Am I expecting too much from my equipment?

[John Flynn]

This was shot with a 1DX, 600mm F4 IS II and a 1.4X III TC. The EXIF is ISO 640, F5.6, 1/2000s, 840mm. It is a 40% crop and when shooting hawks or falcons in flight at this crop level this is about as sharp as I get. I definitely want to learn to make sharper images. Is the answer 1. You just have to get closer and this is what to expect from this crop; 2. User error (seems kind of unlikely because I have shot hundreds of images like this and this is about as sharp as they get, you'd figure I'd track it right once); 3. A problem with the equipment (maybe an AFMA issue). To me the image seems improperly focused and smacks of #3. The sharpness seems to drop off the greater the distance even when adjusting for larger subjects. If anyone has any insight I would greatly appreciate it. A full size image can be seen here: http://johnflynnphotos.smugmug.com/A...ht/i-kskJsXJ/A .
Thanks,
John Flynn

[David Kenny]

John,

I think it has to do with the number of pixels you get on the subject. So if you are shooting from far away and your target is on the small side you get less pixels on the bird. When you crop it down there is less detail and it does not look too good. I don't think it has to do with operator error I just think getting closer may be the issue here. Also I use the 7D and have noticed when I shoot at higher ISO and crop the detail on the subject gets worse the higher the ISO. I am still learning myself so lets here what others have to say.

-Dave

[John Flynn]

Maybe I'm just expecting too much from the equipment. It sure was expensive though . To me it kind of looks like there is a blur in the catchlight in the eyes. Viewing it full size really helps.

[Diane Miller]

At that focal length, the slightest camera or subject movement will cause degradation of sharpness. I think David got to the issue -- there just aren't enough pixels on the subject. A nice catch but you were too far away. Getting closer is better than adding focal length -- but not as easy. In addition, you have major sharpening halos, even more evident in the Smugmug post. Sharpening isn't magic. It isn't even sharpening. It is the introduction of artifacts at contrast edges that make an image look sharper.

In addition, atmospheric turbulence and moisture and pollutants in the air (think "heat waves" although it doesn't have to be hot) can degrade an image at distances like this. The fewer pixels, the more the degradation.

[John Flynn]

Thanks Diane! I guess I just have to get closer. I'm used to seeing a friends results with the new tamron 150-600 and a D800 and although mine wind up better obviously the difference isn't as huge as I'd expect after spending all that money.... I guess megapixels are key. That field I was photographing in would definitely make some substantial hot air currents as it was warming. Thank you for the insight on this too. I'm still going to try some AFMA though to see if it helps. BTW I knew I was over sharpening but I figured it was somehow pulling more detail so I could show the absolute maximum resolution of the picture. I suppose that is not truly the case, thank you for the clarification.

[Daniel Cadieux]

John, a glance at a 100% crop on the face could tell you right away if the IQ of the image could hold up to such a crop. But I do agree that if the subject still looks small in the frame with such a crop then you were likely indeed too far away for the reasons stated. Plus, sometimes 1/2000s. may just not be fast enough with speedy fliers if your panning technique is not 100% spot on (but that is less of an issue the further away the subject is though). The equipment you have is Canon's top of the line both in body and lens so unless they are defective you can rule that out. Getting closer is the likely solution here.

[Tobie Schalkwyk]

From other pics on this forum using the same equipment one can safely conclude that the equipment is tops (I can only dream of shooting with a 600mm - the closest I'd get is a rental!).

In my short DSLR venture I've discovered that we (well, at least the rookies!) tend to demand way too much from our lenses in bringing a subject much closer than what is feasible instead of using our feet to get the subject closer up to a point where we can do our final crop (at least to some degree) in-camera. Maybe that's even more true in case of the humongous 500/600mm lenses because they're not fun to carry around. The small size of the bird in the pic at 40% crop indicates that you were definately too far in this case. The problem with raptures obviously is that they do not always let you get close and you need a bit of luck for them to do so. I think one important aspect is that they need an immense lot of patience and a good knowledge of their habbits (as do most nature subjects) to offer a good shot. In general they hunt in a specific area and perch at one of a few favourate spots (specially after catching prey). You might want to use that knowledge to get close to a specific bird before snapping it. Obviously that sounds so easy, doesn't it? Perhaps the good avian photographers on this forum is partly to blame because we see these fantastic BIF shots but they never tell us what extreme patience and cunning plans it required to get such photo(s)!

[Tim Harding]

I have to agree with everyone else John. A big lens is no substitute for getting close - it just lets you fill more of the frame when you get close. You have pretty much the best equipment that money can buy (if you get tired of it and want to get rid of it at a substantial discount, let me know )

If your subject isn't any bigger than the active focus point(s) at the time of exposure getting a super sharp shot is pretty much impossible, at least for us mortals. Keep shooting and practicing and I bet you'll find you will eventually get better results. I rented a 600mm for 4 days once and after the first day I was wondering if I'd wasted my money, but by day 4 I was getting some of the best shots I've ever taken.