Wildlife Photography

[mdees88]

That image looks great, and the light was not great so it would look even better in better light.

Most all lenses are sharpest at F/8 aperture. The majority of "inexpensive" lenses are a little soft when shooting wide open, which is their largest aperture (F5.6, F6.3, etc.) More expensive lenses tend to maintain good sharpness even at wide open apertures but will still be their sharpest around f/8. So, if you're going for the sharpest image possible, shoot at F/8 but this will require more light than when shooting wide open.

If you do your f/8 test again, make sure to shoot wide open also (f6.3 on your lens) and compare the results. F6.3 will almost certainly be softer, but it may be only slightly softer and enough you can tolerate, maybe not.

I shoot in tv (auto aperture/auto ISO) almost exclusively. But I pay attention to my ISO and keep my shutter speed low to keep the ISO down when possible. Shooting fast moving subjects in low light is pretty much a lost cause. Either your shutter speed is going to be too slow causing motion blur or the ISO will be so high that noise will ruin the photo.

Shooting in good early/mid-morning direct light will definitely give you the best results, and getting very close to what your shooting...

Your TAv mode is basically manual mode with auto ISO. You set the shutterspeed and the aperture and the camera adjusts the ISO. That's a great mode to be using.

I like doing controlled tests to alleviate any doubt I have with my equipment...

 

[BrandonsBirbs]

That image looks great, and the light was not great so it would look even better in better light.

Most all lenses are sharpest at F/8 aperture. The majority of "inexpensive" lenses are a little soft when shooting wide open, which is their largest aperture (F5.6, F6.3, etc.) More expensive lenses tend to maintain good sharpness even at wide open apertures but will still be their sharpest around f/8. So, if you're going for the sharpest image possible, shoot at F/8 but this will require more light than when shooting wide open.

If you do your f/8 test again, make sure to shoot wide open also (f6.3 on your lens) and compare the results. F6.3 will almost certainly be softer, but it may be only slightly softer and enough you can tolerate, maybe not.

I shoot in tv (auto aperture/auto ISO) almost exclusively. But I pay attention to my ISO and keep my shutter speed low to keep the ISO down when possible. Shooting fast moving subjects in low light is pretty much a lost cause. Either your shutter speed is going to be too slow causing motion blur or the ISO will be so high that noise will ruin the photo.

Shooting in good early/mid-morning direct light will definitely give you the best results, and getting very close to what your shooting...

Your TAv mode is basically manual mode with auto ISO. You set the shutterspeed and the aperture and the camera adjusts the ISO. That's a great mode to be using.

I like doing controlled tests to alleviate any doubt I have with my equipment...

Thank you so much

Unfortunately this swan decided to pick a fight with a goose just after I took this photo and disappeared lol.

This image was: ISO 1250 - 500mm - +0.3ev - F8 - 1/400s. If I were to do anything different it would be to lower the shutter speed more (first shot was @1/1000), he was on the move and I was trying to drop it whilst maintaining focus. (@10am, best light of this winter's day I do believe)

I did try f6.3 Vs f8 on a greater cormorant and there was a difference HOWEVER I was using the in-built stabilisation and I believe that made my image soft! Later on, I had it turned off (accidentally) and my images are CRISP sharp for low light conditions. I think I should stop believing everything I read online and try things for myself. I am still quite new at this whole DSLR thing!

You guys are the only real help I've ever had otherwise it's all been self-taught (most credit goes to Dee though - you're brilliant thank you).

Getting closer is the #1 tip, even with a fat, 2kg, 500mm (750mm aps-c), the best way to improve your image is to get closer. Just because you've got a huge lens doesn't mean you can sit back and take photos from as far as you'd like.

I am assuming Tv mode would stay on f6.3 for a day like today and my lens? I did like the extra control I had with the TAv mode.. I think I will stick with this for now! And yeah.. flying birds on cloudy days always seem to come out pretty poor.. I am curious would a £5000 lens fix this or actually have similar results because I don't see how it could magic more light.

 

[BrandonsBirbs]

Unedited: ISO 1250 - 500mm - +0.3ev - F8 - 1/400s

---

Edited: ISO 1250 - 500mm - +0.3ev - F8 - 1/400s

 

[mdees88]

Thank you so much

Unfortunately this swan decided to pick a fight with a goose just after I took this photo and disappeared lol.

This image was: ISO 1250 - 500mm - +0.3ev - F8 - 1/400s. If I were to do anything different it would be to lower the shutter speed more (first shot was @1/1000), he was on the move and I was trying to drop it whilst maintaining focus. (@10am, best light of this winter's day I do believe)

Once you rattle off some shots and you think you have a keeper, keep lowering the shutter speed and shooting more pics. You really want that ISO as low as possible. But the slower your shutter speed the more pics you have to take to get a sharp one., because of vibrations, motion blur, moving subject, etc. I will say your unedited image had very little noise for ISO 1250 so your camera does pretty good. When you increased the shadows, it added a little bit of noise to the background. If you were in lightroom you can make a mask that only covers the subject or the background. This way can brighten the blacks on the swan without changing the background. What I do is typically mask the entire background and add noise reduction to that only and not to my subject. I like the edit though, subtle changes, nothing over the top.

I did try f6.3 Vs f8 on a greater cormorant and there was a difference HOWEVER I was using the in-built stabilisation and I believe that made my image soft! Later on, I had it turned off (accidentally) and my images are CRISP sharp for low light conditions. I think I should stop believing everything I read online and try things for myself. I am still quite new at this whole DSLR thing!

You guys are the only real help I've ever had otherwise it's all been self-taught (most credit goes to Dee though - you're brilliant thank you).

Getting closer is the #1 tip, even with a fat, 2kg, 500mm (750mm aps-c), the best way to improve your image is to get closer. Just because you've got a huge lens doesn't mean you can sit back and take photos from as far as you'd like.

That is right and I learned that the hard way. I bought an expensive 400mm lens a 1.4x extender and I was getting 900mm reach on a crop body. I expected to get great pics and my images were better than my 250mm but were nowhere near like what I'm getting now with 400 and 500mm on a full frame camera. I had twice the reach before but now I'm getting 15-30ft from most of my subjects, so my images look better with half the reach.

I am assuming Tv mode would stay on f6.3 for a day like today and my lens? I did like the extra control I had with the TAv mode.. I think I will stick with this for now! And yeah.. flying birds on cloudy days always seem to come out pretty poor..

Pretty much, until you start slowing your shutter speed way down.

I am curious would a £5000 lens fix this or actually have similar results because I don't see how it could magic more light.

It will definitely make a difference. A 500m F4 lens is 1 1/3 stops faster than your 500mm f6.3. That means it lets in 2.6 times as much light (if my math is correct). This means with a 500mm F4, you could have shot around 1/800th of a second and everything else would remain the same (f/8, ISO 1250). Or, you could have shot at 1/400th of a second, F8, and the ISO would only be at 500 instead of 1250.

Then there's the low light king... the 400mm f2.8. It lets in 4.6 times as much light as you lens. So, you could have shot at 1/1500th of a second and got the same results or you could have shot at 1/400th and been at ISO 250 which is essentially zero noise... but that lens is around $12,000, lol....

 

[BrandonsBirbs]

Once you rattle off some shots and you think you have a keeper, keep lowering the shutter speed and shooting more pics. You really want that ISO as low as possible. But the slower your shutter speed the more pics you have to take to get a sharp one., because of vibrations, motion blur, moving subject, etc. I will say your unedited image had very little noise for ISO 1250 so your camera does pretty good. When you increased the shadows, it added a little bit of noise to the background. If you were in lightroom you can make a mask that only covers the subject or the background. This way can brighten the blacks on the swan without changing the background. What I do is typically mask the entire background and add noise reduction to that only and not to my subject. I like the edit though, subtle changes, nothing over the top.

I find the K3 handles noise well below 1400-1500 ISO that's why I've capped it at 1600, after that point I feel the images just get too visually noisy.

Masking is definitely something I can do, just wanted to rush the image and to be honest I find the editing part tedious. I LOVE taking photos but wouldn't mind if someone wanted to edit them for me lol

Thank you, sometimes I feel a subtle edit can have more effect.

That is right and I learned that the hard way. I bought an expensive 400mm lens a 1.4x extender and I was getting 900mm reach on a crop body. I expected to get great pics and my images were better than my 250mm but were nowhere near like what I'm getting now with 400 and 500mm on a full frame camera. I had twice the reach before but now I'm getting 15-30ft from most of my subjects, so my images look better with half the reach.

Funny you say that, I almost bought an identical setup Tuesday... Glad I didnt, Yet.

Pretty much, until you start slowing your shutter speed way down.

It will definitely make a difference. A 500m F4 lens is 1 1/3 stops faster than your 500mm f6.3. That means it lets in 2.6 times as much light (if my math is correct). This means with a 500mm F4, you could have shot around 1/800th of a second and everything else would remain the same (f/8, ISO 1250). Or, you could have shot at 1/400th of a second, F8, and the ISO would only be at 500 instead of 1250.

Compare the 500mm F4 to the low light king... the 400mm f2.8. It lets in 4.6 times as much light as you lens. So, you could have shot at 1/1500th of a second and got the same results or you could have shot at 1/400th and been at ISO 250 which is essentially zero noise... but that lens is around $12,000, lol....

Yeah fair enough, after reading your explanation I understand exactly how. Thank you for explaining that, makes a lot more sense than what I was guessing/assuming would be the difference. That is quite a considerable difference in all fairness. I will have to browse some Pentax primes, though I'm sure they'll probably be thousands lol.

 

[BrandonsBirbs]

A few others from today

 

[BrandonsBirbs]

I'll stop spamming now

 

[Bakbuk]

View attachment 3395843
I'll stop spamming now

That’s beautiful! I love it.

 

[Bakbuk]

Also, really enjoyed the convo above guys.

 

[HopKat]

View attachment 3395843
I'll stop spamming now

Really some nice shots. Your hard work is paying off. I've learned a lot from mdees88 tips.