bird pic using m/f on an s5

i had to use manual focus on this pic as the bird was very close,this is the first time i have used m/f on my s5 and found the magnified centre sqaure very helpfull,i cant remember the s2 doing this does anybody know if the s2 done this?

Now that's what I'm talking about. This is as good or better than anything I have gotten out of my 30D or 40D in three years of trying. Is this hand held, Av Mode? IS on?

Yes, the S2 has a MF point zoom for focusing. Why did being close to the bird require manual focus?

I don't know your camera, but it might be you were on the line between zoom amounts where the lens doesn't want to focus right. But that's just a guess from reading I have done. With results like that, I'd say it doesn't matter.

bjordan
the bird landed about 20 iches in front of me and my s5 simply wouldnt focus on the bird,i tried to focus on the post but had no joy

canonloader
the pic was handheld i wasn,t even leaning on anything,tv mode, is on,the reason i bought this camera is because it is so light and portable,i also own a 350d/100-400 lense ,but the weight of the dslr setup means it restricted to bird reserves/hides,this pic was taken during a very long walk,i often have both cameras with me in the car ,if a bird appears its always the dslr i go for first mainly for the speed of the focusing

kawwauser wrote in post #7200045
bjordan
the bird landed about 20 iches in front of me and my s5 simply wouldnt focus on the bird,i tried to focus on the post but had no joy

canonloader
the pic was handheld i wasn,t even leaning on anything,tv mode, is on,the reason i bought this camera is because it is so light and portable,i also own a 350d/100-400 lense ,but the weight of the dslr setup means it restricted to bird reserves/hides,this pic was taken during a very long walk,i often have both cameras with me in the car ,if a bird appears its always the dslr i go for first mainly for the speed of the focusing

that explains it!
good pic but lucky having the bird get so close (and good that you quickly switched to macro mode)

Hmm haven't had broplems like this before with s5 hope you can get it fixed its really annyoing, but have to admit that the focus speed is nice

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Up till now, I have used a 30D or 40D and 300/4 with a 1.4x for distance shooting. I mean, they are nice cameras, but with results like your getting and others here that I have seen, and most of my shooting being under 20 feet, I don't need the heavy weight or the heavy prices of the bigger bodies. My SX10 comes day after tomorrow and you will see my smile in Scotland when it does.

bobj1 wrote in post #7200063
that explains it!
good pic but lucky having the bird get so close (and good that you quickly switched to macro mode)

I didn't see where he said he used macro mode. If not, that might explain the focus problem. On my s2, "macro" starts at about the same range he was at (50cm).

i used tv mode on this pic, ive tried focusing on objects in my house at the same distance and it seems to be a hit or miss thing,darker objects seem to find focus easily but lighter objects confuse the camera at close range

Tv mode lets you set the shutter speed, "Macro Mode" is available in all shooting modes, including Auto and Tv.

something looks weird in the area around the bird's beak.

c2thew wrote in post #7202569
something looks weird in the area around the bird's beak.

Are you talking about these "crumpled" speckle areas? Those are JPEG artifacts - they show up in high-contrast areas. They're surely not from the camera, they're from saving after PP. The more you compress the image (and the more you open and re-save), the more artifacts you get.

You don't want to re-open and re-save. Open your original, and save it in the editor's native format (or at least in a non-lossy format like png). Re-open, edit, and re-save that all you want. Only when you are DONE do you re-size if needed and save the final version as jpeg.

I use GIMP, and really like the "preview" option. I'm sure PS has the same. I can see exactly what the quality setting is doing to the image, and I can also see what file size I'm going to get. For most purposes, I've found that 85% - 95% quality gives me the best mileage.

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

The wrinkled artifacts generally come from using cheaper editing software and resizing. You almost never get those when using CS3, while earlier versions of Photoshop did show them. It's the algorythms they use for the compressor, not all compression software is created equal.

As to the dots in your original shot, that's dirt from digging worms or food he hasn't wiped off yet.

canonloader wrote in post #7204027
The wrinkled artifacts generally come from using cheaper editing software and resizing. You almost never get those when using CS3, while earlier versions of Photoshop did show them. It's the algorythms they use for the compressor, not all compression software is created equal.

I respectfully disagree. GIMP is cheap (free!) and does a good job at compressing to jpeg. I doubt CS3 is significantly better in that regard. I don't think there exists an algorithm that can compress that image at that size to 78kb without artifacts.

I wouldn't mind being proven wrong - we could start a new thread and do some tests.

Technical details aside, that really is a stellar image. I'm jealous... I'll get one like that someday!