Umm... lol settings advice? Canon xs50 HS. (1 Viewer)

[Chidolly]

Well... I bought my first bridge camera. Went out to check some birds. Colder than a titch's wit, I might add. I Programmed my C's to 2 settings that i borrowed from either here and the Ted link in another thread. Plus tried sports mode with burst (read that here and another forum).
No so good. Sports mode is extremely pixilated. And I really had to fiddle with my presets to get some barely acceptable shots. Mind you my first time out with my first bridge camera (i never take photos with my power shots).
Begrudgingly will post them for advice. ISO: around 200 - 500 (the higher were brutal), Aperture: lowest number, exposure compensation: varied between 0 and 1.5. the odd one was negative .5. Continuous (NOT continuous tracking autofocus). Shutter speed: Pretty fast lol. I was chilly and zoomed far. Plus not the steadiest hand.
Can't remember other settings. They are obviously not cropped and edited. I don't have the software and no point in cropping pixelation.
I had seen on the Stokes site that she used FULL or near full zoom (including digital). well i must say that i was closer than some of her "here they are with no zoom" shots and don't see either as close, detailed or focused.
The buffleheads and mergansers I had no choice but to use digital zoom (esp. the buffleheads, who were dodging me and i had to shoot through a lot of Bramble). The Heron and the Brown, Black Beaked duck (which i have deduced is probably a khaki Campbell or the offshoot of that one) were just with optical zoom. and they still have some pixelation.
The kitty is just low indoor lamp light with high iso and quick-ish shutter speed. Excuse the compositioning but i was on foot often trying to snap before they fled.
Keep in mind, I only bought this camera for record shots... but I am a bit type A so I find these unacceptable lol.

 

[njlarsen]

I do not have your camera but I would say that the very first of your shots with lots of snow in the background is a very difficult one to get right. The light meters in the camera just don't like things like that.

My second comment is that at least on that shot and probably a couple of the others it looks like focus is on branches in front of the bird. This can to some extent be corrected with setting the AF point to the smallest possible. (as I don't have your camera I cannot advice on how).
Niels

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Well... I bought my first bridge camera. Went out to check some birds. Colder than a titch's wit, I might add. I Programmed my C's to 2 settings that i borrowed from either here and the Ted link in another thread. Plus tried sports mode with burst (read that here and another forum).
No so good. Sports mode is extremely pixilated. And I really had to fiddle with my presets to get some barely acceptable shots. Mind you my first time out with my first bridge camera (i never take photos with my power shots).
Begrudgingly will post them for advice. ISO: around 200 - 500 (the higher were brutal), Aperture: lowest number, exposure compensation: varied between 0 and 1.5. the odd one was negative .5. Continuous (NOT continuous tracking autofocus). Shutter speed: Pretty fast lol. I was chilly and zoomed far. Plus not the steadiest hand.
Can't remember other settings. They are obviously not cropped and edited. I don't have the software and no point in cropping pixelation.
I had seen on the Stokes site that she used FULL or near full zoom (including digital). well i must say that i was closer than some of her "here they are with no zoom" shots and don't see either as close, detailed or focused.
The buffleheads and mergansers I had no choice but to use digital zoom (esp. the buffleheads, who were dodging me and i had to shoot through a lot of Bramble). The Heron and the Brown, Black Beaked duck (which i have deduced is probably a khaki Campbell or the offshoot of that one) were just with optical zoom. and they still have some pixelation.
The kitty is just low indoor lamp light with high iso and quick-ish shutter speed. Excuse the compositioning but i was on foot often trying to snap before they fled.
Keep in mind, I only bought this camera for record shots... but I am a bit type A so I find these unacceptable lol.View attachment 1423437View attachment 1423438View attachment 1423439View attachment 1423440View attachment 1423441View attachment 1423443View attachment 1423444View attachment 1423442View attachment 1423446View attachment 1423445View attachment 1423436View attachment 1423447View attachment 1423449

'Doesn't look to be a great deal of light in those pictures. I personally wouldn't judge a bridge camera in those conditions. 'May be worth having a look in the gallery section, and comparing pictures taken in good and low light: even with the more expensive equipment, the difference in image quality is stark.

 

[Chidolly]

'Doesn't look to be a great deal of light in those pictures. I personally wouldn't judge a bridge camera in those conditions. 'May be worth having a look in the gallery section, and comparing pictures taken in good and low light: even with the more expensive equipment, the difference in image quality is stark.

It was a bright yet snowy, windy, cloudy day. My day off, so i had to make due.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

It was a bright yet snowy, windy, cloudy day. My day off, so i had to make due.

Aye, but look at what you have in the background, mate: water and trees on a cloudy, winter day. You'll have pretty much no contrast in the background/picture. My opinion from a position of limited experience: I'd forget about expecting miracles from a bridge camera in those conditions and with the background you have there. On a sunny day, the water would have been blue and you wouldn't have had a problem; on a cloudy day, you're going to need a bird with bonny colours to give a bit of contrast or get some green in the background.

This is a picture of a kestrel taken with a bridge camera on a day when there wasn't much light, very cloudy, but I've been fortunate enough to catch him in some light grass which has helped no end. 'Hasn't turned out bad. I wouldn't have expected much in the conditions in which you have taken pictures. The point of saying that is I reckon you need to give the camera more of a chance, and in the event you're expecting good quality pictures with a bridge camera on a cloudy day with water in the background, then I reckon you're going to be disappointed. I wouldn't have done any better than you with my camera in those conditions.

As for the settings, maybe keep it simple. I'm pretty much like you in that I don't go above ISO400 with my bridge camera. Aperture mode, let the camera determine the shutter speed, concentrate on getting close and keeping the camera steady, and get something in the background which means on a cloudy day you may get something decent.

 

[Chidolly]

Aye, but look at what you have in the background, mate: water and trees on a cloudy, winter day. You'll have pretty much no contrast in the background/picture. My opinion from a position of limited experience: I'd forget about expecting miracles from a bridge camera in those conditions and with the background you have there. On a sunny day, the water would have been blue and you wouldn't have had a problem; on a cloudy day, you're going to need a bird with bonny colours to give a bit of contrast or get some green in the background.

This is a picture of a kestrel taken with a bridge camera on a day when there wasn't much light, very cloudy, but I've been fortunate enough to catch him in some light grass which has helped no end. 'Hasn't turned out bad. I wouldn't have expected much in the conditions in which you have taken pictures. The point of saying that is I reckon you need to give the camera more of a chance, and in the event you're expecting good quality pictures with a bridge camera on a cloudy day with water in the background, then I reckon you're going to be disappointed. I wouldn't have done any better than you with my camera in those conditions.

As for the settings, maybe keep it simple. I'm pretty much like you in that I don't go above ISO400 with my bridge camera. Aperture mode, let the camera determine the shutter speed, concentrate on getting close and keeping the camera steady, and get something in the background which means on a cloudy day you may get something decent.

Nice pic. I love kestrels.

 

[PaulCountyDurham]

Nice pic. I love kestrels.

Cheers. The point of posting that is to say that with water in the background, on a cloudy day, that would have been awful; but with something a bit brighter in the background it gives you a chance.

 

[dom.birda]

I have this camera! You can get some good results out of it, you can see some here, you'l need to scroll a little bit, but everything after (in the feed) or before (in time) the kingfisher was taken on that camera. What worked for me was:

• back button focus
• spot focus

^^ super important when the bird is in a bush on tree

• f number as low as it goes
• shutter min 1/1000 handheld - this varies depending on how good you are at keeping the camera still. Theres a lot of zoomies on this camera, and the more zoomies you use, the more shakey the image will be. You can go higher in good light, and lower if you have a tripod or something to rest the camera on
• auto ISO, the one thing the camera would make good decisions about

I'm lucky to have access to some very fancy cameras through work, and I still keep coming back to this little powerhouse. The best camera is the one you have and this is so portable that I never go anywhere without it.

View attachment Kestresl.jpg

 

[Chidolly]

I have this camera! You can get some good results out of it, you can see some here, you'l need to scroll a little bit, but everything after (in the feed) or before (in time) the kingfisher was taken on that camera. What worked for me was:

• back button focus
• spot focus

^^ super important when the bird is in a bush on tree

• f number as low as it goes
• shutter min 1/1000 handheld - this varies depending on how good you are at keeping the camera still. Theres a lot of zoomies on this camera, and the more zoomies you use, the more shakey the image will be. You can go higher in good light, and lower if you have a tripod or something to rest the camera on
• auto ISO, the one thing the camera would make good decisions about

I'm lucky to have access to some very fancy cameras through work, and I still keep coming back to this little powerhouse. The best camera is the one you have and this is so portable that I never go anywhere without it.

View attachment 1423598

yeah i gotta remember shutter speed tip lol. so... you don't stay in aperture mode? If i do i have no shutter speed control... and I'm shakey like a polaroid. I went out before sunset this afternoon. a bit better results. still not phenomenal but work in progress. Also, I forgot that aperture setting stays on your previous set up... lets just say I have a LOT of sepia hooded mergansers.
Also I realized that some of what look like my clearest photos at normal size are pixelated at 40% zoom. crazy.

 

[dom.birda]

yeah i gotta remember shutter speed tip lol. so... you don't stay in aperture mode? If i do i have no shutter speed control... and I'm shakey like a polaroid. I went out before sunset this afternoon. a bit better results. still not phenomenal but work in progress. Also, I forgot that aperture setting stays on your previous set up... lets just say I have a LOT of sepia hooded mergansers.
Also I realized that some of what look like my clearest photos at normal size are pixelated at 40% zoom. crazy.

no i'd use manual, cos in aperature priority the shutter speed would drop too low for the zoom level. more zooms needs higher shutter speed. IME the 3 main settings would be f, shutter speed and ISO. f will almost always be wide open so that fixed, shutter speed is something you want to keep tight control over - the camera will prefer a lower speed than is appropriate. ISO - with the other two, the camera can make a good decision here, so lets let it run this one.