Show your Bird Portraits
- Thread starter 1982chris911
- Start date
Jack Douglas said:Two birds. Not sure what either of them are!
Jack
You're sparrow is a first-winter White-crowned Sparrow.
The pale one is quite a mystery.
Upvote
0
Well, thank you Isaac Grant. Now I'll go to my books and check that out. I have a hunch my wife knows something about the other one. Quite a coincidence that the birds were such close buddies!
Jack
Jack
Upvote
0
Just been in Mana Pools by the Zambezi river, where there are lots of birds. We were primarily looking for the four legged kind, but got time for some bird images also. I must admit I am totally ignorant to what the majority of these birds are called though, but I´ll study them during the winter and hopefully get from an embarrassing level to at least amateur ...
For anyone who saw The Lion King, I believe this guy had a role ...
5DSR, 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x
For anyone who saw The Lion King, I believe this guy had a role ...
5DSR, 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x
Attachments
Upvote
0
Hi Eldar, a brilliant photo of a Red-billed Hornbill, I'm looking forward to seeing your images!!Eldar said:
Would you consider that a heavily cropped image from a 5DSR image with a shorter lens like a 100-400L will be as good as filling the frame using the likes of a 600mm on a 5DIII? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts as the 600mm is nearly 3 times the price of a 5DSR, and if the IQ can be retained and the file size is similar to the 5DIII after a heavy crop then the body might just be a better option than a great white!!
Upvote
0
Thanks Stewart,Stewart K said:
The 5DSR/100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS II combo is a light, versatile and, from an IQ perspective, very good combo (I also have that lens), but, if we forget price, it cannot compete with a 5DIII/600 f4L IS II combo, unless you have very good light. But the 600 is large, heavy, single focal length and very expensive, so it's worth thinking through.
An alternative could be to use a 7DII instead of the 5DSR with the 100-400. That gives you about the same resolution as a cropped 5DSR, IQ wise it is very close, you get AF points all over the viewfinder and you get 10 fps. On top of that you just saved a lot of money for another lens.
Upvote
0
tomscott
Photographer & Graphic Designer
Stewart K said:
Amazing pic eldar!
Stewart K have a look at Isaac Grants pics above on flickr and Zoom in the quality is outstanding, sharpness noise etc the 7DMKII has really closed the gap. Its with the sigma 150-600mm contemporary, so 960mm. Very impressive.
My Tammy with the 150-600mm looks soft in comparison on my 5DMKIII.
Obviously completely different in cost and quality but if you can make images like those above is it really worth spending 6-8x the amount on a fairly cumbersome prime?
Upvote
0
tomscott said:
Good light and great techniques (not to mention artistic vision) on Grant's part fully tap the potentials of these "budget" lenses.
A flycatcher migrating through Taiwan, shot on my Tammy + 7D2 at noon.
Asian Brown Flycatcher (Muscicapa dauurica) by me, on Flickr
Upvote
0
The full image is 50,6MP and the crop is about 14MP, so that should give you an idea. That is the beauty of the 5DSR, provided you can keep it steady and have enough light. There is almost no limit to how much you can crop.Jack Douglas said:
The Carmine Bee eater is cropped a bit more. I really wish I had brought my 600mm and an extender. 560mm is a bit short for these birds.
Upvote
0
Stewart K have a look at Isaac Grants pics above on flickr and Zoom in the quality is outstanding, sharpness noise etc the 7DMKII has really closed the gap. Its with the sigma 150-600mm contemporary, so 960mm. Very impressive.
My Tammy with the 150-600mm looks soft in comparison on my 5DMKIII.
Obviously completely different in cost and quality but if you can make images like those above is it really worth spending 6-8x the amount on a fairly cumbersome prime?
[/quote]
Thanks for the kind words. I should note a few things. Firstly I am a life long birder as my father took me since I was 5. So I know the birds very well. Know what their habits and tolerances are. Second pretty much all of my pics are taken in ideal conditions with really nice early morning or evening light and also at close range. Third all shots are hand held. With ideal conditions you can close the gap between an $1,100 lens and an $11,000 lens. For my uses, I like the portability and versatility of the zoom. Light enough that I can take with me all day long while birding. Lugging a 600 prime on a tripod would not let me do the same types of things. But the big primes are better in so many ways. Ability to shoot at f4, ability to add a 1.4x or 2x to them, weather sealing and another level of sharpness for sure. So it is all a matter of compromise and depends on what type of shooting you require. Are you subjects far away? Do you shoot in low light? And so forth. For me I just enjoy the birds and go birding more when the weather is not perfect for shooting and when it is, I make sure I am in a place I can get pics and take advantage of the conditions. Also all of my shots are processed only with DPP 3. Very minor adjustments. Certainly some of them can use some masking and noise reduction to backgrounds, etc. But I don't do it. Try and concentrate on taking the best shots possible in the field and as little time as possible in front of a computer.
Here are a few taken on a family trip to Cancun, Mexico. Just common birds from the hotel and touristy areas.
Great-tailed Grackle
Great-tailed Grackle by Isaac Grant, on Flickr
Magnificent Frigatebird
Magnificent Frigatebird by Isaac Grant, on Flickr
Tropical Kingbird
Tropical Kingbird by Isaac Grant, on Flickr
Great Kiskadee
Great Kiskadee by Isaac Grant, on Flickr
And 2 birds deep in Mangroves in terrible light and very slow shutter speeds. Both hand held at 600mm.
Bananquit at SS1/320
Bananaquit by Isaac Grant, on Flickr
Mangrove Yellow Warbler at SS 1/200
Mangrove Yellow Warbler by Isaac Grant, on Flickr
My Tammy with the 150-600mm looks soft in comparison on my 5DMKIII.
Obviously completely different in cost and quality but if you can make images like those above is it really worth spending 6-8x the amount on a fairly cumbersome prime?
[/quote]
Thanks for the kind words. I should note a few things. Firstly I am a life long birder as my father took me since I was 5. So I know the birds very well. Know what their habits and tolerances are. Second pretty much all of my pics are taken in ideal conditions with really nice early morning or evening light and also at close range. Third all shots are hand held. With ideal conditions you can close the gap between an $1,100 lens and an $11,000 lens. For my uses, I like the portability and versatility of the zoom. Light enough that I can take with me all day long while birding. Lugging a 600 prime on a tripod would not let me do the same types of things. But the big primes are better in so many ways. Ability to shoot at f4, ability to add a 1.4x or 2x to them, weather sealing and another level of sharpness for sure. So it is all a matter of compromise and depends on what type of shooting you require. Are you subjects far away? Do you shoot in low light? And so forth. For me I just enjoy the birds and go birding more when the weather is not perfect for shooting and when it is, I make sure I am in a place I can get pics and take advantage of the conditions. Also all of my shots are processed only with DPP 3. Very minor adjustments. Certainly some of them can use some masking and noise reduction to backgrounds, etc. But I don't do it. Try and concentrate on taking the best shots possible in the field and as little time as possible in front of a computer.
Here are a few taken on a family trip to Cancun, Mexico. Just common birds from the hotel and touristy areas.
Great-tailed Grackle
Great-tailed Grackle by Isaac Grant, on FlickrMagnificent Frigatebird
Magnificent Frigatebird by Isaac Grant, on FlickrTropical Kingbird
Tropical Kingbird by Isaac Grant, on FlickrGreat Kiskadee
Great Kiskadee by Isaac Grant, on FlickrAnd 2 birds deep in Mangroves in terrible light and very slow shutter speeds. Both hand held at 600mm.
Bananquit at SS1/320
Bananaquit by Isaac Grant, on FlickrMangrove Yellow Warbler at SS 1/200
Mangrove Yellow Warbler by Isaac Grant, on Flickr
Upvote
0
Click said:
Thank you but I think these examples show very well the difference between shooting in nice light (ie. ideal conditions) and not shooting in nice light. The last 2 shots are sharp (happy with that considering they are hand held at 600mm on the 7d2 so more like 960mm and have very low shutter speeds) but no where near as colorful. The shots lack contrast. The light makes such a huge difference. Have to make the best of the limitations that I face with my gear so I try and put myself in the best situations.
Upvote
0
