How can I get razor sharp detail?

[fishing4sanity]

I enjoy photographing wildlife and I'm always trying to get more detail. I've got a Canon XTi with a 100-400 L series lens, I've used apeture priority most, but also shutter priority, manual and the camera's auto settings. Some handheld and some tripod, but still trying to get more detail/sharpness. I've wondered at times if the camera has an issue, I've cosidered upgrading to another camera, or if it's just me. Any suggestions?

 

[hulk]

Well, using the tripod will always give you maximum sharpness. For extra shake protection, use a timer/cable. Also, since you're shooting wildlife, use autofocus when you can.

If you're REALLY anal, you can use the mirror lock to make sure that nothing moves when the mirror slaps. Not sure if the XTi has that feature however.

 

[Rekd]

Post samples. It will be easier to see what your interpretation of "sharp" is. Might just be your monitor.

 

[ErectedGryphon]

Its my understanding that prime lenses are also sharper than zooms, though you do have a really nice zoom lens.

 

[fishing4sanity]

I'm new to this photo forum so I'm not sure how to post pics here, but I do have some photos on flickr if seeing those helps with suggestions.
Flickr: fishing4sanity's Photostream
Not sure if the above link will work or not, but here goes.

 

[den9]

i think they are pretty sharp, certainly not soft. i love your elk picture, thats really an awesome shot. those snow blasted signs are pretty interesting too.

 

[Rekd]

Link worked fine. The shots are very nice. I see what you mean about the sharpness, the inside area of the front-facing stop sign for example; the snow is slightly blurred, in the flying ducks (great shot, BTW) they are not as sharp as they might be. I have the same problem and don't know what to do so I can't offer advice.

Using the sharpen function in Irfanview is a quick way to add a bit of sharpness to the hi-res images. Looks really good when it's sized down for the web. Haven't tried to print one yet. Might try on one of the FMX shots I did last week.

I really like the YZ shot too, the close-up of the knee.

 

[Derrel]

I loved the frosty, frozen fog-covered road signs! Wayyyy cool! I looked at the ducks and the elk shots,and other shots. I see what looks like a very slight bit of subject motion blur on the elk shot as he's moving through the timber, and I think I also see a bit of digital noise in the shadows. My feeling is that what's happening is you're bumping against the limitations of your camera's sensor, and the 100-400's maximum aperture,which is merely f/5.6.

You seem to have good, full command of the camera and lens, so I think maybe it's time for you to pour yourself a glass full of the Canon L-series Kool-Aid, or move up to a camera that can deliver lower noise levels and MUCH higher ISO performance. F/5.6 at 300 to 400mm is simply too slow, unless you can use a camera like a Nikon D3 or D700 that can deliver "superb" ISO 1000-1600 performance. Or, unless you buy a top-quality lens like a 300mm f/4 or the 400mm f/5.6, which is noticeably better than the 100-400 is at 400mm.

When I look at your shots, I see noise in the shadows, and I agree, the shots as seen on the web are not really as crisp and clear enough to be called razor sharp. I'd consider the 300mm f/4 prime lens as a good starting point. You don't seem to be having the same,basic newbie troubles as so many people have: I think you're actually way beyond those kinds of newbie problems, and you are genuinely at crossroads where better equipment will allow you to push the boundaries, which in your case seem to be ISO 800 and f/5.6. L-glass Kool-Aid tastes good over ice, BTW.

 

[benlonghair]

Looking at the wood duck photos because they're at the top of your stream, do you use any sharpening in PP?

For example, this shot didn't look anywhere near this sharp coming from the camera. A little bit of unsharp mask works wonders sometimes.

 

[Village Idiot]

I snip...

This guy works for Nikon apparently.

You can get decent shots all the way up to 1600 ISO as long as you expose properly. I have a 30D which basically has the same sensor as your xti and I was getting some very good photos at 1600 ISO before I moved on to my new monster.

Another good technique for dealing with high ISO noise is shooting to the right. If you're shooting RAW and slightly over exposing the image, you can effectively bring the exposure back down in post, without losing any highlights, and killing a bit of noise in the process. You have very capable equipment and short of spending more on a lens, upgrading your camera or "drinking the koolaid" and switching to Nikon, there's not going to be another cheap option other than learning how to control noise to get a faster shutter speed.

Good photo stream BTW.

 

[Gaerek]

Derrel, I find it ironic that you're commenting on someone drinking the Canon 'L' Glass Kool-Aid. Sounds to me like the Nikon cult leader has drawn you in, hook, line and sinker.

OP, there's nothing wrong with your equipment. As others have suggested, unsharp mask can do wonders. And as Village Idiot suggested, try exposing right. It's a technique I've been experimenting with some pretty good results lately.

 

[KmH]

........You can get decent shots all the way up to 1600 ISO as long as you expose properly.......

The OP isn't striving for decent. He is striving for RAZOR SHARP.

 

[Derrel]

Idiot, Garek,
No, I think the guy seriously needs to buy himself a better camera and or a much better lens; the 100-400 L-series Canon zoom is simply NOT fast enough to be shooting elk in timber with. I happen to live in elk country Idiot--I am intimately familiar with how dark it is in real mountains, and not those little hills there in the eastern USA.
Work for Nikon? No Idiot, I don't work for Nikon. If you want to see high-ISO capabilities, you might want to check out the Nikon D3 or the D3s or D700, like the bear shots taken and shown here Nikon D3S

which were taken between FInland and Russia at well past midnight at ISO 12,800. But I digress--the OP here is striving for "razor sharp" images,and I think he needs to buy some better lenses and/or get a camera that can deliver better high ISO performance than his little Rebel can deliver. As I wrote, he has reached the limits of his tools, and the Rebel he is shooting is inadequate at ISO 1600 for elk in timber. Even a Village Idiot ought to be able to follow my comments above. And by the way Idiot, I happen to own some Canon L-glass--it's not much better than lenses Nikon just calls "Nikkor". 24-105L, 135/2-L,70-200f/2.8 L-IS...all nice lenses. Village Idiot...sigh...you just love to trail around after me, stalking my posts, disagreeing with almost anyting I say. But when you make a mistake, like this one in Post #10 http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ing-equipment-help-me-decide.html#post1726750

you keep your head down and hope nobody notices that you give out bad, ill-informed advice all the time. You said the Canon 580 EX-II speedlight's Guide Number was 58!!! Hilarious! Weighing in when you don't even know the difference between a Guide Number in feet and one specified in Meters, and on your own,beloved Canon system! I laughed at your inadequate knowledge on that one.

 

[Overread]

The camera is often the least of issuse when trying to get sharp shots - good glass and good photographic skill are often far and above more important in getting those shots. Editing is also key when you present your work - either in prints or on the net you have to process for your output to show the best you can with the images you capture.
There is some good editing (and shooting) advice on these two links below:
Ron Bigelow Articles
Juza Nature Photography

Also if you follow the gallery link on the last link (to Juzas site) you can see he has used a range of camera bodies from entry level 350D through to the 1D pro range and got tack sharp results with all. The thing he keeps the same is that each time he is using top end lenses (most often primes) such as the 300mm f2.8 L.

Myself I would suggest looking to expanding your lenses in that direction - primes will be a lot sharper than zooms and will last you a long while (decades if looked after well).

One thing though is that the 100-400mm lens can suffer from soft copies from production - a factor since it is a highly complex lens construction. I would have to wait nad see the responce from other uses of this lens on your images - but it would be worth seeking out one or two users and seeing if your results are matching up. If not then its time to start checking that your method of shooting is spot on - only after that consider that the lens might need fine tuning

 

[Village Idiot]

........You can get decent shots all the way up to 1600 ISO as long as you expose properly.......

The OP isn't striving for decent. He is striving for RAZOR SHARP.

Decent noise wise. Very controllable and able to produce a razor sharp image due to high shutter speed with no blur.

Idiot, Garek,
No, I think the guy seriously needs to buy himself a better camera and or a much better lens; the 100-400 L-series Canon zoom is simply NOT fast enough to be shooting elk in timber with. I happen to live in elk country Idiot--I am intimately familiar with how dark it is in real mountains, and not those little hills there in the eastern USA.
Work for Nikon? No Idiot, I don't work for Nikon. If you want to see high-ISO capabilities, you might want to check out the Nikon D3 or the D3s or D700, like the bear shots taken and shown here Nikon D3S

But he owns Canon lenses. A 5D MKII or 1Ds MKIII are great with high ISO and he wouldn't have to spend $7,000 to get a 21mp camera. Plus, something like a 1D MKIII has an APS-H sensor that would get him closer with the crop and would probably be a better choice and any Nikon. But, you obviously have a grudge against anything not labeled Nikon. It's pretty annoying.

which were taken between FInland and Russia at well past midnight at ISO 12,800. But I digress--the OP here is striving for "razor sharp" images,and I think he needs to buy some better lenses and/or get a camera that can deliver better high ISO performance than his little Rebel can deliver. As I wrote, he has reached the limits of his tools, and the Rebel he is shooting is inadequate at ISO 1600 for elk in timber. Even a Village Idiot ought to be able to follow my comments above. And by the way Idiot, I happen to own some Canon L-glass--it's not much better than lenses Nikon just calls "Nikkor". 24-105L, 135/2-L,70-200f/2.8 L-IS...all nice lenses. Village Idiot...sigh...you just love to trail around after me, stalking my posts, disagreeing with almost anyting I say. But when you make a mistake, like this one in Post #10 http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ing-equipment-help-me-decide.html#post1726750

you keep your head down and hope nobody notices that you give out bad, ill-informed advice all the time. You said the Canon 580 EX-II speedlight's Guide Number was 58!!! Hilarious! Weighing in when you don't even know the difference between a Guide Number in feet and one specified in Meters, and on your own,beloved Canon system! I laughed at your inadequate knowledge on that one.

30D, 1250 ISO, no noise reduction. XTI is practically the same IQ wise.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3187/3096044503_f602031f85_o.jpg


Let's see here...learn new techniques to make your gear work, or spend $14,000 on new equipment. OP, what's your budget? $20,000?

Didn't you also say that the power of a 580EX II was about the same as a 150w/s strobe? That's about 100 w/s difference. Kind of like saying VW GTI has about the same power as a Nissan 370Z. Maybe where you live, but not in the real world.

I could care less what system a person uses. There's uses for Pentax, Sony, Olympus, Canon, and Nikon. What's annoying is some one that goes through every single post, recommending their gear even when people aren't even looking for it.