• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Micro Four-Thirds (2 Viewers)

I have found the focus on closer birds excellent! Did you have half-press IS activated? I find it helps to do so to be more selective with the focus.
Couple of quickies from a few minutes ago out our window. Crappy light again....ISO 800 1/80 and 1/125 second, no TC, about 7 meters away.
PB075171.jpg PB075175.jpg
 
Last edited:
Pushing the limits of the IS

On a rainy day with all the birds hiding out somewhere, I wanted to test the close focus, and the limits of the IS. These are with the 400/5.6, without a tripod, but resting my elbow on the window sill. Closest possible focus with the 400.
PB075189.jpg
ISO 400, 1/40 at f/8. Focus on the bottom of the apple.
PB075214.jpg
ISO 200, 1/25 at f/8. Focus on the bud behind the apple.
PB075206.jpg
ISO 200, 1/30 at f/8. Focus on the bottom of the right hand apple.

Focus was quick and right where I wanted it. All focused and re-composed.
So, what's this about 1/1.5x the focal length for shutter speed? B :)

One thing I haven't mentioned here is the advantage of the mass of the 400. I doubt very much I could get anywhere near the same results with the little 75-300. It is really difficult to hold steady.
 
Last edited:
I have found the focus on closer birds excellent! Did you have half-press IS activated? I find it helps to do so to be more selective with the focus.
Couple of quickies from a few minutes ago out our window. Crappy light again....ISO 800 1/80 and 1/125 second, no TC, about 7 meters away.
View attachment 563918 View attachment 563919


Dan,

I always pre-focus, and old habit.

The first one is very nice. IMHO, the second one has the same problem as my Mallard but it is not as bad. The black on the top of the head and the yellow on the belly lack details.

Am I asking too much ? Is my vision of a bird wrong ? After writing the above, I decided to illustrate my thinking with a few really sharp photos. Surprise ! I had to work quite hard to find some. Most have those small spots that lack details and they are not due to DOF. Anyway, attached are crops of 2 photos that meet my idea of "Sharp".

What is the cause of those "mushy" areas: light, angle, dynamic range, lens, camera, LR and processing, photographer ?

Maybe I went too far in my comments. Anyway, I'm not too concerned because they were my first photos with the lens and I was not really trying to deliver... I just wanted to try it.

It is not extremely important as far as I am concerned. I am anything but a pixel peeker or an absolute sharpness and IQ fanatic. I consider that the overall beauty, artistic content and ornithological value of an image go before these.

What do you guys think ?
 

Attachments

  • 001-041013ab014kf.jpg
    001-041013ab014kf.jpg
    261.2 KB · Views: 132
  • 001-081012am196k2f.jpg
    001-081012am196k2f.jpg
    208.5 KB · Views: 126
Last edited:
Nice photos, Jules & Dan.

Interesting thread on dpreview.

I wonder if there is a compromise using only one firmware version for all EF lenses ?

Would it be possible to get better AF performance on 400mm EF lens if a firmware version was made just for that lens/focal length ?

Anders
 
Nice photos, Jules & Dan.

Interesting thread on dpreview.

I wonder if there is a compromise using only one firmware version for all EF lenses ?

Would it be possible to get better AF performance on 400mm EF lens if a firmware version was made just for that lens/focal length ?

Anders

Maybe, but I doubt it will happen. Can you imagine the nightmare for Metabones and for users who own several Canon lenses ?

As far as I am concerned, I am quite satisfied with my first encounter with the 400/MB. I only took about 100 shots and I got decent results. I'm really pleased with that Gull in flight.

There is always a learning curve using a new lens, at least for me, and I am sure I will do better.
 
"I consider that the overall beauty, artistic content and ornithological value of an image go before these."

Couldn't agree more!

There are so many factors that can affect detail one would go crazy if one were to be too fixated on eliminating them all at the same time. Naturally, with birds we want feather detail and a spot of light in the eye, but after a given distance, that simply in not possible even under ideal air and light conditions. I am so happy it works as wall as it does. It has removed a huge stress factor for me and allowed me to concentrate on other things.
 
"I consider that the overall beauty, artistic content and ornithological value of an image go before these."

Couldn't agree more!

There are so many factors that can affect detail one would go crazy if one were to be too fixated on eliminating them all at the same time. Naturally, with birds we want feather detail and a spot of light in the eye, but after a given distance, that simply in not possible even under ideal air and light conditions. I am so happy it works as wall as it does. It has removed a huge stress factor for me and allowed me to concentrate on other things.

I forgot to include memories in addition to overall beauty, artistic content and ornithological value.

My search for perfection of yesterday made me realize that it is not that important. Browsing in LR, I saw a ton of wonderful photos that are far from perfect. Some even have serious flaws and they are still very nice.

Today, I'll be trying the 400MB with flash and BB. I'm actively looking for a used 1.4X TC II which I will get this week.

Monday or Tuesday, I should be able to try a 2X TC I. I will get one if it focuses accurately, even if it is slow. There are some used V. II available at a decent price.

If the Canon 2X cannot focus, before buying one, I will be trying to make a 2X TC with my best TN that I will insert in a cheap Canon EF extension tube (8$US).

Recently, my knees have been telling me to stop carrying heavy equipment. Using the 400MB instead of the SW80ED would allow me to exchange my heavy tripod and gimbal for something lighter. 1600mm EQ is decent reach and should allow me to keep shooting birds at a distance.
 
I wonder also whether duck feathers show the same kind of detail that "dry" birds show, that is, whether the oils in the feathers make them look slicker and smoother.... just a thought.

Here are a few BiFs from today.
PB085507.jpg PB085472.jpg PB085464.jpg
Without TC.

The AF struggled a bit with the TC on with birds high overhead, but I doubt any AF system would do much better. Situations like this:
PB085346-2.jpg PB085346.jpg

Without it it did admirably well. Huge improvement over MF. B :)
 
More photos with the 400/MB

I took more photos today under ideal sunny and clear conditions. No TC - just the lens. Mixed feelings...

Up close

The 400/MB can be very sharp as shown in photos #1 and #2. The Chickadee was about 5-8m away and stayed still long enough to allow me to find it with the lens and focus accurately. Perfect shot ! Very sharp, good contrast, beautiful BG - couldn't ask for more. Photo #1 is a 17% crop and #2 is a close-up to show details.

I saw 2 other Chickadees earlier under light tree cover. They were actively feeding at distances between 4 and 8 m. I tried to take photos for a good 10 minutes and was unable to take a single keeper - zero! First, it was difficult to find them with the lens and, once found, the lens never had enough time to lock focus. Photo #3 is a photo of the tree cover. I could have taken a ton of good photos with the Oly 100-300 in that environment. The 400/MB combo is worse with a single small focus square than the 100-300 with a single large one. Useless ! Birds up close look like a transparent blurr before focusing and then the autofocus hunts until it locks if the bird stays long enough - pre-focusing manually is not much help and the bird would be long gone anyway.

Photo #4 is a manual focus photo taken at 5-6m. I was unable to get the lens to autofocus on the fruits. Hunt ! Hunt ! Tried both 3.5 and 8.5m. settings. It just didn't work ! Don't ask me why, I don't know !

My opinion: the 400/MB combo is not the right choice for active birds up close (3.5m. to about 8 m.). Tree cover makes it even worse. It is almost impossible to get the bird quickly enough in the viewfinder because the autofocus function is not fast enough and doesn't seem to be able to start from a blurr. This is definitely not a good choice for Warblers...

Continued in the next post...
 

Attachments

  • 001-151108ab147kf.jpg
    001-151108ab147kf.jpg
    161.3 KB · Views: 107
  • 002-151108ab147k.jpg
    002-151108ab147k.jpg
    199.6 KB · Views: 125
  • 001-151108ab029.jpg
    001-151108ab029.jpg
    231.6 KB · Views: 117
  • 001-151108ab003.jpg
    001-151108ab003.jpg
    117.8 KB · Views: 123
More photos with the 400/MB (2)

...Continued from the previous post

Medium distance


Ring-necked Ducks photos #1 and #2 were both taken at about 8-10m. They look quite nice because the contrast is very good. However, focus accuracy is not the same for both as show close-up photos #3 and #4. Focus accuracy is much better for the female than it is for the male. I have encountered this situation many times this morning and the photos displayed here are quite typical.

Autofocus is not lightning fast but ok for static birds. Accuracy varies from acceptable to excellent. Contrast is great and there is alway a little CA that is easy to correct.

Overall, I'm quite pleased with the results at medium distance and I'm eager to test with a 1.4 TC.

BIF

I tried more Gulls in flight today and I got the same results as Dan shows in his last post. BIF against a nice blue sky work pretty well, both with 9 and 37 squares, using S-AF. C-AF is useless.

However, BIF against contrasty clouds or a BG of trees, even if quite far away, don't work at all. The camera will always focus on the BG.

I would say that BIF with the 400/MB compare with the 100-300mm using C-AF, although the Oly lens works better against a busy BG (still not great...)

Overall

Is the 400/MB THE solution for birders ? Probably not. Certainly not at close range, at least with the current firmware. Is it reasonable to expect this combo to work well in all birding situations ? Certainly not.

At medium range, I think it is better than the Oly 100-300mm. But will it be better than the new Oly 300mm f/4 with 1.4X TC ? Not sure but probably not. Will it be better than the coming Panny 100-400mm ? Don't know !

I cannot comment about long range work. I have tested it without a TC at 50-60m. and it seems to perform well but more reach from a TC is needed to make it a worthwhile solution.

BIF work reasonably well against a clean BG and I can live with that.

However, it is available now and it is quite a bit cheaper. The Oly 300mm will cost about 2500$US with the 1.4X TC while a used 400mm with a used 1.4X TC II and MB Adapter cost about 1300$US, or about half the price.

It is definitely a nice solution for someone who already owns many Canon lenses. However, the size of the 400mm makes it special - the other Canon lenses are big and heavy.

I was hoping to sell my 100-300mm but that won't happen... unless I decide to buy the 300mm f/4. Will I keep it ? It depends on how it performs with 1.4X and 2.0X TCs. If it can replace the SW80ED, even with manual focus only, it will be probably be a keeper.
 

Attachments

  • 001-151108ab112kf.jpg
    001-151108ab112kf.jpg
    201.3 KB · Views: 114
  • 001-151108ab092kf.jpg
    001-151108ab092kf.jpg
    190.3 KB · Views: 98
  • 001-151108ab112k.jpg
    001-151108ab112k.jpg
    187.9 KB · Views: 111
  • 001-151108ab092k.jpg
    001-151108ab092k.jpg
    157.7 KB · Views: 109
I was right in the middle of reading Jules' post when my wife called up to me and told me we had an unusual visitor. So I quick grabbed the E-M1+400 and got what I could through the branches of an apple tree next to the house.

PB095540.jpg PB095552.jpg

I find this combination at close range quite satisfactory indeed!
I also find it quite capable of finding the target in a cluttered environment, and if it doesn't, the AF is easy to either override or turn off. I find it helps to quick focus on something bigger at about the same distance, and then zero in on the target.
No AF system is going to be 100% reliable all the time, certainly not the Olympus system. I find the 75-300 II hopeless against busy backgrounds, BiF or otherwise. Talk about searching and getting stuck! :C

If AF is the MAIN priority, and in the end, maybe it is, then Canon is no doubt the way to go. I myself am not yet convinced.
 
I was right in the middle of reading Jules' post when my wife called up to me and told me we had an unusual visitor. So I quick grabbed the E-M1+400 and got what I could through the branches of an apple tree next to the house.

View attachment 564264 View attachment 564265

I find this combination at close range quite satisfactory indeed!
I also find it quite capable of finding the target in a cluttered environment, and if it doesn't, the AF is easy to either override or turn off. I find it helps to quick focus on something bigger at about the same distance, and then zero in on the target.
No AF system is going to be 100% reliable all the time, certainly not the Olympus system. I find the 75-300 II hopeless against busy backgrounds, BiF or otherwise. Talk about searching and getting stuck! :C

If AF is the MAIN priority, and in the end, maybe it is, then Canon is no doubt the way to go. I myself am not yet convinced.
Nice! Leiopicus medius?
 
Right, Middle spotted. We get mostly Great spotted here, and Greens too. We have gotten a glimpse of a Little Spotted, but only once or twice. They are really fun! Would love to get something better than this:
P2210369.jpg
From last spring, E-M1 + Canon 400.
 
The middle spotted became RE in Scandinavia in early 80's due to destruction of habitats leading to few untouched deciduous forests left. A project is on-going to reintroduce them but financing is an issue and progress is slow.
 
I was right in the middle of reading Jules' post when my wife called up to me and told me we had an unusual visitor. So I quick grabbed the E-M1+400 and got what I could through the branches of an apple tree next to the house.

View attachment 564264 View attachment 564265

I find this combination at close range quite satisfactory indeed!
I also find it quite capable of finding the target in a cluttered environment, and if it doesn't, the AF is easy to either override or turn off. I find it helps to quick focus on something bigger at about the same distance, and then zero in on the target.
No AF system is going to be 100% reliable all the time, certainly not the Olympus system. I find the 75-300 II hopeless against busy backgrounds, BiF or otherwise. Talk about searching and getting stuck! :C

If AF is the MAIN priority, and in the end, maybe it is, then Canon is no doubt the way to go. I myself am not yet convinced.

Dan, you can't really compare Chickadees and Woodpeckers... Due to the nature of their feeding on bark, Woodpeckers stay longer at the same place.

Chickadees are a different story. First you must find the bird with the 400mm, which is difficult, pre-focus somewhat, put the focus square on the bird between the branches and get the camera to acquire focus. All this in 3 or 4 seconds.

Of course, I will get used to using the 100mm more magnification, but even then... IMHO, this is too much power for this situation and the focus is not fast enough.
 
I quickly tried the 400/MB with a Canon 1.4X III Extender yesterday. Autofocus works well with the 3 leftmost pins of the TC taped. Not much difference in terms of focusing speed.

Taping the pins of the Extender is not approved by Canon - use at your own risk.
 
Not approved doesn't mean it is harmful. It simply means it might not work! Some claim it is enough to tape just the first pin. Haven't tried it as I don't see that it would make any difference. Taping just "hides" the TC from the body.
Canon claims 50% reduction in focusing speed with a 1.4x III and 75% with a 2x III. In reasonable light I find the 1.4x to be just slightly slower, but nothing like 50%, more like 10-15%, and all 37 central focus points work just fine. And, there isn't a hint of front or back focusing, not a hint! In my book, a big advantage.

Super windy and over 20°C out. Very strange. Birds are all lying low. Still, I wanted to practice some selective focusing and this was the only cooperative model I could find. All single point, small, with Antishock=0. 1/125 at ISO 400, no TC.
PB105678.jpg PB105679.jpg PB105680.jpg PB105681.jpg PB105682.jpg

I had all of 6 seconds for these 5 shots. I have Rls Priority set to off, but it seems to be a bit buggy and sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. So I just wait till I see the green box and fire. I notice that with each shot it backs off just a tad and re-focuses.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top