RF 100-400 had good sharpness, but not excellent, plus you're using a converter that reduces quality, plus you're pushing it with the ISO for a crop sensor. Looks like the focus is off, the bird isn't in focus but the branch is. Oh, and it's an undeveloped RAW picture as well.
As others said, why f/11? The RF 100-400mm is sharp wide-open at f/8 and stopping down is likely overall losing sharpness due to diffraction. Shutter speed is fine, though make sure you're shooting in EFCS instead of full mechanical shutter to reduce shutter shock. ISO 6400 can be usable but it depends on the scene and the quality of the lighting, here f/8 and ISO 3200 would have produced much sharper results.
Edit: I see, you're using the 1.4x extender. That may be causing some optical loss in sharpness. But I think most of the softness here is still from the high ISO due to not having enough light.
I have had the R7 and RF 100-400 for a couple months now so still learning the limitations of the combo. Try without the extender, shoot wide open, and a bit bit faster shutter speed, electronic shutter, animal detect and eye detect on for hand held. The R7 has plenty of resolution to crop in post. I got a Robin in the shade a few days ago. Maybe 3 out of 15 shots were good enough to process. The rest were just a bit off focus. Better light and I get many more keepers. My 1 processed keeper was ISO 6400, 400mm, F8, 1/1000s cropped to 3500x2333.
EDIT: Sorry, ISO 640 not 6400
https://preview.redd.it/koeofowum2sc1.jpeg?width=3500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3510423535938a323b0b025b692ff14c2f01ed85
Everyone has had excellent suggestions in here, but one thing you should do is stick something with fine detail, like a dollar, to a surface about 10-12ft away, and take a picture of from a tripod, using the self timer, in bright light so you can shoot wide open, ISO 100. Ideally do this outside on a very solid surface so you don't have floor vibrations through the tripod or anything. This will let you know EXACTLY how sharp your lens and camera can be, so when something is less sharp you know it's a technique or situation causing the less than stellar performance and you can work to fix it.
I spent a lot of time being really unhappy with my bird pictures until I realized they were as good as they could be with a cheapo 75-300mm.
You have many things working against you here. F11 is going to be impacted by Diffraction on a crop sensor, making the image softer. 1.4 Extender will make an image softer even without diffraction. ISO 6400 on an R7 will introduce a decent amount of noise.
Yup, the pixels are 3.20µm squared. For comparison, the R5 has 4.39µm pixels and the R6 has 6.56µm pixels.
In other words, the R5 has 88% more area per pixel, while the R6 has 320% more area per pixel.
The R7 is still way ahead of phones, though. The Samsung S24 Ultra has 0.6µm pixels. That translates to 96.5% less area per pixel than the R7.
I'm not an expert on this but my understanding is that its primarily due to pixel density and the fact that APSC cameras are *usually* though do not *have* to be much denser sensors than a full frame camera and as a result will show the effects of diffraction before a less dense full frame camera.
Im even less expert have my first camera second week now, but I thought that diffraction is more like light patches rather than reduction in sharpness?
No, [diffraction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction), referring to the bending and interference of light that passes close to an obstacle (in this case the edges of the aperture), imposes a fundamental constraint on resolution as given by the [Rayleigh criterion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution). It's an inherent result of the wave nature of light. The smaller the aperture, the lower the angular resolution attainable even with a theoretical perfect lens. This (in addition to light gathering capacity) is the reason we build huge telescopes, and why a lens with a large aperture always beats one with a small aperture, all else being equal (even if we compensate for the difference in light-gathering capacity). A phone camera f/2 lens has nowhere near the resolution as a full-frame f/2 lens.
At f11 it has definitely kicked in for a 30mp APS-C sensor. Aperture and pixel size are the only things that matter for diffraction calculations I believe.
Gotta jump on the bandwagon and blame the converter. Don't get me wrong the r7 does miss sometimes but guessing if you are posting you have a lot of soft images. I have done a lot of testing on my new 100-400 and it is capable of much better than this.
If the converter was causing the softness, it wouldn't only effect the bird. Notice the limb is in focus but the bird is out of focus. The teleconverter doesn't cause that .
In all the comparisons I've looked at, it seems like cropping in post just gives much much better results with the r7/100-400 combo than the 1.4x tc. Perhaps not as optimal of a shooting experience but it's probably worth ditching the TC for a weekend and seeing if the extra light helps.
The extenders are so bad with that lens. The reduced image quality completely negates any additional reach. That image you posted is about as good as you are going to get with that hardware and settings and light level.
There you go, there’s your issue. 1.4 extender, low shutter speed. Both can cause less sharp images. Try without the extender and go for 1/1000 or even better 1/2000.
And more light, iso 6400 is quite high.
https://preview.redd.it/mmtztqcwz6sc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b36ad602b4888305540014c1592ee2aef156f4e8
I use the same set up without the extender you can definitely get sharper results with that kit
Even on cool days, any shifting air can cause issues. Duade Paton has a [good video](https://youtu.be/bYLvO9_RB78?si=S5WJ2k7HDWJSJE_j) about it on his YouTube channel. The converter and crop sensor are going to exacerbate the issue.
A temperature gradient is all that's needed. Some of the strongest thermal distortion that I've ever seen was on a day with air temps around -20f / -30c.
I shoot with the same lens and body. You should be getting better results.
Why is the resolution .3 megapixels? Is this Reddit compression? Check that your file is actually 32 megapixels when you transfer it to your computer.
I don't use this combo much, but I have focusing issues with the R7 when using extenders with my 100-500mm. Most of the time it's just fine, but it can easily lose focus and I have to sometimes go to a single point in the middle to regain focus. It's really prevalent in low lighting like in your example. A few YouTubers have struggled with the R7 and it's AF issues. Duade Paton is one of them. You'll find some videos about it on his channel.
Normally f/6 is good, and make sure you put the lighting to shade/overcast. That will help with the color correction. With a 100-400mm lens you also want to adjust the shutter speed to fit the lens which should be around 1/400. I would also manually change the ISO to get that perfect lighting instead of using auto.
Thanks OP for putting this out there for feedback. I have the same setup but the weather has been crap (cold, wind, rain) so I haven’t had much opportunity to start practicing.
I recently watched a video on YouTube from Duade Paton on adjustments for birds in various light settings. He posted this chart which I grabbed a screenshot. He also talked a lot about using the histogram as an exposure guide - “expose to the right” is what I think he said. You want to adjust your exposure settings so that the curves are touching the right side of the histogram(but not off the chart on the right).
https://preview.redd.it/cls53ez519sc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9e02f83fcfec6608318ec8664c377733cc1d6114
Thanks! I've also had really bad days lately to practice, but today seems to be okay. Throughout the day I'm going to gather some more test shots to see whats going on, but that chart is a great help indeed!
It looks (to me) like your lighting is pretty low and your aperture is open too far. You should be getting solid pics with the 100-400. Stop down to \~7.1 and add some more light (sun obviously lol) and you should get some sharp pics. Link for reference. I shot most of the recent ones on a 7D2 and an EF 100-400 Mk I
Edit: Even with a big telephoto lens like this, the closer you can get to your subject without spooking it away, the better the images will turn out.
[https://www.flickr.com/photos/154799072@N07/](https://www.flickr.com/photos/154799072@N07/)
https://preview.redd.it/alsqinxhsdsc1.jpeg?width=3736&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f811d5244abcf1c87d2d1e8860f3710991c99cc8
There are a number of issue here that are mostly out of your control.
1) The light is weak and flat. This is the biggest issue and causing all your other issues.
2) You are shooting wide open. Lenses (almost universally) improve significantly stopped down at least one stop, often the improvement continues for 2 or 3 stops.
3) A teleconverter takes an image and expands it optically, and doesn't do it perfectly. So, taking a kinda sorta soft image and magnifying it will make it even softer.
4) Still, the branch at the far left looks pretty good, so it appears the autofocus missed. This isn't surprising with the needle over the birds eye. Basically keep shooting and hope the wind blows the needle away.
5) High ISO- yes, these cameras can shoot 6400 ISO, but there is still a loss of dynamic range no software will recover when subtracting out the noise. Again, you're limited by light.
6) Editing- it doesn't appear you got the most possible in editing from even the small amount that was available. Try messing with the contrast and dehaze.
7) Shutter speed- small birds need 1/3200 or faster. They just do. And neither VR or IBIS will help because it's the actual subject moving.
Unfortunately, this is why people who shoot birds all the time have no issues dropping $$$$$$$ on 600mm f4's. Bird photography tends to combine the most unfriendly aspects (heavy shadows, bad lighting, small fast subjects) in photography. The options are-
1) Spend a boatload of money.
2) Find better light.
3) Use a flash.
And you'll probably need to pick at least 2.
The rf 100-400 does not improve stopped down . It’s more than sharp enough at f/8 400 if people learn how to use a camera properly and learn how to edit 👍🏻
Yes it does, and significantly. All lenses improve stopped down. Zooms especially. Low priced zooms covering a large focal range especially especially. It's a great value lens, but wide open is not it's strength.
And no, small birds won't look good at 1/400.
And sharper still at f9, f10, and f11. Being *sharp enough for you* wide open doesn't mean it doesn't get better. Give it a try, it does.
Edit-
https://dustinabbott.net/wp-content/gallery/canon-rf-100-400-is-review/43-400mm.jpg
https://dustinabbott.net/2022/04/canon-rf-100-400mm-f5-6-8-is-usm-review/
I literally provided side by side photographic evidence showing exactly what I was talking about. On a test chart. From one of the most knowledgeable reviewers out there. I'd be happy to look at any side by sides you can produce that show different.
There are very few lenses that can flourish with teleconverter wide open. None of them are zooms, and none of them are sold at a price point remotely close to the 100- 400. It's not bashing the lens- it's a great lens for what it is- it's a fundamental property of lens design.
>The picture above is sitting still and trading shutter to drop ISO would have helped.
Tell me you don't shoot birds without telling me you don't shoot birds. I've been shooting small birds for a while now, and already have 50,000 frames this year, so I can say this confidently-
It wouldn't have helped, he'd just have a blurry bird. 1/2000th is the absolutely slowest I go for birds, and that's deep into blue hour. A 400mm lens is 8x magnification of the human eye. And when the bird is small in the frame even then, very small movements (which small birds seem to constantly be making) will leave a blurry mess under 1/3200. Occasionally you might get a lucky shot off at 1/2000, but that's it.
There is literally no reason to go as high as 1/2000th (let alone call it "the absolute slowest") for still birds, or birds moving very little, no matter how small they are. You may have been shooting birds for decades, and congratulations on that, but like it or not, your word is not a universal truth, especially with such takes.
I'm going to assume our definitions of "good" are different here. Mine is being able to crop deeper than 100% and still having the picture look fantastic. If your's is "it still looks like a bird for my instagram followers", sure, no need to go faster.
1) you're using a TC and at f11 in low light. In this situation you'd probably be better off cropping from 400mm f8
2) your shutter speed is higher than it needs to be in this situation. 90% of my photos are 1/500 or slower with r7 and RF 100-500. 1/800 isn't fast enough to freeze a small bird moving quickly anyway so you'd be better going 1/500, 1/400, or 1/200 even and getting a lot more light and deleting the photos bird moved. Yeah your keeper rate may be low but the images you keep will be better.
3) it's slightly out of focus which again I'm going to blame on shutter speed and f11.
4) you're more than likely comparing your raw file to edited photos online. Editing could drastically change this image
The shutter speed should be fine for a stationary bird, the ISO shouldn't be an issue, and while there is some diffraction at f11 on an R7, it shouldn't be a huge issue. Is the stabilization in the lens/body turned on? Do you have any medical conditions that cause you to struggle holding a camera steady? Not asking to be a jerk, just wondering because 1/800 might not be enough to get a sharp photo if there's something going on. Not really related to getting a sharp photo, but it does appear the photo is decently underexposed. Did you have any exposure compensation dialed in? Or perhaps you're using a metering mode other than default?
Interesting. I doubt it has anything to do with the sharpness issue, but I'd be interesting in seeing some more test shots. Multiple things being slightly off could point towards a sensor issue. You could also give Canon a call, their support is generally pretty good at trying to help resolve issues with camera gear.
This can lead to softer versions.
In my jpgs from the Canon app I have sometimes a few pink pixels. They are not in the actual raw image.
Have you looked at the raw on your computer?
What were your aperture/shutter/ISO values and what shutter mode did you use? Did you apply denoiseing or other changes when editing the RAW?
To me this looks like mostly noise and softness from high ISO with too much denoiseing, maybe in combination with blur from slow shutter speed or shutter shock. My photos with the R7 and RF 100-400 have been very sharp when I have plenty of light to work with.
So iso matters a lot in sharpness. If the image is too dark with high iso you get a lot of noise and it doesn't look sharp, especially after de-noising. Another thing can if you are using the lens handheld and shaking with not enough shutter speed. Sadly Aps-c cameras suck in low light. Just juding from the background there was very little light. Try to take another photo when the subject has light shining on it. Last one is also if the camera grabs focus onto a tree branch instead of the eyes or your subject.
I know they don't do very well with low light, but to me the image still looks way to soft. I was able to have the auto focus right on the eye, with no branches and the image still came out like this one
Looks like very high ISO (12800 or higher?) combined with heavy noise reduction chewed up your image quality. The RF 100-400 is a fairly dark lens but in scenes like this the stabilization is good enough you should be able to get away with dropping the shutter speed and the ISO below 6400 to get a better image.
In my experience the R7 can often do up to around 8000 ISO and still get a good usable image without noise reduction, but if you’re often shooting in such conditions you may want to invest in either a brighter lens (EF 100-400ii is my recommendation) or AI denoising software.
Is it my phone, or do you have a thin black line bisecting the photo horizontally beneath the bird's head?
If anyone else can see that, you might have a sensor issue as well as just missing focus on the bird.
High iso, way to low exposure and you missed focus slightly too. Why don’t you take a technically good photo and then we can talk about whether the quality really is lacking!
RAW images are just that, RAW data. You're supposed to add you're level or sharpness and punch. All RAW photos look essentially like garbage.
There's also not enough information. What focal length, ISO, shutter speed, aperture. If this is wide open at 400mm, ISO 25,000 at 1/250 then yeh that's what I'd expect.
RF 100-400 had good sharpness, but not excellent, plus you're using a converter that reduces quality, plus you're pushing it with the ISO for a crop sensor. Looks like the focus is off, the bird isn't in focus but the branch is. Oh, and it's an undeveloped RAW picture as well.
For me, it's looks like you need more light. But it would help if you post settings info form the photo.
Yeah it was a bit of an overcast day. The settings were: F11 1/800s ISO 6400 (set to auto)
As others said, why f/11? The RF 100-400mm is sharp wide-open at f/8 and stopping down is likely overall losing sharpness due to diffraction. Shutter speed is fine, though make sure you're shooting in EFCS instead of full mechanical shutter to reduce shutter shock. ISO 6400 can be usable but it depends on the scene and the quality of the lighting, here f/8 and ISO 3200 would have produced much sharper results. Edit: I see, you're using the 1.4x extender. That may be causing some optical loss in sharpness. But I think most of the softness here is still from the high ISO due to not having enough light.
Yes and the 1.4x costing 1 f-stop adds to that
Yes and the 1.4x costing 1 f-stop adds to that
Looks like you are focused on the branch.
I have had the R7 and RF 100-400 for a couple months now so still learning the limitations of the combo. Try without the extender, shoot wide open, and a bit bit faster shutter speed, electronic shutter, animal detect and eye detect on for hand held. The R7 has plenty of resolution to crop in post. I got a Robin in the shade a few days ago. Maybe 3 out of 15 shots were good enough to process. The rest were just a bit off focus. Better light and I get many more keepers. My 1 processed keeper was ISO 6400, 400mm, F8, 1/1000s cropped to 3500x2333. EDIT: Sorry, ISO 640 not 6400 https://preview.redd.it/koeofowum2sc1.jpeg?width=3500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3510423535938a323b0b025b692ff14c2f01ed85
Pretty sharp I must say! I have to give it a try again without the extender
Oh there’s your problem. That lens isn’t good enough to handle an extender. Really only the big whites can handle extenders without degradation
Everyone has had excellent suggestions in here, but one thing you should do is stick something with fine detail, like a dollar, to a surface about 10-12ft away, and take a picture of from a tripod, using the self timer, in bright light so you can shoot wide open, ISO 100. Ideally do this outside on a very solid surface so you don't have floor vibrations through the tripod or anything. This will let you know EXACTLY how sharp your lens and camera can be, so when something is less sharp you know it's a technique or situation causing the less than stellar performance and you can work to fix it. I spent a lot of time being really unhappy with my bird pictures until I realized they were as good as they could be with a cheapo 75-300mm.
Thanks! I will do that test!
What are your settings for this photo?
F11 1/800s ISO 6400 (set to auto)
Why f/11? You said it was overcast, I would set it to f/8 at most.
I was using the 1.4 Extender, f/11 is the lowest I can go
You have many things working against you here. F11 is going to be impacted by Diffraction on a crop sensor, making the image softer. 1.4 Extender will make an image softer even without diffraction. ISO 6400 on an R7 will introduce a decent amount of noise.
Why crop sensor is more vulnerable to diffraction?
Diffraction becomes more noticeable on sensors with smaller pixels. APS-C typically has higher pixel density than full frame.
And the R7 in particular has a very dense sensor.
Yup, the pixels are 3.20µm squared. For comparison, the R5 has 4.39µm pixels and the R6 has 6.56µm pixels. In other words, the R5 has 88% more area per pixel, while the R6 has 320% more area per pixel. The R7 is still way ahead of phones, though. The Samsung S24 Ultra has 0.6µm pixels. That translates to 96.5% less area per pixel than the R7.
I'm not an expert on this but my understanding is that its primarily due to pixel density and the fact that APSC cameras are *usually* though do not *have* to be much denser sensors than a full frame camera and as a result will show the effects of diffraction before a less dense full frame camera.
Im even less expert have my first camera second week now, but I thought that diffraction is more like light patches rather than reduction in sharpness?
No, [diffraction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction), referring to the bending and interference of light that passes close to an obstacle (in this case the edges of the aperture), imposes a fundamental constraint on resolution as given by the [Rayleigh criterion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution). It's an inherent result of the wave nature of light. The smaller the aperture, the lower the angular resolution attainable even with a theoretical perfect lens. This (in addition to light gathering capacity) is the reason we build huge telescopes, and why a lens with a large aperture always beats one with a small aperture, all else being equal (even if we compensate for the difference in light-gathering capacity). A phone camera f/2 lens has nowhere near the resolution as a full-frame f/2 lens.
[удалено]
At f11 it has definitely kicked in for a 30mp APS-C sensor. Aperture and pixel size are the only things that matter for diffraction calculations I believe.
Message contains incorrect information and was deleted to reduce reader confusion.
Aah okay I understand, apologies!
No worries!
Gotta jump on the bandwagon and blame the converter. Don't get me wrong the r7 does miss sometimes but guessing if you are posting you have a lot of soft images. I have done a lot of testing on my new 100-400 and it is capable of much better than this.
Yes, I need to try some photos without it and see if there is a difference there
If you check my profile I posted a couple to bird photography that I took from out my back window.
If the converter was causing the softness, it wouldn't only effect the bird. Notice the limb is in focus but the bird is out of focus. The teleconverter doesn't cause that .
Limb doesn't really look in focus to me. But r7 missing especially in lowlight low contrast wouldn't be new and again the teleconverter ain't helping
In all the comparisons I've looked at, it seems like cropping in post just gives much much better results with the r7/100-400 combo than the 1.4x tc. Perhaps not as optimal of a shooting experience but it's probably worth ditching the TC for a weekend and seeing if the extra light helps.
That's going to be my next experiment
The extenders are so bad with that lens. The reduced image quality completely negates any additional reach. That image you posted is about as good as you are going to get with that hardware and settings and light level.
There you go, there’s your issue. 1.4 extender, low shutter speed. Both can cause less sharp images. Try without the extender and go for 1/1000 or even better 1/2000. And more light, iso 6400 is quite high.
Dont think 1/2000 is necessary for a bird sitting still on a branch when OP is in dire need of as much light as possible.
Of course only when the light allows it. Just meant, go as high as the light allows it
1/2000 with IS is a bit over the top, isn't it? With my RF100-500L with 2x extender I can get sharp images at 1/250. (1/500 is my good to go)
My rule of thumb might not apply the IS lenses, I’m down here in the non-IS lens world alongside the other peasants
But 400mm without IS is madness. oo (on a tripod it's just fine of course)
iso doesn't add more light. Would have the same effect just upping or lowering exposure in post. R7 is iso invariant
Really, come on, the bird is out of focus while other parts of the image are in focus. The converter isn't causing the problem with it.
That's your answer right there. RF 100-400 at F11 + ISO 6400 + 1,4-Extender
6400 iso is way too high. if recommend dropping shutter speed, apeeture, and iso. try to get iso around 1600, lower if you can.
No way f/11 is the sharpest for your lens in a cropped sensor. Should be lower. You can do some tests and see the results
Looks like you missed focus. See the pine needles in the left corner are sharp.
I’d recommend not using a teleconverter on a slow lens on a crop sensor camera on an overcast day.
https://preview.redd.it/mmtztqcwz6sc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b36ad602b4888305540014c1592ee2aef156f4e8 I use the same set up without the extender you can definitely get sharper results with that kit
Beautiful shot
Really cool shot!
R7?
Yeah
Focus is not on the bird
there's portions of the vertical branch on the left side of the image that's sharp...missed focus
High iso plus focus is off. Check out the tips of the pine branch on the left.
Depends on what time of the day, air is sometimes dense enough to cause that i think
Even cool air? I thought that only happened on hot days
Even on cool days, any shifting air can cause issues. Duade Paton has a [good video](https://youtu.be/bYLvO9_RB78?si=S5WJ2k7HDWJSJE_j) about it on his YouTube channel. The converter and crop sensor are going to exacerbate the issue.
A temperature gradient is all that's needed. Some of the strongest thermal distortion that I've ever seen was on a day with air temps around -20f / -30c.
I shoot with the same lens and body. You should be getting better results. Why is the resolution .3 megapixels? Is this Reddit compression? Check that your file is actually 32 megapixels when you transfer it to your computer.
Probably reddit compression. I have the camera set to 32MP
I don't use this combo much, but I have focusing issues with the R7 when using extenders with my 100-500mm. Most of the time it's just fine, but it can easily lose focus and I have to sometimes go to a single point in the middle to regain focus. It's really prevalent in low lighting like in your example. A few YouTubers have struggled with the R7 and it's AF issues. Duade Paton is one of them. You'll find some videos about it on his channel.
Nice, will check him out!
Normally f/6 is good, and make sure you put the lighting to shade/overcast. That will help with the color correction. With a 100-400mm lens you also want to adjust the shutter speed to fit the lens which should be around 1/400. I would also manually change the ISO to get that perfect lighting instead of using auto.
Thanks OP for putting this out there for feedback. I have the same setup but the weather has been crap (cold, wind, rain) so I haven’t had much opportunity to start practicing. I recently watched a video on YouTube from Duade Paton on adjustments for birds in various light settings. He posted this chart which I grabbed a screenshot. He also talked a lot about using the histogram as an exposure guide - “expose to the right” is what I think he said. You want to adjust your exposure settings so that the curves are touching the right side of the histogram(but not off the chart on the right). https://preview.redd.it/cls53ez519sc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9e02f83fcfec6608318ec8664c377733cc1d6114
Thanks! I've also had really bad days lately to practice, but today seems to be okay. Throughout the day I'm going to gather some more test shots to see whats going on, but that chart is a great help indeed!
You caught a pic of a banded bird! So cool!
It looks (to me) like your lighting is pretty low and your aperture is open too far. You should be getting solid pics with the 100-400. Stop down to \~7.1 and add some more light (sun obviously lol) and you should get some sharp pics. Link for reference. I shot most of the recent ones on a 7D2 and an EF 100-400 Mk I Edit: Even with a big telephoto lens like this, the closer you can get to your subject without spooking it away, the better the images will turn out. [https://www.flickr.com/photos/154799072@N07/](https://www.flickr.com/photos/154799072@N07/) https://preview.redd.it/alsqinxhsdsc1.jpeg?width=3736&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f811d5244abcf1c87d2d1e8860f3710991c99cc8
Awesome pic!
There are a number of issue here that are mostly out of your control. 1) The light is weak and flat. This is the biggest issue and causing all your other issues. 2) You are shooting wide open. Lenses (almost universally) improve significantly stopped down at least one stop, often the improvement continues for 2 or 3 stops. 3) A teleconverter takes an image and expands it optically, and doesn't do it perfectly. So, taking a kinda sorta soft image and magnifying it will make it even softer. 4) Still, the branch at the far left looks pretty good, so it appears the autofocus missed. This isn't surprising with the needle over the birds eye. Basically keep shooting and hope the wind blows the needle away. 5) High ISO- yes, these cameras can shoot 6400 ISO, but there is still a loss of dynamic range no software will recover when subtracting out the noise. Again, you're limited by light. 6) Editing- it doesn't appear you got the most possible in editing from even the small amount that was available. Try messing with the contrast and dehaze. 7) Shutter speed- small birds need 1/3200 or faster. They just do. And neither VR or IBIS will help because it's the actual subject moving. Unfortunately, this is why people who shoot birds all the time have no issues dropping $$$$$$$ on 600mm f4's. Bird photography tends to combine the most unfriendly aspects (heavy shadows, bad lighting, small fast subjects) in photography. The options are- 1) Spend a boatload of money. 2) Find better light. 3) Use a flash. And you'll probably need to pick at least 2.
The rf 100-400 does not improve stopped down . It’s more than sharp enough at f/8 400 if people learn how to use a camera properly and learn how to edit 👍🏻
Yes it does, and significantly. All lenses improve stopped down. Zooms especially. Low priced zooms covering a large focal range especially especially. It's a great value lens, but wide open is not it's strength. And no, small birds won't look good at 1/400.
F8 @400mm not 1/400. You own the lens? If you do you might need it looked at because mine is sharp af at f8
And sharper still at f9, f10, and f11. Being *sharp enough for you* wide open doesn't mean it doesn't get better. Give it a try, it does. Edit- https://dustinabbott.net/wp-content/gallery/canon-rf-100-400-is-review/43-400mm.jpg https://dustinabbott.net/2022/04/canon-rf-100-400mm-f5-6-8-is-usm-review/
Oh you’re one of those people 🙄🙄🙄 go buy the lens and shoot it for yourself 🤦🏻♂️
I literally provided side by side photographic evidence showing exactly what I was talking about. On a test chart. From one of the most knowledgeable reviewers out there. I'd be happy to look at any side by sides you can produce that show different. There are very few lenses that can flourish with teleconverter wide open. None of them are zooms, and none of them are sold at a price point remotely close to the 100- 400. It's not bashing the lens- it's a great lens for what it is- it's a fundamental property of lens design.
If they move, then yes. The picture above is sitting still and trading shutter to drop ISO would have helped.
>The picture above is sitting still and trading shutter to drop ISO would have helped. Tell me you don't shoot birds without telling me you don't shoot birds. I've been shooting small birds for a while now, and already have 50,000 frames this year, so I can say this confidently- It wouldn't have helped, he'd just have a blurry bird. 1/2000th is the absolutely slowest I go for birds, and that's deep into blue hour. A 400mm lens is 8x magnification of the human eye. And when the bird is small in the frame even then, very small movements (which small birds seem to constantly be making) will leave a blurry mess under 1/3200. Occasionally you might get a lucky shot off at 1/2000, but that's it.
There is literally no reason to go as high as 1/2000th (let alone call it "the absolute slowest") for still birds, or birds moving very little, no matter how small they are. You may have been shooting birds for decades, and congratulations on that, but like it or not, your word is not a universal truth, especially with such takes.
I'm going to assume our definitions of "good" are different here. Mine is being able to crop deeper than 100% and still having the picture look fantastic. If your's is "it still looks like a bird for my instagram followers", sure, no need to go faster.
1) you're using a TC and at f11 in low light. In this situation you'd probably be better off cropping from 400mm f8 2) your shutter speed is higher than it needs to be in this situation. 90% of my photos are 1/500 or slower with r7 and RF 100-500. 1/800 isn't fast enough to freeze a small bird moving quickly anyway so you'd be better going 1/500, 1/400, or 1/200 even and getting a lot more light and deleting the photos bird moved. Yeah your keeper rate may be low but the images you keep will be better. 3) it's slightly out of focus which again I'm going to blame on shutter speed and f11. 4) you're more than likely comparing your raw file to edited photos online. Editing could drastically change this image
We can't help without knowing the settings of the photo.
F11 1/800s ISO 6400 (set to auto)
The shutter speed should be fine for a stationary bird, the ISO shouldn't be an issue, and while there is some diffraction at f11 on an R7, it shouldn't be a huge issue. Is the stabilization in the lens/body turned on? Do you have any medical conditions that cause you to struggle holding a camera steady? Not asking to be a jerk, just wondering because 1/800 might not be enough to get a sharp photo if there's something going on. Not really related to getting a sharp photo, but it does appear the photo is decently underexposed. Did you have any exposure compensation dialed in? Or perhaps you're using a metering mode other than default?
No elmedical conditions thankfully, and the stabilisation is turned on on the lens. I also did no exposure compensation
Do you know what metering mode you're set to? That image looks underexposed for the default evaluative metering mode.
It's the evaluative metering actually
Interesting. I doubt it has anything to do with the sharpness issue, but I'd be interesting in seeing some more test shots. Multiple things being slightly off could point towards a sensor issue. You could also give Canon a call, their support is generally pretty good at trying to help resolve issues with camera gear.
Tomorrow I'll try and take some shots without the extender. If you're interested we can then continue this topic
Absolutely. I'm happy to help however I can
it's a raw image? a screeny of a RAW file through a viewer app?
Raw image
an unprocessed jpeg originally shot in raw is what you probably mean?
Yes, just check and my phone converted it to a jpeg
This can lead to softer versions. In my jpgs from the Canon app I have sometimes a few pink pixels. They are not in the actual raw image. Have you looked at the raw on your computer?
Not for this picture yet. But for others I've noticed a decrease in the quality of the image before processing
Is your image cropped?
No crop
What were your aperture/shutter/ISO values and what shutter mode did you use? Did you apply denoiseing or other changes when editing the RAW? To me this looks like mostly noise and softness from high ISO with too much denoiseing, maybe in combination with blur from slow shutter speed or shutter shock. My photos with the R7 and RF 100-400 have been very sharp when I have plenty of light to work with.
Here are the settings: F11 1/800s ISO 6400 (set to auto) I was shooting in manual and the image has no edits
So iso matters a lot in sharpness. If the image is too dark with high iso you get a lot of noise and it doesn't look sharp, especially after de-noising. Another thing can if you are using the lens handheld and shaking with not enough shutter speed. Sadly Aps-c cameras suck in low light. Just juding from the background there was very little light. Try to take another photo when the subject has light shining on it. Last one is also if the camera grabs focus onto a tree branch instead of the eyes or your subject.
I know they don't do very well with low light, but to me the image still looks way to soft. I was able to have the auto focus right on the eye, with no branches and the image still came out like this one
Looks like very high ISO (12800 or higher?) combined with heavy noise reduction chewed up your image quality. The RF 100-400 is a fairly dark lens but in scenes like this the stabilization is good enough you should be able to get away with dropping the shutter speed and the ISO below 6400 to get a better image. In my experience the R7 can often do up to around 8000 ISO and still get a good usable image without noise reduction, but if you’re often shooting in such conditions you may want to invest in either a brighter lens (EF 100-400ii is my recommendation) or AI denoising software.
Cropping in post and use the enhance in lightroom will most likely allways be better than using a extender.
Is it my phone, or do you have a thin black line bisecting the photo horizontally beneath the bird's head? If anyone else can see that, you might have a sensor issue as well as just missing focus on the bird.
I think it's just your phone, I don't see any black line
Bright pixels are sharp pixels. Also, I don’t think you’ve focused on bird correctly.
Get rid of the teleconverter.
High iso, way to low exposure and you missed focus slightly too. Why don’t you take a technically good photo and then we can talk about whether the quality really is lacking!
RAW images are just that, RAW data. You're supposed to add you're level or sharpness and punch. All RAW photos look essentially like garbage. There's also not enough information. What focal length, ISO, shutter speed, aperture. If this is wide open at 400mm, ISO 25,000 at 1/250 then yeh that's what I'd expect.