The photographer is looking for generalized feedback about the aesthetic and technical qualities of their image.
Description
Two days ago, in clear, sunny weather. I went to a local wetland to try out a new telephoto lens. I took these two shots of White-naped Cranes and a Bean Goose at a distance of at least 100 yards. I also had a 2 X teleconverter attached and the camera was on a tripod.
Specific Feedback
I’d be interested to hear how you think the equipment dealt with these two scenes. It’s the first time I’ve used a tele-zoom with a camera set to Subject Detect - Birds, and I found this function really useful. I need loads of practice with birds in flight, especially fast flyers high in the sky, but this was a start. I have a 1.4X teleconverter on order; here I used the 2X just to see how I could manage with the limited aperture range (open to max in both shots). Was this a deal-breaker?
Technical Details
Both: OM1 + 100-400mm + TC X 2 on tripod
1: (@524mm) 1/1000 f12 ISO 1600 cropped to about 70% of original
2: (@565mm) 1/800 f13 ISO 1600 huge crop to about 5% of original
Tonal adjustments, NR, a little sharpening and some bits and pieces removed.
Critique Template
Use of the template is optional, but it can help spark ideas.
Vision and Purpose:
Conceptual:
Emotional Impact and Mood:
Composition:
Balance and Visual Weight:
Depth and Dimension:
Color:
Lighting:
Processing:
Technical:
Surprisingly good depth of field and for an effective full-frame focal length of 1600, the image quality is quite good. The level of detail is even acceptable with the huge crop in the second image. I think you’ll find that the 1.4 TC makes a lot more sense. If something is far enough away to need the doubler, even the slightest of motions at the camera end is going to cause problems.. I’ve found that the 840 mm my setup provides is quite adequate, though I do have more room to crop than you have on your rig. The limited aperture choices aren’t anywhere near the problem they used to be when iso values over 640 were considered a problem (at least on the cameras I started with).
Hi Mike, nice poses and interaction of these birds. Composition looks pretty good but I could see adding more space on left and right in the first image. These are fine images even though the detail does seem to have taken a hit with the 2x and cropping. I have a 2x also but only use my 1.4x tc due to image and performance issues.
Diane Miller has had great success with the 2x converter, but I’d agree with Dennis and Allen that the 1.4x is probably the way to go. Really like the first one, Mike, with the nice light, the action, and the environment. And the DOF worked to get all three birds into focus.
@Allen_Sparks@Allen_Brooks@Dennis_Plank - thank you - just the sort of feedback I need. I think I’ll keep trying out the 2X converter for a bit (especially as I forgot to switch off IS when using the tripod!), and @Diane_Miller 's shots are testimony to the possibilities here. But for me only in very good light and/or if I need the extra reach or greater DOF. Fortunately I can go back to these cranes in the same location over the winter, so I’ll experiment a bit more when the 1.4TC arrives.
Very impressive, especially the 5% crop!! Different camera makes have had different results with TC quality, and some of that may have been improved lately. The Canon R5 and 100-500 RF with the matching 1.4X and2X are superb. A huge problem with long reach is the softening due to thermal currents, even in cool weather, and it seems to be worse near water. I suspect the air there is loaded with microscopic droplets. But it is completely wonderful to get magnification on wildlife.
I hadn’t thought about the thermal currents - it looked like a clear day, but I imagine it’s hard to tell until you check your photos. I’ll do a comparison of the 2x and 1.4x later just for interest. Many thanks for your comments, Diane.
The only wayI can figure out how to tell is to compare the 2 TCs in an environment with minimal thermal disturbance. That probably means near the close focus end. (Maybe in your house??) Then just take your chances outside at greater distances.
I’m thinking of a run to a “nearby” wetland at a morning low tide but it is close to the worst area I’ve ever seen for thermal degradation. But how much that varies day to day – I have no idea. The time I was at the nearby area I didn’t keep a single frame, and some would have been good otherwise. Almost every area around San Francisco Bay and environs is awful, and the coast to the north is almost as bad. A “warm” day (maybe 60-70 F) does seem to be the worst. But you see some excellent images from there so maybe it is quite variable.
I totally get what you’re saying about environmental effects. I’d still like to see how the 2 TCs fare, and maybe test them on a freezing winter morning at the lake I go to - maybe seeing how they react aesthetically to morning fog. For clarity and sharpness, will do as you say, maybe indoors. Thanks for your input, Diane, and hope your back is getting better.
Thanks, @Mike_Friel! Not yet, but better medical opinions are very slowly emerging. Best bet in the meantime – don’t lift anything over 3 lbs and don’t carry it more than 3 ft. Sorry – that’s not me.
