Looking for design inspiration?   Browse our curated collections!

Return to Main Discussion Page
Discussion Quote Icon

Discussion

Main Menu | Search Discussions

Search Discussions
 
 

Paul Ross

9 Years Ago

Photographing Birds And The Cameras And Lenses

I am new, the last 2 years, to bird photography. I started with a heavy camera rig, Canon 5dmk2 and Canon L 100-400mm lens. It was a super camera rig offering full frame images of very high quality, BUT, it was just too heavy to carry when I was riding a bicycle. I typically ride along the NJ shore and take pictures of birds along the way, or I hike along local trails and do the same. At the end of 2013, I traded my Canon equipment for an Olympus OMD EM1 and at first, the Panasonic 100-300mm lens (m43). I was trading image size for weight and found the new system easy to carry and use in the field and that resulted in far more pictures because I was more likely to take the camera with me. But, while the image sensor on the m43 is very good, its still 1/2 that of a full frame and so cropping images can be problematic. I now use a Olympus 50-200mm SWD lens with and an m43 adapter and a Olympus 1.4 extender to give me the reach needed with bird photography. But for this increase optical performance I am paying a penalty in increased weight, not as much as with the Canon rig, but a weight increase just the same. I would be interested to read about the equipment others are using who photograph birds in the wild at distances of 10 to 50 yards. The attached image is typical and is a full un-cropped jpg, reduced in size for this discussion, taken last week. Your thoughts we be most welcome.

Reply Order

Post Reply
 

Rich Franco

9 Years Ago

Paul,

Welcome. Here's a shot of mine and I don't really shoot birds, since to do it "right" the big guns are needed. This was shot with the Canon 100-400 L lens. I've had the use of the 600mm F4 L lens too and sometimes that isn't really long enough for bird stuff.

Sell Art Online

If the weight is the factor and not the total quality of the image, then maybe you should look at some of the "compact" digital cameras,the "super zooms" group, like the Lumix, and others. If you're not going to be offering large prints, then those cameras will allow you more flexibilty and still deliver big zoom shots.

It really comes down to "Why are you photographing these birds?" For yourself and friends or to produce a library of bird shots to offer for sale here? If both, then a compromise will be required.

Hope this helps,

Rich

 

Edward Fielding

9 Years Ago

Bird photography is too expensive for me. If its a fun hobby and an excuse to get outside then go for it. If you are expecting a payback on equipment then a whole 'nother calculation is needed.

The alternatives to a big bazooka lens is attracting the birds closer to you --- feeding or camouflaging yourself in a blind. The smaller sensor cameras make large lenses more affordable and lighter but the smaller resulting picture can't be cropped.

A lot of closeup bird photography one sees is actually heavily cropped to make it appear as if the photographer was right on top of the bird.

 

Edward Fielding

9 Years Ago

Sell Art Online

Sometimes its just finding birds close at hand. This Osprey lives in a retirement village in Ft. Myers. Residents watch the nest from their windows. I believe this was taken with a Panasonic G3.

 

Edward Fielding

9 Years Ago

This was taken with a 35mm on a full frame I believe.

Sell Art Online

 

Peggy Collins

9 Years Ago

For years I carried my Canon 7D along with my 100-400mm lens on long hikes and also rode a bike with it many times. Almost all my bird photographs were shot with that gear.

barred owl photograph by peggy collins

However, many months ago my lens refused to stay retracted and so it bounces all over the place, fully extended, while I walk. Just a little annoying! I sent it in to Canon but they want $475 to fix it. So now I'm considering my options. Meanwhile I'm shooting with a Sigma 18-250mm, which is nice and light and really easy to hike with. I photographed this pygmy owl with it a couple of days ago...the photograph is slightly cropped and I added some textures because the sky was totally uninteresting.

pygmy owl photograph by peggy collins

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what other people recommend.

 

Murray Bloom

9 Years Ago

This was shot with a Nikon dSLR with a heavy 70-200mm f2.8 lens. Sometimes size (and weight) matters. (f5, 1/2500 sec, ISO 100, 300mm effective - APS-C)

Art Prints

A bird of a different feather - USAF Thunderbird F-16. Much faster and not nearly as close. Same lens with 2x tele-extender (f6.3, 1/1000, ISO 200, 600mm effective - APS-C) Both captures required pretty good panning skill with the long focal length.

Photography Prints

When I go out into the field, I often carry one or two bodies and about five lenses in a shoulder bag. My achin' back!

 

Steven Ralser

9 Years Ago

Here's what I rently took with the Panasonic gh2 and the 100-300

Photography Prints

Photography Prints

I did have canon with a 100-400 before, but now I went with lighter weight.

If you don't have access to the big glass, look more for birds in their settings. These were taken a long time ago with a canon g3 ( a 4mp P&S)

Art Prints
Sell Art Online
Photography Prints

 

Bradford Martin

9 Years Ago

A 100-400 lens is not that heavy. I am looking at getting my fifth one in 20 years. In the early days I would walk for miles with it on a tripod. I consider a 400 a minimal entry for doing bird photography and is fine for larger and approachable birds. My frind Bob Paty would bicycle with his Canon 800mm through Merritt Island NWR. And he was 70. I can carry a 400 almost indefinitely. I rarely use a triopod now since I use the VR function on My Nikon 80-400. I spent 5 years at sea with it and a tripod is useless on power boats so I got good at handholding. I was a whale observer so I was on deck with a camera dawn to dusk.

My suggestion is to work out more. I use 2 15 pound weights at home often and do a lot of curls and presses with them. Even smaller weights are useful.

I also suggest a high megapixel crop frame camera. The ideal now would be a 500mm prime lens with a 1,4 teleconverter. The tele will allow you to get smaller birds large in the frame if you can get close. It will also give you an effective 700 mm. But you can have a lot of fun with a 100-400. Any less and you are compromising too much in my opinion unless you can work very low and close.

I know a pro bird photographer that carries her 500 mm canon on a holster at her waist. No tripod. She sells lots of photos. For bicycling I am sure you can rig up a saddle bag or use a backpack. Any pack will work as long as the gear fits. You don't need all the padding, that gives bulk. Improvise some cushioning. Here is a photo I took in 1994 with my first lens which was a 28-200 Vivitar. This photo got a magazine publication and a book feature and sold as prints. It was one of my first trips out on my first camera. Take a look at Elliot Porter to see what you can do with a short lens and infinite patience.
I was able to get very close to this osprey. Others could not. I have a gift of getting close which I developed as I was always too poor for a big monster lens.

Sell Art Online

 

TL Mair

9 Years Ago

For birds I use a crop frame censor, and my Canon 100-400, this one I used a T3i, on a tripod, it is cropped for composition.
Sell Art Online

This one I used my Canon 7D, I hiked into the river bottoms in full camo, even my camera dresses in full camo for these, I sat in the marsh for hours, over several days to get this one shot.
Photography Prints

This one I used the same set up as above, full camo from head to toe, I hiked into the river bottoms, crawled the last 20 yards on my belly and those little #@*&!s still made me!!
Art Prints

Terry
tlmair.com

 

Fraida Gutovich

9 Years Ago

Art Prints


I use a Nikon D7100 with the nikkor 70-300mm for all of my wildlife shots.

 

Gregory Scott

9 Years Ago

Many of the best bird photographers use a 500mm monster prime lens costing as much as a good used car, or even a new car, and a large heavy tripod.
I mostly use a completely different approach. I shoot what comes to my feeders, using a 100mm macro lens.
You can get great flight shots of birds approaching to land at a feeder this way, or hummingbirds hovering. No feeder in the pic is relatively easy.
Controlling the approach/glide path with a "scouting perch" is a useful way to increase your shot percentage.


Magnificent Hummingbird Acorn Woodpecker Landing

 

Kathleen Bishop

9 Years Ago

I use the Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM on a crop sensor Canon for all bird and other wildlife photography. It weighs only 4.33 pounds and I never use a tripod. I love it for its versatility and fast autofocus. It costs way less than a Canon L zoom and it provides good detail even at long focal lengths. I've tried 2 other zoom lens, 300 and 400mm lengths, but they just don't cut it. Using the Sigma on a crop sensor camera gives me additional reach but I am curious to see what kinds of images I can produce using it on my full-frame Canon. The image quality may make up for the decreased subject size.

Here is a severely cropped image of a juvenile black-crowned night heron shot at a focal length of 500 mm. Even at that distance and with waning late afternoon light, there is still acceptable detail when pushed to the upper end of its range.
Young Black-crowned Night Heron Hunting by Kathleen Bishop

This crop of a peregrine falcon was taken at a focal length of only 320mm because it was shot at an odd angle and I wanted to optimize the DOF. Now I wish I'd zoomed in closer.
Peregrine Falcon Hunting for Ducks by Kathleen Bishop

The black-crowned night heron was a bit closer and I cropped it slightly. It was taken at 413mm.
Black-crowned Night Heron at Bodega Bay by Kathleen Bishop

 

Adam Jewell

9 Years Ago

I use a 7D and a 100-400 for all wildlife. Even with that I try to go where the birds are fairly used to people to get close so as not to have to crop a whole lot.

 

Susan Wiedmann

9 Years Ago

Until I read this thread I forgot that my relatively new Nikon d7100 has a crop sensor too. Does anyone know what would be the difference in image quality over cropping later, as I did with this image that I took through a chain-link fence? You can't always get close to your subjects!

Dad and Mom Building the Best Nest by Susan Wiedmann

Edit: I used a 70-300 lens.

 

Loree Johnson

9 Years Ago

I've been very happy with my Sigma 150-500mm zoom. Although I don't bicycle with it, I do walk with it--a lot. I use it with a Nikon D800E so I have the option of shooting in "crop sensor mode" or cropping later. The 36mpx gives me a lot of room to work with. Crop mode is around 24mpx.

Egret Breakfast

I've had the lens for almost four years and sadly, it's probably about to wear out. Looking at the Tamron 150-600mm as a replacement.

 

Susan Wiedmann

9 Years Ago

Loree, do you find a difference in cropped quality vs crop sensor mode quality at the same focal distance?

 

Paul Ross

9 Years Ago

Thanks all for the good comments. I see only one person is using the m43 size sensor camera. The images your kind enough to share are extraordinary. I know I made a serious tradeoff between size/weight and image quality but when I compare my full frame images to the m43 images, yes, there is a difference, but not as great as I had expected. When I switched from the Panasonic 100-300mm lens to the Olympus 50-200 plus 1.4 extender, image quality improved. The 100-300 Panasonic lens was rather good, but the Olympus 50-200 with extender is somewhat better.
I have not ordered prints form my images placed on FAA so I have no idea how they will look when printed. When I print through a local source, I have made several 20x30 inch images prints of high quality from cropped m43 images. I adjust with Photoshop for size using the bi-cubic function. I was told that I should not do any resizing or sharpening for FAA. I wonder what the other photographers do for submitted images? As a newbie to FAA, I need some guidance form the more experienced people on this site as to how much post processing is done and what kind of post processing should I consider doing?

Again thank you all for the comments and ideas

 

Loree Johnson

9 Years Ago

@Susan, I have a photographer friend who swears that using crop mode yields a better quality image than cropping later. However, I have not seen the difference personally.

@Paul, I never upsize my images. If the capture has to be cropped so much that I can't get at least a 24" print, then I toss it. As for sharpening, only raw pre-sharpening, never output sharpening, and even then, only if needed.

 

Susan Wiedmann

9 Years Ago

Thanks, Loree. I'll try it next time I'm out with my camera.

 

Murray Bloom

9 Years Ago

Loree, if you're cropping a BMP, PNG, PSD or TIF, it shouldn't make a difference, but if it's a JPG, resampling (from the crop) could degrade the image.

 

JG Thompson

9 Years Ago

Here are several bird photos with the Tamron 150 to 600 zoom lens and a Nikon D600 body, generally handheld
Photography PrintsPhotography PrintsSell Art OnlineArt PrintsArt PrintsArt Prints

This was shot with a Nikon 28 to 300 zoom, also handheld at close to 300mm. Sometimes in heavily trafficked areas you can get really close to birds
Sell Art Online

I get far less useable photos of birds than other subjects. One reason is you have to be constantly ready for the shot and the subject gives you no time to fiddle with the camera or lens settings. I probably have way more images in my mind that I missed than ones I have on the harddrive.

 

Loree Johnson

9 Years Ago

@Murray, I shoot in raw, so that's what I'm cropping. Only convert to jpg just prior to upload. I had a long discussion with my friend about "crop mode" and he has no explanation why the images would be better, but swears they are. :)

ETA: He shoots in raw as well.

 

Rose Santuci-Sofranko

9 Years Ago

I just used my non dslr Canon s2 is for these....the first ones were in the wild...others were close range at a wildlife refuge

Photography Prints


Photography Prints

Photography Prints



Photography Prints


Art Prints



 

Nava Thompson

9 Years Ago

Sell Art Online Nikon D7100 with Sigma 500mm (it is not fun to carry--but I use a tripod--or fence post--etc.)

Show All Messages

Big Skip

This is a very popular discussion with 169 responses.   In order to help the page load faster and allow you to quickly read the most recent posts, we're only showing you the oldest 25 posts and the newest 25 posts.   Everything in the middle has been skipped.   Want to read the entire discussion?   No problem: click here.

 

Jai Johnson

9 Years Ago

I use a Nikon D7100 with a Sigma 150-500mm lens handheld. It gets heavy after a day out in the field. I've faced the same dilemma as we bought bicycles last year and I want to have a camera with me. I did buy the Sigma 18-250mm lens which I've managed to get some good shots with, but if the birds are too far away, it doesn't help much. I am lucky enough to have the old Minolta AF Reflex 500mm lens in like new condition in my stash, and it will work on Sony digital cameras. I have an older Sony I bought to test it on, and it does a really great job in good light, although the bokeh can be a little funky sometimes. I plan to purchase a newer Sony camera to operate that lens on and try taking that when biking or doing other things where I just don't want to take the heavier lens.

 

Paul Ross

9 Years Ago

Loree's shots of the falcons in flight are like mine. I need to shoot several frames to get one good one. I have not been using burst mode I just click the shutter fast several times. So, I am eager to learn more about manual focus and birds in flight.

 

Robert Frederick

9 Years Ago

Paul and Loree,
Those falcon shots are perfect examples of the problems with autofocus. Great captures unless you want to print at large size. If you zoom in 2 to 1 or even 1:1 you will see the noise, the lack of definition in feet, feathers, and beak. In any bird photo, there HAS to be definition of the feathers with little sharpening. You should be able to clearly define the nares, the talons, the eyelids, etc. It becomes difficult when there is movement or wind, but the quality still has to be there no matter the difficulty. If you want to know the truth about a photo I suggest you ask Mike Savaad (Sp?) to critique it. Be prepared to feel bad. I have lots of bad stuff posted and am constantly reworking it as I get the time. When I origionally posted them I was proud of my work and wanted everyone to see them. Then I learned what was good and what was bad. So the trick to good bird photography is to be able to self critique that capture of an eagle you WANT to be great, but it just doesn't meet the basic criteria. When you ask yourself, "If I own the exact equipment as the National Geographic photograper (or better), why do my pictures not look exactly (or better than his?", then you will start looking for the right answers. Motion is the enemy and you have to be able to lead the shot and know where your sweet spot is in the lens and MAINTAINING focus..

Photography Prints

Photography Prints

Photography Prints

Sell Art Online

 

Robert Frederick

9 Years Ago

One last post and then I'll not bother you all again, but I'd like to point out Gregory Scott's two shots of the hummingbird and acorn woodpecker. They are not lateral, angular straight flight type focusing, but they are great shot's and if you use the zoom you can see the definition of the feathers, feet, nares, eyes. etc. He's at a nearly level POC, no busy work behind the bird that would distract you, and his prices are right. If I'm in the market for a hummingbird shot, I would hope I find his. That is your competition in selling bird shots on FAA. Outstanding bird photography.

 

Loree Johnson

9 Years Ago

Robert, I won't argue with your observations about my falcon images. But, I would like to know in what way your manually focused kingfisher is sharper and less noisy than my auto focused falcon, because I'm just not seeing it.....

 

Robert Frederick

9 Years Ago

Didn't say it was. I believe I said it was a great shot? I also said I have many bad ones uploaded. And I know from my many years that when someone asks for a critique, they really don't want one so I'm not challenging you. If you want, I'll even go so far as to say you are a much better photographer than I am. I'm never going to be arrogant and say my stuff is better. I find when I post these rants people are are too quick to be offended and don't read or even consider what was posted. What you and I should both compare our stuff to is Scott's. Please don't take anything I say personal. All I am saying is there is no room for increased and better focusing with auto, it can only do what its designed to do. Manual focus is an art and you can get better. If you go back and read my posts I put articles in there with links explaining it all. This isn't some cock-eyed theory I just made up. There are many out there who use the custom prism and manually focus. They are not just bird photographers. Sports photographers or people who shoot with multiple false targets (football games and basket ball games in low light, etc) use this method. Just because a person is not good at it or familiar with it does not make it any less a fact. I'm not good at it yet, but I am getting better. That kingfisher was taken five years ago with a T1i and a used lens off of ebay, no tripod as I was shooting from the car. I used it as an example because kingfishers are difficult to get near and long lenses are the answer. I actually have clearer shots somewhere, but not against yellow autumn color. Had you taken the shot with auto your camera would have been focusing back and forth (they are fast) and you could not have tracked him - pretty sure - I've tried. Had you stood in the same spot with same conditions (He was in shaded area and sun on backdrop of a bank with yellowing leaves) your auto focus would have gone for the light and assuming you had it set for auto mode, the esposure would have been incorrect too especially if shooting .jpg and not raw, your results would have frustrated you - I'd hope. So be nice to me I'm just a guy explaining an alternate method and nobody asked/or wants my explanation. That goes on all the time on these forums. If you want your shots critiqued start a thread - they will eat you alive so I wouldn't ever do it.

 

Kathleen Bishop

9 Years Ago

Posting this because I can!

Anna

 

Loree Johnson

9 Years Ago

I didn't mean to offend you. You posted the kingfisher as an example of manual focus and I posted the falcon as an example of auto focus. I just wanted to know how the manual focus was better. I never asked for a critique.

I've read many of Gregory Scott's threads about his technique for shooting hummingbirds, which involves high-speed flash. I assume he used the same technique on the woodpecker. It's something I could never do in the wilderness, or even a wildlife refuge, so I will never get shots like those.

 

Kathleen Bishop

9 Years Ago

Loree, your peregrine shots are amazing. I've seen how fast they fly and I could never hope to freeze them like that. And yours aren't tiny crops either.

 

Loree Johnson

9 Years Ago

Thank you Kathleen. They are amazing birds. I only hope I get the chance to see one again so I can practice some more. :)

 

Robert Frederick

9 Years Ago

No offense taken Loree - You can do those shots too. Notice he baited it with a peanut, had his strobes set up ahead of time, just like his own private backyard studio. Some guys set up a feeder and have black felt backdrops, stobes preset, camera on a tripod set up to exclude the feeder. Beautiful and makes their color pop. California has way more species and more colorful birds than where I live and its just a matter of setting it all up. Also, auto-focus works great for that type of photography :)

 

Susan Wiedmann

9 Years Ago

Loree, out of curiosity, when you are photographing fast-moving birds - or anything else - and using high-speed burst, do you still always use RAW? A camera's buffer can fill up so quickly under those conditions!

 

Birds are one of my favorite to photograph
Art Prints
Sell Art Online
Sell Art Online
Photography Prints
Art Prints

 

Judy Kay

9 Years Ago

Paul, thank you, I have several shots at different angles but was hesitate to upload them .

 

Loree Johnson

9 Years Ago

@Susan, yes. I always shoot raw. And this is where the D800 has some advantages. It has a CF card, which is much faster than SD. Also, it has crop mode (which captures the image same size as a APSC sensor) and I use that when shooting fast moving, far away subjects.

The other thing, which is relevant to this discussion, is that I have my camera set up for back button autofocus. This allows me to decide when the camera should focus. Although my setting is for continuous focus, it's only activated when I press the back button, completely independent of the shutter button. It took a week or two to get used to doing it this way, and I missed a few shots during that time, but now that I'm used to it, I wouldn't want it any other way. There are different ways to set this up, depending on which camera you have, but if you google it, you will find out how to do it.

 

Susan Wiedmann

9 Years Ago

Thanks, Loree!

 

J L Zarek

9 Years Ago

I am greatly impressed by all the bird photography I see! You all have beautifully captured images! My compliments to you all:)

 

Gregory Scott

9 Years Ago

Regarding autofocus vs manual focus, I'll give my experience that might convince a few of you to reexamine your preferance:
For years, since 2003, I have shot hummingbird using prefocus. They're much too quick for ordinary manual focus, at least for me.
Likewise, they were much too fast for autofocus.
I'm sure that I've checked this several times over the years, but a few years ago, after upgrading for a Canon 5d Mk II to Mk III, I tried autofocus again, and found that in bright sunlight conditions, I got a much higher percentage of in-focus shots with autofocus. Of course, my ypical plain white background doesn't allow for a good autofocus on anything else, since I do NOT use a hotspot on the feeder, but on the bird, my framing being preset on a tripod.
In dim light conditions manual focus preset gives a much higher on focus shot percentage, particularly counting times when the camera doesn't fire when I trigger it because it cannot achieve autofocus. (Dim ambient light is required for high speed flash if you don't have a powerful flash, that is 1/128th power for 1/15000th secend exposures withmy three Canon 550EX flashes.)

Most of my high speed flash photographs are taken with a custom Olsen Ultra Flash, an antique, with very powerful effective guide number and a 1/30000th second flash duration and 4 flash heads. With it, I can shoot at f22 for big DOF (yes, it's still sharp at f22) and not have ghost images from ambient daylight. (Rule of thumb, the flash exposure must be 2 stops or more over the ambient light exposure to avoid ghosts in the image.) So with my very powerful flash, I can nearly totally freeze hummingbird wingtip movement to about than one pixel movement during the flash exposure.) So for me, with my requirements, I can use autofocus in bright sunlight. In shadow, prefocus is still better.

The downside of big DOF is lots of background detail, no helpful bokah. Thus the white background is even more essential to my technique. It has to be in shade, also!

So this isn't quite manual focus I'm comparing with autofocus. It's manual preset. I hold my hand or a twig where I expecting the bird to hover, and prefocusing there.

 

Robert Frederick

9 Years Ago

Gregory
Excellent info/lesson - and it gives me another project to work on. I have experimented with strobes in the field before without satisfactory results. Any tips for a more portable setup? Not really sure what I'm looking for yet. I've heard of guys setting up and baiting for raptors, even owls at night. Any experience in the wilds?

 

Andy Holmes

9 Years Ago

I can see the benefits of manual pre focus that Gregory describes, but fail to see any benefits to using the panning manual focus technique that Robert proposes (unless you have a rubbish autofocus lens).

I have a Sigma 50-500 which is relatively slow to autofocus, and I get more reliable results with pre focus on moving targets.
At a motorcycle road racing event, a friendly (and very generous) photographer lent me his Canon 100-400L for a day, and the difference in auto focus performance was immense. With motorcycles coming towards me at over 100mph, I could use auto focus to keep the subject sharp, instead of pre focussing on a spot in the road, as I was doing with the Sigma.

Even with the subject being on a predictable trajectory, there's no way that reaction times are fast enough to keep that subject in focus manually, especially given the shallow DoF issues.

Pre focusing birds in flight, in the wild, creates it's own difficulties, which in my mind leaves auto focus as the least bad option.

 

Loree Johnson

9 Years Ago

Exactly why the back button autofocus is my preference. I can prefocus on something (if the situation allows) and as long as I don't touch the button, the focus stays there. If I want continuous autofocus, I press the button. Also, I have the camera set to fire regardless of whether it "thinks" it's in focus or not. (All modern DSLRs should have this setting) The other nice thing about setting it up this way is that I can use autofocus (if I want) on landscapes by focusing on the point I want, and reframe the shot. As long as I don't touch the button, the focus point stays where I set it. This comes in handy for achieving the correct hyperfocal distance. And I never have to fuss with switching between auto and manual focus and missing the shot because of it.

 

Robert Frederick

9 Years Ago

Great Andy - I'm sorry you can't do it.
I've just about given up but here goes one more time. As Gregory hits on, Manual focus does not suit all situations. Autofocus does not suit all situations. Preset focus does not fit all situations. I'm just explaining when you should try manual focus. If you bother to read any of the links I provided for those interested it explains well enough why you should GET good at manual focus. Same reasons you would not take all your photos in auto mode. You should also note that the longer the lens the more complicated it get with depth of field. I would not preset my focus unless I had an unusually large depth of field like Greory is talking about. I would not use Autofocus for anything moving unless it was large enough and the DOF was large enough. At this point, it would seem useless to present DOF for differing lenses, so we are just talking about 1600mm or more and tracking things like bluebirds or clay pigeons, or dragonflys moving across your lawn for mosquitoes etc. To do it better with this type of setup you must have a better way of focusing manual than with the prism that comes stock in your camera. You have to have an enhanced split prism as discussed before. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE ONE OF THESE PRISMS THEN HOW DO YOU KNOW YOUR WAY IS BETTER? Go out and buy it, install it, and compare it before you say its a bad option. If you don't want to do that or spend the time and money, I don't care. I'm simply just saying read an article or two before you discount the theory. As I've said, long before digital you will find plenty of outstanding photos of birds and bugs in flight. AND PLEASE, if you don't agree with me AFTER you spend the time and money and read the articles, I'd like to talk it over a cup of coffee just because I like to talk about photography. But if you are not going to do it because you feel your opinion is of more value than mine and you just want to yell at me for a suggestion, get in line, because there seems to be a few of you who can't consider anything else than what you are already doing. AND THAT"S OK - RELAX!

 

Andy Holmes

9 Years Ago

Robert, the only one I see yelling here, is you.

Did you actually bother to read the links you posted ?
The one about uses for manual focus clearly supports pre focusing on a fixed point, not manual pan focusing which you are championing.
Of course it's much easier for you to dismiss anyone that disagrees with you as not proficient enough, than to address the concerns themselves.

As to the prism, I'm very familiar with the likes of Katzeye prisms. They're essentially no different to the prisms that I used for years in film cameras.
I've been doing this for a very long time and despite having better vision and faster reactions back then, I'm getting a far higher hit ratio with a good auto focus lens today, than I did with a top quality prism and manual focus back in the old days.

I don't need to repeat past experiments to tell me that the combination of hand to eye coordination and reaction times required to make your theories work reliably, would put you in the superhuman category. You may well get lucky once in a while, but the odds of a sharp series of photos to choose from when pre focus isn't a realistic option, are definitely on the side of a good autofocusing system.

 

Robert Frederick

9 Years Ago

OK Andy you win

 

Gregory Scott

9 Years Ago

I can't keep a flying bird I can't see (because it's out of focus) in the frame long enough to acquire either auto or manual focus. It's a catch 22.
This seems to be less of a problem with the red dot sight and autofocus. You can always see the bird, in focus or out, in frame or out. You still have to guess at framing based on distance, and just try to keep the bird mid-frame ie, on the red dot.

If there is plenty of light, My Canon 5D mk III works fine autofocus with a hovering hummingbird, but not well at all in dim light.
On my 300mm prime lens, or on my 100-400 zoom, the red dot is my only prayer of getting a bird at flight at the working distance of approximately 10-20 feet or so for most yard/feeder, even if on a relatively straight toward me flight path.

My dad used prefocus and electric eye to get shots like this at about 5 to 10 feet distance from the electric eye and perhaps 2/3 to half that distance to the point of focus/exposure:

 

Robert Frederick

9 Years Ago

Very cool and invaluable info Gregory - I have a lot of reading to do on high speed flash before I commit but meanwhile I'll stick you on my follow list. Thanks

 

Gregory Scott

9 Years Ago

The best way to do high speed flash is normally with a "store bought" strobe, and if you can, some slaves. I sometimes use My Canon strobes for this purpose. At 1/128th power (lowest speed manual setting) the flash duration is only about 1/15000th second, flash is about 1 foot from the bird's hover position. ISO set to about 400 (Aim for F22 if possible, for DOF: at such close range, it's necessary. Full frame on a hummingbird with 100mm macro, think in the approximate 1 foot range lens to bird. Since the flash is so dim, you will NOT dazzle the bird. To avoid ghosts, bird and background MUST be in the shade.

You can use ETTL and get high speed results, also, if you set the camera on manual exposure, and underexposed two stops or more, and have the flash(es) sufficiently close, like about a foot away from the bird.

For affordable and versatile electronic trigger, check out triggertrap. I haven't used mine yet, but hope to this spring, or maybe this winter.

Inspired by this thread, I documented a one hour sequence of unedited photos, including full resolution images and detailed technical comments.
It illustrates shot by shot some of the concepts that I discussed here, and I think that you'll find the pages useful if you thought my comments here were useful.

A One Hour sequence of 38 unedited full resolution hummingbird photography from a day's shoot in Ash Canyon, near Sierra Vista, Arizona.

Don't be intimidated by the file size, each "large" image is quick to load, and the full resolution is only brought up if you click on the large image. (and then click it again, so your browser will render it full size)
So browsing the 39 pages is quick and easy,

 

Robert Frederick

9 Years Ago

I should have that equipment, probably shoved to the back of the cabinet - REALLY appreciate all that Gregory

 

This discussion is closed.