FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

C/C please. Be harsh....

Page  12>
Author
dogears View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 September 2006
Country: Philippines
Location: Philippines
Status: Offline
Posts: 9375
Post Options Post Options   Quote dogears Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: C/C please. Be harsh....
    Posted: 14 April 2017 at 11:56
I like what maewpa pointed out - the really annoying foreground branch and just a bit on the bird looking away.
 



Back to Top
pdeley View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 05 June 2008
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 2718
Post Options Post Options   Quote pdeley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 March 2017 at 19:00
Originally posted by MedicineMan999 MedicineMan999 wrote:

I did ask both birds if they would reposition themselves for a better image. Both the hawk and the Chickadee ignored my request.


My guess would be that the difficulties of getting really comparable subjects are part of the reason for your doubts about the 400 apo. Chickadees and other tiny birds are super jumpy and jittery, to the point where head movements or body turns can reduce sharpness even at 1/2000sec or faster. A larger and somewhat slower type of bird (even if it's not the same hawk ) would be a better point of comparison.

And a technical detail that matters for alpha mount gear: if shooting from a rock-steady tripod, sensor stabilization should be off as you could otherwise get blur from a confused sensor shift algorithm. On top of that, the longest and heaviest lenses are never 100% steady at the moment of pressing the shutter, unless you use a remote or timed release. So it is sometimes hard to decide for tripod shooting whether sss off really is the best solution or not.

Edited by pdeley - 28 March 2017 at 19:03
a450, a500, a65, a7, 700si & other 35 mm bodies, Sig 15-30, sam 30 2.8 macro, Pentax 40 2.8 pan, Sig 70 f2.8 macro, Vivi 90 f2.8 macro, Mino 100-400 apo, 300 f4, 500 f8, 600 f4
Back to Top
ricardovaste View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 August 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Shropshire
Status: Offline
Posts: 10060
Post Options Post Options   Quote ricardovaste Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 January 2017 at 11:30
Originally posted by MedicineMan999 MedicineMan999 wrote:

Originally posted by ricardovaste ricardovaste wrote:

What would you like critiquing here? You lead us towards evaluating the technical qualities of the lens / your technique, so I am hoping this is what you wish me to comment on.

My feelings are that this may be mostly down to post production. Firstly, 50% crop is quite heavy, I appreciate you can't always get it perfect in frame, but I wouldn't expect it to be "it's best" when you're cropping that much. Secondly, both seem like they're 'suffering' from a combination of less than ideal noise control and sharpening. This is of course just viewing on a monitor, and a web version, which may not be your ideal situation. I would try adjusting your sharpening and noise control during post production, as well as for web display. See where that gets you. I suspect you'll reveal more detail, if that's what you're after. If you like, shoot me a RAW at info AT rharris images dot com and I'll take a look myself when I get a moment.

As for the photo itself, I think they're very finely executed from an illustrative perspective. To go further I think it would be good to see them as a part of a larger collection, with something which sheds light on how they live.


Very very useful reply! Thank you very much. Yes, I was wanting critiquing of lens performance as best can be determined viewing on web. Composition was not a concern for this image. See, I think my Minolta 400 APO is not as good as some, but referencing other posts of mine in this regard I might be spoiled by owning several modern lenses that are indeed sharp.
I take over 100,000 images a year and chances are small I've kept that raw file but thank you again very much for offering.
Robert


So what is your process for displaying this on the web? Do you edit from the JPEG? If so, check your camera JPEG sharpening & RAW settings too.
I photograph the moments in people's lives that mean the most to them: Richard Harris Photography
Back to Top
MedicineMan999 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2013
Country: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 151
Post Options Post Options   Quote MedicineMan999 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 January 2017 at 11:25
Originally posted by ricardovaste ricardovaste wrote:

What would you like critiquing here? You lead us towards evaluating the technical qualities of the lens / your technique, so I am hoping this is what you wish me to comment on.

My feelings are that this may be mostly down to post production. Firstly, 50% crop is quite heavy, I appreciate you can't always get it perfect in frame, but I wouldn't expect it to be "it's best" when you're cropping that much. Secondly, both seem like they're 'suffering' from a combination of less than ideal noise control and sharpening. This is of course just viewing on a monitor, and a web version, which may not be your ideal situation. I would try adjusting your sharpening and noise control during post production, as well as for web display. See where that gets you. I suspect you'll reveal more detail, if that's what you're after. If you like, shoot me a RAW at info AT rharris images dot com and I'll take a look myself when I get a moment.

As for the photo itself, I think they're very finely executed from an illustrative perspective. To go further I think it would be good to see them as a part of a larger collection, with something which sheds light on how they live.


Very very useful reply! Thank you very much. Yes, I was wanting critiquing of lens performance as best can be determined viewing on web. Composition was not a concern for this image. See, I think my Minolta 400 APO is not as good as some, but referencing other posts of mine in this regard I might be spoiled by owning several modern lenses that are indeed sharp.
I take over 100,000 images a year and chances are small I've kept that raw file but thank you again very much for offering.
Robert
Back to Top
ricardovaste View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 August 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Shropshire
Status: Offline
Posts: 10060
Post Options Post Options   Quote ricardovaste Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 January 2017 at 11:02
What would you like critiquing here? You lead us towards evaluating the technical qualities of the lens / your technique, so I am hoping this is what you wish me to comment on.

My feelings are that this may be mostly down to post production. Firstly, 50% crop is quite heavy, I appreciate you can't always get it perfect in frame, but I wouldn't expect it to be "it's best" when you're cropping that much. Secondly, both seem like they're 'suffering' from a combination of less than ideal noise control and sharpening. This is of course just viewing on a monitor, and a web version, which may not be your ideal situation. I would try adjusting your sharpening and noise control during post production, as well as for web display. See where that gets you. I suspect you'll reveal more detail, if that's what you're after. If you like, shoot me a RAW at info AT rharris images dot com and I'll take a look myself when I get a moment.

As for the photo itself, I think they're very finely executed from an illustrative perspective. To go further I think it would be good to see them as a part of a larger collection, with something which sheds light on how they live.
I photograph the moments in people's lives that mean the most to them: Richard Harris Photography
Back to Top
MedicineMan999 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2013
Country: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 151
Post Options Post Options   Quote MedicineMan999 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 January 2017 at 03:10
I did ask both birds if they would reposition themselves for a better image. Both the hawk and the Chickadee ignored my request.
 



Back to Top
maewpa View Drop Down
Alpha Eyes group
Alpha Eyes group

Joined: 27 October 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Thailand
Status: Offline
Posts: 7216
Post Options Post Options   Quote maewpa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 January 2017 at 01:17
I should stress that I do love my lens (and my car is over 10 years old) and compared to much more expensive lenses of a generation or more later I believe it holds up very well indeed (either that or I am an awesome photographer ). Glad my post helped! hope you learn to love it too!
Paul aka maewpa
Back to Top
Hezu View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 13 October 2007
Country: Finland
Location: HKI/KSNK
Status: Online
Posts: 2623
Post Options Post Options   Quote Hezu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2017 at 22:29
I think technically there's not really anything to complain about - so I wouldn't worry about the lens quality, but since you wanted us to be harsh: the composition has room for improvement, there is now tree branches in front of birds (in both pictures) and why such wide aspect ratios?
Back to Top
MedicineMan999 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2013
Country: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 151
Post Options Post Options   Quote MedicineMan999 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 January 2017 at 06:57
Maewpa, awesome response.
It's not like I don't have other kit to play with so my whining ends here about the 400 APO.
Yes I'll keep it out of nostalgia :)
You're right in that when it hits it hits.

[IMG]Recropped for Morris by MedicineMan4040, on Flickr[/IMG]
Back to Top
maewpa View Drop Down
Alpha Eyes group
Alpha Eyes group

Joined: 27 October 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Thailand
Status: Offline
Posts: 7216
Post Options Post Options   Quote maewpa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 January 2017 at 06:25
Just my own opinion - to make you feel less lonely perhaps...

The 400 can be a moody lens. Mine really doesn't like far distant subjects as much as it does closer ones... and then sometimes "bang" it comes up with a really sharp shot at distance. What happened? Also, it sometimes has a kind of pleasing softness - espeically at wider apetures of course - with which I may have to get quite agressive to really sharpen up - hit the contrast hard, for example. I tend to under-process anyway. Sometimes the apparent inconsistency drives me nuts because surely it has to be me, doesn't it? But I know somehow it is not!

There probably is some sample variation, as well as poeple who just don't have the patience or artistic intent needed. It should be as good or sometimes better than the 70-400 at 400mm.

It is not in the same class as 400DOii, 300/2.8ISii, and 500ISii, which are decades newer in design and many thousands of dollars higher in price. Comparison with those lenses is pointless. I'd swap my 400 for a new version Canon 400 in a heartbeat - and throw in my car too. Love only runs so deep.

However, if you can't get very good shots and acceptably sharp shots with it there's something wrong with either you or the copy of the lens - or you might need two micro adjustments for different working distances?.

That shot looks just fine to me. The head is a bit annoyingly (for me) tilted away from me a bit,and of course the vertical OOF branch is a big negative, but otherwise it lloks great.

If you don't like it..... well, it seems some people don't and it's nothing to be ashamed of - it's not a double length Minolta 200/2.8. It is what it is.


Sorry...... am I verbose today or what?

Edited by maewpa - 11 January 2017 at 06:28
Paul aka maewpa
Back to Top
WestCoastCannuck View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2011
Country: Canada
Location: Victoria, B.C.
Status: Offline
Posts: 2573
Post Options Post Options   Quote WestCoastCannuck Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 January 2017 at 00:41
I DID warn you there was sample variation in a PM if I recall correctly.

At f9.... and the resolution you have posted, we can tell little about your copy of the lens.

It should be THIS sharp. A99ii + 400G, shot at F5.... full 100% pixel resolution on clicking da pic. (see the eye) It is cropped, but not compressed in any way. No added sharpening in pp from LR.. most certainly a little loss of detail from the ISO 1000 but as you can see, its tack sharp (in my books anyway).




Having said that... the photo you have posted is outstanding from what I can see - so you are making it work for you.

Edited by WestCoastCannuck - 11 January 2017 at 00:47
flickr

A99ii|A77ii|Tam15-30|ZA24-70|M28-135|M35-105|M80-200G|SAL70400G|Σ50 1.4|ZA135|200F2.8HS G|300F2.8HS G|400/4.5|APOii1.4XTC|APOii2XTC
Back to Top
MedicineMan999 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2013
Country: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 151
Post Options Post Options   Quote MedicineMan999 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 January 2017 at 18:50
Thank you all!
Yes this is a crop, approximately 50%.
I was in a blind....you'd think the birds would have figured out by now
I'm the one who walks over to the trees and puts out the food ???
Only the Titmouse will stay reasonably close when I'm distributing the
seeds.
Miranda, thanks for such detailed analysis....no selling any pic to
anyone; never made a dime off photography :)
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 3519
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 January 2017 at 14:05
Is that a crop or full size image?
Either way it is difficult to get such fine feathers really sharp and this looks as good as you can reasonably expect at the size. If it is a crop it's pretty good.

Feathers are sharp, without being obviously over-sharpened. Nice clean edges to beak and branches with no jpeg or other processing artifacts. You have claws, eye and feathers all acceptably sharp if not to the 'wow!' level; focus is spot on judging by this and the branch, which is also pleasantly moving from sharp to blurred. Front bokeh looks okay too, and the background is very clean.

I like the pose, the colour rendering, and the contrast/brightness - all very natural.

Frankly, I'd be pleased to have taken this. Maybe if you sell to wildlife magazines you'd be disappointed it wasn't sharper, but I get the impression that this genre is more about getting the camera extra-close in a hide and waiting several days for the right picture than it is about either lens quality or normal photographic skills.
Or maybe I'm just not patient enough
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
Back to Top
Kilkry View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 06 August 2008
Country: Sweden
Location: ISO1600
Status: Offline
Posts: 2700
Post Options Post Options   Quote Kilkry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 January 2017 at 09:31
Looks perfectly fine to me but would expect no less at f/9.

How does it look at f/4,5 and f/5,6? (You may of course disregard that if you virtually never have a reason to shoot at those apertures :) )
-
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Dyxum Photographs > Dyxum Critics Corner Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.