The first sharpness problem in this kind of images (if focus is good) is genrally shutterspeed.
1/640 is generally not enough to freeze bird motion.
So as not to clutter your mind with too many things at the crucial moment of taking the photo, try to keep your initial values between 1/1600 and 1/3200s for birds in flight.
You too could take images on tripod at the distance and with settings you use for this kind of image on static subject to check if your lens deliver.
But first, get much closer to your subject.
EDIT : at fast shutter speed, it is often recommended to turn off lens VR which can become counterproductive (treshold value depends of lens and VR quality).
BlokcitaatHowever, 600 (or more) is generally the solution for most bird photographers.
600 is generally the right compromise for good image quality and a good reach.
I agree, but a good 600 mm is not cheap and almost useless for other than bird photography. As photographer of (river)landscapes with a 50 Mp camera and 70-200 is for me enough to catch also a passing bird.
Done, on tripod, with auto-ISO turned on.
Camera settings below.
The top of this âpilingâ (if thatâs the right name) is about the length of the birds Iâve been watching perch on it.
Agreed.
There are many problems.
The worst problem was me, that the focal length wasnât set to 300mm.
Iâm guessing that my hands werenât steady enough.
On a tripod, and the lens set to 300mm, the top of the piling (about the size of the bird), and the surrounding area, is sharp enough.
I agree - photo is junk. Figuring out why it is junk is more important. I think the EXIF data shows what was wrong, and why. I can fix the incorrect setting, but if my hands are not steady enough, thatâs a killer, and a 600mm lens will not be enough to help. The biggest problem with this image is me.
We were talking about bird photography, so âŠ
Yes a good 600mm is not cheap (not talking about very good).
The 2 less expensive (but good quality) options now with nikon lenses for hybrid users are the 600mm PF with good image quality, fast AF and low size and weight or the last one : the 180-600 zoom, more versatile, very less expensive, still with good sharpness (but difficult to get now, have to pre-order it).
For dslr user is the 500 PF with very good sharpness, fast AF, low size and weight.
Ok PF backgrounds are sometime not really creamy, but often good or very good. And they are suited for handheld shooting. (But yes, best bokeys at 600 coast a lot more !!!).
The current choice is a 600 Tamron or Sigma, or nothing.
Weight is most important, as if itâs too heavy, I wonât use it.
Sharpness is almost just as important.
It will certainly be âusedâ, most likely from B&H or KEH.
I donât think you would perceive some more subtil differences like the treatment of internal lens surfaces or other subtleties that donât show up in lab tests but in real-life shooting when light is tricky âŠ
Try to get sharp images, this will be a nice improvment and youâll like it.
I set the camera to f/8 and 1/5000th shutter.
I practiced on anything I could see, trying to learn how to hold the camera steadily. The best improvement was from jamming my elbows into my body. For a while, I practiced taking a lot of photos, only concentrating on holding the camera still. After doing this for a while, I looked over all the boats in Biscayne Bay, took a photo of the whole scene, and then zoomed in on the nearest boat, to see someone seated on the aft deck. The camera was still being held as still as I am capable of.
Then I zoomed in on the aft part of the boat, to select a very small area to cover, and captured it.
While editing, I tried with and without using DeepPrIME XD
First photo is what I saw, the whole area.
Second photo is what I could see at 300mm zoom.
Then I cropped in to capture an area roughly the size of my bird images.
Last image was cropped to only show the âcanisterâ hanging down from the boat.
As I sit here reviewing these images, I think what I need to do the most of for a while, is zoom in a lot (with these settings) and get better at holding the camera motionless.
Before I buy a less expensive Tamron or Sigma, Iâm wondering how images from my latest âAF-P Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4.5-5.6Eâ will compare to the Sigma or Tamron. No point in buying anything new until I can learn how to hold my camera better. The weak link in all of this is me, not the camera gear.
@Joanna, something Iâve wanted to ask you for a long time now. It took a while for me to get it, but I eventually did learn this technique. My question is not how it works, but how I (or anyone) can find the time to use it? For un-planned (accidental, or on purpose) photos, from the split second when you decide to take the photo, where do you find the time to get the camera in spot metering, then align it with letâs say, the white feathers on a bird, then adjust the exposure accordingly, and finally capture the image?
I guess Iâm a âslugâ. By the time I put the camera in spot metering mode, and aim at some white feathers, itâs already too late to do anything more.
For a âstaticâ shot, I tried what you suggested, and it worked fine. Camera was on a tripod, and the results were just as you suggested they would be. Resulting image was lovely!
Follow-up question - when you are walking about with your D850, not yet having decided on taking a specific photo, what are your default settings? I got in the habit of leaving my camera on âcenter weightedâ metering, and lately Iâve been selecting a starting point for shutter and aperture, and to make sure even a grab-shot ought to be useable, I set it to auto-ISO. Any and every other combination Iâve tried leads to frustrations. Iâve also set my focusing to back-button focus, and my finger is already on the back button as I raise the camera to my eye. My finger just does what it needs to do, without my having to think about it.
I read so many books, and articles, and watched videos telling me to have my camera pre-set for anything ahead of time - as much so as is practical.
Mainly, we donât tend to spend time wandering around hoping something will happen. We tend to plan what we are going to photograph.
But, should we be so inclined, we spot meter on the sky, over-exposing by anything between 1 and 2 EV, depending on whether we are walking towards or away from the sun, assuming we want the sky in the image.
If we donât, then we meter on the brightest thing, say a white van at +2EV and that will be good for most subjects we encounter.
Normally, anything between 400 ISO on a very bright day to 1000+ ISO on a dull day - f/10 because it is the optimum aperture and around 1/400 sec.
But, because we havenât yet started out, there is never any hurry. What a lot of folks forget is that older cameras only had limited settings and only one choice of ISO for the entire roll of film. We got used to âknowingâ how to approximate and with practice, get better at getting it right.
How do you think Cartier Bresson managed? You donât think he measured precisely for every shot. No, he developed an instinct and was able to dial in adjustments when he thought appropriate. He didnât have to worry too much about focus because he used wide lenses with larger depth of field.
We donât do street photography but, if that is your thing, then, only for street photography (not birds or all sorts of other subjects) use centre-weighted, aperture priority at f/10 and auto-ISO, adjusting the exposure compensation if needed.
Like Cartier Bresson and others, you need to know your camera intimately and practise, practise, practise. As long as you try to avoid over-exposure, with 14 stops dynamic range, you donât have to get it perfect every time.
Oh, and if the subject is less than half the frame, simply donât take it.
I think what you wrote up above is the âheartâ of this topic - you (and Helen) are likely well aware of what you will be photographing, and already have things planned out in your minds. Me? On some occasions I feel that way, but it feels like 95% of the time I have zero time for planning or preparation - everything happens in âreal timeâ.
When I was a kid, it was more like what you describe. The only film I had was hundred-foot rolls of bulk âPlus-Xâ film, that I loaded into Contax, or Nikon, or Leica cassettes. Settings and so on were easy - 99.9% of my thoughts went into composition, and arranging, and finding the best viewpoint, and so on. Capturing images was very mechanical. Nowadays everything happens in âreal timeâ; no time for planning, and if I did plan, things would go differently than expected. Setting up the camera ahead of time didnât work - my settings for the birds constantly changed, and were constantly being interrupted by my local friendly manatee, who had eluded me for the previous two years. I guess what I mean, is I either donât, or have a very poor idea of what I am about to photograph - most of the time. Some advance planning, but not nearly enough.
I see you are very good at advance planning, having the camera ready for whatever might happen. I failed that test, big time. Which lens goes on my camera? Where do I start with camera settings? ISO? Auto-ISO? Aperture, shutter, and all the zillions of settings my old cameras didnât even have. If Iâm walking around, I try to keep adjusting my camera settings, so I can quickly raise my camera, aim, focus, and capture an image. I should probably cross âfocusâ off that list, as my right thumb is on the back focus button before the camera reaches my eye.
Wow - for me, I am always in a hurry, for fear of forgetting something. There are dozens of settings - which means to me, there are dozens of ways to fail to get an acceptable image because of some silly setting I forgot about.
When I did this for magazines, I was always âready/on-edgeâ, but nowadays I lose track of things, and often donâtâ realize quickly enough about âhey, look what is happening right now???â Heck, Iâm 80. Iâm retired. Your way is infinitely more enjoyable - which I need to remind myself. If I fail to get âthe perfect imageâ, only I will know I screwed up.
Total change of subject - I read Ken Rockwellâs review of the Nikon Z8, and lost interest in buying one, along with the Z9, same issues at much higher cost. The people at Nikon who designed and used the DSLR cameras should have had a chance to test out the mirrorless stuff, and point out obvious errors.
I hate to admit it, and will even argue against it, but themâs the facts! Back in film days, I had to be able to load my film in total darkness, and I intimately knew and understood every control and setting. Not any more - the only thing I can says is I know how to change my camera from (M) to (U1) and all my settings will revert back to the same âstarting pointâ. Today? Too many cameras, too many lenses, too many accessories, and too many ways to screw up - but U1 and U2 both put my camera back to a good starting point.
One big âequalizerâ now (thanks to you) is auto-ISO. As long as I have that turned âonâ, my camera will save me from most of the ways it knows to trip me up. That, and back-button-focus make me feel pretty confident that I will capture an acceptable image, and if I take my time, maybe even a âsuperbâ image.
P.S. - I was frustrated earlier today because nothing in my viewfinder ever looked perfectly sharp. Then, an âaha!!â moment, and all was well again. The viewfinder focus wheel is critical, especially to my ability to use the camera.
Enough. If I lived in France, I would take your course, and you would beat all my âstubborn-nessâ out of me by proving that the results are best when one knows the best way to do things.
At a quick glance, on a screen, at 100%, it sort of, works. But, it was taken on my old D100 with only 6 Mpx. Even Topaz canât recover detail when enlarging it to make a decent sized print.
Here is a screenshot of the original exported JPEGâŠ
Itâs truly awful!!! The lettering just doesnât have enough pixels to make it readable, except by making an educated guess.
And it is this kind of mess that you get when you âgrabâ a shot without taking the time to consider whether it will make a worthwhile image, should you need to crop it. If the pixels ainât there, they simply ainât there to enlarge - AI or not.
Simply not true. Just because you have a digital camera that you donât have to worry about wasting money on film, doesnât mean you shouldnât behave like you did when each shot cost money.
Say to yourself âthe more shots I take, the sooner my shutter box will wear out and I will have to buy a new cameraâ
And what are you in such an almighty rush for? You are no longer under any commercial pressure to turn out images. Take time to enjoy your photography. So, you miss a shot of a bird - thereâll be another one along sometime. There will always be boats in the bay that arenât going anywhere all the time. Cruise Liners run a schedule, so you can plan to be in the right place at the right time.
Not necessarily your thing but, here is one of our âartâ photographs that folks buy to put on their wallsâŠ
We had to know the time of sunset and the time of high tide and whether the sky was going to be clear enough to produce the âblue hourâ effect. The rocks are genuinely that colour because they are pink granite. Then we knew we would have to use a tripod because we were planning on a 5 shot multiple exposure at 5 secs per shot to produce the veiled effect on the water.
We solve that by using our âgo everywhereâ 28-300mm. Everything from wide angle to mid-telephoto without having to change. And, yes, you need to read Ken Rockwellâs review of it, then do what he suggests and sell all your other lenses within that range. Unless you are planning on using prime lenses for large prints, the sharpness, especially in combination with the DxO modules is perfectly acceptable up to 36" x 24" and larger. Since you seem to only ever use your images on the web or email, it is ideal and saves a lot of hassle, missed shots and dust on the sensor.
What dozens of settings??? Youâve got shutter speed, aperture, ISO and focus. According to the maths I learnt at school, that makes four. If you keep on delving into the menus, you are doing it wrong. The only time we go into the menus is to change the picture format or to check the battery levels.
I think you are over-complicating things far too much and making yourself anxious.
Thatâs the attitude! Iâm nearly 70 and have another ten years to make beautiful, stress free, images before I get to your age, while you seem to be rushing and stressing all the time.
Well, we have an arrangement with an excellent bed and breakfast and itâs only a plane ride to Paris and an express train to our nearest station and you will be on the beautiful Breton coast. So, get booking that flight. (Just avoid the Olympic Games period)
Shoot first, evaluate later. Too many years shooting for magazines convinced me that I should âtakeâ a shot as soon as I can, and decide its merits (or lack of) later. If it turns out to be a useful photo, I then try to do better. Wasting useless photos doesnât bother me nearly enough compared to wishing I had taken a photo immediately, before it was âlostâ.
We have very different attitudes about this, and in the past, I found it useful to âshoot now, think laterâ. Yes, Iâm retired, but this is a habit that has grown stronger over time - and I hate it when I could have taken a shot, but didnât, and later wished I had taken one. None of this applies to you, as itâs not the way you do things - you donât need to be in a âhurryâ, but peopleâs expressions are gone in an instant, after which itâs too late (for me) to capture what I wanted. For me, itâs a non-issue. I consider the âwastedâ shots to be âpracticeâ.
There is a part of me that agrees with you, and another part that tells me Nikonâs latest lens (70-300 P) has advantages. As a âwalkabout lensâ, I agree - you are right. Hereâs a comparison of the two lenses, and for me, both weight and distortion and quality are most important. I have no desire to change from my âPâ version of the lens - have you compared the weights of each? https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4034096
I know how convenient your lens is, covering such a wider range. That would be a good reason to switch, but the more I read, the more I prefer my choice. I understand that PhotoLab will probably correct the distortion, so for us, that is not an issue.
Both of us have all the time in the world, at home, to review all the menus and set them the best we can for US. Since Nikon felt it good to give us all these choices, why ignore them, when we have free time in which to do so? I also âhateâ all those choices, and to be honest, I âhateâ not understanding why to use any particular setting - or not. You keep surprising me with very useful information on now to get the most out of our cameras - which also has a huge influence on how I do things. I suppose I could also just return my camera to âfactory settingsâ and leave it that way⊠but I donât want to do that.
I hear that LOUD and CLEAR. When I did get to use my friendâs Sigma 600 zoom, I didnât even enjoy walking around with it. Maybe a lifetime ago Iâd have felt very differently. I used to use my Nikon 80-200 a lot, but just walking around with it was uncomfortable. My new 70-300 âPâ lens weighs a fraction of what my old lens weighed. Weight is right up there with resolution for a reason I might, or might not, buy a lens. Iâm one click away from buying the Tamron or Sigma 600, but I think it will just sit at home in a drawer - while my Nikon 300 doesnât even âfeelâ heavy.
Yes, thereâs only 4oz in it between the 28-300 and the 70-300P. Hardly with worrying about. And the discussion that you link to is mainly about the non-P version, which is considerably lighter than the P version, which is why folks talk about the large weight difference to the 28-300.
Do yourself a favour and beg, borrow or otherwise obtain a 28-300 and try it out. Youâll not be disappointed.
Because, for the majority, it gives them the once and for all chance to setup the camera. It really isnât intended for changes between each shot.
In all the years we have been doing digital photography, from the first D100 to the latest D850, after initial setup, neither of us have ever had need to change the menus on a shot by shot basis.
You are simply making work and headaches for yourself.
When it comes to photography, I have never thought of things as âone size fits allâ. I understand that this leads to compromises.
You are brilliant at what you do with what you have. To me, that brilliance is 99% because of YOU, not your equipment. You would come home from a trip with an old box camera with wonderful images. You would find a way to make it work despite any limitations.
If I find someone with a 28-300, I would love to try it out. Iâll ask my friend Ray Schneider whether he has, or had, one of them. If so, Iâll try it next weekend. My current âall in oneâ lens is my Nikon 24-120, but it is Heavy with a capital H, and has lots of distortion for PhotoLab to fix. Itâs nice that it includes 24mm, something I often find useful.
As to âwork and headachesâ, I always seem to do that. Iâve been that way forever.
I have no desire to continue to argue, with anyone. Things are what they are, and for better or worse, my images speak for themselves. What needs improvement is ME, not my gear. No need to get a 600mm lens until Iâm getting the most out of my 300.
