The 1200mm Sharpness Test

jrista

EOL
Dec 3, 2011
5,348
36
jonrista.com
I started putting together a new bird setup in my back yard a little while back. I haven't had much of a chance to use it yet, but, I did to some shooting at 1200mm f/8+ on the 5D III. At first I was a little dismayed by the sharpness, thinking the 2x TC was really costing me too much detail. However a little bit of tweaking took care of that.

Not the greatest of shots...that day had poor lighting (and it was backlighting), but here is an example of the original shot:

wEcBnJP.jpg


And here is the shot after sharpening (and a little bit of other processing):

MqFo3we.jpg


Here is a closeup of the original:

0Z5JtWD.jpg


And again after sharpening:

4tAOd87.jpg


The softness present in the original image is pretty much gone after the sharpening. And that's for 1200mm f/10 ISO 1600.

Here is a 100% crop. The lighting, as I said, was horrible...the highlights along the back top of the birds head pushed down the rest of the exposure, and I was already at ISO 1600. So the noise in the background looks bad (I just used LR to denoise, and there is a specific reason why the noise in the background looks so bad...see below...I have other tools that should do a better job, but I haven't bothered yet):

5hWglOe.jpg


I know a lot of photographers worry about using the 2x TC III on their lenses (one that can take it and still AF, anyway). I don't use it all that often myself, but after seeing how well the detail in this image sharpened up, I am pretty convinced, at least within around 60-80 feet or so, use of the 2x TC need not be accompanied by softer images. It should be noted that I did have to use a fairly high sharpening radius, 2.3 in this case. I normally use much lower radii, 1.0-1.3 tops most of the time. Some times I've even reduced the radius. To fully eliminate the softening, a larger radius was required. One thing that should be noted...the use of a larger radius has a negative effect on noise...it makes noise harder to remove, and sometimes it exhibits artifacts. I think in the long run, for images like this, I'll convert to TIFF, denoise first, then sharpen, which should avoid most of that problem.
 

jrista

EOL
Dec 3, 2011
5,348
36
jonrista.com
Dylan777 said:
Looks great jrista

Been thinking:
1. Add 600mm f4 IS II to use with my current FF bodies
2. Cheaper approach, add 7D II and shoot with my current 400mm f2.8 IS II + 2x TC III. I know my 400 + 2x tc is great on FF at f7ish. Not sure how it will come out with 7D II.


I think it'll be fine. That would be just about the same as 1200mm on FF from an FoV standpoint. In terms of resolving power, it should actually have a much larger image scale (angular size to pixel size ratio). The more pixels you put onto each piece of detail, the better it should end up being.
 
Upvote 0

jrista

EOL
Dec 3, 2011
5,348
36
jonrista.com
climber said:
For the noisy background try this: Apply noise reduction at 100% in LR (with brush). The blurry background should become much more smoother. Try to do this also with two layers (2 brushes at 100%).


Sure, I've done that in the past. It's a lot of work, though, and I think a couple proper-order applications of NR and sharpening should do the trick without having to paint. I'm just lazy right now. I haven't had much sleep, haven't been getting any tonight, and I'm just futzing around...I don't really want to do any real work. :p
 
Upvote 0
jrista said:
climber said:
For the noisy background try this: Apply noise reduction at 100% in LR (with brush). The blurry background should become much more smoother. Try to do this also with two layers (2 brushes at 100%).


Sure, I've done that in the past. It's a lot of work, though, and I think a couple proper-order applications of NR and sharpening should do the trick without having to paint. I'm just lazy right now. I haven't had much sleep, haven't been getting any tonight, and I'm just futzing around...I don't really want to do any real work. :p

NIK/Google Sharpener lets you apply sharpening only to certain color ranges so you could click, click, click and mask out much of the background almost instantly.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,476
22,988
Jon
My technique is:
1. Use DXO prime to wipe out noise, and don't spend ages on each one with paint brushes etc.
2. If you have the bird against a light background, don't use more than 1 pixel radius on sharpening otherwise you will get a halo, which is annoying to those who notice such things.

I think your final image looks unnaturally bright.
 
Upvote 0
Sharpness

I had one of the 2X TC II units. It was never satisfactory in any way and sat in my bag for a few years. I finally sold it and borrowed one of the then new 2X TC III teleconverters in 2011. It was amazingly sharp on all relevant lenses. The day I sent it back to Canon, I went in and bought my own from the Hunt's booth at the NANPA conference in Texas. That copy was equally as sharp.
I recently took the TC to South Africa and used it on a rented 600L IS f/4 V.1. It worked beautifully with that lens mounted on a 1D MK IV. I would never let this TC go unless I saw something better.
The Western Meadowlark was from a 500mm L IS f/4 V.1.
The naysayers for TCs might be wrong occasionally.
 

Attachments

  • _H6H7837-2500PX.jpg
    _H6H7837-2500PX.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 286
  • LauraVMFathhead.jpg
    LauraVMFathhead.jpg
    799.2 KB · Views: 277
Upvote 0

Bahrd

Red herrings...
Jun 30, 2013
252
186
In terms of focal length I have a mere 70-200 IS II (tack sharp) and 2x TC III (not bad either), but maybe the following trick will be helpful in a "super-tele" case as well.

Being initially pretty disappointed (400@f/6.3 was good and clearly better than a "wide-open" f/5.6), I have found that a slight AFMA correction (1D Mk III) brought the sharpness and contrast back.
 
Upvote 0
I ran a test recently of my 400mm f2.8 IS, pointing at a neighbor's rattan chair. I shot using a 7D for max pixel density (at least the max available to me). I shot bare 400, 1.4X III, and 2.0X III. My theory was the 2.0X was not going to give me any more detail than the 1.4X. but I was wrong. The 2.0X had more detail. it did have less contrast, but that was recovered easily.

What did you use for sharpening?

I have recently fallen in love with the "reduce motion blur" filter. It seems to do a great job of sharpening even when the loss of sharpness is not motion blur.
 
Upvote 0

jrista

EOL
Dec 3, 2011
5,348
36
jonrista.com
AlanF said:
Jon
My technique is:
1. Use DXO prime to wipe out noise, and don't spend ages on each one with paint brushes etc.
2. If you have the bird against a light background, don't use more than 1 pixel radius on sharpening otherwise you will get a halo, which is annoying to those who notice such things.

I think your final image looks unnaturally bright.


Unnaturally bright? I'm not sure I understand that...the processed image is actually darker overall than the original. Contrast was increased slightly, globally and locally, and saturation was boosted slightly. Other than that...I think it got darker overall, not brighter.
 
Upvote 0

jrista

EOL
Dec 3, 2011
5,348
36
jonrista.com
chauncey said:
I might submit that it would have made more sense to install the feeder set-up closer to where you
shoot from or...move the tripod closer to subject and shoot tethered.


Getting too close means certain birds never show up at all. That said, I am already fairly close, and this was just a test. I wanted to see how big and sharp I could make a songbird from where I usually sit. I usually use the bare 600 for larger birds like jays and woodpeckers, and the 600+1.4 for smaller songbirds.
 
Upvote 0
jrista said:
I started putting together a new bird setup in my back yard a little while back. I haven't had much of a chance to use it yet, but, I did to some shooting at 1200mm f/8+ on the 5D III. At first I was a little dismayed by the sharpness, thinking the 2x TC was really costing me too much detail. However a little bit of tweaking took care of that.

Not the greatest of shots...that day had poor lighting (and it was backlighting), but here is an example of the original shot:

wEcBnJP.jpg


And here is the shot after sharpening (and a little bit of other processing):

MqFo3we.jpg


Here is a closeup of the original:

0Z5JtWD.jpg


And again after sharpening:

4tAOd87.jpg


The softness present in the original image is pretty much gone after the sharpening. And that's for 1200mm f/10 ISO 1600.

Here is a 100% crop. The lighting, as I said, was horrible...the highlights along the back top of the birds head pushed down the rest of the exposure, and I was already at ISO 1600. So the noise in the background looks bad (I just used LR to denoise, and there is a specific reason why the noise in the background looks so bad...see below...I have other tools that should do a better job, but I haven't bothered yet):

5hWglOe.jpg


I know a lot of photographers worry about using the 2x TC III on their lenses (one that can take it and still AF, anyway). I don't use it all that often myself, but after seeing how well the detail in this image sharpened up, I am pretty convinced, at least within around 60-80 feet or so, use of the 2x TC need not be accompanied by softer images. It should be noted that I did have to use a fairly high sharpening radius, 2.3 in this case. I normally use much lower radii, 1.0-1.3 tops most of the time. Some times I've even reduced the radius. To fully eliminate the softening, a larger radius was required. One thing that should be noted...the use of a larger radius has a negative effect on noise...it makes noise harder to remove, and sometimes it exhibits artifacts. I think in the long run, for images like this, I'll convert to TIFF, denoise first, then sharpen, which should avoid most of that problem.

Nice bird! As you may know, I'm a big fan of the 2xIII teleconverter. The light makes a difference of course - as you said, coniditions there weren't great, and at higher ISOs your postprocessing latitude is much reduced. But the results speak for themselves.
 
Upvote 0
AlanF said:
Jon
My technique is:
1. Use DXO prime to wipe out noise, and don't spend ages on each one with paint brushes etc.
2. If you have the bird against a light background, don't use more than 1 pixel radius on sharpening otherwise you will get a halo, which is annoying to those who notice such things.

I think your final image looks unnaturally bright.

I tend to tweak processing by shot, but I prefer to over sharpen at full size, then reduce the size, than reduce and then sharpen. Not sure if anyone else does it this way.
 
Upvote 0

jrista

EOL
Dec 3, 2011
5,348
36
jonrista.com
scyrene said:
AlanF said:
Jon
My technique is:
1. Use DXO prime to wipe out noise, and don't spend ages on each one with paint brushes etc.
2. If you have the bird against a light background, don't use more than 1 pixel radius on sharpening otherwise you will get a halo, which is annoying to those who notice such things.

I think your final image looks unnaturally bright.

I tend to tweak processing by shot, but I prefer to over sharpen at full size, then reduce the size, than reduce and then sharpen. Not sure if anyone else does it this way.


For final web versions, I usually use this technique. The oversharpen/reduce technique is fairly old, and often applied to landscapes in conjunction with one of the various soft contrast techniques. I think it gives better results. You do have to get a handle on background noise first, though...otherwise the sharpening enhances the noise.
 
Upvote 0