Telephoto shots

[-hh]

Mucking around with the new toys...a red headed woodpecker in the neighbor's maple tree.

An 8% crop of the original frame, which was from a Canon 20D @ (200mm*1.4x)...pretty much just the "straight pixels" from the subject area of interest.


-hh

 

[efoto]

Care to share the EXIF data? I'd love to know some other settings on this cap like ISO and aperture/shutter.

Also, could you segment a 100% crop from near the bird's head/sky area? I'd love to see the noise close up.

Thanks.

 

[iGary]

If you have a flash, a Better Beamer might have helped.

 

[efoto]

If you have a flash, a Better Beamer might have helped.

Do you have a link where that could be purchased? That seems pretty sweet as far as outdoor flash accessories go.

 

[iGary]

http://www.naturescapes.net/store/product.php?productid=3&cat=0&bestseller

 

[iGary]

P.S. It's a red bellied woodpecker.

 

[-hh]

Care to share the EXIF data? I'd love to know some other settings on this cap like ISO and aperture/shutter.

I'll see what I can do (eg, figure out where it resides).

From memory, I'm using the "P" mode (one click up from the green rectangle) and I believe that I have the ISO set to 400. It was also late afternoon, so I'd expect that it probably opened up all the way to f/4.0. No flassh.

Also, could you segment a 100% crop from near the bird's head/sky area? I'd love to see the noise close up.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for here...is it that you're not able to view this 949 x 684 crop at 1:1, or that you want like a small 64x64 swatch that I can save in an absolutely non-lossy format?


-hh

 

[-hh]

P.S. It's a red bellied woodpecker.

I'll notify the wife. I just take the pictures


-hh

 

[BakedBeans]

Really soft, and quite noisy to. You could make it a lot better with some time and talented processing but its not really a keeper in my opinion

dont mean to be harsh but its not the best.

You would have been better using the Av mode and setting it on about f5.6, here was plenty of light.

 

[iGary]

Really soft, and quite noisy to. You could make it a lot better with some time and talented processing but its not really a keeper in my opinion

dont mean to be harsh but its not the best.

You would have been better using the Av mode and setting it on about f5.6, here was plenty of light.

Easy....geebus.

 

[BakedBeans]

Easy....geebus.

I didnt mean it to be offensive, but it does the photographer no good to be given the 'nice shot' treatment. its just one click of the shutter that im 'insulting' not the person that took it.

 

[-hh]

Really soft, and quite noisy to. You could make it a lot better with some time and talented processing but its not really a keeper in my opinion

dont mean to be harsh but its not the best.

You would have been better using the Av mode and setting it on about f5.6, here was plenty of light.

It sounds like that since you mention both softness noise, stopping down to f/5.6 should have taken off some of the softness, and dropping from ISO 400 to 200 (or 100) should serve to reduce the noice....correct?

I'll have to check the EXIF data to see if there was 2-3 stops worth of shutter speed available or not. Since this was handheld, I suspect that there's another trade-off in the making...

FWIW, the image is un-retouched ... no autobalancing or sharpening. I've briefly looked at PShop's "Auto-Levels", and while it destroys the blue overcase, it unacceptably blows out all details in the white sunlit throat.

I also know that I'm having some challenges getting used to the logic of the 20D's autofocus system...the half dozen dots that choose themselves in mysterious ways . I'm sure that much of this is probably that I was quite accustomed to the Elan's eye sensor system for control point selection.


-hh

 

[BakedBeans]

It sounds like that since you mention both softness noise, stopping down to f/5.6 should have taken off some of the softness, and dropping from ISO 400 to 200 (or 100) should serve to reduce the noice....correct?

I wasnt there but i would say iso100 with f5.6 (Av mode) would have been hand holdable, 200 would be fine too, would have been tack sharp (what lens you using)

I'll have to check the EXIF data to see if there was 2-3 stops worth of shutter speed available or not.

file>info>advanced then search for the exif

I also know that I'm having some challenges getting used to the logic of the 20D's autofocus system...the half dozen dots that choose themselves in mysterious ways .

personally i scrap all of those and just use the center focus point.... nice and accurate.

I'm sure that much of this is probably that I was quite accustomed to the Elan's eye sensor system for control point selection.

its half the 'fun'

best of luck

 

[efoto]

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for here...is it that you're not able to view this 949 x 684 crop at 1:1, or that you want like a small 64x64 swatch that I can save in an absolutely non-lossy format?

-hh

I can view your 949x684 crop fine, that's not an issue. You said it was an 8% crop of the overall image....I was getting at taking the image to 100% (taking out composition and 'feel') and posting a 100x100 crop taken from the 100% native image to show details of the noise. The reason I requested that is because I have the same camera but it's too bloody cold to venture outside for me right now , and I'm just curious what settings produced what amount of noise (basically wanting your image as a test ).

I also know that I'm having some challenges getting used to the logic of the 20D's autofocus system...the half dozen dots that choose themselves in mysterious ways .

I also scrap the area-focus and just use the center point and shift the frame where I need to. If I want that bird in focus but not centered, just half-hold on the bird and shift it in the frame....that way the camera keeps its focus point at the depth of the bird but you can compose at will , and it seems much more accurate in this method than trying to figure out what/how the camera is selecting points (as I have no idea and have since given up on letting it do anything on its own )

 

[-hh]

I didnt mean it to be offensive, but it does the photographer no good to be given the 'nice shot' treatment. its just one click of the shutter that im 'insulting' not the person that took it.

I know that I'm still learning on this gear - - both its limitations as well as my own. As an initial run, I'd say that I'm "pleased" with the results, primarily because my measuring stick is that it is better than prior similar attempts.

For example, here's another telephoto shot I've mentioned before (different gear):

IMO, this shot is materially worse. Insofar as to specifically why, from a workflow perspective, it was a crop taken from a basic ("camera store quality") 6MP JPEG scan from the film original...and that happened to be on ISO 400 film, so there's a couple of loss opportunities. Next, it was an "under canopy" handheld available light shot with Canon's "old style" 75-300 IS lens, which is known to be soft at the long end even when strongly stopped down. Overall, it serves as an illustration of that systems' performance limitations.

For either, using a monopod or tripod probably would have helped, but sometimes, its just not in the cards to always be able to carry such accessories, or even if one has them, the opportunity window given to you by the subject may not be present either. For the most part, I'm trying to configure to get respectable shots while handheld and available light.


-hh

 

[-hh]

I wasnt there but i would say iso100 with f5.6 (Av mode) would have been hand holdable, 200 would be fine too, would have been tack sharp (what lens you using)

The equipment was a Canon 20D with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 1.4x teleconverter, which stacks to the 35mm equivalent of ~450mm.

Using the old 1/(lens length) rule of thumb, that would suggest a minimum shutter speed of 1/500sec before the IS is applied. Giving the IS two stops worth of credit would slow down the minimum acceptable to 1/125sec.

Hopefully, I'll post what the actual shutter speed was when I get home tonight and find the EXIF data.


(focusing)

personally i scrap all of those and just use the center focus point.... nice and accurate.

I've already found that control button.


-hh

 

[BakedBeans]

that rule of thumb doesnt apply when your talking about 1.6 crop factors (although gets even more complicated with IS)

you wanted a shallow DOF to single out the bird and a nice fast shutter to freeze any movement.

 

[-hh]

I can view your 949x684 crop fine, that's not an issue. You said it was an 8% crop of the overall image...

This is probably me being bad with nomenclature.

If I have an image and I halve each dimension (for example, an 800 x 600 is taken down to 400 x 300), I now have 25% of the original starting area. What "percentage" crop is this normally referred to as?

FWIW, my "8%" was based on 949*684 = 649,116 pixels, which is roughly 8% of the pixel area of the full frame image on a 20D (3504*2336 =8,185,344).

I was getting at taking the image to 100% (taking out composition and 'feel') and posting a 100x100 crop taken from the 100% native image to show details of the noise.

A crop to 100 x 100 pixels. Okay, can do.

I'm just curious what settings produced what amount of noise (basically wanting your image as a test ).

Understood; it sounds like a desire for a quick controlled test of same subject, same crop, vary the ISO. I don't know if I'll get a chance soon to get to this, but its of interest to me too, so I'll give it a try.


-hh

 

[efoto]

This is probably me being bad with nomenclature.

If I have an image and I halve each dimension (for example, an 800 x 600 is taken down to 400 x 300), I now have 25% of the original starting area. What "percentage" crop is this normally referred to as?

FWIW, my "8%" was based on 949*684 = 649,116 pixels, which is roughly 8% of the pixel area of the full frame image on a 20D (3504*2336 =8,185,344).

A crop to 100 x 100 pixels. Okay, can do.

Understood; it sounds like a desire for a quick controlled test of same subject, same crop, vary the ISO. I don't know if I'll get a chance soon to get to this, but its of interest to me too, so I'll give it a try.

-hh

I think your "% crop" is an accurate amount based off of the calculation. In common speech I understand a 100% crop to be a given size crop (say 100x100 pixels, or 223x132 or whatever) of a given image starting at 100% magnification. The reason I said 100% is because if you crop the image at 50% it is already going to look loads better than at 100%, especially if the thing we are looking for is noise, as smaller images/prints show much fewer characteristics of noise.

I didn't actually mean take the same picture again at different ISO levels, just this image....small sized crop at 100% around the sky/bird's head to show the noise severity/grain. No hurries though

 

[-hh]

I didn't actually mean take the same picture again at different ISO levels, just this image....small sized crop at 100% around the sky/bird's head to show the noise severity/grain. No hurries though

Okay, understood.

Here's a 100x100 at 100%; its a TIFF, so no JPG issues here:

Also for reference, here's a representation of the full frame that was all that the optics did...

-hh

 

[-hh]

Forgot the EXIF data...

here it is:

Shutter: 1/640sec
Aperture: f/6.3
Focal Length: 280mm (ie, 200*1.4x)
ISO Speed: 400


Overall, a slightly faster shutter and smaller aperture than I was expecting it to have been. Looking at the timestamp, it was ~3:15pm, so it was around an hour before local sunset.


-hh

 

[BakedBeans]

Forgot the EXIF data...

here it is:

Shutter: 1/640sec
Aperture: f/6.3
Focal Length: 280mm (ie, 200*1.4x)
ISO Speed: 400


Overall, a slightly faster shutter and smaller aperture than I was expecting it to have been. Looking at the timestamp, it was ~3:15pm, so it was around an hour before local sunset.


-hh

its so much easier seeing the uncropped version and the exif... i didnt realise it was such a huge crop!

only thing you needed to change really was the focal length (even though i think y ou were zoomed straight out) - it wouldnt be so soft on the crop if you had used the center focus point and zoomed tighter to the bird, aimed the center point at the birds eye/beak area.

would have looked really good. the best thing about this images is that you can learn from it.

 

[-hh]

its so much easier seeing the uncropped version and the exif... i didnt realise it was such a huge crop!

Agreed. Instead of just saying "to 8%" (sic), a thumbnail would have been helpful.

only thing you needed to change really was the focal length (even though i think y ou were zoomed straight out) - it wouldnt be so soft on the crop if you had used the center focus point and zoomed tighter to the bird, aimed the center point at the birds eye/beak area.

I was already at maximum focal length (full zoom...the EXIF data confirms this), so no more room there to go in any further..but I really would like to have a Canon EF 400mm DO IS f/4 Think you can have it to me by Christmas?

I also had composed the bird in the middle to prevent any glass edge effects, since I knew that I'd later be cropping in and thus had room on all sides for composure.

The only thing not done here was to go to a single focus point, so as to maximize the odds of getting the focus distance plane exactly where desired (which I agree should be the subject's eye).




-hh

 

[efoto]

Okay, understood.

Here's a 100x100 at 100%; its a TIFF, so no JPG issues here:

Also for reference, here's a representation of the full frame that was all that the optics did...

http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2005/ff-woodpecker(D0166).jpg[img]

-hh[/QUOTE]

Excellent, the image looks much better now since it isn't so blown up. I realize why you cropped, but for that image it was apparently a bit too close which resulted in a little more noise than is optically pleasurable (what you can swing past the eye :p). Nice shoot though, that full-frame really brings into perspective where you were and what you were shooting. The first posted image is almost too close in my opinion, regardless of the noise issues.

 

[efoto]

its so much easier seeing the uncropped version and the exif... i didnt realise it was such a huge crop!

only thing you needed to change really was the focal length (even though i think y ou were zoomed straight out) - it wouldnt be so soft on the crop if you had used the center focus point and zoomed tighter to the bird, aimed the center point at the birds eye/beak area.

would have looked really good. the best thing about this images is that you can learn from it.

He was already all the way out at 200 w/ the 1.4xTC.....his only zoom remaining was by foot and based on a deck, or the snow, that may have been out of the question without startling the bird.

I agree on the center focus point, but other than that a crop that massive is bound to be a bit soft regardless of nailing the eye. That is a large crop, pulled way in and although nailing the focal point would have helped, I still think at that crop it would look a little soft. Having a tripod and stopping down the aperture may have helped, but then having to setup all that would have ruining the "impulse" of the shot and probably have forced him to miss the bird completely.