Show your Bird Portraits

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
2,558
7,411
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
CatherineView attachment 197120
Beautiful, Impressive (you can change the order by your taste:))!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
2,558
7,411
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.jpgDSC_5989_DxO.jpgDSC_6213_DxO.jpgDSC_6215_DxO.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 12 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,299
22,371
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: 1 users
Upvote 0

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
2,558
7,411
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!
 
Upvote 0

Cog

Dec 6, 2013
944
3,084
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: 1 users
Upvote 0

digigal

Traveling the world one step at a time.
CR Pro
Aug 26, 2014
283
586
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::)!
That heron's just not putting his heart into it like those egrets do! There's no one who can outdo an indignant egret! But you got great photos of the "quiet stalker type" guy! :LOL::LOL:
Catherine
 
Upvote 0

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,376
2,308
Kentucky, USA
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.
Yes, #2 is somewhat OOF but I liked the background effect enough to tolerate it to show to others - but not good enough to frame.

All of these had the problem of a super bright background and a dark subject (by comparison). I tried to compensate accordingly but thought that I had brought the subject darkness up enough before it started to look burnt out.

Another thing that probably explains this is our monitor settings. I've recently gotten an X-Rite profiler to set an icc profile for my monitor (Apple 27" thunderbolt). I had to use the dimmest setting it offered, which is still much brighter than I previously had my monitor set at, and when printing to a "standard" printer (without ICC files) I had to *double* the exposure of them before printing them. So that alone might explain the darkness you are seeing, as the photo files are probably 1/2 the exposure of my previous ones (certainly like the cat photos).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mugglemind

CR Pro
Apr 28, 2020
5
10
Took this on Tuesday in St James' Park, London. Thought the pelican was getting ready to launch into flight, but instead it spent about 30 seconds "dancing" and then went back to just standing there.

Taken on R5, with RF 800mm (f11, obviously), 3200 ISO and 1/1000.
 

Attachments

  • pelican3.jpg
    pelican3.jpg
    996.9 KB · Views: 129
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Upvote 0

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,980
2,602
Alberta, Canada
My first day with the R5 and I'm pretty disappointed in ... my performance. I couldn't remember where buttons were or what I had programmed them to. I couldn't get the AF switched when I needed to and I totally forgot to bump up my shutter speed above 1/800 with 400X2. Never the less I was thrilled because this is my first experience with Snow geese and it was amazing as you can no doubt imagine. Oh, and the crummy animal eye AF wouldn't grab the eyes!

Jack
Snow Geese_0029.JPGSnow Geese_R5_s_0034.JPG
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users
Upvote 0

ISv

"The equipment that matters, is you"
CR Pro
Apr 30, 2017
2,558
7,411
That heron's just not putting his heart into it like those egrets do! There's no one who can outdo an indignant egret! But you got great photos of the "quiet stalker type" guy! :LOL::LOL:
:D!
My first day with the R5 and I'm pretty disappointed in ... my performance. I couldn't remember where buttons were or what I had programmed them to. I couldn't get the AF switched when I needed to and I totally forgot to bump up my shutter speed above 1/800 with 400X2. Never the less I was thrilled because this is my first experience with Snow geese and it was amazing as you can no doubt imagine. Oh, and the crummy animal eye AF wouldn't grab the eyes!

Jack
View attachment 197150View attachment 197151
:LOL::ROFLMAO:: "Oh, and the crummy animal eye AF wouldn't grab the eyes!" May it could be because of too many eyes? And I don't want to ask about the distance:)! Seriously - are all that white dots on the first photo Snows (nice photo BTW)?! Few years ago when I met my first 3 (in group) I was so happy. Later (next year I think I met 2-3 more. Happy again.
After your shots I don't know why I was that happy:unsure:.
Doesn't matter - it's Hawaii here...
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,376
2,308
Kentucky, USA
First, thank you Cog, for pointing out that my photos were too dark. I've (hopefully) corrected it with a new x-rite monitor profile (I discovered you can enter your target monitor brightness directly and now I set it lower to "40" with a temperature of 5,000K). Here is the continuation of the Winter ice photos (brighter):
(R5 & RF 100-500L)


House finch:
A03_0419_1_2k95%.jpg


A03_0422_1_2k95%.jpg


male Northern cardinal:
A03_0487_1_2k95%.jpg


A03_0501_1_2k95%.jpg


A03_0503_1_2k95%.jpg


Caroline chickadee:
A03_0531_1_2k95%.jpg


I hope the brightness is better for "typical viewing" - if not then please let me know.

Cheers!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users
Upvote 0