Taking bird pictures

[xpatUSA]

Re wing blur I would say there is too much but I would prefer a slight blur at the ends as opposed to no blur at all.

I've never done BIF but is it possible with large birds to sync the snap with wings-up or wings-down -and does anyone use continuous rather than single-shot?

[DanK]

Additionally, some camera/lens combinations can produce better IQ when shot wide open than can other combinations. I often shoot wide open with some tele zooms (such as the Sony 70-350mm) because of the relatively small (f/6.3) maximum aperture at the longest telephoto settings.

Someone who knows more than me, please correct me if I'm wrong, but: the first sentence is clearly true, but I think the second reflects a misconception.

What is relevant to distortion isn't the f-stop number; it's how far out from the center the lens is gathering light. When you shoot wide open, you are going as far from the center as the lens will go. The reason the f-stop is gets larger as you zoom out isn't that the aperture is getting smaller; it's that the focal length is getting longer, and the f-stop is the ratio of the focal length to the aperture.

[Manfred M]

Additionally, some camera/lens combinations can produce better IQ when shot wide open than can other combinations. I often shoot wide open with some tele zooms (such as the Sony 70-350mm) because of the relatively small (f/6.3) maximum aperture at the longest telephoto settings.

Actually both comments are not correct.

Yes, high speed lenses are meant to be shot wide open, but they are not performing at their optical peak. That usually occurs one or two stops down from wide open. If you can find MFT charts of the lens, that will give you a better idea as to what the ideal aperture is.

Dan is quite right about the relatively small maximum aperture. A lens that has more than around a 3x zoom factor is going to have some rather serious trade-offs in optical performance, versus a 70 - 200mm lens. The small aperture does give the lens designer a bit of leeway, but ultimately the f/6.3 aperture at 350mm means a less expensive, lighter lens. I would expect you would have to be down to around f/12 to get maximum resolution.

[Manfred M]

Re wing blur I would say there is too much but I would prefer a slight blur at the ends as opposed to no blur at all.

I've never done BIF but is it possible with large birds to sync the snap with wings-up or wings-down -and does anyone use continuous rather than single-shot?

Most serious bird photographers I know want a shot where the bird in flight is 100% frozen. They often use top of the line DSLRs (not mirrorless cameras which do not focus as fast) and shoot in bursts to get a choice of optimal wing position.

The only bird images where I have seen a bit of "forgiveness" in wing tip motion is with hummingbirds, where freezing motion is impossible unless the lighting conditions are optimal.

Those fast f/4 600mm or f5.6 800mm lenses are very expensive especially when mounted on a top of the line camera with a 14 fps burst mode. Serious bird photographers and serious sport photographers tend to have the most expensive cameras and lenses on the market.

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by rpcrowe Additionally, some camera/lens combinations can produce better IQ when shot wide open than can other combinations. I often shoot wide open with some tele zooms (such as the Sony 70-350mm) because of the relatively small (f/6.3) maximum aperture at the longest telephoto settings.

Someone who knows more than me, please correct me if I'm wrong, but: the first sentence is clearly true, but I think the second reflects a misconception.


What is relevant to distortion isn't the f-stop number; it's how far out from the center the lens is gathering light. When you shoot wide open, you are going as far from the center as the lens will go. The reason the f-stop is gets larger as you [zoom in] isn't that the aperture is getting smaller; it's that the focal length is getting longer, and the f-stop is the ratio of the focal length to the aperture.

I don't know better than Dan, but our Bill Clinton might have have said -it all depends on what the meaning of 'IQ' is-

Did Richard mention distortion per se?

Pleased to say that my Sigma 17-50mm zoom has a constant f-number - so my aperture gets bigger as I zoom in ...

[William W]

. . . The only bird images where I have seen a bit of "forgiveness" in wing tip motion is with hummingbirds, where freezing motion is impossible unless the lighting conditions are optimal. . .

On this particular topic, if one doesn't want forgiveness, then the Hummingbird's wings are frozen using Flash, as there's no point at all, attempting to use Shutter Speed, for that task.

WW

[DanK]

Pleased to say that my Sigma 17-50mm zoom has a constant f-number - so my aperture gets bigger as I zoom in ...

Most of the better, shorter Canon zooms have fixed f-stops, e.g, both 24-70 Ls, all 4 70-200 Ls, and the old standby 24-105. But when you get long, it becomes prohibitive. My 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, with the hood and a Kirk foot, weighs 1.76 kg. If they made it a fixed f/4.5, it would be huge, heavy, and very expensive because of the needed size of the glass elements.

[William W]

Grahame, it was a severe crop, taken at 1/400 f3.2 at 150mm (300 in 35mm parlance) and the ISO was 200

Thanks for posting the image and the technical data.

My advice is take one step at a time: FIRST work on finding and then ALWAYS using a suitable Shutter Speed.

If the lighting is low then bump the ISO, to get to the necessary Shutter Speed;
if you are fully extended at the maximum Focal Length of the lenses you have available, who cares, learn how to creep closer or crop in post;
if you need to use the lens wide open, who cares, use it wide open . . .
but always nail that correct and suitable Shutter Speed - every time.

ONCE you nail the Shutter Speed you can practice your Timing, Anticipation and Framing - because, when you review your shots which have used the correct Shutter Speed you can interrogate them to identify some other matters which need improving WITHOUT the burden of Subject Motion Blur.

This is a suggestion of a progressive training protocol.

Just like swimming, there's no point in learning to swim fast, until you have perfected how to breathe correctly (and there's many other steps too, breathing correctly is just one example of a basic you need to get perfect because it is senseless moving on until you do).

Photography, requires training, too.

WW

BTW - Ole - stay tight, stay safe, and stay focused in Melbourne, we're thinking of you.

[Manfred M]

On this particular topic, if one doesn't want forgiveness, then the Hummingbird's wings are frozen using Flash, as there's no point at all, attempting to use Shutter Speed, for that task.

WW

Your flash comment is one I have heard from some bird photographers.

One of the best hummingbird images I have seen was done by a photographer who had a camera on a tripod with two remotely controlled speedlights. The camera / flash setup was triggered remotely through a sensor that detected a hummingbird heading to a feeder.

Ole should not feel too badly, as this photographer told me that he had taken in the order of 1500 shots with his setup before he got the one good one he showed.

[xpatUSA]

Re wing blur I would say there is too much but I would prefer a slight blur at the [wingtips] as opposed to no blur at all.

My earlier post failed to account for the purpose of the shot. I suppose the "frozen motion" crowd is aiming for a "biological" rendering -as opposed to what the eye-brain combination sees which would be my preference.

So, does a typical flash actually "freeze" a hummingbird's wingtips?

[Manfred M]

My earlier post failed to account for the purpose of the shot. I suppose the "frozen motion" crowd is aiming for a "biological" rendering -as opposed to what the eye-brain combination sees which would be my preference.

So, does a typical flash actually "freeze" a hummingbird's wingtips?

My understanding is that it depends on the species and the rate that they flap their wings varies a lot.

I don't thing Bill is 100% right on the flash, when I look at Daniel Parent's images (Dan is the best bird photographer I know personally). He heads down to South and Central America when he can and has shown some hummers with / without frozen wings. Here is one such shot from Dan's Flickr site:



Dan's Flickr site is: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11107124@N02

He is shooting a Nikon D5 and has the Nikkor f/4 600mm lens (that lens sells for over $US 12,000),

[bhurley]

It's all a matter of taste of course; I've never liked the "frozen" look in birds-in-flight photos. My all-time favourite hummingbird photo is this one, by a photographer who calls himself Sebboh, taken with a manual lens (Minolta Rokkor 58mm 1.4). More impressionistic and definitely provides a sense of motion.

hummer portrait by sebboh, on Flickr

[William W]

My understanding is that it depends on the species and the rate that they flap their wings varies a lot. I don't [think] Bill is 100% right on the flash, . . .

Agreed.

I retract the comment "there's no point at all, attempting to use Shutter Speed, for that task."

Probably enthusiasm to make the point that when their wings are flapping fast, it is really fast, too fast for existing shutter speeds to freeze led me to make a blanket statement: which are often incorrect, as was this one.

WW

[DickyOZ]

Hi Ole,
looking at your image and your comment "What, I wonder, was I doing wrong? "
If you really were using the EM-1.II and the 40-150mm 2.8 PRO I would say "just about everything!"

What settings were you using? For BIF you need a good shutter speed, I usually try for 1/2000. Use IBIS = Auto. That lens is sharp at F2.8 so just wind up the ISO. Use CAF with centre nine squares or even all focus points. For huge targets like that CAF+Tracking will work perfectly with E-M1.II. Practice panning to keep the target in the centre of the frame. I use PRO mode with a slow frame rate and a small number of leading frames. (Otherwise you will rack up a huge number of near identical images) Plus I hate "machine-gun" photography. For BIF I nearly always use electronic shutter. That is a very capable camera that you have got, you just need the right settings and a lot of practice.
If you look on DPReview forums you will find settings used by some of the best photographers in our neck of the woods. Denw, Martin.au and NZMacro post some astonishing good photos - look at their EXIF.

Looking forward to seeing some really sharp images from you.
Regards,
Dicky.

[katto]

Nice pictures

[senojbor]

There is a colony of Ibis near our home and I decided to take some shots. I wanted birds in flight and also landing and taking off. I used my Olympus m1 mk2 with an Oly 40-150mm 2.8.

I took a total of 647 images, all taken at high speed. On uploading the images on my computer I got one solitary picture that was somewhat passable.

I was aware that I was not anticipating correctly a few times in my shot selections but even then to get only one picture out of 647 is quite disappointing.

I did spend time observing the birds before I started taking pictures and I thought I got the right spot, the right time and the right lens.

What, I wonder, was I doing wrong?

I dabbled with bird photography. It's an expensive subject to get into.

So you will needed long fast lens, 500mm ideally.
A portable bird hide, the closer you can can get the better.
You need bright light conditions to get a fast enough shutter.
There are some brilliant bird photographers out there, none better than (Fudgy) Alan McFadyen from Kirkcudbright, Scotland
Seek him out for inspiration and tips

[billtils]

I dabbled with bird photography. It's an expensive subject to get into.

So you will needed long fast lens, 500mm ideally.
A portable bird hide, the closer you can can get the better.
You need bright light conditions to get a fast enough shutter.

Rob, you don't need these. This one was taken with a 70-200 + 1.4TC:



and this one with a 300mm prime + 1.4tc.




Both were shot with a Nikon D810 FF body; the first was indeed from a hide at a red-kite centre but the second was in the wild. Yes the light in both was obviously good but at ISO 400 for the first and ISO 500 for the second, there was plenty of scope for poorer lighting conditions.

[senojbor]

Rob, you don't need these. This one was taken with a 70-200 + 1.4TC:


Both were shot with a Nikon D810 FF body; the first was indeed from a hide at a red-kite centre but the second was in the wild. Yes the light in both was obviously good but at ISO 400 for the first and ISO 500 for the second, there was plenty of scope for poorer lighting conditions.

They are big birds with slow wing beats. Try a swallow in flight or a bird as big as finch?
Different ball game[IMG]Swallow by Robert Jones, on Flickr[/IMG]

[senojbor]

[IMG]Waxwing by Robert Jones, on Flickr[/IMG]

[mariah]

Taking moving object photos are really challenging. You have only one chance at the right time and with a single click you have to finish that job. If you shake your hand even for a tiny little bit your photo will be ruined. It takes plenty of practice and hard work with lots of patient to take a phot of a moving object perfectly without blurring it. If we could see the pictures that you took then e might have suggested you the way to take the pictures or might be able to see the flaw that you are making.