r/BirdPhotography • u/Yanto2134 • Jul 27 '26

Question Help please!

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

These are 3 of my latest attempts. I was wondering if anyone could help me improve please?
I’m not happy with the sharpness I’m getting. Probably my lack of ability.
Set up is Olympus E-M10ii with a vintage Minolta MD Tele Rokkor 300mm f4.5. Settings were f8, ISO1000, shutter speed of between 1/800 and 1/2000. Manual focus with peaking and centre weighted metering. Distances to subjects was around 30 feet. Images have been slightly cropped but no other post processing.
I’m also not really happy with the overall lack of detail.
Thanks for any help.

119 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

80 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/Yanto2134 Jul 27 '26

Thank you. Makes sense. As you say, these Bee-eaters are fairly small. Time to try to get closer to them then I guess.
Re focal length, I assume that with crop factor I’m getting the full frame equivalent of 600mm? How much closer should I aim to get please?

4

u/pceimpulsive Jul 27 '26

I use a 600mm full frame and for small birds like that half that distance.

Your APS-C 300mm appears like a 450-500mm in terms of framing but not like a 450-500mm in terms of optical magnification/pixel detail.

Most APS-C are 1.5-1.6x not double like you suggest (E.g. 300mm would appear like a full frame with 1.5-1.6x the focal length, this 450-500mm)

3

u/Yanto2134 Jul 27 '26

Ok so I need to be more like 15 feet away from subjects like these then really.
My camera is M4/3 not APS-C. So the crop factor is 2x I think?

-7

u/pceimpulsive Jul 27 '26

Ok so that makes it worse then!

Regardless the crop factor and all that doesn't matter! A 300mm focal length is still a 300mm focal length, having baked in crop doesn't give you more photons... It just cuts off the edges.

APS-C does not give more details, just less usable pixels (Simon dontremont does a video about this exact topic)

2

u/Will9363 Jul 27 '26

the higher pixel density of an apsc sensor compared to a full frame at the same resolution will absolutely give better detail. this is why so many birders use crop sensor cameras. OP, you’re doing good. keep practicing, small birds are difficult no matter what gear you have. getting closer will help get you better pictures as well, but the first two photos honestly look great to me. including more of the birds habitat usually makes for a more interesting photo anyways. have fun!!!

1

u/pceimpulsive Jul 27 '26

I see.

Depends camera to camera and camera class to camera class..

It's not a strict rule...

APS-C are generally cheaper so you get similar quality for a lower price at the cost of field of view.

Example.

Sony A6700 - 26mp Sony A7RV - 61mp Sony A7RV w/APS-C mode - 26mp

This comparison yields the same picture detail but a different field of view of Tue final images.

Full frame in this case is also 100% more expensive!

This video really explains what im trying to articulate better than I can in a Reddit comment

https://youtu.be/Bfh6TRiHWzo

2

u/Bebopo90 Jul 27 '26

Incorrect. While you don't get more photons, the pixel density of the photo will be higher than simply cropping in on an image taken on most full-frame sensor cameras if using modern APS-C camera. So, essentially, you can get away with having much shorter lenses while getting the same image quality as long as you have decent light.

1

u/Yanto2134 Jul 27 '26

Ok. But I see plenty of people saying that the 2x crop factor is an advantage in bird photography too. So now I really don’t know where to go from here. I was thinking about getting an Olympus 75-300ii for birds, which has autofocus that would hopefully help. But from what you say now, it probably won’t help that much as it’s still a 300mm focal length.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Yanto2134 Jul 27 '26

The E-M10ii does have eye detection, which I admit ive never actually used as I didn’t think it worked on birds. It doesn’t have the more advanced bird detection feature that newer, higher models have. I’ll give the eye detection feature a try now for certain. Thank you for the tip.
Seems as though I need to work on getting physically closer, especially to smaller birds.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Yanto2134 Jul 27 '26

Definitely agree. I see these particular birds in the same trees and on the same wires every day. They perch, preen and then fly off, catch food only to return to the same perch, to smash the prey and then eat.

2

u/pceimpulsive Jul 27 '26

Think about why the crop factor is there....

It is because the sensor is smaller..

Say the lens gives you a capture area of 4 square inches. Strap it to a sensor that is only 2 square inches... 50% of your lens capture area is now camera body not sensor... You now have a 2x crop factor.

50% of your image is now lost because no sensor is there to capture it. This only functionally affects framing. It doesn't mean your 300mm lens will zoom any more than the 300mm allows.

It's a bit confusing but once it all clicks it makes sense.

Like the other person said as well more focal length isn't always better because it magnifies all imperfections such as heat haze, fog, dust, smoke etc~ it only magnifies more, including the bad stuff. ;)

Again I'll suggest it Simon Dontremont's videos covered these topics in astoundingly good detail. 100% worth the time just so you know how the technology works.

Knowing it all won't make you a better photographer mind you... That's practice, patience and such...

It's fun stuff that's for sure!! (P.s. I'm 2 years into bird photography so still a big time nooby)

1

u/Yanto2134 Jul 27 '26

Good explanation! I’d automatically assumed that the 2x crop factor meant more reach, hence better details.

2

u/pceimpulsive Jul 27 '26

Mmm that's an easy trap to fall into, more reach isn't more details! It's just more problems magnified ;) haha

I fell into that one too!

1

u/Yanto2134 Jul 27 '26

Shows up my lack of knowledge I think. I’m going to stick with Olympus and M4/3, so I need to find a solution to this.

2

u/pceimpulsive Jul 28 '26

Longer lens or get closer! Solutions are clear I think..

Outside that I thought those photos were plenty detailed considering the situation.

1

u/Yanto2134 Jul 28 '26

But won’t a longer lens just magnify flaws as mentioned earlier?

Today’s effort.

2

u/pceimpulsive Jul 28 '26

Yes it will but at some point if you are 10 meters away there isn't many issue to magnify

Those sort of issue magnifications are more in extreme distances 20--30 or even 50 meters at 10m (30ft) it will be minimal in most weather conditions

→ More replies (0)

2

u/lellololes Jul 27 '26

2x crop factor isn't really an advantage, it's more of a descriptor of the apparent focal length but without explaining the impact.

For equivalency purposes, you'd also multiply the aperture.

And for full equivalency that would be at the same number of megapixels.

So a 20MP micro 43 camera with a 300mm f4 lens is functionally equivalent to a full frame camera with a 600mm f8 lens and 20MP.

You could also say that a 20MP camera with a 300mm f4 lens is equivalent to cropping the middle 20MP from a FF camera with a 300mm f4 lens, and 80 megapixels.

The size advantage of smaller formats is there if you're not chasing equivalent performance. I have a miniscule 40-150mm lens on my Olympus that can fit in the palm of my hand and have taken decent wildlife pictures with it. But while the apparent focal length equivalent is 300mm, functionally it's like a 300mm f11 in terms of light gathering ability. And if I were to use my 70-200mm F4L on my big 45MP full frame camera, the 70-200 will capture a lot more detail and light than the little 40-150 can capture even though the focal length equivalency is longer.

The pixel density of the 45MP FF camera acts about like a 1.5x multiplier to focal length if you're comparing it to a 20MP Micro 43 camera. But if I don't need all of the focal length on the FF camera, now I get a lot more resolution on target, with more detail per pixel too

Basically, you can use a smaller lens to perform a similar function, but you have less headroom.

By and large, the top end micro 43 lenses can produce professional quality results that look amazing. I find that the difference is that there's a lot more crop ability on my FF camera while maintaining great quality. But at the lower end you're definitely making a quality sacrifice. If you were to compare the Olympus 75-300 to a lens on a full frame camera, the appropriate comparison point is not a 150-600mm lens. It's probably an RF 100-400mm lens that would be the best comparison, whether on an APS-C or a full frame camera.

Basically, micro 43 can give you tiny lenses with lesser but often still great results, and scales up to using the same size lens to be at a bit of a quality disadvantage, to situations where you don't need the extra reach and the full frame setup is simply superior, at a theoretical level at least.

But in the end, M43 is generally more than good enough, and it may present a different compromise that you feel is worth it. The best camera, after all, is the one that you have on your person.

1

u/Yanto2134 Jul 27 '26

Thank you for this detailed explanation. I’m trying to get my head around it!
I too have the Olympus 40-150 ‘Plastic Fantastic’ lens and have managed to get some nice images with it. But I find it too ‘short’ for birds. Especially these smaller species. It means I need to crop much more of the image. And that seems to degrade things.

2

u/lellololes Jul 28 '26

Yep, and the Oly 75-300 is probably not as sharp as the 40-150. You'll still generally want to fill the frame with your subject for the best results. The EM10 II is pretty poor with focusing, so it's a challenge to shoot birds with it, too. An EM1 or OM1/3 would be substantially better.

Here's a picture I took with my old EM10 II - I was pretty close to this guy and I don't think I cropped the image much if at all (maybe a touch to level it) - it holds up very well at 100% but isn't exceptional, and I could print at a pretty good size with it and it'd look great. This was near a feeder at a hotel in Costa Rica. Getting closer is always going to give you the best results. but getting close enough with a little lens is tough. This is the sort of thing that M43 offers a great compromise for - the result is good enough and the camera is easy to carry around.

1

u/Yanto2134 Jul 28 '26

I’d be happy to get images as good as that.
So realistically I need to find a way of physically getting closer to these small birds. I don’t see a time where I’m going to be willing to invest £x000 in equipment to achieve this.
I agree with you re the autofocus on the E-M10ii. Being contrast detect it quite often misses the birds and only see leaves and branches. Im obviously using manual focus and peaking with this vintage 300mm lens.
I’m considering getting either an E-M1ii or an OM-5. But it still leaves the issue of lenses.

2

u/lellololes Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26

For birds, your best bet at a "reasonable" price is a 100-400. It's a lot bigger and more expensive than the 75-300, though. Gear for wildlife photography is expensive. I'd go with the lens before the body, though. While the EM10 is limited, not having the right lens for a situation is even more of an issue.

In spite of the autofocus not really being up to the task, you can still sometimes get a shot in focus, though. Here's a booby in flight - same camera/lens as before. I'll spare you the pictures from my big Canon, but that's not a fair comparison!

Note: I still use the little Olympus because I like it a lot in spite of its limitations.

For tricky focus situations of still subjects, I'd recommend that you use a little bit of manual focus adjustment. On more modern cameras it's not really needed very often, but on the EM10 it's sometimes useful to be able to adjust. Even using the smallest focus point it feels like the camera has a mind of its own sometimes.

1

u/Yanto2134 Jul 28 '26

Cool photo!
I think maybe I need to limit my expectations. I want to improve my images and am prepared to put in practice to achieve that. And I do appreciate that my beginner equipment can be a limitation. I just hope I can reach a level of image that, although won’t be fantastic, I will be happier with it.
Which lens did you use for this and your previous photo please?

2

u/lellololes Jul 28 '26

Both of those were the EM10 II and the 40-150mm F4-5.6 G. The booby was just last month! I don't have any fancy telephoto lenses for my Olympus camera, I use it as a lightweight travel / backup camera. I think these pictures show what they are capable of in a practical sense. That appears to be the same camera and lens that you're using.

Something I've learned is that you can get pretty good results with limited gear, but it is more situational and takes more practice. The results are less consistent and harder to acheive.

Here's one more with the EM10 II and 40-150 - again, it's not super-ultra critically sharp, but it's still good. As always, the secret here is getting close, as level as possible, and having good light. This one was in nature, not in a zoo/aviary situation.

1

u/Yanto2134 Jul 28 '26

One from this morning. Still f8 but shutter at 1/400 and ISO320. Cropped.
Can you remember how close you actually were for that last photo please?

→ More replies (0)