Predator and Prey Edition?>Previous Thread Image Limit Reached >>4494783
Please come pick him up
not sure if this is the thread, but there is no QTDDOT.Is trying to shoot wildlife telephoto with an APS-C sensor a lost cause? Should I be looking to get a full frame camera? Although it was likely almost entirely user error because I am a total noob, I was not extremely satisfied with the 200mm (320mm full frame) aps-c lens on my t3i.
>>4500448What do you mean? I shoot with an APS-C (R7). APS-C is great for wildlife>>4500395>>4500406>Although it was likely almost entirely user errorYes
>>4500449>18MP DSLR from 2011, vs 32MP mirrorless from 2022okay, let me rephrase. is my pawn shop bargain camera that's old enough to legally operate an automobile on public roads good enough for wildlife telephoto?
>>4500450Yes
>>4500448A crop sensor is nice because you don't have to carry as long a lens if you decide to go out to look for the birds.Its also nice to use cheaper cameras if you hike out for the birds so its less devastating if you do something stupid.
Last summer there was a couple of young owls in a tree next to my house, from the attic window, with a digital compact camera while holding a monocular in front of the lens I managed to get a surprisingly fun shot, it was a little improvisational but turned out better than I expected.
>>4500541
>>4500542
>>4500521
>>4500543
>>4500545
>>4500547
>>4500549
BE honestdo you like bird photosor just bird photography (the act)
>>4500560I like good bird photos, I also like seeing bird photos from my friends (like you).I like photographing birds just a little more because it's exciting.
>>4500560I like bird photos, that’s why I try to get good ones
>>4500560I enjoy learning about the birds I photograph, but mostly I enjoy the act of bird photography. I'm just as happy to get a picture of a common bird as something rare if it lets me get some good pictures.
>>4500560As I like all wildlife photography, birds are involved. Here is one a snapshit I have been dicking around with in LR.
>>4500334the depth of field slaps on this one. how'd you manage this? is it all the lens or was there post-processing done?
>>4500595Sufficiently far away and sufficiently closed down will get you wider DoF even on 800mm. I would guess it is 300mm or 400mm though.
>>4500595Partly the lens (600mm) and partly post processing (some vignetting), but mainly it was a very blank and uniform sky behind it
>>4500617Oh I thought he meant the background uniformity. DoF is actually shallow in that image but I'm far away and all the elements are on the same plain, so it worked out well
>>4500624Yes, by "wide enough DoF" I meant ~10cm maybe 20cm and not paper thin. Super telephoto compression is crazy. I usually use f/11 on mine if the light allows just to have enough leverage for the bird to stay in focus, wide open is f/5.6.
>>4500544???
this fella was doing some damage
I found some old negatives from maybe 18 years ago, shot on my grandpa's yashicaflex when I got after he passed away. I even developed the film on my own.I had no idea what I was doing with the shooting nor with the developing but somehow I did it, and one of the pictures had a pigeon and two sparrows in it.A little embarrassing... Looking at the picture but oh well, thought it would be fun to share, heck even the scanning job I did was a little shitty, let's consider this a learning moment.
I finally got a telephoto lens but I think I'll need a monopod since the thing is bloody heavy and hard to hold steady.found a juvenile kookaburra though when looking around for something to test it on.
>>4501126Aww what a lovely bird, does that mean you're in Australia? I never really shot with a telelens, I reckon it hampers your movement quite a bit, no? But the ability to get close without having to be close is such a luxury.
>>4501153It only showed up yesterday so all I've done with it is walk one minute to the park at the end of the street. Still, by the time I had finished walking around the park I kinda wished I had brought a bag.but yeah I'm australian and I want to try get some pictures of lorikeets now since I was having trouble getting nice pictures of them before.
>>4501126if its an old 600 f4 yea those things are monsters, probably best for a blindthe 200-5/600 6.3s are all light enough to one hand with a little practice. Some boomer i met on the trail let me hold his brand new 800 6.3 and holy shit it was light, if i make a bunch of money hahaha
If I can't get both is higher pixel count or shutter speed better birds?
>>4501381I am of the opinion that pixel count is one of the least important factors in photography in general, so I'd go with shutter speed
>>4501460Wow- this is superb
>>4501381Lens quality. There is a video about it. The reason is a shit lens gives you shit image on both low pixel and high end cameras. A good quality lens will give you sharp details even on low pixel and slow cameras.Always prioritize the quality lens over features and megapixels.
>>4501482Found it! Some chad actually saved it!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNWsCcaxC8o
>>4501460Yeah, that's what I was leaning towards as well>>4501482I think the only way to get a better lens is to swap out my zoom for a $14k prime. I got the camera for pictures of another hobby of mine and while it is good for manually focusing on static targets from a tripod, I've found that the autofocus and shutter speed make it not very good for small moving targets.
>>4501453Splendid
>>4501485If your zoom is sharp enough you don't need to switch. Shutter speed is plenty enough even on entry level DSLRs, 1/2000s should be more than enough for generic birding. If yours goes up to 1/4000s or 1/8000s then good, you might be able to freeze insects and hummingbirds as well. Small birds like to twitch about that will give you motion blur that is something you can't avoid. With AF don't splerge out too much, most tracking AF fails in one way or another, if you focus at the right part and your DoF is well chosen your subject will have some room to move and still get sharp details. I don't find super shallow DoF too feasible, what good is a sharp eye and beak when the rest is a blurred mess? You want the small details, feathers, wispy fibers sharp as well as the eyes and beak. You don't exactly need world class tracking AF for this, most bird shots are a bird on a stick so just single focus on the stick and look for the catch light in the eyes. What combination are you using?
>>4501520well I guess that means it's just a skill issue on my part and I should just get better at taking photos outside a lightbox. I have a sony a7iii and their 200-600mm lens so I probably shouldn't waste money on a new camera.
Noob here. I rented a fancy L series 70-200 for my Canon M50 for something else, and decided to try birds while I had a telephoto. It was the funnest thing I’ve done in a while. What EF lenses do you guys think are best for birds for less than a grand? I’m thinking a used Sigma 150-600 or a Canon 100-400. Is the extra zoom worth it? Is an M50 even worth spending a grand on a lens for it?Pic related is the one of the better photos I got.
>>4501564You will need the 400mm for birding. The Sigma might sound good on paper but optically it is not as good as Canon and if you shell out your money on it you will be stuck with it. Plus reportedly the Sigma 150-600 has focus twitching problems on Canon mirrorless.I don't know much about the M mount but I heard good things about the RF 100-400 and even better from the RF 100-500, those are very good lenses to go out birding.
>>4501535No that combination is all you want for birding. Practice handholding and stance, practice focusing, and don't worry about heavy brushes and branches, all AF gets confused with them and that is when you go for manual focus. Birds feel safer in heavy brushes and branches so they will linger for longer. Always look for the catch light in their eyes and close down aperture to widen your DoF, more chance for the subject to stay in focus. Bird in flight might sound interesting until you get bored with it and instead look for activity, birds doing stuff is infinitely more interesting than bird on a stick or flying around. The emphasis is on getting out and practice, it will take time and a lot of blurry snapshits.
>>4501589Thank you. It seems like the Mk 1 100-400 are the ones available for less than a thousand while the Mk 2 are pushing like $1600. From what I’m reading it sounds like the newer one is worth it so I guess I’ll keep saving. They don’t make a converter from RF to the M mount which is pretty unfortunate. I’m also seeing an EF 70-300 for pretty cheap but I’m worried that won’t reach far enough.
>>4501701Ehh. I would not recommend the old 100-400 especially on an M50. They worked well on a 40D back then but in reality the long end is not so stellar, kind of mushy. Either get the 100-400 II or the EF 400/5.6 prime instead. Alternatively the EF 300/4 and a 1.4xTC and you will have IS.
>>4501701The EF 70-300 1. will make you wish for a longer lens and 2. will make you wish you spent a bit more to have sharp images. Avoid it.
>>4501900Nice. Needs to be closed down a tad more
>>4501943Nice, at least the wire is in focus
I think these dudes are miffed they can't shoot the longtails. They seem like chuds so i normally kinda hide when i see them.Really i'd be less of a judgy bitch but i know for a fact most of them don't eat duck, they sell them to the asians for cheap.They literally just like to kill things.
>>4502050Gigachads irl>you just kill ducks so asians can eat them instead of buying factory farmed meat from billionaire owned supermarkets!? Are you even a LIBERAL, CHUD?>Yes.
>>4502051yea i mean i guess that is knda a benefit? idk bruh i work with fuckers like these, literally empty except for a vague desire to destroy anything they think is faggy, including natural beauty. these are not your uhh, teddy roosevelts. one of them shot himself in the leg last week fucking with a gun tho that was pretty funny. Also they shoot the cool divers. Shoot some of these fucking things, there're thousands pf em where they dont belong.
>>4502050Why are you taking photos cropped to 16:9?
>>4502202imagining them as wallpapers i wont set and prints i cant afford
Have any of you guys tried this?https://ebird.org/home
>>4502311Been using it for a few months. While it's good for birding, it's only 'ok' for bird photography. eBird is more for scientific observation, tracking and species identification. While you can put 'pretty' bird pictures on there, you can't get too artsy with it; like silhouettes or images where you can't fully identify the bird over a pretty scene. The admins are real sticks-in-the-mud. I often get emails asking for more data points. Very annoying.
honk honk
hello birdfriends,im looking to build a setup to livestream a nestbox that i have on my balcony.i have an outlet there, and WIFI. ive been trying to find a camera for that purpose, but the internet only shits out AI.articles and cheap chinese nestbox cams that are made for that purpose, but i feel like there must be better options.the camera would be put into the roof, so it looks down onto the birds from above, in the nestbox.the camera needs to be able to film at night in total darkness too, i have electrical power there and i have wifi so i can get it up on the internet, so the cam needs to have a wifi connection.willing to spend up to 500 bucks on the project.any ideas? i have a DJI action 5 pro, but i dont know whats its capable of and i think it cant film at night.
>>4502050Man this is dangerous, I think they should know that you are there for your own safety, they have guns and they're probably shooting everything that moves because they think it must be a hog or chupakabra.
>>4502311I use it for planning trips, along with birdplaces. (UK)
>>4502054>They just love destroying beauty. >i wish someone would kill all the swans btwjej
I'm saving up for a less awful camera setup but I did catch this guy shitting.
>>4502701That's a weird leg
>>4502604>>4502727Lovely birds
