Bird Photography

[doug herr]

Mark B Bartosik, I'd like to know where I wrote that anyone can do anything with any lens, so that I may repudiate that statement. I really hesitate to bring up the 'Leica' name because so many people have pre-concieved notions about the cameras and the people who use them. Please note that many of my 300mm lens photos were made with an old manual-focus f/4.5 Nikkor that currently sells for well under $300, and that the Leica 400mm lens I use sells now for about $500 more or less on the used market. The only point I'm trying to get across is that 500mm and 600mm f/4 lenses with extenders are not the only way to get photos of birds. If you think outside the box you'll find that many birds can be photographed with much shorter lenses. And I believe I've clearly labelled my photos of captive birds as captives.

<P>

I'm not putting down the people who use the big glass, neither will I put down those whose budgets cannot justify a well-known brand of 400mm lens. I'm also not going to tell newbies that huge piles of cash are nessesary. I'm not saying that with a $300 off-brand lens anyone can get pictures that equal the photos made with an image-stabilized 600mm f/4 plus extenders; what I'm saying is that good pictures of wild birds can be made with modest equipment in the right circumstances.

[dave wyman]

Mark, beautiful photograph of the owl. Question: while you've shown us the full frame photo, could not someone with half as powerful a lens simply crop their own photo so that the owl would be approximately the same size as we see it presented here?

 

Obviously it's going to be a better (i.e. shaper) photo if it doesn't have to be cropped, but there's surely nothing wrong with cropping. Here's my cropped photo of a gray jay in Yellowstone, the camera hand held with an inexpensive little 55-200mm lens (on my DSLR. The jay was waiting for my fellow photographers and I to leave our picnic table to score any leftovers.

[bill_thorlin]

All things are possible.

 

There will be times when you are in the right place at the right time to get a shot that works even with, say, a 100mm lens. Cropping will of course help out and make the image worthwhile. I would, however, categorise that as mainly serendipity.

 

If bird photography is your thing and you want to consistently ( repeat consistently ) get usable images then the solution is to get equipment that will enable you to do this ( use enough gun ).

 

Both Marks are ornithologically and photographically very capable ( check out their postings and photographs ) and consistently get quality images and the advice they give is about as good as you will get if bird photography is your thing. I am sure there are others but I know their work well enough to be able to appreciate their opinions.

 

I wish I could have got some images yesterday but spent the whole of a sunny day assembling a greenhouse - oh well perhaps I can use it as a hide !

[vivek iyer]

"How come every well known pro is using 500 or/and 600? Except maybe for few freaks who want to look original."

 

So, if someone uses a 500 and/or 600 is a pro and the others are "freaks"? Nice to know that, "pro".

 

Paul, Choose to be an original and don't lose your cookies (or drain your wallet) :-)

[mark_chappell]

<I>Mark, beautiful photograph of the owl. Question: while you've shown us the full frame

photo, could not someone with half as powerful a lens simply crop their own photo so that

the owl would be approximately the same size as we see it presented here?<P>

 

Obviously it's going to be a better (i.e. shaper) photo if it doesn't have to be cropped...

</i><P>

 

I think you pretty much answered your own question with your second sentence. The

utility of cropping depends on what you want to do with the image. For a typical Web

posting, where you're restricted to dimensions of a few hundred pixels, cropping is fine.

For a large print, a strongly cropped photo will be of considerably lower quality. And the

effect of focal length is considerable. If you define "half as powerful" as 1/2 the focal

length, your bird image will have 1/4 the number of pixels (or film area). The difference

between a 500mm lens and a 600mm lens doesn't seem like much but at a given distance,

a bird image shot with the 600mm will have 44% more pixels than if shot with a 500.<P>

 

Besides the obvious issue of 'reach', there are other important qualities that distinguish

images from big lenses versus small lenses. One of the most important is depth of field.

If you wish to show your subject against a sofly blurred, nondistracting background,

nothing beats a big lens with its miniscule DOF. For example, this red-breasted nuthatch

photo would be much less attractive (IMO) if taken from much closer with a shorter lens,

because the background would have been a jumbled mess of tree branches:<P>

 

<P>

<CENTER>

 

<A HREF="http://biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/birds5"

target="_blank">

 

<IMG SRC="http://biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/birds5/

redbreastedNH.jpg"></a>

</center>

 

On the other hand, if you want to convey an impression of the animal in its habitat, that

very shallow big-glass DOF is a handicap.<P>

 

Finally, one of the main reasons I prefer to work with a long lens is that it usually reduces

the amount of disturbance you cause. In my experience, I'm MUCH less likely to scare

something if I stand back with 700 or 1000mm of optics than if I try to get an equivalent

image (in terms of filling the frame) with a 300 or 400. To most animals there is a BIG

difference between a

human 5 m away and one 15 m away.<P>

 

That said, you can certainly get good bird images with relatively short lenses -- but you

have to recognize their disadvantages as well as their advantages.

[rwhillman]

"Not every time, but that certainly helps. And talent, study, work, and patience AND a $5K lens are an even better combination."

 

A silly statement by someone who should know better. That is a little like saying don't play golf, fish, paint or whatever unless you can afford the expensive clubs, gear, or brushes. I suppose if you do spend $5,000 on a lens for bird photography (and I did) it helps calm you down if you keep saying that this is the only way you can take good pictures of birds. Ridiculous.

 

Bob

[mark_chappell]

<I>A silly statement by someone who should know better. That is a little like saying don't

play golf, fish, paint or whatever unless you can afford the expensive clubs, gear, or

brushes</i><P>

 

Bob, I think you are overreacting. What I meant to say was simply that you need both skill

and the right tools. Sometimes -- very often in bird photography -- the right tool is a big

lens. Your analogy with golf missed the point: a cheap golf club and an expensive golf

club are both golf clubs. A cheap paint brush and an expensive paint brush are both paint

brushes. But a 200 mm or 300 mm lens <B>is not</b> a 600 mm lens, and in the real

world the latter is a lot more expensive than the former.

[dave wyman]

I'm just playing Devil's advocate here, because obviously many serious photographers use extreme telephotos to make terrific photos, like the ones in shown in this thread. (And I have nothing against longer optics. I have a compact 400mm f/5.6, and a monstrous 500mm f/4.5) <p>

 

But is there not more than one route to enlightenment? This is the digital age. With Gaussian Blur, for example, it's fairly easy to blur any background made with any lens, from wide to telephoto. Cost of a great lens: $5000? Cost of Photshop Elements: $69. <p>

 

Yes, I rather use my longer lenses to photograph birds (or elk, moose, etc), but I'm not convinced those are necessary requirements for making personally satisfying wildlife images. The original poster, of course, didn't say precisely what he wanted to do with his bird photos - make prints, post them online, sell them to magazines, or all of the above - so that makes it a bit more difficult to answer his question.<div></div>

[phule]

If you have an itch for a long glass like 400, 500 or 600mm lenses, then the best way to try them out is to rent.

 

I can rent a Canon 400mm f/2.8 and 1.4x TC for $90 for a whole weekend. The Canon 600mm f/4 for $120!

 

Considering the cost of these lenses new or used, renting is a great option.

[the lone ranger]

I'd take brains and some creativity over a 600mm lens any day. there's so many bird portraits out there with big glass that are technically perfect but boring as heck. is it worth 6k to have a library of those types of shots?

 

I'd recommend checking out the book "On Ancient Wings" by Michael Forsberg. now that is what I call great bird photography. nothing in his book was done the easy way.

[rwhillman]

Bob, I think you are overreacting. What I meant to say was simply that you need both skill and the right tools. Sometimes -- very often in bird photography -- the right tool is a big lens. Your analogy with golf missed the point: a cheap golf club and an expensive golf club are both golf clubs. A cheap paint brush and an expensive paint brush are both paint brushes. But a 200 mm or 300 mm lens is not a 600 mm lens, and in the re"al world the latter is a lot more expensive than the former."

 

Mark - if you look again at Paul's question there is very little encouragement in the responses he received. Doug has very ably demonstrated that you don't need the biggest and the most expensive lenses to pursue this hobby. Sure, the $5,000 lens helps, but there are other options and it would be nice if Paul have been given some more suggestions on how to pursue this within a reasonable budget. I am afraid the message he may be getting is don't bother if you don't have the big bucks, and I think that is dead wrong.

 

Bob

[vivek iyer]

Let me refer to Heather Forcier's post again. It makes a lot of sense to me.

 

I would hesitate to spend a huge amount of money for a very heavy P&S set up if there are no handsome (money wise) returns for it.

[mark_chappell]

<I>Mark - if you look again at Paul's question there is very little encouragement in the

responses he received. Doug has very ably demonstrated that you don't need the biggest

and the most expensive lenses to pursue this hobby. Sure, the $5,000 lens helps, but

there are other options and it would be nice if Paul have been given some more

suggestions on how to pursue this within a reasonable budget. I am afraid the message he

may be getting is don't bother if you don't have the big bucks, and I think that is dead

wrong.</i><P>

 

Take a look at my first response to Paul. It gave several relatively inexpensive options

that are used by a lot of bird shooters. It also stated the fact -- and it is a fact -- that

people who are really entranced by bird photography or do it professionally typically

end up working behind a 500mm or 600mm. It's quite true that one can produce

excellent and rewarding

results with a reasonable expenditure (say, a lens in the 400 mm range) -- I did exactly

that for many years. It's also the case, in my experience at least, that one has many more

options if you have access to a big lens.

[kin_lau]

If you don't have the money for the big glass (ie 500/4.5), then a 400/5.6 should be the minimum, and lots of patience and practice.

</p>

If you shoot colour slide film, then you'll quickly spend enough on film and processing in the 1st year to buy a Digital Rebel. I have a Sigma 400/5.6 semi-permanently attached to a 350D/XT Digital Rebel. It's fairly rare that I can get a bird full frame, except for tame species or at feeders.

</p>

Some times... you get lucky. I have sharper shots, but it's hard to beat the moment.

</p>

 

<img src="http://dslrexchange.com/photopostdslrx/data/502/medium/Hermes-and-Galileo-2.jpg"</img>

[mark_chappell]

Kin: that's QUITE a shot, for sure!

[kin_lau]

Mark C,

 

Thanks... I love that shot. These 2 brothers were about 50 ft above me, only about 2 1/2 months old and "stretching" their wings.

[rwhillman]

Kin -- Outstanding shot, and a good lesson here for Paul. Bob

[jd_rose]

At some point someone had devalued the images of captive birds.

 

I do not, the resulting picture, the captured beauty is the goal. I really don't care what hardware you used or where you found the bird.

 

Birds are gorgeous, no matter the setting.

 

 

Let's photograph them where ever we see them; zoo, backyard, on roadkill, in a cage, on the pond, grabbing morsels from the front grill, the birdfeeder, the wilds, gobbling bread from your hand, from behind the blind, on and on.

 

My favorite is mounting a camera close to the hummingbird feeder and remotely tripping the camera. Such color and irridescence!

 

--- JDR<div></div>

[jd_rose]

One More.<div></div>

[cappoldt]

As already stated by Heather, give it a try first on an affordable budget. I'm using a used 300mm f4 Nikon prime and a teleconverter bought at keh.com (you could likely find comparable Canon there) at about $475 total for lens and converter, a $70 camouflage bird blind from cabelas.com, and a bird feeder.

 

With a rig like that you'll still have to learn technique and also as Heather said, benefit from digital feedback. I also found Art Morris' books to be extremely helpful, especially regarding flash technique with birds.

 

So, I'll save $, and one day, drop the bomb on some big glass and $1,000 worth of tripod and heads to support it - and always find the 300mm I bought a great value.<div></div>

[mbb]

Yesterday I was going to write some additional remarks, but like always Mark C was lighting fast and already did that. I would like to add my support, and I am surprise nobody did that yet, to the importance of using long lenses to minimize disturbance of birds. Nesting time and raising young are critical but even in time between birds like other animals (including humans) prefer to be left alone. For nature photographer this aspect should have a top priority. And Mark, your trigger Mark II, is better and bigger and also faster. :) I cannot use my 2X without loosing AF.

<p>

Bill, like always I enjoy reading your opinions, thanks for your kind words. I am interested in your remarks very much as I know your standpoint in other important nature-related issues.

<p>

 

Dave, Mark C already commented on your remark about cropping. Not much left to add. Maybe just few examples bellow. Thanks for opinion about owl photo. This particular photo is nothing special and was only presented to illustrate the technical subject. Just another stock one added to my collection. Full frame is not an issue here. What I was trying to stress out in than <b>it was taken in semi-darkness</b> and lens was performing very well, much better than smaller brothers.

<p>

 

Cropping is a double edge sword. On one hand one can use it to better illustrate small object in original frame on the web display, but if one wants a print ?.

<p>

 

So let?s illustrate little more what 500mm f4 IS can do. Cropping images for web use can bring amazing results. You can go to native pixels level (100% crop) and still post image on web - most viewers won?t know if not stated. I rarely can get close to this quality with 100mm f5.6 or 100-400mm lenses.

<p>

 

Lets use the another owl image as an example, here is photo of barred owl taken in different place and time, during a day so, no problem with shutter speed etc. With 500mm f4 plus 1.4X I was able to get half portrait (posted image is cropped to rid off the background) without scaring this bird away from the perch.

<p style="text-align:center"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3876409-lg.jpg" /></p>

 

And here is 100% crop (native pixels) to illustrate possible details for web display of similar images.

<p style="text-align:center"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3964667-lg.jpg" /></p>

 

And one more 100% crop of my beloved least grebe. Because of fine details this one can be upsized and print quite easy as a larger print but still cannot bit the similar print coming from full frame.

<p style="text-align:center"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3853659-lg.jpg" /></p>

 

Here I posted another native pixels crop example some time ago: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DW5M

<p>

 

Douglas Herr, I did not cite your exact words but rather described impression I personally had after reading your post. I do not criticize yours (or anybody else) photos of captive birds. If you only were familiar with some of my past responses you would know that I do promote them as an addition to wildlife shots. I wish I had more time to visit places with captive specimens. This thread is about photographing wild birds (or am I wrong?). So my question was rather: ?What is your point in showing them as an example?? especially with relation to advantage (or not) of using long lenses to photograph birds in wild.

<p>

 

An average weekend 'wildbird shooter'? (here exemption is Mark C who is studying birds for living) is getting close to most of specimens on rare occasions. Most close approaches are luck with individual specimens and even if sometimes it is a rare or shy bird, it is a one time deal, no consistency and usually no portraits of small species show up as an example of using short lenses. Usually random species of birds are photographed, whatever shows up on trail and does not run (fly) away.

<p>

 

Also I would like to stress out that I try to avoid answering posts of sarcastic, ironic etc character. Usually ignore them. It is not a purpose of this forum to make flames. JDR, I do not remember you as a poster before so short and to the point. In the same time you posted another reply in my thread about Sharp-shinned Hawk. Quite unpleasant reply I may say. I understand that you cannot ID bird, but also, you are quite wrong about post processing. Photo was not darkened but adjusted for shadows (lightened) as it was taken in the hurry and I had compensation set for underexposing (was working on something else) at that very moment. It is a typical 'record shot' taken to be use for ID of this bird. On another hand, here in this thread, some people try to express their opinions about technical aspect of taking birds photos not the beauty. In fact, I believe, the only thing we share (if any), is adoring the beauty of those creatures but I also have interest to study some of them so not necessary all my photos are taken with beauty in mind. BTW you posted here two examples and I am not sure if I correctly can link those to the subject of beauty? Well here we might have just a different taste or am I missing something? So please remember I usually ignore posters with sarcastic remarks and also those who are using uncivilized writing style or are showing total ignorance and try to aggressively attack another posters.

<p>

 

Wishing to all of you good birding during Holidays. I probably will have limited access (if any) to internet for about one week when exploring more of the South Texas borders.

<p>

 

Best regards to all of you, Mark

[mark_chappell]

<I>An average weekend 'wildbird shooter'? (here exemption is Mark C who is studying birds

for living)</i><P>

 

Oh, I wish it was true. I spend most of my time in the lab (we work mainly with mice) or in

my office. I do photography mainly on weekends. Alas.

[mbb]

Then I am not jealous any more :). Cheers

[vivek iyer]

"Douglas Herr, I did not cite your exact words but rather described impression I personally had after reading your post. I do not criticize yours (or anybody else) photos of captive birds."

 

Mark (B), You just demonstrated that you know nothing about Douglas Herr or about anyone else. If something works for you, well and good. Please refrain from making presumptive posts about others. It is getting in to what Bob Atkins would term as an Ad Hominem attack.

[mbb]

Should ignore, but read the whole tread again. It is response to his post not an Ad Hominem attack:). I noticed many personal flames, attacks and ego shows in past and that is what I know. Let me stay out of it. You do not have to like my opinions and give me the same right about yours. I will never attack you. Have no time for it. Case ended.