• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Silent Gliders

Chris Calohan II

Well-known member
Just got a 70-200 2.8 with 1.7 converter. Got it to shoot some sports activities but decided I'd best do some practicing first. These are my first attempts using the lens with moving and stationary wildlife.

8443438198_83e86f3dc1_o.jpg


8442346061_e9093bd8f1_o.jpg


8428634426_a931be0d96_o.jpg


8378892582_7d0c2cab79_o.jpg


And one static shot:

8427543315_20047075b0_o.jpg
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Just got a 70-200 2.8 with 1.7 converter. Got it to shoot some sports activities but decided I'd best do some practicing first. These are my first attempts using the lens with moving and stationary wildlife.

What body is this on and why make convertor?


8428634426_a931be0d96_o.jpg



Chris,

Whatever the details, this is Audubon quality!

Asher
 
Last edited:

Chris Calohan II

Well-known member
D7000. I got the converter because I couldn't afford to go to a dedicated 400 or 600mm lens. This lens serves to get me some decent birding shots, shoot a softball game, a rodeo or kayakers with strong results.

While this shots only serves as a practice exposure for timing, I think you can see why I went this route.

8378892496_f9a8038b6d_o.jpg
 
Thanks for posting.

Since your ask for critique:

The second and third shots are quite good. I love the wing position, and on the 3rd shot, the backlit glimpse of the internal structures of the wing are fascinating.

The static portrait shot is also quite good: nice pose, great detail, no apparent loss of detail in the white feathers (it's so easy to over-expose these birds, and clip highlights in the feathers).

The other 2 flight shots are technically good, in terms of what you're practicing with (getting crisp focus and sharp images), but they are limited in their visual appeal because the bird is heading away from us, with the head/eye not meeting us.

For good flight shots, it's helpful to have both the wind and sun at your back - that puts light on their heads and faces, and often slows the speed of the bird if it's coming toward you, making shooting it quite a bit easier. But sometimes the conditions don't cooperate, and you just have to make do as best you can!

Hope this helps!
 

Chris Calohan II

Well-known member
Birds in Flight

Coming dead on at me is the hardest shot for me to make...I am using a D7000 which has all the bells and whistles I need to make the shots. I am using a single point focusing method and autofocus mode generally shooting in the ISO 200 range, 1/1250 at f/4 or 5.6. If it is a static shot, I will drop the shutter speed and go for a greater DoF but generally not higher than 8.

Any suggestions other than continuing to practice?
 
Coming dead on at me is the hardest shot for me to make...I am using a D7000 which has all the bells and whistles I need to make the shots. I am using a single point focusing method and autofocus mode generally shooting in the ISO 200 range, 1/1250 at f/4 or 5.6. If it is a static shot, I will drop the shutter speed and go for a greater DoF but generally not higher than 8.

Any suggestions other than continuing to practice?

Birds in flight is definitely one of the more challenging areas in photography - demanding of both photographer and equipment.

I like to have my shutter speed at least 1/1000 second, and am usually shooting wide open, or stopping down a full stop if there's adequate light. So you seem to be on pretty much the same track there.

Regarding AutoFocus, different cameras offer various options to "fine-tune" performance. I use Canon, and am not familiar with Nikon's system, so can't give specific recommendations. But I'll describe how I customize my settings, and you can see which of these, if any, is applicable to your gear.

I also use a single manually selected focus point (typically the center point, but sometimes moving left or right, depending on the size of the bird, the direction it's flying, and how I want to compose the picture). Custom Function settings for my camera provide an option to "auto-expand" to the set of nearest Focus Points if the tracking system needs to, to kind of "hand-off" the focusing if it gets out of the range of the selected Focus Point.

There is also a sensitivity control, which actually works a little counter-intuitively. This is set on the slower end of the scale: what this does is cause it to delay trying to completely refocus if it loses the original focus point. So, for example, if something comes between you and your subject, it won't immediately try to refocus on it, but will delay this, and theoretically maintain focus on your original subject.

There's also a setting to determine whether or not the camera will go through its whole focus range in order to regain focus of the subject, when it is lost. The idea here is that by setting this to "off", you won't lose valuable seconds trying to regain focus by having the camera look through the entire range of focus. Sometimes this helps, sometimes it doesn't.

Also, many times the lens will allow you to set a focus range - sort of a near, medium, and far, to accomplish the same thing. If I know my subject won't be coming too close, I'll select the 'far' setting, so it can narrow its attempts to lock and regain focus.

And I assume you have the camera in what Canon calls "AI Servo" where the AutoFocus system is continually working and maintaining focus (as opposed to the "one shot" where it achieves focus, and then locks this in). Also, I have found it helpful to choose Canon's option to have AutoFocus controlled by a button other than the shutter button, thus fully separating the act of focusing, and the act of triggering the shutter. I use the * button on the back of the camera with my thumb. As long as I have it pressed, the AutoFocus is engaged in a continual mode. If I remove my thumb, it stops refocusing, and the previously selected focus is locked in. Give me both AI Servo and One Shot capability, without having to change any setting. I have no idea if Nikon provides this as an option, but thought I'd throw that in just in case it does.

Hope this helps, and doesn't confuse!
 

Chris Calohan II

Well-known member
Thanks for the input. I've been experimenting with the focus lock button in the last few shots I've done and my lens allows me to set it so it doesn't have to run through the whole focus range to "refind" a subject..that takes some getting used to. I do not think the D7000 has an intermediary spot focus function but I am going to chack. That would be handy.

Just curious, but how much do you fill the frame - or should I say, how much do you crop on a BIF?
 
Chris,

Well, I'll generally crop as much as I need to in order to get a satisfactory image. In the field, I use as much glass as possible to get it large in the frame, but depending on the bird size and distance, I'm still often needing to crop.

Going from my prior 8mp Mark II to the 16mp Mark IV has been helpful in this regard - it gives me more flexibility when cropping - more pixels available to begin with.

But sometimes I'll have a bird that is in focus, well-exposed, etc., but just too small in the frame to provide acceptable detail. I'll just hit the Delete button and hope for better luck the next time!
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Going from my prior 8mp Mark II to the 16mp Mark IV has been helpful in this regard - it gives me more flexibility when cropping - more pixels available to begin with.

But sometimes I'll have a bird that is in focus, well-exposed, etc., but just too small in the frame to provide acceptable detail. I'll just hit the Delete button and hope for better luck the next time!

Don,

I also thought the 1DII was the ultimate fast camera but now use a 5DII but was frustrated by the limited reach of my 70-200 even with a x 1.4 convertor. So when the finches gathered in the trees nearby, I splurged on a 7D to give me a x1.6 edge and then added a x2 version II Canon. Still, I long for a 400mm or 500mm. But at 5.6, with the 5DII one can't use the 2x convertor and autofocus anymore! Canon has added a firmware update for the 1DX, (which I don't have), and promises to eventually add that for the 5D Mark III. So for now, I'm limited to having small birds with whatever detail I can manage. If I hit delete for small birds in the center of the frame, I'd have very few keepers!

I'd love a cost-effective approach for more Eos reach that doesn't require $8,000 - $10,000 lenses. Actually, the Canon 200 f 2.0 L IS at $5999, may be a really good value, as it can be used with multiple convertors. However, even that is way out of my reach. I can't justify such sums when birding is not a main part of my photography, just a passion of opportunity!

Asher
 

Chris Calohan II

Well-known member
Don: I'd love to go on your Costa Rica April trip but I think I've spent all I can this year...though I have a few free lance jobs coming up and more frequent flyer miles than should be allowed...question though, if my wife came along as a non shooting particpant, how does that work?
 
Hi Asher,

Yes, it's hard to get reasonably fast lenses at 400mm+ without spending a fortune. There are a few options:

Canon 100-400L/f4.5-5.6 IS for around $1700.

I use this regularly as a good all-purpose wildlife lens. To get more reach requires a teleconverter, although you will lose AutoFocus on non 1-series bodies. Another option would be a non-Canon teleconverter, which in many cases will allow AutoFocus.

Canon 400L/f5.6 for around $1340. A well respected lens, with the same teleconverter limitations as the 100-400.

Going the next step up does get much more pricey. There is the Canon 300/f2.8 IS Lens, one of Canon's finest, and the original version shows at $4879 at Canon's website - don't know if this is still sold. The newer II version jumps up to $6800. But it could be used with the 1.4x and/or 2x teleconverters, giving you 600mm at f/5.6 and still have autofocus.

And then there are non Canon lenses which could be looked into (Sigma has a 300/f2.8 for $3399 at B&H, for example).

And yes, there has been a firmware fix for the lack of Autofocus at f/8 for the 1Dx. This is not entirely unexpected, as all of the prior 1 series bodies did allow Autofocus with a maximum lens/converter aperture of f/8.

But if you've seen it mentioned as a possible option for the 5D Mark III, that would be unexpected, as no prior non-1-series bodies have ever offered Autofocus at f/8. Do you have a source for that speculation? I'm just curious about it.
 
Don: I'd love to go on your Costa Rica April trip but I think I've spent all I can this year...though I have a few free lance jobs coming up and more frequent flyer miles than should be allowed...question though, if my wife came along as a non shooting particpant, how does that work?

I'll send you a PM in a little while to explore that possibility.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Just got a 70-200 2.8 with 1.7 converter. Got it to shoot some sports activities but decided I'd best do some practicing first. These are my first attempts using the lens with moving and stationary wildlife.......

And one static shot:

8427543315_20047075b0_o.jpg


Chris,

Now I understand your set up. Like Don, I have Canon gear and thought perhaps Canon, Sony or Pentax or a 3rd party might be producing a matched x1.7 lens. Your D700 is perhaps the most wonderful engineering feat of its generation but 12 MP is not enough for small creatures at a distance, a lot of the time.

For those with a full frame Nikon D700 who want to get more pixels in the bird, there's a $500 solution to double the pixels! If one could swing for a Nikon D5100 Digital SLR Camera (Body Only), at $496.95, the 16.2 MP camera gives a x 1.3 advantage in pixels to devote to your subject. With the effect of the APS C sized sensor, a further x 1.5 for a combined advantage of 2.025!

As it is, with the birds you have here, you are giving us a fair amount of detail anyway and I'd be pretty happy. For smaller birds, the extra APS C body is something to consider if it's in your budget.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Asher,

Yes, it's hard to get reasonably fast lenses at 400mm+ without spending a fortune. There are a few options:

Canon 100-400L/f4.5-5.6 IS for around $1700.

I use this regularly as a good all-purpose wildlife lens. To get more reach requires a teleconverter, although you will lose AutoFocus on non 1-series bodies. Another option would be a non-Canon teleconverter, which in many cases will allow AutoFocus.

Canon 400L/f5.6 for around $1340. A well respected lens, with the same teleconverter limitations as the 100-400.

Going the next step up does get much more pricey. There is the Canon 300/f2.8 IS Lens, one of Canon's finest, and the original version shows at $4879 at Canon's website - don't know if this is still sold. The newer II version jumps up to $6800. But it could be used with the 1.4x and/or 2x teleconverters, giving you 600mm at f/5.6 and still have autofocus.

Don,

Thanks for all these options!

One interesting tidbit I picked up was that the original version, only, of the 70-200 will work with multipliers at f8.0 for the 5D MarkIII at least according to one DPreview report!!!

To be complete, what do you think of the $6,000, Canon 200 mm f 2.0 L IS instead of the $800 more expensive, 300mm 2.8L IS? The 200 mm lens can be used as a 280mm, 400mm, 560mm and 800mm with multipliers of x1.4, x 2, x2 + x1.4 and then x2 + x2 respectively possible until f 8.0, (with the promised new firmware below). There's a practical weight consideration! Note that the wonderful f2.0 200mm lens is 4.3 lb, (0.19 Kg), heavier than the glorious 300mm lens, itself no lightweight at 5.17lb, (2.35 Kg)! Still, the 5D Mark III firmware update, promised below, should allow central cross hair autofocus at for any of the 300mm or 200mm lens combos, up to to f8.0, on the Canon 5D III!!!

And then there are non Canon lenses which could be looked into (Sigma has a 300/f2.8 for $3399 at B&H, for example).


That's more reasonable! It's said to not be as wonderful at the periphery, but for birds, perfect!


But if you've seen it mentioned as a possible option for the 5D Mark III, that would be unexpected, as no prior non-1-series bodies have ever offered Autofocus at f/8. Do you have a source for that speculation? I'm just curious about it.

NEW FIRMWARE UPDATE FOR CANON EOS 5D MARK III DIGITAL SLR CAMERA PROVIDES UNCOMPRESSED HDMI OUTPUT SUPPORT AND IMPROVED AF PERFORMANCE

LAKE SUCCESS, N.Y., October 23, 2012—Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, today announced a new firmware update for the EOS 5D Mark III Digital SLR camera that significantly improves the camera’s performance and usability. In response to requests from professionals working in the fields of cinema and television production, the firmware update enables the use of uncompressed HDMI Output support, making possible more efficient video editing and monitoring procedures. Additionally, the upgrade supports the advanced needs of photographers through improved AF performance when capturing still images.

Uncompressed HDMI Output Support: When shooting video, HDMI Output makes possible the recording of high-definition uncompressed video data (YCbCr 4:2:2, 8 bit) from the EOS 5D Mark III to an external recorder via the camera’s HDMI terminal. This, in turn, facilitates the editing of video data with minimal image degradation for greater on-site workflow efficiency during motion picture and video productions. Additionally, video being captured can be displayed on an external monitor, enabling real-time, on-site monitoring of high-definition video during shooting.

Improved AF Functionality: Even when the EOS 5D Mark III is equipped with an extender and lens making possible a maximum aperture of f/8, the firmware update supports AF employing the camera’s central cross-type points (currently compatible with maximum apertures up to f/5.6). Accordingly, the update will allow users to take advantage of AF when shooting distant subjects, benefitting sports and nature photographers, particularly when using telephoto lenses.

The new firmware update will be available, at no charge, in April 2013 from the Canon U.S.A. website and can be downloaded by end users or through Canon Factory Service Centers.​

We have to hope they deliver!
 

Chris Calohan II

Well-known member
8427543315_20047075b0_o.jpg


Chris,

Now I understand your set up. Like Don, I have Canon gear and thought perhaps Canon, Sony or Pentax or a 3rd party might be producing a matched x1.7 lens. Your D700 is perhaps the most wonderful engineering feat of its generation but 12 MP is not enough for small creatures at a distance, a lot of the time.

For those with a full frame Nikon D700 who want to get more pixels in the bird, there's a $500 solution to double the pixels! If one could swing for a Nikon D5100 Digital SLR Camera (Body Only), at $496.95, the 16.2 MP camera gives a x 1.3 advantage in pixels to devote to your subject. With the effect of the APS C sized sensor, a further x 1.5 for a combined advantage of 2.025!

As it is, with the birds you have here, you are giving us a fair amount of detail anyway and I'd be pretty happy. For smaller birds, the extra APS C body is something to consider if it's in your budget.

Asher

D7000 not D700
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I like the entire series, but this is very appealing to me as it shows well the maneuvering in flight.


Best regards,
Michael


8378892582_7d0c2cab79_o.jpg


I agree about the uniqueness of this picture. But, since you picked this out, Michael, I do wonder about one feature. That's the sharpened edges in such pictures.

Here's a question for Chris and everybody else. When you sharpen such a picture, do you consider toning down the sharpening on the edges? If not, as here, the feet, which have more edges per unit area, then tend to become too prominent. I'd be interested in opinions on this post processing issue.

Asher
 
Asher,

Thanks for the info on the 5D III Firmware Update - looks like you were exactly right. This is great news for owners of that camera, and a clear departure from Canon's past.

Regarding the 200/f2 IS lens: I'm not at all familiar with that lens, but here are some off-the-cuff remarks:

For bird/wildlife photography, you want at least 300-400mm, and preferably more. So with the 1.4x you have a 280/f2.8 lens - fantastic!. With the 2x, you have a 400/f4 lens - also very, very good.

The main limitation is trying to go beyond 400mm. Yes, you can stack teleconverters, to get 480mm (1.4x and 2x) at f/5.6, or 800 (two 2x's) at f/8, but your yield of acceptable shots is going to drop dramatically. With my 600L/f4 IS, I will occasionally stack the 1.4x and 2x, but the results are typically disappointing. There has to be a lot of light to overcome the optical problems created by having all that glass, and even then results are hit and miss (mostly miss). I don't have more than one 2x, so can't speak from experience, but I would have to think that the chances of having an acceptably sharp, detailed image are going to be that much less.

So if you're content with 400mm being the practical limit of your reach (and this is borderline for birds, but do-able), the 200/f2 lens might do the trick, plus be a phenomenal lens for more "normal" photography.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
So if you're content with 400mm being the practical limit of your reach (and this is borderline for birds, but do-able), the 200/f2 lens might do the trick, plus be a phenomenal lens for more "normal" photography.


Don,

I'm thinking that the 100-400 L IS, on my APS C sized 7D may be already pretty effective at 160-680mm effective focal lengths. So perhaps that's the lens to buy! Thanks so much! The 400 5.6L, for about the same price, lacks IS, so I guess you'd not recommend it?

Asher
 
Don,

I'm thinking that the 100-400 L IS, on my APS C sized 7D may be already pretty effective at 160-680mm effective focal lengths. So perhaps that's the lens to buy! Thanks so much! The 400 5.6L, for about the same price, lacks IS, so I guess you'd not recommend it?

Asher

Well, it's the usual trade-off. Theoretically the 400L/f5.6, as a prime lens, will give you better optical quality at it's one focal length, but the 100-400, because of the 4x zoom range will provide much more flexibility in shooting.

The IS is always a plus, but depending on your camera support, and the shutter speeds you're using, it may or may not be a big advantage. In fact, the 100-400 IS has the "older" system for Image Stabilization, and Canon actually recommends turning it off when it is solidly mounted on a tripod.

My wife has the 7D, and is generally using the 100-400, while I have the 1D Mark IV, with the 600 (with or without teleconverters). The 1.6x multiplier of her camera, vs the 1.3 on mine, definitely helps make up the difference in focal length, and with the pixel count of the 7D, she can do a little cropping and still have very acceptable images. She can really get in pretty tight most of the time.
 
I agree about the uniqueness of this picture. But, since you picked this out, Michael, I do wonder about one feature. That's the sharpened edges in such pictures.

Here's a question for Chris and everybody else. When you sharpen such a picture, do you consider toning down the sharpening on the edges? If not, as here, the feet, which have more edges per unit area, then tend to become too prominent. I'd be interested in opinions on this post processing issue.

Asher

I will definitely tone down sharpening on edges, primarily when there is 'haloing' present. I really don't see this here, and I don't think Christ has oversharpened this image.

But I do see your point, the sharpness of focus here does seem to be greater on the feet, perhaps bringing a little too much attention there. A little less sharpening of this area might prevent this, and would be easy enough to try.

With bird and animal photography in general, the sharpness of the eye is the most critical for most images, and I'll often be careful not to overdo the sharpening on the rest of the image, and then do a little local sharpening for the eye, beak, and other important features.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I will definitely tone down sharpening on edges, primarily when there is 'haloing' present. I really don't see this here, and I don't think Christ has oversharpened this image.

I agree! No big worry here!

But I do see your point, the sharpness of focus here does seem to be greater on the feet, perhaps bringing a little too much attention there. A little less sharpening of this area might prevent this, and would be easy enough to try.

Well put! My point applies to all photography with any intent to impress. It emphasizes that apparent sharpness and contrast should be carefully assigned in the picture for presentation according to what one thinks is most important. Our brain does this automatically somehow, ranking where we should place our attention. Something red, (blood) sharp white, (fangs) or bright, (perhaps fire) evoke natural brain filters. Also sexual clues, of course.

For our pictures, we have to assess, "What ranking did post-processing and the optical quality of my unbiased camera system deliver in the different elements of my subject?" These physical, not human, factors cannot take into consideration what might be more interesting to us. This is where we can as creative individuals shape our work, putting our "fingerprints" on our presentation, so to speak.

With bird and animal photography in general, the sharpness of the eye is the most critical for most images, and I'll often be careful not to overdo the sharpening on the rest of the image, and then do a little local sharpening for the eye, beak, and other important features.

Exactly and you do a superb job! I just want to explore one step further, the ranking of importance of every element of the picture.

Asher
 

Chris Calohan II

Well-known member
I generally do only moderate sharpening on any image. I'm one of those who believes if it doesn't come out of the camera spot on, all the PP in the world isn't going to make it any sharper.

Generally, I use high pass sharpening but at a low pixel rate of around 3-3.9. If I do local sharpening, I use 85, 1.4, 4 at 70-80% unless I get too much grain, then drop the 1.4 and 4 to 0, 0.

Printing from a hi res tiff file, the gull printed with no perceptible haloing. I think much of the haloing seen online results from the jpeg compression.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I generally do only moderate sharpening on any image..............
Printing from a hi res tiff file, the gull printed with no perceptible haloing. I think much of the haloing seen online results from the jpeg compression.

Chris,

I am not referring to halos or any technical flaw as a problem at all! Just the potentially expressive value of actually looking at the apparent sharpness and contrast of all disparate elements of a picture. I feel there's an important benefit to be had, ranking what's most important for every edge and texture. That way, your feelings of the subject can be experienced more closely by the next person!

Asher
 
Top