Wild at Strumpshaw

[KeithL]

Unusually this morning, two deer were about in the reedbeds across from the Fen Hide. The first one was a Chiinese Water Deer:

[IMG][/IMG]


Whilst the second was a muntjac:
[IMG][/IMG]

Muntjacs and Water deer are very similar; but note the Water Deer's fangs. Small they may be, but they can give you a VERY nasty bite. The two deer looked at each other very suspiciously, but then carried on eating the shoots.

Next was a flock of greylag geese flying over, some way away:
[IMG][/IMG]

After we left the hide, the sun was shining nicely, and I decided to take a few shots of some of the detritus of winter and of catkins, etc.

Catkins:
[IMG][/IMG]

And finally, a felled tree trunk, that had lost quite a lot of bark:
[IMG][/IMG]

The deer shots aren't good. They were a fair way away, so the lens was at max (300) but though I supported my arms on the shelf, they aren't all that sharp. I guess I need a more powerful lens and a tripod or clamp for such shots.

Your thoughts appreciated.

[Guest]

Re: Wild at Strumpshaw

At 300mm you do need an effective camera support. Even if there's a post or a tree to brace your camera against, that often does the trick.

Aside from that, you have captured an nice set of wildlife / nature pictures, Brian. It's getting out 'n about that matters most.

[KeithL]

Re: Wild at Strumpshaw

At 300mm you do need an effective camera support. Even if there's a post or a tree to brace your camera against, that often does the trick.

Aside from that, you have captured an nice set of wildlife / nature pictures, Brian. It's getting out 'n about that matters most.

Er....who's Brian?

I did have a support, Mark - my elbows were on the shelf in the hide. I never had this problem with the Canon; not just the camera, but especially the lens was heavy (why I sold it!); it also had an ergonomic grip on the camera, which the M5 doesn't. I do have the add-on grip, but don't like it a lot. The Canon lens was so much bigger, too; I tended to lean it on the window ledge, but I can't do that with the Oly lens - it isn't long enough! BTW, the deer were about 200 yds away.

Also odd is that these were taken with fast shutter speeds (640, 1000 up). I'm wondering if the Oly might suffer from the same malady as the Pana G2 that I had - failing to find the target, and finding something behind it. The Canon was very effective spot focus.

I can feel some experimenting coming on!

[Melaka]

Re: Wild at Strumpshaw

The second one looks more like a CWD to me, than a muntjac. Is it possible to see the Exif please? It doesn't look as if any of the pic is in focus which rather suggests an IS problem or something similar.

[KeithL]

Re: Wild at Strumpshaw

The second one looks more like a CWD to me, than a muntjac. Is it possible to see the Exif please? It doesn't look as if any of the pic is in focus which rather suggests an IS problem or something similar.

Muntjacs have extended canine teeth, too, but much shorter than CWD. Looks to me to be a pregnant female CWD, however, a rather more knowledgeable wildlifer than I told me it was a muntjac. Who was I to argue...?

Exif: I think the best thing I can do is e-mail the image file to you in a PM. However, it was at ISO 640. Shutter speed 1000, f11. Dig Tele on. Lens at 300. IS 1 set. RAW and JPG.

[OM USer]

Re: Wild at Strumpshaw

If you do ever work out why, occassionally, shots at 300mm look a bit soft or out of focus then I will be for ever grateful. The normal remedy for me just seems to be more light but in this case it looks like you have it as your shutter speed is well up. Is it just that most wildlife, especially at this distance, suffers from a bit of haze and does not have much contrast? Portable though the 75-300mm (I assume this is what your using) is the F6.7 at the long end could be a factor in auto focussing.

[KeithL]

Re: Wild at Strumpshaw

If you do ever work out why, occassionally, shots at 300mm look a bit soft or out of focus then I will be for ever grateful. The normal remedy for me just seems to be more light but in this case it looks like you have it as your shutter speed is well up. Is it just that most wildlife, especially at this distance, suffers from a bit of haze and does not have much contrast? Portable though the 75-300mm (I assume this is what your using) is the F6.7 at the long end could be a factor in auto focussing.

It wasn't haze; it was a beautifully clear day. When I shot aircraft last autumn, the AF slowed down as the light reduced late in the afternoon, but the pics stayed sharp. And they were totally hand-held, unlike these! But I was using the grip then. The AF was instant with these wildlife shots. I'm wondering if there is a busy background if it sees the background in preference. But I don't know. Next time I try, I'll use the grip, and see if it helps. But I'm also wishing that I could get a less feather-light 400mm lens with AF. That, I think, would really help...

Incidentally, the other night I took some shots of the moon, using a tripod and 2 sec delay. They were also soft. But the lens was wide open then. Perhaps I should just buy another Canon..................

[PeterBirder]

Re: Wild at Strumpshaw

It wasn't haze; it was a beautifully clear day. When I shot aircraft last autumn, the AF slowed down as the light reduced late in the afternoon, but the pics stayed sharp. And they were totally hand-held, unlike these! But I was using the grip then. The AF was instant with these wildlife shots. I'm wondering if there is a busy background if it sees the background in preference. But I don't know. Next time I try, I'll use the grip, and see if it helps. But I'm also wishing that I could get a less feather-light 400mm lens with AF. That, I think, would really help...

Incidentally, the other night I took some shots of the moon, using a tripod and 2 sec delay. They were also soft. But the lens was wide open then. Perhaps I should just buy another Canon..................

Some thoughts on the softness/focus of your deer shots.

1/ From the EXIF data you gave in reply to Melaka it seems as if the subjects were at a considerable distance (300mm + 2x digital teleconverter). The 75-300 is softer at the long end. The DTC crops the frame and then upscales to give the original number of pixels as the full frame which I believe may emphasize the softness. I see you used f 11. With micro four thirds diffraction effects start at about f 8. so at f 11. they may also contribute to softness.

2/ A degree of haze is more often than not present in our atmosphere even if it is not immediately apparent to the naked eye. See David Morison's comments in post #27 of this thread. http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthre...t=36463&page=2 Anything that degrades contrast will affect the CDAF which may not be the case on a DSLR with PDAF.

3/ You say these shots were not "totally hand held". If the camera or lens were resting on something then it may have been better to switch IS off.

4/ You wonder if the "busy" background was picked up by the CDAF. For this type of shot (and most wildlife shots) I use a single focus box and often the "small" size box. This avoids the AF even trying to focus on anything other than the subject.

Re. Moon shots. Similar considerations apply regarding atmospheric effects and also size of focus box etc and the fact that the moon is moving perceptibly in the viewfinder. I took this one with the E-m5 + 75-300mm. Hand held,300mm, f8, 1/320 sec., ISO 320, spot metering, small focus box.

http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35966

Regards.

[KeithL]

Re: Wild at Strumpshaw

Some thoughts on the softness/focus of your deer shots.

1/ From the EXIF data you gave in reply to Melaka it seems as if the subjects were at a considerable distance (300mm + 2x digital teleconverter). The 75-300 is softer at the long end. The DTC crops the frame and then upscales to give the original number of pixels as the full frame which I believe may emphasize the softness. I see you used f 11. With micro four thirds diffraction effects start at about f 8. so at f 11. they may also contribute to softness.

2/ A degree of haze is more often than not present in our atmospher even if it is not immediately apparent to the naked eye. See David Morison's comments in post #27 of this thread. http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthre...t=36463&page=2 Anything that degrades contrast will affect the CDAF which may not be the case on a DSLR with PDAF.

3/ You say these shots were not "totally hand held". If the camera or lens were resting on something then it may have been better to switch IS off.

4/ You wonder if the "busy" background was picked up by the CDAF. For this type of shot (and most wildlife shots) I use a single focus box and often the "small" size box. This avoids the AF even trying to focus on anything other than the subject.

Re. Moon shots. Similar considerations apply regarding atmospheric effects and also size of focus box etc and the fact that the moon is moving perceptibly in the viewfinder. I took this one with the E-m5 + 75-300mm. Hand held,300mm, f8, 1/320 sec., ISO 320, spot metering, small focus box.

http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35966

Regards.

Thanks for this Peter. Just some clarifications.

1. The deer were about 150-200 yards distant. They are quite small deer, so I used the digi converter to reduce cropping. It was bright sunshine, about 1 pm.

Re David Morison's comment: well, yes, but I did a great deal of bird photography with previous cameras over a period of close to 20 years, and I never had this sort of problem especially after going to cameras with AF - except for the Pana G2. But I discovered what the G2 was doing, and I couldn't influence it.

3. For aircraft shots, there was nothing to rest anything on. In the hide, I rested my elbows on the shelf - not the camera; however some of those shots I couldn't do that, e.g. the flock of geese, which also weren't very sharp.

4. I too use the single focus box. I thought I was using the 'small' box, but I'm not sure now you've mentioned it! I've found the focus box infuriating - it often gets moved around the matrix accidentally. I wish it were just fixed in the centre.

The moon shots were interesting. I tried my 500mm manual lens, and also a 600 mm Sigma mirror lens. The mirror lens was much softer than the 500; but so was the 75-300. And I wasn't happy with the results off the 500. It's not a wonderful lens, so I was surprised that it gave better results than the 75-300; but of course, the moon was much bigger in the frame taken with the 500 or 600. I didn't get anything like the sharpness of your moon shot with any of them; and the camera was on a tripod. I realise that i hadn't switched IS off; but then, if there isn't anything to move the camera, it shouldn't do anything. But I will try a moon shot without it later - and handheld with the 75-300.

[Ricoh]

Re: Wild at Strumpshaw

Sometimes I love auto focus, then sometimes I hate it. If we reverted to manual focus theres a good chance we wouldn't get this sort of problem - assuming adequate shutter speed for the lens and subject matter. And if we used full frame, diffraction wouldn't be an issue at the modest apertures, such as f11 that plagues m4/3.
Ever considered full frame, 'real raw' (as Ken Rockwell calls it)? Perhaps a nice M6 with some suitable glassware. I'm tempted at times.

This is quite interesting:

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2015/03/23/what-i-learned-processing-164-rolls-of-film-after-waiting-a-year/

[mstphoto]

Re: Wild at Strumpshaw

Sometimes with these "long" lenses its best to reduce the focal length by approx. 10% and reduce the aperture by 1 stop.
Worth a try

Mike

[Melaka]

Re: Wild at Strumpshaw

I don't think I can add much to what has already been said. I've occasionally had similar problems at the long end of my 100-300. I suspect that shortening to about 280/290 might help, together with using f8 which seems to be the sweet spot.

The wandering focus point is an irritant. When you turn on the SCP the default position is usually the focus box. If, inadvertently, you then press one of the arrow keys (easily done with your thumb) the focus point will move. With most Oly cameras you can trun the SCP off with the info button. However the EM5 II seems to have it on all the time and it won't swith off except if you choose menu or use the EVF. It's a drain on the battery for no good reason.

[KeithL]

Re: Wild at Strumpshaw

Some interesting and helpful comments chaps - many thanks.

On the subject of diffraction, I'm puzzled! At the long end, with a wide open aperture of 6.7. f11 is only 1 1/2 stops; if you consider the 45/1.8 it's 5 stops. I can understand why it should be an issue if stopped down by 5 stops - but 1 1/2? And, before you say, it's the same as at the short end: I would be very surprised if it is, because the geometry of the optics changes from one end to the other on a design like the 75-300. The Canon 100-400 is a similar optical design, but that doesn't have the problem! I'm wondering if Oly is pushing the 75-300 beyond its limit at the long end.

I'm suspicious of the AF, having had problems with the Pana G2. Also, if it's soft when on a tripod, unless the IBIS is doing something very odd, there are only two possibilities: AF off, and lens going soft at the extreme. (Assuming there isn't something wrong with this lens.)

Peterbirder talked about the "small" focus box; I can't find that! Installing v2 firmware gave me a small spot metering point, but not a small focus point. I've noticed one common factor in the shots that I took: the target was smaller than the focus box. The Great Tit was spot on - but it was bigger than the focus box. The geese were fuzzy - smaller than the focus box. The deer - fuzzy, head smaller than the focus box. I wouldn't mind betting that this is the issue. Which means, if the subject is too small, forget it. Or if the target's head is too small, try the body. But if I'm right, the M5 / 75-300 combination is not the set up for many bird shots.

What d'you reckon chaps?

[Melaka]

Re: Wild at Strumpshaw

On the EM5 (also EP5 and EM5 II) there are two small focus squares - one is smaller/bigger than the other - but I think not quite as small as on the EM1 (I can't check as mine is on holiday in Portugal).

[KeithL]

Re: Wild at Strumpshaw

On the EM5 (also EP5 and EM5 II) there are two small focus squares - one is smaller/bigger than the other - but I think not quite as small as on the EM1 (I can't check as mine is on holiday in Portugal).

I couldn't find a way of selecting them. Could you explain, please?