Canon 30d Focus

[GMS]

I've recently replaced my 350d with the 30d mainly because I wanted to have the option of using 5 frames/sec and more autofocus points for flight shots.

I've tried the 30d now and have to say I'm really struggling with it. I've attached a couple of shots of Turnstone and Herring Gull (for both an uncropped shot to show how far away the birds were and then a cropped shot to see the detail). I'm using the 100-400 IS with the camera. With this combination I thought the images should be clear and crisp. I believe that even with the 350d the results would have been much better for birds so close. Another thing I noticed is that the camera seems to struggle to when trying to lock onto a flying bird with the zoom hunting around a lot more than with the old camera.

Maybe I'm doing something completely stupid but so far I'm really disappointed. Any help would be much appreciated.

[GMS]

Apologies, forgot to add the camera settings:

Shooting Mode Aperture-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed ) 1/5000 (1/1600 for Turnstone pic)
Av( Aperture Value ) 8.0
Metering Mode Spot Metering
ISO Speed 640
Lens EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Focal Length 400.0 mm
Image Quality Fine
White Balance Mode Auto
AF Mode One-Shot AF
Picture Style Standard
Sharpness 3
Drive Mode Single-frame shooting

[Keith Reeder]

They actually look like big crops, GMS - it might be simply that you're just expecting too much of the kit at those distances.

I've got the same set up, and I've been very satisfied with the IQ (which I mention just to put your mind at rest about your choice) but at long range the lens isn't really powerful enough to allow sharp crops of very small subjects (which these will be at the range we seem to be looking at).

Simply, if the image from the lens doesn't cover enough of the sensor's photosites, you're going to struggle to get detail and sharpness - that's just the physics of the thing.

That said, I've been quite surprised sometimes...

Have you taken any shots of closer subjects? That'll be a better way to tell if there's actually a problem.

Added: I've done a similar thing to you with the attached pics - I wouldn't want to shoot anything further away than this cormorant (about 30 yards?) or crop any more than this - but they show that the kit can manage reasonably well with biggish crops as long as you don't expect miracles.

Note though that these were in good light, so I haven't had a problem with detail being lost to noise.

As a matter of interest - are you using a "cheap" UV filter here? If you are - take it off and try again.

[GMS]

They actually look like big crops, GMS - it might be simply that you're just expecting too much of the kit at those distances.


Thanks for your reply Keith. I know they are quite big crops, but they are for illustration only. I wouldn't usually try this to this extent with any of my pics.

I've attached a couple more shots of Black-headed Gull at approx. the same range and both cropped the same. One I've just taken on Saturday, the other one last winter with the 350D.

Had a look at your pics and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the crop.
I'd be quite happy with that.

The filter I've been using for some time now it a Hoya filter.

[deshojo]

If I may make two suggestions (assuming that you already select the centre focus point only):

Firstly I would reduce the ISO when possible, 640 is quite high and will produce some noise which will reduce picture quality. The first gull shot was at 1/5000th and ISO 200 would have given a quite adequate 1/1000th.

The second, and perhaps most important, is to try shooting in RAW format and process the shots using DPP which came with the camera, preferably to 16 bit .TIF's finished in Photoshop.
The extra quality gained from RAW is quite noticeable.
I usually shoot RAW and small fine .jpg, and often shots that look a bit soft in the .jpg are actually pin sharp in the RAW (shots should look sharp at 100% on screen).
Using a 30D to shoot .jpg's is like asking an olympic athlete to run in wellington boots - you aren't going to achieve the best results!

[JohnZ]

Despite our difference of opinion regarding zoom vs prime I have seen enough of Keiths piccies to know that there must be something wrong with your lens. He has taken some cracking shots with the 100-400mm. If removing the filter does not improve it then it could be down to re-calibration. Not even the mighty Canon can ensure that every lens they send out is perfect.
You might also try AI Servo. It should not make any difference but...........? As I have less than steady hands I use AI Servo and it seems to work for me.

[ornithographyplus]

A few comments: The ISO is too high for a bright sunny day. I very seldom go beyond ISO-400. Second, avoid using spot metering unless the subject is backlit or if there are white areas that are likely to get blown. Usin AI-servo also works well with flying and fast moving objects.

Bob K.
www.pbase.com/ornithographylus

[Keith Reeder]

I'd still be interested to see some examples without the filter...

[Richard]

I'd still be interested to see some examples without the filter...

Several posters have mentioned not using (cheap) filters. Can they really be a problem - it hadn't occured to me before. I have a basic skylight Hoya filter on my 100-400 which, thinking about it, is not very sensible to put on an L lens!

I guess it more likely to be a problem for distance shots when resolution is more important?

Am I better to buy a more expensive filter, in which case is there any guide to quality, or not using one at all and being obsessional about lens care?

Thanks

Richard

[Keith Reeder]

Yeah, they can but that's not to say they will - some people have had real, repeatable problems, but others have beem fine.

There does seem to be a correlation between price/quality and the existence of IQ issues, and I don't imagine that there's nearly the same potential for problems from the highest quality/price filters.

In the lower price ranges though, you're definitely taking pot-luck - this has been clearly demonstrated more than once in threads on this very forum.

[Cashie]

Hi Richard, I dont use a filter at all now since noticing diagonal lines in my pictures, I asked on here about the problem & Keith came to my rescue, he showed me one of his pictures of a starling with the same problem, since taking off the filters ( Hoya UVs ) it was like using a different lens.
Now I just use the Hood as protection & my shots have improved no end, dont take my word for it, just give it a try.

Paul

[Keith Reeder]

Thanks Paul - I could have done with you backing me up in other threads where I've been chewed out mercilessly for suggesting that filters can be a problem sometimes!

;)

[Robert L Jarvis]

I think Keith is right as his Cormorant photo shows, one has to be aware of the limitations of the equipment. Even at 30 yards with a big bird the lens of 400mm and the camera seems highly unlikely to get enough detail to make it worthwhile. I would have thought something more like 20 yards is the limit for 400mm.

Taking Keith's Cormorant as an example it seems to me that this is going into digiscoping territory and quite likely a compact and good scope would have produced more detail than the DSLR combo at that range.

[Richard]

Hi Richard, I dont use a filter at all now...... since taking off the filters ( Hoya UVs ) it was like using a different lens.
Now I just use the Hood as protection & my shots have improved no end, dont take my word for it, just give it a try.

Paul

Thanks as well. Sounds good advice - will have to experiment.

Richard

[Keith Reeder]

I'm a bit confused Robert - are you saying there's not much detail in the cormorant?

'Cos on my monitor there's plenty, considering - the cormorant is meant to indicate what can be done, not show what can't!

;)

[JohnZ]

I too am a bit confused by Roberts comment. Keiths shot of the Cormorant looks okay on my monitor too. If I may also refer you to the "Canon Extender EFx2" thread I have posted a shot of a large bird taken from a fair old distance. I have posted the original, taken at 400mm, and also a crop. Not a world beating shot but I think it demonstrates how good the equipment is. I think the bird was in excess of 50 metres away.

[gordon g]

Thanks Paul - I could have done with you backing me up in other threads where I've been chewed out mercilessly for suggesting that filters can be a problem sometimes!

;)

I had never noticed a problem with uv filters whilst using film in my 1V, but since going to digital capture, and in the light of those photos you showed us, I have also stopped using them!

[skiel]

Are you hand holding? A really good tripod and mirror lock-up might make a world of difference.... also, as stated above...try servo mode and continuous shooting....often the second shot in a burst is much sharper.

[Keith Reeder]

Hi Skiel,

most people use the 100-400mm specifically to avoid the need for a tripod, and usually pretty successfully.

I honestly doubt that this is about camera shake.

[Robert L Jarvis]

Hi Keith Don't get me wrong the photo is a good blow up from the original, one can see the main features fine but going from there it is an excellent record shot. As you quite rightly pointed out at that distance do not expect miracles which is what the thread originator was looking for in his words clear and crisp.

[Keith Reeder]

;)

Oh aye, I'm not suggesting that I'd present the cormorant in that crop if I was going to use the picture - I'd back off and make the bird smaller in the frame - but I thought it indicated something of what this camera/lens combo was capable of at distance.

[Robert L Jarvis]

o:) It is a pity you did not digiscope the bird as well for comparative purposes.

[Keith Reeder]

Too much to carry, Robert!


;)

[Robert L Jarvis]

You are not kidding, when I look at your equipment list. Notice no mention of a tripod!! Looks like you need to take time off and visit the gym for a while and eat lots of steaks.