[aslyfox]

hard to quickly manually focus and catch up with a running squirrel

I got one photo as he ran from one fence post to another and down out of sight

K 3 + Tamron 70 - 300 macro zoom ld (1:2) + focal 2 x teleconverter (manual focus)

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[blumoon722]

Baby squirrel in the backyard

[mohb]

Sigma 150 500

[reh321]

Today I was supposed to pick my wife up after work, so I arrived early on campus with my camera, a K-30, with an AdaptAll 60-300 + 2x TC mounted. It turns out that I would have been better off using my 55-300, because once this little guy became familiar with me, I never needed that much zoom. I guess I need to be thinking about buying a K-70 ... the weather was cloudy, and we spent most of our time in a shady area, so for the first time I've had the K-30, I found myself taking pictures at its maximum ISO=12800 - only the last two were a lower ISO=6400. Here are a few of the pictures I took during the half hour I was following this guy around:




If anyone has seen Rupert, please flip your tail






Come on, somebody must know






Well, I must build my strength for the upcoming Winter!

---

Last edited by reh321; 10-25-2016 at 07:49 PM.

[photolady95]

Rupert was online on the 19th but didn't stay long. I believe he's taking a much needed vacation from the forums. Don't quote me on that, it's what I heard on the grapevine.

Got a couple of squirrels today. Just munching the sunflower seeds I put out this morning.

[normhead]

Another day......

[aslyfox]

"ever get the feeling that someone is looking over your shoulder?" said the squirrel found at the Topeka Zoological Park

K 3 + Tamron AF 70 - 300 mm macro focus ld 1:2, shooting in macro mode (300 mm focal length = 1:2)

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[normhead]

1:2 means the image on your sensor is half the size of the subject in real life. So, you are mis-calcutaing something there. The sensor isn't big enough by about 10x to do a half sized squirrel. and the image appears to be a bit back focussed.
A squirrel, taken years ago with my Sigma 70-300, a very similar lens, with a K20D.


You can see the nice crisp DoF line with out of focus seeds either side of the squirrel, the focal plane runs right thorough him and he's completely in focus... To, me, in your image the focal plane, (which is not as well defined as it could be, meaning you probably have some motion blur) runs right in front of the squirrel, you might try adjusting this lens+5. Given the narrow DOF and the squirrels angle to the camera, you were probably never going to get the whole guy in focus at that distance, but my guess is, you've got a combination of motion blur and a lens that needs adjustment.

I know this isn't a technical thread, but, those things just sort of jumped out at me.Hope you don't mind.

[aslyfox]

1:2 means the image on your sensor is half the size of the subject in real life. So, you are mis-calcutaing something there. The sensor isn't big enough by about 10x to do a half sized squirrel. and the image appears to be a bit back focussed.
A squirrel, taken years ago with my Sigma 70-300, a very similar lens, with a K20D.


You can see the nice crisp DoF line with out of focus seeds either side of the squirrel, the focal plane runs right thorough him and he's completely in focus... To, me, in your image the focal plane, (which is not as well defined as it could be, meaning you probably have some motion blur) runs right in front of the squirrel, you might try adjusting this lens+5. Given the narrow DOF and the squirrels angle to the camera, you were probably never going to get the whole guy in focus at that distance, but my guess is, you've got a combination of motion blur and a lens that needs adjustment.

I know this isn't a technical thread, but, those things just sort of jumped out at me.Hope you don't mind.

thanks for the input, not sure I understand it all, perhaps if you are willing to help further pms would be the way to go???

I don't mind, I hope others won't either. I am admittedly trying to learn but what I said about the lens is what I have read from reviews, are they wrong or am I confused (again)

Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 LD Macro 1:2 AF Review


[quoting from manufacturer's literature] "...maximum magnification of 1:2 at 300 mm setting ... by switching to macro mode, subjects, as close as .95 meters can be shot within the focal range of 180 - 300 mm, for true macro photography"

FM Reviews - Tamron 70-300MM F/4-5.6 LD Macro AF

[normhead]

With that type of lens, set to macro mode, manually crank the lens barrel out to full extension...that will be 1:2. If you want to shoot at 1:2, you pretty much have to crank it out manually in MF and then focus by moving the camera backwards and forward. I don't know about the Tamron, but my Sigma focuses to 7 feet, and only at the closes possible position with the subject 7 feet away is the macro 1:3. Usually even trying to shoot 1:2 I end up with 1:4 or lower.

Here is my Sigma 70-300 probably set to 70mm focussed on infinity for compact storage.


Here is the same lens set for 1:2 macro. 300mm and front element fully extended.


Notice on the extended front tube (the tube closest to the top) , the numbers. Right now you can see it is set to 1:2.But you can also see, you don't have to move it much to be less than 1.2. 1:2 is almost impossible to set up with AF. You really need the camera mounted on a rail that moves the whole body back and forth. I often move the whole tripod until I get it close then let AF do it's thing.

So if that's what your lens looked like when you shot your image, your image was captured at 1:2. If the front element was any closer to the camera, then your magnification was less than 1:2. MY guess from the photo is you weren't close enough to produce a macro image.

A macro lens is usually one that extends it's front element much further out than a normal lens. But if the lens is used without extending the front element, it's just a normal lens. It's not a macro image, just because it's taken with a macro lens.

[photolady95]

That is some interesting info Norm. My squirrel shots are all done with a Sigma 70-300mm set on the macro setting. I was once told the macro setting on my Sigma just meant it would allow me to close focus and not be true macro.

Also, me and camera and lens are less than a 100ft away, set on a tripod with SR turned off too. (still not sure if that helps cause sometimes I forget to turn it off and don't really see that much difference).

[normhead]

That is some interesting info Norm. My squirrel shots are all done with a Sigma 70-300mm set on the macro setting. I was once told the macro setting on my Sigma just meant it would allow me to close focus and not be true macro.

Also, me and camera and lens are less than a 100ft away, set on a tripod with SR turned off too. (still not sure if that helps cause sometimes I forget to turn it off and don't really see that much difference).

The Sigma lens cared if it was set on macro or not when it was new, now it doesn't care at all. Strange that. I think the macro setting was a very cheap limiter, a little knob that got worn flat once you're manually run over it a couple of times... just a guess. Turning SR off when your hand is releasing the shutter is a bad idea. You probably are going to move the camera a bit when you press the shutter release button. Using the 2 second timer and remote are the only times I turn off SR, and setting the camera to a 2 second delay does it for you. Good because you don't have to remember to turn it back on. It's automatic when you turn off the timer.

[photolady95]

Turning SR off when your hand is releasing the shutter is a bad idea. You probably are going to move the camera a bit when you press the shutter release button.

See that's what I thought too. But search this forum and you'll find many posts/threads on the subject and advice from others saying you should turn it off when on a tripod. I think from now on, I'll do as you do. As I said, having it on even on a tripod, I haven't seen any difference.

[normhead]

See that's what I thought too. But search this forum and you'll find many posts/threads on the subject and advice from others saying you should turn it off when on a tripod. I think from now on, I'll do as you do. As I said, having it on even on a tripod, I haven't seen any difference.

There are times when so many people seem to be in agreement, I just let things like this pass. It falls under the category of "it's not that big a deal". I have never once has an image ruined by SR being turned on when shooting on a tripod, and I've taken thousands of them. Sometimes, people are just going to believe what they want. Most of the time I just use the tripod to steady the camera, it's not locked down, to prevent vibration or movement. When tracking squirrels or birds it doesn't make any sense to lock your tripod. So, SR is always on.

[photolady95]

When tracking squirrels or birds it doesn't make any sense to lock your tripod. So, SR is always on.

Well, heck, that makes sense.