Experienced Feedback Please?

[Nicks Pics]

Thank you all for your good ideas and suggestions. I suppose part of the issue is that these types of critters are so small and tiny. You must need to be twice as close to a critter twice as small as a larger one to get the same sized shot of it. I suspect I would need shorter reach to photograph larger animals, but then, to some extent larger animals will have relatively farther comfort distances, so it's somewhat of a trade-off. All of these shots by the way are just made while walking around my house/neighborhood, no great strategies involved. So what to do? Get closer to try to eliminate distance and lens softness? Or should I upgrade to a 300 mm SLR lens? (If that would be an upgrade) I am not planning to put big money into photography just as a hobby.

Dave, in regard to sharpening and noise reduction, I find it hard to eliminate the noise without obliterating the details in images like these. I'm not satisfied with LR noise reduction, and have tried Neat image, and GIMP, all do about the same!

In regard to the aspect ratios and magnification, the only way I know how to conceptualize magnification is decreased FOV. So I am confused how they can accurately measure equivalent field of view between two cameras that don't have the same field of view at any length. Which of the examples above would be the result of a 1200 mm lens on an FF SLR? The rabbit picture is SLR and the bird is point and shoot. It would not look just like the bird because the SLR wouldn't produce a 3x2 image, but it might either produce an image like the first example, in which scenario the point and shoot really would be getting even smaller FOV than a 1200 mm lens on a FF camera would produce, or it would produce an image like the second example, in which case the point and shoot is really getting more FOV than an SLR would get when used with a 1200 mm lens, giving the appearance of less magnification. Wouldn't it depend on which dimension you base the sensor size on? Or could it be just in between the two?

[Stagecoach]

Nick, Perhaps your first objective is to learn exactly what you can achieve with that camera and in doing that you will then be in a position to analyse each image yourself and determine why those results have been obtained.

Set yourself strict criteria, as an example from my gear all I want is to produce a 1400px wide image for screen viewing that has IQ acceptable to me. I know that replacing my camera/lens with ones costing far more is going to give better IQ at a far greater size but I don't need that, it will not make my photography more enjoyable.

If you can not achieve your criteria objectives you have two options, accept it or not.

I think you are confusing magnification, field of view and aspect ratio. Think of the subject, say a 100mm high bird and what happens to it when shot from the same position using various Focal lengths.

[Nicks Pics]

Nick, Perhaps your first objective is to learn exactly what you can achieve with that camera and in doing that you will then be in a position to analyse each image yourself and determine why those results have been obtained.

Set yourself strict criteria, as an example from my gear all I want is to produce a 1400px wide image for screen viewing that has IQ acceptable to me. I know that replacing my camera/lens with ones costing far more is going to give better IQ at a far greater size but I don't need that, it will not make my photography more enjoyable.

If you can not achieve your criteria objectives you have two options, accept it or not.

I think you are confusing magnification, field of view and aspect ratio. Think of the subject, say a 100mm high bird and what happens to it when shot from the same position using various Focal lengths.

Thanks for your reply. You are right, if I know what is the objective with my photos then I will know whether I am achieving it or if I'm not. If only I had a point for my photography (punn)

I have had my current bird camera for a while now and am still getting to know it better.

I'm not sure if I'm getting magnification and field of view confused, or not, maybe thinking about it too hard, but I am curious.

[GeoBonsai]

Nick: Your images are great. A little post processing would sharpen things up, if that's what you really want. Else, you could opt to tone everything down and make your images more soft, watercolor-like to emphasize the composition and the subjects' expressions. There are plenty of outstanding images out there that are out of focus or fuzzy. For example, check out what dawn_ds CLICK HERE does with her images.

Okay, that said ...

Manfred stated:

3. Equipment limitations - While a lot of people will tell you it's the photographer, not the camera that creates great images, there is some truth to that, BUT not if you are getting into the extreme type of shooting you are. A superzoom lens with a 50x zoom factors will have a lot of design tradeoffs made to get you that much magnification. This usually means you have to live with a degree of distortion, some aberrations and some level of softness. I expect that some of the softness you are seeing is due to the lens itself.

I agree with Manfred's point number 3 (quoted above).

If your subject was anything other than bird/wildlife, I would blame technique for fuzzy, soft, out-of-focus results; but, as Manfred stated, that extreme type of shooting can be affected by equipment limitations.

IMO, in this case, it's equipment limitations.

Successfully shooting birds/wildlife in focus and sharp requires some pretty heavy and expensive gear. For example, one of my favorite bird photographers, Jerry Ting, shoots with a Nikon D7100 (about $900 US) and a 400mm (about $10,000 US / about 3800 g (8.38 lb)) lens. There are less expensive, somewhat lighter-weight lenses with shorter focal lengths that can be extended by adding a conversion lens, but all-in-all we're talking about heavy weight and costs. And, don't forget, if you can't hand-hold the gear, you'll need a heavy-duty tripod, which is another expense and added weight.

That said, don't let any of that stop you from realizing your goal!

Here's a link to Jerry Ting's CLICK HERE flickr photostream to inspire you to go forward by all means!

[Nicks Pics]

Nick: Your images are great. A little post processing would sharpen things up, if that's what you really want. Else, you could opt to tone everything down and make your images more soft, watercolor-like to emphasize the composition and the subjects' expressions. There are plenty of outstanding images out there that are out of focus or fuzzy. For example, check out what dawn_ds CLICK HERE does with her images.

Okay, that said ...



I agree with Manfred's point number 3 (quoted above).

If your subject was anything other than bird/wildlife, I would blame technique for fuzzy, soft, out-of-focus results; but, as Manfred stated, that extreme type of shooting can be affected by equipment limitations.

IMO, in this case, it's equipment limitations.

Successfully shooting birds/wildlife in focus and sharp requires some pretty heavy and expensive gear. For example, one of my favorite bird photographers, Jerry Ting, shoots with a Nikon D7100 (about $900 US) and a 400mm (about $10,000 US / about 3800 g (8.38 lb)) lens. There are less expensive, somewhat lighter-weight lenses with shorter focal lengths that can be extended by adding a conversion lens, but all-in-all we're talking about heavy weight and costs. And, don't forget, if you can't hand-hold the gear, you'll need a heavy-duty tripod, which is another expense and added weight.

That said, don't let any of that stop you from realizing your goal!

Here's a link to Jerry Ting's CLICK HERE flickr photostream to inspire you to go forward by all means!

Thank you Geri for your nice reply. In a way it makes me feel better that you think my quality limitations are due to my gear, (which means I might be doing things right anyway) , but also, after seeing some of the dawn ds images you liked to I can see there might be some good even in a camera that take clear pictures correctly

[jcuknz]

My initial reaction was he could use his editor better but even sharpening and my simple 'one step photo fix' didn't do that much ....others have made their good suggestions.

Plus a bit of trickery in adding the catchlight and presentation with the border.

The 'equivalent focal length' doesn't change much with the difference between APS-C and other cameras because while the APS-C is x1.6 or x1.5 of a full frame camera, the bridge camera is x5.5 or something similar, and Micro four thirds is x2 so a '50mm equivalent' gives the same view with all except the APS-C is a bit wider.
It is an approximation based on what the 50mm would give on the film SLR 35mm or full frame digital.
EDIT ...
I see from EXIF that you were using 1/200 for two of the shots and with that long zoom that is just not on ... shutter speed should be 1/focal length [ not actual as EXIF reads but effective/equivalent ] with very careful hand holding and I'm guessing 212mm x 5.5 = 1166mm ... you were lucky to get anything even reasonably acceptable just on that count alone.
But with the red bird you used 1/500 which perhaps with OIS to help was reasonable and again doing the same in editing I got a quite acceptable result....


EDIT 2 Looking at the specs of your camera I see it is a 1200 zoom and I'd suggest from a hand holding point of view you use the continuous drive briefly and pick the best result from perhaps half a second burst ... the other alternative is the 2 second delay but I find the wait horrible

[Brownbear]

Hi Nick,

You've received some wonderful advice.

Just to say that I find using a faster shutter speed is very helpful for sharp focus when hand holding. I have some shots from my old Sony Alpha 200 that are sharp at 100% when I managed to get close enough (of course, these images are softer with less detail than my Nikon D7100 and 300 mm lens), but sharper than some of my eagle shots taken with the 1.7 extender on my 300 mm lens (challenges focusing in low light, hard to hold with steady hands).

To this day I still manage to take images that could be sharper, or show motion blur even with my quality Nikon/300 mm lens, almost always the case because the light was so low it necessitated high ISOs which I didn't wish to push any higher, typically at f/4, so my only option without the use of flash, is too, slow shutter speeds for hand held shots of wildlife. So a slow shutter speed in low light with your bridge camera is likely double/triple the challenge.

[Nicks Pics]

My initial reaction was he could use his editor better but even sharpening and my simple 'one step photo fix' didn't do that much ....others have made their good suggestions.

Plus a bit of trickery in adding the catchlight and presentation with the border.

The 'equivalent focal length' doesn't change much with the difference between APS-C and other cameras because while the APS-C is x1.6 or x1.5 of a full frame camera, the bridge camera is x5.5 or something similar, and Micro four thirds is x2 so a '50mm equivalent' gives the same view with all except the APS-C is a bit wider.
It is an approximation based on what the 50mm would give on the film SLR 35mm or full frame digital.
EDIT ...
I see from EXIF that you were using 1/200 for two of the shots and with that long zoom that is just not on ... shutter speed should be 1/focal length [ not actual as EXIF reads but effective/equivalent ] with very careful hand holding and I'm guessing 212mm x 5.5 = 1166mm ... you were lucky to get anything even reasonably acceptable just on that count alone.
But with the red bird you used 1/500 which perhaps with OIS to help was reasonable and again doing the same in editing I got a quite acceptable result....


EDIT 2 Looking at the specs of your camera I see it is a 1200 zoom and I'd suggest from a hand holding point of view you use the continuous drive briefly and pick the best result from perhaps half a second burst ... the other alternative is the 2 second delay but I find the wait horrible

Hi John, I may do some experimenting to test faster shutter speeds and how they affect the sharpness, but if that is the problem I can conclude that I have run into limitations as I know I would usually need to raise ISO above a decent level of quality to do so, which I why I use slow shutter speeds on purpose. I did not edit these at all since I was trying to show how the original files look.

[Nicks Pics]

Hi Nick,

You've received some wonderful advice.

Just to say that I find using a faster shutter speed is very helpful for sharp focus when hand holding. I have some shots from my old Sony Alpha 200 that are sharp at 100% when I managed to get close enough (of course, these images are softer with less detail than my Nikon D7100 and 300 mm lens), but sharper than some of my eagle shots taken with the 1.7 extender on my 300 mm lens (challenges focusing in low light, hard to hold with steady hands).

To this day I still manage to take images that could be sharper, or show motion blur even with my quality Nikon/300 mm lens, almost always the case because the light was so low it necessitated high ISOs which I didn't wish to push any higher, typically at f/4, so my only option without the use of flash, is too, slow shutter speeds for hand held shots of wildlife. So a slow shutter speed in low light with your bridge camera is likely double/triple the challenge.

Thanks for the reply. I plan to do some testing with higher shutter speeds, or using support to eliminate potential camera shake, but yes, using lower shutter speed and ISO make for better quality than higher settings, if it were not for the potential of blur, so I have used slower shutter speeds than one would usually want sometimes as a strategy.

[jcuknz]

Nick .. it is worth remembering the way of deliberately letting the camera under exposure one stop or even two stops in the field to get that higher shutter speed and then using levels or curves in your editor to lighten the result ... modern bridge cameras are better at handling higher ISO than those I used and I rarely went above 100 ISO.

My personal choice since I like the concept of the bridge camera was to get a MFT and the 14-140 lens so I have a 'large sensor' bridge camera ... though in doing that I sacrificed the 950 reach of my x12 bridge and tele-adapter for only 280 but gained higher ISO use ... up to 6400 ISO so far ... and my design dates from about the same as your camera [released 2013].

My MFT has numerous control knobs on the outside and is all but a DSLR except it doesn't have a mirror so I have joined the DSLR ranks though I don't like to admit that [ GH2 ]

[Nicks Pics]

Thanks, John, I sometimes under expose a little in the field in certain situations. It may be a valid technique for some occasions.

I have a lot of theory on bridge cameras, zoom, and sensor sizes, but I will save most of it for now Except that generally I agree with you that for the quality-oriented users larger sensor and less zoom may be a good idea to some extent.

[Brev00]

If I get your post right, you are cropping heavily with no pp whatsoever. Cropping, I believe, magnifies the flaws in an image. Since you have done nothing to improve the flaws, it is the flaws we all see. Sharing in this way, you seem to be saying you have very high expectations for perfection that are not being met. What I like to see, on the other hand, is first the original image to see the way the cropped area looks in context and in full, normal view. Extracting a tiny portion of an overall scene and laying it out for examination is going to make one wish one bought some more expensive gear. I would rather do the opposite of what you have done. Process the image fully to the best you can do, then share the full size of the image. Then we could magnify to make our points about improving the quality. Even without seeing the crops, just looking at your exif, I think most would recommend a higher shutter speed for the squirrel shots. Getting closer is always spot on if it can be accomplished. Having a max zoom that is so great might make one rely on it instead of improving one's field craft (stalking). I think the advice above to get a good feel for the quality of your lens at different focal lengths and apertures is excellent. From my point of view, the most important thing is to relax on the cropping and the zooming. The more you zoom out and then the more you crop on top of all that zooming, the more dissatisfied you will be, and the sooner you will be getting a D750 and 600mm lens.

[Nicks Pics]

Thanks to everyone for your input. Following the discussion I did try shooting (on similar subjects) using different apertures, (from those options available with this camera) and higher shutter speeds, and shooting from closer range. Frankly I cannot really tell any difference (so far) in sharpness using different aperture settings. I can't see a very consistent improvement in sharpness when using faster shutter speeds either. As for the lens, when i get closer to the subject and use a little more moderate zoom, I could always zoom in farther from even a closer distance, and the closer I zoom in, the more detail I get because I get more pixels on the subject. The lens doesn't seem to be much, if any sharper at moderate zoom distances than full zoom, in what field tests I've recently done.

If I get your post right, you are cropping heavily with no pp whatsoever. Cropping, I believe, magnifies the flaws in an image. Since you have done nothing to improve the flaws, it is the flaws we all see. Sharing in this way, you seem to be saying you have very high expectations for perfection that are not being met. What I like to see, on the other hand, is first the original image to see the way the cropped area looks in context and in full, normal view. Extracting a tiny portion of an overall scene and laying it out for examination is going to make one wish one bought some more expensive gear. I would rather do the opposite of what you have done. Process the image fully to the best you can do, then share the full size of the image. Then we could magnify to make our points about improving the quality. Even without seeing the crops, just looking at your exif, I think most would recommend a higher shutter speed for the squirrel shots. Getting closer is always spot on if it can be accomplished. Having a max zoom that is so great might make one rely on it instead of improving one's field craft (stalking). I think the advice above to get a good feel for the quality of your lens at different focal lengths and apertures is excellent. From my point of view, the most important thing is to relax on the cropping and the zooming. The more you zoom out and then the more you crop on top of all that zooming, the more dissatisfied you will be, and the sooner you will be getting a D750 and 600mm lens.

You are very much right that small crops of un-processed photos show the imperfections of the photos, and not it's most potential, that is in fact, why I posted them that way so that people could better view the photos in original form and identify what are the issues. For instance, when you look at buying a camera, and view tiny sharpened 500 pixel jpegs you really don't get a good idea of what the photos from that camera look like. So I wanted to allow people to see what my photos are looking like so that they could give suggestions as to the cause of the quality issues.

[Brev00]

What I think would help me would be if I could see the original size of the picture. That, for me, is the way I like to view quality. When I am trying to adjust and enhance an image, I will blow it up for sure, but to see just the blown up part is deceiving. I have seen instances where the 200x crop does not look like much but the image looks just fine at full view. If one blows up an image to 200x, excises a crop, and then views it to evaluate quality . . . well, that seems like more an exercise in frustration than anything else. So, if you could post the cardinal picture full size, that would at least humor me.

You also said in the above post that the closer you zoom in, the more pixels you get on the subject. This may be true but that does not mean it will give you the most resolution. If your zoom is at its weakest zoomed out, you might very well do better zooming back and get fewer pixels on a sweeter part of your lens, then applying a mild crop to compensate. Doing a lens test where you compare resolution at different focal lengths might be very helpful.

[Nicks Pics]

What I think would help me would be if I could see the original size of the picture. That, for me, is the way I like to view quality. When I am trying to adjust and enhance an image, I will blow it up for sure, but to see just the blown up part is deceiving. I have seen instances where the 200x crop does not look like much but the image looks just fine at full view. If one blows up an image to 200x, excises a crop, and then views it to evaluate quality . . . well, that seems like more an exercise in frustration than anything else. So, if you could post the cardinal picture full size, that would at least humor me.

You also said in the above post that the closer you zoom in, the more pixels you get on the subject. This may be true but that does not mean it will give you the most resolution. If your zoom is at its weakest zoomed out, you might very well do better zooming back and get fewer pixels on a sweeter part of your lens, then applying a mild crop to compensate. Doing a lens test where you compare resolution at different focal lengths might be very helpful.

I see your point that the quality of the original doesn't really matter, as much as the quality of the finished product. So, though I haven't processed, cropped, and downsized a version of the cardinal, but here is one of the squirrel that I have. Also, here is the original of the cardinal, not processed, except perhaps some automatic sharpening, and converted to jpeg, un-cropped, yes, I actually shot this one in portrait orientation.

I suppose theoretically it could be with some lenses that using less zoom but the best part of the lens could get you better results, but I have shot chipmunks at the full zoom, and chipmunks at modest zoom, and really haven't found that the latter were any sharper, or have better resolution.

[mrinmoyvk]

Though I am not experienced, here are my inputs. For 50x zoom on a bridge camera without a tripod, I must say the images are very good. Some PP required in terms of contrast+, Saturation+, Clarity+ & Shadows-

[Brev00]

You actually filled the frame rather well with the cardinal shot. I thought you might be cropping more heavily. Considering it is pretty much unedited, I think you have a lot to work with. Nice color contrast between the bird and its surroundings. I think you might be losing contrast zooming out this far but you probably can enhance that with pp. It is not razor sharp but I am not sure what to expect without going for very expensive wildlife gear.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Nick,

I appreciate the initial shots were 100% unprocessed to show the captures - and they were as I have experienced with my own shooting with such cameras. I shoot for web, so I am not discussing printing here.

I have a rule of thumb that I apply; when cropping ALWAYS allow for a reduction (downsize) of at least 2:1, preferably closer to 3:1. Bear in mind that for web use, I am aiming for a finished image that is no more than 1000 px in height - and the width can be up to say, 1600px.

So if I were to shoot that (uncropped) view of the cardinal, say with my 24 MP D7100, which gives easy to calculate 6000 x 4000 pics, since you were portrait oriented; I would only crop so far that I had 3000h x 2000w, or at worst; 2000h x 1333w. That allows me to downsize to 1000h x 666w for a maximum useful size image.

However, if the desired composition required more of a crop than to 2000h x 1333w, I might still do it, to say 1500h x 1000w, but I would still apply a 2:1 downsizing, resulting in a smaller finished image, of 750h x 500w.

The major point is that I found, initially with my Fuji bridge camera, but also with my D5000 and D7100 and also the Nikon P510 (another bridge camera), that the downsizing, which reduces noise and allows subsequent (fine radius) output sharpening, is the key to presenting a half decent quality images here.

However, there is no arguing that we really do need to 'get closer', so if you're just shooting "while walking around my house/neighborhood, no great strategies involved" then I'm afraid you're not prioritising the correct skill set. I didn't when I started either!

As others have said, patience is necessary - don't "walk around", go somewhere, then sit/stand quietly for 30 minutes and see what appears. Ideally hiding your human shape, no sudden moves, clothing that suits the terrain, etc.

Hope that helps, Dave

[Nicks Pics]

Thanks Mrinomy, and Larry, I guess it's true that for with photos like these, I am getting pretty good bang for the buck, so to speak, compared to very much more expensive gear. It would be illogical to think that it should be just as good, but for the convenience, versatility, and as-good-as-to-be expected quality it is nice. I shoot distant birds with it, then go shoot scenery panoramas, and it it very easy to carry.

Dave, you're right, it generally helps to downsize, which doesn't say that the pictures get technically "better" by doing so, but for practical purposes you can take it into some consideration knowing that most pictures aren't used at full res. In regard to field craft, yes the critters were shot in my neighborhood, but I know of a few places around where to find them, so I do use a little intention with my photography Could always use more though when I have the opportunity, since it's fun.