[normhead]

There is simply nothing wrong with this image, accept your lighting was harsh, the eagle is in shadow, and your lens was too short. Even a "not so good" lens like the 50-200 would have given you a much better result but if you look at the Eagle's beak 1:1, it is sharp. It doesn't matter what lens or camera you use, you aren't going to improve much on that level of sharpness.



You might want to go to 400 ISO to increase your DOF and make more of the tree sharp, but really what you want in this picture is a lot less tree, and a lot more resolution on the eagle.

Here's an image taken with an in-expensive Sigma 70-300. The eagle fills much more of the frame and shows a lot more detail. I think you are confusing detail with sharpness. For more detail in this case, a longer lens is the solution. There's not anything you can do with this lens and camera to improve on what you've got. A K-3 would give you more resolution by getting more resolution out of the same size sensor, and a longer lens would get you more resolution through more magnification.



Also note, direct lighting instead of back lighting makes a huge difference in contrast, definition and the appearance of sharpness. Backlit needs perfect exposure to achieve a similar result. On your image, you needed to be at least +1 EV maybe 2. The old rule of thumb used to be " 2 Stops over expose for backlit."

---

Last edited by normhead; 08-04-2015 at 06:26 AM.

[kentster]

There is simply nothing wrong with this image, accept your lighting was harsh, the eagle is in shadow, and your lens was too short. Even a "not so good" lens like the 50-200 would have given you a much better result but if you look at the Eagle's beak 1:1, it is sharp. It doesn't matter what lens or camera you use, you aren't going to improve much on that level of sharpness.



You might want to go to 400 ISO to increase your DOF and make more of the tree sharp, but really what you want in this picture is a lot less tree, and a lot more resolution on the eagle.

Here's an image taken with an in-expensive Sigma 70-300. The eagle fills much more of the frame and shows a lot more detail. I think you are confusing detail with sharpness. For more detail in this case, a longer lens is the solution. There's not anything you can do with this lens and camera to improve on what you've got. A K-3 would give you more resolution by getting more resolution out of the same size sensor, and a longer lens would get you more resolution through more magnification.



Also note, direct lighting instead of back lighting makes a huge difference in contrast, definition and the appearance of sharpness. Backlit needs perfect exposure to achieve a similar result. On your image, you needed to be at least +1 EV maybe 2. The old rule of thumb used to be " 2 Stops over expose for backlit."

I appreciate your input. Your picture is exactly what i was going for. Very nice. I'll add a longer lens to my wish list right behind the k3 or k3II.

"Even a "not so good" lens like the 50-200 would have given you a much better result but if you look at the Eagle's beak 1:1, it is sharp." Were you referring to if I had the lighting/exposure correct? or... the lens i'm using isn't the best? I'm open to all input to become better. Thank you

---------- Post added 08-04-15 at 04:53 PM ----------

wow...is that lens you referred to only couple hundred bucks?

[normhead]

Sorry I made a mistake, for some reason I didn't see you were using a Tamron 70-200 2.8. My guess is the 1.4 TC would be a good investment... much cheaper than any other way of extending your FL. Really 280 and ƒ4 isn't bad. I'd check on the forum to see is anyone else is using that combo, or if there is something better.