100-400mm + tc 1.4x or 2x ? which tc is better?

Hello Friends...

my name is Edy and I am new to this forum.

I have 7d and 100-400mm lens for wildlife, especially for birding...

The problem is 100-400mm is not tele enough to catch a bird...

I am planning to use tc 1.4x or 2x instead of buying 600mm or higher (it's not affordable for me right now).

As I hear from my friends (in my city) that using tc 1.4x or 2x will drop the image quality, Is it true?

do anyone here mind sharing the image using 100-400mm + tc 1.4x or 2x ? So I can see how is the image quality..

Perhaps someone has other advice regarding affordable lens for birding

Thanks

Hi Edy

Anytime you place a converter the image will degrade some and the AF will slow or not work in some cases. With the 7D you are going to loose AF.

I use and like the 100-400 lens, sharp and reasonable af speed, will actually produce a sharp image with the converter but need to place on tripod and focus manually.... don't think you will be using much like that.

With your crop factor camera you have an effective focal length of 640mm which is not bad, might try working hard at getting closer till you can get a 500 lens !!!

I have only ever used a 100-400 for bird photography, and while it is very frustrating at times, it offers plenty of reach for set-ups with a blind and shorebirds, assuming you have a good stalking technique. It is a very versatile lens. However while it delivers good IQ, it is not up to the level of the primes, and I would not use a tc on it, because it will drop image quality, and will slow it down. At f/5.6 already that would give you an f/8 with the 1.4 tc. I would just use it bare, it has worked well enough for me so far :)

Hi Aidian Sometime back in a post I gave the same response as you did regarding the converter, Artie posted below me to try it and might be surprised ... surprised I was. :) I think the biggest hassle is using AF which makes a tripod necessary ... focal length is 800 !!

There is also the problem that to use AF you have to use the tape trick. Without that, it won't work. I tried this rig before I bought the 300 f2.8 and gave up on it pretty much immediately. The 100-400 will work reasonably well without it, though.

Hi Alfred

I check on my image property that the focal length is 400mm.
As you said that effective focal length 640mm. Does it mean that in real it 640mm but the camera record it as 400mm?

or Is there any camera setting that I miss? (I set it to default)

Afred do you mean that 100-400 + tc will produce good image if I use tripod?

Does the image quality drop so bad ( i mean not acceptable)?

if someone has the image sample, i'd like to see it.

Thanks

Quote:

---

As you said that effective focal length 640mm. Does it mean that in real it 640mm but the camera record it as 400mm?

---

Field of view using 400mm on a crop body is the same as a 640mm lens... but there is no magnification factor. A good, short write-up on the effect is located at: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/C...op-Factor.aspx. I frequently see photographers suggesting that using a crop body increased the "reach" of a lens. While there may be advantages for using a crop sensor for avian and wildlife photography, actual "reach" isn't one of them.

Here is another writeup on crop factor:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/cropfactor/

Roger

You asked about an affordable lens for birding. The Canon 400mm f5.6L at just over a thousand $ is a nice choice. While not image stabilized, it is light enough to be hand-held. I don't own one, but a friend does and is very happy with the sharpness of the lens, if not the speed.

Susan, he already has a 100-400mm, so the excellent 400 f5.6 won't gain him anything. He doesn't say if he has the IS version, but, if he does, he'll lose that by going to the excellent 400 f5.6. :cool:

I'd like to suggest that the 100-400mm on a 7D is a very good birding lens. Edy has said, "The problem is 100-400mm is not tele enough to catch a bird." It'd also be nice to have more reach, but if anyone looks around this site a little they'll see loads of images of birds and birds in flight taken with a 400mm.

I use the 400mm f5.6L on a 7D and 5D MkII. The 1.4TC is useful for subject that stay very still, but, in general, I use it little, due to the lack of AF on either body. Yes, I'm jonesing for an EF 500mm f4.0L IS that I'd probably use almost continuously with the 1.4TC, but you can get nice bird pictures with a 400mm. I use a combination of stalking in the car, on foot and positioning myself where birds will come. I've found that placing myself near a bush or tree where I've seen birds will usually lead to birds coming back. You have to move really slow.

Here's an image of a small, female house finch that I took last weekend with the 400mm and 7D with no TC:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2489/...91652767_b.jpg

Dave

Teleconverter isn't going to be satisfactory for you. Look for larger wildlife or shooting locations that provide better and closer access to animals.

Learn to make setups by providing food for the songbirds if needed. Practice on common and domesticated animals when nothing else is around.

You will also find that approaching birds by crawling lets you get much closer than walking upright.

Edy the 100-400 & 1.4X will produce a good image if you hold it steady, even on a tripod you need to use a good technique. Will post one below from Butterfly World, tripods not allowed so I hand to hand hold, tried having a decent shutter speed (1/2500 sec) and I think results are acceptable. Image not cropped, no PS work, just converted and sharpened.

This was made with a Mk3 so AF was possible with converter, your main problem is going to be with the focus since you are using a 7D.

David thanks for sharing your 400mm lens image. It's nice pic.. I wish I could get closer to the object as like as you did... How close are you from the object?

Alfred thanks for sharing the image of 100-400 + tc1.4x, it looks fine for me. unfortunately i am using 7d.. I have to save to buy lens for birding.. hehe.. Alfred you said that, even we use tripod we have to know the good technique. What is the technique? Where can I learn(download) the technique?

Thanks

Hi Edy We just try to take all the play out of the lens. Push up on the front of the lens and up/forward with your cheek against the back of the camera. For critical results lock down the tripod.

Once in a while I try making images at a low shutter speed just to see what can be done, use a sign or anything I can tell sharpness easily. With time you will do better and better !!!

Edy, my EXIF says that I was at 15.17m. The file size after cropping (1843x1645) says it's about a 60% crop. (The 7D's file quality is sufficient that you can crop pretty severely.)

I'd like to encourage you to not give up on getting closer. You'll have to work at it, but it's very rewarding. In this case, there were finches, flickers, woodpeckers and chickadees moving around amonst the trees. If I'd approach a tree, they'd move to a further tree; however, if I positioned my self by an attractive tree and waited, then they came. I stood still for maybe ten-minutes before they came to my staked out tree, but that's nothing. Rather than stand totally in the open, I find it useful to stand near another tree.

If you're hunting at a preserve with roads, then use your car as a blind, moving slowly as you watch and listen. You can shoot from your car with a beanbag OR you can get out slowly and stay near the car (keep your head down) and shoot off the top of the car or a fender.

When I walk out into the field to set up, I do it fairly briskly and walk directly to a place that I think will be good, then wait. They'll come near you, then you just work on closing the distance a little at the time.

Remember, most wild animals are creatures of habit and return over and over to favorite feeding and resting spots. Observe those and return, over and over and you'll start being rewarded for you planning a patience.

Also, always be ready to shoot what you see, rather than what you wanted to see. My reason for being in this particular spot is that I wanted to shoot ring-necked pheasants. I heard them and saw them in the field as I drove up and I was driving there because I knew that pheasants love this location. A nice rooster even flew right in front of my car and landed to the right, but disappeared before I could get stopped and wrestle the camera into position. Ugh... I ended up with several fairly crappy pheasant shots BUT several very nice shots of various little birds. This was my fourth or fifth attempt at the pheasants and I haven't gotten the pheasant shot that's in my head, but I've gotten deer, coyote, hawks, harriers, geese, all kinds of little birds and one or two beautiful sunrises and/or sunsets.

Take what you're given, but don't give up on what you want.

Dave

The best results for songbirds with a short lens are going to come from doing set-ups. Look at the work of Alan Murphy, Tim Zurowski, and Matthew Studebaker to get some ideas.

Also the 400 prime example in pane #10 is not the greatest IMO. It looks to have lost some detail from PP and isn't that sharp.

Here is a 100% sharpened crop from a bare 100-400 handheld at 400mm. It is hard to judge IQ unless you can see the image at 100% or near it. IMO the 100-400 is plenty sharp, and you could probably use a 1.4TC on it, but I wouldn't use a 2x. I do think the 400 prime is a bit sharper, but with good technique the 100-400 can produce.

Here is a link you might want to check out: http://www.ejphoto.com/400mm_shoot_out_page.htm

You might want to look at this thread:
recommended birding camera set up
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=50170

From one of my posts in that thread:
------
OK, let's step back and look at some history.

A couple of years ago a cutting edge combination was a 500 mm on a 1D Mark II with 8 frames per second. The key in this is the 8.2 micron pixels. The means one pixel sees 206265*.0082/500 = 3.4 arc seconds.
The rig weighs about 11 pounds. (smaller arc-seconds means more pixels on subject)

Then came the 1D Mark III (7.2 micron pixels) + 500 mm which = 2.97 arc-seconds and weighs about the same as the combinaton above. (1DIII = 2.54 lbs + 500mm f/4 = 8.53 lbs = 11.07 lbs)

Now look a 7D (4.3 micron pixels) with a 300 mm f/4 L IS lens: 1 pixel is 2.95 arc-seconds.
7D = 1.8 pounds + 300 mm f/4= 2.6 pounds = 4.4 pounds.

The 300 f/4 +1.4x TC = 420 mm f/5.6 and autofocuses on the 7D and the 300+1.4 is very sharp.
And you have 8 frames per second. less than $3,000 for camera + lens + 1.4x TC.
-----

The bottom line is a 400 mm lens with a 7D has more pixels on subject than a 1D Mark III with a 500 mm lens. Pixels on subject is not about crop factor, it is about true focal length/ pixel pitch. For example, compare a 1DIII to the 7D and the pixels on subject (7D/1DIII) is the ratio of the pixel pitches for a given focal length lens = 7.2/4.3 = 1.67. So a 400 mm lens on the 7D gets the same pixels on subject as a 1D Mark III with a 670 mm lens.
That is close to a 500 +1.4x on the 1DIII.

The 7D, with its very small pixels demand a lot from a lens, and the difference between a zoom like the 100-400 versus a fixed focal length, e.g. 400 f.5.6 will be more obvious. There are also reportedly variability in image quality with the 100-400 lenses at 400mm (e.g. mine is slightly soft). So if one has such a zoom, stepping up to a better quality fixed focal length lens could show a good improvement in image quality.

Roger

The 100-400mm is f5.6 at 400mm, isn't it? If so, I don't think it'll AF on the 7D. My prime 400 f5.6 does not.

Dave

Edy---Hey---Let me chime in----I have a 7D and 99.9% of my pictures are taken using the 100x400MM lens. Everyone of my BIF are hand held. Living in Florida you have so many choices of birds to photograph. My favorites are the Raptors. Because they are so numerous, Ospreys are ones that I love to photograph. You'd be amazed at how many I take from my car. I have driven as close as 20 feet to some and the reach with the 100x400 is pretty cool. One of my favorite places is in the south St. Augustine area and I have photographed as many as 5 Ospreys sitting on top of light poles eating fish in this one place. I have gotten out of my car and walked as close as 10 feet to the light poles---the Ospreys may take flight but will circle back and land on the pole again. I just stand still and wait for them. I guess my point is--you can get pretty close to the guys and can get some pretty good close ups--I crop a little closer if needed when I PP. Also, one of the best places to photograph Raptors is on the golf course. I have taken shots of Hawks, Eagles and Osprey's. They are used to humans and will not take flight--I guess we are chasing other "BIRDIES" and they seem to know that we won't bother them. Bottom line---find places where you can get close and you won't need extenders. It's easy to do. I have taken 1,000's of Raptor photographs and haven't needed any help at all. As someone mentioned, it's all in your technique and patience, parience and more patience---you will be amazed how rewarding it will be when you hunt these beautiful creatures and see the results.

Hi Dave

If your 400 f5.6 bare (no teleconverter) isn't auto focussing on your 7D you may have some other issue going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Meadows

Living in Florida you have so many choices of birds to photograph...

---

Florida is an atypical example, where birds are generally more approachable than other spots in the US, and possibly the whole world. Might not be a good example here. In New Jersey, 99% of my bird photos are taken with the 500mm f/4, 1.4 teleconverter, on a typical 1.6x crop body. It still isn't easy with that reach.

Anyways, what state or country are in Edy? Perhaps someone can lend some more direct advice then. In general, it's not easy to get close to birds. Might be good for you to network with other local photographers and birdwatchers to learn from them.

- Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevin Hall

Hi Dave

If your 400 f5.6 bare (no teleconverter) isn't auto focussing on your 7D you may have some other issue going on.

---

It's focusing fine with no TC. Sorry if I led some to that conclusion. However, it will not AF with the Canon 1.4TC-II.

Dave

guys thanks for yours suggestion..

Dave - I live in Surabaya, Indonesia... Bird in my city is not big bird and hard to close them.. I am networking with my friend who is a birdwatcher..

guys, what about using 300mm f4 is + tc 2x ? is the image quality acceptable? does anyone have the pic sample?
in my mind using 300mm + tc 2x is equal to 600mm and I think is tele enough to catch a bird in my city. But I don't know the image result.

Here is an image that I took using 100-400mm, I just resize the image.

and this one

Edy, if those images are uncropped, then I think that the first one could end up pretty nice when heavily cropped. Crop that first one down to around 20% of the original. That will show if it's truly in focus or not, but don't worry about that at the moment because you can improve that.

Dave

Edy, how long did you stalk that first bird? To move in closer might take 15 to 20 minutes. Also, you'll need to look for better lighting. All this is easier said than done, but if you keep trying you'll start succeeding.

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edy Subiyanto

guys thanks for yours suggestion..

Dave - I live in Surabaya, Indonesia... Bird in my city is not big bird and hard to close them.. I am networking with my friend who is a birdwatcher..

guys, what about using 300mm f4 is + tc 2x ? is the image quality acceptable? does anyone have the pic sample?
in my mind using 300mm + tc 2x is equal to 600mm and I think is tele enough to catch a bird in my city. But I don't know the image result.

Here is an image that I took using 100-400mm, I just resize the image.

---

Edy,
I don't have a 2x +300 f/4 on my web site, but here is one with a 1.4x including some 100% views:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...962.b-700.html

I suggest you try imaging the next full moon around New Years with your 7D and 100-400, then compare to images on this page: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/moon-test2/

The Moon is one subject we can all image and then compare how sharp one is getting. It is a surprisingly difficult object and the results will also depend on how steady the atmosphere is. This is also true of wildlife photography as you work in the weak of the day and as your focal length increases, heat wave distortion will become more of an issue.

If I have some clear skies, I will image the moon with my 5DII and 300 f/4 with 1.4 and 2x TCs next week. If you want to try this comparison, send me an email on the day you take your image, and I'll try and do the same. We can start trying anytime this weekend and beyond. The Moon is at first quarter Dec 24, and I might have clear skies starting Dec 25 (it is snowing here now).

With your 7D a 300 + 2x TC will not autofocus; you will need to manually focus, perhaps with live view. I've used live view to focus with 2x TCs and f/4 lenses on my 5DII. It works very nicely, but it doesn't work for subjects in motion.

Personally, I replaced my 100-400 with the 300 f/4 L IS. I still have the 100-400, but find the 300 f/4 with a 1.4x TC gives better image quality and faster AF than the 100-400. The 300 is also smaller and lighter, so easier to hand hold for longer periods.


Roger

Dave - I mean to leave the image uncropped to show that the lens is not tele enough for that kind of bird... that's why I am asking advice about tele converter instead of buying really tele lens...

I stalked about 10 minutes... dave if I cropped the image, the bird does not look sharp.

Roger - I'll try to get the full month pic, cause in here almost every night raining. in my opinion, if I use 300mm + 1.4 tc, it only gain 20mm from my 100-400... And I think that 20mm is not enough for me...

what if that canon 100-400 using kenko dg 2x tc or sigma 2x for canon? good choice?

I also see there is another alternative tele lens, but it's not canon's product. It's Sigma 50-500mm, or sigma 150-500mm or tamron 200-500mm. What do you think about this lens? is the image quality acceptable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edy Subiyanto

Dave - I mean to leave the image uncropped to show that the lens is not tele enough for that kind of bird... that's why I am asking advice about tele converter instead of buying really tele lens...

I stalked about 10 minutes... dave if I cropped the image, the bird does not look sharp.

Roger - I'll try to get the full month pic, cause in here almost every night raining. in my opinion, if I use 300mm + 1.4 tc, it only gain 20mm from my 100-400... And I think that 20mm is not enough for me...

what if that canon 100-400 using kenko dg 2x tc or sigma 2x for canon? good choice?

I also see there is another alternative tele lens, but it's not canon's product. It's Sigma 50-500mm, or sigma 150-500mm or tamron 200-500mm. What do you think about this lens? is the image quality acceptable?

---

Edy, if the cropped image was unclear, then either your shutter speed was too low, or you didn't get the focus just right, or both. All of these things get hypercritical as you lens length increases. The quality of the 7D's image is such that it can stand a heavy crop and still look sharp.

You're investing adequately in the stalk, but will refine your technique as you do it more and more. BTW, look at that image critically and think how it would have differed with a 500mm. It would not be ready for prime time either. In fact, the shake would probably be even worse. I'd recommend holding off on more lens purchases until you get a good handle on your 100-400mm.

If at all possible, try to work with Roger as suggested on doing the moon shot comparison in private. Shooting the moon is harder than most think, so you might ask him to give you an ISO and manual settings, unless you know how to take a spot mode reading off the moon.

The thing that you gain with the 300 over the 100-400 is speed and AF with TCs. The 7D will AF very fast with the 300 with TCs.

The Sigmas are very good lenses for the money, but your 400 is likely sharper. I think that you should get some good results with the 400 before moving up. Do you have a local zoo where you could go for practice? Have you read all the technical articles that you can find here and ordered Arthur Morris' CD? Believe me, slapping a 500mm on your 7D isn't going to solve all your issues, unless you combine it with proper technique, which is harder than most people presume.

You asked about good tripod technique and I don't think anyone really answered your question. First, you need a good tripod. The 100-400mm is pretty light, so for an aluminum tripod your talking $300-ish for a tripod, plus a gimbal head. Manfrotto has this set up. I use their 055MF (carbon fiber) tripod and their gimbal head with my 400mm f5.6L and that works well. I'm buying a 500mm f4L IS soon and plan to move up to a Gitzo or equivalent with a Wimberley Sidekick gimbal and Arca-Swiss ballhead, which is three-times as expensive as I think that you should go at this point. So, step one is to get a good tripod and a good gimbal head (this assumes that you want to include birds in flight in your subjects. If not, then a ballhead will do, but is still expensive for a good one).

If your tripod has a center post, then try to keep it retracted to minimize vibration of the post. When you set it up, make sure that the legs are locked out and then push it down solidly into the dirt if the surface isn't paved. Mirror shake, even will a tripod, will demand a shutter speed in excess of 1/500-second. For the ultimate in no-shake, use mirror lock up or Live View and a remote release. However, most bird shots in nature will require the mirror to be in play.

Surf this site and others for tutorials and books that you can order. Take lots and lots of pictures and keep refining your technique. Your not really that far away from taking some very nice images. I don't know about your tripod rig, but your camera and lens rig should yield some nice results.

Dave

Solid advice from Dave !!!!!!!!!!


Your best bet is trying for yourself and making a decision !!!

Dave - thanks for your advise. my tripod is a cheap one. I bought it about $40, it's excell (Tripod UFO 260 - Support 3kg).

you mean if the focus is right, the crop image will look sharp? even heavily crop?
On my image,, they aren't sharp.. perhaps i need remote releases to avoid shake...Does live view really help us to get nice image?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edy Subiyanto

Dave - thanks for your advise. my tripod is a cheap one. I bought it about $40, it's excell (Tripod UFO 260 - Support 3kg).

you mean if the focus is right, the crop image will look sharp? even heavily crop?
On my image,, they aren't sharp.. perhaps i need remote releases to avoid shake...Does live view really help us to get nice image?

---

Edy,

If the focus is right and your tripod has held the camera steady and you have enough shutter speed to take into account both subject movement and mirror-induced shake, THEN, and only then, a very heavy crop will look sharp. (That little house finch image that I posted further up the thread is a 60+% crop.

Sorry to say, but your tripod is the weak link in your equipment kit right now and a remote release isn't going to fix that.

Live View can help reduce mirror shake, but then the AF doesn't seem to work as well and I feel like I can't see well enough for anything moving fast. If it were a bird perching in a zoo, then live view might work, but a bird flitting around in the wild is entirely something different dynamice, where I feel most comfortable looking through the viewfinder.

As soon as the budget will allow, you should consider a superior tripod and head. If you plan for birds in flight, that means a gimbal head. Top of the line is Gitzo, Really Right Stuff and some others. High quality, but less expensive is Manfrotto, Induro and some others. With my 400mm f5.6 I'm using the Manfrotto 055MF (carbon fiber) with the Manfrotto gimbal. It's a good value, particularly if you get aluminum instead of carbon fiber and it works very well for lenses up to the size of yours and mine. Going to most 500mm, then you'd want something even heavier.

Dave

Hi Edy, the image might or might not be acceptable if heavily cropped depending on you standards. I would never crop an image that much, but then again, my standards are very high. For me the crop in pane #10 is not acceptable.

One thing to know about the 100-400 is that is it much sharper when the subject is closer. As the subject gets farther away the IQ starts to drop.

I think your best option right now is the 300 f/4 and the 2x. It is light, sharp, and can take converters better than the 400 f/5.6 lenses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Stephens

As soon as the budget will allow, you should consider a superior tripod and head. If you plan for birds in flight, that means a gimbal head.

---

Dave,
For birds in flight with small lenses like the 100-400 or 300 f/4, I feel it is better to work off tripod unless one has a handicap making such hand holding difficult. I would suggest working on technique hand held. For larger lenses, then I agree with the good tripod and gimbal mount. Some people do well with 500 f/4 hand held; I can do it for brief periods. Here is the full moon 500 f/4 +2x TC, hand held:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...3f-8s-800.html
(I did this to check my technique). Again, I use the Moon over and over as a test target as it is a consistent outside target I can always shoot (at least when it is up and clear).

Roger

Edy, Aidan makes a good point. Acceptable sharpness is a personal matter, particularly for the hobbiest. Just remember, you're not going to jump from the images you're taking now to Aidan's level simply by moving to another lens. You have the 100-400mm in hand, so I'd suggest that you learn to use that well and then consider your next purchase. Aidan's images are very good (you should look at his images, linked in his signature), but you're a long ways from that level right now. You can indeed close the gap quickly in the coming months and part of your problem is equipment (tripod), but most of your problem at this moment is knowledge and experience.

I suspect that right now you'd be very happy if you could produce an image as good as in Pane #10. I put it there to show what you can expect from you current equipment (excepting your tripod) and that you can indeed improve upon as you gain experience with your equipment and subjects.

Dave

David makes a good point also. A year or two ago I also would have been very happy with the image in pane #10. Looking at the work of good photographers, reading everything you can, and posting on BPN will allow you to improve at a very fast rate. It certainly sped up my learning curve :)

Regarding handholding vs. using a tripod. Try Roger's moon shot test and see for yourself. Roger has thought about and practiced handholding quite a bit. See if you can match him.

dave what tripod is good for birding photography...
Cause when I bought the tripod (my excell) I didn't have in mind if I will use it frequently, so i bought the cheap one..

Roger has already had lots of experiences than me... I am still a newbie in photography..

Aidan, did you take all your portfolio image with your 300 f4 + 2x canon?
if yes, the images look good to me.

Here is the pic that I took it this afternoon...
this image was taken at f8 - shutter speed 1/500 , iso 200 and handheld
I just auto the level and crop it..

I also have same image but with different setting f11- shutter speed 1/500 and iso 200

for 100-400 lens what f number, shutter speed and iso that perform the best?

Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edy Subiyanto

dave what tripod is good for birding photography...
Cause when I bought the tripod (my excell) I didn't have in mind if I will use it frequently, so i bought the cheap one..
.

---

Edy, commensurate with your camera and lens budget, I'd suggest the Manfrotto 055 tripod (chose carbon fiber or aluminum based on your budget and how much you think you'll be carrying it) with the Manfrotto gimbal head. This is a good rig at this price point and given you lens size. If you don't get a gimbal, then at least get a ball head.

If you move up to a 500mm f4, then you'll want to invest more in an even heavier tripod and better gimbal, but I think that the Manfrotto combination is very good without breaking the bank. Induro is another good value, but I don't know a specific model.

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edy Subiyanto

Here is the pic that I took it this afternoon...
this image was taken at f8 - shutter speed 1/500 , iso 200 and handheld
I just auto the level and crop it..

---

Great, that's a good start. I'll comment here, but I'd really suggest that you also post this in the Eager to Learn forum. You'll receive some very good criticism.

Are you using aperture priority? Generally this has over exposed the highlights and the background ("BG") is too detailed. I would have opened up to f5.6 to try to bokeh the BG. For the exposure level, I'd try -1EV or even -2EV, then brought the lighting level up in post processing ("PP").

This is a great subject, in a classic pose. Keep at it. :)

Dave

Oops, I re-read your post and saw that you used Auto. You need to move to Aperture Priority. Is this from a RAW image?

Hi Edy, All of my images were made with my 100-400. I don't own a 300mm or a 2x tc.

All,

It looks like I have a nice clear night, and a quite one before Christmas, so I'll image the moon tonight after dinner with my 300 mm f/4 L IS with 1.4x and 2x TCs. I'll also do the 100-400 L IS at 400 mm and with a TC (beyond f/5.6 I'll use live view to manually focus).

A test exposure on a 5DII a few minutes ago shows 1/320 second ISO 200, f/4 had the brightest craters close to saturation (so maybe go 1/3 stop faster).

I'll post examples later (may be tomorrow). So if you want to compare your lenses, this is a chance.

Roger

Here are two images for comparison from this evening: the moon with a 300 mm f/4 L IS + 1.4x TC versus 100-400 mm at 400 mm. Both at f/5.6, taken a few minutes apart on the same tripod, with mirror lockup. These are in-camera generated jpegs with no sharpening. There were no UV or other filters on either lens. These are full pixel images.

I have never been impressed with my 100-400. I have also tried manual focusing and it is simply no match for the 300 f/4. Others may have better copies of the 100-400.

Roger

I've added more examples of the 300 f/4 to the 100-400. Now I show the moon with the 300 f/4 with and without a good UV filter (the filter degrades quality) and I added a 300 +2x TC to compare (focused with live view) to compare with the 100-400 image:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/moon-test2/

Roger

Roger thanks for sharing the moon shot. however, 300mm + 2x using manual focus... Is it better to use manual focus than af when I am going to shot flying bird? what do you aim when shooting flying bird? eye, head or body?

David Stephen : thanks for your tripod suggestion. As I have check the price in my city, the manfrotto 055 and ball head is around $3xx, wow that's a high investment on a tripod. Is it better to choose ball head or gimbal head? do you mind telling me the benefits of them?

Yes, my pic is raw format. is it better to use AV than manual mode?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edy Subiyanto

Roger thanks for sharing the moon shot. however, 300mm + 2x using manual focus... Is it better to use manual focus than af when I am going to shot flying bird? what do you aim when shooting flying bird? eye, head or body?

David Stephen : thanks for your tripod suggestion. As I have check the price in my city, the manfrotto 055 and ball head is around $3xx, wow that's a high investment on a tripod. Is it better to choose ball head or gimbal head? do you mind telling me the benefits of them?

Yes, my pic is raw format. is it better to use AV than manual mode?

---

Edy, for flying birds you want your AF, not MF. MF works when shooting the moon because it's a mostly static subject, only moving very slowly in your field of view. Roger suggested the moon because it's a subject that you could share.

I use single-point AF when I'm shooting birds mostly. For birds in the brush or trees, it allows to focus around the limbs and leaves that are often in the way. For birds in flight ("BIF") and stationery birds, ideally you'll focus on the eye. For BIF it can be very hard to lock onto the eye, so get as close as you can. (Eye, head, neck, body, in that order). You'll need to avoid getting the focus point on the open sky or the background; otherwise, you'll lose focus on the bird and it'll be hard to get the focus back. The "Slow" focus speed can be best for many, because it's not quite so quick to grab hold of the sky or background for focus.

Remember to switch to a multipoint AF mode for scenics and other subjects.

Many pros use the Manual mode for setting exposures. On this forum, based on reading the discussions, I think that most use AV mode with compensation for lighting conditions with +-EV. If you're comfortable with the Manual mode, then keep using it. AV just saves you some calculations and keeps adjusting the camera, on the fly, for lighting conditions. Realize that there are several metering modes to consider. Evaluative is a broad reading (kind of like and average, but not exactly) and then there are verying degrees down to Spot. Know what your meter is reading for the best results, if you go AV.

There are a bunch of articles in the Educational Forum that you should look through.

When you consider the cost of your current kit, the Manfrotto is consistant. Generally, it'll improve your images as much or more than any new lens. Unfortunately, it's an expense most nature photographers haven't really anticipated. You might post a query in the Equipment Forum, using it as the an example, to see if there are other suggestions and first hand experience. It's by no means the only choice in the price range. Look into Induro. Some of the Chinese brands can be good, but you need testimonials from trusted users.

Gimbal is best for BIF and ballhead is best for everything else, generally. For the weight of lenses your have, a good ball head with the Wimberley Sidekick gives you quick conversion from one to the other. The Sidekick is really a fine piece for lenses up to say a 500mm f4. Something like that would double your investment in the stabilization system. Right now, I'm making due with my Manfrotto gimbal. It's easy to tighten down. It's a poor solution for wide angle lenses, because there's no room in the U for the camera body, only a lens mount really fits in there.

Did you get out and take more images for us? I'd love to see a Flickr, Picaso or link on here.

Here's a link to some of my stuff on Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dcstep/...7622588354979/

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edy Subiyanto

Roger thanks for sharing the moon shot. however, 300mm + 2x using manual focus... Is it better to use manual focus than af when I am going to shot flying bird? what do you aim when shooting flying bird? eye, head or body?

David Stephen : thanks for your tripod suggestion. As I have check the price in my city, the manfrotto 055 and ball head is around $3xx, wow that's a high investment on a tripod. Is it better to choose ball head or gimbal head? do you mind telling me the benefits of them?

Yes, my pic is raw format. is it better to use AV than manual mode?

---

Edy,
David answered as I would. You pretty much need AF for any subject moving toward or away from the camera.
This articles discusses the method I use:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...with.autofocus

Regarding gimbal head for BIF, I would say for the lenses you are using (100-400 or if you change to the 300 +TCs) I feel hand held is better, giving you more flexibility in tracking the moving subject. I feel I only need a gimbal head on larger lenses, like 500 f/4 and larger (and some here hand hold the 500).

When I was first getting into wildlife photography, I found it difficult to spend the big money on tripods and heads. But they really are necessary. A flimsy tripod can be worse than no tripod, and a long telephoto lens really magnifies every little vibration.

Roger

Roger makes a great point about handholding, particularly for BIF at the lens lengths you're at. Here's a great thread, talking both about tripod use and handheld. Follow the links to further articles about handholding techinques:

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=10088

You've got IS, so this may be the way for you to go. Like Roger says, a flimsy tripod is worse than no tripod. I find the tripod most useful for stationary birds, without IS. Without IS it's hard to keep the single-point on the eye, but with IS or with the tripod, it's very easy.

Dave

Dave and Roger, thanks for your tips.
Maybe I'll choose manfrotto 055 and ball head 488rc4. Is it a good combination?
or manfrotto 055 and 322RC2 HEAVY DUTY GRIP BALL ?
I not only use it for birding but I also use them for landscape photography.

Dave I will post some images on flickr but I need time to convert it to jpg.

perhaps you may look my images on my facebook..

you can check it here