Eurasian Blue Tit - 2

[Bill Nuttall]

Eurasian Blue Tit (Cyanistes caeruleus)

D750 + 600mm f4
1/1000^th – f6.3 - ISO1250
11% Crop

LR/PS

good tripod and Gimbal

I cropped this image very tight ....... pushed to the limits or past ... an 11% crop so plenty of canvas to play with?
maybe over sharpened ...again pushed to the limits or past ?
clone out the small stump under the bird?

[Mike Poole]

A bit tight for my taste Bill, but everyone is different. The PP is a bit overdone, with the bird a little bright and for me, over sharpened.

I'd say you could really do with getting a lot closer to your subjects, you're throwing away huge amounts of data with these massive crops.

Nice shooting angle though and a nice pose from the bird.

Mike

[Bill Nuttall]

A bit tight for my taste Bill, but everyone is different. The PP is a bit overdone, with the bird a little bright and for me, over sharpened.

I'd say you could really do with getting a lot closer to your subjects, you're throwing away huge amounts of data with these massive crops.

Nice shooting angle though and a nice pose from the bird.

Mike

Thanks Mike

I always appreciate your comments

"getting closer" - I have done quite a few experiments with 300mm and 600mm lens, taking shots of small birds, - a Blue Tit is less than 5" long and if you check this against the MFD of long primes you will see that there is a similar ratio of distance from the bird to size of crop to get an "in focus" image

I was 7 meters away from the bird when I took this shot from my living room window - the MFD of the Nikon AF-S 600mm f/4D IF-ED II is 5.6 metres .... and in my view if you step a little back it helps the DOF just a little and gives you a little more flexibility.

The reason I questioned the size of the crop, and posted this image in this way, was because of this fact, i.e. the nearest you can get to a Blue Tit with a 600mm lens to get a sharpe image is 6 metres and at 6 metres with a bird that is less than 5 inches long, to get a "close up" you therefore have to crop to say 10% to 15% - the only thing that you can do is crop - a bigger crop, say 20% would have the same detail and pixel density on the bird..... but it may just look better to the eye, especially at this level of applied sharpness, (again that's why I questioned sharpness)

So what I am saying is that I cannot get any nearer ...... I have tried with a 300mm f2.8 and both 300mm f4's including the PF - they have a lesser MFD but the ratios are very similar

Do you say that I need to get closer, (as you have mentioned this before), because there is less detail in the image than you would expect, if so presumably it's my technique or my lens needs a micro focus adjustment, which I do regularly with FoCal

or am I missing something in my logic


(Presumably these ratios are a function of lens design as the latest 600mm PF has a MFD which is a little less than the f4D)

[keith mitchell]

Bill I have read the other comments and yours with interest,bit technical for me I would simply try different distances with your 300 2.8 until I got the result I require,going back to the bird it as got nice clarity but does look a bit close to being over sharpened.

Keith.

[Bill Nuttall]

Bill I have read the other comments and yours with interest,bit technical for me I would simply try different distances with your 300 2.8 until I got the result I require,going back to the bird it as got nice clarity but does look a bit close to being over sharpened.

Keith.

Thanks Keith, I use my Nikon f2.8 VR quite a lot ....... the MFD is about 2.5m ...... less than half that of the 600mm f4 - so if you can get to within 2.5m of the bird the results will be theoretically a little better than the 600mm which has a MFD of 5.5m ........ but who can get that near ....... and even so to get a sharpe image of a 5'' bird at a reasonable size you will still have to be at around a 20% crop ..... that's the largest that you can take

I agree my image is over-sharpened and cropped too tight, I went OTT on purpose

Cheers

Bill

[gail bisson]

A sweet little bird.
I would loosen the crop all around and redo the cloning around the perch near the tail and ? wingtip.
If this bird is less than 5 " long I would not crop an image to makes him bigger on the screen than he is IRL.
When you say 20% crop you mean that you have removed 80% of the image, correct?
Gail

[Daniel Cadieux]

I'm confused too with the terminology, as per Gail. If in this case you threw away 89% of the canvas, then I do not know why you can't get the bird bigger in the frame in-camera. If you cropped out 11% of the canvas, than that is reasonable and not really pushing the limits.

In any regards, I agree the subject is too tight in the frame as posted. I like the pose with the perfect head turn, good BG, and the perch is quite appealing. Some clone marks need to be cleaned up under the tail tip.

[Bill Nuttall]

A sweet little bird.
I would loosen the crop all around and redo the cloning around the perch near the tail and ? wingtip.
If this bird is less than 5 " long I would not crop an image to makes him bigger on the screen than he is IRL.
When you say 20% crop you mean that you have removed 80% of the image, correct?
Gail

Gail
I am quoting the crop as defined on here - if I say 20% crop then I have removed 80% of the FF image
What I am saying with this image is as follows:
1). The MFD for the 600mm f4 is 5.6metres
2). I was 7 meters away from the bird when I took this shot ........ I cannot get any nearer otherwise the lens would not focus, (Mike says I need to get nearer)
3). The shot is an 11% crop
4). The bird is 5 inches in length
5). All lens have a MFD and to take a shot of a small, (5") bird the shot will be about 15% to 20% of the canvas to get a good close up
6). I exaggerated this image to 11% on purpose and suggested that at 11% it was on the limit
7). The same comments as in 6). for sharpening

Have a look at an image that you have taken of a small bird with a 600mm lens at say 7 meters and tell me what crop % your image is

If you do the same exercise with any long lens you will find that the MFD, size of bird, and distance from bird to get a close up image have a similar ratio.

Mike indicated that I should get nearer - I cannot - so he must feel that there is something wrong with the detail in the bird cause by another issue, i.e. either my technique or a lens that need a micro adjustment.

11% is too much - I would normally do to 15% to 20% as a preset for a crop - it is over sharpened at 11% but when you pull it back to 20% it will seem less so

Thanks for your comments - and I hope that you can understand what I am saying - I have a set up from inside my house that is 7 metres from a perch that I have set up to attract birds - my D810 + 600mm f4 is always in this position, i.e. at near the MFD from the perch, (7 metres) - and this image is the result I get for a 5 inch bird at near the MFD for the lens

I intend to loosen the crop and review the sharpness .......

[Bill Nuttall]

I'm confused too with the terminology, as per Gail. If in this case you threw away 89% of the canvas, then I do not know why you can't get the bird bigger in the frame in-camera. If you cropped out 11% of the canvas, than that is reasonable and not really pushing the limits.

In any regards, I agree the subject is too tight in the frame as posted. I like the pose with the perfect head turn, good BG, and the perch is quite appealing. Some clone marks need to be cleaned up under the tail tip.

Thanks Daniel, see my reply to Gail below

[Mike Poole]

Bill,

The large crops are something I've noticed over time, and to me, it's a real shame to throw away all that potential data. I understand where you're coming from with your points, but I feel to improve the IQ of your shots then you should be attempting to get the birds larger in your viewfinder.

A couple of things to try would be getting a bit physically closer, you have another metre to play with yet, and if the bird is square on to the sensor then DoF becomes less of an issue. Shooting on a modern FF camera then you can push the ISO to compensate and get a smaller aperture if you wish as long as the light is reasonable.

You could also try either adding a converter or maybe an extension tube to lower the MFD further.

I may be wrong here, but in my opinion, we should be using all these MP's and high IQ bodies we have at our disposal nowadays to get the best result in camera (obviously with small birds, a degree of cropping is almost always unavoidable) rather than use the densely packed sensor as a 'get out of jail' card.

The IQ hold up well enough for a low res web shot, but probably not best when sending one off to the printer.

Mike

[Bill Nuttall]

Bill,

The large crops are something I've noticed over time, and to me, it's a real shame to throw away all that potential data. I understand where you're coming from with your points, but I feel to improve the IQ of your shots then you should be attempting to get the birds larger in your viewfinder.

A couple of things to try would be getting a bit physically closer, you have another metre to play with yet, and if the bird is square on to the sensor then DoF becomes less of an issue. Shooting on a modern FF camera then you can push the ISO to compensate and get a smaller aperture if you wish as long as the light is reasonable.

You could also try either adding a converter or maybe an extension tube to lower the MFD further.

I may be wrong here, but in my opinion, we should be using all these MP's and high IQ bodies we have at our disposal nowadays to get the best result in camera (obviously with small birds, a degree of cropping is almost always unavoidable) rather than use the densely packed sensor as a 'get out of jail' card.

The IQ hold up well enough for a low res web shot, but probably not best when sending one off to the printer.

Mike

Mike

these large crops as you call them are a function of the size of the bird and the MFD of the lens

you say get another metre closer, I am 7 metres away, if I get any closer I will be almost touching the bird and be right on the edge of the MFD - do you ever get within 6 metres of a Blue Tit

I cannot get any nearer and they will always be the same with small bird - I have many shots to illustrate this

You will never get a 5" bird close up reasonable image to be more than 20% of an FF image when using a 600mm lens, and similar ratios will be given when using a 300mm lens

I use the lens with the 1,4TC, 1,7TC and 2.0TC ...... I know what I am doing

are you seriously suggesting that I add extension tubes to a 600mm lens?

fill the frame for me with a shot of a Blue Tit that you take with a 600mm lens

Look at the image not the % crop

Bill

[Mike Poole]

Bill,

You're clearly happy with your system of shooting so let's agree to differ and move on

Mike


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jonathan Ashton]

Bill have you thought of getting an extension tube for the lens that will allow you to focus a little closer.
I looked at the image and I tried not to read the posts but certain words caught my eye and raised the issues that I would have mentioned.
I concur perhaps a tad bright and the contrast is just a little high (the bird looks so incredibly "clean" if you get my drift).
I would certainly consider a looser crop, this may vary from one camera to another but I would suggest not cropping to less that 3000px on the longest axis when producing landscape images for BPN, and say 2700-2800px for portrait images. These dimensions are just guideline dimensions I bare in mind if I need to crop significantly, I am not suggesting this is absolute for one minute.