Show your Bird Portraits

[ISv]

We all like to feed our ego but if this criterion was valid no one would be posting anything. One aspect is the technical quality of the photo but don't forget we all like to see the different bird variants and poses etc. There will always be someone doing better - so what. What I like about this thread; it's a friendly place to be.

I was using 300 2.8 II X2 which AlanF used to praise constantly. Now neither of us own it because .... good question. For me I judged that I seldom used 300 and sold so I could get the 400 DO II. When 300 was needed that lens was superb and pretty decent X2.

These photos I'm going back to resurrect are getting DPP post processing as best I can do (minus selective NR) because in most cases the originals weren't done that well. I had only owned the 6D a very short time then and I didn't even own a DSLR about 2 years before that (D5100 was my starting point). When I'm done I'll choose those that might be worthy and do background NR etc.

There is a motive to this. I've been interacting with the county regarding their indiscriminate beaver trapping and these shots are all from the affected area when it was vibrant. They will be hearing from me loudly.

Jack

"I was using 300 2.8 II X2 which AlanF used to praise constantly. Now neither of us own it because .... good question."
My simple good answer is that something better arise later... After that even it goes down because there was something much better to appear - again, and again...
D5100?! I started with cameras not even worth mentioning. Later it was slides with N80, F100 and started the digital era with D7000 (few months later D7100 appear). I'm not sorry for any peace of equipment (I mean cameras or lenses, including the "not worth mentioning") that I have used: for the time it was a lot of fun and learning with every new peace and for not pro what else matters?!

 

[AlanF]

Back when we bought the 300mm F/2.8 II, it was a choice between the even then elderly non-IS 400/5.6 or the 2-stop IS 100-400mm L, my copy of which was soft, or the very expensive big whites. The 300.2.8 II with a 1.4 or 2xTC was the only real alternative for a hand-holdable telephoto 600mm with 4 stops of IS. We have to thank Tamron for introducing the 150-600mm, which forced the others to produce affordable longer lenses. Many keen amateurs bought 500/4 and 600/4 Ls. It will be seen whether that trend continues. My gut feeling is that their sales will drop. Arash Hazeghi, on the other hand, claimed in FM that every bird photographer has a big white because the US economy is doing so well that they can all afford one. He mixes in different circles from me.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Alan.
Should that have been every ”American bird photographer has a big white because the US economy is doing so well.” My guess he mixes in American circles!
From memory you are in the UK so a different economy! Also, what is his interpretation of ”a Big White” if it starts at 100-400 his comment might be much more valid, I see many 100-400 for every 500 or 600!

Cheers, Graham.

“Arash Hazeghi, on the other hand, claimed in FM that every bird photographer has a big white because the US economy is doing so well that they can all afford one. He mixes in different circles from me.”

 

[AlanF]

Hi Alan.
Should that have been every ”American bird photographer has a big white because the US economy is doing so well.” My guess he mixes in American circles!
From memory you are in the UK so a different economy! Also, what is his interpretation of ”a Big White” if it starts at 100-400 his comment might be much more valid, I see many 100-400 for every 500 or 600!

Cheers, Graham.

“Arash Hazeghi, on the other hand, claimed in FM that every bird photographer has a big white because the US economy is doing so well that they can all afford one. He mixes in different circles from me.”

He meant the full Monty. It was in answer to the comment that the 100-400s etc were the most common lenses.

 

[AlanF]

These are some incredible shots by Arbitrage on FM using the Sony 200-600mm + 1.4xTC at f/9. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1624234

 

[Jack Douglas]

Back when we bought the 300mm F/2.8 II, it was a choice between the even then elderly non-IS 400/5.6 or the 2-stop IS 100-400mm L, my copy of which was soft, or the very expensive big whites. The 300.2.8 II with a 1.4 or 2xTC was the only real alternative for a hand-holdable telephoto 600mm with 4 stops of IS. We have to thank Tamron for introducing the 150-600mm, which forced the others to produce affordable longer lenses. Many keen amateurs bought 500/4 and 600/4 Ls. It will be seen whether that trend continues. My gut feeling is that their sales will drop. Arash Hazeghi, on the other hand, claimed in FM that every bird photographer has a big white because the US economy is doing so well that they can all afford one. He mixes in different circles from me.

Dead on about the choice! The rest of it, could be I guess.

Jack

 

[Jack Douglas]

These are some incredible shots by Arbitrage on FM using the Sony 200-600mm + 1.4xTC at f/9. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1624234

"Thanks Morris....yeah these are big crops and that probably is why the DOF covered both of them most of the time.
These ended up being ~ 4.25MPs out of the 24MPs I started with."

Thanks for posting Alan!

I think that says it all because the biggest challenge is keeping the birds in the viewfinder and next to that is AF spread, which is roughly 100% coverage, and it's speed of tracking. That's where the optical AF falls down and why I'm thinking R5. Shots I did of Redpolls fighting were about half the frame and close, and next to impossible to track and the 1DX2 couldn't refocus at 14 FPS. That's why I could almost be tempted by the 1DX3 but there are just too many negatives with it for me personally and I certainly won't be sacrificing hard to come by $$$ for it. If the R5 is good but expensive I will sacrifice $$$.

Jack

 

[AlanF]

"Thanks Morris....yeah these are big crops and that probably is why the DOF covered both of them most of the time.
These ended up being ~ 4.25MPs out of the 24MPs I started with."

Thanks for posting Alan!

I think that says it all because the biggest challenge is keeping the birds in the viewfinder and next to that is AF spread, which is roughly 100% coverage, and it's speed of tracking. That's where the optical AF falls down and why I'm thinking R5. Shots I did of Redpolls fighting were about half the frame and close, and next to impossible to track and the 1DX2 couldn't refocus at 14 FPS. That's why I could almost be tempted by the 1DX3 but there are just too many negatives with it for me personally and I certainly won't be sacrificing hard to come by $$$ for it. If the R5 is good but expensive I will sacrifice $$$.

Jack

I think a DSLR could do the same. It’s a question of having a suitable hand-holdable lens to go with it. Those owls were far away and so easier to frame.

 

[Jack Douglas]

I think a DSLR could do the same. It’s a question of having a suitable hand-holdable lens to go with it. Those owls were far away and so easier to frame.

That's my thought too. But again, my situations have typically been such that the bird would slip into the regions where there are no focus points and maybe my settings are off for that scenario, because I'd tend to lose focus. My biggest problem though is simply not having a lot of flights to practice on.

Jack

 

[dslrdummy]

Three Australian coastal birds from today - Little wattlebird, Brown honey-eater and White ibis

 

[Click]

Very nice shots, dslrdummy.

 

[AlanF]

"Thanks Morris....yeah these are big crops and that probably is why the DOF covered both of them most of the time.
These ended up being ~ 4.25MPs out of the 24MPs I started with."

Thanks for posting Alan!

I think that says it all because the biggest challenge is keeping the birds in the viewfinder and next to that is AF spread, which is roughly 100% coverage, and it's speed of tracking. That's where the optical AF falls down and why I'm thinking R5. Shots I did of Redpolls fighting were about half the frame and close, and next to impossible to track and the 1DX2 couldn't refocus at 14 FPS. That's why I could almost be tempted by the 1DX3 but there are just too many negatives with it for me personally and I certainly won't be sacrificing hard to come by $$$ for it. If the R5 is good but expensive I will sacrifice $$$.

Jack

You are speaking from the perspective of the 1DX2 that has just 61 focus points and not the best DSLRs for BIF. The D500 has 153 cross-type phase-detect focus points, covering most of the view (attached), like the D5, as well as better tracking algorithms, which is why BIF photographers favour them. The new 1DX3 has 155 cross-type focus points, which should greatly enhance it. As yet, the only EVF camera in the same league is the A9/A9II, despite the greater coverage of mirrorless. Not that I find using all the points necessary, and I am happy using my Canon gear with the central 9 points.

 

[dslrdummy]

Very nice shots, dslrdummy.

Thanks Click

 

[Bert63]

You are right. In my mind I had sold it to get the 400 (promised the boss because I was also getting the 1DX2) but it took some time to unload it at a decent price. No regrets on that because of low useage (I actually never mounted it again after the 400 arrived). I didn't loose that much ... not like trying to sell a 1DX2.

I wonder how many DO II there are out there? I do regret one thing - the closer focus of the 300 - I wish they'd but a close-up feature in all the telephotos for bugs.

Jack

Have either of you guys used the 400mm DO II with the 2X tele? Very curious about this setup. I could handle an 800mm with a small hit in aperature as the compromise.

It would still be faster than the upcoming peanut roll known as the 100-500 7.1...

The sad part is I'll probably end up buying that lens... I NEED REACH.

 

[AlanF]

Have either of you guys used the 400mm DO II with the 2X tele? Very curious about this setup. I could handle an 800mm with a small hit in aperature as the compromise.

It would still be faster than the upcoming peanut roll known as the 100-500 7.1...

The sad part is I'll probably end up buying that lens... I NEED REACH.

The 400mm DO II is fine with the 2xTC on a 1DX etc and 5DIII and 5DIV but the 5DSR doesn’t get the full advantage as the image degradation gets more noticeable with the higher resolution sensor.

 

[Bert63]

The 400mm DO II is fine with the 2xTC on a 1DX etc and 5DIII and 5DIV but the 5DSR doesn’t get the full advantage as the image degradation gets more noticeable with the higher resolution sensor.

Do you have any of your own personal examples of the 400 DO II with the 2X? Thanks for responding! Also - does the 2X kick it up to F8?

 

[Jack Douglas]

Do you have any of your own personal examples of the 400 DO II with the 2X? Thanks for responding! Also - does the 2X kick it up to F8?

F4 X2 gives F8, which is a little darker than one would prefer but with the 1DX2 I've been able to boost shadows quite a bit. 800 can be a little challenging at times, say for BIF but the focus speed I get is quite good, the problem is FOV. Like Alan said we both had 300's as the best choice at the time and for me personally I hardly ever used 300. 99% of the time it was 600. My X1.4 had hardly any usefulness. Now both are useful but honestly 800 is the most used for me and certainly for song birds.

If, as I expect, I buy the R5, it's possible that it won't drive 400 X2 as well as the 1DX2 and may lack detail too so that may mean X1.4 becomes the go to, like Alan suggests. I chose 20 MP and 400 while Alan chose 30MP and 400. He has the resolution (including the 5DSR) while I have the FPS (and video). Most everyone would rather have both but you know how that goes. The 400 is a nice lens to handhold and I've carried it all day hiking with the 1DX2 and I'm 70 with moderate breathing issues.

There are times when a zoom would really be handy but generally you know in advance if you need 400, 560 or 800.

I might add that 800 with my 1DX2 definitely put me within reach of most birds that I see while sitting around quietly waiting, whereas 600 with my 6D left me always feeling a little shortchanged. One more thing, it seems I'm forever fighting with high ISOs so that's another reason I've appreciated the 1DX2. I practically never shoot at ISO 100 for example. I'm thrilled if I can get down to 1600 or 2000.

Jack

 

[Bert63]

F4 X2 gives F8, which is a little darker than one would prefer but with the 1DX2 I've been able to boost shadows quite a bit. 800 can be a little challenging at times, say for BIF but the focus speed I get is quite good, the problem is FOV. Like Alan said we both had 300's as the best choice at the time and for me personally I hardly ever used 300. 99% of the time it was 600. My X1.4 had hardly any usefulness. Now both are useful but honestly 800 is the most used for me and certainly for song birds.

If, as I expect, I buy the R5, it's possible that it won't drive 400 X2 as well as the 1DX2 and may lack detail too so that may mean X1.4 becomes the go to, like Alan suggests. I chose 20 MP and 400 while Alan chose 30MP and 400. He has the resolution (including the 5DSR) while I have the FPS (and video). Most everyone would rather have both but you know how that goes. The 400 is a nice lens to handhold and I've carried it all day hiking with the 1DX2 and I'm 70 with moderate breathing issues.

There are times when a zoom would really be handy but generally you know in advance if you need 400, 560 or 800.

I might add that 800 with my 1DX2 definitely put me within reach of most birds that I see while sitting around quietly waiting, whereas 600 with my 6D left me always feeling a little shortchanged. One more thing, it seems I'm forever fighting with high ISOs so that's another reason I've appreciated the 1DX2. I practically never shoot at ISO 100 for example. I'm thrilled if I can get down to 1600 or 2000.

Jack

I live @ 560 F8 all day every day so that would be nothing new to me. I need reach and would love to have 800mm @ F8 over 500mm at 7.1 because adding a tele to 500mm already @ 7.1 wouldn't really be doable.

Up here in the Pacific Northwest high ISO is a way of life...

I would love to see a shot with the 400/2X combo for sharpness.

 

[Jack Douglas]

In Costa Rica my daughter had my 70-200 X1.4 on the R so I was either 800 or 400 all the time and this is 800, ISO 5000, 1/640, F8, no noise reduction. With the 1DX2 sharpening to 4 in DPP is very tolerable. I have tons of 800 shots and just grabbed this one as it jumped out at me scanning through. Good, bad or indifferent, that's what I'm getting.

Jack

 

[Jack Douglas]

I live @ 560 F8 all day every day so that would be nothing new to me. I need reach and would love to have 800mm @ F8 over 500mm at 7.1 because adding a tele to 500mm already @ 7.1 wouldn't really be doable.

Only rarely would you want 1000 anyway because of the challenge of finding the subject. It's an adjustment at 800 and in bushes for closer small birds sometimes I can't find them.

Jack