Some more birds

[Jeremy Payne]

Here are some selects from stuff I shot last summer.  I just got a nice new monitor and I'm reviewing a lot of older stuff ...

Let me know what you think ... all shot on the D700 with the 70-200VR - most with a 1.7x TC.  I like that combo.

[dalethorn]

All very good - no. 3 and 4 have a "you are there" look that's amazing. A lot of times when a background is blurred that effect is lost, but in these two the foreground/background is very natural and realistic.  I also like #2 very much, and can't explain exactly why - it's just right somehow.

[Hans Kruse]

Here are some selects from stuff I shot last summer.  I just got a nice new monitor and I'm reviewing a lot of older stuff ...

Let me know what you think ... all shot on the D700 with the 70-200VR - most with a 1.7x TC.  I like that combo.



I have a problem with the sharpness of the head and eyes of the bird. The background bokeh is not so great either with the branches. I know this is how it is and likely you were not able to change this. You also shot a very high ISO which has taken some of the clarity. Maybe no other choice.



I like the simple graphic quality of this image despite I can't really see the commorant. Although I'm not much in favor of placing the bird where it is, I think it kind of works in this case.



Too many disturbing things and too far from the heron. The landscape itself it not interesting enough to "carry" the distant bird.



The foreground is not adding to the image. I think you are too far away as in the previous image. Also not so good to place the forward flying heron 1/3 to the right boundary of the image.



This one does not work for me.



Same with this one. Never shoot a bird from behind, unless there is a really good reason.

I have made my comments on the images after each image.

It looks as I'm very negative here, but you ask for opinions and as bird photos they don't really work for me. You need a longer lens or find a way to get closer to the birds and spend lots of time waiting for the moment. Be carefull about focus and avoid very high ISO's if you can even with this camera. Also I mostly don't favor b&w for such photos.

[RSL]

Jeremy, Sorry, but I'm with Hans. You do need to get in closer. I don't necessarily agree with Hans about the high ISOs. You made that first shot at ISO 3200, which, with the D700 isn't bad as long as the light's good. the 1/125 second should have left you with very little noise. The problem is that on the web you're looking at something like a 72ppi image in sRGB, compressed with .JPEG compression, so it's almost impossible to tell how sharp the picture actually is. With the D3 and the D700 you can afford to crank up the ISO and not have to worry too much about noise. The only time I'd be concerned about noise would be if I had some important dark areas where color noise might creep in. When I shoot birds I have my D3 set up for auto ISO and I'm usually shooting at f/8 and 1/1000th second with continuous tracking turned on and all focussing sensors on (51 points with 3D tracking). I don't think I've seen a shot that ended up with ISO above 4000. Usually it's considerably less than that. In any case it seems to work.

[Jeremy Payne]

I have made my comments on the images after each image.

It looks as I'm very negative here, but you ask for opinions and as bird photos they don't really work for me. You need a longer lens or find a way to get closer to the birds and spend lots of time waiting for the moment. Be carefull about focus and avoid very high ISO's if you can even with this camera. Also I mostly don't favor b&w for such photos.

Don't worry about giving criticism!  All good comments.

These photos all come from the very first few days I owned the D700 ... before that I had never even used a real auto-focus system before (only P&S)!  My previous SLR was an Olympus OM-2s ...

[Hans Kruse]

Don't worry about giving criticism!  All good comments.

These photos all come from the very first few days I owned the D700 ... before that I had never even used a real auto-focus system before (only P&S)!  My previous SLR was an Olympus OM-2s ...

Hi Jeremy,

That's good. With the Internet we are to communicate world wide and we often see cultural differences in how we express our opinions. Where I come from in Denmark (and Scandinavia) we often express ourselves fairly direct and in other cultures like American, Japan, Spain, etc. this can vary quite a bit to where a lot of "translation" is needed to understand what the real message and opinions are. But thanks for taking the honest opinions as welcomes critique. We only get better by knowing what works and what does not work and why.

Regarding bird photography and the fact that you now a top rate camera and if you really are interested in this, my recommendation is to get a longer lens. As long ad heavy as you can afford and carry   In addition study teh behavior of the birds and learn how to get closer and to predict what they will do next so you can get the shots you really want to have. I think good bird shots are a mix of closeups and others showing the birds in context of their environment. So spending time on where to position yourself to get a good environment and framing of the landscape is worth while and needed. Take lots of shots and go home and be your worst and hardest critiquer. Also look for the good light and avoid the middle of the day in most situations.

Just my 2c  

[Jeremy Payne]

Thanks!  I would like to get better at shooting wildlife ... I've got a knack for shooting landscapes, but I'm a real novice when it comes to shooting things that might move with a long lens!

I'm getting better ... the kids give me a lot of practice ...

PS ... I'm a thick-skinned NY'er who can dish it AND take it ...  

[dalethorn]

I took bird photos at Bolsa Chica for 2-1/2 years with a lens that's (35 mm equiv.) 420 mm, and did very well with it.  The first 4 photos here are also fine - you could crop the egret photos somewhat to improve them, but they're not failures in any sense - they're actually pretty good.  You can use a longer lens and tripod to get certain shots you can't get any other way, but you really should have something you can shoot without a tripod as well - maybe use a monopod.  Over a period of time you should be able to approach many birds closely - I've been able to get within 15 feet of most birds including kestrels, herons, egrets, night herons, hawks, vultures, and even within 8 feet of hummingbirds.  The key to getting close is patience, stealth, being alone, wearing dark or muted clothing, and letting the animals get used to you over time.  It's much more fun to shoot without a tripod or heavy equipment - you just have to practice.

[Hans Kruse]

Jeremy, Sorry, but I'm with Hans. You do need to get in closer. I don't necessarily agree with Hans about the high ISOs. You made that first shot at ISO 3200, which, with the D700 isn't bad as long as the light's good. the 1/125 second should have left you with very little noise. The problem is that on the web you're looking at something like a 72ppi image in sRGB, compressed with .JPEG compression, so it's almost impossible to tell how sharp the picture actually is. With the D3 and the D700 you can afford to crank up the ISO and not have to worry too much about noise. The only time I'd be concerned about noise would be if I had some important dark areas where color noise might creep in. When I shoot birds I have my D3 set up for auto ISO and I'm usually shooting at f/8 and 1/1000th second with continuous tracking turned on and all focussing sensors on (51 points with 3D tracking). I don't think I've seen a shot that ended up with ISO above 4000. Usually it's considerably less than that. In any case it seems to work.

My point about avoiding high ISO's is more about planning where and when and how to do the shooting. If the good shot requires ISO 3200 tehn  by all means go and do it. But there is always a price to pay from very high ISO's in terms of noise and lack of details. Even with noise and lack of details you can get a wonderful image in some cases.

Regarding using all focus point to help tracking with continous AF, have you experimented with usign all focus points and only using a single og maybe a single and neighbour AF points?

On my 1Ds mk3 I have found through my experiements that using a single AF point with AF tracking sensitivity at the highest gives med the best focus performance. But it does require that I'm very careful about keeping the one AF point the bird where it should be. If AF sensitivity is turned down then it just takes longer to get correct AF again if I happen to point the AF point in the wrong place, e.g. the background by accident. Using a 500mm with an extender can make it hard to keep the AF point exactly where you want it. In theory using all focus points should be easier. The middle AF point to gain the initial focus and the rest to keep the focus even when the middle points goes off the subject temporarily. My tests are no repeatable in the sense that I have taken photos in the same location of birds flying and I compared when I used the single AF point with when I used all. I have been impressed with how accurate the focus could be even with a 2x TC.

I use shutter priority and I limit the aperture range and use auto ISO. When I use the 2x TC on the 500 I will often of there is reasonable light limit the aperture to f/11 to gain extra sharpnes.

An example here (not a great shot as the light is not that great).



Here is one I like where a sea gull is dropping a clamb shell to crush it before eating it.



and then getting into a fight with a crow

[Hans Kruse]

Thanks!  I would like to get better at shooting wildlife ... I've got a knack for shooting landscapes, but I'm a real novice when it comes to shooting things that might move with a long lens!

I'm getting better ... the kids give me a lot of practice ...

PS ... I'm a thick-skinned NY'er who can dish it AND take it ...  

Great! It reminds me that when I'm taking pictures of my grand daugther I'm using the same techniques as with bird shooting: Continous AF and 5fps! I'm following as the plays and rolls around on the floor and that is the most successfull way I know to get some interesting shots in between the ones where she moves quickly and I or the camera can't keep up with her  

[Jeremy Payne]

Also ... the one from behind was a total accident ... I was setting up another shot when the osprey just swooped through ... and I clicked as fast as I could.  There's something about it I like ... guess you had to be there.

I got one more shot as he came back around.

[Jeremy Payne]

Here's a couple where I got much closer ...

[RSL]

[quote name='Jeremy Payne' date='Apr 29 2009, 08:17 AM' post='279911']
Here's a couple where I got much closer ...

Jeremy, That's the ticket. Both of these are good shots.

Hans, single-point focus probably is the right approach with the 1Ds mk3, but the Nikon D3 is a different beast altogether. With the D3, 51 point continuous focus actually works very well. I've shown this guy before and I don't want to beat the image to death, but it's one I might have missed without 51 point and continuous. I was able to get pretty close to him. I focussed with the center sensor and then moved the camera up and to the left. With continuous focus the active sensor stayed on the bird. I had to keep cranking down the zoom as I approached him. When he took off he flew across my, by then 165mm focal length. The camera tracked him perfectly. If I'd used single focus and locked on, keeping him in focus would have been a crap shoot. It might have worked and it might not have worked, depending on how he flew. With 51 point and continuous I've seen a large increase in the number of good bird shots over using a single AF point. But of course, that's with the D3. I suspect Jeremy's D700 will do the same thing. On the other hand, different setups work best for different folks. All you can do is try all the combinations and see what works best for you. ISO on this one, by the way, turned out to be 500. That's close to what I often get with auto ISO, f/8 and 1/1000th.

[attachment=13325:Great_Bl...scending.jpg]

[Randy Carone]

RSL,
It may be redundant but I've never seen it. Great shot!!

[RSL]

RSL,
It may be redundant but I've never seen it. Great shot!!

Randy, Thanks. It's certainly my best bird shot of the season. I spend a lot of mornings on the Palatlakaha river here in Florida shooting birds -- or whatever's there to shoot, mainly because it's a drive to where there are people to shoot. There are three other best bird shots on my web in the "In Passing" section. If I get one a year like that one I'm happy.

[Hans Kruse]

Here's a couple where I got much closer ...

Jeremy, That's the ticket. Both of these are good shots.

Hans, single-point focus probably is the right approach with the 1Ds mk3, but the Nikon D3 is a different beast altogether. With the D3, 51 point continuous focus actually works very well. I've shown this guy before and I don't want to beat the image to death, but it's one I might have missed without 51 point and continuous. I was able to get pretty close to him. I focussed with the center sensor and then moved the camera up and to the left. With continuous focus the active sensor stayed on the bird. I had to keep cranking down the zoom as I approached him. When he took off he flew across my, by then 165mm focal length. The camera tracked him perfectly. If I'd used single focus and locked on, keeping him in focus would have been a crap shoot. It might have worked and it might not have worked, depending on how he flew. With 51 point and continuous I've seen a large increase in the number of good bird shots over using a single AF point. But of course, that's with the D3. I suspect Jeremy's D700 will do the same thing. On the other hand, different setups work best for different folks. All you can do is try all the combinations and see what works best for you. ISO on this one, by the way, turned out to be 500. That's close to what I often get with auto ISO, f/8 and 1/1000th.

Great shot Jeremy,

The two cameras are different for sure. But it might well be that such things works different for short lenses and long lenses given the greater difficulty in keeping a long lens precise on the subject. As mentioned my experience us not a definitive test. What one should do is to experiement to find what works best.

[dalethorn]

Here's a couple where I got much closer ...

Most of the photos I took at Bolsa were done close-up, i.e. a photo of a bird or animal, not a photo of a scene. Next time I do a series like that I'm going to aim for more context. So I think these would be great for a bird-ID book, for birders or whatever, but farther away with an interesting background would be more gallery-worth IMO. Also a comment on the first photos here - #1 of the bluejay - I wonder if this would improve slightly with a noise processor, and it should make a really nice print.