• 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.

Do I need more ISO to get sharper photo? (1 Viewer)

bobmoose

bobmoose

Bob Moore
Hello,
I'm getting used to my new Canon 100-400 is L lens. I took this shot today. The sky was overcast and grey. I had 800 ISO/F5.7 @ 400mm and one stop overexposed. The best speed I could get was 128 sec. I sharpened in PS to get a clearer picture but was wondering if I could have gotten better results by simply going up to 1600 ISO and faster shutter speed. Noise VS blur? I'm using a Canon T2i. Is there really much difference in noise between 800ISO and 1600ISO.
I'm attaching two photos.
Thanks for your input.
Bob
 

Attachments

  • Varied thrush.jpg
    Varied thrush.jpg
    61.4 KB · Views: 413
  • Varied thrush ps.jpg
    Varied thrush ps.jpg
    90.7 KB · Views: 457
bobmoose said:
Hello,
I'm getting used to my new Canon 100-400 is L lens. I took this shot today. The sky was overcast and grey. I had 800 ISO/F5.7 @ 400mm and one stop overexposed. The best speed I could get was 128 sec. I sharpened in PS to get a clearer picture but was wondering if I could have gotten better results by simply going up to 1600 ISO and faster shutter speed. Noise VS blur? I'm using a Canon T2i. Is there really much difference in noise between 800ISO and 1600ISO.
I'm attaching two photos.
Thanks for your input.
Bob
Click to expand...

A noisy sharp image is in my eyes better than a smooth blurred one (i.e. ISO up when everything else is already maxed out), and 1/125s @ 400 mm is borderline or beyond.
Even on a rock steady tripod that eliminates camera shake and vibration tiny movements of a smallish subject will spoil the best set focus at such a slow shutter speed.

Looking at the images I wonder what percentage of the original frame we are seeing? By cropping to much we get eventually down to the point where it doesn't matter anymore if the image is in sharp or not as there is no more detail in the first place. Other than the obvious info (f, shutter speed, ISO) this is crucial to know to judge IQ, and I wonder if this may add to the problems with your image. I am using a 12 mpix DSLR and from my experience a 1/4 crop (i.e. keeping 1/4 of the full frame as image) is still OK with sufficient detail, more than that and IQ goes rapidly down.

Ulli
 
Hi Ulli,
The picture is cropped ~ 50% from an 18Mpix camera.
Since I posted this I found a site that had an ISO comparison shots from a T2i at both 800ISO and 1600ISO and the higher ISO pic stood up quite well so I think I won't have any problems at all upping to to higher ISO. I was shooting handheld and the higher ISO would have given me the faster shutter speed I needed. I agree that a noisier picture is better than a blurry picture. Thanks for the input!
 
It is always a trade off between ISO noise and shutter speed, but as said above a sharp image with a bit more noise is far better than one with motion blur.
 
Remember too, that in my experience the 100-400mm lens only really starts to perform sharply at F8.
 
Last edited:
Sy V said:
Remember too that the 100-400mm lens only really starts to perform sharply at F8.
Click to expand...
Really?

These are all at f/6.3 (and handheld): does this mean they aren't sharp?

Bummer...

(You don't want to generalise about the 100-400mm when I'm around, Sy!)

;)
 

Attachments

  • sanderling_boulmer_1.jpg
    sanderling_boulmer_1.jpg
    232.1 KB · Views: 276
  • canada_goose_4.jpg
    canada_goose_4.jpg
    256.6 KB · Views: 191
  • fulmar_2a.jpg
    fulmar_2a.jpg
    201.1 KB · Views: 262
  • starling_bibble_1.jpg
    starling_bibble_1.jpg
    302.9 KB · Views: 312
  • gannet_bempton_10.jpg
    gannet_bempton_10.jpg
    297 KB · Views: 232
Last edited:
I rarely stop down to F8 on my 100-400. My default setting is F6.3 and if I want to increase the depth of field I'll stop down to F7. For birds at a distance I'm happy to shoot at F5,6 especially in poor light.
Keith's pictures speak so eloquently that I don't think any additional uploads on my part are necessary but I don't have a problem with sharpness either.
 
If you look at Keith's picture the most important issue is the light direction. Except for the Fulmar the direction is coming from behind one of his shoulders, illuminating the plumage of the birds. The skill is getting the right angle and height on the bird. These are classic studio portrait poses outside in the field.

Most lenses are going to give you a decent result if the right light conditions prevail.

As a result there will be no need for any post production if the exposure is correct, except for a sharpen.
 
Actually, as you can imagine, three of these involved a fair amount of "highlights" work - I do like the challenge of shooting white birds in bright sunlight - but Pe'rigin's point is well made (and we've touched on it before) that the quality and the direction of light are everything.

I react completely instinctively to the position of the Sun when I'm out with my camera - it's pretty much always off one shoulder or another - and it unquestionably makes a huge difference to the detail and perceived sharpness of an image.

Mind you, as with the Fulmar, sometimes it's better to have bright sunshine sidelighting the subject, because that can bring out more detail.
 
Keith

Yes, guilty (as accused) of generalisation, but (you misquoted me BTW, I had edited while you were compiling) the OP was talking about non-ideal lighting (ISO800-1600). I can show you plenty of sharp ideal-lighting shots of mine from my 100-400mm days with the aperture more open than F8. You know where I was coming from though, I suspect... B :)
 
Hi everyone,
Well it seems that the ability to get the great shot will require a lot more practice in all conditions before this newbie gets it all right. But practice I will !!
 
hmmm

bobmoose said:
Hello,
I'm getting used to my new Canon 100-400 is L lens. I took this shot today. The sky was overcast and grey. I had 800 ISO/F5.7 @ 400mm and one stop overexposed. The best speed I could get was 128 sec. I sharpened in PS to get a clearer picture but was wondering if I could have gotten better results by simply going up to 1600 ISO and faster shutter speed. Noise VS blur? I'm using a Canon T2i. Is there really much difference in noise between 800ISO and 1600ISO.
I'm attaching two photos.
Thanks for your input.
Bob
Click to expand...

You didn't say weather or not you were using any type of camera support. I have 2 Canon bodies a 20D and a 40D and I try not to go over 400 ISO until late in the day and I normally have my Vivitar 285 with home made beamer on 1/2 power. What's crucial though is to have a rock steady suppport, bean bag, monopod, tripod whatever. It takes some practice to make having a steady shooting platform your 1st priority; railings, trees, whatever is handy will greatly imporove your chances of a sharp shot. I always check my images at 100% and add only minimal sharpening if at all. With IS, 2.8 400 mm lenses, and digital ISO's that are very usable to even 800 it is comaratively easy to get usable images as compared to when a fast 400 was 4.5, IS was not even a thought and the only really usable color films were ASA 64 and 25. My usable image ratio is 10X's what it was back then...maybe even higher.
 
The photo was handheld in my backyard .I didn't have time to get my monopod.You know how it is, One minute the bird is there and the next they're gone.
 
Thank for all your imput and suggestions. On thing I've allready learned in the week since I got my lens is that there is no substitute for good light. If I have that, odds are my pics will be much better.
 
What shutter speed do you guys usually try to use when photographing birds and other wildlife? I'm having similar problems with my photos not being crisp and clear 95% of the time. Very discouraging.
 
Last edited:
A rule of thumb for telephoto lenses I have heard is 2x your focal length. If at 400 mm you need 1/800sec. Perched birds need at least 1/400 sec and for bird in flight use 1/1200 or faster. To get these speeds you need to have ISO 400 minimum in most cases or higher. Handheld photos need fast shutterspeed for low shutterspeed you should use a tripod/monopod/brace of some kind. I'm still fairly new at this but these bacsic rules seem to be helping me get better shots. More practice helps. Try your camera at various aperture priority and shutter priority settings. Good luck. Hope this helps.
 
Well in my ignorance I was shooting at around 1/100 or a little higher. No wonder I wasn't getting clear shots in most cases. I've been doing a lot of landscape photography with long shutter speeds so just going up to 100 seemed like a lot to my mind ;)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 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.

Similar threads

W
Considering a Partial Camera Upgrade - D500 w/ 200-500mm lens
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
BriLee
B
Denny Woodthorpe
  • Article
The Flasher.
Replies
2
Views
463
Denny Woodthorpe
Denny Woodthorpe
Andy Strachan
Soft/Blurry Images
Replies
7
Views
3K
MikeInPA
M
Zackiedawg
Topaz Gigapixel AI for enlarging heavy crops, getting better detail on birds
Replies
12
Views
4K
MKinHK
MKinHK
G
What to get... or what to do different...
Replies
11
Views
3K
getset
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top