nothing to do with it and your camera is not faulty.</p>

<p>Here's a very rough guide to setting up your camera for capturing birds in flight:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Set autofocus to AI Servo</li>

<li>Put camera in Av mode (aperture priority)</li>

<li>Select the widest aperture value (lowest number - probably f/5.6 on your lens when it's zoomed in to 300mm)</li>

<li>Set your camera's ISO to 200</li>

<li>Now, assuming you are in the location where you are going to be shooting, point your camera at something in average lighting i.e. some grass, a field etc and make a note of the shutter speed the camera is using.</li>

<li>If the shutter speed is lower than 1/500sec, increase the ISO value on your camera one step at a time until the shutter speeds the camera is choosing are between 1/500 and 1/1000 sec. </li>

<li>Shoot birds</li>

</ul>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Darcy, what the others said; your settings also make me think you are using the automatic mode of your camera probably. This often works fine, but in some situations it'll not get you the desired results. To get the best out of your camera, you have to take charge of it. Jamie's settings are a good start, but better is to really learn what these camera settings mean and do. Maybe a local club or a course can help; there are also a lot of good books who can help you learn how to set exposure and autofocus to get best results in situations as this one.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Reading this short e-book on making sharp images would be a good start: <a href="http://animoto.com/blog/assets/sharpbybourne.pdf">link</a>.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>All the settings in the world won't help focus when you're shooting through tree limbs, or something like that. Those angular, indistinct lines running through the image are some sort of vegetation between you and the subject.</p>

<p>That said, you need ISO 800 to 1600 in those conditions and a wide open aperture. Also, you need to get closer and no one's interested in a shot of the bird's ass, to be totally honest. Best results will be in good light, early or late in the day.</p>

<p>From yesterday morning, an hour or two after sunrise, with way more lens and camera:</p>

<p><a title="Great Blue Heron In Flight by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5579/14916728706_19de037977_c.jpg" alt="Great Blue Heron In Flight" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Something strikes me as really really off about that pic. The FOV feels all wrong for 300mm, especially 300mm on the crop.</p>

<p>That said, one wonders why, in Tv, you would choose 1/160 for shooting a BIF @ 300mm (or even 70mm?)?</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I think that the FOV looks wide because the bird is a long ways away.</p>

<p>I think he picked the wrong SS because he didn't know any better. That's why he's here.</p>

[Laura Weishaupt]

<p>Hi Darcy,<br>

I use an XSi and shoot birds with it. It is a capable camera. As others have pointed out, your settings are the beginnings of your problems. Here are shots taken with an XSi and a 70-200mm lens. I tried to find images that are somewhat similar to yours so you can see how more appropriate settings result in a better image. All are at ISO 400 and autofocus is AI Servo. These geese were shot at f5, 1/1600 sec., 183mm.</p><div></div>

[Laura Weishaupt]

<p>The gulls here are a 50% crop. Again ISO 400, 1/1000 sec shutter speed, f5, 200mm on a 70-200 lens. I also use the center focus point. There's a lot of clutter in the background, so it's not the best image, but the birds are sharp, and that is the point here. These were taken when I was first learning to shoot birds in flight. I found the XSi to be a good tool for this.</p><div></div>

[Laura Weishaupt]

<p>Getting closer to your subject will help. When birds are too far away they get lost in the image. Your bird was quite far. Consider that your zoom lens may not be sharp at 300mm unless it's stopped down to about f8. Try using the camera settings that others here have suggested as well as the ones I've demonstrated. Proper settings are the beginning. You also need to be steady and be able to track the bird. It all takes practice. If your lens works well on a different camera, check the settings on that camera.</p>

<p>The hawk here was taken with an XSi, but a different lens. The camera will do the job, assuming it is properly functioning.</p><div></div>

[hjoseph7]

<p>The question that needs to be answered is why does the same lens work great on Darcy's friends camera ?</p>

[phule]

<p>[[The question that needs to be answered is why does the same lens work great on Darcy's friends camera ?]]</p>

<p>The OP does not say if the tests were direct comparisons using the same subjects, at the same time, using the same camera settings.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I think that the OP needs to take some images of subjects in range and good light to test the lens, using appropriate SS and aperture. I think we'll find that the lens is fine. The test shot shown was shot through foliage with a very distant bird, flying away with power lines also in the way. There's no hope of judging the lens from that sample.</p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>I think everyone is giving pretty good advice. I used to own a 70-300 with no IS, it has it's uses and is capable of better shots than the one you posted, follow advice given by the others. But even at it's best, for birding, you may want to get a better lens for shooting birds at a distance. Even my 100-400L is just getting me into the birding range. Unless you are right on top of the bird, you will find that you are not going to get stunning detail off the 70-300. But if you are right on top of the bird, you can pull off some nice stuff. This shot was taken with a 7D and a 50mm Sigma, no IS, freehand, 1/4000th sec, F/8, ISO 2000. I was right on top of the geese, <br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/15159814-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="453" /></p>

<p><a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/15159814-lg.jpg">Link to full size</a><br /> When I moved to the 100-400L it made a big difference for me in what I wanted for image quality. Still even with my 100-400 lens I find many of my bird subjects still out of range. I know the bigger lenses cost a bit more, but you may want to consider a Sigma 150-500 or used 100-400L. I also shoot with a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, extremely sharp, great for weddings, but not my choice for birding if a want to fill the frame with a bird in flight and get all the detail of the feathers, unless I were lucky enough to have a bird fly within 20 feet of me. If your looking for those full page magazine type bird shots you are going to need a bigger lens.</p>

<p>Upgrading aside, a little higher ISO and faster shutter speed. IS or VC on if you have it, if no IS Tripod with ball swivel mount or monopod might be useful, actually would be useful even with it.</p>

<p>Hand holding a 300mm lens at a slow shutter speed is going to be next to impossible, especially with the amount of coffee I drink. ;-) Keep practicing using the tips everyone gave. best of luck and happy shooting.</p>

<p>Here is the Canon 7D Canon 100-400 L at 1/1000sec f/5.6 ISO 400 @390mm<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17404332-md.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>This one was taken with the 100-400 L on the 7D, at about 390mm, because the bird was not moving I could get away with 1/200th second. If this bird was in flight there would be no way the image would have been usable.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17699092-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="457" /><br /> <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17699092-lg.jpg">Link to larger</a></p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>I think we're all wasting our time. The OP hasn't been back with a response or even left a comment to say thanks.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[The OP hasn't been back with a response or even left a comment to say thanks.]]</p>

<p>It seems unfair to pass judgment so quickly. Not everyone knows how to receive notices that responses are being given and not everyone checks photo.net every day. There are many examples of people who came back to a thread days or weeks later thinking they did not get an answer to find dozens of responses.</p>

<p>Photo.net chooses an OP-IN policy for receiving notifications which is good for photo.net but not great for new site members.</p>

<p>Also, it's been 2 days. Darcy, may be <a href="https://www.google.com/#q=Darcy+Ogada">busy</a></p>

[didereaux]

<p>"</p>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2290293">Jamie Robertson</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 19, 2014; 12:27 p.m.</p>

 

<p>I think we're all wasting our time. The OP hasn't been back with a response or even left a comment to say thanks."</p>

<p>But there is a good chance that someone else needing some advice might actually read this thread before asking. hmmmm, then again probably not. ;)</p>

 

[JayWood]

I think there is some very useful information here and agree that many read these posts (like me) but don't feel they have

enough (or any) experience to add constructively to the discussion. None of the fine contributors wasted their time, but

comments stating that opinion does not enhance photo.net's forums or encourage participation. On behalf on silent

readers, thank you all for an informative thread.

[JayWood]

Typo somehow - sorry. Should read ...does not enhance photo.net or encourage...