Blackbird

One from this afternoon in the garden with the K10 and DA* 300mm



Peter

Very lovely and even lightning. That's very nice indeed....Very tricky to get that good. I have tried a lot the last few weeks. Didn't even get close

The secret is in the silkypix processing !!!

I just let the camera do its thing on matrix metering.

ps nimitz..... love your entry for this weeks competition.

Thanks a lot!

That DA* seems to very decent as well

I really need to save some cash soon.

Just got enough for the 50-135 - and will send Chris from SRS an email shortly

Can I just say, without trying to be rude, that I am not impressed by the quality in this shot? I've always shied away from making comments like this as I didn't feel qualified to say so, but having seen this shot posted today by terje-l (hope you don't mind buddy!)




which was taken with a 'consumer' lens (Sigma 70-300mm APO), I would be very disappointed with results like these.

Please don't take this the wrong way, just trying to get my head round why one shot looks so much better than the other, especially when I have my eyes on the DA*300mm myself.

I know its not a direct comparison, and I know you cannot tell much from photos this small on the web, but if you showed these 2 shots to someone who didn't know any better and told them that one shot was taken with a £150 lens, the other with a £850 lens, i know which one they would pick.

If however this was a massive crop, and you are only showing a very small part of the original shot, I could understand more. Again, not trying to be rude, just trying to understand!

I have just posted in the general forum about sharpening tecniques , because I am thinking on the same likes as you. I was pleased with my shot but feel there is something lacking !

I dont know if it is my sharpening technique, or the fact my picture is taken in dull shade, but i too was taken aback by the great lion picture.

I have been doing digital for 3 years now , and still need to learn more.

Peter

Hi Unlocker,
I don't mind your using my entry as an example, but I think you have some explanation to do. What do you mean by saying (quote) I would be very disappointed with results like these (unquote)?

And what is a 'consumer' lens as compared to others?

By the way, here is the picture straight from the camera, except reduced to the nominal 800 pixels:

That didn't come across very well did it?!

When I said I was disappointed with the results, I was referring to the original Blackbird shot. I used your shot of the lions because I thought it was very very good for the lens used.

The consumer zoom comment was one picked up from hanging around here so much! I may have used it out of context, but what I was trying to say is that the DA* range of lenses are classed as 'professional grade' whereas all the cheaper zoom lenses are classed as 'consumer grade'

Effectively your far cheaper lens has produced some very good quality work, whereas the shot taken from the DA* doesn't appear to be to be anywhere near as good (to me). From a lens that costs nearly 6 times as much (!), I was expecting more.

Honestly, no offence intended there at all, and if any was taken I apologise! I actually used your shot as an example, because it stood out so well, and thought it was really really good!

Thank you, Unlocker!

Now I understand completely what you were aiming at. As always, communication is a wonderful thing. I was rather pleased with the lion picture myself.

Having said that, I think the blackbird looks very good on my monitor, very sharp and detailed, with a nice bokeh.

Unlocker - what is wrong with the quality of the black bird shot? I find it very good - good sharpness, nice bokeh and spot on metering....

I know the light could be different if the shot was taken in the morning or the evening - but that is something that has nothing to do with the lens...

Your 2 posts left me wondering about which faults you are looking at - please tell me as I consider to buy this lens very soon.

Agree that the shot is well taken, well exposed, good detail on the feathers, but it doesn't 'jump out of the screen' to me like the lion shot does.

It just doesn't seem to have the definition I was hoping to see from such a well regarded lens, and like you I'm very close to pulling the trigger on buying one myself, but just comparing these 2 shots side by side, the lion shot definately does look sharper / more defined to my eyes.

There are probably many reasons for this, and yes, it could just be me, but having now viewed it on a calibrated MAC screen at home, and my PC screens at work, it's still the lion shot that looks a lot sharper (again, only using the lion shot as an example as they were both posted on the same day).

It could be that the blackbird is right on the edge of the depth of field? Or it was shot wide open, therefore not as sharp as it could be? Or as Peter has suggested himself it could be his sharpening technique? It could just be that I am being overly critical? It could be that Terry's shot had absolutely ideal conditions, and Peter's conditions were not as good?

Either way, I am looking at replacing my Sigma 70-300 with a DA*300, and based purely on the evidence of comparing these 2 shots, I have doubts / questions that I thought I should ask.

Again I would like to stress that I'm not trying to knock anyone here or start an argument, and if anyone is offended, I apologise, but I'm just trying to understand the difference in the quality of comparing these 2 shots side by side at the respective price points of the 2 lenses used.

Here are 2 more images of the same raw file , all processd direct in silkypix, the first at the emphatic sharp setting, and the second at the exagerate sharp setting. I applied an unsharp mask (140;0.8;1) to both.

Let me know what you think.... I will get the hang of this sharpening if it kills me !

I know how you feel about getting it right, it's a science in itself!

The 1st one looks a lot better to me, as I can now see detail (feathers?) under the beak that I could not see in the original shot, also the colours look a bit better.

The 2nd one is possibly oversharpened just a bit too much?

Personally I think they are both over-sharpened, but only a little in the case of the first one.

However, it's an improvement on the original.

It's a little unfair to compare this picture with the lions. In the latter, the quality of the light is quite exceptional, and that's nothing to do with the lens (although the lens has certainly not detracted from it).

G

PS: Over-sharpened is always too much.