The six kingifisher photos were all taken from a hide on a bright sunny day - all at 400mm, on a tripod with IS on.
Exif details
1. 1/400 F8 ISO 1000
2. 1/320 F5.6 ISO 1000
3. 1/500 F5.6 ISO 1000
4. 1/500 F5.6 ISO 1000
5. 1/400 F5.6 ISO 800
6. 1/500 F5.6 ISO 800
They have all been cropped about 3:1 - am I expecting too much of this lens, at this level of cropping with this ISO, as most seem a little soft to me - or should i take up my opticians reminder for an eye test!
Hi Paul, you have a couple of things going against you...
IS should be OFF on a tripod. This is the old IS on the 100-400 and not the "sensing" variety.
2nd you'll have better luck with native ISO's in my experience. Try to make your
posts 800 on the wide side so laptop users don't have to scroll to view.
So am I right in thinking that this type of IS is creating an ever so small tremor affecting the sharpness. The high ISOs were the only way I could get the 1/400+ from inside the hide. Being from the UK not quite sure what you mean by native ISO - would I be right in thinking 400 and below?
Are these photos typical of the quality of the 100-400 though - or is it this copy? I have a 70 -200 which is pin sharp but does not have the reach for the KFs
Sorry about the first two pics I thought I had resized them all to 640.
Paul, native ISO's are 100,200,400,800,1600,3200 all others the camera is compromising
and IQ suffers. Try again w/o IS and for static shots don't worry about being at 1/400th
(with crop 1xFL is actually 1/640th) try f5.6 and f8. Should be a little improvement. I've
found the 100-400 to be pretty good at 400mm, damn good if the light is there!
I see the IQ as below average here. Was it caused by an IS issue or you've got a substandard lens copy, etc, I can't tell. I am also surprised by your exif data.....the need for such high ISO on a sunlit object, lens wide open and relatively low shutter speeds. You did not happen to have some sorta filter on that lens, did ya ?
All do seem soft, but you are expecting way too much from what you are trying to achieve here. The subject is still fairly small in the frame, light looks a bit poor, and the 100-400 really excels when you can fill the frame and have adequate light, not when you are relying on cropping, specifically in poor light.
Kingfishers are not easy subjects to begin with, perhaps plan more accordingly and set up a manmade perch closer to the blind. It will likely take time, but could then pay off.
I made similar experiences as you did with the 100-400 lens. The lens&camera are not the problem - it's just how to use them in the best possible way which makes the difference: I personally just avoid such high ISO numbers of higher than 400. The result of high ISO numbers is the more grainy structure in your cropped photos. Of course IS should be totally turned off on a tripod as stated above. And the most important issue in agreement with my own observation is to use the AF correctly or better use MF in the first place....in photo (2) the focus point is located definetely more on the tree than on the bird itself.
Which camera body are you using (or have I missed something obvious)?
I cannot get your exif data (on my iMac) for some reason. On looking at the original shots I would say that your main problem is that the subjects are simply too far away - this lens (which I own and use with a Mk3) is not a telescope!
The great shots of Kingfishers which you see published (and there is a huge number since it is a very colourful and popular subject) are taken from a hide at a "known" perch or feeding station and the bird is close enough to fill the frame - you just cannot expect to crop and enlarge from the shots you have and get the same results.
I have Kingfishers feeding on "minnows" in my cisterna which is used to irrigate my land, but I have to admit I have not yet got a usable shot with my Mk3 and 500 f/4. Difficult birds.
my ??.. bought a lens that I thought could do more than is really realisable. It is like undewater which is my passion.. you have to get as close as you can..thanks folks
??.. bought a lens that I thought could do more than is really realisable. It is like undewater which is my passion.. you have to get as close as you can..thanks folks