Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Newbie Help

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 13, 2005, 11:37 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Oh, another thought.
How blurry is blurry? Everyone here has assumed that your problem isn't with the camera and how most of the higher end cameras produce "soft" images. This allows you to add as much sharpening as you would like, giving my more flexability (as the cost of your time.)

If you could post an example of a shot that I'd like to be sharper, that would be very helpful. But if you do that, please post a crop where 1 image pixel= 1 screen pixel. Don't "reduce" the image, just crop it and post that. Reducing can make an image look sharper than it actually is.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2005, 1:28 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
barkerlass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hullbridge, Essex
Posts: 444
Default

Hi Eric, i have posted two pictures that i took using the 135-400mm and the first one is what i mean by blurry, the 2nd one of the robin is better i put the ISO up and and also used a beanbag. your opinions would be appreciated. regards. Bev.
Attached Images
 
barkerlass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2005, 1:30 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
barkerlass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hullbridge, Essex
Posts: 444
Default

Oops sorry got those two round the wrong way! not sure how you download more than one picture on the forum, first time iv done this. Sorry. Have attached the blurry pic on this message. Bev.
Attached Images
 
barkerlass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2005, 7:39 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

You did it right. You can't put more than one picture per post in a single thread. So people just post two messages (like you did.)

The first one is clearly fairly good. With some noise reduction (check out www.neatimage.com for more info) and some sharpening in an editor and that could be a nice photo. It isn't amazing, but you know that. There is certainly potential there.

The second one does look to be motion blur by you (not the subject.) So it looks like our comments are right on.

That isn't the sharpest lens on the block, but when properly used it should still produce fairly good results.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2005, 7:41 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 436
Default

It is definitely blurry and I'm not sure why. It isn't in macro mode is it? That can cause shots outside of the macro range to be blurry.

There should be nothing to prevent you from getting shots like this:


Meryl Arbing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2005, 2:53 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
barkerlass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hullbridge, Essex
Posts: 444
Default

Thanks for comments and advice on photos, i have downloaded neatimage and will do lots of practice! will send in another shot when i think iv improved on this. regards.
barkerlass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2005, 2:55 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
barkerlass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hullbridge, Essex
Posts: 444
Default

Hi, no it was'nt in macro mode i usually use TV mode (shutter priority) with bird photography or AV if permits. I think its definately me and the tripod and as Eric pointed out its not the sharpest lense, so im going to practice hard!! what lense did you use for your bird photo. regards. Bev.
barkerlass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2005, 9:27 AM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 99
Default

Most people use Av mode when taking pictures of birds from what I've read on here. Put the aperture where they think they need it, for sharpness and depth of field, and then adjust the ISO toget the shutter speed where they need it.

If you're using a lower end lens having a large aperture will make it extremely hard to get a sharp image, most of those lenses are soft wide open.
Proxes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2005, 9:39 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
barkerlass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hullbridge, Essex
Posts: 444
Default

Thanks will take that on board. Bev.
barkerlass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2005, 12:19 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

For bird photography (which is almost exclusively what I do) I use one of two lenses:
Canon 100-400 f4-f5.6 (costs around $1,400USD)
A very good zoom for its price and focal length. The only real complaint you can give it is that you wish it were f4 through out the zoom range. But that would make it bigger, heavier and more expensive. You can get something for nothing. Oh, and it could be a bit sharper, but it isn't bad.

I now almost always shoot with:
600mm f4 IS ($7,200USD)
The most powerful IS lens canon makes, and the longest focal length that isn't a special order. Very expensive, and very good. I wish it were cheaper and lighter, but it,s a great lens (of course, it had better be for the price of a used car!)

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:33 PM.