Reading mode: Light Dark

Tele question for the birders

Go to last post
Hi there Alan, thanks for sharing your expierence in this thread and I'm so happy for you, concerning the D200. I'm sure there are many members benifiting from all the great info this is producing, as many have bought the tele lens and may, like I, not learnt to use it to it's fullest and trying to do things without the backup expirence to achieve it. Here's the link and I would be grateful for your efforts in the pp department, as this is another area that can make and break a photo.

http://www.pbase.com/tocarver/image/66938161 ; I hope this is what you meant. This is almost a 3 mb file, but I'm sure your use to this and have a high speed connection. Looking forward to seeing the results.
--
Jerry
Sony p52, H-One, H-Five All asscessoy lenses
http://www.pbase.com/tocarver
 
LOL, R2, isn't it nice to be honest with another member and not be taken the wrong way ( Alan's struggle with that defective D200) Just imagine how us poor newbies feel when we don't even know enough to know somethings wrong and keep bashing our heads against the wall wondering " Is it me, Is it the camera, it's got to be me" I really wish I lived close to an expierenced H user, who could take my cams, check them out and come back and say, OK young fella, it's you and then I know for sure lol Thanks fo your insights R2
--
Jerry
Sony p52, H-One, H-Five All asscessoy lenses
http://www.pbase.com/tocarver
 
Jerry, the reason for lack of detail is simple.
You ran out of pixels.
It's not the lens, not the exposure, you just plain ran out of pixels.

In the image below (your original with my marks), the rectangle marked is just 351 X 289 pixels. The real question is: how can you show (literally) thousands of feathers in just 351 pixels? No amount of cropping is going to change the fact that you just don't have enough information to show the kind of detail you're looking for.



According to some rough calculations, you'd have to have, I don't know, 3-5 feathers -per pixel-!!! Your subject only occupies 1.4% of the available pixels. Just not enough to capture detail.

You just have to get closer to the subject with the H5 or pretty much any DSLR with a lens that costs less than $7-8,000!

Post-processing

Nonetheless, for what it got, the H-camera did pretty darn well in resolving the minimum pixels. I was able to recover some value in a relatively small crop (It might make it to 8X10 with a little up-resolution, but it's borderline)

I fixed the levels, color balanced it a little better. Did some noise reduction and then applied Smart Sharpen. I used Shay Stevens' Photoshop action to remove the fringing on some of the branches. When done, I brightened the catch-light in the bird's eye to give it more "life". The light was there, it was just really darkened down by the processing. I brought it up quite a bit.

This is the result. While far from perfect, it's probably the best you can hope for when cropping down to such a tiny subject relative to the frame.



The biggest problem I see in post is the over-sharpening in the original image (done in post-processing?). Unfortunately, that's not really fixable. There are halos (brighter lines) on the top and bottom of most of the branches. I used a little selective noise reduction to blur that a bit (I deselected the bird) but you just can't kill it. Now you know why "less is more" in sharpening! Sharpening should be the very last thing you do in processing an image.

In this blowup, you can clearly see the sharpening artifacts and lightening along the branches:



The only other thing this might be is some badly-removed fringing, plus sharpening. Did you remove purple fringe? Or is this just a tad too mush unsharp mask?

Oh well, hope this helps. My final advice: get closer!!! :-)

Seriously, no DSLR or fancy lens would have made this a better picture at this resolution and distance.

As I mentioned in another post, it's all about technique!

Keep working at it! If you get one or two good pictures out of 100, you're doing really well. Plus, failure is the best picture. Every day I thank heavens for the Recycle Bin!!! (LoL!!)
--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of the H-Series White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/h1whitepaper
 
Thanks so much Alan, yes I ran it through the hue/saturation way of removing pf and then usm and spot sharpen the bird, yes the original shows how far away the bird was. This really sets my mind at easy and will follow your advice about sharpning anf try to get closer. Thanks again for taking the time
--
Jerry
Sony p52, H-One, H-Five All asscessoy lenses
http://www.pbase.com/tocarver
 
AAK said:
One other issue. You assert that big glass brings in more light.
Really? To where? There is an aperture. An f/8 aperture is an f/8
aperture regardless of the lens. The big glass exists primarily to
allow wider apertures (f/2.8 vs. f/5.6, for instance).
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was speaking for visual astronomy here (probably not the best analogy, but I was mainly trying to get at the quality issue as well as the dubiousness of quoting field of view equivalents). From our side, we'd say "A 10-inch (aperture) telescope is a 10-inch telescope and will produce the same image at the same magnification whether it's built as an f/4 or an f/8". We don't have a fixed sensor or, in most cases, a variable aperture or focal length. But we vary the magnification by changing eyepieces.

In photography, I agree that the same settings on any f/8 lens should produce the same image brightness. That's true at all focal lengths and apertures. But you would only rarely use the H1 at f/8. Why? I imagine it's because at that small true aperture (a veritable pinhole at wide-angle) diffraction doesn't allow the lens to "out-resolve the sensor" as you put it in the other thread.

The
AAK said:
$9000 Nikkor 600mm f/4 is so large (ten pounds, 6" diameter) ust to
deliver f/4 to the sensor. And f/4 is f/4 is f/4. The glass is not
huge for reasons of brightness, but in order to capture f/4 light
at 600 millimeters. The light drop off from its focal distance is
substantial.
Click to expand...
Same difference, as they say... It's also not trying to illuminate just any sensor, but a larger one. And not just illuminate it, but deliver a decent image at the edges. Just let a subject stray too close to the edge of the H1+1758 frame (especially if you'll be cropping or printing large) to see the difficulty of producing sharp, color-free images right out to the edge.
AAK said:
My point is that the smaller lens that delivers a smaller cone of
light to a smaller sensor can, theoretically, be just a crisp and
sharp as a high-end lens.
Click to expand...
But both the lens and the sensor had better be up to it. In practice, you'd want more pixels for better resolution. Jerry's Kestrel that started this thing would cover more pixels and you'd be able to see more detail. If you try to cram those pixels into a small sensor, you get more noise in the sensors being used now. So, you either work on in-camera noise reduction (admittedly decent in the H2/H5) or put the pixels on a larger sensor. But if you make the sensor larger, then you need a larger lens to fully illuminate it at a reasonably wide aperture. Sort of a vicious cycle that leads to your $9000 prime.
AAK said:
But, you need to understand that a camera that costs less then $500
retail is not going to have the same quality glass, ground to the
same specifications as a $9000 prime lens.
Click to expand...
Hopefully, everyone understands this.
AAK said:
--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of the H-Series White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/h1whitepaper
Click to expand...
--
Wes Stone
Chiloquin, OR
http://skytour.homestead.com
 
AAK said:
Oh well, hope this helps. My final advice: get closer!!! :-)

Seriously, no DSLR or fancy lens would have made this a better
picture at this resolution and distance.

As I mentioned in another post, it's all about technique!
Click to expand...
Or, as I'd put it, all about the bird. If the bird cooperates, it allows you to get closer get a reasonable exposure and put everything you've learned from experience (and from AAK's White Paper) into use.

This may not be one for the frame, but it's a shot of a cool moment (a Kestrel with its prey) that just happened to be too far away. It's a keeper for that reason, at least until you get one to pose for you 10-15 feet away.

A lot of birders use digiscoping to get the bird to cover more pixels from an extreme distance. I've seen some results that were perfectly stunning, and many that showed pretty objectionable artifacts (mainly chromatic aberration from using a less-than-top-line spotting scope or from mis-aligning the camera). It's pretty much the standard among the birding community when a bird MUST be identified from long distance. But the H-series are a lot more versatile, portable, cheaper, and most importantly more FUN.

As far as a birding tool, I think my 8x56 binoculars out-resolve the H1 at least at mid-range. On the other hand, having a permanent photographic record of a bird to peruse at my leisure is the ultimate "image stabilization".
AAK said:
Keep working at it! If you get one or two good pictures out of 100,
you're doing really well. Plus, failure is the best picture. Every
day I thank heavens for the Recycle Bin!!! (LoL!!)
Click to expand...
Some days you'll do a lot better. Some days, unfortunately, worse. But maybe this thread in the end will serve to firm up expectations.

--
Wes Stone
Chiloquin, OR
http://wesweb.homestead.com/birdpix.html
 
No joke. Many serious birders use a blind to hide their movement from the birds. Sound doesn't seem to faze them, and light (such as a flash) generally goes unnoticed.

But movement scares the heck out of them, so they flee.

A good birder cases the bird, learns its timing and habits and then sets up some kind of blind so you can get close.

Someone on this forum who produced remarkable bird shots did so with a black blanket wrapped around himself and his camera at an open window. He got great closeups.

Or, you can get a DSLR with an $8000 birding lens!! :-)
Or, even more likely, do both: the lens and the blind!
--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of the H-Series White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/h1whitepaper
 
Alan,

There's no doubt that blinds are invaluable tools for photographers where they're practical and allowed. I'm going to try to set up one near my feeders this winter, and may even try to rig up some sort of a temporary structure to carry on short hikes. There are some nice permanent blinds at some wildlife refuges as well, but a lot of them aren't in great locations.

But all in all, I'm still more of a birder than a photographer, and my usual goal is to cover several different habitats and see as many birds as possible. The compact, image-stabilized nature of the H1 allows me to take a camera along as well and get some decent shots when I snap into photography mode. Carrying extra stuff just gets in the way of having fun.

Thanks for the suggestion.

--
Wes Stone
Chiloquin, OR
http://wesweb.homestead.com/birdpix.html
AAK said:
No joke. Many serious birders use a blind to hide their movement
from the birds. Sound doesn't seem to faze them, and light (such as
a flash) generally goes unnoticed.

But movement scares the heck out of them, so they flee.

A good birder cases the bird, learns its timing and habits and then
sets up some kind of blind so you can get close.

Someone on this forum who produced remarkable bird shots did so
with a black blanket wrapped around himself and his camera at an
open window. He got great closeups.

Or, you can get a DSLR with an $8000 birding lens!! :-)
Or, even more likely, do both: the lens and the blind!
--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of the H-Series White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/h1whitepaper
Click to expand...
 
AAK said:
No joke. Many serious birders use a blind to hide their movement
from the birds. Sound doesn't seem to faze them, and light (such as
a flash) generally goes unnoticed.

But movement scares the heck out of them, so they flee.

A good birder cases the bird, learns its timing and habits and then
sets up some kind of blind so you can get close.

Someone on this forum who produced remarkable bird shots did so
with a black blanket wrapped around himself and his camera at an
open window. He got great closeups.

Or, you can get a DSLR with an $8000 birding lens!! :-)
Or, even more likely, do both: the lens and the blind!
--
=~ AAK - http://www.aakatz.com
=~ Author of the H-Series White Paper
=~ http://www.aakatz.com/h1whitepaper
Click to expand...
Wes, Alan & others, here is a cheap Blind I bought 3 years ago for Bowhunting Turkeys. I have started using it for my Bird shots and the birds are oblivious to it, even had a Turkey stick his head in the little window once! Its very easy to backpack and weigh's around 10 lbs. Deer are wary of it though. Anyway it takes me around maybe 2 minutes to set up and take down and if I remember right it was around $60.00.
Dave





--
Sony H-1 & VCL-DH 1758
Just wanting to Learn
Proud to be a Member of the STF
http://photobucket.com/albums/e208/Mobuck/
 
LOL. now I KNOW I'm in trouble lol Dave there'll be no catching you now. What's neat is ya can set it up so quick and it's so portable. Thanks for the tip and the photos.
--
Jerry
Sony p52, H-One, H-Five All asscessoy lenses
http://www.pbase.com/tocarver
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top