Same eagle/crop, different camera/lens . . observations please!

[Steve Foss]

OK gang, this is in no way scientific, but here goes. I was out shooting this afternoon, and came across a 4th-year bald eagle. I wasn't sure if it'd hold still for long, so I hopped out with my Canon 20D rigged with the Canon 100-400L IS (handheld) and got a bunch of shots. The bird hung out, undisturbed, so I boogied back to the truck and came back with the Canon 1D MarkII rigged with the Canon 400L f2.8 (non IS) and Canon 1.4 TC on a Monfrotto 3221 tripod with Graf studio ballhead. Yikes, GRUNT!

There are too many variables, as you'll see, to make a direct comparison of camera body or lens. I shot the 100-400 at f8 because at 400 it's a bit soft unless stopped down. The 400/1.4 TC was shot wide open at f4. Interesting differences in color and sharpness, but since one (IS) was handheld and the other (non IS) was tripod, not really definitive. I use the 100-400L IS all the time, and can assure you that at 1/1000 handheld it was rock solid, so the difference in sharpness is not because of hand motion.

Both images were shot RAW (both cameras are 8.2 Mp and use CR2 format) and were cropped to roughly the same composition/dimensions, then converted to jpeg and saved for Web in Photoshop CS at 80 percent, with NO OTHER MODIFICATIONS for sharpness, contrast, saturation, etc.

Had I been going for a direct comparison of lens/body and such, I'd have set it all up differently, but I was just out to get the best shots. Nevertheless, it might be interesting. Note the difference in basic sharpness. One other note: the image with the 1D MkII is one stop overexposed based on the spot meter to make sure the feathers have enough data (highlights were NOT blown out). The one on the 20D was Av mode (aperature priority) with standard center-weighted metering.

Primes. You gotta love them over zooms every time!

1D MkII, 400L f2.8, Canon 1.4 TC (728mm equivalent), iso400, 1/2500, f4.

20D, 100-400L IS at 400mm (560mm equivalent), iso400, 1/1000, f8.

[floating minnow]

Those are simply stunning.You're going to hate giving up that lens.

[Steve Foss]

Yeah, and they're not even sharpened.

Sigh.

Canon Professional Services is clearly a service organization to support its shooters, and without it I'd not have access to such top-grade prime lenses and such equipment. But, really, no doubt they also enable the addiction to "L" glass and "1" bodies.

Ulterior motives indeed. Dirty buggers.

Mrs. Catfish thinks I want to refinance the house for a lower interest rate. Really, I want to mortage it for a $7,000 1Ds MarkII body and a $6,500 600L f4 lens. She may think she's been a fishing widow before, but wait till she finds out she's become a lens widow, and broke to boot.

D-I-V-O-R-C-E.

[Tom Wilson]

Steve, of course I like these shots, but I do have an observation...

The top photo taken with the 1d and prime, had a dead center on the eye focus--very sharp indeed, especially given the shooting lane that you apparently were shooting through.

In the second photo, the focus nailed the branch above and to the left of the Eagle's eye. I have seen too many of your photos that were tack sharp with that zoom lens, to say that this is a valid comparison between these two photos.

Don't misunderstand me--there is a huge difference between prime glass and sub-glass and that is not the point I'm making here, as there is just nothing in the world like good glass. My point is that I think you nailed that one on top because of the tripod, and the one on the bottom, I believe due to movement, refocused on you at the last second and accepted the branch as your target. The color rendition though is very apparent however. One last question, are you positive about the one stop overexposure? The top photo is a solid 1/3 of a stop underexposed to the bottom photo.

Tom W

[Steve Foss]

Tom, I have to differ on the focus point on image two. I don't believe the branch appears sharper than the eagle's eye. Aside from that, I locked focus on the ealge's eye first on image No. 2, then recomposed the shot. I think the reason that branch looks about as sharp as the eagle's eye is because I shot it at f8. The other image is f4, and in the f4 image the branch looks much more out of focus, as you'd expect with two stops difference in aperature.

As for exposure, I overexposed the top shot one stop compared with its spot meter value. That meant that I spot metered it in Av mode and then went to manual and overexposed a full stop above that origianl spot meter value. It looks different from image No. 2 because the 20D doesn't allow true spot metering, only allowing center-weighted metering. Also, neither of these images was sharpened at all. What I typically post here with my 100-400L IS is sharpened somewhat.

[Tom Wilson]

Steve, I'd never question you're skills brother!

It is just that in the top photo the branch is blurred as it looks like it should be due to the branches distance from the eagle's head. In the second photo, it appears to be much sharper, and to me it appears sharper than the eye, but then I don't have the original to zoom in on. Please, don't think I was second guessing you.

Tom

[Tom Wilson]

Well, dang, look at me being a rank amatuer. I didn't notice you shot the second one at F8...

Please disregard the ignorance in my post--

[Steve Foss]

Tom, I didn't take it as a question of skill, merely of perspective. I think also that I edited my reply before you posted yours, and there's some added info there.

[Steve Foss]

There, you see, it's all good.

[Tom Wilson]

Dang, Again--I didn't read the whole thing--I saw center weighted metering, when I read it the first time, and I made an ASSumption. I don't get enough sleep!!!

Tom

[Steve Foss]

Tom, sleep is overrated. I may look alive in my avatar, but I Photoshopped out the exhausted black bags under my eyes. I'll sleep when I retire!