Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 10, 2010, 5:38 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TekiusFanatikus View Post
Awesome pics Zig! I have that lens and I figure I'm at 4-5ft from my feeder. Judging by your pics, I just need to fiddle the settings to get the same shots. Right now, I'm out a tripod thus they're all hand held @ 1/500, f8.

Thanks for sharing!
Hi Tek,
Was wondering how you were coming along with your feeder project.

As a reminder, shooting birds requires you to take lots of shots and be prepared to throw away more than you keep. When I first started, my keeper rate was around 5%. Gradually, over time, it's gotten a lot better. But, I still throw away more than I keep.


Hope you get a chance to post a few.

Zig
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2010, 5:42 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eharrim View Post
Absolutely John, I mentioned that to Zig when I saw what he was using. But there is no substitute for close when it comes to shooting birds like Zig shows and that is also a big difference. As he mentioned shooting under a canopy vs in the open makes a huge difference as well.
Eric
If you come away with anything from this post, I hope that it is the following:
Get as close to your subject as possible. Use a blind, set up a feeder station near a window at your home, whatever. You have to be less than 10ft away if you're going to get anything worthwhile.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2010, 7:19 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
TekiusFanatikus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 385
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zig-123 View Post
Hi Tek,
Was wondering how you were coming along with your feeder project.
I quickly looked at my stuff and found these two, which seemed to be the sharpest. I really need to get a tripod - the birds see me coming with the 70-300mm and they fly away

Picture 1


Picture 2


I'm getting more and more variety of birds to the feeder which is cool. I'm going to buy two books on the subject to learn more about the birds that come at the feeder.

Compact Guide to Atlantic Canada Birds
Roger Burrows, Carmen Adams

The Formac Pocketguide to New Brunswick Birds
Jeffrey C. Domm

These are straight from the camera, no PS'ing...
__________________
________________________
AKA Dan
TekiusFanatikus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2010, 8:14 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: south west pennsylvania
Posts: 415
Default

Thanks Zig, for the info. I have both the 70-300 & 50-200 also, the fast & nimble 50-200 makes putting up with the frustrations of the 70- 300mm hard for me to deal with in most cases but I however do get excellent results with the 70-300 in manual focus on the e-3 & 420 in macro type shooting conditions.

Also for those with older e-series cameras, a good trick for you, that also have any version of at least photoshop elements or photoshop.
1. open image in editor
2. duplicate layer
3. go to filter menu, select gaussian blur
4. Slide the amount slider to usually between 5-20, click apply
5. Now with the blurred layer selected in layers pallet change the blend mode to color.

This will give similar results to e-420/520 (probably not as good as the very newest models) type noise levels with no loss of sharpness or detail, some loss of overall image saturation results from this & may need to be corrected with a saturation adjustment layer to bring back to taste.

This may be common knowledge but for those who didn't know it really helps with the older e-series images at high iso.
Charles
cshanaberger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2010, 4:46 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Hi Tek,

Considering those are out of camera jpegs, they are very nice indeed.

Zig
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2010, 4:49 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,145
Default

Hi Charles,

I understand how you feel regarding the use of the 50-200 over the 70-300mm. The 50-200mm is off my camera pretty much only when I'm using the 12-60mm or just want to mess with the 70-300mm.

Great tip on the photoshop post processing.

Zig
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2010, 12:52 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

I used to love this lens when I had it (along with the E510/E520) and I'm seriously thinking about buying it again to use with my m4/3 cameras. The E510 is a great camera except for the fact that it blows highlights very easily (reason for my selling it), and the IBIS works real well. I managed to get a large number of good images shot below the rule-of-thumb (shutter speed = 1/FL).
Attached Images
  
__________________

Tullio

Last edited by Tullio; May 11, 2010 at 12:56 PM.
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2010, 3:10 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 722
Default

Hi Tullio,
I have the 510 and find the same problem regarding highlights. Did you ever find a setting that helps. When using manual I purposely keep it underexposed to help prevent that. When I shoot swans or other white birds you almost have to have a cloudy day to make the shot come out decent.
Eric
eharrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2010, 11:15 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Unfortunately not. the only way to minimize the blown highlights is to reduce exposure but in some cases, I had to knock it down so much that the rest of the image got very very dark (and consequently noisy) and still details were lost. So, my solution was to sell it. However, I regretted it big time, so don't make the same mistake. The E510 is a great camera overall and several times I thought about buying myself another one. I tried the E520 and that was a disaster. Sure DR was better but images were a lot softer, there was less punch and I was never happy with the results right out of the camera.
__________________

Tullio

Last edited by Tullio; May 12, 2010 at 8:02 PM.
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2010, 7:34 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 722
Default

Tullio,
I love the camera and won't dump it until it croaks but anything white like swans it really struggles on. I agree though, it is sharp and easy to use so I guess you have to take the bad with the good and accept it.
Eric
eharrim 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 9:08 AM.