Bird photography,lens,subject size,crop and working distance for beginers

V

Vincent

Senior Member
I sometimes use a Pentax Q for having a crop factor of 5,6X, but you need to be very close and with a very calm subject.

D7000 with 70-300mm f4-5.6G fly by can not remember the distance, many pictures that day. (It is close 20-30m at a harbour near the fishing boats)

Full picture, not edited:
20151031-VFA_8316.jpg

you can see I believe (not certain), that the lens is a bit sharper at 270mm so that is what I shoot at mostly, f6.3 a little stopped down to increase sharpness further.

Cropped and edited:
20151031-VFA_8316-2.jpg
 
Last edited:
V

Vincent

Senior Member
One of the topics I would like to add to the discussion is keeper rates.
For the beginners, a good picture is generally accompanied with a series of bad pictures (certainly with birds in flight, BIF).
It is not abnormal to take 30-50 pictures to have one you really like (sharpness, composition, etc... all work together), that would be a low keeper rate.

For example my BIF keeper rate with the 600mm f4 seems a lot higher (1 keeper out of 4) then with the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII (1 keeper out of 20) which is higher then with the 70-300mm f4-5.6G. It is not only linked with the technology of the lens, but also with the user. The 70-200 I support better then the 70-300, because I have to. The 600mm is always on the best tripod, adding to the keeper rate. On the other hand I take a lot more daring shots with the 70-300mm since I can move it around more easily.

An other issue with keeper rates is that the science seems to be missing, I have seen few installations for AF + VR tests in panning shorts where no human intervention is required.
 
V

Vincent

Senior Member
Similar to the seagull above a cormorant flying close to me, towards me, shot with the 70-300mm f4-5.6G
Original: about 20m, Exif included
20151031-VFA_8363.jpg
Edited:
20151031-VFA_8363-2.jpg

When it flew over at about 10m:
20151031-VFA_8365.jpg
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
I dont get too interested in keeper rate for birds in flight,too many variables which we try to control but cant always,a bird flying towards me but will actually fly across in front of me then it would depend on your definition of a keeper.I may take 10 or so shots but they will start when i know the bird is too far away but it allows me to get sighted,focused and into the swing before the opportunity for the shot i want presents itself,out of those 10 i may get three keepers where the bird is large enough,sharp and has the wings in the position i want,the other 7 could easily be sharp but not what i wanted.
If i want a front on shot then thats a different story,again i will start too soon to be getting what i want but that keeps the camera close to if not in focus on the bird,far better than waiting until the last moment hoping the camera can find focus and you can frame the shot in a split second,of the ten shots here some will be OOF some will be too small and some maybe too large if i dont get zoomed in time but if i get the one shot i want then ime happy.
Its digital so free at the taking point,the more you practice and develop a way of working the better your keeper rate will be.
 
J

jay_dean

Senior Member
Pretty much what Mike said above. If i take say 15 images of a bird, i might just keep 2 or 3, ifs its a rarer example maybe 6 or 7. I'll keep the ones where its in a better position etc. There are a few oof ones that'll get binned off straight away, but I've found that the lens i use for birding now provides me with more of a keeper rate vs oof shots than my previous birding lens
 
V

Vincent

Senior Member
mikew said:
...shots ... will start when i know the bird is too far away but it allows me to get sighted,focused and into the swing before the opportunity for the shot i want presents itself,out of those 10 i may get three keepers where the bird is large enough,sharp and has the wings in the position i want,the other 7 could easily be sharp but not what i wanted....
Click to expand...

I know you have some experience, I do believe you sense it in what you stated here. It shows a control on yourself, the situation, the subject, etc...
I`m convinced that I have less control. I try more, I control my movements less (it requires concentration) and it shows in the keeper rate.

What I want to come to, first you try with a low keeper rate, then you learn and you optimise the moment when you take the shots and your keeper rate goes up. But clearly since the subject does not take orders well you need to take risks to come to something interesting. It is different from some landscape shots where you sometimes wait a long time for the right shot and do not take many pictures waiting.
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
Thought i would deal with Bridge cameras and can they be used for wild life,the short answer is yes they can,the long answer needs to cover what they are and how they work and why your results would most of the time lack the quality of the pictures from DX and FX SLRs with long lenses on.
A bridge camera can boast an exceptionally long telephoto lens,that is misleading the Nikon P900 which i have just bought boasts a 2000mm lens when it actually has a 357mm lens,the way the top number is arrived at is by putting a very small sensor in the camera,you could achieve the same image size by cropping a DX or FX image but the bridge camera has more pixels in that small area hopefully leaving you with a better image than an extremely large crop on DX or FX.
There could be a few reasons why your looking at a bridge camera,they are cheaper than a DSLR and long lens,lighter and a full range of lenses from wide angle to telephoto built in but they are a compromise, on most forums (not this one) you would find the gear freaks commenting on the lack of quality,they forget most photographers use the gear they can afford or want to use for other reasons.

Will do some more posts with image examples but for now a picture of a bridge camera for any that are not sure what ime talking about.

nikon-coolpix-p900-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
S

salukfan111

Senior Member
mikew said:
Thought i would deal with Bridge cameras and can they be used for wild life,the short answer is yes they can,the long answer needs to cover what they are and how they work and why your results would most of the time lack the quality of the pictures from DX and FX SLRs with long lenses on.
A bridge camera can boast an exceptionally long telephoto lens,that is misleading the Nikon P900 which i have just bought boasts a 2000mm lens when it actually has a 357mm lens,the way the top number is arrived at is by putting a very small sensor in the camera,you could achieve the same image size by cropping a DX or FX image but the bridge camera has more pixels in that small area hopefully leaving you with a better image than an extremely large crop on DX or FX.
There could be a few reasons why your looking at a bridge camera,they are cheaper than a DSLR and long lens,lighter and a full range of lenses from wide angle to telephoto built in but they are a compromise, on most forums (not this one) you would find the gear freaks commenting on the lack of quality,they forget most photographers use the gear they can afford or want to use for other reasons.

Will do some more posts with image examples but for now a picture of a bridge camera for any that are not sure what ime talking about.

View attachment 189009
Click to expand...
It is unfortunate there aren't direct comparisons available. If these cameras actually provide 2000 mm (film equivalent) performance, then they are an obvious choice for beginning birders. I have an old black friday Kodak that does something ridiculous like 60x and is great for surveillance and produces beautiful images in the viewscreen but the end result is awful.
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
salukfan111 said:
It is unfortunate there aren't direct comparisons available. If these cameras actually provide 2000 mm (film equivalent) performance, then they are an obvious choice for beginning birders. I have an old black friday Kodak that does something ridiculous like 60x and is great for surveillance and produces beautiful images in the viewscreen but the end result is awful.
Click to expand...

Did i just say before the prophets of doom jump in:D unless you have constructive input i cant see the point in your post,i have already mentioned the relationship between actual lens length and advertised length,and to bring in a old Kodak camera which will be so far behind modern technology is just a joke.
Was not going to put this in yet but i do consider these cameras good for a element of beginners,one example is the teenager who wants to get into birding but needs there parents to buy the camera,the basics of photography and field craft will be learnt with these bridge cameras.
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
The biggest disadvantage with most bridge cameras is the small sensor size,that though leads to the advantage of the effective longer lens,the bridge camera is not the best wildlife camera by a long way,it is though a useful tool to get you started.Where i spend a lot of time chasing wildlife i come across eight other photographers on a regular basis,five use DSLRs and three use bridge cameras,out of the three with bridge cameras two are a similar age to me and have parted with there DSLRS as they became too heavy.
The third is interesting he gets some great images,while talking to him on day i ask if he shot raw,he didnt know what i was talking about,he told me he had bought the camera 18 months before and was still using it as the dealer set it up for him,he has no interest in cameras at all,only images.
Bellow are three links,one is to a image showing the different sensor sizes,the bridge camera is normally the smallest one,the other two are for flickr groups for the Nikon P610 and P900,you will notice the images vary a lot,the best images are due to better user input.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format#/media/File:Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside_2014.png



 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
Just a quick example i put together today to show what you should not do with bridge cameras,even though they have reach,please excuse the vignetting as i use a lens hood which causes cut off at wide angles.

Under the arrow is a pigeon

DSCN0255c.jpg


Although a semi respectable size can be achieved the result is too poor to consider due to the distance.

DSCN0254.jpg
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
This is a full frame at 357mm (2000mm FOV) no cropping,as you can see the image is not up to DX or FX standard,its a choice you must make.

DSCN0260.jpg
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
To conclude with these are about as good as i can get with a bridge camera,i still consider my D7200 and 150-600 to be miles better but if i had to i would just use a bridge camera.

19163718158_8f989a1d68_o.jpg
20263305986_43a4d575a9_o.jpg
20263305996_f1ccd09031_o.jpg
20380529774_a7ff5d2e2e_o.jpg
20466354063_b6e7aee4d3_o.jpg
 
S

salukfan111

Senior Member
mikew said:
Did i just say before the prophets of doom jump in:D unless you have constructive input i cant see the point in your post,i have already mentioned the relationship between actual lens length and advertised length,and to bring in a old Kodak camera which will be so far behind modern technology is just a joke.
Was not going to put this in yet but i do consider these cameras good for a element of beginners,one example is the teenager who wants to get into birding but needs there parents to buy the camera,the basics of photography and field craft will be learnt with these bridge cameras.
Click to expand...
I'm not razzing you. I think it is a just a shame we've got all these different sorts of cameras (even digiscoping) out there and there aren't the type of websites to compare everything. It may be that digiscoping is the way to go for birding (I tried and failed) or even a souped up bridge camera it's just a lack a information (that neither you or I are responsible for). I would think with the spiffy cell phone cameras out there and al the proprietary a/d and firmware someone could make a reasonable priced bridge camera that with a single permanent lens could do from 100 to 2000 effective focal length for a price around 300 bucks. This may already exist but who knows about it? I just want to flush out information that already exists for the betterment of all. I'm all about maximizing ones opportunities for the minimum money and also realize (as do you) there is a huge market for people that would just like to buy and a camera and use it. I used the example of my 8 year old Kodak because if it can send a picture at 60x (or whatever) to the viewscreeen with modern sensors, modern a/d converters, and current algorthyms that image can make it to a sd card. We're really on the same side here.
 
Top