Advice about Canon lens and photo please

Trev4

Trev4

Messages
5,966
Name
Trev
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Guys
Could anyone offer advice please.
I have upgraded my Canon 400D to 50D and am well pleased with the move. I also bought a Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM lens for nature work.
I have had many disappointing results so far, I have included a typical photo here. This was taken in a wooded area with what I regard as reasonable light, but I agree there is a leaf canopy over the area.
I tried different settings, both in aperture and shutter priority, different ISO settings including auto settings.
On the picture here I used aperture priority f5.6, the camera selected 1/400 sec and an ISO of 1600. The lens was at 300mm.
This has caused much noise and a loss of detail, presumably the ISO is the real culprit in regard to the noise.
This picture had been cropped by 33%, and the unsharp mask applied in Elements 7, but only a small amount of sharpening. The squirrel was approximately 6 meters away from me.
Apart from any advice you may be able to offer, do you have any opinions about my choice of lens. I bought this after reading many reviews, and naturally the cost was a factor too. Should I bite the bullet and change this lens for a 100-400L IS series. I know this is a much better lens, but is the difference worth double the cost of my 70-300.
Do you feel I would get more light in with this lens and be able to use maybe similar settings but with a much lower ISO.
Thanks for your time in advance.
Trev
www.flickr.com/photos/trev4

3574502498_fe3c5a34ca.jpg
 
assuming the purple squirrel is either PP or some kind of paint accident, not so weird lens affect.

The ISO is the villan in terms of the noise, but your also shooting wide open - so not getting the best from the lens. Not sure if this is deliberate or not

Hugh
 
Well, I have owned that lens and it is a very good lens for the money.

First of all, that pic was not taken in AV mode but was shot in TV (shutter priority).

The next thing I noticed was you have taken this with the camera set to 'spot' metering and you could also check the exposure comp.

I would recheck all your setting and try again for a day or so and see how you get on. As regards to the noise, do a search on here for CT's thread on 50D and noise, CT and MikeyB had many discussions about this.
 
I checked my copy on P/Shop against Flickr and sure enough, there is a blue rinse appeared somewhere between my computer and Flickr, unintentional though. I have made a quick alteration to the colour.
I did use the lens wide open boyfalldown, this is where my inexperience comes in, is that the wrong thinge to do, I was trying to get more light in so a wide appature seemed logical to me. Am I looking at the problem in the wrong way, what setting would you advise, but then I understand that not being there at the time thats a difficult question to ask. Trev
 
admirable said:
Well, I have owned that lens and it is a very good lens for the money.

First of all, that pic was not taken in AV mode but was shot in TV (shutter priority).

The next thing I noticed was you have taken this with the camera set to 'spot' metering and you could also check the exposure comp.

I would recheck all your setting and try again for a day or so and see how you get on. As regards to the noise, do a search on here for CT's thread on 50D and noise, CT and MikeyB had many discussions about this.
Click to expand...


Thanks Admiral, I was wrong about the Av Tv setting, but the other settings were intentional, spot metering was used to get an accurate reading on the subject, and I adjusted the exposure comp when I checked the histogram and saw there was too many dark peaks on the left. I will try again and experiement more with different settings. Being new to this, I am probably thinking wrong about how to get things right. Trev
 
That's some serious noise - even for 1600 ISO.

Are you shooting RAW or jpegs?

If you're shooting RAW you should disable Auto Lighting Optimiser and Highlight Tone Priority as they can cause excessive noise in RAW. They're intended for jpeg shooting only.

Even if you're shooting jpegs, I'd disable Highlight Tone Priority unless a scene is particularly contrasty - again it can increase noise.

Edit.

That's the sort of noise you get recovering from a badly under-exposed shot. Under exposure always increases noise.
 
CT said:
That's some serious noise - even for 1600 ISO.

Are you shooting RAW or jpegs?

If you're shooting RAW you should disable Auto Lighting Optimiser and Highlight Tone Priority as they can cause excessive noise in RAW. They're intended for jpeg shooting only.

Even if you're shooting jpegs, I'd disable Highlight Tone Priority unless a scene is particularly contrasty - again it can increase noise.

Edit.

That's the sort of noise you get recovering from a badly under-exposed shot. Under exposure always increases noise.
Click to expand...

Thanks CT, I will certainly try that, both settings you mentioned are enabled at the moment.
I am shooting in both RAW and JPEG.
Below is the original shot from the JPEG image together with another shot taken the same day. There has been no editing whatsoever in these pics. There would need some considerable cropping to get the bird picture anything like decent but the original is already noisy. As I was only about 6 meters away and at 240mm (300mm for the squirrel), am I being unrealistic to expect to get a decent bird shot or do I need a longer lens here.
Any advice is welcome, thanks. As for the lens, I dont want to throw money away if I am doing something wrong, I would rather learn than buy an answer to a problem but am prepared to invest if its necessary.
Once again, thanks for your opinions and advice. Trev

Original squirrel
3575664264_99d953ea44.jpg


3574857221_cbf961f29d.jpg
 
I'd also like to add that the 70-300 IS USM is a cracking lens. I don't use it half as often as I should!
I took this snap across 4 metres or so:

(cropped)
20070420075603_terrapin3.jpg

Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL
f 5.6
1/60 sec
300 mm
ISO 200

and:
(cropped)
20070419091512_terrapin2.jpg

Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL
f 8
1/30 sec
300 mm
ISO 200
 
You should certainly be able to get a decent image out of the squirrel shot Trev, it's a fairly moderate crop, but that Chaffiinch shot is too much of a crop even for the 50D, especially so at very high ISOs.

The thing with noise is it always looks it worst in the 1:1 image regardless of what camera you use, but reducing the image size makes it largely disappear. The less you have to crop then the less you'll see noise in the reduced image, so there's an obvious advantage in filling the frame as much as you can when you take the shot. Very extreme crops are a problem because when you resharpen the image (which you'll always do after downsizing) you're also resharpeng any noise present which will make it more apparent as it's larger in the extreme cropped image. Hope that makes some sort of sense.

Wildlife shots are do-able with a 300mm lens, but you need to get pretty close to have any chance of getting a decent tit sized image on the sensor. I regularly shoot small birds at 700mm and even at around 20 feet which isn't much further than the minimum focusing distance of the lens, I still have to crop, although they're fairly moderate crops and more to do with composition usually. Even super tele lenses don't get you as close as you might think.

By choice I'd always use a tripod for bird shots where possible, even with a lens as short as 300mm.

Don't get disheartened - it's early days with your new camera, I'm sure you'll be doing the bizzo before long. ;)
 
CT said:
You should certainly be able to get a decent image out of the squirrel shot Trev, it's a fairly moderate crop, but that Chaffiinch shot is too much of a crop even for the 50D, especially so at very high ISOs.

The thing with noise is it always looks it worst in the 1:1 image regardless of what camera you use, but reducing the image size makes it largely disappear. The less you have to crop then the less you'll see noise in the reduced image, so there's an obvious advantage in filling the frame as much as you can when you take the shot. Very extreme crops are a problem because when you resharpen the image (which you'll always do after downsizing) you're also resharpeng any noise present which will make it more apparent as it's larger in the extreme cropped image. Hope that makes some sort of sense.

Wildlife shots are do-able with a 300mm lens, but you need to get pretty close to have any chance of getting a decent tit sized image on the sensor. I regularly shoot small birds at 700mm and even at around 20 feet which isn't much further than the minimum focusing distance of the lens, I still have to crop, although they're fairly moderate crops and more to do with composition usually. Even super tele lenses don't get you as close as you might think.

By choice I'd always use a tripod for bird shots where possible, even with a lens as short as 300mm.

Don't get disheartened - it's early days with your new camera, I'm sure you'll be doing the bizzo before long. ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks CT, its back to the drawing board so to speak and experiment with the setting some more. I did use a tripod on these shots, but as you understand, getting close can be a problem, they dont like their space invaded no matter how many nuts I provided lol. Your comments certainly make sense, I think though that I have missed something basic and need to start again looking at settings etc.
In defense, I believe the lighting was a problem here, but with knowlege I should have been able to overcome that.
Thanks again, Trev

Thanks also groovyf, those pics show the lens is capable, it confirms that its me that needs fine tuning.
 
Use servo AF btw and one AF point.

Are these shots taken at Brocton Coppice?
 
The 70-300 is an excellent lens for the price. I give a link to Bob Atkins website where he does a review of the 100-400, the 300 prime and the 70-300. In the review he links to a text page which is quite interesting.

Unless you are wanting to spend money now, give the 70-300 a good run. Do you shoot in RAW?

John
 
CT said:
Use servo AF btw and one AF point.

Are these shots taken at Brocton Coppice?
Click to expand...

Yes, how did you guess, by the fallen tree, which is under a canopy but with reasonable light I thought. I did use single AF point but not servo, I used Al focus.
The link you sent is useful too, well worth reading, thanks.
I have changed the settings as you suggest, it all makes sense, and all being well will return there today so that I can try a direct comparison under similar conditions. Following your comments in the link you sent and using the setting suggested, I am going to try an ISO of 800 rather than letting the camera decide on auto, stop the lens down to maybe f8 and see how it goes. In the meantime a few test shots are in order.
I am grateful for the advice and pointing me in this direction. Trev
 
I thought Brocton Coppice was closed off. If you approach from the German Cemetery/ Chase Road route, the turning into Freda's Grave/Brocton Coppice is barred to vehicles with a sign that says those car parks are closed due to plant disease control. It doesn't make any sense to me if walkers and dogs etc are still using the area and it doesn't say anything about walkers being barred. :thinking:

Definitely shoot from a tripod with IS enabled, one AF point and Servo AF. Servo AF is making adjustments all the time for those tiny jerky moveents the birds are making which can throw your focus out. I wouldn't worry too much about stopping down - it's probably more advantageous to shoot wide open and keep the shutter speed up. If you have a burning desire to spend money, a gimbal head will be the best investment you can make for bird shots and it's pretty well essential if you're half serious about it. ;)
 
Don't know if the 50D is the same, but when using the 70-300 on my 450D I find that the centre point is the most accurate. The outer ones can front/back focus a bit.

The bit about stopping down is good advice, improves the IQ no end. also, the lens isn't at it's peak at 300mm. If you can pull back even 20-30mm or so, it will improve as well.
 
CT said:
I thought Brocton Coppice was closed off. If you approach from the German Cemetery/ Chase Road route, the turning into Freda's Grave/Brocton Coppice is barred to vehicles with a sign that says those car parks are closed due to plant disease control. It doesn't make any sense to me if walkers and dogs etc are still using the area and it doesn't say anything about walkers being barred. :thinking:

Definitely shoot from a tripod with IS enabled, one AF point and Servo AF. Servo AF is making adjustments all the time for those tiny jerky moveents the birds are making which can throw your focus out. I wouldn't worry too much about stopping down - it's probably more advantageous to shoot wide open and keep the shutter speed up. If you have a burning desire to spend money, a gimbal head will be the best investment you can make for bird shots and it's pretty well essential if you're half serious about it. ;)
Click to expand...


Your absolutely right about the car parks closed. I parked on Chase Road (outside the disease control area) and walked, keeping to the mainly tarmaced paths as requested in the information notices posted all around there. The place I took these pictures is right at the side of the path so there is no need to go off path. I respect the need to help control the disease, it would be dreadful should it spread with the consequences that are possible. One advantage currently is that it’s quiet there, except for a couple of mountain bikers yesterday who couldn’t read and who were riding very much off the paths.
The point your making is true, but the authorities who have more knowledge than us about these things seem to believe that walkers keeping to the paths offer no threat. According to the notices there at the moment, the current restrictions are working and it seems they are winning the fight to control the disease and have now re-opened some areas again. Should a total ban be imposed, I will certainly be observing it, it’s a small price to pay for our wonderful natural heritage.

I will try with the lens open then, as you say, it will allow for a faster shutter speed. Would you think starting with an ISO of 800 to be realistic to start with.
After these comments and suggestions, I’m rather looking forward to seeing the results. Trev
 
Viking said:
The 70-300 is an excellent lens for the price. I give a link to Bob Atkins website where he does a review of the 100-400, the 300 prime and the 70-300. In the review he links to a text page which is quite interesting.

Unless you are wanting to spend money now, give the 70-300 a good run. Do you shoot in RAW?

John
Click to expand...

Thanks Viking. I Googled Bob Atkins and the site is very informative. I realise now that I need to concentrate on getting things right myself rather than buying myself out, that makes a lot of sense so as advised will be working more with the kit I have.
I save in both RAW and JPEG, processing in DPP and Elements 7, but like everything else, am at the bottom of the learning curve and have a long way to go, but enjoying it all the same. Trev
 
Jim.R said:
Don't know if the 50D is the same, but when using the 70-300 on my 450D I find that the centre point is the most accurate. The outer ones can front/back focus a bit.

The bit about stopping down is good advice, improves the IQ no end. also, the lens isn't at it's peak at 300mm. If you can pull back even 20-30mm or so, it will improve as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks Jim, all advice is welcome, I will be tying this out for sure. Trev
 
I know the place you're talking about very well Trev - I've taken a lot of my bird shots there. I'm not having a go at you mate - I just don't see how cars which are confined to the tracks anyway, are any more of a threat than walkers on the tracks. Still, I assume they know what's best.

I rarely shoot below 800 ISO and quite often at 1600 ISO, so I wouldn't worry too much about upping the ISO.

The nettle you might have to grasp eventually is that the 50Ds high pixel count makes it very demanding of lens quality. It will show up deficiencies in a lens which is an otherwise good performer on a lower pixel count sensor. It's much the same situation as swapping from a crop sensor to full frame, when a lens which is a good performer on the crop sensor may be less impressive on full frame. I'd be very surprised though if you don't see instantly better results with your new settings, so let us know how you get on. (y)
 
CT said:
I know the place you're talking about very well Trev - I've taken a lot of my bird shots there. I'm not having a go at you mate - I just don't see how cars which are confined to the tracks anyway, are any more of a threat than walkers on the tracks. Still, I assume they know what's best.

I rarely shoot below 800 ISO and quite often at 1600 ISO, so I wouldn't worry too much about upping the ISO.

The nettle you might have to grasp eventually is that the 50Ds high pixel count makes it very demanding of lens quality. It will show up deficiencies in a lens which is an otherwise good performer on a lower pixel count sensor. It's much the same situation as swapping from a crop sensor to full frame, when a lens which is a good performer on the crop sensor may be less impressive on full frame. I'd be very surprised though if you don't see instantly better results with your new settings, so let us know how you get on. (y)
Click to expand...

I didnt think for a moment that you were having a go, it didnt cross my mind, I did however think it worth making the point that the restrictions are being observed, by me at least. Hopefully in time they can irradicate the disease.
For now I'll follow advise and try to get the best out of the 70-300 lens, but as you say, maybe better glass will be needed in time, I wont be rushing in though, not after all the helpful advice on here.
Viking gave me an interesting link to Bob Atkins site where these lenses are reviewed. In one review he mentioned using the Canon 70-300 IS that I have with a Tamron F EOS 1.4 TC. That would lose me a couple of stops I realise, but would you think it worth considering to increase my focal length for nature work. Trev
 
Trev4 said:
Viking gave me an interesting link to Bob Atkins site where these lenses are reviewed. In one review he mentioned using the Canon 70-300 IS that I have with a Tamron F EOS 1.4 TC. That would lose me a couple of stops I realise, but would you think it worth considering to increase my focal length for nature work. Trev
Click to expand...

Well a 1.4X TC would normally only lose you one stop (a 2X TC would lose you 2 stops) and would give you an effective 420mm of reach so I don't see you have much to lose by giving it a go. As long as you appreciate that converters aren't best employed behind a zoom lens. A 1.4X TC can give acceptable results behind a zoom lens, while a 2X TC would certainly degrade the image too much.
 
CT said:
Well a 1.4X TC would normally only lose you one stop (a 2X TC would lose you 2 stops) and would give you an effective 420mm of reach so I don't see you have much to lose by giving it a go. As long as you appreciate that converters aren't best employed behind a zoom lens. A 1.4X TC can give acceptable results behind a zoom lens, while a 2X TC would certainly degrade the image too much.
Click to expand...

More food for thought. Your advice is appreciated and will be put into practice for sure. Thanks again. Trev
 
I don't think your 50D will autofocus with an aperature of more than f/5.6 without masking connections, you'll have f/8 at 300mm with the 1.4x convertor on.
 
Jim.R said:
I don't think your 50D will autofocus with an aperature of more than f/5.6 without masking connections, you'll have f/8 at 300mm with the 1.4x convertor on.
Click to expand...

That's correct. Manual focusing for bird shots is an exercise in frustration mostly.
 
I am finding, that on any real shot (i.e. not a test shot, infuriatingly), that my 70-300 is soft when above ~220
The suggestions given to me, were to try and increase the shutter speed, and not use the lens wide-open (which is really difficult not to!)
 
CT said:
That's correct. Manual focusing for bird shots is an exercise in frustration mostly.
Click to expand...

Thats usefull thanks. I have enough problems without adding to them just yet, so for now I am sticking with my 70-300 and using the tips given here. As sugested, a better quality lens might be needed in the future as and when my skills match, so for now I am preparing to invest in a 100-400L IS in the future. Thanks a lot for all the advice. Trev
 
The 100-400L is a great lens, there's nothing else quite like it with the zoom range. It's pretty well the perfect lens for situations like a zoo visit where you can tackle near and close shots easily without any need to change lenses. For small bird shots though you're almost certain to be always working at the 400mm end of the zoom range, so a 400mm 5.6L prime might be the better option, and should give sharper images as well as being a bit cheaper I think? It doesn't have IS, but you'd be working off a tripod mostly so no big deal.
 
CT said:
The 100-400L is a great lens, there's nothing else quite like it with the zoom range. It's pretty well the perfect lens for situations like a zoo visit where you can tackle near and close shots easily without any need to change lenses. For small bird shots though you're almost certain to be always working at the 400mm end of the zoom range, so a 400mm 5.6L prime might be the better option, and should give sharper images as well as being a bit cheaper I think? It doesn't have IS, but you'd be working off a tripod mostly so no big deal.
Click to expand...

Hi. Its good to have a recommendation like that, thanks. Because I do take other pictures other than birds, I think maybe the 100-400 would be the more versatile lens for me even if slightly more expensive. You say the 400 prime will give sharper results, do you feel the difference is great or marginal over the 100-400?
Also, coming back to what we discussed earlier, is the difference between my 70-300 quality wise, realy noticeable, or does the law of diminishing returns apply, as in a £400 lens is very good, yet a £1200 lens in just 5% better. These percentages are made up of course.
Unfortunately I couldnt make the Chase today so took a few test shots this evening as the light was failing, to try and simulate the light conditions I was in yesterday. Here's one using the settings you sugested, and yes, there is a difference.

3576305093_4c6dd76439.jpg


This has had about a 40% crop, marginal adjustment in levels and slight sharpening applied.
The lens was at 300mm and 1.5 meters away, the minimum focusing distance, AE, 1/200 sec, f5.6, ISO 1250. At f5.6, I had to use those other settings to cope with the low light. Al servo and centre weighted average, but then it was a stationery subject.
I felt there was an improvement but I still havent got the sharpness I hoped for, I wonder of your more experienced eye feels I am on the right track.
Thanks again. Trev
 
Noticeable difference there Trev. (y) It would nice if you posted these images at 800 pixels though, it's difficult to judge IQ at this small size.

The truth is a good prime will always beat even the best of zooms. The difference might not be night and day but it will be there in the fine detail.

You do get what you pay for in lenses. Sharper and faster with better colour rendition always means more money unfortunately, but those are very desirable qualities in a lens. The difference is noticeable and it's daft to argue otherwise. That's not to rubbish your 70-300 or urge you to go spending big wads of dosh - just a simple unavoidable truth.

If you fancy an hour or two at Brocton Coppice in the week when it's nice and quiet, drop me a PM and I'll try to come and join you. I'm usually pretty free in the week. :)
 
CT said:
Noticeable difference there Trev. (y) It would nice if you posted these images at 800 pixels though, it's difficult to judge IQ at this small size.

The truth is a good prime will always beat even the best of zooms. The difference might not be night and day but it will be there in the fine detail.

You do get what you pay for in lenses. Sharper and faster with better colour rendition always means more money unfortunately, but those are very desirable qualities in a lens. The difference is noticeable and it's daft to argue otherwise. That's not to rubbish your 70-300 or urge you to go spending big wads of dosh - just a simple unavoidable truth.

If you fancy an hour or two at Brocton Coppice in the week when it's nice and quiet, drop me a PM and I'll try to come and join you. I'm usually pretty free in the week. :)
Click to expand...

Thast would be great, I was planing to go there again this week, its quiet as well during the week. I will PM you for sure and will look forward to that.
Heres the same picture at 800, hope this works better:

3576609197_322f45a86e_o.jpg


Take care. Trev
 
Oh that'll stand some sharpening yet Trev! Personally I'd darken it to give better colour saturation and more punch. That's pretty good noise performance for 1250 ISO in low light, but I've just run NR on the bg.

3576642221_f2f484e62e_o.jpg


Yep - PM me - it suits me to get down there pretty early - 10 a.m. ish (y)
 
That looks so much better, I was concerned about applying too much sharpening in case it looked over processed, but I see clearly it needed more now.
I'm sorry here, but I'm going to show my ignorance and give you all a smile, but can you tell me what IQ, NR, and bg stand for please, I have thought about it and cant work the abreviations out. No doubt when you tell me I will kick myself for not knowing or realising, but..... we all start somewhere, I'm just a bit late starting lol.
Trev
 
LOL Soz Trev. :D

IQ = Image quality.

NR = Noise reduction..

BG = Background.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top