Kite in flight edition.
old thread >>4402568

I can't get sharp images in my bird photography.

Even though the bird was about 4 meters away, I wasn't able to capture much detail in the bird. Any tips or advice?

>>4423842
For a photo like that, you'll need a high MP photo and high shutter speed.

You want the super sharp detailed photos of birds you need the reach, and fill the frame with mostly bird.

Nothing wrong with your photo btw, it has decent composition. Animals doing interesting things in cool environments, that isn't a blurry mess is wha matters.

>>4423844
Yeah the only problem I see here is the small bit of branch over the bird, but otherwise it's a good pic

>>4423844
>>4423846

Oh, thanks for the reply! I always thought I was messing something up either in the shot or in the post. I have the RF800mm f/11, but it's only usable in specific conditions. Besides that, I have the 70-200mm, but getting a close shot with it is rare. I think I need a better telephoto lens for that detailed look.

>>4423882
Be the change you want to see anon, post good shots and stories

This is probably the best shot of a bird I've ever taken. I took it in 2019, but I wanted to take a fresh crack at editing. I welcome criticism.

It is a regular old Cardinalis cardinalis male. They're a little tricky to find, but they nest where I live. They're the loudest birds in the neighborhood and impossible to miss when you know what you're listening for. The colors really aren't exaggerated much. They're shockingly red. The background is a little distracting if I turn up the contrast too much, so I like where it's at now. I might take another shot with a parametric mask, but I like it for now.

I am sticking to snapshits of doves, enjoy or not, this is the best I could get with the digipoop today.

What's a good field guide for identifying midwest birds?
Mainly stuff like hawks, ducks, woodcocks and so on idgaf about birdfeeder birds.

>>4424268
>What's a good field guide for identifying midwest birds?
Google "audubon society"

>>4424268
Those birds you listed are pretty easy to identify... try and ap like 'merlin bird ID', and go for a walk and listen for birds nearby and then you'll know what's around.

Saw this little fella sitting quietly on a branch while on a walk last weekend during a sunshower.
600mm f/8

>>4424278
>Those birds you listed are pretty easy to identify
Well it should be a short book then. I want the book because I don't know them. Not some faggot app.
>>4424277
Thanks I see they have a "pocket guide to north american birds of prey" and another for "familiar birds of lakes and rivers" maybe I'll get the pair. I think they might be out of print. The general bird field guide doesn't seem like much of a field guide at all, it's 800 pages. I want something I can stick in my pocket for when I see something new.

>>4424299
>I want something I can stick in my pocket for when I see something new

You mean like, a cell phone, with internet, aps, and field guides? Get with the times old man.

>>4424357
>You mean like, a cell phone
Yes exactly! A book with the form factor of a cell phone.
>with internet, aps
nah don't need any of that crap. Just the cell phone sized book please.

>>4424406
I also prefer looking at books but when you're out, it's nicer to have all these informations packed in your phone desu. It's annoying enough already to carry all the gear, and apps have something books don't have, which is recordings of the birds.

>>4424406
I don't think they make anything like that anymore. My dad had a few of those type of pocket books mostly for hunting.

Either way, just use your damn phone.

Male and Female Mandarin Ducks

>>4424443
>introduced and thrives in Europe

Interesting.

>>4424288
Bluebirds are a plenty this time of year.

Been trying to use my zoom lens more but it is a nightmare trying to get a good sharp shot at distance. Is it just a thing I have to push through and learn?

>>4424805
Know where lots of your subject will be, sturdy tripod, high shutter speeds, and patience.

>>4424805
- Get closer
- Go when the light is better
- Keep your shutter speed high and ISO as low as possible
- If your shutter speed and ISO are sufficient you should consider stopping down a little on your zoom, especially if you're completely zoomed in
What's your zoom range? 400mm is just barely getting to "ok" for birding outside of a hide. For what it's worth, kingfishers are especially difficult subjects being small and shy.

>>4424805
Wish I could shoot a kingfisher

>>4424827
I've been using a 150-500mm lens, I've since started using a 2x magnifier in combination, but I am fairly new to camera hardware and I'm just going out and seeing what I can see/capture.
>>4424832
I got lucky at a local hide, there wasn't much else there bar cows, ducks and moorhens.

>>4424834
2xTC on an 150-500 zoom is going to be very slow, it might be too narrow for the PD AF to work. It also magnifies vibrations and movement and you trying to shoot far away stuff especially over or near open water will also introduce air shimmer blurring out your shots. The 150-500 should be in itself enough on an APS-C crop maybe with a 1.4xTC if the long end native aperture is at f/5.6 then the phase detect AF can work at f/8. But a 150-500 or 150-600 at f/6.3 long end in itself should be enough for some good shots.

That is the gear part. You got to know that these super tele zooms have a good effective range where the shots are sharp(ish) and anything further will be a blob. The trick here is getting closer and that comes with experience and a change of outfit. You don't need realtree hunter outfit but it definitely helps. First get some green and brown pants and shirts, these will make you less intimidating to the birds. Avoid smelly deodorant, you can buy neutral smelling soap and deodorants at hunting shops. You can put some branches on yourself as well, or bring a big brown tablecloth to act as a makeshift blind at a good spot. 99% of birding is waiting for the birds to get into the right spot. Avoid fast movements and sudden noise, mute the AF indication sound and turn off the red indicator light, it shows through the lens on a DSLR.

>>4424929
In comparison to nophotos giving advice to each other? Have you looked around? Where do you think you are?

>>4424910
These guys look so clumsy

hi guys newfag here what do you think

>>4424966
You should've lowered your camera more to place the birb's head above the water

>>4425007
Anon, that wont save it from drowning.

I am brand new to birding, and I recently decided to give photography another go after not shooting for about 5 years. I splurged on a GH7 and the leica 50-200 lens. My shots do not feel very sharp, but I am loving going out and the peacefulness of capturing birds.

Any critique? Also, would it be insane to go for the Olympus 300mm? I want to get closer images but I'm wondering if I should practice with what I've got...

200mm f4.0

>>4425034
200mm is only good for birds that aren't shy.

Everything else you need 300, 400mm minimum.

Some people get a 300mm f2.8 or f4 and then slap a teleconverter on it so they can walk about easier.

>>4425046
Alright thanks anon, if I order the 300mm is it worth keeping the 50-200? It seems like it renders really beautiful photos.
I'll go with the 300mm and the 1.4tc

>>4425034
>Any critique
Don't just get closer, get perspective. If you are taking a portrait of a bird why are you pointing your camera at its butthole?
>would it be insane to go for the Olympus 300mm
Yes, any time you are spending more than $1000 on micro four thirds it's time to question your life choices. This thing plus an em1ii is a sub-$1000 bird snapshitter that covers the entire focal range normally used by competent wildlife photographers. No matter how much you spend on mft the quality will never get better. 20 mft megapixels is only as good as 10 ff megapixels. Sad fact of life, small cameras take small pictures.

>>4425053
>photographs a bird butthole
>hmm, i know what I need to do
>spend literally $3000 on a 600mm f8 + 1.4x TC for an inferior format
Why not sell it all and buy a Z5II and a 180-600 f5.6-6.3 since you're happy spending $3000 before learning that bird buttholes don't make for good photos? At least then your bird buttholes would be rendered with astounding quality and you could sell 30" prints to zoophiles.

>>4425056
>>4425057
Are you the same guy?
I appreciate the feedback but I wasn't really looking at the birds butthole, I was happy to get a picture of the bird at all. There were hardly any that day. I guess I wasn't thinking as much about the overall composition, I just thought it would be cool to capture it sitting in the sakura.
The reason I went with the GH7 was that I had some other m43 lenses and the guy at the camera store told me to give this frame a shot.
From what I see on Flickr, there's a lot of good shots coming out of both the frame and the lenses.

>>4425060
Who cares anon... it doesn't sound like you're gonna be hiding in a blind or wearing full camomile gear to get shots of kingfishers and such.
What exactly do you want to achieve tho, that might help narrow down what gear would be best for you.

>>4425064
Well, I have the Leica 42.5 f1.2 for taking portraits, and as I said the 50-200mm leica for trying to get wildlife.
My main goal now is shooting birds/animals, it seems like a peaceful hobby.
I have been going to parks and shrines daily lately but not a whole lot of luck with catching anything.
Here's another bird, I am guessing the upwards angle into a tree isn't a popular one for bird photography?

>>4425068
Typically those type of shots of birds are just common and boring. All we are seeing is the breast of the bird, side shots, action, or at eye level shots are most desired. And try not to just get photos of birds on a stick.

If you're ultimate goal is to shoot mainly animals and birds then perhaps look into a larger lens, good tripod, and maybe jump into a full frame situation. But a m43 is perfectly fine to start out with. I use crop censor, and I don't mind it at all, no desire to go full frame. But the reach is important. It gives you more room to move around and gets closer shots, obviously.

>>4425060
>GH7
>He already bought a $2000 slow motion camcorder, for photography
Holy gearfag. That's a 4k120-HD300fps video camera, it's not really meant for what you're doing.

>>4425068
>I have the "Leica" (rebadged panasonic) 85mm f2.4 equivalent
>$1297 new
Jesus fuck
>and the "leica" 100-400mm f5.6-8 equivalent
>$1597 new
Jesus FUCK, almost $5000 for this?

The salesman scammed you hard. You overspent big time between snake oil and features you don't need. Panasonic bodies like this are for videographers because they shoot open gate (more resolution for anamorphic lenses), have a wide framerate range, and have decent codecs enabled out of the box, and the panasonic-"leica" lenses are kind of a marketing scam like gibson electric guitars and official porsche power steering fluid, but somehow sadder because panasonic really isn't a luxury brand with serious heritage, so it's like buying a "honda-porsche civic" with nicer seats and 20 more horses.

Return everything asap, you're not really getting anything you wouldn't with much cheaper gear and the bullshit premium pixel peeper stuff has crippled you for focal length.

Here is how you do micro four thirds gear. First, return everything. Now, look for mint copies of these:
E-M1 III
Lumix 100-300 mk II
Olympus 45mm f1.8
Subscribe to lightroom for the AI denoisier
If insistent on spending $5k, Z8+180-600+85mm f1.8 S (that's an f0.9 in four thirds land)

Everything else is skill issues. Bad light, crappy perspective, obstructions, center framed everything, etc.

>>4425070
With a 100-400 equivalent, that's already the focal length most wildlife photographers work with and have no issues with

A 600mm f8 equivalent prime plus a teleconverter, for $3k, is just stupid. Full frame money for basically nothing, FF zooms are faster than that and half the price.

>>4425072
After having an outing recently that warranted a 100-400mm on crop (I'll go full frame one day), I'm starting to realise half the battle is realising that optical zoom is not a replacement for good positioning. Being in the right spot, you could get a good photo with a 50mm, but obviously having more reech is helpful.
But now we have people positioning poorly, being too far, and then thinking they need 1200mm equiv. reech because how else are they to improve pixels-per-duck?

I have mad respect for the film-era fags that shot action and wildlife with fixed 300mm and 400mm primes.

>>4425071
>$5000 of gear with fake brand names to take blurry noisy underexposed two megapixel bird butthole snapshots
they dont call it micro fool turds for nothing

inb4 the store wont let him return $5000 and he’ll be forced to cope or exchange it for a flagship ff setup. lel. gearfagging, not even once.

>>4425072
>>4425071
>>4425078
Am I missing something here, where did that anon say they spent that much money?

>>4425092
Look at the prices for the gh7, 42.5mm f1.2, and 50-200 f2.8-4 and take a shot for every time you think it’s stupid
Then realize they’re probably not american and it was priced higher, taxed more, and a larger % of their income and take a shot if you can imagine what it would feel like for that sum of money to leave europoor/thirdie-you’s bank account, already shrunk by a 40% tax rate
Then do the equivalence maffs and take another shot

>>4425068
>>4425070
Most of my shots are this boring too

>>4425034
First, expectations. Your expectations are unrealistic, birding is still about waiting for one to be in the right spot. Anyone splurging about tracking AF is a nophoto, anyone who has done any bit of birding knows that a few strands of weed or a couple branches instantly messing up any kind of tracking AF and anyone knows half their salt switches to manual focusing in such environments. Handholding and AF sniping a bird is only done with clear spots and slower birds, most of the time you will want at least a monopod or an actual tripod. Being able to get close to fill your frame with mostly bird is king before we start talking about gear. A long telezoom lens especially the cheaper older ones will most likely be optimized for a limited distance on the short end, expect loss of image quality on the long end. Bird in flight sounds thrilling but after a few it gets boring, birds do a lot more stuff perched or on the ground.
Get a cheap APS-C DSLR, you can get even pro AF ones cheap like a Canon 7D or even a 7D MkII, Nikon D7100, D300 etc..., for lens get something like a 55-300, 70-300 or something along those lines depending on the system you chose. It will give you a taste on the subject. Both Canon and Nikon have good affordable higher quality lenses like the OG Canon 100-400 or the Nikon 80-400, 200-500, alternatively third party like Tamron or Sigma, 150-500 or 150-600 etc... I'm not going to list you the exact models.

>>4425105
>tracking af doesnt work! muh single strand of grass
fuji, foolturds, or expeed 6 based nikon mirrorless?

tracking af works great and then there are $2k cameras that have issues with humans walking forward briskly

>>4425112
So you agree you never shot anything in a busy forest environment. Good, we are on the same page then.

>>4425100
yep

>>4425116
Why do the colors look off? Seems like everything is sickly in the picture including the tree

>>4425100
The asshurt anon expects all /bpd/ posters to be full-time pros getting the wildest shots for some reason

>>4425115
panasonic then?

>>4425123
I never see jays when I have my camera.

>>4425125
They're a bunch of cunts
they haven't let me get close ever again

>>4425129
Agreed, they're annoying to deal with but fun to watch.

>>4425121
>>4425112
I would like to point everyone's attention to this anon. All this discussion about shooting birds and all anon can bring up is gear talk, if you can call mentioning a few brands as "talk".
Absolutely disgusting.
Thank you.

To then anons posting photos and providing meaningful discussion, well done.