The new Perpetual Photography Thread

Neill78 · May 21, 2024

Hi all, I'd like some suggestions on settings to stop shit like this from happening again.
This is a completely unedited crop of a cormorant drying its wings.
I'm using an OM System OM-1. 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 SWD with 2x teleconverter, 400mm@f7, 1/800, ISO probably 200 or 400. Hand-held, which may account for some blur. I also know that the 2x teleconverter does degrade sharpness -- I was trying it for the first time. I was using Aperture priority with bird detection + eye detection on.

The result is the wings are pretty well in focus but the eye is not sharp. I expected the eye to be in focus and damn the rest, based on he settings. But I got wing in focus for the most part, and head and eye are blurred. The bird was not really moving.

How can I get a better picture next time (I am going on a bird-watching excursion this weekend)? What's your recommendation for F-stop and ISO on a relatively bright afternoon?

mlewis · May 21, 2024

Higher shutter speed, continuos focusing, use a high frame rate drive mode, take many photos at once. Pick the best from what you get.

richleader · May 21, 2024

I don't think the wings are actually in focus. They might appear that way because of the contrast, but I think it's a total miss. Your camera might have found the eye and drawn a box but that doesn't mean your lens caught up. I'm always griping about this in the accessory thread, especially since hardware reviewers are obsessed with how well "lenses" are able to draw eye boxes when they have little to do with it. If you took that snap as soon as you saw the green box, the lens might have been late arriving at the correct position. Taking more than one photo is a good way to tell your camera that you mean business though so mlewis pretty much nailed it in one.

Based on a lot of recent youtube I've watched, it's made me have zero interest in teleconverters: the best results seem to be marginally better than cropping/sharpening on modern hardware (although this is especially true for video) and the fail states seem significant. Last football season I saw a guy wearing a press-pass from a magazine that died 10 years ago try to remove one from his camera without dropping it, failed, and ended up stepping on it.

Neill78 · May 22, 2024

richleader said:
I don't think the wings are actually in focus. They might appear that way because of the contrast, but I think it's a total miss. Your camera might have found the eye and drawn a box but that doesn't mean your lens caught up. I'm always griping about this in the accessory thread, especially since hardware reviewers are obsessed with how well "lenses" are able to draw eye boxes when they have little to do with it. If you took that snap as soon as you saw the green box, the lens might have been late arriving at the correct position. Taking more than one photo is a good way to tell your camera that you mean business though so mlewis pretty much nailed it in one.

Based on a lot of recent youtube I've watched, it's made me have zero interest in teleconverters: the best results seem to be marginally better than cropping/sharpening on modern hardware (although this is especially true for video) and the fail states seem significant. Last football season I saw a guy wearing a press-pass from a magazine that died 10 years ago try to remove one from his camera without dropping it, failed, and ended up stepping on it.

I took a lot of photos of this bird so I'll check through them and see if there are any at all that turned out well.
My camera is in focus priority so it shouldn't release the shutter till the lens is in position. Obviously that position was wrong in this case, and it was my first time trying subject + eye detection.

The 2x teleconverter is definitely part of the problem. The 1.4x teleconverter is much better... Imperceptible.

I am using an old Four Thirds 50-200mm, and the focus is really slow compared to the new m43 lenses, but in this instance it was just not achieving focus at all on a mostly static subject and I don't know why.

Other birds that day came out tack sharp but this one was a total no-go.

mlewis said:
Higher shutter speed, continuos focusing, use a high frame rate drive mode, take many photos at once. Pick the best from what you get.

What shutter speed do you suggest? I figured 1/800 would be more than enough for a stationary bird.
I go down as far as 1/200 for floating ducks without issue.

richleader · May 22, 2024

Did you have any filters on (even advertised clear ones)? A lot of long lenses have a hard time focusing to infinity with anything on and I found that out the hard way. I keep clear ones on all my gear just so I don't have to worry about dog noses, camp fire ash, drunk people's ragged fingernails, etc. and I can feel fine wiping them with my shirt if need be, but my 50-400 won't really work correctly past 350mm with anything on it.

My camera is in focus priority so it shouldn't release the shutter till the lens is in position.

There's also a lot of predictive sauce that goes into the algorithm (which is how it can hit subjects coming towards you). I've found that 3rd party lenses on my Sony are far more lenient (aka optimistic) about telling the camera they'll be able to push the glass to where it's predicting in time, while my Sony lenses are far more likely to prohibit the camera from taking shot when I want it to and prefer to give me nothing rather than something that's out of focus. That might have nothing to do with your situation, I'm just throwing it out there to say that cameras are using all sorts of competing algorithms that can sabotage each other.

If you have a printed picture of a bird head though you could probably practice out various modes in your back yard.

I go down as far as 1/200 for floating ducks without issue.

That's generally my experience as well. I'm a big fan of shooting manual with Auto-ISO in unpredictable situations. Then you just have to learn to use the exposure compensation for backlit scenes, etc., but having to adjust ISO yourself just slows me down too much, personally, but I still have to level up a bunch more times at this stuff.

Neill78 · May 22, 2024

richleader said:
Did you have any filters on (even advertised clear ones)? A lot of long lenses have a hard time focusing to infinity with anything on and I found that out the hard way. I keep clear ones on all my gear just so I don't have to worry about dog noses, camp fire ash, drunk people's ragged fingernails, etc. and I can feel fine wiping them with my shirt if need be, but my 50-400 won't really work correctly past 350mm with anything on it.

There's also a lot of predictive sauce that goes into the algorithm (which is how it can hit subjects coming towards you). I've found that 3rd party lenses on my Sony are far more lenient (aka optimistic) about telling the camera they'll be able to push the glass to where it's predicting in time, while my Sony lenses are far more likely to prohibit the camera from taking shot when I want it to and prefer to give me nothing rather than something that's out of focus. That might have nothing to do with your situation, I'm just throwing it out there to say that cameras are using all sorts of competing algorithms that can sabotage each other.

If you have a printed picture of a bird head though you could probably practice out various modes in your back yard.

That's generally my experience as well. I'm a big fan of shooting manual with Auto-ISO in unpredictable situations. Then you just have to learn to use the exposure compensation for backlit scenes, etc., but having to adjust ISO yourself just slows me down too much, personally, but I still have to level up a bunch more times at this stuff.

I do have a clear filter on my lens, and since the lens is so old and cheap I don't feel super worried about taking it off. I'll give it a try. Probably the 2x teleconverter is also part of the problem. I'll do more testing. It's even possible that it wasn't perfectly mounted because this bird appeared after I had just put all my gear away and I was scrambling to put everything back together and get some shots before going home.

Since this bird was almost completely stationary (except for moving its head once in a while) and I was using Aperture mode and focusing each shot independently I'm thinking the filter or teleconverter or poor mounting (m43 adapter + teleconverter + lens) are the most likely culprits. Heck, maybe that lens is just dying of old age.

I also hate mucking with ISO, so I love that I can set a min/max ISO range and shutter speed limits and let the camera worry about it most of the time.

Thanks for all the input! I will test this weekend.

Neill78 · May 30, 2024

So I went to a bird sanctuary for a whole day and only about 10 birds showed up. Maybe the Japanese government forgot to tell them about it.

The big birds were really far away, pushing the limits of my lens and ability to hand hold steadily.

Olympus OM-1 with Zuiko Digital 50-200mm + 2x teleconverter.

I took off the filter, and I also feel like turning Anti-Shock off made a difference... Why, I don't know.

To the naked eye, the heron was a speck, so this is a massive crop.
Also got to watch a lovely pigeon/turtledove adventure assemble a nest, and a curious sparrow that made super cute poses.

Anyway, good improvement over the last time I went out, and taking off the filter did seem to help the autofocus. Thanks for the advice!

richleader · May 31, 2024

^ Glad it worked out despite the challenges the day brought!

As someone who made the leap from film to digital rather recently (my parents bought me several $150 digital point and shoots for xmases during the 2000s, which was a kind if futile gesture as they didn't really get me back into photography given the quality of pictures they took), I found this article interesting when I ran into a problem with my clear filters:

Who Killed Infinity Focus?

www.bhphotovideo.com

Variable infinity doesn't always seem to be correcting for filter use the way old-school variable infinity stops used to. Tamron claims that you can regain true variable infinity if you focus manually but I did in fact test that with birds and a clear filter on my 50-400 and it didn't seem to allow for that compensation in practice, although maybe I just sucked at manual focus. At any rate, that's not practical for my actual work and not being able to use a variable ND filter on that lens makes video work a lot more difficult, although it's still a wonderful piece of kit overall that I'd still recommend to people.

KingKrayola · May 31, 2024

Neill78 said:
I took a lot of photos of this bird so I'll check through them and see if there are any at all that turned out well.
My camera is in focus priority so it shouldn't release the shutter till the lens is in position. Obviously that position was wrong in this case, and it was my first time trying subject + eye detection.

The 2x teleconverter is definitely part of the problem. The 1.4x teleconverter is much better... Imperceptible.

I am using an old Four Thirds 50-200mm, and the focus is really slow compared to the new m43 lenses, but in this instance it was just not achieving focus at all on a mostly static subject and I don't know why.

Other birds that day came out tack sharp but this one was a total no-go.

What shutter speed do you suggest? I figured 1/800 would be more than enough for a stationary bird.
I go down as far as 1/200 for floating ducks without issue.

I'm a long way from a seasoned pro but I was always told that 1/[focal length] was about right, at least for 35 mm.

If you're using that lens at 200 mm and then adding 2x with the TC you're at 400 mm. 1/800 should? be fine.

Dumb question - is this handheld? First thing I'd try would be a monopod/beanbag/tripod?

At that long a focal length you could still be introducing some hand shake?

Neill78 · May 31, 2024

Not a dumb question, yes, all handheld. But in the first photo of the cormorant the problem is complete lack of focus.

In my second set, there's a slight amount of blur in the flying heron's eye from hand shake, but the bird itself is in focus.

Olympus/OM System has amazing stabilization so I usually don't use or need a tripod unless the light is low. I don't usually shoot this long, either, so it was a good test.

Thanks for your feedback!

richleader · Jun 4, 2024

Some theater stuff for a school:

mlewis · Jun 16, 2024

Red Kites

7 by Meredith Lewis, on Flickr

15 by Meredith Lewis, on Flickr

16 by Meredith Lewis, on Flickr

richleader · Jun 16, 2024

Iwo Jima memorial with my dad. Of course I got a plane with the flag, I'm not an amateur!

There were a bunch of times that I wished I had something wider than my 50-400 but in those situations I tried shooting panoramas with my camera held vertically and it sometimes worked out. Being able to go to 400mm was fun for when I got to play around though and take pictures that the 24-105/70-200 people couldn't get.

richleader · Jun 22, 2024

Fishing derby today. Lens was filthy when I took this and there were about 40 spots even at just F9. I still think Ctrl-I makes them easier to find (invert blue to dark orange) than the adobe spot visualizer command. I guess some stuff like DXO has automatic fixes for them but I'm not sure I'd trust it.

The *new* Perpetual Photography Thread

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Attachments

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Attachments

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

The new Perpetual Photography Thread