Mourning Dove (a comparison of 800 vs 400)

Allen, Nothing I can do about which camera I used on these images at this point. Maybe
next time I'll try the test with the cameras switched and see what differences I find. Or if
I have assistance, I can shoot both lenses off one camera. But I'll do it only if I figure I
want more detailed information about the differences. No one's paying me to do this
stuff, so it's for my own education.

Here is another set of crops. This time I up resed the image from the 350D/400L to
the same size as the 100% crop image from the 20D/800. No other processing.
More fair given the constraints?

1 350D/400L

Yea that is more fair. Now just a sensor difference. Yea I just did a test and re-edited my above post. It's pretty scary how close the 400mm can come to the 840mm. The noise uptick seems to be the main issue and bg noise can be corrected some with NR. With work a 400mm can get pretty close but there is nothing like having original detail

morehtml wrote in post #3115637
EDIT: I just did a test of 400mm vs 600mm + 1.4TC (840mm) on the 1d MK II N. I took a equal crop area from both images and upped the 400mm image to match the 840mm image. Taken on tripod both at f/5.6 at low shutter speeds but I used MLU and timer. Still the 400mm looks a little oof but you can get the general idea. These are 100% crops

840mm
http://www.allensvisio​ns.com/pics/VIS_7970w.​jpg

400mm
http://www.allensvisio​ns.com/pics/VIS_7969w.​jpg


840mm after Noise Ninja on background
http://www.allensvisio​ns.com/pics/VIS_7970nr​.jpg

400mm after Noise Ninja on background
http://www.allensvisio​ns.com/pics/VIS_7969nr​.jpg

From these samples the 840mm images looks a lot better to me then
the up resed 400mm. Is that your take also?

Edit: I guess we're playing message tag (leap frog?).

jorj7 wrote in post #3115820
From these samples the 840mm images looks a lot better to me then
the up resed 400mm. Is that your take also?

The noise is definitely a issue in the 400 up res but after NR I would say the 400 is at least close. I do have the 600 for a reason but my main point is a good clean 400 shot can give larger primes a run with good PP. These were shot from same distance just to make sure I stated that.

Here's a cleaned up shot from your 400 since we're playing. This def makes them closer but of course you could play with the other one too but the 400 shot benefits most from NR. On birds more mm on a good lens is surely going to get more fine feather detail but the 400 is no slouch.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I'm not going to get into an photo editing contest, that's for sure. But for web presentation
the images from the 400L can hold there own. If you're making a living from selling prints
or photos to magazines, then you'd probably want a little longer, faster lens.

And not that I want to upset the apple cart, but here would be my crude attempt at cleaning
up the image from the 800 using PS Elements.

My $.02 is Assuming you have similar quality glass, the more pixels of the subject you can put on the sensor the better the Image Quality will be.

That is to say if the 400 was shot closer to the subject to equal the size of the 800 subject size seen by the sensor the quality would be the same.

jorj7 wrote in post #3115995
I'm not going to get into an photo editing contest, that's for sure. But for web presentation
the images from the 400L can hold there own. If you're making a living from selling prints
or photos to magazines, then you'd probably want a little longer, faster lens.

And not that I want to upset the apple cart, but here would be my crude attempt at cleaning
up the image from the 800 using PS Elements.

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Good pp. The 800 looks better for sure on yours, I'm not saying it doesn't. And I'm not saying a 400mm shot will ever up res to the same quality as a 800mm good shot. But you're saying the 400 prime lens is not good enough for pro work and only good for web presentation? I assume you mean as your only lens for bird photography OR you mean from these up res images in this post? The 400 can make pro shots for sure. It mainly just has a reach issue for smaller birds.

Allen, I think we basically agree. The 400L is a great bird lens, light, sharp, fast
enough for most things and a person can get very good photos with it. That's why
I own it. But it's useful to have more reach sometimes, and if you have good long
glass, then you can usually get better images from the same distance. Of course if you
have bad long lens technic, then your images can come out a lot worse...

Edit: And I would say, it's a lot easier to take a bad photo with the 500L, 600L or 800EX
then the 400L. The shorter DOF, the ability to hold the lens steady, the extra
weight and size, all make it more difficult to get a good clear shot. If fact, I'm
sure a lot of people would blame the lens for the bad images, instead of upgrading
their own skills at using the lens.

jorj7 wrote in post #3116110
Allen, I think we basically agree. The 400L is a great bird lens, light, sharp, fast
enough for most things and a person can get very good photos with it. That's why
I own it. But it's useful to have more reach sometimes, and if you have good long
glass, then you can usually get better images from the same distance. Of course if you
have bad long lens technic, then your images can come out a lot worse...

Edit: And I would say, it's a lot easier to take a bad photo with the 500L, 600L or 800EX
then the 400L. The shorter DOF, the ability to hold the lens steady, the extra
weight and size, all make it more difficult to get a good clear shot. If fact, I'm
sure a lot of people would blame the lens for the bad images, instead of upgrading
their own skills at using the lens.

Agreed! And if you can get closer a lens like the 400L or 300 2.8 prime especially will probably deliver superior results to the 500mm and 600mm prime lenses. DOF is less on the big super teles though which can be a advantage. If I lived in a place like FL where many large waders are fairly approachable I think a 300 2.8 would see a lot of use for birds. In northern parts of the country reach is more essential.