Calibrating a lens

[Merlin5]

I'm really not sure if my Tamron 70 to 300 is focusing right or if it's just me not knowing how to get sharp photos. But it can't be that hard to get sharp photos, I've practised enough, there's no way it should be this difficult.

But I struggle to get anything better than soft or blurry focus. At 300mm zoom, I'm taking photos of things that look ok on the LCD screen until I press the magnify button to 10x and it's always a bit blurry, even on a tripod. I've tried dozens of shutter speed, aperture and ISO setting combinations. For example, as a test, my camera is set up on a tripod in my kitchen looking through a very clean window at my bird feeder. The distance from lens to bird feeder is 23 feet. When I take a photo of a bird at that distance, I'm guessing it should be sharp at max magnification? It never is. And I don't think 23 feet is too far for a 300mm zoom is it?

I've looked into calibrating and have an idea how to do it. I know for instance to set the aperture to the widest, I know how to get to the AF micro adjustment function on my camera and adjust in increments for forward and back focus. And I found a youtube video where the guy has made a downloadable test paper with lines and numbers.

But I'm not sure what distance I have to be from an A4 sheet of test paper for 70 to 300mm. For calibrating it at 300mm, I think I need to focus on the paper a minimum of 25 feet away, does that sound about right?

 

[And]

Open your window.

Assuming this is for (mainly) small birds move your feeders closer or buy a pop-up hide and sit closer and be prepared to stop down to f8-f11 for depth of field. For any bigger birds you're using a zoom so adjust the focal length accordingly.

 

[Merlin5]

Open your window.

Assuming this is for (mainly) small birds move your feeders closer or buy a pop-up hide and sit closer and be prepared to stop down to f8-f11 for depth of field. For any bigger birds you're using a zoom so adjust the focal length accordingly.

Funny you should reply because I was looking at your amazing flickr images earlier and the level of detail and pixel clarity you get is what I'm looking for and not getting even remotely near. I can double zoom in on your photos and they don't get blurry! You've got way better gear and longer focal reach, but I think I should be able to achieve a lot better than I am with my gear.
So shooting through a window doesn't work I guess? I've got one large fixed window and one smaller openable one which doesn't open wide enough to properly take photos through. Yes, I think I'll move the feeder closer.
I got some nice squirrel shots at the same distance as the bird feeders but once I start to zoom in they lose sharpness. But the birds came out terrible without zooming.

Is there a good pop up hide you recommend?

 

[And]

That's very kind of you. Bring the feeders closer, set a lower limit of maybe 1/640 for shutter speed and work on keeping camera and lens rock solid on the tripod (or a beanbag) while shooting static subjects. Watch where the birds fly in from and put a branch at feeder height maybe a foot away from the feeders so you're almost forcing them to perch there first before they hop onto the feeders, giving you a couple of seconds to get a shot.

 

[footman]

I use a folding hide in the garden
https://www.nitehawkproducts.co.uk/...YiVcini6iFdEaAp5hEALw_wcB#174=&175=&178=&182=
I can easily sit within a few meters of the feeders and I have constructed perching branches in the way Andy has described. Works very well for me and I can recommend that particular hide as it incorporates a chair.

 

[Merlin5]

Thanks. That hide looks good, might get one. And I'll see what I can do about fixing up a perch.

 

[footman]

Thanks. That hide looks good, might get one. And I'll see what I can do about fixing up a perch.

This is how I've set up mine, I've used one feeder pole near an existing tree and attached perching branches between them.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Don’t you find that background a bit “busy” or do you crop right in on the subject?

 

[footman]

I tend to do a tight crop:

but sometimes the background can be seen more clearly:

 

[Merlin5]

footman, that's great the way you've set up your perching branches. How far in feet away from the birds would you say you were for those images and what focal length?

I'm considering buying a crop sensor camera, the Canon 7D in fact since it can be bought very cheaply, and it would extend my 300m lens to 480m which I'm hoping would make a big difference.
Should I then be able to get something similar to the level of detail in your photos?

 

[footman]

I would estimate probably about 15 feet away. For reference those images were made on a full frame body at 600mm.
As far as detail goes that would depend on your sensor and other factors.

 

[olv]

It's possible you are expecting too much from the Tamron. How much does the old 400mm f/5.6L go for now? They were always the go to 'cheap' tele with stellar image quality.

You may also find that it's sharper at 250-280mm, i.e. not at maximum zoom, and cropped in, as cheaper tele zooms will typically perform worst at their extremes.

 

[Merlin5]

You might be right, olv. I took these two photos just before I read your reply about trying at less than max zoom. So I took these at 300mm, just over 20 feet away, through the opening of my window so no glass in the way. The squirrel didn't move during the shots.

ISO 800, f6.3, 1/320th, 300mm, vibration control on. I've not cropped or processed or sharpened as I want you to see exactly as it looks from raw. Now, do you or footman or anyone else think that this is good enough, as sharp as you would expect straight from the camera, or not?




I'm comparing to one of And's photos, I do hope he doesn't mind me linking to his website. This is what I'm trying to achieve:
https://www.andy-davis-photography.com/Galleries/Mammals/i-sGQrxNQ/A

On his squirrel photo, you can zoom right in and it has great detail and sharpness. Zooming on mine though loses sharpness and there certainly isn't the detail definition. So is there something I need to do better, or is it more a case of needing to own a better lens, and maybe camera?

 

[footman]

To achieve that level of sharpness requires a considerable investment in equipment, that particular image of Andy's was probably made using gear that costs in excess of £5000. It also involves a great deal of experience in fieldcraft and wildlife photography. However, we have all been in your situation when starting out doing wildlife photography and have gradually increased our abilities and level of gear. The lens suggested by @olv would certainly give you better results than the one you are using and the Canon 7D that you suggested earlier has given excellent results to many wildlife photographers over the years. I used that combination of Canon 7D and Canon 400mm f5.6L for years quite happily.

 

[Merlin5]

To achieve that level of sharpness requires a considerable investment in equipment, that particular image of Andy's was probably made using gear that costs in excess of £5000. It also involves a great deal of experience in fieldcraft and wildlife photography. However, we have all been in your situation when starting out doing wildlife photography and have gradually increased our abilities and level of gear. The lens suggested by @olv would certainly give you better results than the one you are using and the Canon 7D that you suggested earlier has given excellent results to many wildlife photographers over the years. I used that combination of Canon 7D and Canon 400mm f5.6L for years quite happily.

I thought so, I definitely don't have anything remotely close to £5000 of gear. Just a 5D mk2 and Tamron lens. Was olv referring to a canon 400mm lens and not a tamron? I just looked up used canon 400mm 5.6 on MPB and it's over £700. I'm pretty sold on buying the 7D but I'll keep my 5D mk2. So, with the Tamron at 480mm on a 7D, it's not going to be much better than I have now in detail and sharpness? The canon 400mm on a 7D would give me a reach of 640mm which would be very nice. Is there a cheaper 400mm lens option almost as good? Sigma?

In terms of experience, no I don't have any. But I'm wondering what you or And would have done differently pointing my camera at that squirrel from the same place to get a better image?

 

[olv]

From the example you posted, the setup is delivering about what I would expect from lens. If you were close enough that the squirrel was filling the frame then you’ll get closer to your perceived goal. But you cannot crop your way to an image that mimics Andy’s.

Whilst there is much you can do to improve technique/composition/knowledge, there is a gulf between what you’re aiming for and what your lens can ultimately deliver.

 

[Merlin5]

Thanks olv and footman. At least you've put my mind at rest that it's less of me and more the limitations of my gear.
However, I do want a better lens, 400mm + and the 7D. Just can't justify spending over £700 for a canon lens.
I don't suppose it's going to be possible to buy a lens for around £200 that will give me close to what the canon 400mm would?

 

[And]

Red squirrel was taken with an A7R4 + 100-400 @400mm, 1/500 f5.6 iso2500, a little noise reduction applied (mainly to everything but the squirrel) and slightly cropped to A2 (paper size in pixels) @300dpi.

 

[alchal]

I have a sigma 150-600c and as long as the light is good can get some brilliant shots even with a TC on.

Cost to performance wise it's good.

Used it on my d750 and now d850 and cant complain ,would love a prime but can't say her indoors would be happy!

 

[footman]

I have a sigma 150-600c and as long as the light is good can get some brilliant shots even with a TC on.

Cost to performance wise it's good.

Used it on my d750 and now d850 and cant complain ,would love a prime but can't say her indoors would be happy!

Good call that, I'd completely forgotten about that lens and I've had two of them! Fantastic value for money and would go very well with the 7D the OP is talking about.