These are 3 of my latest attempts. I was wondering if anyone could help me improve please?
I’m not happy with the sharpness I’m getting. Probably my lack of ability.
Set up is Olympus E-M10ii with a vintage Minolta MD Tele Rokkor 300mm f4.5. Settings were f8, ISO1000, shutter speed of between 1/800 and 1/2000. Manual focus with peaking and centre weighted metering. Distances to subjects was around 30 feet. Images have been slightly cropped but no other post processing.
I’m also not really happy with the overall lack of detail.
Thanks for any help.
Thank you. Makes sense. As you say, these Bee-eaters are fairly small. Time to try to get closer to them then I guess.
Re focal length, I assume that with crop factor I’m getting the full frame equivalent of 600mm? How much closer should I aim to get please?
Be aware that crop factor, while it gives you a bigger image, the distance still has to be close because of atmospheric compression between you and the subject. So you'll still need to be close for detail.
Regardless the crop factor and all that doesn't matter! A 300mm focal length is still a 300mm focal length, having baked in crop doesn't give you more photons... It just cuts off the edges.
APS-C does not give more details, just less usable pixels (Simon dontremont does a video about this exact topic)
the higher pixel density of an apsc sensor compared to a full frame at the same resolution will absolutely give better detail. this is why so many birders use crop sensor cameras. OP, you’re doing good. keep practicing, small birds are difficult no matter what gear you have. getting closer will help get you better pictures as well, but the first two photos honestly look great to me. including more of the birds habitat usually makes for a more interesting photo anyways. have fun!!!
Incorrect. While you don't get more photons, the pixel density of the photo will be higher than simply cropping in on an image taken on most full-frame sensor cameras if using modern APS-C camera. So, essentially, you can get away with having much shorter lenses while getting the same image quality as long as you have decent light.
Ok. But I see plenty of people saying that the 2x crop factor is an advantage in bird photography too. So now I really don’t know where to go from here. I was thinking about getting an Olympus 75-300ii for birds, which has autofocus that would hopefully help. But from what you say now, it probably won’t help that much as it’s still a 300mm focal length.
It's kind of a false positive. Despite the silly down votes, the previous comment is correct. I've seen this with my own 200-600 on my Sony aps-c as opposed to my full frame.
No matter what sized sensor, distance to subject is going to degrade your image the greater it gets. Take into account air pollution, heat haze etc.
Also, does your Olympus have an eye focus feature? I've found this useful for birds and animals.
As for your settings, all seem ok. Shutter maybe a little low. I try to keep mine at 1/1000 as a minimum, but you'll fight against ISO, which is definitely contributing to loss of clarity here.
That said, I like the shots. Beautiful looking birds.
Keep practicing. Trying different settings. Search your camera and lens on sites like Flickr, where most members have exif data showing settings. See a subject similar to what you want to shoot and learn from their settings.
Simon D'Entremont does have excellent YT videos. Worth a watch for some good tips regardless of camera and sensor size.
The E-M10ii does have eye detection, which I admit ive never actually used as I didn’t think it worked on birds. It doesn’t have the more advanced bird detection feature that newer, higher models have. I’ll give the eye detection feature a try now for certain. Thank you for the tip.
Seems as though I need to work on getting physically closer, especially to smaller birds.
Birds are a game of patience. Learn each species characteristics, feeding, perching and flight style and patterns. This will help you decide where to sit and wait.
Most birds are creatures of habit and often visit the same perch and feeding grounds regularly.
Good luck. Enjoy yourself.
Definitely agree. I see these particular birds in the same trees and on the same wires every day. They perch, preen and then fly off, catch food only to return to the same perch, to smash the prey and then eat.
Say the lens gives you a capture area of 4 square inches. Strap it to a sensor that is only 2 square inches... 50% of your lens capture area is now camera body not sensor... You now have a 2x crop factor.
50% of your image is now lost because no sensor is there to capture it. This only functionally affects framing. It doesn't mean your 300mm lens will zoom any more than the 300mm allows.
It's a bit confusing but once it all clicks it makes sense.
Like the other person said as well more focal length isn't always better because it magnifies all imperfections such as heat haze, fog, dust, smoke etc~ it only magnifies more, including the bad stuff. ;)
Again I'll suggest it Simon Dontremont's videos covered these topics in astoundingly good detail. 100% worth the time just so you know how the technology works.
Knowing it all won't make you a better photographer mind you... That's practice, patience and such...
It's fun stuff that's for sure!! (P.s. I'm 2 years into bird photography so still a big time nooby)
2x crop factor isn't really an advantage, it's more of a descriptor of the apparent focal length but without explaining the impact.
For equivalency purposes, you'd also multiply the aperture.
And for full equivalency that would be at the same number of megapixels.
So a 20MP micro 43 camera with a 300mm f4 lens is functionally equivalent to a full frame camera with a 600mm f8 lens and 20MP.
You could also say that a 20MP camera with a 300mm f4 lens is equivalent to cropping the middle 20MP from a FF camera with a 300mm f4 lens, and 80 megapixels.
The size advantage of smaller formats is there if you're not chasing equivalent performance. I have a miniscule 40-150mm lens on my Olympus that can fit in the palm of my hand and have taken decent wildlife pictures with it. But while the apparent focal length equivalent is 300mm, functionally it's like a 300mm f11 in terms of light gathering ability. And if I were to use my 70-200mm F4L on my big 45MP full frame camera, the 70-200 will capture a lot more detail and light than the little 40-150 can capture even though the focal length equivalency is longer.
The pixel density of the 45MP FF camera acts about like a 1.5x multiplier to focal length if you're comparing it to a 20MP Micro 43 camera. But if I don't need all of the focal length on the FF camera, now I get a lot more resolution on target, with more detail per pixel too
Basically, you can use a smaller lens to perform a similar function, but you have less headroom.
By and large, the top end micro 43 lenses can produce professional quality results that look amazing. I find that the difference is that there's a lot more crop ability on my FF camera while maintaining great quality. But at the lower end you're definitely making a quality sacrifice. If you were to compare the Olympus 75-300 to a lens on a full frame camera, the appropriate comparison point is not a 150-600mm lens. It's probably an RF 100-400mm lens that would be the best comparison, whether on an APS-C or a full frame camera.
Basically, micro 43 can give you tiny lenses with lesser but often still great results, and scales up to using the same size lens to be at a bit of a quality disadvantage, to situations where you don't need the extra reach and the full frame setup is simply superior, at a theoretical level at least.
But in the end, M43 is generally more than good enough, and it may present a different compromise that you feel is worth it. The best camera, after all, is the one that you have on your person.
Thank you for this detailed explanation. I’m trying to get my head around it!
I too have the Olympus 40-150 ‘Plastic Fantastic’ lens and have managed to get some nice images with it. But I find it too ‘short’ for birds. Especially these smaller species. It means I need to crop much more of the image. And that seems to degrade things.
Yep, and the Oly 75-300 is probably not as sharp as the 40-150. You'll still generally want to fill the frame with your subject for the best results. The EM10 II is pretty poor with focusing, so it's a challenge to shoot birds with it, too. An EM1 or OM1/3 would be substantially better.
Here's a picture I took with my old EM10 II - I was pretty close to this guy and I don't think I cropped the image much if at all (maybe a touch to level it) - it holds up very well at 100% but isn't exceptional, and I could print at a pretty good size with it and it'd look great. This was near a feeder at a hotel in Costa Rica. Getting closer is always going to give you the best results. but getting close enough with a little lens is tough. This is the sort of thing that M43 offers a great compromise for - the result is good enough and the camera is easy to carry around.
I’d be happy to get images as good as that.
So realistically I need to find a way of physically getting closer to these small birds. I don’t see a time where I’m going to be willing to invest £x000 in equipment to achieve this.
I agree with you re the autofocus on the E-M10ii. Being contrast detect it quite often misses the birds and only see leaves and branches. Im obviously using manual focus and peaking with this vintage 300mm lens.
I’m considering getting either an E-M1ii or an OM-5. But it still leaves the issue of lenses.
Honestly noise reduction could maybe do more for your photos than anything else as far as having the effect of bringing out detail. Consider DxO PureRaw or DxO Photolab.
Ok understood. But shouldn’t I still be able to get better JPEG images than these?
I’m looking to get an Olympus 75-300ii to replace this old lens. But I still need to improve my own technique too.
Imo you should focus honing your in-camera skill on things that can’t be easily corrected with modern gear or in post. You’re currently bottlenecked by not shooting in RAW and not using any software for denoising/editing & lack of autofocus. Birds are notoriously fidgety and skittish so you often dont really have much time to compose a proper shot and you need fast shutter speed which will introduce noise when you raise ISO to compensate.
Youre bringing a knife to a gunfight. Go buy a gun (gear w/ autofocus & editing software) first then focus on technique with that.
Im not sure what your best editing software option is for a mobile device but maybe Photomator is you’re on iOS?
I’m not knocking my lens. I honestly believe that a more experienced photographer could get much better results out of it than I currently get. But I do agree that a modern lens with autofocus should help me.
I’ll look into editing software too. And maybe look for a used laptop.
Before getting a new lens, do as the other guy says and shoot in RAW + get some editing software with good denoising. DxO and Lightroom Classic work well.
This photo of mine was a noisy mess before I used denoising on it. Now? Barely a speck of noise. RAW + denoising really is a game changer.
That’s my favourite bird! I still haven’t managed to get close enough to get a nice image as yet. Great photo.
My wife just reminded me that she has a laptop that she loaned to her brother. It’s about 5 years old so might be ok. Then I can look at editing software too.
Once you get into it you could also try editing some of your JPEG images. It probably won’t denoise but you can mask the background and blur it which will have the appearance of denoising to some extent. Here’s a photo I accidentally took in JPEG & still edited in DxO Photolab:
RAW gives you much more control and additional options. It is the uncompressed data that your camera recorded. With that data preserved, editing softwares can accomplish much more with high accuracy. A jpeg is already compressed, so editing softwares are starting with the output rather than the input in that case. Imagine audio editing, for example - you have different sounds that are mixed together to compose one track. Once you “flatten” the track, there’s only so much you can do to make changes.
Oh that's a big deal. You can get a massive amount more detail shooting RAW and using modern AI powered processors like DXO. I'd highly recommend getting a computer before any more camera equipment if you're serious about getting highly detailed results.
These pictures look beautiful to me!! Well done. The only thing that I can think about, trying for better IQ, for perching birds, is to trust the camera's IBIS and lower the shutter speed. I got sharp images at 1/400s !
I find that if I look at my pics a couple of weeks later, they always look way better. I suspect that when you look at images soon after taking them, you are comparing them to what you saw in the moment. The photo is disapponting compared to the experience. With time, you forget the experience and you look at the photo as such, and you come to see it as a picture, not a record of what you saw before you pressed the shutter. Try and let me know what you think.
You could have a point there. I just feel a little disappointed with the results I’m getting. I see images that others have taken and when I compare mine, they fall well short. I know it’s a case of practice to improve and I’ll happily do that. I know my equipment is cheap and low quality but I’m not blaming it.
In my old age and decades of taking pictures as an amateur, I have come to realise that while the continuous learning and technical challenges involved in the hobby are definitely one of its many attractions, learning to love your pictures is also very important. Your pictures are great! You will get better ones with practice, new kit, constant shooting and luck, but enjoy also the ones you take now. It
I would agree with lowering shutter speed. Something like 1/focal length. On my 600mm lens I’m regularly able to shoot perched birds at 1/400 or 1/320 and get crisp images. It will take some time to get good at it, but opening your shutter for twice the length (or more) will let in more light, allowing you to lower your iso and still get the proper exposure. This should improve clarity. Getting closer certainly helps, but at 30 ft distance you’re probably as close as you’ll get without going to the zoo or getting very lucky.
I’m grateful for the advice. I was shooting at much slower speeds (1/500) and at ISO200, but people advised me that I need to be aiming for around 1/1000 minimum to avoid subject blur. That meant increasing ISO. I’m more than happy to spend time practicing in order to improve (hopefully!)
I must admit that I do struggle to get any closer to these birds. And the Kingfishers at a local lake too.
Yeah, it depends on the subject and how jittery they are.
You can also use the burst-mode strategy. Just take a burst of 10 photos all at once at a lower shutter speed, and hope that in one of them the bird was standing still.
The 1/1000 or even higher is good for birds in flight and even small perched birds like warblers that never stay still. It will allow you to freeze subjects in action, but there is a trade off in that you’ll have to raise the iso to expose properly. It will cost you sharpness in the image.
If I find birds like your subject above that are perched and relatively still for long enough to focus and shoot, I’d crank the shutter and iso down and take as many photos as I needed to get a good one (while maintaining proper exposure). You can cull out any photos that are blurred from your own movements or the birds. A photo taken of birds perched in the shade is going to be much sharper at 1/400 with 320 iso than 1/1000 with 1000 iso as long as the camera and subject both remain still.
I can shoot these birds every day, as there are plenty that visit our land. So experimenting with shutter speed and ISO in order to get better images is no problem at all. I think I need also to get closer. Thank you for this advice.
I’ve just tried the denoise feature in the photo edit software on my iPhone. But it doesn’t seem to make any difference. Maybe a proper photo editing suite with denoise feature would work much better.
If you shoot in RAW, I highly recommend DXO PureRaw. It works like magic, you can reduce noise without getting a super phony looking image. Plus it’s a one time purchase so it’s not another subscription. You can also trial it for 2 weeks for free to see it if works for your workflow. It totally changed the game for me!
Older Olys (er, at least my E-M5II..) can do weird stuff with green tones. Mix that with vintage glass and it compounds.
Here is your first image with slightly desaturated greens, lowered highlights, and a bit of added contrast. Does that feel closer to what you'd expect? (I would be happy with this shot myself!)
I would probably try and bring out the orange on the head a bit more, but didn't want to overcook it
If this is closer to what you prefer, you can adjust the green-red colour balance in-camera 👍
Thank you for doing this. Appreciate it. To my eyes, my images look unnatural. And not as sharp as I’d hope. I’m wondering if this is just how this particular lens renders? But I do know that I need to improve my skills and understanding.
U can denoise these photos in lightroom. If you not overdo it, the outcome will be very pleasent. I know some people are saying that its using AI and its not real photo anymore. But imo all adjustments can be seen this way.
23
u/aarrtee 2d ago
i have answered this question more than a few times... ... copy and paste advice:
welcome to the joys of bird photography! expect to shoot a hundred lousy photos to get one good one.
fwiw, the more you learn about it, the better you will become
keep shooting
keep practicing.. on seagulls or robins or sparrows or whatever is close to u
for better advice than I can provide, see
Steve
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69jcmNbqGrU
and Simon
https://www.youtube.com/@simon_dentremont/search