Show your Bird Portraits

[AlanF]

Jack
The 300mm f/2.8 II and the 2xTC III are a marriage made in heaven. Anyone who maligns the 2xTC hasn't used it with the series II big whites. Here is a sedge warbler singing its heart out. Again, hand held as always for me and iso 1250 1/800s f/5.6 with the 5DIII.

 

[CarlTN]

Thanks guys,

I guess my comments may sound like I'm only marginally happy with these shots. That's not the case but I have missed a fair number and that burns me up. I tend to be a perfectionist and while I'm realistic I'm also pretty hard on myself. I'm not a pro and never will be - I'm too old for that and reflexes aren't the greatest and absent mindedness often kicks in and ......

So, who cares. It's supposed to be fun and it is great fun as long as I don't get into beat up yourself mode. I see truly great pictures at CR and read good advice for knowledgeable shoots, many being serious amateurs or pros and that's great.

I'm a beginner with a previous bit of experience long ago with an F1 and a few lenses, now in the digital world and it's just such a thrill. In general I'll plan to post singularly and indicate settings. For these, here is how it's gone with me. I try to stay below ISO 1600, preferably 1250 unless the lighting is bad. Because I run into a fair amount of movement with the birds I'll often go Tv at 800th and find myself in the F9+ range but when things go crazy my goal is to get a clear shot at a 1600th or higher and in that moment I let the camera push my ISO up and accept the limited depth of field of my F5.6 lens with 2X. I'll switch AF to single shot sometimes but it seems I keep running into sudden action that catches me off guard. Being a slow thinker, I'm constantly being caught off guard with exposure having been previously bumped up etc., but I guess that's due to my lack of experience.

Anyway, my skin is thick enough to handle positive critical comments that will take me to getting better shots, so feel free to express such things. After all, "nice shot" doesn't help except for the ego!

Now that I'm probably more here than at "anything 6D" I'll make a point of going back over previous posts like - lion rock - to glean good information and enjoy the shots - lots of amazing shots! I'm more "nature" than "birds" but right now it's wonderful birding.

Here's my first ever flying hummer from a few days back when I first realized they were at the pond; what a thrill.

6D 300F2.8 X2 1600th F6.3 ISO 2500 +.3

Jack

Jack, looks like you're getting nice results with the 6D, despite it not being a real man's camera. Keep up the good work! Don't worry too much about keeping ISO below 1600...it's still a lot less luminance noise than the 5D3. I'm happy with my 6D up to ISO 8000, but then I don't shoot as much in mid day sun, and my telephoto only goes to f/5.6. One thing I must mention though...if I were going to mostly shoot birds like you, I would have bought a longer lens than the 300 f/2.8. The 400 f/2.8 would have been better. They both cost a lot of money anyway, so it's not that much of a difference...once you decide to spend that much.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Well CarlTN, I thought alot before and after the purchase and I personally can't see making a different choice a second time. I know why a 400 F2.8 would be better but I also know why it wouldn't and the main negative to me is weight and manageablity hand-held.

My friend who was supposed to purchase similarly with me back in Feb. is still mulling and mentioning the new 200-400. My comment was I couldn't handle that guy as I do the 300 walking out in the bush. About 80% of what I'm shooting is without tripod by choice in spite of the Jobu gimble working very well.

Now if someone was paying for my lenses ......

From the pond an hour ago:

6D 300F2.8 X2 1000th F8 ISO 1600 +.3

Jack

 

[AlanF]

Well CarlTN, I thought alot before and after the purchase and I personally can't see making a different choice a second time. I know why a 400 F2.8 would be better but I also know why it wouldn't and the main negative to me is weight and manageablity hand-held.

Jack

+1

 

[CarlTN]

Well CarlTN, I thought alot before and after the purchase and I personally can't see making a different choice a second time. I know why a 400 F2.8 would be better but I also know why it wouldn't and the main negative to me is weight and manageablity hand-held.

My friend who was supposed to purchase similarly with me back in Feb. is still mulling and mentioning the new 200-400. My comment was I couldn't handle that guy as I do the 300 walking out in the bush. About 80% of what I'm shooting is without tripod by choice in spite of the Jobu gimble working very well.

Now if someone was paying for my lenses ......

From the pond an hour ago:

6D 300F2.8 X2 1000th F8 ISO 1600 +.3

Jack

Amusing that you would hint that "someone" could pay for your lenses...I would like to meet that someone!!

You mean you aren't using a monopod? Why the heck not?? You're handholding 600mm ???

I bought a nice carbon fiber monopod that can quickly retract...so with a strap, it's no trouble carrying around any lens under 20 lbs...

 

[AlanF]

Carl
Believe it or not, there are some of us, maybe only two, who do not wish to carry a monopod or tripod. Also our hands are steady enough that 4 stops of IS and the high iso capabilities of the 5D are enough to hand hold a 600 mm without any observable shake. Perhaps your hands are trembling under the strain of 19.99 lb of camera and lens on your carbon fibre monopod?

So lets come to an amicable compromise. You let us continue carrying around only 6 or 7 lb of camera and lens and we will give you a friendly smile when we see you struggling with your monopod and let you carry on with your lifestyle.

By the way, most keen birdies use tripods, not monopods. They sit in hides with two legs of the tripod splayed across the ledge and the third balancing their kit. You can't use a monopod to have the camera fixed on a target for long periods of time.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Hi CarlTN,

Twenty pounds - ugh! I'm only 140 lbs. There is a place for a monopod I suppose, but I'm finding that I don't like to have my movement restricted at all, if possible. I did buy a carbon fiber tripod and with the gimble head it is wonderful for shots that are more or less consistently off in a given direction, or if I was working in a blind.

After only two years of shooting digital I'm not sure my experience is sufficient to speak with authority, but I've concluded I like my freedom and I love my light-weight 300X2. I have my strap shortened so that when it's around my neck and under one arm and I whip the camera up it tightens so I'm really quite stable. I'm quickly learning to blind aim well and I'm confident that'll improve with practice. So, it's handheld for me unless I know I'm going to be trained on a subject for more than 5 or 10 minutes. Not to mention that I'm often maneuvering into places where just the camera/lens is enough of a pain.

The choice I've made does handicap me in some ways and of course I live with that. We're all wishing something could be different or better.

Certainly, if the options were there to own more super tele's I'd gladly own a 400F2.8!!!

Same settings on this one as the last. 6D 300 X2

Jack

 

[Krob78]

Carl
Believe it or not, there are some of us, maybe only two, who do not wish to carry a monopod or tripod. Also our hands are steady enough that 4 stops of IS and the high iso capabilities of the 5D are enough to hand hold a 600 mm without any observable shake. Perhaps your hands are trembling under the strain of 19.99 lb of camera and lens on your carbon fibre monopod?

So lets come to an amicable compromise. You let us continue carrying around only 6 or 7 lb of camera and lens and we will give you a friendly smile when we see you struggling with your monopod and let you carry on with your lifestyle.

By the way, most keen birdies use tripods, not monopods. They sit in hides with two legs of the tripod splayed across the ledge and the third balancing their kit. You can't use a monopod to have the camera fixed on a target for long periods of time.

Perhaps your hands are trembling under the strain of 19.99 lb of camera and lens on your carbon fibre monopod?

In fairness Alan, Carl didn't say he was carrying around 19.99 pounds of camera and lens on his carbon fibre monopod. He is simply stating that his Carbon Fibre monopod has no issues carrying around any camera and lens combo that is under 20lbs, that it's a good lightweight alternative, for him anyway... Peace

For what it's worth, I shoot a lot handheld, a fair amount with monopod, very little tripod and a fair amount with gimbal... I prefer and love to shoot handheld but there are times and situations when another methodology is more efficacious and will produce me better results.

Ultimately, I think there's room enough for all of us to use whatever works best for us or to utilize multiple methodologies as a great many of us do for better results in particular situations, no? I think that's what you were hinting at with your sentence regarding the amicable compromise... I'm open to anything that works in any given situation... I often use the treepod, works well too!

 

[Jack Douglas]

This will appeal to nature lovers more so than photographers. Behind the deteriorating beaver dam a small pool forms and the water gently flows away. The pool is at the base of a willow bush shading it significantly. Not hard to imagine it's where the little guys go to get refreshed. Water flying everywhere.

Humans aren't the only ones prone to getting into tifs as illustrated by these two shots. It was hillarious. Unfortunately, it's an action shot and not well lit and I'm struggling to know how to better deal with the situation if it arises again, as I'm certain it will! Any thoughts? BTW I don't have a flash but have wondered about getting one.

6D 300X2 800th F5.6 ISO 4000

Jack

 

[Jack Douglas]

KROB78, of course you're right, that's what life is all about. What's the reference to the treepod? I built one this spring thinking it would be the cat's meow but so far it's seen little use. I imagine it would come in very handy for shooting high in a tree towards a nest in another tree or ...... ??

Any comment, anyone?

Jack

 

[AlanF]

Carl
Believe it or not, there are some of us, maybe only two, who do not wish to carry a monopod or tripod. Also our hands are steady enough that 4 stops of IS and the high iso capabilities of the 5D are enough to hand hold a 600 mm without any observable shake. Perhaps your hands are trembling under the strain of 19.99 lb of camera and lens on your carbon fibre monopod?

So lets come to an amicable compromise. You let us continue carrying around only 6 or 7 lb of camera and lens and we will give you a friendly smile when we see you struggling with your monopod and let you carry on with your lifestyle.

By the way, most keen birdies use tripods, not monopods. They sit in hides with two legs of the tripod splayed across the ledge and the third balancing their kit. You can't use a monopod to have the camera fixed on a target for long periods of time.

Perhaps your hands are trembling under the strain of 19.99 lb of camera and lens on your carbon fibre monopod?

In fairness Alan, Carl didn't say he was carrying around 19.99 pounds of camera and lens on his carbon fibre monopod. He is simply stating that his Carbon Fibre monopod has no issues carrying around any camera and lens combo that is under 20lbs, that it's a good lightweight alternative, for him anyway... Peace

For what it's worth, I shoot a lot handheld, a fair amount with monopod, very little tripod and a fair amount with gimbal... I prefer and love to shoot handheld but there are times and situations when another methodology is more efficacious and will produce me better results.

Ultimately, I think there's room enough for all of us to use whatever works best for us or to utilize multiple methodologies as a great many of us do for better results in particular situations, no? I think that's what you were hinting at with your sentence regarding the amicable compromise... I'm open to anything that works in any given situation... I often use the treepod, works well too!

No, i am not hinting at that - I am shouting it from the rooftops. Some of us like to spend most of our time with a tripod, others hand holding, and others in between. So let's get on with it and each do our own thing, especially we amateurs who just want to enjoy ourselves and not make a living from our photos.

We shouldn't turn this thread into the usual rhetoric so here is another hand held shot from last weekend.

 

[Krob78]

Hi CarlTN,

Twenty pounds - ugh! I'm only 140 lbs. There is a place for a monopod I suppose, but I'm finding that I don't like to have my movement restricted at all, if possible. I did buy a carbon fiber tripod and with the gimble head it is wonderful for shots that are more or less consistently off in a given direction, or if I was working in a blind.

After only two years of shooting digital I'm not sure my experience is sufficient to speak with authority, but I've concluded I like my freedom and I love my light-weight 300X2. I have my strap shortened so that when it's around my neck and under one arm and I whip the camera up it tightens so I'm really quite stable. I'm quickly learning to blind aim well and I'm confident that'll improve with practice. So, it's handheld for me unless I know I'm going to be trained on a subject for more than 5 or 10 minutes. Not to mention that I'm often maneuvering into places where just the camera/lens is enough of a pain.

The choice I've made does handicap me in some ways and of course I live with that. We're all wishing something could be different or better.

Certainly, if the options were there to own more super tele's I'd gladly own a 400F2.8!!!

Same settings on this one as the last. 6D 300 X2

Jack

Excellent image Jack!

 

[Krob78]

Carl
Believe it or not, there are some of us, maybe only two, who do not wish to carry a monopod or tripod. Also our hands are steady enough that 4 stops of IS and the high iso capabilities of the 5D are enough to hand hold a 600 mm without any observable shake. Perhaps your hands are trembling under the strain of 19.99 lb of camera and lens on your carbon fibre monopod?

So lets come to an amicable compromise. You let us continue carrying around only 6 or 7 lb of camera and lens and we will give you a friendly smile when we see you struggling with your monopod and let you carry on with your lifestyle.

By the way, most keen birdies use tripods, not monopods. They sit in hides with two legs of the tripod splayed across the ledge and the third balancing their kit. You can't use a monopod to have the camera fixed on a target for long periods of time.

Perhaps your hands are trembling under the strain of 19.99 lb of camera and lens on your carbon fibre monopod?

In fairness Alan, Carl didn't say he was carrying around 19.99 pounds of camera and lens on his carbon fibre monopod. He is simply stating that his Carbon Fibre monopod has no issues carrying around any camera and lens combo that is under 20lbs, that it's a good lightweight alternative, for him anyway... Peace

For what it's worth, I shoot a lot handheld, a fair amount with monopod, very little tripod and a fair amount with gimbal... I prefer and love to shoot handheld but there are times and situations when another methodology is more efficacious and will produce me better results.

Ultimately, I think there's room enough for all of us to use whatever works best for us or to utilize multiple methodologies as a great many of us do for better results in particular situations, no? I think that's what you were hinting at with your sentence regarding the amicable compromise... I'm open to anything that works in any given situation... I often use the treepod, works well too!

No, i am not hinting at that - I am shouting it from the rooftops. Some of us like to spend most of our time with a tripod, others hand holding, and others in between. So let's get on with it and each do our own thing, especially we amateurs who just want to enjoy ourselves and not make a living from our photos.

We shouldn't turn this thread into the usual rhetoric so here is another hand held shot from last weekend.

That's image is perfect! Love it!! 8) Long live hand held, gimbals, monopods, tripods and treepods and wall pods!! All the best!

 

[Krob78]

KROB78, of course you're right, that's what life is all about. What's the reference to the treepod? I built one this spring thinking it would be the cat's meow but so far it's seen little use. I imagine it would come in very handy for shooting high in a tree towards a nest in another tree or ...... ??

Any comment, anyone?

Jack

Haha!! Jack, I love it! I was meaning more like leaning my lens against a tree to get some extra steadiness! That's awesome though, with your wireless RF shutter actuator, you may get some fantastic images, I'll have to try that! ;D

 

[Loswr]

Unfortunately, it's an action shot and not well lit and I'm struggling to know how to better deal with the situation if it arises again, as I'm certain it will! Any thoughts? BTW I don't have a flash but have wondered about getting one.

A flash is useful in those situations - with long lenses, get a Better Beamer for the flash. The first image could have used a deeper DoF, and since you were only at ISO 1600 for that one, you could have stopped down a bit.

I'm curious - why AI Focus? Personally, I'm not too keen on letting the camera decide if it should start tracking or not (worth noting that 1-series bodies have only One Shot and AI Servo, no AI Focus...I expect there's a reason for that).

 

[jrista]

The common cry of Avian photographers world wide:

@#$!!**#$ branch !!!

( juvenile Cooper's Hawk )

Photoshop's Content Aware Heal and Patch are your friends!

It's tough, but you can indeed eliminate that branch. I have a shot of a juvi Red-tailed that had a branch intruding. I used the content aware tools of PSCS6 to remove it. I'll see if I can find before and after versions for a demonstration.

 

[IslanderMV]

The common cry of Avian photographers world wide:

@#$!!**#$ branch !!!

( juvenile Cooper's Hawk )

Photoshop's Content Aware Heal and Patch are your friends!

It's tough, but you can indeed eliminate that branch. I have a shot of a juvi Red-tailed that had a branch intruding. I used the content aware tools of PSCS6 to remove it. I'll see if I can find before and after versions for a demonstration.

I would be interested to see your before and after. I posted the pict with humorous intent. I did have the time to move a bit to the left and got some good shots before it moved. I have used content aware but not on birds as I did not wish to add any artifacts to the plumage.

 

[jrista]

The common cry of Avian photographers world wide:

@#$!!**#$ branch !!!

( juvenile Cooper's Hawk )

Photoshop's Content Aware Heal and Patch are your friends!

It's tough, but you can indeed eliminate that branch. I have a shot of a juvi Red-tailed that had a branch intruding. I used the content aware tools of PSCS6 to remove it. I'll see if I can find before and after versions for a demonstration.

I would be interested to see your before and after. I posted the pict with humorous intent. I did have the time to move a bit to the left and got some good shots before it moved. I have used content aware but not on birds as I did not wish to add any artifacts to the plumage.

Yeah, I knew it was humorous. Just wanted to point out that, despite the cursing, the evil branches can still be removed in post. It is no easy task...probably the most time I've ever spent on any given photo were the ones where I removed branches. I think I actually have a couple good examples. I did not have a top-end lens at the time, so feather detail was low enough that cleaning up the branch was doable. If you have really razor sharp detail on the bird's feathers, then it would either be a much more difficult task, or impossible.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Neuroanatomist, thanks for the comments. Why, is not easy to answer because as an older fellow and a beginner I often get caught up in spur of the moment events and my brain doesn't think too clearly. I don't fully understand the mechanics behind AF and simply followed some advice from the forum regarding birds that are not still, was told to stay away from 1 shot. I guess I've also had an artificial aversion to higher ISOs thinking that the ISO 4000 on the one shot was getting pretty high for grain but I agree with you that 1600 leaves me some room to get better DOF. I'll try harder. I also got the idea that I had to stay at least 1/800th because of the action - don't know in that shot if that's necessary but I'm guessing I might have gone higher for a sharper picture??

In summary, I basically don't know what I'm doing. Somehow a fair number of decent shots come out! At least enough times to keep me happy as a lark!! However, I do want to learn.

There have been so many waxwings at the pond this summer I've tired of shooting them. They love eating dragonfly larvae.

6D 300 X2 800th F14 ISO 1250

Jack

 

[Click]

^^^ Looking good Jack. 8) Nice shot!