Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Kestral Overseeing Domain (small in frame)

  1. #1
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Camas, Washington
    Posts
    98
    Threads
    16
    Thank You Posts

    Default Kestral Overseeing Domain (small in frame)

    Name:  IMG_5692-Edit.jpg
Views: 220
Size:  398.1 KB

    There are times I wish to have a longer lens...
    Ridgefield Wildlife Preserve, shot from car
    Canon 50D, 70-200 2.8L + 2.0x @365mm
    1/1000, f/7.1, IS0 200, AV mode
    LR and PS, removed one branch, sharpening/contrast on bird and branches, noise reduction/surface blur on background.
    Last edited by Jon Pugmire; 12-02-2014 at 11:12 PM. Reason: spelling typo

  2. #2
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,298
    Threads
    112
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Beautiful shot, Jon! Just wondering - you appear to have enough sharpness to crop it in a little closer and perhaps convert it to portrait mode in order to exclude some of the branches on the side which add no value to the scene.

  3. #3
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Camas, Washington
    Posts
    98
    Threads
    16
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Name:  IMG_5692-Edit-2.jpg
Views: 220
Size:  241.5 KB

    I had originally done this, but it began to degrade on me, it's why I wish at the time I had a longer lens. I like the way branches and the background interact in the OP, and it gives some habitat/location perspective. I might try something between the two.

  4. #4
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,298
    Threads
    112
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Pugmire View Post

    I had originally done this, but it began to degrade on me, it's why I wish at the time I had a longer lens. I like the way branches and the background interact in the OP, and it gives some habitat/location perspective. I might try something between the two.
    I see what you mean Jon - in your RP the degradation is very subtle though, so it works for me. Having said that - nothing wrong with wishing for a longer lens on this one. These smaller birds are always a challenge when we try to pull them closer. I must add though that I'm subprised at the clarity of the 2x extender / 70-200mm combo. It shows that you've gotten the most possible out of it - well done on that!

    PS: you actually worked with a full frame equivalent of 730mm if my sums are correct (if you count in your crop sensor factor) so that's nothing to scoff at...
    Last edited by Tobie Schalkwyk; 12-03-2014 at 04:19 AM.

  5. #5
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Camas, Washington
    Posts
    98
    Threads
    16
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tobie Schalkwyk View Post
    PS: you actually worked with a full frame equivalent of 730mm if my sums are correct (if you count in your crop sensor factor) so that's nothing to scoff at...
    365mm x 1.6 = 584mm? (The 365 already includes the 2x extender). When I see other guys driving around with a 500/600mm with the option of putting an extender on, I get a little bit jealous . He was watching a mouse not too far from the car (couldn't leave the car to try to get closer). It is the series II lens, which does take the series III extenders very well, though I can't shoot flight with that combo (at least not very well, the 50D is the limiting factor there I believe).

  6. #6
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    9,587
    Threads
    401
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    You got a very nice image for what you had to work with! And that lens and extender combination is very sharp.

    You probably already know about strategies to maximize sharpness with the rig you have. The huge key is getting closer (yeah -- not always possible) but getting the most pixels on the subject is very important. Closer is better than using a longer lens, in the cases where it's possible. In some cases with a long lens there can be softening due to air turbulence. Next is getting the very best sharpness. That means a very steady tripod or even beanbag and fast enough shutter speed (don't let a beanbag touch the AF ring on the lens). Using one focus sensor and getting it right on the critical part of the image is important. If you use autofocus, doing focus calibration for the lenses can make a difference, but I don't know if your body allows it. Manual focus with mirror lockup/live view can work with a still subject. A remote trigger can minimize camera shake if you have a very solid tripod.

    To shoot flight you'll want the 7DII at minimum.

    Maximizing the balance of shutter speed, aperture and ISO is important and it's a small sweet spot! But it looks like you were pretty close to optimum there.

  7. Thanks Jon Pugmire thanked for this post
  8. #7
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Camas, Washington
    Posts
    98
    Threads
    16
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diane Miller View Post
    You got a very nice image for what you had to work with! And that lens and extender combination is very sharp.

    The huge key is getting closer (yeah -- not always possible) but getting the most pixels on the subject is very important. Closer is better than using a longer lens, in the cases where it's possible.

    To shoot flight you'll want the 7DII at minimum.
    During the fall/winter/spring the refuge rules don't allow you outside the car, it's a 4 mile loop, but when I saw this bird just sitting atop the tree, I was wishing for a little more reach...

    I would love a 7DII, though probably not likely to happen. I can shoot flight fairly well with the bare lens and sometimes with the 1.4X, but it has been difficult to get critical focus with the 2.0X. The new 100-400 with the 7DII looks to be a nice birding kit if you can't afford the super-teles.

    Thanks Diane for the work you put in here, it is much appreciated.

  9. #8
    Lifetime Member David Salem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Riverside, CA
    Posts
    6,664
    Threads
    276
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I shoot allot of Kestrels out of the car and I must say for the rig that you are shooting with this looks pretty good. I would crop somewhere between the two. maybe a boost in saturation and contrast but otherwise a nice frame.
    The advice you got from Diane is right on and I agree with everything she stated, especially getting close!
    I work very hard on animal behavior and understanding how different birds handle the presence of me and my truck. I sometimes spend weeks on an individual Kestrel getting closer and closer every day but not pushing it to much to scare her off. Once she knows that the car is not a threat, you might be surprised how close you can get. I have three Kestrels, a female merlin, a Red-shouldred hawk and a Ferruginous hawk that I can get within 25-30feet from. Pretty much full frame with my 600. Keep at it and you will get close enough to make up for the limited focal length.
    Come join me for a Custom Raptor Workshop starting this November 2019- January 2020.
    P.M. me to inquire on dates, pricing and availabilities. Thank You.
    www.davidsalemphotography.com

  10. Thanks Jon Pugmire thanked for this post
  11. #9
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,298
    Threads
    112
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Pugmire View Post
    365mm x 1.6 = 584mm? (The 365 already includes the 2x extender). When I see other guys driving around with a 500/600mm with the option of putting an extender on, I get a little bit jealous . He was watching a mouse not too far from the car (couldn't leave the car to try to get closer). It is the series II lens, which does take the series III extenders very well, though I can't shoot flight with that combo (at least not very well, the 50D is the limiting factor there I believe).
    You're 100% correct (I was not sure what the 365mm was based on). Even 584mm is quite potent so if you can't get a nice clean shot with that having done everything else right, then distance is one of your main concerns. You might also have gone for a little narrower aperture in exchange for a little higher ISO and/or a little slower shutter speed as the bird was relatively stationary and out of a few shots one of them should be a hit. But hidsight is always so easy, isn't it? I've had a look again at the RP and although it's not perfect, it's still a keeper in my books!

  12. #10
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Camas, Washington
    Posts
    98
    Threads
    16
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    This is a compromise, I like the extra height to give the bird some space to look down on, and I also like the branches and tops of the trees. Went 4 x 5 instead of 2 x 3, opinions? I also touched the saturation a bit more and some added mid-tone contrast.

    Name:  IMG_5692-Edit.jpg
Views: 90
Size:  255.0 KB

  13. #11
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Camas, Washington
    Posts
    98
    Threads
    16
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tobie Schalkwyk View Post
    You're 100% correct (I was not sure what the 365mm was based on). Even 584mm is quite potent so if you can't get a nice clean shot with that having done everything else right, then distance is one of your main concerns. You might also have gone for a little narrower aperture in exchange for a little higher ISO and/or a little slower shutter speed as the bird was relatively stationary and out of a few shots one of them should be a hit. But hidsight is always so easy, isn't it? I've had a look again at the RP and although it's not perfect, it's still a keeper in my books!
    In some cases you just can't get closer, the refuge regulations require I stay on the road and in my car. So those with 500/600 with tele-converters (and I see them out there regularly) have an advantage in this case. This particular opportunity had me wishing for longer glass. I wanted to move to a better sun angle also, but that would have put me further away.

    I wanted to keep the shutter speed ready for a possible take off (he was definitely keeping his eye on something), and I dislike pushing the ISO very far on the 50D, not sure a narrower aperture would have done much at this distance, I really like the 70-200 with 2x at 7.1 or 8. As it was I missed the take off anyway...

  14. #12
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,298
    Threads
    112
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Pugmire View Post
    This is a compromise, I like the extra height to give the bird some space to look down on, and I also like the branches and tops of the trees. Went 4 x 5 instead of 2 x 3, opinions? I also touched the saturation a bit more and some added mid-tone contrast.
    It does looks a tad sharper but I'd still go for portrait even if you zoom out a little as in this pic. Your choice, obviously.

  15. Thanks Jon Pugmire thanked for this post
  16. #13
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    9,587
    Threads
    401
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Jon, I really like you last RP -- the bird is big enough to appreciate the detail and there is enough environment to give a good story. The OOF darker trees at the bottom ground the image very nicely.

    You mentioned the new 100-400 above. I'd love to see a comparison of how its IQ compares to the new 70-200 + 2X. One difference is the improved minimum focus distance: 3.2 ft vs. about 4 ft on the new 70-200 (5 ft on the old one). They're about the same size and price, but you can push the 100-400 with a 1.4X, although at f/4.5 to 5.6, AF could be dicey with an older body. Add a 1.4X and the aperture becomes 6.7 to 8. But, as you say, with the 7D II it looks very attractive as a basic kit. Still limited for flight, though, unless the bird is pretty close.

  17. Thanks Jon Pugmire thanked for this post
  18. #14
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Camas, Washington
    Posts
    98
    Threads
    16
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diane Miller View Post
    Jon, I really like you last RP -- the bird is big enough to appreciate the detail and there is enough environment to give a good story. The OOF darker trees at the bottom ground the image very nicely.
    Thanks, it was what I was after in the original, just couldn't see my way out of the 2x3 box. I wanted to keep the trees on the bottom, but not lose detail.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diane Miller View Post
    You mentioned the new 100-400 above. I'd love to see a comparison of how its IQ compares to the new 70-200 + 2X. One difference is the improved minimum focus distance: 3.2 ft vs. about 4 ft on the new 70-200 (5 ft on the old one). They're about the same size and price, but you can push the 100-400 with a 1.4X, although at f/4.5 to 5.6, AF could be dicey with an older body. Add a 1.4X and the aperture becomes 6.7 to 8. But, as you say, with the 7D II it looks very attractive as a basic kit. Still limited for flight, though, unless the bird is pretty close.
    It's the initial acquisition AF performance at 400mm that I assume will be much better than the 70-200 II + 2x. As long as I have a tripod or other support, I can get sharp images of mostly static subjects. Songbirds or BIF should be better on the 100-400. I'm really interested to see how well a 7D II + 100-400 II + 1.4X III work together. That's a lot of range (full frame equivalent of 160mm to 896mm) if the 7D II can drive it well.

  19. #15
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    9,587
    Threads
    401
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I don't think the 100-400 would be better than the 70-200 + 2X for initial acquisition. With a 1.4x, the 70-200 is f/4 at any zoom. The 100-400 is f/5.6, assuming you're zoomed out. And putting on a 1.4, although it gives you awesome reach, takes that to f/8. Dicey territory.

    I got the 7D2 hoping to be able to shoot birds in flight and other subjects hand held with smaller lenses. I have the 300 f/2.8 and it's about my limit for hand holding. So I'm also interested in the 100-400. Haven't tried it with the 70-200 + 2X but I will. I have the older version and it's degraded a little with the 2X (even with the 2XIII) so I hadn't given much thought to using it. I guess I could further simulate the performance of the 100-400 + 1.4X by stacking TC's and see how the 7D2 handles it. May not be an exact replication, but might give an idea.

    I'll give that a try. May be a case of "What was I thinking."

  20. #16
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Camas, Washington
    Posts
    98
    Threads
    16
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diane Miller View Post
    I don't think the 100-400 would be better than the 70-200 + 2X for initial acquisition. With a 1.4x, the 70-200 is f/4 at any zoom. The 100-400 is f/5.6, assuming you're zoomed out. And putting on a 1.4, although it gives you awesome reach, takes that to f/8. Dicey territory.

    I got the 7D2 hoping to be able to shoot birds in flight and other subjects hand held with smaller lenses. I have the 300 f/2.8 and it's about my limit for hand holding. So I'm also interested in the 100-400. Haven't tried it with the 70-200 + 2X but I will. I have the older version and it's degraded a little with the 2X (even with the 2XIII) so I hadn't given much thought to using it. I guess I could further simulate the performance of the 100-400 + 1.4X by stacking TC's and see how the 7D2 handles it. May not be an exact replication, but might give an idea.

    I'll give that a try. May be a case of "What was I thinking."
    I'd be interested in how the 7D II performs with the 70-200 II + 2X III, if you can shoot close flight handheld with that, it would mean I know what to save my limited pennies for. It's an exercise in frustration with the 50D. I thought that I had read that even the original 100-400 focused faster without TCs than the 70-200 II + 2X? Would it not be expected for the bare 100-400 II to outperform the 70-200 II + 2.0X at 400mm in IQ and AF speed?

    Also, feel free to move this discussion to the equipment forum, might be beneficial for others? I think I read on his blog that Artie has both at this point, though I'm sure he's got plenty of better things to do.

  21. #17
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    9,587
    Threads
    401
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    You're right, of course -- different lenses will have different AF speeds and possibly accuracy. I did a quick run with the older 70-200 and a 2X III (f/5.6) in cloudy light and performance was less than stellar. And describing the image quality accurately would probably get me banned here.

    Would love to see a real test with that new lens.

  22. #18
    Forum Participant Iain Barker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Lancashire, England
    Posts
    712
    Threads
    57
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    A nice subject you have there Jon and the ongoing discussion about the lenses is interesting.
    If I were to crop the original I think I would crop most of the right hand space and not touch the left. The reason for this is that it give the bird space to look into and I also like the way the branch tops reduce in size as the get further from the bird. I would also then take a small amount off the top. Something like this:

  23. #19
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Santa Rosa, CA
    Posts
    9,587
    Threads
    401
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    An interesting take, Iain, but it puts the bird uncomfortably crowded into the corner for my tastes. I think you could have the best of both worlds by cropping a little less tight from the top and right. That puts you back to the original with just a little off the top and right.

    Nice to see an image that can go with several variations!

  24. #20
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Camas, Washington
    Posts
    98
    Threads
    16
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iain Barker View Post
    A nice subject you have there Jon and the ongoing discussion about the lenses is interesting.
    If I were to crop the original I think I would crop most of the right hand space and not touch the left. The reason for this is that it give the bird space to look into and I also like the way the branch tops reduce in size as the get further from the bird. I would also then take a small amount off the top. Something like this:
    This is why I posted the original, I liked the way he was overlooking the descending size branches and how the branches were interspersed with the background trees. For me the original was part about the bird, but also part shapes, lines, and symmetry. I liked having the last branch on the right for the same reason, it shows that he's on the highest branch, and it doesn't continue to ascend to the right. Thanks for your input.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics