Show your Bird Portraits

Dockland

EOS 90D
Nov 14, 2019
125
196
Sweden
20210417_13_32_58_1520-1.jpg
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
989
1,390
Kentucky, USA
Great pictures from you guys recently, Alan, henry, & usern4cr. This is a Snowy that I took last mo in Fla who was defending his nesting site. I just love those guys--they're such divas when they are courting and nesting. Converted it to BW in LR because it got rid of the busy background.
We're leaving this week to photograph courting and nesting flamingo on the Yucatan peninsula (it should be insufferably hot and humid--ugh) so hope to have some of those to post soon. R5 + RF 100-500
Catherine View attachment 197120
Beautiful photo, Catherine. I hope you enjoy your Yucatan trip. I'm jealous - well, my wife isn't into photography as you & your husband are, so trips like that aren't so easily on our radar!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
989
1,390
Kentucky, USA
These are the start of the (hopefully) better backyard photos from my big file on the big Winter ice storm we had in Kentucky.
(a few of them in the file were previously shown for consideration in a show, but are included here for completeness)
(R5 & RF 100-500L)


A03_0014_1_2k95%.jpg



A03_0186_1_2k95%.jpg



( is it just me, or does this look like he's got a "smoking habit"? ) :LOL:
A03_0310_1_2k95%.jpg




A03_0312_1_2k95%.jpg



A03_0326_1_2k95%.jpg



Cheers!
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
989
1,390
Kentucky, USA
These are the start of the (hopefully) better backyard photos from my big file on the big Winter ice storm we had in Kentucky.
(a few of them in the file were previously shown for consideration in a show, but are included here for completeness)
(R5 & RF 100-500L)


View attachment 197125


View attachment 197126


( is it just me, or does this look like he's got a "smoking habit"? ) :LOL:
View attachment 197127



View attachment 197128


View attachment 197129


Cheers!
Thanks, Click!
 

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
1,286
2,647
There are a few who post here using the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF, which is about as sharp the very expensive Nikon 500mm f/4. I had the chance to test the 500PF on the Nikon D850 against the RF 100-500/R5 as a pair of Mallards settled on my neighbour's lawn and were not disturbed by me. Here are some collages of 100% crops of the heads of the ducks at full size, taken from the full images which are reduced in size here. It's interesting to see how the zoom stacks up against one of the best 500mm primes. Both are really good, but do you think one has the edge (the crops from each camera are one above the other in the same order)? Vanilla output from PL4 with no additional sharpening.

View attachment 197104 View attachment 197105 View attachment 197106 View attachment 197107
I would say the upper photos are slightly better but: as I know you are not shooting from tripod - hard to say if it's the same focus accuracy/stability (if we are comparing just the lenses, if we are comparing the systems the variables are getting even more).
I'm not guessing witch one is the prime and witch one is the zoom. They are pretty much comparable in this case (and I'm sure it's what you are saying here).
And it's my dilemma: when I go traveling (I hope it will happen sooner than later) which lens to take with me: 200-500 (at 500 not as sharp as the prime but just go on/under let say 400... and it's something: huh - in picture quality and unfortunately in the weight) The distance to the object also plays - in favor to the prime for smaller birds and in favor to the zoom for closeups like insects (or bigger birds - go figure!). It seems with yours 100-500 there is not much of that dilemma!
 
Last edited:

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
1,286
2,647
Great pictures from you guys recently, Alan, henry, & usern4cr. This is a Snowy that I took last mo in Fla who was defending his nesting site. I just love those guys--they're such divas when they are courting and nesting. Converted it to BW in LR because it got rid of the busy background.
We're leaving this week to photograph courting and nesting flamingo on the Yucatan peninsula (it should be insufferably hot and humid--ugh) so hope to have some of those to post soon. R5 + RF 100-500
Catherine View attachment 197120
Beautiful, Impressive (you can change the order by your taste:))!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
1,286
2,647
And not to be like some one who has just an opinions: these are from the last Sunday. I went there to say "good buy" to that Wandering Tattler (any way my first acceptable photos of that species in breeding plumage!). Got also a Heron (almost the same as Catherine's egret;):rolleyes::ROFLMAO:! Well, the Night Herons are not doing the same displays. All the effects are from the wind. It was really windy that day. Catherine Egret is much, much better:cry::)!

DSC_5986_DxO.jpg
DSC_5989_DxO.jpg
DSC_6213_DxO.jpg
DSC_6215_DxO.jpg
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,831
8,814
I would say the upper photos are slightly better but: as I know you are not shooting from tripod - hard to say if it's the same focus accuracy/stability (if we are comparing just the lenses, if we are comparing the systems the variables are getting even more).
I'm not guessing witch one is the prime and witch one is the zoom. They are pretty much comparable in this case (and I'm sure it's what you are saying here).
And it's my dilemma: when I go traveling (I hope it will happen sooner than later) which lens to take with me: 200-500 (at 500 not as sharp as the prime but just go on/under let say 400... and it's something: huh - in picture quality and unfortunately in the weight) The distance to the object also plays - in favor to the prime for bigger objects and in favor to the zoom for closeups like insects - go figure!). It seems with yours 100-500 there is not much of that dilemma!
I shot at at 1/2500s from exactly the same distance and took many shots of each - I often compare use of tripod and hand holding in my frequent testing and there’s no difference for me at high shutter speeds. The !00-500 eyeAF was on the eye in each case whereas the Nikon was just pointed at the eye, which is how I shoot in practice. I’ve compared the lenses on chart targets with similar results to these here but I wanted to try on a real bird target. As you say, the nice thing about the 100-500mm, is it’s light compared with the Nikon 200-5.6. Actually, the 500PF is so sharp at its mfd of 3m, it’s great for close ups of butterflies etc as the dof is better at 3m than 1.2m and getting closer than 3m scares the skittish insects.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pape2 and usern4cr

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
1,286
2,647
I shot at at 1/2500s from exactly the same distance and took many shots of each - I often compare use of tripod and hand holding in my frequent testing and there’s no difference for me at high shutter speeds. The !00-500 eyeAF was on the eye in each case whereas the Nikon was just pointed at the eye, which is how I shoot in practice. I’ve compared the lenses on chart targets with similar results to these here but I wanted to try on a real bird target. As you say, the nice thing about the 100-500mm, is it’s light compared with the Nikon 200-5.6. Actually, the 500PF is so sharp at its mfd of 3m, it’s great for close ups of butterflies etc as the dof is better at 3m than 1.2m and getting closer than 3m scares the skittish insects.
200-500 with it's 2.20meters MFD is better (at 500mm!) for small insects (in comparison to the 3.00meters MFD of the 500PF). For some bigger butterflies/insects at less than 500mm focal length it's simply superior. It seems just 80cm less air to the object are making visible difference (at least for the conditions that I have on Hawaii). For small birds 500PF is better - hands down!!! For birds of the size of the Night Heron with 200-500 I have to go closer (and go down from 500mm) for somewhat similar results but I prefer the 500PF for these - it's just better! I still have to see how it looks for bigger birds (like the Gray Heron etc). In generally if there is not much heat diffraction I would expect significantly better photos from 500PF. In case of such a diffraction, and if I can get closer to the object (to eliminate or reduce the diffraction) I would expect better results from 200-500 (at less than 450-400mm focal length).
And it's different talk if we mean BIF!
 

Cog

EOS RP
Dec 6, 2013
662
1,132
Qatar
These are the start of the (hopefully) better backyard photos from my big file on the big Winter ice storm we had in Kentucky.
(a few of them in the file were previously shown for consideration in a show, but are included here for completeness)
(R5 & RF 100-500L)


View attachment 197125


View attachment 197126


( is it just me, or does this look like he's got a "smoking habit"? ) :LOL:
View attachment 197127



View attachment 197128


View attachment 197129


Cheers!
These are nice photos, usern4cr, but if you're looking for ways to improve image quality, they look too dark to me. I'd increase exposure or blacks and probably decrease contrast or saturation a bit. It depends on your monitor setup, of course, but I recall that I didn't have this impression when I saw your cat photos. Also, I think that #2 is out of focus, which to me always means the picture "goes to the basket without parole". :) These are just my criteria to select good photos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ISv and usern4cr
<-- start Taboola -->