budget birding photography

[Eric D]

Hi,

I would love to start a discussion on how to get best IQ when using a budget set up, e.g. M10 mk II with 75-300 lens. Rob has commented on the strengths and weaknesses of this, and Robin Wong also thinks highly of the lens although we all know it isn't the best performer out there. Scott Bourne promotes the mkIII with the 75-300 and gets great photos, although usually of large, slow birds in good light. And he uses special sharpening software to edit. I can't bring myself to get an Adobe subscription, so still use freeware. (I have Dark Table, too, but can't for the life of me figure it out!)

I am having mixed results, sometimes pretty decent (or "good enough") and sometimes a waste of pixel space. I don't quite know when to expect what. I'm sure my settings or technique play a role. What have others experienced?

This photo of the hummingbird came out surprisingly well, but it was almost an accident. ISO 500, 1/640, f6.7, 264mm


The sandhill crane with Canadian geese looks okay until you pixel peep, and then the detail gets smudged. Is this simply a limitation of the distance and lens? ISO 500, 1/1000, f8, 270mm. For some reason I keep getting defaulted to ISO 500. Maybe set it lower whenever possible?

Swainson's thrush: okay, but again the detail is a bit smudged. My technique, or limitation of the lens? If I recall correctly, the light was beginning to fade in the early evening. ISO 500, 1/125, f6.7, 281mm

Anyway, that should be enough for now. The lens was on sale and used, so didn't cost me much which is all I can afford right now. But if I were to save for something better, the f4 300mm? or the 2.8 70-150? I'm thinking the former. In the meantime, is there better editing software than what I'm using (Photoscape X) that doesn't take years to understand?

thanks,
Eric

[DeMorcan]

The lens will limit pixel peeping. However it can work for posting on social media and to learn. I never really used long lenses in film days much. So I tried the Pany 100-300 to see if I would use it enough to justify a better lens. It was sharper than the 75-300, but neither compare with 100-400. Resizing images to a smaller size sharpens them up just fine for posting. Dark table is a excellent editor. I have Photoshop and Lightroom and still use it for some of my processing. RawTherapee is also free and easier to learn. You an also use techniques from all the Lightroom and Photoshop videos with RawTherapee. However first I would use the free Workspace from Olympus. It does the sharpening and cropping and most adjustments you will want to start with. I would learn it well before going to another program. It also knows the lens used and starts out sharper than the other programs. Olympus seems to know what each lens needs and in my experience with the mid range lens requires less editing than the other photo processing programs. I did not notice the camera, but this is with all OMD cameras except the EM5 original that did not enhance he sharpness in camera like the EM1 did (for RAWs).

I saw one of your photos was taken at f8 and 5000 ISO. I like your 1/1000 shutter speed for setting birds. I would try shooting wide open for the lower ISO and and then again with at f8 and see which was sharper. Another important thing is to use silent shutter at 300. Even with the 300 prime, the shutter shock softens the image. This is more important with a lighter camera like the EM10 series but makes a difference even on the EM1s. The point is to get the maximum the lens can get.

The other point is also for getting the best the lens can get. I test all my lens as I get them to know their capabilities and limitations. One thing I notice with all lens and especially the mid range and kit lens is focusing difference. If you are at minimum focus difference and take a photo. Then take a second photo when you are very near the focus distance, the second photo will be sharper. It seems like Olympus tries to focus fast and as soon as it gets good enough, it will take the photo. With the wide depth of field of slow lenses like the 75-300 and there is a range where the subject will be in focus to the camera. Often with bird you cannot take 2 or 3 photos. But always do that when you can. Otherwise take a photo of a branch or something close to where your subject will be. This was called prefocusing in film days and and still helps today when pixel peeping or cropping big. Take many shots. You do not care if 1 in 2 is good or 1 in 20. As long as you get one sharp shot of the subject, you have succeeded.

To summarize:
For processing use Workspace. Resize (I suggest 1080 pixels height for a full screen HD display and social media) to improve apparent sharpness.
Use silent shutter. Shot manual, 1/1000 and wide open. Prefocus and take multiple shots of everything to have one that is the sharpest.

[Eric D]

Thanks DeMorcan,

Some very useful tips. I should do more of the experimenting you suggest. I'll give Workspace another try, but I find it way, way too slow for processing raw (and I have a fairly decent computer). I tried Raw Therapee a while ago and did find it easier to navigate, so may go back. I also find that the lens depends, as others have suggested, on the lighting conditions. As for now, I'll keep taking lots of photos.

~ Eric

[DeMorcan]

Have fun. You have a good start on it. But the main thing is have fun. When I was doing stock photography with film long ago, the consensus of stock photographers was that 1 good photo in 1000 was a excellent. Although usually more than that sold. So do not worry if some of them aren't great. It is not a contest. Just keep having fun and enjoy thee exceptional photo when it shows up.

[Woody Meristem]

My Olympus camera is also the M10 ii and I use it with the 75-300mm ii, they produce very good images. I always shoot JPG, never RAW and do not pixel peep -- I consider pixel peeping a waste of time. For years my favorite editing software has been PhotoScape 3.7, I prefer it to PhotoScape X (3.7 cannot edit RAW images). I sometimes use FastStone but normally use PhotoScape. Recently I've begun using Olympus Workspace and like what it can do with images -- but it is SOOO Slow.

Here's a not very good photo of a cardinal that I've edited for sharpness, clarity and contrast, but not color or noise, with both PhotoScape and Olympus Workspace. The strengths and weaknesses of the two editing programs are evident -- take your pick --

[Eric D]

Great cardinal! Okay, so I won't keep stressing about whether the hardware and software are "good enough." Evidently they are, with reasonable limitations and expectations. (User skill must play a greater role!) I also try BIF photos, mostly using the settings Rob recommends and once in a while I get a "good enough" keeper. But how good is CAF and continuous Low? How about AF and continuous high, perhaps keeping the aperture a bit smaller (if possible) for greater depth of field? (Probably should experiment myself, though!)

(I really appreciate the attitude that new and improved gear does not ensure better photos, although it will represent a drain on the bank account. Best to learn how to use what you have.)

Thanks!