How can I get razor sharp detail?

[Overread]

VI erm the image link is a private listed photo = we can't see it

 

[Derrel]

Like I told the Original Poster--he has reached the limits of his gear for doing nature photography work. It's time for him to either get a better camera, or better lenses. Let's look at some dispassionate numbers about how well his EOS 400D or Rebel XTi (European/UK name and USA name) ranks in terms of its imaging sensor's performance, using DXO Mark figures.

Camera-rankings
Camera rankings

The Canon EOS 400D ranks 44th in terms of sensor performance. If the OP wants a camera with a better-performing sensor, he could choose EOS 20D at #43; EOS 500D at #42; EOS 1Ds at #41; EOS 50D at #39; EOS 40D at #36; Nikon D60 at #29; EOS 1D Mark II-n at #23; Nikon D300 at #21; Canon 5D at #18; EOS 1D Mark III at #17; Nikon D5000 at #16; Nikon D90 at #15; EOS 1Ds Mark II at #14; EOS 5D Mark II at #7; EOS 1Ds Mark III at #6; Nikon D700 at #5; Nikon D3 at #4, or Nikon D3x at #2. Cameras number 1 and 3 are very expensive Phase One medium format d-slr bodies.

It's clear that what he has is insufficient for his desire to create "razor sharp" images. First step? Buy a camera that's not 44th on the list. Consider a full-frame body, since if it's a FF, the sensor will be 2.5 times larger than his Rebel's sensor if he buys a Canon FF camera like even an original 5D. A pro-AF system would be nice for birds in flight,which he also showed. Nikon D700 has pro AF at the same price as the EOS 5D-II with its pedestrian AF system. But clearly, the 44th-place Rebel XTi is not the best camera for nature work. Sensor performance is low, AF system is amateur. His Rebel XTi is a low-cost, entry-level Canon from around 2006. He's hit its limits.

Second, buy a good prime telephoto lens, or two. Something like a roughly $1,100 300mm f/4 prime and at either the $2,700 Nikon D700 or a Canon 5D Mark II--both will have HUGE sensors, with HUGE pixels,and superb sensor performance. The cost here isn't $14,000 as an Idiot might lead one to speculate on, but around $3,700 (including a prime 300mm f/4) to be able to create "razor-sharp" nature photos. The OP wants to know how to create "razor sharp" nature photos....advanced photography isn't cheap and never has been...but the secret is to shoot somewhere North of the 44th Place camera, which is the Rebel XTi that he currently owns. The simplest thing is to realize that a BIG sensor, with even moderate quality lenses, will perform better than a very tiny sensor with very good glass,and the 100-400L classifies as only "very good" glass. Canon's 400/5.6 is significantly better optically, as is their 300/4 non-IS or Nikon's 300/4 AF-S lens.

No need to act like an Idiot and spend all that much money. As I pointed out, he can either 1-Upgrade his camera or 2) Buy a good, Canon telephoto prime lens of 300 or 400mm or consider moving to something like the Nikon D700, which is Number 5 on the sensor performance list. He will lose almost no money by selling his 100-400L,and going to a professional-level body like a D700 for $2699,and buying a decent lens like the 300 f/4 AF-S.

And No, Village Idiot: I pointed out that a 150 watt-second monolight and the Canon 580 EX-II speedlight both share the SAME, identical Guide Number of 118, when the beam spread of the speedlight is similar to that of the monolight. You are obviously an inexperienced studio flash shooter; your car analogy is not relevant. The Canon 580 X-II has a more-efficient reflector AND a Fresnel-patterned lens in front of its very small, tiny flash tube. Watt-seconds is a measure of stored energy; Guide Number is the actual power OUTPUT of a flash. It's actually very common for speedlight and handle-mount flashes to have exceptionally efficient reflectors, zoom heads, and Fresnel lenses. A Sunpak 622 Super will out-flash many "400 watt-second" monolights. Sorry, Village Idiot, but you clearly are a novice flash shooter if you fail to realize that watt-seconds is about as reliable as EPA Mileage figures. You're in serious error in thinking that you know much about studio flash, or flash in general if you do not know your Guide Numbers in Feet from those stated in Meters, or do not understand that watt-seconds is just stored energy,and has very little direct relationship with actual, usable flash power output. You made a hilarious beginner's mistake. And now you're talking about car engines? I know you just got into strobism, but I've owned studio flash since the mid-1980's. I thought you'd be proud of your Canon system's 580 EX-II flash for being more efficient than a $99 Adorama Flashpoint 320 monolight.

Guide Number is what counts. Guide Number of 118 in Feet at ISO divided by 10 feet equals f/11.8. Both the monolight and the flash output is identical, requiring an f/11.8 exposure. One is a cheap, $99 150 watt-second monolight with a large 7 inch reflector, the other is a $450 Canon flash with a small but highly-efficient reflector and a Fresnel lens in front of it. Same power output,as measured by Guide Number. Lesson over, V-Idiot.

 

[Overread]

I disagree with your order or priorities - I still say that on the hardware side a photographer should really look to better glass first and then towards a better camera body - here
Juza Nature Photography
Canon 350D - 51 on that list
up against the 20D and the 1DM3 and were it not for the lables I don't think you could tell. The key is - as said before - the lenses on those cameras as well as the skills of the photographer in question.

I am not discounting the value of higher end camera bodies, but I feel that a photographer is far more wise to invest in good quality glass since that will last the test of time far longer than a camera body and that they will get far more performance increase (esp in sharpness) from better glass over a better body using the original same glass.

 

[Dao]

I am 100% agree with you Overread. The results are there at Juza site. The first time I went to the site, I could not believe a entry level camera can create those images (that was a month or 2 after I got my first DSLR) After all, that is the result of good gears at a pair of good hands.

 

[Village Idiot]

VI erm the image link is a private listed photo = we can't see it

Try now. It's the large size, so I didn't want to post it.

Consider a full-frame body, since if it's a FF, the sensor will be 2.5 times larger than his Rebel's sensor if he buys a Canon FF camera like even an original 5D.

Which will put him even farther away from what he's wanting to shoot which in turn will require either teleconverters which cause you to lose light and AF capabilities with certain lenses and past certain f stops.

A pro-AF system would be nice for birds in flight,which he also showed. Nikon D700 has pro AF at the same price as the EOS 5D-II with its pedestrian AF system. But clearly, the 44th-place Rebel XTi is not the best camera for nature work. Sensor performance is low, AF system is amateur. His Rebel XTi is a low-cost, entry-level Canon from around 2006. He's hit its limits.

Opinion only. 5D MKII with a lens that has a USM motor focuses fairly quickly. Have one? Ever tried it? Not as fast as a 1 series, but if I can shoot motorsports, it's not pedestrian.

Second, buy a good prime telephoto lens, or two. Something like a roughly $1,100 300mm f/4 prime and at either the $2,700 Nikon D700 or a Canon 5D Mark II--both will have HUGE sensors, with HUGE pixels,and superb sensor performance. The cost here isn't $14,000 as an Idiot might lead one to speculate on, but around $3,700 (including a prime 300mm f/4) to be able to create "razor-sharp" nature photos.

That's if he's not using a D3 as was one of your suggestions in a previous post. But shooting with a focal range of up to 400mm on a 1.6 APS-C sensor is giving the OP a FOV of 640mm. A 600mm f/4L IS is about $8,300. Even a 400mm f/5.6L is $1600 and you're losing IS capabilities. For a 400mm f/2.8L IS you're still going to pay about $7,500. I'm thinking that range is semi important for wild life photos...just maybe. Is that why a lot of wild life photogs either have a lot of money or crop sensor cameras? Hey, I think I've met one or two that prefer a crop to a full frame.

The OP wants to know how to create "razor sharp" nature photos....advanced photography isn't cheap and never has been...but the secret is to shoot somewhere North of the 44th Place camera, which is the Rebel XTi that he currently owns. The simplest thing is to realize that a BIG sensor, with even moderate quality lenses, will perform better than a very tiny sensor with very good glass,and the 100-400L classifies as only "very good" glass. Canon's 400/5.6 is significantly better optically, as is their 300/4 non-IS or Nikon's 300/4 AF-S lens.

Well no ****, but saying a person absolutely needs thousands in new gear to get the shots they want is pretty rediculous. I could do what a lot of pro portrait photographers do with $1500 in a total kit vs. the $5,000 or so that the semi serious hobbyist has wrapped up in a kit.

No need to act like an Idiot and spend all that much money.

Isn't this the complete opposite of what you were just preaching?

As I pointed out, he can either 1-Upgrade his camera or 2) Buy a good, Canon telephoto prime lens of 300 or 400mm or consider moving to something like the Nikon D700, which is Number 5 on the sensor performance list. He will lose almost no money by selling his 100-400L,and going to a professional-level body like a D700 for $2699,and buying a decent lens like the 300 f/4 AF-S.

As I'm pointing out, your two options are fairly limiting and there's other things he can do. Anyways, why would he buy a Nikkor 300mm f/4 with no stabilization for $1,400 when he could purchase a Canon 300mm f/4 IS for $1,200? Why lose FOV with a FF camera when there are some very capable crop cameras out there?

And No, Village Idiot: I pointed out that a 150 watt-second monolight and the Canon 580 EX-II speedlight both share the SAME, identical Guide Number of 118,

Your exact words:

Canon's 580 EX II flash is roughly the same power;

Sorry, Village Idiot, but you clearly are a novice flash shooter if you fail to realize that watt-seconds is about as reliable as EPA Mileage figures. You're in serious error in thinking that you know much about studio flash, or flash in general if you do not know your Guide Numbers in Feet from those stated in Meters, or do not understand that watt-seconds is just stored energy,and has very little direct relationship with actual, usable flash power output. You made a hilarious beginner's mistake. And now you're talking about car engines? I know you just got into strobism, but I've owned studio flash since the mid-1980's. I thought you'd be proud of your Canon system's 580 EX-II flash for being more efficient than a $99 Adorama Flashpoint 320 monolight.

Guide Number is what counts. Guide Number of 118 in Feet at ISO divided by 10 feet equals f/11.8. Both the monolight and the flash output is identical, requiring an f/11.8 exposure. One is a cheap, $99 150 watt-second monolight with a large 7 inch reflector, the other is a $450 Canon flash with a small but highly-efficient reflector and a Fresnel lens in front of it. Same power output,as measured by Guide Number. Lesson over, V-Idiot.

And you fail to realize each has it's uses. So can you take a cheap $99 monolight out in the rain or shoot an event where settings constantly change on the fly and where lighting needs to be moved? Of course not, only an idiot would think that. But should you be trying to stuff 4 speedlights into a giant softbox just to get the light you want?

You certainly didn't teach me anything and from what I see of your photos, you certainly don't have the ability to.

 

[Village Idiot]

I am 100% agree with you Overread. The results are there at Juza site. The first time I went to the site, I could not believe a entry level camera can create those images (that was a month or 2 after I got my first DSLR) After all, that is the result of good gears at a pair of good hands.

Exactly. I could capture beautiful shots with a 300D, an 85mm f/1.2, and the right lighting.

 

[Overread]

I am 100% agree with you Overread. The results are there at Juza site. The first time I went to the site, I could not believe a entry level camera can create those images (that was a month or 2 after I got my first DSLR) After all, that is the result of good gears at a pair of good hands.

Exactly. I could capture beautiful shots with a 300D, an 85mm f/1.2, and the right lighting.

Something very key that we haven't really touched on at all so far and yet it is another key aspect to consider. Whilst a good photographer can work in a wide variety and range of lighting - being in good lighting is going tobe when you get your best keeper shots - good lighting makes a whole world of difference to photography and this is something that we often don't appreciate when we look at peoples work on the net and every shot in a profile is perfect exposure, sharpness etc...
Best cure for realising this I find is photographer meets - local clubs, forum meets, workshops - anything where your out shooting with others. Its a great time to see how others deal and work with the lighting and a great time to see when even the best in the group have to push things to get the shots they want in weaker lighting (good gear of course helps in this as well)

 

[KmH]

I notice too, the OP didn't mention what tripod they are using.

It's possible the tripod isn't steady enough, particularly with the 100-400 lens mounted.

 

[Overread]

I have to say since I got the 70-200mm f2.8 IS I have got lazy with the tripod and not used it that much at all. But back when I was using the sigma 70-300mm lens I noticed a big improvement in sharpness at the long end when I used it on a good solid tripod - even when I was shooting witha faster aperture - infact I almost never shot with that lens at the long end without a tripod I felt it made that much of an improvement.

 

[JamesMason]

I notice too, the OP didn't mention what tripod they are using.

It's possible the tripod isn't steady enough, particularly with the 100-400 lens mounted.

or they forgot to turn IS off ?

 

[inTempus]

Yeah, getting razor sharp clarity with a Canon is nearly impossible... even with a 1D3 or 5D2. Images shot with L-glass look like mud compared to anything built by Nikkor. The sensors on the Canon bodies coupled with horrible metering means if you get anything other than a black pixelated smudge you're doing pretty good.

I got really-really lucky to get details like unburnt powder just above the pistol being flung through the air in such sharp focus with my crappy old Canon. The camera gods must have been smiling on me that day!

Just ribbing Derrel, I know he wasn't saying that stuff literally. I just couldn't resist.

 

[syphlix]

looks much better w/ that bucket removed

kinda cool that the part u see through his glasses is in focus also.. dind't notice that before...

not that this has anything to do w/ this thread

 

[Mike_E]

If the OP is still around... Your shutter speed isn't fast enough to overcome motion blur- subject or camera. A tripod or beanbag can help but so can the previously mentioned upping of the ISO.

You also appear to have an autofocus problem. It could be that the lens and camera need to be tuned to each other (requires a service call) -this happens across all brands. Or you might need to sit down with your manual and pick an autofocus setting and stick with it. I prefer a single point centered and af/ae button myself although I manually focus if I have the time (granted I don't shoot a lot of birds )

And last, your shots do need some sharpening. It's so easy Ken Rockwell can do it. LOL

Sharpening



if you don't have photo shop then you can use gimp.

 

[inTempus]

Some days you just get lucky, even with crappy Canon gear.

 

[grafxman]

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?

Hi F4S. I suspect your head is about to explode after reading all the postings that precede this one. I'm not an expert photographer like many folks here but I have learned a few things that I will share with you and hopefully they will help you achieve your goal of razor sharp images.

Speaking in broad general terms, with most things mechanical and electrical, it's the operator, not the equipment. From what I know about Canon products, the lens you are using is about as good as zoom lenses come. Most lenses provide a better quality picture if stopped down a little, that is to say, an aperture of 8 or 10 will likely give sharper results than a wide open aperture. For wild life photography this means losing a stop or two on the exposure.

Extremely high ISO settings result in higher noise levels than lower ISO settings. This too causes problems when shooting wildlife since a slower shutter speed will be required with a lower ISO.

From what I read in your query, you seem to be trying a variety of settings/procedures and not getting the results you seek. I suggest you try this. With the camera mounted on a tripod, aim it at a newspaper taped to the side of a house, door or some such. The distance need not be great, say 10 to 30 yards. Ensure the tripod is on a hard surface such as a driveway or patio. It must be a calm day. Use either a remote control or the timer. No hands should touch the camera when the shutter is actuated. Set a mid range ISO.

In the manual mode, take several shots at various aperture openings and shutter speeds. Use auto focus. Use, say, 3 different zoom settings such as 100, 250 and 400. SHOOT RAW images. If you don't know what RAW is, then learn. You will have to install the DPP (digital photo professional) software that came on the DVD provided when you bought the camera. If you always shoot .jpg images, they will ALWAYS show slight softness in my experience. This test should reveal whether or not your lens or camera is the problem.

i performed this test a few days ago and compared 2 of my lens, a Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer and an old Sigma 170-500mm. I was slightly horrified to discover the old, used Sigma ($300) was sharper than the newly purchased Canon ($600). Of course the image stabilizer in the Canon goes a little ways towards better images but I'm still quite disturbed by this situation.

By all accounts, the XTi is capable of some excellent images. However, an XTi was my first camera and I successfully resisted the overwhelming urge to place it in my backyard and blast it with my 12 gauge shotgun. I bought a 50D and now I'm a pretty happy camper. I'm not saying that's what you should do though. I'm sure a skilled photographer can produce excellent images with one. I just have a very low frustration/annoyance level.

Here's a few other things too. Does the XTi manual make any mention of a sharpness setting in the menu? If so, be sure it's set for a lot of sharpness. Also, I always use a monopod. I've successfully shot at 500mm with a 1.4 Kenko converter using a monopod. I haven't seen too many animals I could have photographed with a tripod. The Canon 50D has a very high shutter speed so that eliminates a lot of movement problems. It also has a noise reduction setting so that helps too.

On the off chance that you are still suffering from non sharp images, I suggest you try another camera with that lens or another lens on your camera. The process of elimination should show where the problem lies.

Hopefully you will discover that your setup is capable of producing sharp images. If so, then I suggest you select one method of shooting, manual, aperture priority, shutter priority or whatever, and stick to it for a while until you become very comfortable and proficient with that method. Then once you have mastered that method, try another method for a while.

Hope this helps. Good luck.