Tom70 Loc: NY

As indicated in prior help quest, shooting 7dmk ll + 100-400 ll + 1.4 ll extender. When shooting at max extension, f8 , ISO between 400 to 2000, speed again 1600 to 2500, hand held, at extreme distance (100 yards or so) images are soft, when shooting at approx 10-50 feet real sharp focus. Have read on several sites that this is normal with this set up, knowing the limitations I can live with it and work around it.

Now the question, if I upgrade to the 1.4 MK lll will the distance shots be better/sharper, and would this be a worth while investment?

Thanks in advance, really apricate the knowledge and experience you HHG's bring into answering all the questions posed on this site

Tom

(Download)

Hip Coyote

I downloaded this shot and noticed that the file size was 384 KB. If that is the original, that is quite small...if so, I suspect that you tried to crop the heck out of the shot to get this close up and the animal in the branches. Cropping to that frame simply is not possible with your equipment. Shooting a bird at a 100 yards is a very long ways away. You have to get closer so that you don't have to crop about 95% of the image out of the shot. I dont think a ff camera would get much better results (my ff friends can perhaps advise.)

Plus shooting a bird, in branches, at 100 yards, is nearly impossible to focus on the bird. In my basic understanding here, you do not have an equipment problem, there are some tech aspects that need fixin'.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

IMO, you will not see a difference - but I advise you TRY it - and make sure you do a focus cal with the III in place.
.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The best answer to the equipment question is: maybe. The series III extender is specifically designed for changes in the Canon AF system starting at cameras following the EOS 1DXII release and the AF motors of the series II/III compatible Canon EF L-series lenses.

But, as Hip Coyote noted, (a)shooting with a cropped sensor camera at the (b) maximum effective focal length and needing (c) to crop so extensively into the details to fill the frame, you're unlikely to see any actual image nor performance differences in the results of the 1.4x III.

When I look at the EXIF and see 1/2000 sec on a static subject, I also think you have opportunities to improve your results with different shooting technique. Just a single AF point appears on the bird's body / center of the image. I think this is limitation of this lens combo on your EOS 7DII body that Canon removed for newer EOS DSLR bodies. You certainly could have used a slower shutter and a smaller aperture, testing whether the extended 100-400L II is actually sharper at 560mm stepped down to f/11. That has been my actual experience. As well, when you know you're shooting a very small-in-frame subject, get the AF point on where you want the focus sharpest, as most the frame will be discarded in the cropping.

User ID

The FoV for 560mm optic on APSC at 300ft is about 8x12ft. That indicates an additional 3x cropping factor here. You are seeing about 10% of the frame.

The OP is relying on OIS, which is set (automatically) for 560mm. An effective 1700mm (by cropping) is simply asking too much. 1/2000sec isnt really adequate for 1700mm. 1700mm is no joke. A much better TC would improve nothing in this scenario. Its just down to poor technique.

Tom70 Loc: NY

thanks much

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Let me suggest that you be careful with at least some of the advice you get here. Some of it can be pretty one-dimensional and unimaginative.

I agree that the image you submitted isn't a "classic" portrait of an eagle in a tree, but who cares? To me it is much more interesting than the typical formulaic view. Just exactly how did he get to that position? How is he going to get out? I'd actually like to see a little bit wider view in order to better understand his predicament.

As far as the branches affecting focus at that distance, I seriously doubt it. At 100 yards, depth of field at even a fairly wide aperture would compensate for any small error created by a branch a couple of feet closer.

Part of photography involves using proper preparation and technique to capture the best image possible. But another part involves use of imagination and ingenuity to capture the best image you can when the one you want isn't achievable. There's still a very interesting story in the image you have posted.

Photography needs to be much more like piloting a boat on a lake than like driving a train down a track, especially when there are other boats and trains on the path.

Tom70 Loc: NY

thanks, plan on renting one as a trial but think it is better suited for a much newer/better camera.

Tom70 Loc: NY

Thanks, had the speed up as birds were flying/fishing just before shot, not that I would have thought too change it, he had just landed after passing dinner on to mate a few feet below in the nest. Still working on improving technique. Actually do plan on playing with stepping down the f stop, someone else suggested mentioned the f11, next time out
again thanks for the informative in put

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

The MIII is specifically designed to go with the lens you have and there should be a difference.
My MIII 2X is extremely sharp on the same lens so the 1.4X should be as good.

home brewer Loc: Fort Wayne, Indiana

I used PhotoPills to determine the FOV. The canon DX camera with a 400 mm and a 1.4 extender has vertical FOV of 12' . The bird is 2 1/2 to 3' tall . It seems you cropped to get the shot you shared and if I did the math correctly your final shot is less than 10% of the original.
Either you need to buy a 800 mm lens or get about 50 yards or 150' feet from your subject. At 300 feet your DOF is about plus or minus 16'
The 150 to 600 sigma might help.

Your results are why I do not shot birds in my yard. I cannot get close enough; even if I spend $12K and buy a 800mm long lens. For that much money we can take a 8 week vacation in Europe and my wife will be happy. she would not be happy with the lens that sees little use

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

For a lot less get an R and the 800mm and 1.4X converter and go have fun.

franbires

Tom,

I can relate to what you’re dealing with. My kit is the R5. 100-400 II with and without the 1.4III. My long distance shots were soft. One day I took my range finder to get an idea how far out the eagles were. Oh my, easily 200 ft and farther plus they are in motion. Throw in heavy cropping and my shots were soft. Shots that are much closer are not an issue, as I get very sharp images.

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

I ran across a forum thread not long ago on “dpreview.” The OP asked the merit of upgrading his Canon 2x ii to a iii. Consensus seemed to be, if you were buying and didn’t own either, that the iii was the way to go. However, if you already owned the ii, it was pretty much evenly split on whether the upgrade was worth it. All that while acknowledging that the iii was definitely better. So…for what it’s worth….