Show your Bird Portraits

[AlanF]

I came from painting and feel by cropping down to see the details, we're missing out on the larger compositions.

I came from birding, and from your posts I guess we have converged and agree that both have their places: on the one hand the bird as dominant subject, on the other hand the scene, but composition for both.

 

[AlanF]

Some bright sun early this morning, and I decided to wheel out the RF 800 (I was on my bike). I have mixed feelings about the lens. Even though it's lighter than the RF 100-500mm + TC, it feels a lot heavier to hand hold steady as the weight is further forward, and the IS is not as good. But, it delivers the goods and I was able to frame and get a sharp shot of a Starling in an autumnal setting (heavily cropped).

 

[Click]

Another very nice shot, Alan.

 

[ISv]

Beautiful shot. Nicely done, ERHP.

One of the wintering Marbled Godwits paused long enough to catch a few frames of it against the reflection of the Belt of Venus.

R5 600 II w/1.4x 1/60 : f/6.3 : ISO 1000

I love it!

 

[ISv]

Excellent photo as always Alan. Coming back from the second consecutive excursion I feel I want to rest (and PP my photos) so the

Thanks! I guess I had a wrong impression of the distance. I started searching dng images for metadata info about distance and I found a Pelican I shot at 75m at 500mm and I made sense of the distance.

Here at 100% cropView attachment 201214
and here the full frame:
View attachment 201213

So thanks for that. I was under the impression that the distances had to be closer. I had to read it to believe it was 75.

You may get the sense of the distance but you hardly can get a sense for the real conditions between the object and your lens: The temperature of the ground/water and the difference between that temperature and the temperature of the air above are of the most important variables of what I call "air quality". It's a complex of variables but these are the most important to me. Even at 20-30 meters distance with the same lens/camera you may get rather different (I mean very bad...) results at worst conditions. And even 6-10 meters in extreme conditions are something you simply can't (completely) eliminate no meter of what lens you are using! On other hand - at that long distances even not that big disturbance in the air could have a devastating effect on your photos - too much disturbed air between the object and the lens.
My point is that for these distances yours and Alan's photos are reasonable good but you hardly can expect the same results at different conditions (and it's not necessarily your lens foul).

 

[tron]

You may get the sense of the distance but you hardly can get a sense for the real conditions between the object and your lens: The temperature of the ground/water and the difference between that temperature and the temperature of the air above are of the most important variables of what I call "air quality". It's a complex of variables but these are the most important to me. Even at 20-30 meters distance with the same lens/camera you may get rather different (I mean very bad...) results at worst conditions. And even 6-10 meters in extreme conditions are something you simply can't (completely) eliminate no meter of what lens you are using! On other hand - at that long distances even not that big disturbance in the air could have a devastating effect on your photos - too much disturbed air between the object and the lens.
My point is that for these distances yours and Alan's photos are reasonable good but you hardly can expect the same results at different conditions (and it's not necessarily your lens foul).

I remember 5.5 years ago I took some shots at noon and all my gear seemed like garbage. I used it in the afternoon and all was well

That comes back as an issue sometimes because I cannot always shoot only in the morning and/or in the afternoon.

 

[AlanF]

Another autumnal shot, this time back with the RF 100-500mm + 2xTC. Chaffinches have been rare this year and last, but this male was on my apple tree for quite a while, allowing me to change lenses and compare with the RF 800mm and RF 800mm + 1.4xTC. Not much to choose between them in practice.

 

[tron]

It's nice when birds "cooperate" with us

 

[Click]

Beautiful shot. Lovely colours. Nicely done, Alan.

 

[usern4cr]

Another autumnal shot, this time back with the RF 100-500mm + 2xTC. Chaffinches have been rare this year and last, but this male was on my apple tree for quite a while, allowing me to change lenses and compare with the RF 800mm and RF 800mm + 1.4xTC. Not much to choose between them in practice.

View attachment 201239

Beautiful Fall colors, AlanF!

 

[Del Paso]

A couple of Gadwalls 65m away taken with RF 100-400mm on R5. Usual heavy crop.

View attachment 201208

Heavy crop?
No, very heavy crop!
This lens is much better than I thought! My GAS sets in...

 

[ISv]

Another photos of the Rudy Turnstone...
There was nothing more interesting on the beach that I walked today.
If there is something that I really don't like in 500mm PF is the rendering of the strong highlights in the bokeh: partially onion-shaped on the periphery, kind of net-shaped elsewhere (and it was expected!)...
On other hand I would imagine walking the sand of the beach with 500mm f4 -significantly difficult (but depends how much you have to walk there)!
The first photo I already posted before - Pacific Golden Plover, after that is a photo where I tried to soften at least the brighter spots (PF 5 I thing? - local adjustments). When that spots are not that much you have a chance to do something in PP.
And the last two are the Rudy Turnstone from today - that nasty spots are too much to even try!

 

[Ivan Muller]

 

[josephandrews222]

...an ordinary House Sparrow trying to look a little less ordinary so as to attract the attention of the ladies:

 

[AlanF]

Another photos of the Rudy Turnstone...
There was nothing more interesting on the beach that I walked today.
If there is something that I really don't like in 500mm PF is the rendering of the strong highlights in the bokeh: partially onion-shaped on the periphery, kind of net-shaped elsewhere (and it was expected!)...
On other hand I would imagine walking the sand of the beach with 500mm f4 -significantly difficult (but depends how much you have to walk there)!
The first photo I already posted before - Pacific Golden Plover, after that is a photo where I tried to soften at least the brighter spots (PF 5 I thing? - local adjustments). When that spots are not that much you have a chance to do something in PP.
And the last two are the Rudy Turnstone from today - that nasty spots are too much to even try!

View attachment 201272View attachment 201273View attachment 201274View attachment 201275

All lenses are a compromise. The 500PF has the great advantages of being light and very sharp and you can carry it with you easily. But, its weaknesses are with strong backlighting and sometimes with highlights - a small price to pay. Nice shots anyway.

 

[Del Paso]

View attachment 201277View attachment 201276
View attachment 201278View attachment 201279View attachment 201280View attachment 201282View attachment 201286View attachment 201285

What can I say?
Simply excellent!

 

[HenryL]

View attachment 201277View attachment 201276
View attachment 201278View attachment 201279View attachment 201280View attachment 201282View attachment 201286View attachment 201285

Ivan, those are some lovely photos. Thank you for sharing!

 

[Click]

Another photos of the Rudy Turnstone...
There was nothing more interesting on the beach that I walked today.
If there is something that I really don't like in 500mm PF is the rendering of the strong highlights in the bokeh: partially onion-shaped on the periphery, kind of net-shaped elsewhere (and it was expected!)...
On other hand I would imagine walking the sand of the beach with 500mm f4 -significantly difficult (but depends how much you have to walk there)!
The first photo I already posted before - Pacific Golden Plover, after that is a photo where I tried to soften at least the brighter spots (PF 5 I thing? - local adjustments). When that spots are not that much you have a chance to do something in PP.
And the last two are the Rudy Turnstone from today - that nasty spots are too much to even try!

Very nice series, ISv. I especially like the first picture.

 

[Click]

Beautiful pictures, Ivan.

 

[Click]

Nice shot, Josephandres.