swartfort Loc: Evansville, IN

[quote=CHG_CANON]swartfort - I downloaded the images and dumped the EXIF. I don't shoot Nikon any longer, so I don't have a tool that easily shows me the AF points in each image. I have a few questions / comments:

For the first squirrel, this one looks good, even at 1/80. I would have had a faster shutter, but at 1/80 this still looks good. The EXIF shows AF-C (Continuous-servo AF). You mentioned in additional comments about single-point and BBF. I wonder two things about this first image.

Thanks so much for the thoughtful input!!

I checked my settings and I look forward to your thoughts on this: I had it on AF-C. I am pretty sure I had the BFF depressed thru the series of shots (I deleted a ton for various reasons as I was doing all kinds of experimenting). I am wondering if I am asking too much of the non VR lens at that mm distance. The focus point in the viewfinder completely covered the red headed bird... so if I kept the BFF button depressed and had any camera shake, the focus point would come off of the head and leave me with what I have???? AND, because this is a kit lens, I would expect that at the extremes of the focal distances I should expect to see some softness correct? Nothing a Nikor 80-200 2.8 VR or a great piece of Cannon L glass couldn't help with right? As I continue to explore and push my abilities, I am pretty sure that I will find (I HOPE) that I will get competent enough that when I do upgrade, it will be because I have outgrown the equipment and not just GAS....

I look forward to thoughts

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Try the controlled testing on a static subject thru window and without the interference. It will help to isolate what is going on.

From yesterday's work, what came out great? Or, are these the best results?

rdubreuil Loc: Dummer, NH USA

[quote=swartfort]

The Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 doesn't have VR, you may be thinking of the 70-200 series. You can mount Canon glass on a Nikon with an adapter (see Fotodiox adapters) depending on the adapter though it may act like an extension tube in that you'd loose the ability to focus out to infinity. You'd need one that has corrective glass in it.

swartfort Loc: Evansville, IN

GRRRRR these were the best results.... hence the post. The window was open, and I was playing ALL kinds of combinations. It was fun, and a luxury to have that "interesting" light, time, and patience and the animals running around.

I KNOW I really cropped them hard before I posted them. I guess ultimately I am seeing progress on figuring out the lighting and the adjustments I need to make both in the camera and PP. I am just not seeing the focus as sharp as some of the images I see posted here, and I want to learn to be better.

No frustration, I LOVE playing with the different modes. The funny thing is, I am not sure what or if I will do anything with the images. The fun for me is learning and growing to be better each photo opportunity. I am probably not alone in this, but I am sure I am in a minority.



Thanks

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Can you post either the first or last squirrels so we have a sense of the amount of cropping? I looked at the images assuming cropping for composition rather than dropping for details. We may be seeing the best results from the distance rather than animals just outside the window as the images appear to be. Your D3400 sports a 24MP sensor. You're not going to get more pixels for heavy heavy cropping until you're spending $3000 in the D8xx range.

swartfort Loc: Evansville, IN

Hope this helps solve some of this.... Thanks for your efforts

Maybe I'm just asking too much of a kit lens with no VR?

If that is the case... upgrade lens(es) first or body????

(Download)


(Download)

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

Couldn't agree with your post less. If its not sharp you've got nothing. The pursuit of this goal is a perfect subject for questions on UHH. BBF is a great way to focus for many and learning about it here (where I learned about it) is a great use of this site. AUTO. Forget it. Your taking pictures but you don't even know what choices the camera is making. Change shutter speed, increase DOF, forget it. I can give you white balance. If you shoot RAW it doesn't make much difference in the field.
..Cam

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Thanks for the update and the originals. VR / IS helps you hold the lens steady. But, the technology doesn't stop motion. A fast shutter speed stops motion as well as mitigates camera shake. The squirrel image reports 1/500, maybe a bit slow for this hopping squirrel, but fast enough for a lens at 165mm on a cropped body. My experience with lower-end zooms is they're a bit sharper stepped down. This image reports f/5 where maybe f/6.3 to f/8 might help, but at the expense of a higher ISO.

Now that we can see the original, I think the root-cause is more obvious. Note how small the subject is within the frame. I would think zoomed more onto the subject (225mm - 300mm) with less need to crop would create a much better image than staying so far away and cropping. You should always seek the largest subject focused onto the sensor. I can't speak for every image you've admired, but surely the majority of the sharp images are subjects that filled the frame, certainly to a larger percentage than the two examples above used for your crops. Your camera is going to focus more accurately on a larger subject too.

I'll repeat my suggestion to practice on some static subjects. In that exercise, vary the aperture and the focal length. Capture and review the results all at f/8 from 150mm to 300mm at 50mm increments and see what cropping vs no cropping can generate with this camera and lens. Repeat again at f/5.6, f/6.3 and f/7.1. This is easier with a tripod, but can be all hand-held too.

chaman

Just check that person's images. Then you will understand. He claims shooting since the 60's believing that makes it okay somehow. The reality is the guy is a mediocre snapshooter with really low standards who posts here to gather the usual empty praise from the usual crowd. He dont understands the exposure triangle and will never will.

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

I don't know his history, but if what you say is true then you're right. These problems should have been worked out forty yours ago. Later in the stream he posted the actual pictures and it turns out he wasn't even close to his subjects. I still don't like AUTO.
..Cam

swartfort Loc: Evansville, IN

Thanks so much.

Yes, the distance the subject was from the camera did have a significant effect. I think that I am asking too much for that lens. I had not noticed this issue in other experiences with this kit, but I did not have small subjects that were this distant. I will keep playing with it, but I will just consider this an application that this lens does not excel at.

Same kit, larger subjects, closer to camera....

Thanks!!

(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you're going to limit the zoom on a 70-300 lens to 165mm on birds / squirrels at a distance, that's not a limitation of the equipment. That's 100% the photographer ... I almost feel like you've been baiting us on with this post ... You don't need our approval to spend your money by presenting somewhat false questions about accuracy of focus.

swartfort Loc: Evansville, IN

Oh My no no... no bait... I thought I was at the longest mm on those shots. I swear I'm not in this deep enough to know, I just suspect from my reading and playing. No alterior motives I promise.

I appreciate your time and efforts. really, Thank you


Steve

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Steve, no worries. I've been laughing of late at the various crime dramas where it seems any image from any camera can be zoomed-in to read the writing on someone's name tag from a traffic camera or even a satellite. Having worked 3-years on a camera-based, open-road tolling system, I can tell you the technology in real life doesn't work as presented in fictional TV. Your exercise has reconfirmed the same for DSLRs too.

chaman

The EXIF should show your cholesterol level too....thats very important.