focus question

i am having trouble getting sharp images with my new lense at longer distances and sometimes close as well. with a 100-400 should my images still be tack sharp even if the subject is out 5 or 600 feet away ? i have the shutter speed up high enough i think with plenty of light and i use center focus point only. with the shutter speed as high as it was (1/640) should i have turned the IS off ? quite a few people have told me to invest in glass and not so much in the camera body but im a bit envyous of all the pics i see on here and i cant even get close to the quality you guys get. here are the 3 best of 122 pics i took last friday. unedited and uncropped. i thought i was doing everything right , but apparently not lol.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7443/1...935b708f_b.jpg
IMG_3463-2 by sedwards679, on Flickr
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3710/1...625d9318_b.jpg
IMG_3449-2 by sedwards679, on Flickr
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3790/1...0cb1a997_b.jpg
IMG_3434-2 by sedwards679, on Flickr

Hi Stuart,

First of all, I think those are some pretty nice shots. I would say that 1/640th sec may not be fast enough to stop motion on shots like #2. You probably would want something 1/1000 to 1/1500 sec. For example, for birds in flight, you typically want a minimum of 1/1000 sec. Sometimes I stray to slower shutter speeds myself, but I can almost always see a loss in detail when I do.

Regarding the distance, 500-600 ft is pretty far. #1 looks pretty sharp to my eye. #3 may be a little far out. I would not expect to capture significant detail on the deer at that distance. This gets down to resolving power of your camera and 5184 by 3456 will only resolve an area of 6 ft by 4 ft to 70 pixels per inch (ppi). Granted, that term is used most often in printing, but I sometimes find it useful to think in those terms when framing a shot. Magazines tend to print at 300 ppi. The human eye can typically resolve 70 to 150 ppi. So to get the sharp detail on a specific subject, the most you can fill your frame with is 6 ft by 4 ft. To get the magazine quality 300 ppi, it is 17.3" by 11.5". Of course landscapes, etc, are taken of much much greater cross-sections in the frame, but you won't be able to zoom in and get detail on a specific rock or tree.

That may be a too detailed tanget. Lighting, contrast, and post processing (typically sharpening/clarity in LR) can also help the perceived sharpness of an image.

I hope any of that helps.

Good luck,
Brant

Stuart -

Your results are pretty good, for what is actually a rather difficult photo scenario. The long distance to the deer means that any camera movement will be highly magnified. I looked closely at the full-size images on your Flickr page and I think the blur in photo #3 is camera movement, rather than focus. Even with IS, you can benefit from using a tripod, or a beanbag if you're inside the car. In the first shot I think you did everything right and the focus is fine. The image is just suffering a bit from the limitations of resolution, as Brant described. Image #2 would be a shutter speed issue for sure, also as Brant pointed out. I'd say you're right on track with this. I can't tell you how many times I've come home from a wildlife shoot with a card full of photos, thinking it all worked out great, only to end up deleting just about all of them.

In summary, welcome to the joyous and frustrating world of wildlife photography! It is incredibly fun and painfully difficult at the same time. There is never enough light, the animal won't stay put, it's too far away, and most often you only have seconds to get the shot. This is why when it does work out, and you get the shot you were hoping for, you will be the happiest guy on earth. Keep it up, and keep them coming!

Brant and Jonathan covered it very well. A faster shutter speed would have most likely helped. A tripod would have helped as well.

The lens you have can take very sharp pictures. You will have several advantages with more expensive glass. One will be a wider aperture will allow you to have a faster shutter speed. It keeps you shooting longer as evening rolls in as well. Another will be resolution, the big white lenses are much sharper, but you shouldn't notice this very much on your computer screen looking at it at its normal size. It is when you start to zoom in to the picture and pixel peep and crop that you will see it. This is a stick and stone way of judging but the way I judge the sharpness of an individual picture is when I am reviewing with adobe bridge I zoom in. 100x 200x 300x and so on. The difference I found between the 100-400mm and say my 500mm is that I could zoom to 100x sometimes 200x with the 100-400 but could go quite often to 300x and 400x with the 500mm. So with the big white lenses they will allow you to crop your image more than you will be able to with your 100-400.

So speed and cropping are two of the benefits. But you should still be able to get sharp pictures out of your 100-400.

Stuart,

You already have been given a good analysis and advice. To sum up : you must "zoom in with your feet".....get much closer. For example, most of my bird pictures are taken from 20-30 feet or closer. This results in more pixels on the main subject and consequently more detail in the image. I doubt if any lens in Canon's line up will give great details on a deer from 600 feet. The challenge with wildlife is figuring out how to get close to them or how to get them to get closer to you

Joel is right, and I would recommend a good Ghillie Suit in this situation however this situation I think it was a lost cause, they are already on to you.

A comparison shot for you, this shot was taken about 600' maybe a bit more with the 5D II. I think this was four years ago. 1/1000, ISO 100 at f/5.6.
If I had the same shot today I would have the ISO 200-400 and went with f/4.5 and a shutter of 1/2000. The shot would have been much better. We live and learn.
On your first photo this would have been similar to cropping out the middle deer. A very similar FOV.

http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1277/5...6ba8bf5b_z.jpg
KansasBuck1 by hdnitehawk01, on Flickr

As a side note, another approach to dealing with wildlife that are far away is to change your 'big lens' mindset and go for the wider angle view. Encompassing a larger amount of the scenery can make the picture very compelling and engaging. This isn't the best example but it gives you an idea... I used my 70-200 lens here.

http://www.huyerperspectives.com/Nat...1E8A6905-L.jpg

Stuart....I found w/the 100-400 (with 7D) that the brighter you have the subject, the 100-400 AF will become faster and sharper, increase your ISO while balancing shutter and f-stop needs.

Also, as suggested; try to "zoom w/your feet"...the closer to the subject, the sharper the image will become and less enlargement of the cropped photo is needed. e.g. I won't shoot eagles more than 70 yards away w/my 500mm.

I found the learning curve w/the 100-400 a little larger than w/any of my other lenses. Suggestion; don't hesitate to use it (set at 100mm) for long landscapes and panos....I found it to be excellent for this type of shooting also.

Good luck
Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan Huyer

As a side note, another approach to dealing with wildlife that are far away is to change your 'big lens' mindset and go for the wider angle view. Encompassing a larger amount of the scenery can make the picture very compelling and engaging. This isn't the best example but it gives you an idea... I used my 70-200 lens here.

http://www.huyerperspectives.com/Nat...1E8A6905-L.jpg

---

Beautiful Shot

Stuart,

One more warning with the cold weather is to be careful if you ever shoot out the car window. Cold ambient plus a hot car can can equal heat waves and ruin your image's resolution.

Dave

thanks for all the pointers guys ! i thought i had the shutterspeed high enough because the lens has IS. those shots were also from inside the truck and it was nasty cold that day. i did notice heat waves but didnt think the would show up in the camera. Brant mentioned sharpening in lightroom , ive tried that and dabbled with noise reduction and honestly i suck at it lol. i will try to get closer next time as long as it isnt -30* .

IS won't stop subject motion, and running animals can be fast! I have shot where I was panning with our dog, and you can see the dog sharp due to panning, but the grass around her was blurred. If I hadn't been panning, it would have been sharp grass, and a blurry dog. These were at 1/1600 and 1/2000.

wow! i would have thought 1/2000 would freeze just about anything. lots to learn still lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

IS won't stop subject motion, and running animals can be fast! I have shot where I was panning with our dog, and you can see the dog sharp due to panning, but the grass around her was blurred. If I hadn't been panning, it would have been sharp grass, and a blurry dog. These were at 1/1600 and 1/2000.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sedwards

wow! i would have thought 1/2000 would freeze just about anything. lots to learn still lol.

---

Even 1/8000 won't freeze hummingbird wings, for example. That often takes faster than 1/20,000 s, which is achieved by Speedlites on low power (1/128 power has a duration faster than 1/30,000 s), usually a group of flashes for sufficient light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sedwards

thanks for all the pointers guys ! i thought i had the shutterspeed high enough because the lens has IS. those shots were also from inside the truck and it was nasty cold that day. i did notice heat waves but didnt think the would show up in the camera. Brant mentioned sharpening in lightroom , ive tried that and dabbled with noise reduction and honestly i suck at it lol. i will try to get closer next time as long as it isnt -30* .

---

Ask the land owner if you can place some deer feed about 20-30 yards from the road:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joel Eade

Ask the land owner if you can place some deer feed about 20-30 yards from the road:)

---

Make sure you specify what kind of shooting you intend on doing, though... ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sedwards

I thought i had the shutter speed high enough because the lens has IS.

---

I'd argue that the statement above is almost nullified by the statement below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sedwards

Those shots were also from inside the truck and it was nasty cold that day.

---

With a "white-box" camera, and a 100-400 zoomed in max, you're looking at an EFL of 640mm, so the classic rule of thumb (non-IS) says you'd need at least 1/640th shutter speed. According to Bryan's review, the IS unit in the 100-400 is good for two stops, so you could perhaps assume 1/160th is enough. However, a cup of coffee could knock 1-2 stops off your steadiness, and I'd guess the same for shivering in cold conditions. I'd figure you either had the window up, in which case you had additional muck to shoot through, or you had the window down, increasing the effects of the cold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

Make sure you specify what kind of shooting you intend on doing, though... ;-)

---

Oh yeah....didn't think of that:)

I found the shots I was thinking of that illustrate this nicely: Click through to Flickr to see the blurry grass, uh, less clearly. :)

With the new 'intuitive' Flickr interface, to see the full size images, click on the "..." to the right, and choose "Download/All Sizes", and then pick 'original'. You used to be able to do this by right clicking on an image, but I guess that was too hard.

I see my post processing has improved since 2011. :)

1/2000s
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7150/6...51c7a0dc_z.jpg

1/1600s
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7018/6...90928bf930.jpg

i got back out today and tested a few things. shooting from inside the car results in NO real nice shots , even sticking the camera as far out the window as i can i can still see the distortion from heat waves. also heat coming off the pavement was causing a bit of blur. walked to the other side of the road and it cleared right up. i also used a higher shutter speed varying between 1/1250 and /1600 results were much more encouraging. thank you very much for all your help guys ! here are a few of the better ones from today
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7366/1...667f4a3c_b.jpg
IMG_3863 by sedwards679, on Flickr
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2858/1...5f85eb05_b.jpg
IMG_3804 by sedwards679, on Flickr
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5522/1...1c17fcb6_b.jpg
IMG_3798 by sedwards679, on Flickr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sedwards

shooting from inside the car results in NO real nice shots

---

I do not know how big of a problem heat waves are in the winter, but I do know having the car running has always been my bigger problem. The car running induces a lot of vibration... and I suppose when I shut it off the heater goes off as well so less heat waves.

Stuart - Congrats on the improved results --- they look great. I shoot from inside my car all the time, essentially using it as a portable blind. Animals tend to be much less spooked by a stopped vehicle, as compared to a person standing outside. When I'm looking for wildlife, I dress warmly and keep the inside of the car as cold as I can stand it. When an animal shows up, I drop all the windows and shut off the heater completely. Then as soon as I maneuver into a good position, I turn off the engine. This way I manage to avoid the heat distortion, and get a chance to experience the encounter for as long as possible. Here's an example from a couple months ago:

http://www.huyerperspectives.com/Nat...1E8A6947-L.jpg

The wolf completely ignored me, and a few moments later, ambled right past my car less than 3 metres away.