Dusk encounter edition
>>4525003Dang! Love the colors and the details. What's your setup like? I'm thinking of getting a monopod to get some more stability whilst moving around
>>4525007Thank you anon! Lover your crow! Very end-of-summer-melancholy look.This was a loaner OM1 mk2 + 40-150F4, handheld, 1/500, F4, ISO 2k.Surprising what can be done with such a tiny rig and friendly birds and animals.
>>4525013Thanks! At 150mm you actually got real close for such detailed rendering in the feathers, really cool! I'm still too impatient so mostly they're all far away, but step by step.
>>4525058The little song pipsqueaks are usually much further and in darker spots.Jays are curious, especially the young ones, and are often used to people feeding them.The first one was sitting on a tree only two metres away. This one came even closer on my own rig on another day. Although the flock is likely the same.
>Took my new R7 + 100-400 to the wetlands>Saw a Great Egret, got within 20 yards of him>As I'm about to start shooting he gets spooks and flies awayThis is the second time this has happened, I have to get better at not spooking him.
>>4525061Try holding your camera a little below you and using the screen to set it up instead of the viewfinder. Birds can tell where you are looking and too much focusing on them makes them nervous. You can either get them comfortable so they ignore your presence first before you start shooting or try not to look at them while shooting. Both have their pros and cons.
>>4525066Okay, I will give that a shot. I went out at dusk and didn't find an egret, but I found this guy
>>4525060Really nice! The only ones curious and fed around me are pigeons, but even they are skittish depending on surrounding area.
>>4525119Try going 1-2 hours after sunrise or same before sunset.Find a spot with active birds and little to no people and just stand there. Maybe walk around a bit. They'll eventually get more and more used to you and start coming closer. Takes me 30min or more roughly to start seeing an increase of activity around me.Winter is going to be easier because a lot of birds have to be active during the short day to sustain themselves.
Duck
>>4525151Trush
>>4525151Angry hissing ducks
>>4525061The best results are when you go into hiding and wait for the birds to come at you, but it requires a lot of patience and knowledge of their habits and patterns
>>4525074Another shot of Mr. Hawkalso gonna post some other shots i took
>>4525195Mourning Dove
>>4525196I wish I could get closer to this snowy egret but this I like the birds in the background here, too
Dusky groose edition
>>4525061Managed to get pretty close to this one maybe 10m or so
>>4525330Also saw this other (I think) one the same day in the pond >>4525197Whats the bird above the egret? Got any other pictures?
>>4525335Saw a heron too
>>4525337And a kingfisher which shows the limits of my lens
I shot this funny looking duck
>>4525360now I think about getting a proper birder boom lens for more reach. was kinda fun sitting there enjoying the lake and shooting ducks (taking photos ofc, would never hurt a duck, ducks are bros)what reach is practical for birds?
>>4525361Microbro, there isn't much choice.1. 50-200 + MC14 is great for short-medium but expensive2. 100-400 is nice enough but dark3. 300 f4 is overpriced for being so old and heavy but it's a nice glass nevertheless4. 150-600 is overpriced but at a discount its a decent lens. But again - dark.5. Gandalf is good but severely overpriced (sony just made a 100-400f4 at half the price for FF)If you have the money I'd get 1 or 4, 2 is also a good pick. I do hope OM releases some more wildlife lenses.
>>4525335>Whats the bird above the egret?I believe it's a black-necked stilt. I couldn't get close enough to get any good photos of them.>>4525335>>4525337Those are really nice; I wish I could get this close to them. If I get within 25 yards of the Great Egrets they stare at me and fly away within 10 seconds
>>4525371thx bro, I took out my shitty minizoom out and shot a baby duckI think I get the 100-400 ... it's dark as you say but I don't care about noise and spending more money on micro four turds would feel wrong :o
>>4525408here baby duck was pecking at my lens lol. it's blurry but I still kept it because it's a fun image :)))now I just need to wait for the next grundsicherung payment and I'll get the 100-400
>>4525408Micro four turds is a good system that gives pretty nice results even for not very experienced people. I use it for close-medium range shooting when I move a lot. It's just so very light. And most of the city birds in my experience will eventually come closer if you stay in one place long enough.
>>4525423nice shot anon. i wish we had birds like that here. all we have is ducks :o
>>4525423Cool looking bird, what is it? I don't know American species
>>4525430Thank you, anon.>>4525435That's a steller's jay. This one's in the process of moulting so looks a bit shaggy.Very curious and would hang around observing you for a while.
A7CR - 50mm F1.2 GMTrying out new camera.
Little little grebes
>>4525523Got pretty lucky one day and saw these two
>>4525130Exactly my plan, at the moment I'm still scouting for a good area to stay at and give them time to pick up in activity, but there's a lot of dogwalkers and runners if I'm not super early.>>4525487Stellar catch! Is there a feeder nearby?>>4525523Love the color on this one, only green warblers in my area currently and they're a bitch to catch in good light
does big white cock count?
heavy crop and almost blending into the background but shot at golden hour and this bird has almost same colour as the ground. skittish as hell saw plenty af them this one the only one that i managed to capture relatively sharp and in focus
another duck
I know my photography isn't great, but I had share the kick I get from watching sparrows' enthusiasm in the birdbath (a glazed pot saucer)
Do you guys typically shoot at as wide an aperture as your lens will allow?
>>4525372This is a nice birb, very aesthetic
large bird
>>4525592they were not exactly thrilled to be photographed
There were crows harassing this kestrel so it was hard to get close.
Messing around this evening testing out a 400mm f6.3 lens from the 1960's I bought for pennies from a pawn shop, before I take it down to the beach to perv on ladies just like in the magazine ads.Jokes aside, legit impressed with this old thing, it's got a reasonably decent IQ for an old (and cheap even when new) third-party lens. I probably could've taken some better photos than this if I'd taken my time and wasn't just futzing around before I had to go make dinner.
>>4525654This photo in particular upsets me. These guys weren't moving, they were happily sat there posing for the camera. I wish I'd paid better attention to the shutter speed, it was at 1/30! I was stepped all the way down to f22 so I could easily have opened it up to 16 or 11 and still retained decent sharpness with a higher speed. Dumb dumb dumb.Anyway, I'll probably be junking this lens and finding a replacement. I like it but the elements are filthy and the coating on the rear is fucked, I had to go overboard with the heal tool to make these photos not look like they're covered in little black dots.
>>4525655Oof, well, tomorrow is a new day. Which lens is that? Vintage glass has its quirks but can be fun if you temper your expectations. Picrel is with Telear 200mm stopped down to 5.6
>>4525654Looks good indeed! What's the lens?
>>4525669>>4525675Kimunor 400mm f6.3There's zero info out there on Kimunor, so no idea if they're one of the countless manufacturers of such lenses from that era or just slapped their name on it.
>>4525677I see it being sold for like 40$, amazing value. I wonder how it fares fully open though
>>4525686Soft garbage when wide open. It's a preset lens, so there's a separate 'open/closed' ring beneath the aperture ring. My understanding is that wide open apertures on presets are primarily for framing and focusing, then you turn the open/close ring to step down to your pre-selected aperture when ready to shoot. I could see the softness when wide open potentially having some use for artsy shots, no good for birding though.
Do you guys use burst shooting and if so how many do you take? I tried it out for a while but it seems like it shoots them all so close together it's not really that useful. Plus if you take an out of focus picture of a bird then you have 60 out of focus pictures of a bird on your memory card. I just find it kind of annoying to deal with so many of what end up being basically the same picture.
>>4525655Here's a good example of why I'll be binning this lens and replacing it with one that's been better taken care of.
>>4525593they can fuck you up anon :)i once shot one frame filling with a 35mm lens ... fucker was hissing all the time lolI read about them being able to break a man's arm :o
>>4525722depends if you're in the game for the experience or some nat-geo level of perfectionif you just want to chill and shoot birds don't go overboard with FPSif you want to win some (possibly imaginary) contest then go for the highest FPS and cull for 3 weeks lol
>>4525722When perched, you need burst to catch action going on, focus relatively close so single focus gives better results. Choose stick perpendicular to you. Continuous or servo focus for more motion in depth, given you have no clutter around the bird. If on mirrorless use eye AF. Burst for catching a certain posture during flight for example, and action. If you get one usable image out of 60 then it is a good result.It needs good focusing technique so practice a lot. Good focus depends more on the photographer than on the features of the camera body.
>>4525371don't forget the 200 panasonic with 1.4x teleconverter. One stop faster than the 300 with better more usable ranges and cheaper to boot.
>>4525722Depends, sometimes I take short bursts of 3-4 photos when the bird makes an interesting movement or during flight, using the slow burst mode. I never seem to be able to pick my favorite photo though so I don't do it too often. And let's be honest, most of the time there's nothing very interesting going on, which doesn't help picking the best photo from a burst.I always stay in slow burst mode, so when there is a potentially interesting action going on I keep the shutter pressed, most of the time I only go with single shots. When I shoot bursts I often delete the uninteresting / missed shots right away, because I have a hard time deleting them on the computer.
I had to wait a while quietly until they came closer to me. I am getting better at not spooking birds
Took this a month or two ago
>>4525753Got one of these too.
>>4525734Swans are total assholes but it's a myth that they can break your arm or leg. You shouldn't fuck around with wildlife though, there's a video going around of a guy handling a heron until it spears his eye out.Took this pic last weekend, same with the red kite. It got spooked by some people passing by before I could get closer though.
Bird of some kind.
dinosaur
I am upset this wasn't in focus. I will keep trying
at the time I didn't think the spot I shot this from was anything unique but when I looked back at the photos I was suprised at the colors I managed to capture this grackle in
Can I salvage this RAW or no? I got closer to Mr. Egret but there wasn't any light left
>>4526528
Bird on cow
>>4526529Remove noise a bit, increase sharpness, correct contrast/highlights/tones a bit better and give it a crop that looks more natural. Simon D'Entremont has a YT video explaining these steps and how they work if needed.Additionally you could add a mask to the bird for sharpening so you keep the water soft.
>>4526699Thats quite the small bird or quite the large cow
>>4526790Cool photo, pretty bird, crisp feathers. Nice job, anon! What rig? What distance?
Finally got close to the local Great Egret. Shame the reeds were in the way
>>4527468My friend liked this image but the bird is pretty far and not that sharp. I think he liked the composition and the colors
>>4527469Now you know, composition and colors make the photo, not the technical details
Sky is a colorDarktable is a fuck
>>4525007What a beautiful exotic bird. Absolute masterpiece. Those guys are seriously awesome though. Very intelligent and have great memory. Don't fuck with them because they'll remember you for years.
Here's a female redstart that just spotted its lunch.Thinking of upgrading from RF 100-400 to 200-800 though, zooming with my feet spooks the birds too easily.
>>4528530>200-800Oh boy. If you had problems aiming at 400mm just wait till you get to 600mm and then 800mm. Plus that 800mm will not give you better results at those same distances just the same mushiness magnified more. You will still need to sneak up to have the least amount of air between you and your subject. In your place I would wait a bit more to get the RF 100-500 and a 1.4x TC, much better sharpness. The 200-800 might be cheaper and the big number might be sounding better but better sharpness pays better especially when you get comfortable sneaking up to the birds.
>>4528532Aiming is fine, it's more about birds flying off just when I get in range where the photos start to get good and I don't have to crop too much. Pic related for example, you can see the feather details appearing, but that's the closest I got.I'll look into the 100-500. I've seen it go between 1600-1700 CHF second hand while the 200-800 goes for around 1200-1400. So the difference isn't that big really, and 500 really sharp might already get me where I want. However I'll be traveling at Christmas so I'm not sure I'll make it saving up by then. What about the 600 or 800 cheap primes? Another option is to get one second hand and resell it when I get back. I know they're slow but still.
>>4528533>600 or 800 cheap primesOof. Very dark, you will only have good results with sunny daylight and very still subjects. What body are you using?
>>4528537Using EOS R8.They'd be dark but then so is the 100-500 + 1.4x.
>>4528539500mm @ f/7.1 + 1.4x TC is 700mm f/10. Basically a sidegrade to the 800mm f/11 on paper, but the 100-500 would be sharper and have better controlled midframe performance, which is where you'll normally find birds end up in the frame when they move about.Not being able to zoom out when stuck @ 800mm seems like a consideration, since there's a good chance you'll struggle to find a subject when it's close enough to fill your frame.
>>4528545Thanks anon, I'll consider all of this in a couple of months when I have the funds.
>>4528539DESU you would do better with an R7, that 24MP on FF is good for generic photography but for wildlife especially birds you need the high pixel density of the R7. R5 II if you got money to spend but for birding you will mostly be in crop mode so R7 is the better choice.I am on 26MP APS-C and still struggle with the details. Getting close is the real talent no matter what. Best is using a tripod with come camo applied to your gear, lens and yourself. It keeps your aim more stable and breaks up your outline for the birds. Maybe they think there is some weird bushes giving some cover.
taking pictures of birds is the only thing that keeps me in this hobby anymore
>>4528560I mean you're right, but I'm nowhere near that level, I'm still new to photography. Got tired of shitty phone photos, so I got a general purpose camera to learn. I'm only fine spending a bunch on second hand lenses because I can always sell them at the same price I bought them. In particular, I'll be in Australia for Christmas and they have colourful birds everywhere. Would be sad to miss out.Maybe one day I'll be hiding in bushes with a 800mm f/4 prime lens, but right now I just want an upgrade to the 100-400 because it's a bit short of what I want. I didn't even get the camera with birding in mind. Pic related, a duck.
>>4528623Don't get me wrong, the R8 is a good camera for what it is but the 24MP means you are married to the FF... frame, and you won't be able to crop in much without losing detail. With APS-C crop you are looking at 12MP images and with birds you will likely crop in more. In this sense you are on the pro end, for someone who doesn't need to crop in much and just be in the right distance from the birds no matter what.On my FF I have 36MP and even then I have to crop in significantly to get a good composition, in APS-C mode I start at ~16MP. When you get to that point, in the bushes I bet you won't need the 800mm and it would rather get in your way, more likely using the 600/4 or a 400/2.8.I would just stop worrying about the focal length, get the 100-500 that was suggested above and a tripod and practice doing the trade in the field. This is the hard part, takes years to master.
>>4528623An R7 would cost less than either lens and get you a setup that is more appropriate for birding with your existing 100-400mm lens, while being no bigger or heavier, and having a few improvements over the R8 like a joystick, IBIS, a bigger & brighter viewfinder, dual cards, better weather sealing... Yes, you will be getting a worse ""equivalent"" deal using APS-C, but for birding and macro it's actually better to use crop cameras (and a strobe for macro fwiw). I also own an R8 and may even buy an R7 soon just for macro.Bonus points: If you own two cameras with the same mount you can interchange lenses as needed for different purposes. You can even carry both bodies if you, for example, wanted to take some landscape shots with the R8 + 28mm f/2.8 (or a GP zoom or UWA), and had the R7 + 100-400mm f/5.6-8 ready to go at all times for birds. More gear to carry, yes, but undoubtedly the best thing for never missing any shots.
>>4528623is that luzern?if so i was there two weeks ago lol
>>4527036Canon r10 with an rf100-400mm he was about 7' away from me >>4528532Any idea of how big a difference in quality an ef100-400 mkii would be compared to the rf100-500? Thinking of getting the ef with a 1.4x extender because the 100-500 is very expensive
>>4528819I know the EF 100-400 mkII is very good but the RF 100-500 is even better but they are quite close. The EF 100-400 II will be a significant upgrade from the RF 100-400. You will see some reduction in functions with the EF lens protocol and power delivery, battery dropping below 60% you will see some limitations in burst rate and overall tracking speed might not be as fast as RF native lenses in some situations, so best if you check out the compatibility first.
>>4528671>>4528715Here's the plan then:Try to get the R7 with 100-400, eventually get the 100-500. But really, it'll depend on the prices and what I find over the next 3 months. I hate swapping lenses in the field so the second camera would make a lot of sense. But I've seen the 200-800 go for stupid low prices at times, so it also depends on that.I also live near an airport (30 minute walk) where we get regular airshows and stuff, would be nice to get good photos of that too.>>4528730Yeah, but it's not far from where I live. Just wanted to test the cheap RF 50 f/1.8 at night.
>>4525338bonus turtle too, how nice
Took some bird pics with my poorfag setup (Canon T7 with 55-250mm lens) this saturday.I know I need a longer lens but I'm wondering if I should get a better body too.
>>4529401
this guy was a pain to shoot he just kept moving
bird butt
last onehoping to get back out there later this week when the weather gets better
