This zesty guy makes a call like he drank too much, "uhzahhh!"
Drink you say
>Hurr wat camera? durrA bunch of birds made nests in my trees. I want to photograph them at a passable level. My phone's optical zoom is only 2x, and the 6x cropped zoom looks awful.I'd like to photograph them digitally at a budget of like ~$400, but I'm not sure that's realistic. The most common recs I see are used mirrorless like Sony A6000s.
>>4515418Don't let gear humpers convince you that you have to spend a fortune. Whole theatrical release movies are being shot on iPhones and the Battle of New York from the Avengers movie was partially shot on an EOS 7D.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cameras_on_the_International_Space_Station is the shot and the chaser.My recommendation is buy something with an actual viewfinder on the used market and then shoot with it every chance you get.
>>4515418Used DSLR, APSC, like a Nikon D7100/D7200 or Canon 70D-90D and the system equivalent of a 70-300mm zoom lens, preferably the newest version because only those are optimized for the long end. Aperture set to F8-F11, AF servo and center zone. If you have branches near it will confuse the AF no matter how modern or fast it is, bushes and trees are manual focus territory. The more you step down the aperture the more depth of field you have to work with. Look for the catch light in the eyes.Happy shooting
>>4515482Also for Canon if you can find a 7DMkII that will last you for a long time and get the best AF in the class.
I saw two doves being cute
He knows
>>4515482Okay I'll give this all a shot. I borrowed a film camera (Canon EOS) from a friend for now, and someone else is giving me a 60D for free with a ~18-200m lens iirc>Used DSLR, APSC, like a Nikon D7100/D7200 or Canon 70D-90D and the system equivalent of a 70-300mm zoom lensIn the long run I will look to upgrade to these as needed. Not sure yet what exactly my needs are desuAnd yeah I noticed the manual focus seemed to do better than the auto focus. Still trying to play around with how the aperture affects the depth of field
>>4515640>60DEh, not the best but not the worst. Free camera beats anything. Be aware it comes from the era where 1600 ISO was something to be afraid of and for birds in the shades you will have to crank up the ISO.The 18-200 is trash but it will give you some idea on framing. Get an EF 70-300 II IS or if you are already looking for new glass look for an EF 400/5.6 or 300/4 prime. People do increadible shots with a 40D and 400/5.6 combo even today.Depth of field with long lenses mainly comes from the focal length but AF inaccuracy can be leveraged with a closed down aperture giving you a bit more DoF to work with. The longer the lens the shallower the DoF and comes down to a cm of usable depth, with f/11 giving you a cm more, at 10m distance focusing on a small bird.
>>4515692With new lenses just get an EF 100-400 II when you have fallen into the bottomless pit of birding, it is a very good lens and will work for you for years to come.
Looking for a long dong lens for my canon.Are there any still-in-production telezooms for the EF mount in 150-600mm (or similar)?Or was the whole DSLR ecosystem rugpulled in the last few years?
>>4515723
>>4515725
>>4515713Sigma 150-600 (equivalent of image quality of cheap telezooms, would not recommend) or Sigma 60-600 (would definitely not recommend, seriously stay away from Sigma!)Tamron 150-600 G2 CanonCanon EF 100-400 II (+1.4x TC)All of the above can be had for cheap on the used market
>>4515713I have a Sigma 150-600 myself. Now, it might not be the best lens out there, but it is working great for me as a beginner. You can get them relatively cheap if you buy used.If you have a lot of money to spend - Canon themselves make quite good lenses. For example, a Canon EF 600mm f/4. This will, however, cost you a lot more than the Sigma.
>>4515728>>4515756I can see a couple of Tamrons for a not too painful amount of money on my local equivalent of ebay.Do they work decently with mirrorless cameras if I wanted to upgrade to an RF body down the line? I see reports of focus hunting/pulsing but I'm not sure if where this falls between "literally unusable" and "mildly inconvenient".
>>4515756The problem is even if the better one costs double of that the Sigma still costs too much for such a poor image quality. It is effectively a 400 or 450mm on the long end considering how usable it is, after that you get strong blurring. And don't get me started on the bokeh quality, anything with branches or grass in the background just looks super busy with the hard bokeh. Even Tamron managed to bring down the hardness in the backgorund falloff and first party lenses not just give you the juicy sharpness but the pleasant bokeh as well. You can be sure your shots will be nice.>>4515760Third party are a hit and miss with the EF-RF converter, I know Sigma had some trouble with rapid focus instability on the Sigma 150-600, instead locking on, the focus would jump back and forth behind and front of the subject making it unusable. Like I said above, you are already dishing out a good amount of money, just get the first party lens, it can play well with the 1.4x first party teleconverter. Also you can be certain Canon makes sure their flagship EF 100-400 II plays well with the RF adapter. This is a lens you buy for long time use.
>>4515723Cute photo
Do crows dream of a house in the hills?
Sleeping with one eye open
FUUUUUUUUUUUCK shutter was too slow when he popped out of nowhere.
>>4515854Gripping your pillow tight
>>4515854Based mirror lens enjoyer
>>4515912It's a bit soft on the details, but I love the compact reach for walking around
>>4516614>window with a direct view on the canalPeak comfiness
>>4516615Nice light, perfect focus. Maybe the branch in the background is a bit unfortunate but otherwise this is as good as they come
Double kill
bug in beak
>>4517213and you have a natural frame too, kinda nice
The fluffballs are growing up so fast
>>4517190Another one, not the best, but pretty cool.
Help that polish anon to take care of his birb >>>/int/223016389
birband i'm not even a birb guy
Booted eagle, light morph, most likely a male.Quite uncommon in these parts
>>4517300I had better lighting today.
Standard Bird On A Branch picture of a robin with sunrise creating a backlight.
>>4517491your mask is showing brudda and that birds glows out of the picture, gotta be more carefulI am sure this is a lovely picture even unedited
>>4517484You cut off his head in the reflection :-(
>>4517613its common for mirrorless babbies to make oversights like that because they see the cameras tone curve instead of the light of the scene
Who's hungry?
I made a wallpaper for myself, the singular Yellow Warbler I've managed to shoot this year>>4517213Who are these friends?
>>4518116I'll be saving this for myself if you don't mind, good shot. What gear did you use?
>>4518118Absolutely, thank you! It was shot with my Nikon z50ii + 180-600mm, insanely killer body for the price.
>>4518119Killer shot bro holy Hannah
>>4518119Pressed like and subscribe
Lil' family
Just installed birdnet-go on a raspberry pi 5. How deep will the bird hole go now?
>>4518119been dreaming of them making a z d500speaking of gear i have so many photos i can barely edit. my 7 year old inspiron finally died and im currently abusing the mini pc on my girlfriends cricut labsome guy told me hell sell me a dell precision with a graphics card for $500, hopefully itll be able to handle the raws a bit better
>>4518116Yellow-vented Bulbul If my eyes don’t deceive me
>>4518509Rumor is they are in the process of making one. Not putting my money down on all the specs they're claiming, but will very likely nab one the second it's released.https://nikonrumors.com/2026/07/09/coming-soon-new-fast-top-of-the-line-high-end-professional-nikon-aps-c-dx-camera.aspx/How shitty is your phone in the meantime? My PC is a POS and I'm never home, just use it to denoise with PureRAW and then further edit with LR Mobile. Besides missing a couple mask functions, it handles the ~70mb raws that DXO spits out just fine.>>4518533All I want for Christmas is a good Pilated shot, every time I'm in the region I only see ones up fucking 30 feet in the trees
>>4518536> PilatedIt’s probably a different species. My guys poke palm trees of Singapore
>>4518536its also shit, every electronic i own besides my camera is cheap.
>>4518593branch in the back ruined it I am so sorry
>>4518689i mean at least its not in front
they do love being behind branches
>>4518699Thats a great shot
>>4518743i love the little song sparrows, they like to pose more than the elusive birds
mergs
lady merg
>>4515237I love birds so much! I usually see a group of brown and black birds going together! <3
visited pittsburgh for... no reason at all
Got a Sigma Sport 500mm f/4 in pristine condition for cheap a few months ago.
>>4518591>>4518592>>4518593>>4518699>Birds hiding in branchesGot too many of them
the beese
>>4518162Mute swan
>>4515237Meow!
>>4516615I can hear the little pip pip and see the little guy running away ticking his tail. Charming little idiots these :)
>>4519248The whole bunch.
newfag here>>4517895>>451786680 was definitely a bit short. this is the closest I could get for them not to fly away.though I didn't realize how deep I could crop in so that's cool.my first photo of a birt. I did a lot of bursts but this one the most interesting I think...what kind of shutter speed should I be aiming for bare minimum? there was a little bit of blurring at 1/250
>>4519533Cool to see you give it a try!1/2000 is a typical minimum and often goes faster if the bird is a fast flapper but that's with telephoto where movement blur is a lot more noticeable. I asked ChatGPT to show the framing with different lenses. It didn't check to see how accurate it was but it looks about right.
Barn Swallow
>>4519536wow 1/2000 sounds like A LOT. would probably need a pretty high iso. need to figure which aperture as well, or for long range shots it's not as important?I thought about cropping it like the 200 and 300 looks but felt a bit... boring maybe for what is not a very action scene...how's this?
>>4519570That is the baseline. At 1/2000 with birds twitching and flapping wings the wingtips or other parts of their bodies will be blurred out. At 1/4000 it is better, most pro bird shooters will tell you to shoot the fastest your camera can go, that is 1/8000 for pro bodies mechanical shutters. Avoid electronic shutter, it will mess everything up. Avoid electronic shutter only bodies as well.
>>4519572jeez... my cam only goes to 4000 and I'm not sure I could even get enough light to get a properly exposed picture with that speed. I don't think I've even tried going above 500 yet.
>>45195701/2000 is a lot but that's for moving birds. If you are on a tripod and the bird is perched, you can dial it down for sure but there's going to be blur if the bird takes off. Blur can look cool with say a sharp head and some wing movement but most of the time it's just a blurry bird. You get more keepers with fast shutter speeds. Aperture is generally wide open although it could be worth stopping down if a lens improves a lot. I posted the focal length comparison is just to give you an idea of what different lenses would do in that situation since you were thinking of a 300mm. Maybe you get a 70-300mm zoom and 300mm on a 24MP sensor gives you enough cropping flexibility. Depends on the bird, how skittish they are, and where they hang out etc. I actually liked the 80mm version the best because I think the row of trees, field, and forest make it more interesting than the standard single bird type photo. A zoom makes it easy to change composition so I'd recommend one even though might go down the pixel peeping path and end up with a fast telephoto prime anway.>>4519574The exposure triangle is unforgiving, but high ISO is very normal in bird photography because of the fast shutters with telephoto. Telephoto gets huge and expensive for fast glass. And fast is pretty relative because I don't think they even make an 80mm as slow as f/4 but a 600 f/4 is as fast as it gets and costs $10000 so the guys with the bazooka lenses are still shooting high ISO.If you enjoy photos of perched birds just chilling, you can keep ISOs lower and get higher quality but a lot of photographers enjoy getting shots of birds in flight or taking off or diving etc and want to see every feather so a fast shutter is safer.
>>45195741/4000 will be just fine, for birds in flight or if you know it will be active and do stuff. 1/2000 or even 1/1000 will be good for bird-on-stick. ISO is generally in the 3200-12800 range for me daytime, depending on how overcast or how much foliage is above. A thick forest can look like dusk.What camera do you have?
>>4519601I'm gonna get a telear-n 200mm and x2 tele from a film friend, since he has no Nikon f cameras. how much am I gonna struggle with manual focus with viewfinder?>80mmyeah I like it too with the trees, if I crop in close it feels a lot less like being there and more like looking at something through a microscope.my lit lens is only f5.6 at 80mm but tellear is f3.5 I think.maybe if that doesn't work out I'll look for something longer with VR, though it's said that autofocus on my body isn't good.>>4519608oofI have a d3200 and low light is pretty noisy. I think above 1600 it gets pretty bad and it only goes to 6400 boosted
>>4519620ISO 3200 should still be doable, use AI RAW denoise or LR denoise/enhance AI module, it will clear things up nicely.When you upgrade to a D500 you will be prepared with experience.For lenses go for Nikon 200-500 or 80-400 II. Or Tamron 150-600 if third party, avoid Sigma.
>>4519621I see, probably. I only tried LR ai Denise one time cause it takes like 5 minutes to complete, but maybe worth it.AI RAW denoise is darktable, right?don't think I'll be upgrading any time soon but maybe. probably overpaid a bit for the body, could have gotten a more worn out for 110~€ but I went with a pristine one with only 600 shutter count for 150€. poorfag and don't want to buy expensive things but just really wanted a proper camera.
>>4519620high iso in daylight isn't as bad. I use dxo for denoising and it's great. It used to be the best but I think everyone else has basically caught up. Are you using a 28-80 3.5-5.6 type deal? I should have clarified that primes lenses around 80mm are usually 1.2 for the fastest, 1.4 for the standard pro, 2 or 2.8 for compact or budget, and basically no one makes an f4.>>4519621He's looking a $100 soviet manual focus lens, those lenses you suggested are probably out of reach. Any decent budget options? I know on EF, there was one that was praised for hitting above its weight as far as price/performance went back in the 90s. I figure Nikon has to have some since F-mount goes back even longer. He's ok with MF so third party adaptall could work; surely there's some autist out there who has looked into these and identified the duds and hidden gems.
>>4519624Short tele macro lenses were sometimes slower since the idea was that a macro shooter is going to stop down anyway. The Laowa 85mm 5.6 is the most extreme example of this and is unusually compact for the type.
>>4519624it's Nikkor 18-55mm DX G2 VR so 55 gives around 82mm equivalso I'm getting the telear for free so I'm not even spending anything.
>>4519631Oh if it's free than that could be fun to experiment with. Some unsolicited advice: take test shots at a fairly long distance of a newspaper and see how the contrast and sharpness improve stopping down. Best focus will be with magnified live view could be a pain in the ass. Check to see whether the magnified live view agrees with the focus confirmation dot; hopefully it does otherwise you might have to adjust focus slightly IRL when using it.
>>4519650isn't this kind of data available for lenses? like where the best aperture is? hope focus works well in the viewfinder cause I hate screen anything
>>4519652Normally yes, but for a kind of obscure Soviet lens (at least obscure to me), test data is usually nonexistent. Odds are it will look good at 3.5 but a noticeable improvement at 5.6.
I found this poor little fella dead one frosty morning last week, I think the cold got to her (Southern hemisphere winter), either that or bird flu. I keep forgetting to dispose of the body, will probably be nothing but bones by time I get round to it.
I have an opportunity to get a used Nikon D500 for $650 (it only has 12k actuations). I'm already using a Nikon D750, should I go for it to improve my bird photography possibilities, or are there better options nowadays?
>>4519689Wear gloves and maybe even a mask anon. I came out my yard one day to see a dove dead in the middle and I buried it immediately in case my cats tried to eat it. Wash the gloves afterwards you have no idea if it died of something that'll fuck your day up.
>>4519733Not the first dead birb I've had to deal with and probably not the last either. I always use two plastic bags to pick em up, turn the bags inside out, tie 'em off, bin them and then immediately wash my hands.
Focus in the butt instead of the face but I like the scruffy boi.
i got a decent pair of binos in the spring and now i never want to carry my big lens around
>>4519742What did you get? There is something about looking through binoculars that is peak comfy except for the shake. When black friday comes around, I'll get one of those stabilized binoculars if there is a good deal.
>>4519730Absolutely yes. The AF and burst rate will just blow your mind.I just got myself a K-3 Mk3 for a similar price with 1600 actuations to complement my K-1 and it is a much different experience shooting birds. I am so looking forward to going out with the new gear
>>4519730>>4519823Also so far Nikon has no Z-mount alternative for the D500 but there are rumors about it being in development. Still it is a top of the line body with top of the line features and F-mount lenses are cheap and many.
>>4519823>>4519825Thanks m8, that was my feeling but I wanted to confirm that it isn't a stupid idea. I'll try to get it before someone else seizes the opportunity
>>4519827Go for it, and many lights, bro
Why is this so soft? I used bird detection AF and tracked as smoothly as I could, but nearly every photo is this soft or worse. Missed focus? 1/2000 too slow for gulls? Poor tracking? Bad angle of light? Shit lens? Expecting too much from this distance?
>>4519986Shooting over water in the middle of the day means warm air over cold water so you will get lots of heat haze and shimmer not to mention actual haze. Long lenses will amplify these atmospheric effects. Such shots are best done early in the morning.
>>4519986Also what time and what gear were you shooting?
>>451999010AM to 5PM. Z5ii + Tamron 50-400mm with a $15 UV filter (so it's easier to frequently clean off salty air/moisture). Using VR (sport for in-flight, normal for still) + IBIS. There's a softness on most of the photos I took that looks like it's been doubled and just slightly shifted, even when the subject is still.
>>4519991Don't use VR or IBIS for panning shots. It is for stationary subjects only.If the lens or your camera cannot turn them off automatically it is best to make a separate custom user mode with the stabilization off.
>>4519991Also that doubling and shifting is a sign of stabilization repositioning, the doubling is a typical IBIS repositioning (it resets very fast). You were probably shaking a lot and flailing about, also as I said, stabilization must be turned off when doing panning/BIF.
>>4519991I need to pay attention more reading posts. Take off that shitty UV filter it will always blur and ruin IQ. Just forget UV filters and don't listen to anyone telling you it is "protection". It is not and will always ruin your images.
>>4519998Stop buying amazon-tier filters you chud.UV filters absolutely are protection for your objective element, and no matter how careful you are, you always run the risk of scratching shit when you clean it directly.Good UV filters will not ruin IQ of anything outside of super telephoto focal lengths.
>>4520000Stop giving out shit advice
>>4519815i got 10x42 nikon prostaffs, i think 8x is usually recommended for birding but i think the 10's are fine
>>4520017This is /p/ - Photography, we use cameras. If you want bino discussion go to >>>/out/
>>4520000>Stop buying amazon-tier filters you chud.Any additional layer of glass outside your lens will invariably reduce light transmission, forcing you to drop shutter speed, open aperture or increase ISO, while degrading image quality. High quality filters simply take a smaller toll.Also cameras have UV filters embedded in the sensor, it's completely useless. There are much cheaper clear glass filters to protect your lens.>UV filters absolutely are protection for your objective elementThey're not, your lens hood is more than enough, unless you regularly bump your front element on long pointy objects, but in that case the damage is deserved.>Good UV filters will not ruin IQ of anything outside of super telephoto focal lengths.Wrong.
>>4519997>You were probably shaking a lot and flailing aboutI'm not the most stable. And reviews have said the VR is worse than Nikon's. Would I be better off without VR and relying on higher shutter speeds? I was doing 1/640 - 1/800 on people and birds (walking) and 1/2000 for BIF. I'll also take off the UV filter next outing to see how that goes. My 50mm near-macro shots were acceptably sharp to me, but the other 99% of my 400mm shots were disappointing.
>>4520080test it out in your backyard or a park or something to see if the VR really is fucking up your pictures, same with the UV filter, let us know which chud was right
>>4520080For birding unless I specifically go for bird on stick I just turn off stabilization. Even with in lens IS it creates more problems than it solves. You are already shooting well above 1/1000 so it should not be a problem.And if you lean on a branch or use a tripod it can even worsen the image by inducing shake on its own. Your 50mm is more in line with the effectiveness of the stabilization and for generic use I keep it on.
fast boi
It is comfy to sit in the garden and see what comes to me
do you guys know or have any opinion about this? sliding zoom with no aperture so aperture always depends on zoom would that suck up a bunch of dust?
>>4520229There's some discussion about this lens on the moon thread >>4503422 or at least the Vivitar version it's probably a chinese rebrand special.
>>4520229Obviously bad quality but for less than the cost of a lens hood for the Sony 400-800mm, it's worth a punt even if it ends up collecting dust. Make sure you have a good tripod.
>>4520229It's basically a shitty telescope. It even has a T mount (so you'll need a T-ring adapter).If you spend $100 you can get a 400mm f/5.6 Celestron that wont have any zoom or a focus ring (there's a knob but it's clunky), so you can use that info to judge its value. I guess giving up a stop of light @400mm is probably worth the actual focusing ring and the ability to zoom, but f/16 @800mm is going to be rough for anything that isn't the moon.The next step up from this would probably be that manual TTfartisan 500mm f/6.3 manual focus lens that was going around some months back, and that's also not ideal for birding but at least uses real lens elements and a sturdy construction, but it was I think $400?Just getting 800mm might be neat enough on its own and it really isn't much money, just make sure your expectations are set accordingly.
will birders ever feel happiness?the bird is always too far awayit's always too darkthere is always shit blocking the viewyour gear is always feels too cheap
>>4520260Meaning comes not from achievement but from struggle
>>4520270I'm struggling to find the meaning of this post
>>4520260I feel happiness when I capture a bird doing something.I feel happiness when I go /out/ in nature all day with my camera to take pictures of life.
>>4520260Gear not cheap but the shots are definitely cheapIt's been a dry season bros, shots only good for ID at best
>>4520260If you get at least some keepers doing the best with what you have, that makes me happy. There are always situations that even the best equipment can't handle but it makes no sense to get mad at physics.
>>4520260Summer sucks for bird photos. Or just wildlife in general, it's hot, mosquitoes and ticks everywhere, pollen all over the place, birds hiding in the trees. During this time of year I just find a nice spot I think would make a good photo and use bird feed seed lol...
Basic ass blue tit molting
Dead birb again, testing the autofocus on my new 85mm lens. Beautiful colour rendering but I'm not sure it's really a fair comparison given it's a different time of day (the Canon shot was at 1pm once the sun had gone behind the house, the new Sony shot is 10.15am with the sun still shining on this location)
>>4520599interesting, the Sony has an unpleasantly abrupt transition to out of focus areas
>>4520601It's very odd. I prefer the colour on the Sony but the focus transition in the Canon is a lot more pleasing to the eye. All I can think is that it might be that it's more obvious in the Sony because the DOF is running parallel with the bricks, whereas the Canon isn't. I might try and do it again with the Sony but more closely recreating the positioning from the original Canon pic.
>>4520601Almost every mirrorless lens is like thatSome even have a really shitty transition with double images or a soft focus overlay effect and I fucking hat eit
>>4520607Is it the Sony 85mm 1.8? There are a ton of 85 1.8s for e-mount so I'm curious. Looking forward to the comparison.>>4520611What lenses do you like? I'd adapt dSLR lenses if they don't have that.
>>4520614>Is it the Sony 85mm 1.8? There are a ton of 85 1.8s for e-mount so I'm curious. Looking forward to the comparison.Yeah, it's the Sony. I'll do the new pic tomorrow, the right time of day for it has passed already.Not the other anon (>>4520611) but I've been almost exclusively using old manual lenses on adapters until now (FD, M42, Minolta MC/MD) and can't recall having seen this abrupt transition before with those lenses. Some of them do have an obvious point where it goes from focused to unfocused but not quite as blatant as with the AF 85mm.
>>4520513beautiful bird and photo. No colorful birds where I'm from, where did you take that?
>>4520614DSLR lenses are basically always more natural (also softer at max zoom, with more corner/edge CA)
>>4520599>>4520620Isn't it just the case of the DoF being quite thin at 85mm? Maybe your old lenses aren't f1.8?
>>4520427Love these little guys
>>4520623Western France. You can find colorful birds pretty much anywhere in the world. Find a list of species in your area. Some species only show up in winter or summer, and peak activity happens in spring. In summer you'll mostly see juveniles, and they're not always as colorful until they become adults the next year. It's why this blue tit is molting.
>>4520667Very cool. Here's what I've got around https://www.audubonspokane.org/local-birds Ironically I have seen almost all of them except for the yellow birds, bluebird, and colorful swallows. Might have to check local sighting maps and some binoculars to cross those off the list.
>>4520599sony = sovl, art evencanon = boring snapshit
>>4520599Were these even taken at the same time of the day?
>>4520696>the Canon shot was at 1pm once the sun had gone behind the house, the new Sony shot is 10.15am with the sun still shining on this location>Were these even taken at the same time of the day?Calling you a retard would be insulting to retards, you couldn't think your way out of a paper bag.
>>4520724So it's not a fair comparison? You do know different lighting makes different photos right?
>>4520729>So it's not a fair comparison? You do know different lighting makes different photos right?>>4520599>I'm not sure it's really a fair comparison given it's a different time of day They acknowledged this in the sentence immediately before that, Smoothbrain. Read that anon's later posts and they even say they'll try and redo it at a similar time of day to the original.
>>4520599New comparison shot, put it on Imgur so as not to eat up anymore of the thread image limit with the same dead bird: https://i.imgur.com/x3mbQdv.jpegThe 85mm focus transition isn't quite as abrupt as it was in the earlier photo but it's still pronounced. It's like it doesn't have a gentle gradient from focused to unfocused, it's just a very sharp switch into unfocused. The old 50mm Canon FD has that transition point too but it's a bit more smooth and doesn't stick out as much.
>>4520733>>4520724You sound like you weigh 300lbs and wear cargo shorts from 2009 and have 30 tripods.
Little bastard.
>>4520735thank you for delivering, I guess the lighting was unlucky. The 85mm looks ok in the new shot even though the 50mm is smoother but the Sony color seems more accurate.
>>4520741I think the Canon color is more "accurate" with the Sony white balance is shifted towards red. Or the many red bricks shifted auto WB away from red on Canon while the Sony had a fixed scene cloudy WB set. What I'm saying is the difference in color is just the white balance.
quack
>>4520831
>>4520775ok i was wondering why the red bricks weren't red on the canon, set your WB folks!
In german we call this one Distelfink (thistle finch)
>>4520842In French it's Chardonneret élégant (loosely translated as stylish little thistler)
I'm curious, what's the biggest and cheapest native E-mount lens? Let's say 400mm at minimum. For the purposes of this exercise let's not worry about quality for the timebeing, I just want to know what there is available on E-mount that isn't from some other system using an adapter, even if it's total trash.
>>4520968500mm f8 af reflex+laea5
>>4520983That's not native E-mount and the LA-EA5 costs as much if not more than the lens itself
>>4520989>]Just get the 100-400 everybody is using. If you are cheap you can get the Sigma 60-600 or 150-600
>>4515418The two chicks grew up healthy and flew away. I tried to figure out Darktable today; here's the first image I edited.Using a hand-me-down Canon 60D with the 18-200mm kit lens
>>4521124Here's the in-camera JPEG for comparison
>>4521124>>4521125I actually don't mind the lens distortion in the JPEG so I don't know if it would be "bad" for me to turn off lens correction in darktable
>>4521253Nice but closing down the aperture would have more of the bird in focus.
>>4521287If the bird was very close it wouldn't have mattered all that much
Is Olympus om1-mk2 + 50-200f2.8 or 300f4 the way to go if I want, light, handheld, weather sealed for walks and hikes?Anyone itt had any experience with m43?
>>4521426you could also buy a z8 and a 180-600 or 400mm for that much and actually get more reach with better qualitymft is a budget system that competes more with sony aps-cstop buying budget and it becomes a retarded system
>>4521429Olympus has better weather sealing... if you go the z8 route the best weather sealed lenses cost an arm and a leg.
Been trying to get better results with my cheap ass camera but not quite there yet. I'm sure it's just needing to take more pics and get more familiar with things.
>>4521504>olympus has better weather sealing than nikonthis isn't true, especially not of 6/7/8/9 level bodies and S lenses. it's an incorrect inference from commonly misunderstood marketing material. pentax and nikon's internal standards are as high as or higher than IEC's IP code. the difference is IEC charges people a ton for specific tests and certification, and nikon can do their own tests. no olympus camera has achieved better than IP53, which is actually quite poor and doesn't guarantee full protection. i have never seen footage of IEC using OM camera functions during their tests, which would test the seals for how well they protect the innards during actual photography. olympus does not warranty water damage (tbf no one does but with their claims, they SHOULD have a limited water damage warranty).olympus has amateur wildlife photographers make youtube videos.nikon confidently sends their cameras into space. these are not the same level of achievement.the ZF is nikon's most poorly built camera, with a multi part design instead of their usual monobody and creaky plastic parts... tell me if you find this an unsatisfactory "IP rating"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AgLBxyN9Yc
>>4521522I've seen with my own eyes people literally douse their Olympus cameras with a garden hose to get all the dust off, like washing a pair of muddy boots.
>>4521526>Olympus: A youtuber made a video>Nikon: sent cameras into space, and also a youtuber made a videoThere's a video of a ZF in a hurricane somewhere. It's nikon's least well made camera. I've seen non-weather sealed fujifilms get wet while being used, only glitch out if kept wet and continuously used instead of turned off and put away, and start working flawlessly 2 hours later. Such cameras could survive a static dousing. I don't put stock in videos of static cameras, turned off, getting wet.You're not going to justify going for a more expensive, heavier, worse quarter frame setup with the weather sealing meme when Nikon cameras are in space, bucko. Olympus is just a budget brand and a $3500 600mm f8 + $2000 quarter frame body is an absolute joke. No wonder they struggled and lost so much money.
>>4521530Anon I'm not here to argue about whatever it is you want to argue. Olympus OM line has better weather sealing than the z8...
>>4521526Have you seen their cameras working 1 3 6 12 months later?There are a ton of yt videos of ppl hammering, scratching or dipping their phones in water.Are yyou gonna doit too?No , because most prob they got insurance so they get thier money back or make enough views to buy a new one.Unless the camera is certified to work underwater i would still not water it down with a hose
>>4521532>Olympus OM line has better weather sealing than the z8...There is literally no evidence to support this, and plenty of evidence to contradict it. None. Nada. You have NOTHING to support your statement besides "I trust IEC more than nikon, even though IEC's assessment of the OM is IP53">IP5_: Partial protection against dust and other particulates, such that any ingress will not damage or impede the >satisfactory< performance of internal components (dust may enter, but will not kill the camera quickly)>IP_3: Protection against direct moisture spray at angles up to 60° off vertical>implicit: "sufficient that no damage or interrupted functioning of components will be incurred when an item is upright"This 3 is the most important part because IP_4 is>Protection against splashing water from any direction, tested for a minimum of 10 minutes with an oscillating spray (limited ingress permitted with no harmful effects)AKA water not getting in the camera and actually not damaging it - immediately. IPX4 is the lowest possible IP rating to legally guarantee performance as well as the ZF (the worst nikon for build!) demonstrated in shitty norway weather.IP53 is LITERALLY not a good IP rating. OM coasts off the fact that freshwater doesn't quickly damage cameras. There's a reason nikon doesn't blow their money on IEC's tests. Theirs cost them less and have been historically more effective such that the name "Nikon" means "IP65"Nikon's internal standards are logically higher if their most plasticky, creaky camera survives similar conditions to an OM-1.Nikon's internal standards are definitely higher if their cameras can go into the electronics-destroying dust pinball game of a space station and survive.
>>4521533>>4521536A friend of mine uses his Olympus cameras in some of the most fucked up places on the planet. Like I said, I've seen with my own eyes him taking a garden hose and washing it off. I've seen other videos of people doing the same thing with their safari gear for tours. I'd never do that with my nikon gear. Anyway, take my personal experience or leave it.
>>4521540Oh yeah? My friend works for the men and black and he uses his nikon Z6II in a martian DUMB's water condensation chambers to document atlantean refugees. AND my dad works at nintendo. Top that, sucka.
>>4521542At least my friend is real.
>>4521533Warranty will not cover water damage. I think instructions specifically tell to not pour water on the camera from water tap or garden hose faucet. (Underwater pressure pushes the battery door and gasket tighter but pressurised stream of water may not.)
>>4521546your friend is a guy making a retarded youtube video.Olympus could not certify any of their cameras as IPX4. All Nikon cameras sold as weather sealed, even the flimsiest one, demonstrate IPX4 performance. Nikon sent cameras into space. Olympus did not. Please show me the actual evidence an OM-1 is better weather sealed than a Z8, besides a retard dousing his camera with freshwater. Because OM is IPX3, not IPX4, and there is a reason they couldn't achieve that.
>>4521549I just did. Go search it on Instagram you lazy idiot. I gave you my lived experience as well.
>>4521552You showed me a retard pouring fresh water on cameras turned off, not in operation, with no proof that no water entered. It's freshwater and so poorly conductive that non-weather sealed cameras can take on a significant amount without failing immediately.I showed you the legal definition of the highest IP rating OM system has achieved, which clearly says water can enter. I showed you that nikon's jankiest camera survives similar amounts of water.I showed you that nikon is going to space, and OM shitstem is not.There is no proof an OM-garbage is more weather sealed than Nikon. None. Nada. They have the weakest IP rating that doesn't basically say "It's a sony".
>>4521554Nope. The ig short he shows the camera that the cameras are on. You're lazy. Or old and don't have Instagram or tiktok to go look at it yourself. Real world experience has shown me that olympus has better weather sealing. It's one of the reasons why my friend got his gear because he has a vacation home in Costa Rica. Seeth. And then cope somehow.
Guys, I'm at a loss here. Help me out please.Upgraded from a z7-ii + 300 f4 to a z8+nikor 180-600 last year. Have been having trouble with sharpness ever since.Below are two examples from a couple of months ago. No matter what I do I can't seem to get tack sharp feathers. On 99%+ of my photos subject is in some way blurry. I don't understand what I'm doing wrong. I've tried af-s, af-c, manual focusing. Pinpoint and manual work better but overall the preformance is much worse than on my old setup.I'd understand if I was getting like 5-10% keepers but I haven't been able to get any.Amy I doing something wrong, is there a defect in the camera? Or is the lens a sub par specimen? I did send it to nikon to be checked and they said it was within parameters.https://files.catbox.moe/vf20rz.NEFhttps://files.catbox.moe/b910em.NEF
>>4521568>Uhm its on the instagram short i have a blurry screenshot of! a camera appeared to survive a garden hose 5 seconds later!Right and that beating the zf (worst nikon!) video would require them to secretly swap out broken zfs through the whole tripWhy can't olympus secure an IP54 rating? Where's the olympus in space?Fuck, you're probably not even smart enough to understand what I'm trying to tell you.>>4521575>1/600sYou might need better technique or a higher shutter speed to cope. Practice shooting a static target.
>>4521578I believe they were at 1/1600 not 1/600. That was my first thought too, that I was shooting too slow. I also tried not use the long end. These were shot at 300mm - ish iirc.
Is APS-C considered better for birding for smaller budgets? For example, I see the R7 with the 100-400 recommended often
>>4521583Not just for smaller budgets, for example the Canon R7 is a banger pro wildlife body with all the bells and whistles as the big FF bodies. If your subject is always far away or small and can't get closer it is better to already use a crop sensor since you would crop it anyways. This way you still keep a high resolution for the details.Modern APS-C is very capable producing sharp shots at ISO 12800 if needed
>>4521587Let's not exaggerate. 6400 ISO on the R7 is already pretty high.
>>4521592ISO 6400 and "ISO 6400" are not the same. A properly exposed ISO 12800 will have a tack sharp image and only need a small denoise while an underexposed ISO 6400 will be essentially a badly exposed ISO 51200 and will have noise out the ass. The difference is knowing how to expose properly. The R7 can comfortably shoot ISO 12800 and have sharp results in the hands of a competent user.
>>4521594Define "properly exposed" then.Shooting birds at dawn at f5.6, 1/500s and ISO 12800 can be "properly exposed" in the sense of having 18% grey average in the frame, or the center frame if that's what you're aiming for. If you're shooting mid-day at f11, 1/8000s and ISO 12800, you're "properly exposing" too, but you'll have the benefit of a slightly cleaner signal before amplification. In both cases you're "properly exposing" but one picture will be noisier than the other, because it's limited by the quantity of light and quality of the signal rather than exposure settings. Especially for wildlife where you'll tend to stick with the widest aperture and a relatively fast shutter to freeze the action anyway so the amount of available light is the limiting factor and high ISO won't really be a choice but rather a necessity.Besides, if your image looks sharp, it's almost exclusively thanks to your lens and a fast enough shutter, not ISO performance or exposure.>an underexposed ISO 6400 will be essentially a badly exposed ISO 51200 and will have noise out the ass.You don't say, properly exposing is better than adding a stop in post. Though the R7 is largely ISO invariant, so there may not be that big of a difference between ISO 6400 + 1EV and ISO 12800 unless you've crushed your shadows beyond recovery.I'm not denying that you may have shot perfectly good ISO 12800 images on the R7 - I have too myself - but I stick with my comment that ISO 6400 on the R7 is already quite high, and "comfortably at 12800" is really stretching it far, ESPECIALLY if you're cropping, which you will likely do and quite heavily for wildlife and does make noise look worse.
>>4521616I will just refer you to Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. Read it.
>>4521620His book does not contradict anything I've just said. Neither does he claim that the R7, an APS-C camera released 9 years after his book, performs "comfortably at 12800" nor that ISO has anything to do with the sharpness of an image.
>>4521657Sorry his book is from 2004, so actually 18 years.
>>4521253bruh this is at iso12,800, and further below 1/1000 on these tiny constantly moving guys the more of a gamble each shot is
OK i decided im going to get an R7 + 100-400 when refurbished prices come back.
>>4522458While the RF 100-400 is not a bad lens you will do much better with the 100-500L
>>4522535I would like to eventually upgrade to that lens. However, I think I'll start with the 100-400 as I'm not good enough yet to really make use of the L lens, I think. Plus the smaller size means I can take it with me more and get more practice on hikes and such
>>4522539It is not that much smaller. These kind of lenses, all of them are big and cumbersome. The bad part is the RF 100-400 doesn't have a tripod collar, not even optional so you can't attach the strap to the lens. You don't want to attach to the body on such big lenses because it will put too much strain on the bayonet mount ring.For the strap I'd recommend Peak Design Slide or Slide Lite btw.
>>4522548At what price should I consider the 100-500L? It seems like it's ~$1800 more expensive than the 100-400I was planning to take it hiking, camping, and on day trips so it seems like the smaller size / weight would matter, but maybe it's not as significant as I think. I was planning to also bring a Sigma 18-50mm with the R7 in a sling, but that's a tiny lens
>>4522557I'd argue you don't really need the zoom for making generic shots and the RF 24/1.8 Macro would be a better companion. If you already chose the 100-400 by all means get it, I'm sure you won't regret it. It's just that the sharpness in some situations will be not so stellar and the lack of tripod mount for the lens means you will have to put the strap on the camera body which is not so good. The lens itself is good for starting out. But at its price it is unbeatable, it costs less than half of what I paid for my bazooka after a 33% rebate.
>>4522548>>4522557>It is not that much smaller. These kind of lenses, all of them are big and cumbersome. Should I just consider a backpack instead of a sling btw? I was planning to have a sling but apparently something like a Lowepro 200 can fit either the 100-500 or the 100-400 apparently
>>4522558>I'd argue you don't really need the zoom for making generic shots and the RF 24/1.8 Macro would be a better companion. I was considering that. I know it's not birding related, but I do like taking shots of friends / pets while outdoors and I wonder if I'd miss the ability to zoom and the slightly wider 18mmI need to just go to a store and try everything to figure it out
>>4522559Backpack always. I used a Lowepro Flipside 400AW but the newer versions are meh so now I use a Manfrotto ProLight Backloader.When out hiking and you don't do birds and wildlife, you will be doing wide angle shots of landscapes and macro shots of moss, mushrooms, insects etc..., this one gives you all of those while for telephoto landscapes the 100-400 covers your 100-200mm range.
>>4522548I've seen another birder using a harness like picrel, apparently it's really much comfier for big telephotos even if it looks a bit silly.
>>4522562I went for the 500AW, it might seem oversized at first but when you need to also carry water and some food along your telephoto + secondary lens, the extra space is really needed
>>4522618What you need is a wide strap attached to the balance point that is on the lens. That harness is ridiculous as fuck and only marketed for boomers. Also the attachment anchors are for normal zoom lens weight and attached to the body. Not comfy at all.>>4522619Good choice and good call on the larger size. The 500 AWII seems like close to the older designs. You will love it I'm sure. Make sure you don't store your water inside the bag though, keep it on the outside. There will be plenty of room for some extra clothing as well.Get a blower bulb and some lenspen and sensorklear lenspen.
>>4522535Nothing wrong with starting on the 100-400 and upgrading later. The 100-500L is a pretty big investment.
>>4522630Poor people aren't supposed to enjoy photography, apparently.With fair lighting and f9 you can still get some decent shots especially considering modern RF sensors. Yeah you'll be using ISO 6400 instead of 3200 but oh well.
>>4522620I didn't make it clear but I'm not the same anon who asked about the bag, I just chimed in to give my opinion on the matter. I've always placed my water bottle inside without issue so far, partly because the side pockets are a bit too loose (I bought the bag second hand which might explain that).As you wrote, it's also good to take other small equipments: extra memory cards, head torch (especially handy), plastic bags, clothes etc.
>>4522632With the R7 ISO 12800 will still produce sharp shots. The R7 has a much higher pixel density than other APS-C or FF that benefits more from the sharpness of the 100-500L. If anon can avoid pixel peeping (he won't) he will see the sensor outresolving the 100-400. Still it is a much less problem than the lack of tripod collar. WTF Canon?Maybe getting a EF 100-400L II and an adapter could work? Still can't beat the price of the 100-400, just shame about the collar.
>>4522637Not sure why you'd need a collar on a 600g lens.
>>4522637The 100-400 is extremely light. There's absolutely no need for a tripod collar.Collars exist because the center of gravity is offset forward on heavy lenses. They're not here for your convenience, they're a necessity. The 100-400 is so light that you can simply put your camera on the tripod without throwing everything off balance. It's just 80 grammes heavier than the 35mm f1.4 VCM>Maybe getting a EF 100-400L II and an adapter could work?It's much more expensive. The collar is there BECAUSE the lens is heavier. It's nearly three times heavier than the 100-400, and it's noticeably heavier than the 100-500L, no shit there's a collar on it, and with the adapter the center of gravity would be put even further forward. Getting a much heavier and bulkier lens just to have a collar is beyond retarded. I've actually never read such a retarded suggestion before on a photography discussion.
>>4522638So not to stress the bayonet
im going to the store today to test an r7 and various lenses so we'll see how it goes.end blogpost
>>4522641Anon my RF 70-200 f/4 is 700g and doesn't have a collar either and it's spent the last 4 years glued to my R6. I don't feel any play at all in the mount, so idk what phantom issue you're worried about.
>>4522641Pretty sure Canon know whether 630g is too much for their own mount to safely handle over time.In fact it's pretty dumb, because even if you support your lens on a collar, the mount still has to support the 612g canon R7 dangling on the other end, and it's not even their heaviest camera: the R1 stands at 1.1 kg with the battery and no one's ever raised any complaint about the mount being stressed.You're advising someone's lens choice over a literal non-issue.
tried out the R7 + 400mm, the 400mm didn't have as much reach as I thought it would but it would still get the job done I think. It's shockingly small
>>4522697Long lenses are not for reaching far, the further the subject is the more mushy the details get and you will have to deal with atmospheric effects. Longer lenses are for smaller subjects so from a reasonable distance, 10-20m away you get to fill the frame.For that 400mm you might be able to use a 1.4X teleconverter but on a crop sensor it is already a 600mm FF equivalent. Best is to learn to get closer.
