Photographing Birds

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>+1 <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3671344">Sinh Nhut Nguyen</a> <br /> Rene' - that #3 is a stunner.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>fact is that people who shoot both Nikon & Canon always complain about how poorly the Nikon lenses hold up with a TC on it</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmh, since I don't have experience with either manufacturer's supperteles, I can't agree or disagree. Given the fact that the TC are specifically made for the 400/500/600 - I have my doubts about this "fact" though.<br /> <br /> I do avian photography and use the 300/4 AF-S with TC-14E and mostly with the TC-17EII attached. The combo works OK in good light and the quality is sufficient when I get close enough to not have to crop the image to a large extent (just for composition or aspect ratio). In terms of quality the 500mm achieved this way are not even close to what the 500/4 delivers - a 4x the cost of course. I also use the 80-400 - mainly to overcome the lack of VR on the 300/4 and occasionally because I am close enough to need to back off from the maximum focal length.<br /> <br /> I had considered the purchase of the 200-400 last year but was amazed to see many renowned bird photographers offer theirs for sale and opt for the 500/4 or 600/4 instead. It gave me reason to pause. While I am certain that the optical quality is higher than that of the 80-400 and likely even the 300/4 with 1.4x TC attached, I felt that most of the time I needed to add the 1.4x behind it anyway - and as Lil stated, on many online boards that combination wasn't rated highly. Certainly better than the 300/4 AF-S with 1.7x - but also at 3x the cost and about twice the weight.<br /> <br /> Unfortunately, the lenses that would suit my personal situation best are from Canon - the 400/4 DO would be perfect for BIF and the 800/5.6 would give me the reach without the need for an extender. Maybe Canon will eventually manufacture a body with an ergonomics and control layout that a lifelong Nikon shooter can get comfortable with. Then all I need is about $20K in cash - wonder which one will happen first.<br /> <br /> Mark, is the image that you show on top a crop? It looks very soft to me. It is hard to tell from the small size - but it appears the wire is in focus and the bird's eye slight OOF.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Sinh Nhut said:<br>

"It's not a about how long your lens is, it's all about how close you can get to the bird with the longest lens you have. You left out one of the most important thing about bird photography, that is knowing the bahavior of the birds you shoot."<br>

This is absolutely true and can't be denied, but it comes off as a put down.<br>

I know the behaviour of my favorite kingfisher, for instance, but he likes to hang out on a little island on my favorite birding pond. I can get my feet in the water. To get closer, I'd have to float out there while he's gone and lay in the mud for hours waiting for him to come to me. Some would do that, I realize, but I can get a nice shot by waiting for him to call me and then getting right on the edge of the pond and using a longer lens.<br>

I think the comment was meant as a reminder. You can take stunning images with a 400mm f5.6 lens. There are good reasons to get a longer lens, but I think that you shouldn't move up until your get a high percentage of keepers with a 400mm or less.</p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>OHhh ok , it's a blog. My bad, you said it was an article in the OP, I was just trying to help you improve your poorly written and lack of information "article".<br />By the way I didn't read it fully, so can you please point out where in your article really addresses my point? Which is "knowing the bird behavior".<br />Do you know what your problem is? You ask us for our opinion and when we do give them to you, instead of accepting it you offensively reject it.</p>

[mark_esposito]

<p>Sinh,</p>

<p>Thanks for your comments. I was refering to your comment about getting close enough, not the other about behavior. Getting close enough was my point after-all.</p>

<p>If it's poorly written, then I accept your critique. It didn't feel poorly written when I was done, but that's me. I'll try to do better. Hopefully some people can come away with the simple message that you need lenses that are sufficiently long for "some" kinds of Bird photography.</p>

<p>I had always planned a part 2 of this blog article, so maybe I can close the loops that way.</p>

<p>- Mark</p>

[paul_f3]

<p>Even though this is not a small bird, I was about 8 feet away, as I remember. As far as this Great Egret was concerned, my car, on the shoulder of a farm to market road, was a blind he found of no interest on that spring day:</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9979433-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="768" /></p>

<p>I rested my Nikon 990 with Nikon TC-3ED (focal length equivalent 115mm x 3 = 345mm) on a coat draped over the edge of the passenger window. The beaten up 990 (which required one to hold the broken battery door shut with one's thumb) and converter cost a total of $113 on Ebay.</p>

<p> </p>

[dcstep]

<p>Paul F, I'm not sure why you needed 345mm-equivalent for a great egret, but YES a car does make an amazingly good blind, IF the roads are near enough to the subjects.<br>

One of my friends recently saw a ring-neck pheasant by the road as she drove. She turned around and pulled up close and waited for the bird to start moving around again and got some wonderful shots from the driver's window. I recently chased a red tailed hawk with my car. It was funny, he got angry a yelled at me when I got out of the car, but when I got back in he'd always calm down.</p>

[bobbymac]

<p>Mark, I for one enjoyed your article and your image of the bird on barbed wire looks good to me. I don't use Nikon or Canon but your advice on lens selection I think would be true for any system. I guess I'll go take a look at some of the old minolta long glass.</p>

[greg_kowalczewski]

<p>Mark<br>

Thank you for your article.</p>

<p>The message I take from it is DX format plus the longest lens you can afford to buy (and in my case, carry). I shoot everything handheld – so unless I am close, no pictures. And as your article suggests, I do my best to fill the frame. I don’t normally shoot birds but as luck would have it I managed to capture this on the weekend.</p><div></div>

[carl_becker2]

<p>Mark, I do some causal bird photography for myself. After reading your article which is how you describe it I am not sure it really would help someone new. Your approach is from the high end which is not usually where some one new is starting. IMHO it would have been better suggesting knowledge of the subject first by spending lots of time watching then getting close to fill the frame or something to that effect. Of course I do not consider myself a writer. Although I use FX with a older used 500mm f4 lens + 1.4 TC on a tripod I think I would be better off with DX and no TC since I carry this around the woods watching birds and would suggest DX to anyone who shoots finches, sparrows, nuthatches etc. I also don't think having to read between the lines conveys knowledge to beginners, better to be specific to be helpful. I started years ago with a 300mm f4 + 2x TC with film with poor results then to a 400mm f5.6 in DX which was much better with improved technique and about the same as my current setup.</p>

[marc_felber1]

<p>When shooting birds all you need is time an patience and some skills on knowing how to hide from the birds. I usually try to hide behind the bushes or trees and start taking shots every few feet as close as I can before the bird fly's away. Works most of the time you can get really close with a 300mm lens. I have got lucky on some Green Jay's where the bird took up most of the frame in a Nature reserve. So it also depends on luck too. Also, if they also put food out also increases your chances of getting really close to the bird as well. Big lens come in handy when shooting big animals like Jags, and bears.</p>

[mt4x4]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5331729">David Stephens</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> </a> , Oct 28, 2009; 12:12 p.m.<br /> Keith, do you live near Denver?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Montana. But the Rocky Mountains in Colorado are earily similar to being in Montana, and vice versa.</p>

[rory_rege]

<p>The message that I get from your article, and especially from the photograph that you have chosen to illustrate it, is that a gazzilion millimeters of focal length won't help if the exposure is wrong.</p>

<p>Greg, that's quite a photograph.</p>