Reading mode: Light Dark

40D gets close to a Scaly-breasted Munia

Go to last post
liquidstone said:
Not sure why you wish to test a 400 mm lens at 40-50 feet distance
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that 12 feet is a more typical camera to subject distance for use of a 400mm lens? Try that with a wild beast, BIF or creatures that are scared easily. Forget small birds for a moment and talk telephoto lenses in general and their typical usage.
liquidstone said:
As you can see, 400 mm won't get you anywhere near a frame filling capture
at 40-50 feet with small birds.
Click to expand...
So! Are telephoto lenses used only with small birds? Furthermore, frame filling is not a necessity provided there is enough detail to crop.
 
Lovely sharp detail especially the feather detail stunning regards Alan.
 
Derek Hawkins said:
Are you suggesting that 12 feet is a more typical camera to subject
distance for use of a 400mm lens?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I use my 400mm lens at distances under 20 feet most of the time.
Derek Hawkins said:
...frame filling is not a necessity provided there is enough detail to
crop.
Click to expand...
Of course...but the point is when you are focal length challenged there is never enough detail to crop.
 
bjs1 said:
Absolutely. I use my 400mm lens at distances under 20 feet most of the time.
Click to expand...
Yep, me too - or at least try to. If I can't get that close, I'm composing "birdscapes" instead.
bjs1 said:
Of course...but the point is when you are focal length challenged there is never enough detail to crop.
Click to expand...
Yep. A dot in the frame with a 400mm lens is rarely if ever going to turn into a worthwhile picture when cropped.
 
If uncropped (10.08 MP), I can probably print it as an environmental shot to 16"x24", or even 20"x30". However, if I crop it to my desired portrait composition (4.32 MP), I can only print it to about 12"x16" (given that I want my bird prints to be sharp even when viewed at 10").



Again, the size of the bird is about 4-1/4" from tip of tail to tip of bill, and the shooting distance is roughly 12 feet.
Derek Hawkins said:
Derek Hawkins said:
Not sure why you wish to test a 400 mm lens at 40-50 feet distance
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that 12 feet is a more typical camera to subject
distance for use of a 400mm lens? Try that with a wild beast, BIF or
creatures that are scared easily. Forget small birds for a moment and
talk telephoto lenses in general and their typical usage.
Derek Hawkins said:
As you can see, 400 mm won't get you anywhere near a frame filling capture
at 40-50 feet with small birds.
Click to expand...
So! Are telephoto lenses used only with small birds? Furthermore,
frame filling is not a necessity provided there is enough detail to
crop.
Click to expand...
I'm saying that you use the angle of view (AOV) appropriate for the size of the subject, the shooting distance, and the desired mode of composition. The AOV of course can be adjusted via lens length, sensor size/pixel density, cropping (akin to digital zooming), or any combination of these. Cropping is the worst method IMHO because it drastically reduces the print size potential of the capture.

Romy

--



http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone
http://www.romyocon.blogspot.com/
(Over 240 species captured in habitat, and counting.)
 
david31 said:
I'd be very intrested to see the unprocessed image. How much
sharpening did you apply here.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't have an unsharpened crop online.

In general, here are my sharpening approaches to my bird pics, including the posted shot:

1. I push sharpening until anomalies (artifacting, haloing, etc.) become unacceptable, then I back off a bit.

2. I use various "chisel sizes" in sharpening, very much like a carver's in hewing a piece of wood into a sculpture - large radius for large detail, fine radius for fine detail.

3. I seldom sharpen globally, preferring to sharpen locally. I only sharpen in-focus detail, so noise won't be sharpened in the OOF areas.

4. Depending on the subject and shot settings, I sharpen either in ACR during conversion, PS during processing or partly in both. This is to utilize the sharpening tools in each area (ACR or PS) which are optimal for the shot.

5. I sharpen differently for print (aggressive sharpening/less NR) and web display (aggressive NR, less sharpening).

Romy
--



http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone
http://www.romyocon.blogspot.com/
(Over 240 species captured in habitat, and counting.)
 
Thanks for the detailed info on how you perform sharpening. This is a skill I need to master to improve the end result from my photos.
 
--
Best regards, swnw.
 
Romy,

Indeed, I should remember not to evaluate exposure on my current (work) laptop, even though it is calibrated.

Your image looks terrific on my home monitor.

Cheers.

-- Rob
liquidstone said:
RJR said:
Romy,
Great image! You posed the bird nicely! :) Certainly could be a
magazine cover.

One question/suggestion. I'm looking on my laptop right now, but
bird is perhaps a touch overexposed? I'm wondering if it might have
even more "pop" with greater dynamic range.

-- Rob
Click to expand...
Hi Rob,

The original RAW was able to hem in the entire DR of the scene, and I
converted with a bit of space before the histogram hits the right
wall. During post processing, I allowed a few small spots to get hot
so I can get the levels/curves/contrast I want for the whole scene.

Romy

--



http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone
http://www.romyocon.blogspot.com/
(Over 240 species captured in habitat, and counting.)
Click to expand...
 
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