The photographer is looking for generalized feedback about the aesthetic and technical qualities of their image.
Description
I tried again to get a few images of my yard birds using my canon 70-200mm w/2x extender. I wanted to see if using the extender would help with clarity when I cropped these. I took all these from about 20 feet away.
Specific Feedback
All help is wanted. Did I crop too much? I wanted to get some detail on them.
Technical Details
R5m2
70-200mm w/2x extender @ 400
f8
1/500 sec
ISO 3200
I used Topaz for noise, sharpness,
PS for brightness and contrast
Critique Template
Use of the template is optional, but it can help spark ideas.
Much nicer light here than in full sun! But separating the bird from the BG is still limiting, with them on the ground. A very simple ground would help – the last 2 are better than the first 2 but not ideal. 20 ft away at 400mm is pushing things if you want the bird to be a good size in the frame. Sharpness on the birds is a little soft – is eye-detection working well for you?
Which 70-200 is it, and which TC? If they are very old ones, you could be up against limited optics. There have been major improvements in the newer lenses. If it is an older one, you would find the RF 100-500 a big difference.
You’re getting much better, John. The Cardinal is showing excellent plumage detail in the body and the light is pretty nice without a lot of bright areas in the background to distract. The head of the Cardinal is a little soft and I suspect it’s due to oversaturation of the reds, which is easy to do on this species. Try backing off on the saturation there and see if you can start seeing some fine feather detail.
For the House Finch and the White-throated Sparrow the foreground and background with the really bright areas are pretty distracting. The main reason bird photographers like to either get really low or photograph birds on a perch or flying is simply that foreground and background can be such a mess to deal with otherwise. In the early days (like up to the 1980 or so) when most bird photography was done on the nest, photographers used the opposite technique and tried to get the entire nest into crisp focus, since it’s mostly the out of focus stuff that viewers find distracting.
I really like the angle you caught on the sparrow with that beautiful view of the facial and head markings. This one looks in very prime condition. I think the Topaz software may have done you a bit of a disservice on this one. If you’re using their latest which combines noise reduction and sharpening (if I understand correctly, since I don’t use it), people have reported needing to be very cautious with it and dial the intensity of the effect back or it will overdo it and the sparrow has a bit of that look to it.
The Robin has a bit of that same look. It has beautiful detail in some areas and almost none in others which is almost always a processing problem (usually overdone noise reduction followed by excessive sharpening to try to restore detail).
When I first started doing bird photography, I was already on this site and the mantra among most bird photographers was to only use noise reduction on the background-never on the bird. I never liked having to go to that extent and with modern software I don’t think you need to do so, but it does indicate what problems excessive noise reduction can cause.
Perches: An easy way to construct decorative perches is to make mounts out of inexpensive PVC pipe. You don’t even have to glue the joints and you can use elbows and Tees to stabilize the structure. I usually use 1/2" and just drive a piece or two of rebar into the ground to hold the system in place. A couple of elbows and some short pieces allow you to make it with an adjustable angle. Then just get a piece of branch of about the right diameter (or whittle it down) and put it in the end of the PVC to act as a perch. If you have branches with leaves or blossoms on them, removing a small section will cause the birds to preferentially perch at the bare spot and provide great opportunities.
I guess I got pretty long winded this morning, but I hope it’s helped a bit.
John, you’ve cropped to create straightforward portraits of these birds. However, thay all look slightly over saturated and with too much contrast. A couple of years ago, I tested my canon 70-200 with a 1.4X extender and could easily see the loss in detail. That may play a role in how soft the large versions of all of these look. It’s also a challenge to decide what’s sharp, for example, in the cardinal, there some details to be seen in the feathers of the wing coverts and the belly feathers, but the eye and beak are lacking in detail, so I’m wondering about your focusing. With the Robin and the House Finch, there are a adjacent areas the go from decent detail to no detail. As Dennis says, that likely a too much processing in software issue.
I haven’t gone back through all this and your other recent bird posts, but if you are shooting through window glass, it will degrade an image significantly – even clean single pane. Double pane is definitely worse. And through an open window (cars, too), you get significant thermal mixing even when the air temp is the same inside and out – strange as it sounds, but I tried it extensively with a Bluebird nest out a back bedroom window and had to give up. I tried everything – closing the room door and leaving the window open all night, in 60-ish spring weather, and the lens as far out the window as possible (one tripod leg outside!) – and it just didn’t work. Some of the thermal mixing was probably due to uneven warming outside even in fairly early morning – YMMV.
That is usually what I do. Try to hard to get a good image and over do it with the software. Time, practice and listening to what you professionals have to say, @Diane_Miller, @Dennis_Plank , @Mark_Seaver, Connie, Kris, Jim and a few others that I try and follow should and will help me to be a better photographer. Even though I do this for fun, I still want to try my best to get Images worth showing to others and maybe hang on the wall. I’m bound to get better with you all’s help and support (baby steps).
I’m gonna go back and try to make these better, little by little.
I again, took your advice and waited for shade. I did notice the light difference. The soft light is much better. Per @Dennis_Plank, I’m going to work on a perch to help with the FG and BG. I didn’t like the ground clutter either, too busy as well. Not good, but I think my best shot was the Sparrow.
I love the yellow eyebrows.
I have 2 canon 70-200’s. A canon EF w/2x extender, 3 years old and a new RF for the R5m2.
I’m still working on the eye-detection. Sometimes it is good and then other times not so good. I wear tinted glasses, so I think that effects it sometimes. Why? What do you think of eye-detection?
I looked at both the 500 and the new canon 800. I was trying to figure out why the new 800 is cheaper than the 500. Have you tried the 800? Why do you prefer the 500?
@Mark_Seaver, yes and yes. As Dennis says, that likely a too much processing in software issue. Guilty. I mess with it too much. I’ve learned to try and focus on the eye. It is a challenge, in work.
Thanks
The RF 70-200 is wonderful! So is Eye-detection. There is probably a lot online about it. But if the eye isn’t in good light it can fail. The 800 is not a zoom and probably a little less expensive in other features, but is said to give very good images. I doubt the 800 accepts TCs. I love the quality of the 100-500, but the length changes with zoom and with either TC it has to be extended to the 300 position or more, so you only get a partial zoom range: 420 - 700 or 600-1000.
Beware of sharpening in post – it is vastly overrated. NR is amazing, though.
With your equipment, with everything done optimally you won’t need to sharpen after capture except microscopically – an extent that will only show at a 100% view.
Hi John. Send a direct message to Ellen Sparks if he doesn’t chime in on this subject. He’s been using that lens and should have some good insight.
@Diane_Miller Thanks for the info. I’ll read up some more on both lenses. I know I have some learning to do in post. I have self-issues with contrast and sharpening. I usually overdo it. Practice.
Hi John,
Yes I have had the Canon 200-800 for a little over a month now. I have mainly had the opportunity to use it on still subjects with limited use on birds in flight. Looks like you have the R5 mark II which should perform even better than my R7 in terms of autofocus.
I’ve enjoyed using the lens on the still subjects I mentioned and have gotten sharp shots even at 800mm (1280mm effective full frame reach on the R7). I use Smart Sharpen in Photoshop to further enhance sharpness. The lens will pulse some when focusing but I have not found that to be a major problem. I counter the relatively high native aperture (and my use of relatively high ISOs in lower light) by using DXO PureRaw 4 which does a great job on noise reduction.
I have also gotten good results for the more limited times I have used it for birds in flight with “good”sunlight. One thing to note is that the lens does not have a focus limiter so I try to pre-focus close to where the subject will be as much as possible (good idea to do with any lens). For birds in flight in lower light, I have a prime lens I use with a wider native aperture.
I have never used the 100-500 so can’t comment directly in performance between the two. I bought the 200-800 instead of the 150-500 because of lower price, greater native reach, and full zoom range (versus the 100-500 with teleconverter).
I have a friend who is an excellent photographer and has an R5 mark II and has both lenses. He uses the 200-800 out “in the field” for birds even with a 1.4x TC (TC used in “good” sunlight). He uses the 100-500 with TCs for his frequent zoo photography and occasional large insect photography (butterflies, dragonflies).
Diane has reported and shown excellent results with the 100-500 using 1.4x and 2x teleconverters so that is also something to consider. It is an “L” lens unlike the 200-800 so should have better weather sealing.
Hope that helps. Please let me know if you have further questions.
Allen, this is exactly what I was looking for. I read some more on these lenses, but getting this personal info from someone trusted is the best. I look at Diane’s images on her web pg. and say WOW and other images like yours and say the same. I read the equipment, camera settings and software used by the members and try to emulate these things when I’m shooting.
I hope too someday have both lenes like your friend, but I’m really lucky to have what I have. I want to go in debt and have it all, LOL but that’s NOT gonna happen. From what I have read and what you have stated, I’m leaning towards the 200-800. And then maybe work on Ms. Santa, LOL, for next Christmas. Besides, I need to learn and improve with what I have.
This has been a great help to me, and I really appreciate it.
People like you; Diane, Dennis, Connie, Jim, Jim, Kris, Sandy and others in NPN that I have met make it a lot more fun learning and taking photographs. You all are “Real Professionals” and not in just the quality of your images.
THANKS
I just checked specs on the 200-800 – it looks like a wonderful lens but it weighs 4.5 lb vs 3 lb for the 100-500. For us “senior photographers” that is a factor.
WARNING to all [quote=“Diane Miller, post:15, topic:44942, username:Diane_Miller”]
“senior photographers”
[/quote]
To be used with Monopod, Tripod or some kinda Pod ONLY!
Use at your own risk! LOL
Your so right. And when I carry the camera on a sling around my neck, it feels like I’m carrying a 10 lb. sack of potatoes, after a while. Funny how 1 to 2 lbs., can make us think twice.
To be 25 again.
If I carry a camera on a strap it’s always across my body, not around my neck. But for much walking this thing is wonderful, and a fast draw. (I don’t remember paying that much for it but I’ve had it forever.) You can buy the pins separately and I had a machinist friend tap a hole for it in the lens plate I use for the 100-500. (Everybody should have a machinist on retainer…) I’ve even carried the old EF 600 on it with a 1DX2 – about 10-11 lbs.
@Diane_Miller, I was kidding about wearing the camera around my neck. The first thing I did went I got my first camera was to throw away the neck sling it comes with. I use a cross the body sling now… but wait, I checked out both carriers. I like the idea of carrying it on my waist, not dangling or moving much. But I also like the [quote=“Dennis Plank, post:18, topic:44942, username:Dennis_Plank”] Cotton Carrier system
[/quote]
as well. It can carry 2 cameras plus I liked the Cotton Carrier Steady Shot. You both gave me more food for thought!
THANKS
