Getting sharp pictures with 7DII - need advice please

[Loswr]

After we find agreement, that beanbags are fine

I don't think anyone is arguing that beanbags are a problem. The problem is you've stated several times this sort of belief:

Beanbag-technique here (when tripod is impractical) is: 400mm -> 1/500 with 4-stop of IS -> 1/30 + beanbag (actually filled with rice) -> 1/20 should work out (if animal is not moving)

The problem with animals is that unless you're photographing them after they've visited the taxidermist, they're never not moving. Your group boar shot at 1/125 s, the boar on who's eyes you focused is flipping his tail around, that means movement for the whole animal including the head, and at 1/125 s you're seeing motion blur. If you're shooting trees, the slightest whif of a breeze will result in motion blur. If you're looking at 1:1 (100% pixel peeping), the smaller the pixels the greater the apparent motion blur – and the 7DII has very small pixels.

Basically, the original problem you described (soft images with your gear) really seems to boil down to a combination of using shutter speeds that are too slow, subjects that are too small in the frame, and gaps in post processing.

3) find out about how others/professionals achieve higher sharpness - with this very combo (not with FF and the big whites, I don´t have them right now.)

As suggested above, better post processing. Consider when capturing the image that, claims by Adobe notwithstanding, noise will be easier to deal with in post than motion blur. Thus, I generally choose a high enough shutter speed to stop subject motion (unless I want wing blur, for example) and let the ISO go up accordingly.

I use DxO Optics Pro's Prime NR, and it does a great job of reducing noise while maintaining detail at higher ISOs. But it's not perfect, and sharpening (usually done at the end of the workflow since it's dependent on output size) always accentuates noise. DxO is global, no masks. Since backgrounds often show more noise (there's not necessarily more noise, but the lack of features means noise is easier to perceive), you can mask and selectively sharpen only the subject.

( 4) if all requirements for sharp pictures are fullfilled, but results are not as good as they should be, get your equipment inspected)

That depends on how you define 'as good as they should be'. If you're expecting results from a 7DII + 100-400 II that are equivalent to a 1D X II + 600mm f/4L IS II, then the problem isn't the gear...it's your expectations.

 

[picturefan]

"I don't think anyone is arguing that beanbags are a problem. The problem is you've stated several times this sort of belief:..."

No. That is also not so much the problem (I know about the possibility of a boar moving, especially if it happens that you find one behind you in the forests...), problem is more here:

"Oh get over yourself Neuro, the guy is using a beanbag and a tree stump, 1/20 should be fine, DOH!
As Mario says, great advice so far, but it goes against his personal beliefs and expectations so is reluctant to let his brain acknowledge what his eyes confirm. It must be a fault of the camera, it can't be my fault................."

Beanbag on a tree trunk and 1/20 is fine, because, as i stated several times, it´s not about the dove. It is also the tre trunk in the picture with iso 320 that looks crappy - without motion blur of the tree. No "DOH´s" at all please!
I´m using beanbags for a long long time now. But why turns the trunk out to be so crappy? Because "it goes against his personal beliefs ". Aha! I see.

"Basically, the original problem you described (soft images with your gear) really seems to boil down to a combination of using shutter speeds that are too slow, subjects that are too small in the frame, and gaps in post processing."

That´s the very core of it.
a) Not easy to avoid slow shutters
b) never came closer to raptors than 50-100m
c) the test pics I posted are not post-processed.

This c) is intented, because I really thought that it should be possible - with such an expensive gear - to use the results for everyday use. For sure, if I need the pics for prints or s.th. else, I do post-process.

My resume is (and this made me very curious) : you can´t really use the picture-data without post. Also with 7DII. Difference is too massive. Anyone with other findings please?

"As suggested above, better post processing. Consider when capturing the image that, claims by Adobe notwithstanding, noise will be easier to deal with in post than motion blur. Thus, I generally choose a high enough shutter speed to stop subject motion (unless I want wing blur, for example) and let the ISO go up accordingly. "

This leads to the strategy that i will try to prefer the higher iso, and, as also mikehit posted, expose to the right.

The example of a frog by cobrasoft shows, that with some post, the high-iso of 7DII is just ok. That is my finding with the 3200iso dove as well - but this one hasn´t been post processed, so one needs to imagine how it would look like. Not so horrible. Maybe in comparison to FF, but that is not what we are talking about.

"That depends on how you define 'as good as they should be'. If you're expecting results from a 7DII + 100-400 II that are equivalent to a 1D X II + 600mm f/4L IS II, then the problem isn't the gear...it's your expectations. "

This is the hardest .
Because on some internet sources, like on "Ari Hazeghi", as mikehit also posted, you can see comparison between FF (here 1DX) and Crop. It is a difference, for sure, but in many discussions they come to the result, that the difference is not so striking, there are also people stating that you can´t tell any difference between the results of FF and crop.
Until now, this also has been my opinion, prooved by some comparisons. But new to me: it seems to depend on the target, if you will see any bigger difference.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

My experience: the dimmer the light, and/or the higher the ISO, the larger the gap between FF and crop. Bright sunny day, base ISO, you have to view at 100% to tell a difference.

 

[picturefan]

My experience: the dimmer the light, and/or the higher the ISO, the larger the gap between FF and crop. Bright sunny day, base ISO, you have to view at 100% to tell a difference.

Yes, before, when thinking about dim lights, some evening or nighttime situations came to my mind. But now I find myself like "pushing the borders" of my expectations (some might say "lowering") towards even "daytime inside forests" situations etc.

 

[Loswr]

"I don't think anyone is arguing that beanbags are a problem. The problem is you've stated several times this sort of belief:..."

No. That is also not so much the problem (I know about the possibility of a boar moving, especially if it happens that you find one behind you in the forests...), problem is more here:

"Oh get over yourself Neuro, the guy is using a beanbag and a tree stump, 1/20 should be fine, DOH!
As Mario says, great advice so far, but it goes against his personal beliefs and expectations so is reluctant to let his brain acknowledge what his eyes confirm. It must be a fault of the camera, it can't be my fault................."

Beanbag on a tree trunk and 1/20 is fine, because, as i stated several times, it´s not about the dove. It is also the tre trunk in the picture with iso 320 that looks crappy - without motion blur of the tree. No "DOH´s" at all please!

Sure, but you also stated,

Boar: 400mm, f8, sandbag, is, iso 320 (=ideal), time 1/20. that´s ok because of sandbag, is and none moving animal. Sharpness of the eye (focus point) imho bad.

So that's two mentions of 1/20 s is fine with an animal, one example of motion blur of an animal even at 1/125 s, and a tree trunk. The problem with the tree trunk is post processing (or lack thereof), IMO.

c) the test pics I posted are not post-processed.

This c) is intented, because I really thought that it should be possible - with such an expensive gear - to use the results for everyday use.

You asked..."how others/professionals achieve higher sharpness - with this very combo," and the answer is they process their images properly. You're pixel peeping for sharpness, and expecting OOC results to deliver. What separates you from those others achieving higher sharpness is that they understand what PBD pointed out several pages ago, although you may have missed it in your ire over the beanbag 'issue':

Post processing makes a massive difference to your output and cameras with AA filters (the 7D MkII) are designed to need sharpening in post, it is a given.

There's a bit of a dichotomy here – you want 'tack sharp' results and you want them without work. Using 'expensive gear' doesn't preclude the fact that you need to work to get the best from it (or be willing to settle for just 'ok' images). This isn't new...Ansel Adams spent as much if not more time in the darkroom than he did out taking pictures.

As for APS-C vs. FF...

...there are also people stating that you can´t tell any difference between the results of FF and crop.
Until now, this also has been my opinion, prooved by some comparisons.

Act444 is correct - if you compare them in lighting that's strong enough to support using low ISOs (at high shutter speeds if needed for moving subjects), and you are filling a good portion of the frame with your subject (which means you need a longer lens or to be closer with FF), then there's very little difference. But for the 'real world' conditions which you describe for yourself – needing high shutter speeds in dim lighting – FF will be meaningfully better than APS-C.

 

[Don Haines]

Another big factor in getting sharp pictures is stability. Movement kills sharpness.

Your first problem is to hold your camera steady, and this is something you have control over..... You can use a tripod, bean bag, rest it against something solid, or have a rock solid stance and no muscle tremors.... If you can hold the camera steady (enough) turn the IS on the lens off. IS robs you of stability, unless you are not stable in the first place and then it helps give you stability. This is why it is recommended that you turn off IS when on a tripod! Personally, if I am handholding, particularly in an awkward position, turning IS ON improves stability. When I am on a tripod (make sure it is a good and solid tripod and head) I turn IS OFF and improve stability. The same goes for when I can brace the camera against a tree, post, or whatever....

Your next factor is out of your control, it is target motion. Obviously, the faster your target is moving, the harder it is to be sharp. You either need high shutter speed (usually at the expense of DOF and ISO), or if you are really really really lucky, you can pan the subject. Cameras with smaller pixels ( crop and 5Ds ) need even faster shutter speeds.

Then you have atmospheric distortion. If it is a long shot, it will degrade your image and there is nothing you can do about it except try to get closer.

Then you have mirror shake (try to use "silent" mode if your camera supports it, less vibration) and camera motion caused by pressing the shutter.

Look for sources of motion and eliminate them. Then worry about gear....

 

[picturefan]

Originally I wanted to discuss about a camera´s sharpness or some issues with that.
That´s the reason for me for checking into the highly apprecicated CR site.

I found so many helpful inputs, that it is great fun being here. But some comments, sorry, I find are "close to the edge":

"Oh get over yourself Neuro, the guy is using a beanbag and a tree stump, 1/20 should be fine, DOH!
As Mario says, great advice so far, but it goes against his personal beliefs and expectations so is reluctant to let his brain acknowledge what his eyes confirm. It must be a fault of the camera, it can't be my fault................."

"You asked..."how others/professionals achieve higher sharpness - with this very combo," and the answer is they process their images properly. You're pixel peeping for sharpness, and expecting OOC results to deliver. What separates you from those others achieving higher sharpness is that they understand what PBD pointed out several pages ago, although you may have missed it in your ire over the beanbag 'issue':

There's a bit of a dichotomy here – you want 'tack sharp' results and you want them without work. Using 'expensive gear' doesn't preclude the fact that you need to work to get the best from it (or be willing to settle for just 'ok' images). "

How you know about other one´s expectations, understanding or willingness? Points like these are not taking any further in improoving sharpness. But that´s why I´m here on the forum.

Pixelpeeping, neuro, as you say is not my hobby, hobby is getting high quality pics under real-life conditions.

Expecting usable OOC results is what I expect from expensive gear. Yes! I never read in any manual: After making your pictures you have to to a lot of post, if you will ever use them. Never read that.
But now I understand better why you put so many efforts in post!

I often stated that I´m curious about that big difference between OOC and results of post-processing. So, as you can follow, it should be allowed to ask, if others also find this big difference? Or if others were also curious about "the difference a post made" once in their lifetime (as I am now) or if it is an issue of the body-lens-combo.

 

[Loswr]

Expecting usable OOC results is what I expect from expensive gear. Yes! I never read in any manual: After making your pictures you have to to a lot of post, if you will ever use them. Never read that.
But now I understand better why you put so many efforts in post!

I often stated that I´m curious about that big difference between OOC and results of post-processing. So, as you can follow, it should be allowed to ask, if others also find this big difference? Or were also curious about that thing once in their lifetime (as I am now) or if it is an issue of the body-lens-combo.

As I also posted several times, I´m doing post, for other purposes. So it is not a kind of "you don´t work" for it. Again, I did not expect the difference to be that big.

Certainly, it's about expectations. What is 'usable' to you? A 500 pixel wide post on Facebook? A 2x3 meter wall mural? Something in between? Does a usable image require technical perfection, for you? My reaction to the peach pic you posted early in this thread was that it wasn't particularly soft.

I believe that the 'typical' user with a 7DII and 100-400 II feels they get usable images straight from the camera.

Going back to your original post:

My problem: for me it is not possible to get a single sharp picture at higher distances (e.g. 20 metres away, like birds etc.)
But: at shorter distances it´s ok. ???

I tried many things to find out, what the problem is: different cams, lenses, adjustments...
Here´s my spec: Iso 200, back-button focus, raw, shutter-speed 1/250 +/-, tripod, 100-400II, liveview, is-off.
That is how to get super-sharp pics with other cams - but not here. There is always some kind of haze instead of sharpness in the pics, especially when magnifying.

How do you all manage to get these sharp pics I´ve seen?
I think afma is not needed because of liveview (contrast-detection) -> no back/frontfocus.
S.th. wrong with cam? Some kind of distorted technique? Send to Canon? Other ideas?

I'd say it boils down to your technique.

[list type=decimal]
[*]Get closer – in your example, a bird at 20 m distance, the 7DII at 400mm is framing a 1.1 x 0.75 m area; if that bird is a passerine, it's likely fitting within the metering circle and you're not close enough, or you need a longer lens
[*]Use a faster shutter speed – 1/250 s is almost never fast enough for birds, certainly not for raptors in flight
[*]Post-process your images – it makes a big difference[/list]

While I can't be certain, I suspect there is nothing wrong with your camera or lens.

 

[AlanF]

Picturefan, how are you using liveview?

 

[Kerry B]

I'd say it boils down to your technique.

[list type=decimal]
[*]Get closer – in your example, a bird at 20 m distance, the 7DII at 400mm is framing a 1.1 x 0.75 m area; if that bird is a passerine, it's likely fitting within the metering circle and you're not close enough, or you need a longer lens
[*]Use a faster shutter speed – 1/250 s is almost never fast enough for birds, certainly not for raptors in flight
[*]Post-process your images – it makes a big difference[/list]

While I can't be certain, I suspect there is nothing wrong with your camera or lens.
[/quote]

Spot on totally agree. There are to many people blaming faulty equipment on their own failings. Hand holding a 7dii with lets say a 500mm lens will give you 800mm taking into consideration the so called crop factor. In my mind anything less than 1000th sec will fall to render a sharp image. Have you tried holding a large telephoto lens stable, the bloody thing is jumping around everywhere. Even the best IF system will fail to help.

For small birds you will perhaps need higher shutter speeds they never stop moving. I will always use a tripod or bean bag to get stable shots and the effort is generally worth the small inconvenience.

There are many people using the 7dii and loving it, Professionals and amateurs alike, not all can be wrong.

 

[Otara]

I found it very helpful to do a lot of experiments with my longest lens to see the difference between mirror lockup, live view, manual live view, normal, flash and non-flash and see what shutter speeds did what vs a high detail target, at a few ISO's as well, and IS on and off. Simply seeing how even the tiniest air movement was visible on the liveview screen at full mag gives a better idea of just how static you need to be.

It also showed how amazing the detail can be if you can isolate everything as well as possible.

 

[picturefan]

Picturefan, how are you using liveview?

That is an interesting question. Using it for all static targets. But today, for the first time, I was taking pictures of a test-chart. It took all of my attention and so I found out s.th. new about my liveview:
a) liveview-af without magnifying - most of the time - led to some unsharp results. When magnifying to 5x, I recognised (because with test charts it is more noticeable) small differences in sharpness - 10x is even sharper, sure.
b) the sharpness-differences inbetween a series of 10x magnified pics (burst or single shot) is not to be neglected. Until now it made no difference in real life as you always choose the sharpest pics, but with the test-chart one can see that the differences do not result of any moving of the target/handshake or s.th. else, the reason is camera-technique.

 

[picturefan]

There are to many people blaming faulty equipment on their own failings.
There are many people using the 7dii and loving it, Professionals and amateurs alike, not all can be wrong.

Let me say: no one here blamed the gear. Gear is holy.
Just asking and evaluating to find out what´s wrong with all the soft pictures taken from longer distances. Some people call this open discussion - which means it is led without a predetermined conclusion. Some error sources could have been banned due to this thread.

My reality before the thread was a pic of a rapture @ 1/250, iso 1600 and 75 m distance with crop camera. Result: doubtful.
My next picture of an eagle will be @ 1/1000, iso 100 and 10 m distance - all done with FF. Result: outstanding.

Better have sunshine with your 7DII: You know, always take the weather with you. If not, take full frame!

Summary: Thank you all for finding / helping me to find factors that boost softness issues. Thank you for clearly underlining possible problems. This enables to avoid them.
All the discussed factors are not new. But, and this is what made me curious, is the big effect, when many of these factors are summing up. Especially the soft OOC + the even softer outcome caused by the necessity of cropping smaler targets to make them fill the frame.

Until I find myself having FF (hopefully soon), maybe someone post a tack-sharp OOC picture of a 7DII @ 400-600mm under "sub-optimal" or "everyday" conditions (slower iso and shutter, further distance) and describe its technique.
This will be the ultimate comparison of technique skills or, ongoing, the possibilities of post-process to make a tack-sharp image even better.

 

[AlanF]

The test charts I suggested to you are very informative for not only checking focussing but also consistency. FoCal software measures consistency of focus, and the variations in the quality of repeat points in the calibration runs tells you about consistency. For birds, I use centre spot only and take several shots to find the sharpest.

 

[Don Haines]

The test charts I suggested to you are very informative for not only checking focussing but also consistency. FoCal software measures consistency of focus, and the variations in the quality of repeat points in the calibration runs tells you about consistency. For birds, I use centre spot only and take several shots to find the sharpest.

Another very good point!

At the level of sharpness that you are after, a well calibrated camera and multiple images is the way to go. AF is not an exact process and the lens will not focus exactly the same each time, so this is where a statistical approach like Focal comes in. Trust me, it will do a much better job of calibrating your lenses than trial/error or Dot-tune.

 

[jmeyer]

Here is an example of a picture, taken on an overcast day. This was taken with the 7D mkii / EF 500 F4 / 1.4xiii, so 700mm. It's at ISO400, 1/400, 7.1, and was roughly 130' away.

 

[Don Haines]

overcast day, a sequence of different shutter speeds and ISO, all handheld with IS turned on. The first part of the file name is the shutter speed and the second part is the ISO. The target was 20 meters (60 feet) away.

 

[Don Haines]

overcast day, a sequence of different shutter speeds and ISO, all handheld with IS turned on. The first part of the file name is the shutter speed and the second part is the ISO

As above, but the camera resting against the car roof.... notice how they are sharper than the free-held images..... stability is your friend!

 

[Don Haines]

overcast day, a sequence of different shutter speeds and ISO, all handheld with IS turned on. The first part of the file name is the shutter speed and the second part is the ISO

As above, but the camera resting against the car roof.... notice how they are sharper than the free-held images..... stability is your friend!

And now resting against the roof with IS turned off. Note how they are sharper than with IS turned on.

There was a fourth set, which I am not going to post because they are pathetic, with IS turned off and freeheld. With my steadiness (or lack thereof) and 600mm, it wasn't a good idea....

EXPERIMENT!

See what works for you! Go with what works for you! Just because one person says "X works best for me" it does not follow that "X" will work best for you. EXPERIMENT!

 

[Don Haines]

overcast day, a sequence of different shutter speeds and ISO, all handheld with IS turned on. The first part of the file name is the shutter speed and the second part is the ISO

As above, but the camera resting against the car roof.... notice how they are sharper than the free-held images..... stability is your friend!

And now resting against the roof with IS turned off. Note how they are sharper than with IS turned on.

There was a fourth set, which I am not going to post because they are pathetic, with IS turned off and freeheld. With my steadiness (or lack thereof) and 600mm, it wasn't a good idea....

EXPERIMENT!

See what works for you! Go with what works for you! Just because one person says "X works best for me" it does not follow that "X" will work best for you. EXPERIMENT!

and never underestimate the value of post-processing.....