# Bird Photography Critique/Tips



## chasinglight (Jul 21, 2013)

Hi, I have been getting into bird photography since the beginning of this year. I am shooting with a 7D and 100-400 L. Attached is a recent exposure (I have attached both my processed version and the original RAW). This is probably not my best work, certainly not my worst. What I am looking for is a critique of my exposure technique (what you can infer), the image itself, and the processing. Feel free to download the RAW and post an example of how you think I should have processed it (please include a basic write up of what you did).

I am just looking for opinions and suggestions on how I can improve and hone my skills.

Some details about my technique. This was taken about 7-10 feet from the female red-winged blackbird at about 6PM. I used AF Servo, single point AF, Spot metering, ETTR (as much as I dared), and IS to achieve this shot at 1/800s, f/8.0, ISO 800 @ 400mm. I processed the image completely in Lightroom 4. I cropped, adjusted WB, and globally sharpened, then applied the following local adjustments: highlight recovery, contrast, and applied NR.

RAW photo: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/36974080/Public%20RAW%20Photos/_7D_7610.CR2
JPEG: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/36974080/Public%20RAW%20Photos/_7D_7610.jpg


----------



## canon_convert (Jul 21, 2013)

Pretty decent shot (downloaded image looks sharp enough).Also, did you mean 10 meters ? this was shot at 400 mm on a crop body and that makes me wonder if you were actually that close. 

I am learning as well so I'll let the experts comment on the finer details.


----------



## Click (Jul 21, 2013)

Nice shot. Your subject is centered, so you can use the Rule of Thirds for a better image composition.


----------



## chasinglight (Jul 21, 2013)

Click said:


> Nice shot. Your subject is centered, so you can use the Rule of Thirds for a better image composition.



Ya I agree on adhering more to the rule of thirds. I actually just used a batch crop for a bunch of images. Once I processed the photo I realized I should have adjusted the crop, but since I used local adjustments I didn't feel like correcting it.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 21, 2013)

It is far too soft. Look at www.birdpix.nl to see what enthusiasts expect in terms of IQ and composition. I had the same trouble with the 7D + 100-400mm L - 50% of my photos were rejected by birdpix as being too soft and/or noisy. Since upgrading to the 5D III and 300mm f/2.8 + 2xTC, the IQ of my shots has improved so dramatically so that most photos are acceptable. If you can't afford that gear, the Canon SX50 also does much better than the 7D + 100-400mm for static subjects.


----------



## chasinglight (Jul 21, 2013)

canon_convert said:


> Pretty decent shot (downloaded image looks sharp enough).Also, did you mean 10 meters ? this was shot at 400 mm on a crop body and that makes me wonder if you were actually that close.
> 
> I am learning as well so I'll let the experts comment on the finer details.



Yes, I guess I misjudged. more like 7-10 meters based on the size in the frame. It felt much closer!


----------



## chasinglight (Jul 21, 2013)

AlanF said:


> It is far too soft. Look at www.birdpix.nl to see what enthusiasts expect in terms of IQ and composition. I had the same trouble with the 7D + 100-400mm L - 50% of my photos were rejected by birdpix as being too soft and/or noisy. Since upgrading to the 5D III and 300mm f/2.8 + 2xTC, the IQ of my shots has improved so dramatically so that most photos are acceptable. If you can't afford that gear, the Canon SX50 also does much better than the 7D + 100-400mm for static subjects.



Ya that is something I have been noticing; that the 100-400 just isn't _that_ sharp unless you are very close. I have some shots with the lens that you can see each individual hair on an owl, but not many. This shot is as focused as sharp as can be for this lens as verified by 200% view. I think being closer would have captured more detail.

I am not sure I can justify the cost of a canon great white like the 300 2.8 at this time as I am preparing to buy a new condo. Do you think a 400 5.6 would be sharper than the 100-400? Or are better results possible with the 100-400 with better technique?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 21, 2013)

You have hit the nail on the head: if you can get close enough, then you can get some very sharp shots. The trick is to fill the full frame. The 100-400 performs relatively better on the 5D III.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2013)

The lens, and your RAW file, are plenty sharp enough. Spend time getting to grips with post processing and all will be well. It never hurts to get closer too.....


----------



## AlanF (Jul 21, 2013)

Private, it is still noisy and the resolution is still poor. This is the type of resolution of plumage I would expect at that file size.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2013)

Alan,

There is zero noise in the image. As for plumage detail, I agree, there needs to be more, but that is not a failing of the camera or lens, merely an issue of shooting distance, which we have both already suggested.

To imply the 100-400 and 7D are not up to the task is stretching credulity, of course there are better options out there, at a price, but my suggestion of better post processing will elevate chasinglights output far faster and more cheaply than getting another lens, besides, he would need better post processing skills even if he got a much more expensive lens.

Below is a 100% crop, drop it on your desktop to see it without the forum software's butchering. No noise, sharpness not an issue, just needs to be closer for more resolution.


----------



## chasinglight (Jul 21, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Alan,
> 
> There is zero noise in the image. As for plumage detail, I agree, there needs to be more, but that is not a failing of the camera or lens, merely an issue of shooting distance, which we have both already suggested.
> 
> ...



Wow private, you were definitely able to extract more detail in the plumage that I was. Thanks for your advice. I will definitely try to get closer to fill the frame more. How did you sharpen the image? did you use lightroom/camera raw or some specialty sharpening software? was it global sharpening to the whole image? or applied locally?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 21, 2013)

Private
I have cut and pasted 100% crops from your processed RAW of the blackbird with mine of the Dunnock. Drop them on your desktop and compare the level of detail you get from the 100-400mm L on the 7D with the 300mm+2xTC on the 5D III - the Forum software does indeed butcher the resolution..


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Jul 21, 2013)

Nice pictures. I get similar IQ on my 60D with the same lens.

I can't comment on your technique, but I would expect for myself that spending 4.5 times as much on the camera and lens would definitely improve IQ. :


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 22, 2013)

chasinglight,

Nothing fancy, NR in ACR then Smart Sharpen in PS using a simple layer mask, less than two minutes from opening to saving.

Alan,

I 100% agree your image has lots more plumage detail, but that is not because of your camera or lens, it is because chasinglight was too far away and had to crop too hard. He nailed exposure, there is zero noise and the image is fine for sharpness (considering the crop).

Now my second post, the 100% one, is only 12% of the 7D sensor, that represents less than 5% of your 5D MkIII sensor, an extreme crop. That is where all the plumage detail has gone. How much is your image cropped by? I am certain it is much more than 5% of your sensor area.


----------



## chasinglight (Jul 22, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> chasinglight,
> 
> Nothing fancy, NR in ACR then Smart Sharpen in PS using a simple layer mask, less than two minutes from opening to saving.
> 
> ...



Wow I had always read that camera raw sharpening/lightroom sharpening was all I needed. Never thought to give smart sharpen a try. That just added tons of value to my PS CS6. Thanks for the tip!!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 22, 2013)

Lightroom sharpening is probably the weakest tool it has, and that is the same algorithm as ACR, it is fine for gentle capture sharpening, but it sucks big time for creative and output sharpening. Pretty much every program, including PS, does sharpening much better, particularly in situations like this where you are cropping down to pixel level images. 

For birders, and I am not one, I have seen superb results from Topaz Denoise and Sharpen, and Raw Therapee. I have Topaz and find the Denoise very powerful, but rarely use anything other than PS to sharpen.


----------



## chasinglight (Jul 22, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Lightroom sharpening is probably the weakest tool it has, and that is the same algorithm as ACR, it is fine for gentle capture sharpening, but it sucks big time for creative and output sharpening. Pretty much every program, including PS, does sharpening much better, particularly in situations like this where you are cropping down to pixel level images.
> 
> For birders, and I am not one, I have seen superb results from Topaz Denoise and Sharpen, and Raw Therapee. I have Topaz and find the Denoise very powerful, but rarely use anything other than PS to sharpen.



Well thanks again! The tips and advice you have given me is exactly the stuff I was looking for.


----------



## scottkinfw (Jul 22, 2013)

Very nice shot.

I like the warm color- looks like it was taken during the golden hours.

To me, the birds eye looks a tad soft, perhaps a bit front focused? Otherwise great shot.

sek



chasinglight said:


> Hi, I have been getting into bird photography since the beginning of this year. I am shooting with a 7D and 100-400 L. Attached is a recent exposure (I have attached both my processed version and the original RAW). This is probably not my best work, certainly not my worst. What I am looking for is a critique of my exposure technique (what you can infer), the image itself, and the processing. Feel free to download the RAW and post an example of how you think I should have processed it (please include a basic write up of what you did).
> 
> I am just looking for opinions and suggestions on how I can improve and hone my skills.
> 
> ...


----------



## AlanF (Jul 22, 2013)

Private
Those two shots are at comparable sizes and distances. 
I do have a 100-400 mm L, and it is a "sharp" copy, being as good as 400mm L f/5.6 I used to have at the same time.
I have made many comparisons of the 100-400mm L on the same body with other lenses. Here is a collage of it versus the 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4xTC versus the Sigma 400mm f/5.6 Tele Macro under the identical conditions on a 5D III. The target is lampshade, backlit. Again, download to see better.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 22, 2013)

Alan I don't understand your point. 

Is it, 
a: A $5,000 lens on a $3,000 body will give you better results than a $1,500 lens on a $1,500 body?
b: That it is impossible to take a sharp picture of a bird with a 100-400?

If it is the first, well that seems pretty self explanatory, certainly somebody paying $8,000 would expect better IQ than somebody that only spent $3,000, that doesn't mean it will be a better picture, just that they could reasonably expect better IQ.

If it is the second, well that is patently false. All these images were shot with a 7D and 100-400 hand held and wide open at 400mm.

http://capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/bridlington/stonechat_flamborough_3.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/101010/goldcrest_st_marys_12.jpg
http://capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/bridlington/fulmar_flamborough_2.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/7D_1000/240710/jackdaw_amble_3.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/7D_1000/240710/eider_amble_1a.jpg
http://capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/bridlington/fulmar_bempton_1.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/310111/turnstone_2a.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/270311/stonechat_1.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/bridlington/gannet_bempton_10.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/270311/pigeon_blyth_6.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/bridlington/knot_bridlington_3.jpg

Even the legendary bird photographer Arthur Morris is happy to recommend the 100-400 for its versatility with no questioning its IQ, though he does point out if you are going to use it almost exclusively at 400 the 400 f5.6 prime is a better buy.

Now chasinglight asked for advice to improve his images. The most obvious, considering the crop was only 12% of the sensor, get much closer, the other, improve your post processing, and he took them both on board. At this point, and possibly never, is there any need to spend an additional $8,000 and even if he did he would still need to improve his post processing skills.

Can you post an uncropped version of your first image? Thanks.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 22, 2013)

Private
I told him it was too soft, and where to look for examples that are good. I then said the trick for the 100-400mm is to fill as much as the frame as possible because the lens isn't that sharp. You came in with the 100-400mm L lens being sharp enough. I go out photographing birds twice a week and share my photos with other enthusiasts. They have all given up the 100-400mm L since it isn't sharp enough. It is a fine zoom lens for photographing elephants and planes at long distances but it isn't sharp enough any more for bird work, except close up. I have taken 1000s of bird photos with the 100-400mm L, but in future will use it only as a back up or use a cheap Powershot, which actually performs better much of the time.

I showed the photos of the lampshade to illustrate the the relative softness of the lens. Now if you want figures to show the relative sharpness of those lenses, look at slrgear.com 
http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/canon100-400f45-56is/ff/tloader.htm

I know when I have written enough and am now stopping writing on this subject.


----------



## Canon1 (Jul 22, 2013)

Referring to the OP. Overall you did a great job on this. The birds beak is a little "hot" Bringing back the highlights would help this. Also, image looks a little soft. Nothing that some layer masking sharpening or a simple smart sharpen would not fix.


----------



## chasinglight (Jul 22, 2013)

Canon1 said:


> Referring to the OP. Overall you did a great job on this. The birds beak is a little "hot" Bringing back the highlights would help this. Also, image looks a little soft. Nothing that some layer masking sharpening or a simple smart sharpen would not fix.



Thanks! What I am learning is that what I know about post processing barely scratches the surface for getting the most out of my images. I am always looking for good tutorials and resources on post processing. Do have any suggestions?


----------



## Krob78 (Jul 22, 2013)

There are no sharp images with an EF 100-400mm. Especially at the long end... Everyone knows that, which is exactly why they never sold very many... :

I hate this lens and wish I never purchased it...  Lol...

EF 100-400mm
1/1600 sec
F/5.6
ISO - 2500
FL: 400mm


----------



## Krob78 (Jul 22, 2013)

100-400mm is really irritating on the 7d too... (sarc., implied )
1/320 sec.
f/5.6
ISO 100


----------



## jrista (Jul 23, 2013)

chasinglight said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > It is far too soft. Look at www.birdpix.nl to see what enthusiasts expect in terms of IQ and composition. I had the same trouble with the 7D + 100-400mm L - 50% of my photos were rejected by birdpix as being too soft and/or noisy. Since upgrading to the 5D III and 300mm f/2.8 + 2xTC, the IQ of my shots has improved so dramatically so that most photos are acceptable. If you can't afford that gear, the Canon SX50 also does much better than the 7D + 100-400mm for static subjects.
> ...



I agree with alan, the image is pretty soft. Notorious problem with the 100-400. That said, I would try to fine tune AFMA for that lens on that body before you buy something new. I had serious softness problems with my copy on a 7D, but using Reikan FoCal, I eventually ended up with s -12 AFMA that made it a lot sharper. Still not as sharp as a 300/2.8 or 600/4, but definitely much sharper than it was originally. Could save you a lot of money.

Another option, if you really want maximum sharpness for a great price, is the EF 300mm f/4 L IS. Not as sharp as the EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II, but sharper than the 100-400 even w/ AFMA, and FAR lighter than the 300/2,8. It works with the 1.4x TC for a 420/5.6 in case you need some extra reach and have good light.

One of the most important things in bird photography, more so than composition IMO, is head angle. You want the bird to engage the viewer...do a HA where the bill is 3-4 degrees inward towards the viewer tends to be best. Parallel to the sensor is ok, too. More than 5-7 degrees, and your getting into more specialized territory...it can work, but often not as well as a slighter angle. Any angle outward, away from the viewer, and the photo quickly loses its appeal, with a few exceptions (i.e a parent feeding a chick, where the parent may be facing slightly away.)

Once you get HA down, then worry about composition.  BTW, I should note that the HA in your posted photo is a good example of GOOD HA...so keep striving for that. I think as long as HA is good, explicitly following the "rules" of composition is less important (especially since they are guidelines, not rules, in the first place.)


----------



## AlanF (Jul 23, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> 100-400mm is really irritating on the 7d too... (sarc., implied )
> 1/320 sec.
> f/5.6
> ISO 100



I downloaded the photo to check the exif data. It is at f = 190mm, the sweet spot of the lens, not the full 400mm, the weakest length. The lens is very sharp at ~200mm and f/5.6-8. I have had some great shots under those conditions, as well as 400mm when I could fill much of the frame.

You must have been very close to the owl to get it to fill so much of the frame. And, that is the way to get the most from any lens. Here is the lens with 100% crop on 7D at 100mm of terns feeding (is0 400, f/5, 1/1600 s).


----------



## photonius (Jul 23, 2013)

AlanF said:


> It is far too soft. Look at www.birdpix.nl to see what enthusiasts expect in terms of IQ and composition. I had the same trouble with the 7D + 100-400mm L - 50% of my photos were rejected by birdpix as being too soft and/or noisy. Since upgrading to the 5D III and 300mm f/2.8 + 2xTC, the IQ of my shots has improved so dramatically so that most photos are acceptable. If you can't afford that gear, the Canon SX50 also does much better than the 7D + 100-400mm for static subjects.



So is the SX50 really better? Yes, on paper it's 1200mm (ff equivalent), versus 640mm (FF equivalent) for a 400mm on a 7D. The SX50 gives a factor 2 more reach, but it's f6.5 at 1200mm, where it is substantially diffraction limited, and you can perhaps get no more than 2-4Mp worth of image quality. A proper, controlled shootout might be called for.

see also http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 23, 2013)

We have had several SX-50 threads too. 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12154.0

In good light when small sensors can actually use their density and technology advantages to best effect, yes, something I have said since getting a G10 years ago. Raise iso, need lens speed, shallow dof, fast AF and they become much more limiting.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

Now, for clarity, I wish Alan would just post his initial image uncropped. I have already shown that many people get superb bird images with the 7D 100-400 combo, including in flight, handheld, wide open and at 400mm,, that chasinglight was not getting the best out of his post processing, and he did a huge crop. I believe his two main issues were, primarily, needing to crop as hard as he did (subject distance), and post processing, nothing more.

Sure there are many "better" lenses, but the one he has is capable of much higher quality output. Why not move forwards with what we have, the 100-400 and PS, than spend other peoples money when there are basic techniques we can suggest to improve our skills and output that would need work even if he had a 600 f4 IS MkII.


----------



## Maxaperture (Jul 23, 2013)

Owners of the 100-400 should take the lens and body to Canon (especially crops cameras) and have them "paired".
You have $3000 worth of kit, it's worth the trip/trouble.
A friend of mine did this, and his 100-400 is banging out much sharper shots, he's so much happier.


----------



## jrista (Jul 23, 2013)

Maxaperture said:


> Owners of the 100-400 should take the lens and body to Canon (especially crops cameras) and have them "paired".
> You have $3000 worth of kit, it's worth the trip/trouble.
> A friend of mine did this, and his 100-400 is banging out much sharper shots, he's so much happier.



Pairing is only free if you are a CPS member, I believe. At least in the US, you have to pay (a fairly hefty price, if I remember) to have the two calibrated for each other.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2013)

Maxaperture said:


> Owners of the 100-400 should take the lens and body to Canon (especially crops cameras) and have them "paired".



They don't really 'pair' them - they calibrate the body to a standard 'ideal' lens, and calibrate the lens to a standard 'ideal' body of the same type you tell them you have.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 23, 2013)

Private
Sorry, packing my gear for a trip to France tomorrow. Here is a link.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/p40mvgq3k3rwc30/-EnCRluAhd

They are not terribly exciting. You can get all of the data from the exifs etc. The 100-400mm says 390mm, the Sigma Apo Tele Macro is 400mm (it is a cracking lens, seriously better than the Canon 400 f/5.6); and the 300mm f/2.8 II + 1.4 xTC is, of course 420mm). This is only one test, but I have shot zillions with all three lenses.


----------



## chasinglight (Jul 23, 2013)

jrista said:


> One of the most important things in bird photography, more so than composition IMO, is head angle. You want the bird to engage the viewer...do a HA where the bill is 3-4 degrees inward towards the viewer tends to be best. Parallel to the sensor is ok, too. More than 5-7 degrees, and your getting into more specialized territory...it can work, but often not as well as a slighter angle. Any angle outward, away from the viewer, and the photo quickly loses its appeal, with a few exceptions (i.e a parent feeding a chick, where the parent may be facing slightly away.)
> 
> Once you get HA down, then worry about composition.  BTW, I should note that the HA in your posted photo is a good example of GOOD HA...so keep striving for that. I think as long as HA is good, explicitly following the "rules" of composition is less important (especially since they are guidelines, not rules, in the first place.)



Wow that is the first time I have read that, but it makes sense. I will try to make use of that. Thanks for the advice!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 23, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Private
> Sorry, packing my gear for a trip to France tomorrow. Here is a link.
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/p40mvgq3k3rwc30/-EnCRluAhd
> 
> They are not terribly exciting. You can get all of the data from the exifs etc. The 100-400mm says 390mm, the Sigma Apo Tele Macro is 400mm (it is a cracking lens, seriously better than the Canon 400 f/5.6); and the 300mm f/2.8 II + 1.4 xTC is, of course 420mm). This is only one test, but I have shot zillions with all three lenses.



Alan, not interested in the lampshade image, I am interested in your first image, the bird with the plumage, an uncropped version of that would be greatly appreciated.

This one, but uncropped.


----------



## chasinglight (Jul 23, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Sure there are many "better" lenses, but the one he has is capable of much higher quality output. Why not move forwards with what we have, the 100-400 and PS, than spend other peoples money when there are basic techniques we can suggest to improve our skills and output that would need work even if he had a 600 f4 IS MkII.



For the record I think this is great advice. I want to learn to get everything out of the gear I have before I plunk down 4-12k. I would hate to upgrade and still get not stellar results solely because I don't have the proper knowledge or skills.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 23, 2013)

Private
I have placed it in the same linked folder as a Canon RAW file, 2U4A3256.CR2, with absolutely no PP.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 23, 2013)

Thanks for that Alan.

Here are three images that I hope illustrate my point, that this is basically a distance/cropping issue and has nothing to do with the fact that the 100-400 is not "as good" as several other lenses. I agree that it isn't, but it is more than good enough to take some superb images of birds, assuming you have AFMA'd and your lens is not faulty and you get close enough.

First is a size corrected picture in a picture. It demonstrates how much bigger Alan's bird is than chasinglight's bird. By my calculations Alan's is around 3.5 times bigger, by area. I laid chasinglight's full image on top of Alan's and corrected for sensor size, so these two images are what they both saw through the viewfinder. The red bounding box in the 7D image is the 100% crop I posted earlier and represents less then 12% of the sensor area, around 5% of the 5D MkIII sensor area, the blue box.

Second is a crop of the same sensor area, for chasinglight I used the 100% crop from earlier, from Alan I cropped the same sensor area, so same magnification, of his bird's body. I have rotated Alan's bird body to better fit the comparison. 

Third is a same magnification comparison of detail size. Yet again, I agree that the 100-400 is not the best lens available, but, it is clearly resolving detail comparable in size to the plumage in Alan's image.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> ...the 100-400 is not "as good" as several other lenses. I agree that it isn't, but it is more than good enough...



Human nature is also a factor. My 7D had great AF...then I got a 1D X. My 100-400L was a very sharp lens...then I got a 600 II.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 23, 2013)

Private
Let's stop splitting hairs and get back to advice that we do in fact agree 100% on. It's not even fair comparing lenses on a 7D to those on a 5D III because the FF has better image quality. To get a good photo of a bird, you have to be close enough for the camera and lens you have in your hands. The better the camera and the better and longer the lens, the further away you can be and get a keeper.

The first tip is to get close enough, the closer the better, to resolve the plumage.
The second as pointed out is to get a good head angle.
The third is to get a decent composition in terms of background, foreground and placement.
Best of all is to have the bird doing something interesting instead of just sitting still.
Then clean it up as done by privatebydesign.
Plus lots more tips.


----------



## jrista (Jul 24, 2013)

privatebydesign said:



> Thanks for that Alan.
> 
> Here are three images that I hope illustrate my point, that this is basically a distance/cropping issue and has nothing to do with the fact that the 100-400 is not "as good" as several other lenses. I agree that it isn't, but it is more than good enough to take some superb images of birds, assuming you have AFMA'd and your lens is not faulty and you get close enough.
> 
> ...



Just to point this out...I don't think your relative size comparison is fair. You have a "vertical" frame scaled to the vertical height of a horizontal frame. Technically speaking, would it not be correct to rotate the vertical frame such that it is in the same orientation as the horizontal frame? At which point, I believe the birds are the same size, if not even giving the edge to the RWB.

If the OP's photo was indeed taken with the camera in a vertical orientation, then I really do think his lens needs to be AFMAed. With proper tuning, the 100-400 can produce some pretty sharp results. Within a reasonably acceptable distance, the 7D and 100-400 can produce acceptably "razor sharp" results, even...although that distance is indeed fairly close. 

I would also point out that (just for reference), with some extensive testing, it appears that the AF confirm dot technique DOES NOT seem to work with the 7D. I've tried it about 50 times now with every lens I own, and it gets different, often significantly different results from FoCal or simple manual AFMA. Manual and FoCal tend to be more similar to each other, and I often choose a setting in between the two (if there IS an in between). If the lens was AFMAed with the AF confirmation dot technique, I'd either reset to zero and manually zero in on a more ideal AFMA setting, or use FoCal, which will do a pretty darn good job these days if you use good light.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 24, 2013)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for that Alan.
> ...



The 7D sensor is 329mm², the 5D MkIII is 864mm², that makes a ff sensor 2.63 times bigger by area, a crop sensor easily fits inside a ff sensor vertically, a crop sensor is 22mm long, a ff sensor is 24mm high. My graphics are correct.

As I have demonstrated before, in a focal length limited situation (i.e. cropped) when using the same lens, the 7D will slightly out resolve a cropped 21mp ff sensor, not too sure about the 24mp 5D MkIII, but any differences will be absolutely minimal.

This is not a lens issue, it is just a distance/cropping issue.


----------



## jrista (Jul 24, 2013)

chasinglight said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > One of the most important things in bird photography, more so than composition IMO, is head angle. You want the bird to engage the viewer...do a HA where the bill is 3-4 degrees inward towards the viewer tends to be best. Parallel to the sensor is ok, too. More than 5-7 degrees, and your getting into more specialized territory...it can work, but often not as well as a slighter angle. Any angle outward, away from the viewer, and the photo quickly loses its appeal, with a few exceptions (i.e a parent feeding a chick, where the parent may be facing slightly away.)
> ...



Here are some examples of various head angles. Take note that a lot of the differences are very subtle, but there are clear issues with having a poor head angle that will pop out at you once you know what to look for.

First, a good HA. This is only a couple degrees forward. The lighting here is not ideal...I'd have preferred the side of the bird towards me be fully lit, but I did not really have that much control over it. The body pose and HA are within the ideal range, however:









This is an example of bad HA. It is a few degrees back. You should be able to see how the bill softens towards the end, as it moves out of the depth of field. You should also notice that the bird isn't quite looking into the frame, but ever so slightly ahead of it. Not readily visible to most viewers, but they usually still "sense" that the photo isn't quite as engaging. (Composition, in terms of scene contents, isn't great...but it demonstrates MUCH better lighting.)








Here is a head angle that is pretty much entirely parallel. This is usually quite acceptable, but not quite as engaging as a HA a few degrees towards the camera.







Finally, here is a HA turned much farther toward the camera than is usually ideal. I like the more cute pose here, and if I had increased my DOF a bit, I think it would have still been acceptable. I think this is a good example of why such a strong angle is less than ideal, however...again, you should see that towards the tip of the bill, it starts to soften a bit as it exits the depth of field. (I am still a relative beginner when it comes to bird photography myself...I have about a hear and a half under my belt. Keeping an eye on my DOF, and expanding it when necessary to include my whole subject, is an area I am still working on...as I do like the birds pose in this shot!)






Anyway, hopefully these Spotted Sandpiper photos will help demonstrate the subtle importance of head angle in bird photography. Aim for parallel or a few degrees forward (towards the camera), and you should be good.



chasinglight said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Sure there are many "better" lenses, but the one he has is capable of much higher quality output. Why not move forwards with what we have, the 100-400 and PS, than spend other peoples money when there are basic techniques we can suggest to improve our skills and output that would need work even if he had a 600 f4 IS MkII.
> ...



I'd say that is a good practice. If you are anything like me, you will know when your gear is holding you back. I also have the 100-400. I think the 7D is a fine camera, produces great IQ in most circumstances (which for my bird photography is usually in good to evening light, ISO 200 - 1600), and has great features that support bird photography. The 100-400, when properly tuned with AFMA, produces acceptably sharp images most of the time. It should be noted that at 400mm, f/7.1 tends to be the sharpest, while f/5.6 will be visibly soft. Before getting my new lens, I shot at f/7.1 almost exclusively, sometimes stopping down to f/8 and rarely opening up to f/6.3.

I would tune your lens for your copy of the 7D, and start shooting at f/7.1. *You should see individual barbs of each feather* (a feather is a central shaft, on either side of which is a vane of barbes, which are interconnected via barbules off each barb...you will RARELY see barbules in a photo, but in an acceptably sharp photo, you should see barbs.) There are three things that will soften the barbs of a birds feathers...distance too great, missfocus, bird motion or camera shake. Distance is usually the biggest problem early on. Depending on the type of bird, either learning the right behavior to exhibit that gets you close, or camouflaging yourself to hide in plain side, are was of solving that problem.

Missfocus is, sadly, just a fact of life with older Canon cameras (i.e. pre 61pt AF). The 7D does not have the most reliable AF system. When it nails it, it usually NAILS it. When it doesn't, its off just slightly enough that you can't really tell in the viewfinder, but definitely can in post. The best tactic here is to always shoot a burst. I try to get at least three shots in every time, if not five. That usually results in one of the frames being acceptably sharp. Sadly, the other two-four are usually soft, reducing barbs to mush. I use rear-button focus as well (I reconfigure the camera to unlink AF from the shutter button, and link it to the * button on the back of the camera...this direct control can be very useful in forcing AF to occur when and where you need it.) If you can't seem to grab focus, move the current AF point off the subject, press the * button to immediately force AF on the background, then return the AF point to the subject and press the * button to immediately force AF again. This will usually get you sharper results for a short time. It ain't perfect, but bursting definitely helps. You either just have to either buy a lot of disk space, or become a culling nutcase who rejects anything that isn't razor sharp.

Finally, bird motion, and sometimes camera shake, are the last culprit of soft barbs. You usually need pretty high shutter speeds to stop bird motion, especially songbirds and smaller shorebirds. A bird like a chickadee will often require over 1/1000s shutter speeds, with 1/2000s usually being more ideal. A bird like your RWB is usually less jittery than the ever-moving chickadee, so you might be able to get away with a shutter speed as low as 1/800th before you experience detrimental barb softening. As I'm sure you already know, high shutter speed means high ISO. I used to shoot at ISO settings as high as 2500, but I've come to the conclusion that the 7D is good up to 1600, and beyond that it is usually unacceptable. So long as you keep your hands steady with IS on, or use a tripod (with IS off!!), you should get sharp shots. 

(NOTE: Regarding ISO...if you have really good light...such as light a couple hours after sunrise or a couple hours before sunset...bright, but at a good angle to shade well, with the sun behind and slightly over your shoulder, then if necessary you might be able to get away with ISO 2000, 2500, and maybe 3200. I suspect the diminished dynamic range will be a problem, but if you REALLY need the shutter speed, then go for it. Otherwise, the extra noise at those settings just isn't worth it (after ISO 1600, a secondary downstream amplifier kicks in, which is why noise performance falls off a cliff on the 7D at that point). I highly recommend Topaz DeNoise 5 as the best denoise tool for the 7D. Its default RAW settings are pretty good, it does a decent job automatically identifying and masking off detail areas, so it cleans up smooth backgrounds REALLY well. It is well worth the money, and it definitely cheaper than moving to the 5D III.)

Well, that is the best series of tips I can offer you right now. If you see sharp barbs, your doing good. If not, then one of those three things will most likely be the culprit. Keep an eye on HA, and composition will eventually work itself out as the other things become second nature and you have time to focus your attention on it.


----------



## jrista (Jul 24, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I think you are underestimating the pixel density of the 7D. If we stick to purely mathematical terms (ignoring noise for the moment, as it does not seem to be a problem in either photo), the 7D pixels are 1.45x smaller than the 5D III pixels. That means you can fit almost one and a half 7D pixels horizontally, and one and a half 7D pixels vertically, into each 5D III pixel. That is an increase in resolution, in two dimensions, of 111% (or 2.11x more spatial resolution than the 5D III):





Fig: A comparison of 7D pixels to 5D III pixels, actually to scale (blue squares are 625 pixels a side, green squares are 430 pixels a side.) You can see that you can pack in 100% of one 7D pixel, and another 111% of three other pixels in varying ratios, into the area of a single 5D III pixel. You can fit nearly nine 7D pixels into the area of four 5D III pixels.

Even if we cut that spatial resolution benefit in HALF, the 7D is still capturing 50% more detail than the 5D III. That isn't "absolutely minimal". You are correct about the dimensions (I missed mention of the 5D III in your post, and thought you were comparing two 7D photos), however if you rotate it by 90°, then increase its size by 50%, that would produce a much more accurate representation of the relative sizes of the birds as far as output image dimensions go.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 24, 2013)

jrista said:


> I think you are underestimating the pixel density of the 7D. If we stick to purely mathematical terms (ignoring noise for the moment, as it does not seem to be a problem in either photo), the 7D pixels are 1.45x smaller than the 5D III pixels. That means you can fit almost one and a half 7D pixels horizontally, and one and a half 7D pixels vertically, into each 5D III pixel. That is an increase in resolution, in two dimensions, of 111%.
> 
> Even if we cut that spatial resolution benefit in HALF, the 7D is still capturing 50% more detail than the 5D III. That isn't "absolutely minimal". You are correct about the dimensions (I missed mention of the 5D III in your post, and thought you were comparing two 7D photos), however if you rotate it by 90°, then increase its size by 50%, that would produce a much more accurate representation of the relative sizes of the birds as far as output image dimensions go.



I absolutely am not underestimating the pixel density of the 7D, I have done extensive tests with the 7D, most people vastly overestimate the value of pixel density, *all pixels are not equal*. 

Besides, the demonstration was not about pixel density, it was about reproduction ratios, or, making a same sized print or screen image from both Alan's 5D MkIII and chasinglights 7D cameras, that is the only relevant metric. I was pointing out that Alan's bird took up a much bigger area of sensor real estate than chasinglight's did, and it does, so any comparisons of detail, or criticisms of the 7D's lack of detail, was fundamentally flawed, and it is.


----------



## jrista (Jul 24, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I think you are underestimating the pixel density of the 7D. If we stick to purely mathematical terms (ignoring noise for the moment, as it does not seem to be a problem in either photo), the 7D pixels are 1.45x smaller than the 5D III pixels. That means you can fit almost one and a half 7D pixels horizontally, and one and a half 7D pixels vertically, into each 5D III pixel. That is an increase in resolution, in two dimensions, of 111%.
> ...



I'm not sure where print came into play. I think, when evaluating sharpness, the only thing that really matters is actual image dimensions. The 7D's physical APS-C frame is indeed smaller than the 5D III's by the ratio you mention, but the output image is MUCH closer to the 5D III's output image dimensions.

The 5D III full RAW image size is 5760x3840. The 7D full RAW image size is 5184x3456. In relative terms, the image sizes are red and blue below, where as your skewed sizing, based on physical sensor dimensions, greatly puts the 7D at an undue and unrealistic disadvantage (green):






I know you dislike the 7D, but I think you are making a very unfair comparison that isn't benefiting the underlying point at all. The 7D it IS capable of being razor sharp, even with the 100-400...and with that particular lens, the 7D is not capable of really reaching its full potential.

I don't think chasinglight's problem is that he is using a 7D. Far more likely than that, I think there is probably some lens/body tuning that could be done, and after that, it is largely a matter of technique. If you use a tool properly, you can maximize it's potential, and the 7D has a LOT of potential. That doesn't mean it will produce better results if you have the ability to fill the frame with both the 7D and the 5D III...the simple fact that the 5D III has more total pixels means it will produce a better image. All it means is that chasinglight can work on a few things that cost him nothing, yet allow him to produce better results.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 24, 2013)

jrista said:


> I'm not sure where print came into play. I think, when evaluating sharpness, the only thing that really matters is actual image dimensions. The 7D's physical APS-C frame is indeed smaller than the 5D III's by the ratio you mention, but the output image is MUCH closer to the 5D III's output image dimensions.
> 
> The 5D III full RAW image size is 5760x3840. The 7D full RAW image size is 5184x3456. In relative terms, the image sizes are red and blue below, where as your skewed sizing, based on physical sensor dimensions, greatly puts the 7D at an undue and unrealistic disadvantage (green):
> 
> ...



I don't quite know where to start addressing this post. 

I think the best thing would be for you to go and reread the thread. I am the one who has constantly said the 7D is a more than capable camera, how you have managed to infer from that _"I know you dislike the 7D" _, I just don't fathom and am in complete disbelief at. Further _"The 7D it IS capable of being razor sharp, even with the 100-400.."_ I KNOW, and I posted 11 links of razor sharp images shot with a 7D and 100-400, of birds, at 400, and some wide open!!!!! DID YOU NOT SEE THEM? Or this _"I don't think chasinglight's problem is that he is using a 7D"_ I have repeatedly said his main problem is subject distance (magnification) NOT THE 7D. Funnily enough that is why I used MAGNIFICATION as the comparison between his and Alan's images. Alan suggested an $8,000 investment, I said no, GET CLOSER. I know in focal length limited situations the 7D will outperform (by a very small margin) the cropped 21MP 5D MkII/1Ds MkIII, and while I have not tested it against the 5D MkIII I would expect the results to be similar. To summarize that last sentence, I know in focal length limited situations the 7D will perform better than a cropped FF image, though not by much and certainly not as many as the pixel numbers would have you believe. I also KNOW, ALL PIXELS ARE NOT EQUAL, to compare one 7D pixel to one 5D MkIII pixel is moronic, it just doesn't work like that. 

In focal length limited situations, as this one is, per pixel comparisons are worse than useless, subject magnification is THE ONLY FAIR comparison, it is the only relevant metric for comparison of output. It maintains equivalency, you are comparing like with like. How do you adjust for different DOF figures if you compare on a per pixel basis? How do you adjust a sharpness figure when you magnify one image more than the other? You can't! Compare same magnification and you get a true comparison, you know what will look better in print, on a screen, or any other end use output.


----------



## jrista (Jul 24, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure where print came into play. I think, when evaluating sharpness, the only thing that really matters is actual image dimensions. The 7D's physical APS-C frame is indeed smaller than the 5D III's by the ratio you mention, but the output image is MUCH closer to the 5D III's output image dimensions.
> ...



I'm not debating the entire thread...only "Reply #38", where I believe you to make an incorrect comparison between a 7D image and a 5D III image by scaling the 7D incorrectly, which results in a significant and further reduction in detail of the 7D image relative to the 5D III image. When it comes to what was actually resolved, magnification relative to the final output is not the sole factor.



privatebydesign said:


> I am the one who has constantly said the 7D is a more than capable camera, how you have managed to infer from that _"I know you dislike the 7D" _, I just don't fathom and am in complete disbelief at.



You've come off at me fairly strong in a number of threads over the last couple of months where you seem to put the 7D in exceptionally bad light relative to other cameras. You have repeatedly made a point of calling out how the 7D's resolution advantage is effectively meaningless. Given the repetition, I can only conclude you dislike the 7D. I also still believe you are comparing things incorrectly, and putting the 7D in unfair light. Even detailed articles about the 7D's resolution advantage from a well respected Ph.D., Roger Clark, seem insufficient to get you to even meet at some middle ground. 

Sorry if I've misread you, but I've been going by both the intensity of your responses to me when I debate the issue with you, and the frequency at which you bring up how nearly worthless the 7D's resolution advantage supposedly is.



privatebydesign said:


> Further _"The 7D it IS capable of being razor sharp, even with the 100-400.."_ I KNOW, and I posted 11 links of razor sharp images shot with a 7D and 100-400, of birds, at 400, and some wide open!!!!! DID YOU NOT SEE THEM?



No, I came in on page three, I guess...saw a post by you that put the 7D in unfairly poor light, and responded. Again, I wasn't responding to the entire thread, and having read through the rest, I'm a bit confused by what seems to be conflicting information in different posts. 



privatebydesign said:


> Or this _"I don't think chasinglight's problem is that he is using a 7D"_ I have repeatedly said his main problem is subject distance (magnification) NOT THE 7D. Funnily enough that is why I used MAGNIFICATION as the comparison between his and Alan's images.



Using magnification alone, and ignoring pixel sizes completely, is the issue I was debating. I think that is oversimplifying the issue. There are effectively an unlimited number of potential output sizes, both smaller and larger than the native image size for each camera. I think it is only fair to compare them at their native sizes. Assuming the same bird is photographed at the same distance with both cameras, there is both a magnification difference as well as a pixels on subject difference. Since the issue is sharpness, pixels on subject matter. This is effectively a pixel peeping situation, so considerably reducing the size of the 7D's native output is skewing the basis for comparison. 

I get the feeling we are just going to agree to disagree on this point...so I'm happy to end the debate here. 



privatebydesign said:


> Alan suggested an $8,000 investment, I said no, GET CLOSER. I know in focal length limited situations the 7D will outperform (by a very small margin) the cropped 21MP 5D MkII/1Ds MkIII, and while I have not tested it against the 5D MkIII I would expect the results to be similar. To summarize that last sentence, I know in focal length limited situations the 7D will perform better than a cropped FF image, though not by much and certainly not as many as the pixel numbers would have you believe. I also KNOW, ALL PIXELS ARE NOT EQUAL, to compare one 7D pixel to one 5D MkIII pixel is moronic, it just doesn't work like that.



I agree, one needs to get closer. But in practice, there are limitations in doing that. Birds infrequently just sit still and let you get as close as you want. There IS an argument for buying better gear. It may not be the best advice for someone in chasinglights position, but it is not an invalid argument either. There are also consequences of getting closer. There is a zone within which one is closer to the bird, but also affecting it's behavior. If all you have is a 400mm lens, then either you deal with the behavioral changes, wait long enough for those behavioral changes to subside (which may never occur), slap the lens on a sensor with denser pixels, or get a longer lens.

We disagree about the "by a very small margin" part. All sensor pixels may not be equal, but that doesn't really matter. One only has to look at the two photos at full size to compare sharpness. If one reduces the resolution of one image from its original size, THAT makes for an unfair comparison. You are converting your bias against the 7D, the notion that its pixels only give it a "very small margin" benefit, directly into actual image comparisons. If you are going to scale for comparison, scale them both to the same size, don't scale one and leave the other unscaled. 



privatebydesign said:


> In focal length limited situations, as this one is, per pixel comparisons are worse than useless, subject magnification is THE ONLY FAIR comparison, it is the only relevant metric for comparison of output. It maintains equivalency, you are comparing like with like. How do you adjust for different DOF figures if you compare on a per pixel basis? How do you adjust a sharpness figure when you magnify one image more than the other? You can't! Compare same magnification and you get a true comparison, you know what will look better in print, on a screen, or any other end use output.



Again, I disagree. As a matter of detail resolved, for example feather barbs, pixel peeping WILL show a meaningful difference. That difference may or may not matter for the artists final choice of presentation. If the image is shrunk and uploaded online, and that is the only thing ever done with it, then sure...per-pixel comparisons are effectively meaningless. On the other hand, if you scale up a heavily cropped 5D III image against a lightly cropped 7D image, and print at 16x24, then the 7D's resolution benefit IS meaningful. Per-pixel comparisons...or rather more realistically comparing both cropped images at full size, is an entirely valid way to evaluate IQ. 

I am not even considering anything like a scientific test here, either...it doesn't take much to see improved sharpness with a little bit of eyeballing. I'm not talking noise here, either...just sharpness. The 7D image may indeed be considerably noisier in smooth OOF backgrounds, however even a noisy 7D image can still be razor sharp in the detail areas where it matters. Noise is also considerably harder to see in a print, so the greater resolving power of the 7D will have a meaningful impact on the sharpness of the final print. The 5D III noise would likely clean up considerably better, but the improvement is going to be less visible in a print than the sharpness factor.

As for DOF, from a technical standpoint, you are correct. From a practical standpoint, it usually doesn't matter. Unless you have a DOF issue such that a critical part of your subject is affected...for example the end of a birds bill ends up out of focus...that matters. If the important parts of your subject are in focus, at least in bird photography, DOF usually isn't a make or break issue. More of the butt end of a bird might be more blurry with one camera over the other, but if the eyes, bill, and a sufficient part of the birds head or body are sharp and clear...that's what really matters.

Anyway, I don't want to antagonize you further. You and I will likely never see eye to eye on the 7D/resolution issue (or, for that matter, the pixel density/resolution issue for any set of cameras, now or in the future). We disagree. I guess we just agree to disagree.


----------



## chasinglight (Jul 24, 2013)

jrista said:


> I'd say that is a good practice. If you are anything like me, you will know when your gear is holding you back. I also have the 100-400. I think the 7D is a fine camera, produces great IQ in most circumstances (which for my bird photography is usually in good to evening light, ISO 200 - 1600), and has great features that support bird photography. The 100-400, when properly tuned with AFMA, produces acceptably sharp images most of the time. It should be noted that at 400mm, f/7.1 tends to be the sharpest, while f/5.6 will be visibly soft. Before getting my new lens, I shot at f/7.1 almost exclusively, sometimes stopping down to f/8 and rarely opening up to f/6.3.
> 
> I would tune your lens for your copy of the 7D, and start shooting at f/7.1. *You should see individual barbs of each feather* (a feather is a central shaft, on either side of which is a vane of barbes, which are interconnected via barbules off each barb...you will RARELY see barbules in a photo, but in an acceptably sharp photo, you should see barbs.) There are three things that will soften the barbs of a birds feathers...distance too great, missfocus, bird motion or camera shake. Distance is usually the biggest problem early on. Depending on the type of bird, either learning the right behavior to exhibit that gets you close, or camouflaging yourself to hide in plain side, are was of solving that problem.



Thanks for the advice (all of it, not just what I quoted). I have seen my copy of the 100-400 produce much sharper images than this (such as the one below; AFMA 0). I think actually took this shot of the eastern screech owl at f/7.1. I think I actually started to notice more inconsistency after I used Focal to AFMA the lens a few months ago; this produced a -3. I performed Focal a few times today getting -3, 3, and 1. So I decided to go back to 0 and see how that works out.... could be that I was just trying to over sharpen the knife and instead made it dull...


----------



## Rick Massie (Jul 24, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> 100-400mm is really irritating on the 7d too... (sarc., implied )
> 1/320 sec.
> f/5.6
> ISO 100



I love my 400mm 5.6 but I will never get a shot as sharp as this at 1/320sec, probably not even with a monopod. That's my one dislike of the lens. 

Back on topic for the OP- your edits sounds about right. Getting closer will definitely help. The other option that sometimes works for me is bumping up the "clarity" a little in lightroom. It's very easy to overdo it, but it can help accentuate sharpening if you're careful.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 24, 2013)

My replies are in red.



jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 24, 2013)

Rick Massie said:


> ..... Getting closer will definitely help.....



Bird photography is very popular. And with the ever increasing quality of bird photographs, it is really hard to stand out. I think your photo is fine. It is a good photo. You've clearly got the basics down pat and the gear to do quality work. But where to from here? How are you going to make an awesome bird photo? 

Getting in closer is one idea. But I also like the idea of getting further away (or in my case as a focal length challenged photographer, using a smaller focal length). That way, you can see the bird in a more environmental setting. Let's see where it lives. Is it pristine wilderness? Is its habitat under threat? What's that yellow highlight on the right hand side? Is it something interesting? Is there anything special about this bird? Maybe get in close with a wider angle lens and capture a great sunset in the back? Maybe the sun streaming through branches? Maybe some mist or fog. A successful photo is one that tugs at a some emotional string. It is small things like this that turn a technically good photo into one that makes people pay attention. (Would love to show you one of mine...but I've yet to make an extraordinary bird photo myself. It is very very challenging.) 

Luckily, its not just me thinking this way. A few years ago, a photo like this - http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/photo.do?photo=2831&category=48&group=1 probably wouldn't have got much attention. Look how small that bird is! And its taken with an obviously unsharp 100-400mm! On a Canon crop body! On an ancient 30D no less. What the...?? Given some of the comments above, I'm surprised this bloke hasn't died of shame from owning such clearly inadequate gear. What were those judges thinking?

Anyways, have a look at how painters portray birds. Painters are interesting because the artist can pose and frame birds in any way imaginable - So they are free to choose the most aesthetically pleasing options. It is really interesting to ponder "Why did they choose to do that?". As one suggestion, John Audubon's Birds of America (http://www.lib.umich.edu/audubon-room/pictureit-rare-book-reader) is good to look at.


----------



## chasinglight (Jul 24, 2013)

Hillsilly said:


> Anyways, have a look at how painters portray birds. Painters are interesting because the artist can pose and frame birds in any way imaginable - So they are free to choose the most aesthetically pleasing options. It is really interesting to ponder "Why did they choose to do that?". As one suggestion, John Audubon's Birds of America (http://www.lib.umich.edu/audubon-room/pictureit-rare-book-reader) is good to look at.



Art inspires art! (Though I I don't think of myself as an artist..more of a chronographer) 

Your other advice is great too. If you think about it, if your goal is just to fill the frame with bird then your aim must be ultimate sharpness, but as you said if you step back an think about the whole scene, then you can achieve some stunning results as well. I recently photographed a great egret flying into the sunset. Unfortunately the bird is a little soft, but it still yeilded an interesting photograph. Ill try to post it when I get home.


----------



## Krob78 (Jul 24, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> My replies are in red.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sigh... :


----------



## Krob78 (Jul 24, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > 100-400mm is really irritating on the 7d too... (sarc., implied )
> ...


Sorry about that Alan, you're right! I apparently didn't check the focal length of the owl shot before uploading, I have plenty of 400mm examples that are of excellent sharpness to choose from as well. The image of the Cardinal above the Owl is at 400mm, with the same lens... 

When I first got my 100-400mm several years ago, I wasn't totally thrilled with the sharpness. After spending hours tweaking the MFA for that lens, I was blown away with excellent sharpness at both ends of the lens as well as the sweet spot around 200mm. Since then, the first thing I do with a new lens is MFA... Kind of a pita as it were, but totally worth it every time! 

Thanks for pointing out the focal length on that image, as we were discussing maximum focal length for the lens, not just overall quality and/or sharpness.. Additionally, I may point out that it was handheld as well. Yes, relatively close as the Owl flew and landed nearby me. Also, this is a cropped image. I was probably in the 75'- 85' range from the subject and eventually worked my way quite a bit closer... 

All the best,
Ken


----------



## jrista (Jul 24, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> My replies are in red.



I'm sorry, but I can't read all of that. The use of dark red text just makes separating what you are trying to say from what I said difficult, and not worth the effort.

On cursory read, you seem to be taking things I've said particularly personally. They aren't meant to be a personal attack, simply a dispute with your approach. I've already stated my opinion, and I no longer wish to disrupt the thread.


----------



## jrista (Jul 24, 2013)

chasinglight said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I'd say that is a good practice. If you are anything like me, you will know when your gear is holding you back. I also have the 100-400. I think the 7D is a fine camera, produces great IQ in most circumstances (which for my bird photography is usually in good to evening light, ISO 200 - 1600), and has great features that support bird photography. The 100-400, when properly tuned with AFMA, produces acceptably sharp images most of the time. It should be noted that at 400mm, f/7.1 tends to be the sharpest, while f/5.6 will be visibly soft. Before getting my new lens, I shot at f/7.1 almost exclusively, sometimes stopping down to f/8 and rarely opening up to f/6.3.
> ...



Are you using the older version of FoCal, or the newer version released a month ago (from the white, rather than black, site)? I had problems with the older FoCal...it definitely was inconsistent, which is why I tried the AF confirmation dot technique (which seemed to be fairly consistent, just wrong.) I've found that the newer FoCal, which supposedly has some rewritten core code, seems to be much more consistent. When I ran it on my 7D+600mm, it consistently gives me a +1 for a 30 foot distance, and 0 for a 60 foot distance. I've repeated the tests multiple times, and I get the same AFMA each time for those distances (which usually covers the range of distances my subjects tend to be at, with the exception of songbirds...but closer than 30 feet the lens always seems to resolve more than enough detail.)

If you haven't updated to the most recent version of FoCal, I would give it a whirl, see if you get more consistent results. Also, remember to use good light...test chart outside in direct sunlight is usually best.


----------

