Thread 4429946

Kingfisher, AI less edition
old thread >>4423839

>>4429946 (OP)
Continuing the discussion from the last thread, here is the no AI version in all its noisy glory. It was made on FF with APS-C crop since the lens had a 1.4xTC on that is aps-c and in crop mode it has slightly better fps.
Lens was 300/4 at f/8 to keep shutter speed up, ISO is 3200. What is strange is usually ISO 6400 is perfectly usable but I guess I slightly missed focus, or just the lighting was really really bad.

greens always the worst in low light it seems like

>>4429946 (OP)
Total amateur. First ever bird picture.
Had to open my lens all the way up for this bitch.
Didn’t have time to throw on my 2x teleconverter. It was 20m/s winds so this was the only little fucker who came out in over 2 hours of stalking.

Here’s to birbs boys

>>4429946 (OP)
as expected, a million times better. NR often adds nothing (well duh it takes noise away hyuck hyuck) and it's the case here again. this picture at least looks like a fucking bird and not the mona lisa done as a finger painting. don't use it again nigga

>>4429955
>>4429946 (OP)
Some brushwork and elbow grease, toned down the specular highlights and overexposure of the two main branches that gives them that slimy look and added a bit of lifting up and saturation on the blue cap of the bird
I hope I'm not cooking it too much

>>4429951
I was about to boo for using watermarks then I realized those are my watermarks.

>Activate Windows
>Go to Settings to activate Windows.

>>4429964
i would be flattered if someone stole my pictures

Buzzard

>>4430002
I'm seeing a lot of color noise blotches. What were your settings and what processing software are you using?

Eurasian Jay

>>4430473
>>4430476
Nice

>>4430476
Beautiful

>>4430684
Run the post again but this time try not to Ken Rockwell the hardness and definition sliders

This guy really likes his antenna mast

>>4430750
>>4430689
Beautiful. The more you look at them side by side the original becomes b&w

handsome

junc

Blue birb

>>4430923
Love him he is very handsome indeed

>>4430923
>>4430924
>>4431259
These are very good shots

>>4431258
Nice

>>4431257
Excellent, I can almost smell it

It was acting weird, it even let me touch it. Does it look ok?

>>4430750
>>4430689
Rockwellian 10/10

Double-barred Finch having a bath

>>4433062
fledgling, probably ok just learning how the world works

>>4429969
cool banana bird

>>4432150
my vote for prettiest bird in NA

Striated Pardalote

got a good vid of his call:
https://youtu.be/n93XdzfuQrQ?si=vcGwUvMgDaLtNjbU

dude was so chill kept following me and would never fly away even within like 2m distance

Spotted Pardalote

these are basically >>4433340 but rarer and more colourfull
unfortunately only got a pic of the dull female

he look alright?

crossposting my question:
>>4433449
>Whats a good camera for beginners? I want to take pictures of nearby birds (but I cant go up close to them), and landscapes.
>My smartphone works fine for the latter, but it cant take good picture of birds (or other animals) from the distance.
>my budget is low
>>4433451
>hmm seems like this is actually pretty cost intensive

>>4433458
>I want to take pictures of birds
>my budget is low
Any used APS-C DSLR, the higher tier the better, think Canon 7D or Nikon D7100 and a 70-300mm zoom lens. That is the lowest you can go to start out and it will still cost a lot. Most older budget zooms have shit IQ at the long end so better look up specs and reviews before you buy. I could recommend a good combo for Pentax but then you would be stuck with Pentax, not a good place for a beginner.

>>4433481
Fuck I meant 70D not 7D. Still if you can find a 7D at a good price it is a solid camera

>>4433458
Hear me out here - forget body gimmicks from micro four thirds and low end sony mirrorless, spend on the glass. If you can't take a good photo with 40mm, 100-400mm and a 5dii you can't take a good photo at all, and I'm not even part of the "skill issue" crowd (those losers are just coping with shitty mirrorless cameras)
https://www.ebay.com/itm/267280473802
https://www.ebay.com/itm/256966059628
https://www.ebay.com/itm/305082213355

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=810&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Sandhill crane coming in

>>4433496
Sandhill crane going out

>>4433500
I like ya style

>>4433458

>ulra cheap
get a monocular with a phone mount
the pictures will look like shit but will be enough to indentify the bird for sure

>cheap and meh
get a superzoom bridge camera like a nikon p9000
there is probably a better/cheaper model now
they dont have very good image quality at range

>cheap and decent
get a used m43 body and a 100-300mm zoom
i started with a panasonic g85 and an olympus 75-300mm and imo it was definetly good enough, but i did eventually upgrade
m43 has lots of haters but cheap, light, supertelephoto is what its best at

most importaint thing is autofocus speed and lens range
you ideally want 600mm FF equiv. 500mm bare minimum
you can use teleconverters but it will reduce the quality

anything lower than 500mm and your only filling the space with big birds that are reasonably close
if its a tiny bird (alot are) you need the surrounding enviroment to look good
its like your taking a picture of a tree with a bird in it, rather than a bird in a tree
either that or just sit in a hide and wait for them to get close

>>4433487
Based nongearfag prioritizing rendering and soul

>>4433532
Cringe gear queer reliant on tech crutches

>>4433532
You dont need focal length. You need skill.
https://birdphotographylife.com/400mm-bird-photography/
Just learn to get closer and compose a photo.

>>4433458
>>4433541
>>4433539
>You dont need focal length, You need skill.
>Whats a good camera for beginners?
BEGGINERS dont have skill. a begginer is going to fuck around on P mode for weeks

he literally said
>I want to take pictures of nearby birds (but I cant go up close to them)
this man would benefit from focal length

they are going to have a much harder/less fun time with under 500mm
my suggestion is $400 cheaper WITH 600mm and newer tech
how is it gearfaggotry if you're spending LESS on gear

>>4433487
>EOS 5D Mark II $290USD - 2008 release
>Canon EF 100-400mm $690USD - 1998 release
$980 total

>Panasonic G85 $322USD - 2016 release
>Olympus 75-300mm $250 - 2013 release
$570 total

https://www.ebay.com/itm/376301188469
https://www.ebay.com/itm/316815111446

>>4433559
>beginners dont need skill they need gear!
developing the skill is not hard and it's the only fun thing about it at the start. just handing a retard 600mm-800mm of reach is how you get /p/ tier pictures where it's a bird asshole shot just because "me see bird, me have enough zoom to fill frame", and they think they're great because they have great gear.

>>4433605
>Just shoot birds with a 50mm prime
>No I don't shoot birds, why do you ask
You can't skill your way to making a small subject bigger when they're alive, moving, skittish, and otherwise elusive.
Yeah cool, Nat Geo boomers camp out with ghillie suit at 6am with their 300mm prime because they researched, studied, planned, camped out, and have a schizo-tier corkboard at home with the birds' phone numbers from years of networking, and they *sometimes* get a good shot.

The dude wants to take photos of birds around his parklands or whatever. Shut the fuck up.

>>4433614
>it takes a schizo corkboard to take a photo of a bird with "just" 400mm
no it takes skill, and also, not settling for bird buttholes

>>4433559
>how is it gearfaggotry if you're spending LESS on gear
Easy. It's gearfagging when anon doesn't like the gear. It's not when he likes it.
>>4433617
>no it takes skill
Humour me with your first-hand examples of good bird photos taken with <200mm FL
Oh wait, you don't have any. I accept your concession.

>>4433605
>>4433617
>pictures where it's a bird asshole
the lens i linked goes from 150-600mm FF equiv, you can zoom out just fine. you're making an argument against prime lenses
>and they think they're great because they have great gear
so you just want begginers to spend more on lesser gear because you did?

show us your skill and post photos with the gear you reccomended, i have.

>>4433617
All serious wildlife photographers use either 400mm f2.8, or 500mm+ f4s lenses with TCs depending on the situation, so its far more than "skill issue", gear does matter, even if it's just snap shits of birds in your backyard.

>>4433775
I think I read something along the lines of 75% of people who got a spot in Nat Geo magazine were using an EF 100-400mm lens (and yes I realise some may be using TCs). That may be stats from some years ago, but I think it drives home the point that it's a healthy mix of gear and skill. You can't skill your way to a good bird shot with a 50mm lens, but having 800mm isn't magically going to make everything you shoot look amazing.

>pic rel 100mm shot because they were interested in the lorikeet I was minding in its cage. Either they were making friends with it, or were planning to eat it. No idea.

>>4433775
Gearfaggot lol

>>4433797
If they're serous why would they stunt their performance? Baseball photographers used to rent out giant 1700mm lens for one stadium. Im sure nat geo photographers used a variable zoom lens for maybe walking around, but when hunting a specific subject, why wouldn't you use a 400mmf2.8 with a TC on it as an option? It's just better.

>>4433805
Quite the opposite, I'm a firm believer you use what suits your needs and purpose, if you want a 50mm lens to shoot birds with, go ahead.

squished dove

>>4433916
Why do they do it?

>>4433920
i lowered my camera and he was like "oh shit"

pewee i think

>>4433946
Yup, I was out today watching some pewees, unfortunately they were too far away to get a sharp photo.

>>4433952
the little gray guys are even harder than the littl brown guys

howd the ai denoiser come out? i don't really use this thing very often anymore but this one had the look like it might work okay in it

>>4434551
Came out good. I find that if you have good light it'll come out looking fine, but for dark images it'll make things look slick/plastic. Did you use the lens blur/fake bokeh too?

>>4434554
not unless topaz just does that without input

idk why i even did this i think i must have been looking at it super close up or with dumb edit settings cuz the original is not terrible with the noise

>>4434551
>>4434556
i legitmately cant tell the difference
most people arent zooming in on your work

been a while since I've even gone out with any intent to peep a bird (let alone having the right lens and fast enough film) but I did get a nice shot of this fella on a walk the other day

>>4434551
>>4434556
First one is more defined around the eye otherwise I don't see much difference

1 how long of a lens do you folks use?

2 what's your go-to shutter speed for trying to capture flight?

3 Do you prefocus, manually, are you fast enough at manual focus, or is your cameras auto fast enough to catch a bird in flight?

4 any recommendations for stupid cheap long lenses that can fit an F-mount? (Just for fun, doesn't need to be good)

counts as a bird

>>4434806
Nikon F mount try the AF-P 70-300 ED VR. Don't get the earlier AF-S and older lenses, those are quite soft at the long end, the AF-P is better at 300mm. Supposedly.

Also birds in flight sounds fun for the first couple shots but they are actually boring. Perched birds posing, doing things, just landing or taking off are much better subjects and don't require stupid AF tracking trickery. This way you get better details, plumage, and better eye contact. You can better plan on light and allows you to observe the birds in their many kinds of behavior.

Generally I'd say a 400mm zoom is the most used, for beginners a 300mm zoom on APS-C is the best to start learning, it is light, easy to use, much more convenient. Then you can work your way up. Other cheaper zooms are the Tamron and Sigma 150-600 (or so), these are equivalent of a longer version of your beginner lens as in they need to be stopped down to have the best sharpness and get soft at the long end so you just hover your zoom range before hitting the end stop. More expensive "pro" lenses don't need to be stopped down and are sharp at all the focal range so you get more light as well.

For shutter speed it depends on the bird, start with bigger ones, tame ones that are slow moving, generally you want at least 1/(your focal length) so on your 70-300 at 300mm you want to use at least 1/300s or faster shutter speed. For smaller twitchier birds 1/1000s is the minimum, 1/2000s preferred or faster, for humming birds you want 1/8000s or as much as you can squeeze out of your camera.

Prefocusing always helps, sometimes your AF will latch on to foliage, foreground or background, then you either find something closer to focus on or reach to the focusing ring and move it closer and then find your AF target. Some higher tier lenses have a "preset" function where you set a focus distance somewhere and you can recall it with a button on the lens. IMO much more useful than image stabilization.

What do people who actually go out birding think about m43?

>>4434806
200-800mm
1000+
fast enough for BIF

>>4435074
m43 is best at cheap video and wildlife
depends what type of birder you are
do you sit in hides and wait or go on hikes into the middle of nowhere

if your not moving there are better options
but for cheap and light m43 is best
i would fucking hate to carry a lens bigger than my current one for any long walks

>>4435074
>Wow that photo looks like shit

>>4435081
>do you sit in hides and wait or go on hikes into the middle of nowhere
Not the middle of nowhere, but I do want to shoot handheld.

Rate my LIDL stalking outfit.
There's some gibberish in there because I auto-translated it.

>>4435085
ive literally never used a tripod on m43 other than for long exposures
they have the best image stabilzation on the market, and are light and small

>>4435105
you gotta wear green top with brown/black/grey pants or vice versa
if you wear 2 greens its too faggy

>>4435105
Looks like an excellent way to get a heat stroke in the summer

>>4435112
lol yes I wouldn't want to appear like airsoft 'special forces'.
>>4435114
Yes, I need a longsleeve too.

>>4435123
Don't forget your baklava

>>4435130
Yep, packs tons of energy. Better bring a toothbrush though.

>>4435004
>>4435005
>>4435006
>>4435007
>>4435172
I like the composition on these ones. Very nice work!

baby killdeer

ignore file name my export housekeeping is offensively bad

>>4435252
thanks (first four are mine)
the digital ones were taken on a 70-200/2.8 I always have with me so I basically had to crop to compose anyways
here's another I forgot about, taken with a longer but optically inferior lens
the film one is uncropped, at 250mm on 6x6 (135mm equiv) and accidentally overexposed by a few stops
>>4435358
what stock?

>>4435363
This shot proves that good composition always beats image quality and sharpness

>>4435485
but it has neither. do fujislugs and foolturds cope this hard?

>>4435363
>have to zoom in to figure out whats going on
>purple outline blurry bird

>>4435498
nophoto

>>4435363
Yeah this is terrible

>>4435485
Actually shitty lenses ruin good compositions by only being fit for centered subjects at f11. Back to r/streetphotography with you.

>>4435516
Why are birders obsessed with only getting ultra zoomed in detailed sharp photos? I get it that mirrorless has allowed for this and it's still all fun and games right now, but it's getting boring.

>>4435523
Virgin gearfag coper anon, you have inspired countless people here to buy FF sony cameras because they don't want to be anything like you. Keep it up.

You will be for FF gear in /bpd/ what clive was for general photography (bro sold more a7cs on /p/ than the actual snoy shills)

>>4435526
What?

>>4435526
I say again, from several months ago:
WHO THE FUCK IS CLIVE?

>>4435498
>>4435516
>>4435523
>>4435526
samefag

>>4435530
clive was an angry anti-gearfag gearfag poster who hated sony so much, he convinced 4, yes 4, people to buy new sony cameras. if you're a turbo newfag, you missed him. that's more cameras than any shill has successfully sold on /p/ (the prior records were a dedicated panashill getting two people to buy S5IIs and pentax viral marketing selling 3 K1s)

he had the same kind of mental illness as this guy >>4435523 and the various coping fuji/micro four thirds people. /p/ BTFO him so constantly and he got so desperate and disingenuous that /p/ realized sony cameras were actually the best. the 4 anons who ultimately bought sony cameras because of him then left /p/ because sony cameras are so small, light, and good that once they touched grass they never came back.

if this current anti-gearfag gearfag virgin keeps it up he might sell a few anons on birding with fuji GFX

>>4435534
I fuckin do not understand the vehement fervor that some faggots on this board dedicate to their favorite ink/microscope/playstation company here.
Why is it so difficult to understand and accept the shortcomings of different brands and their offerings of gear, whilst still being able to use what you like/can afford and actually going out to take photos of cool shit.

>t. newfag from late 2023; only place on the internet to discuss photography without reddit-tier circle jerking after I found out I like the hobby and being active in /o/ and /out/ for a good while.

>>4435534
Was this the same schizo that tried to bully the wildlife threads and ultimately led to Ambush dropping his trip?
I vaguely remember something about gaslighting this schizo into thinking Ambush is me without his trip and was convinced he is shooting Pentax (he shot Nikon)
Also that snoy shitting I remember telling the schizo I'm buying two Sonys because of him lol.
I shoot Pentax BTW :D

>>4435533
there sure is, and it's not me.

>>4435539
the camera market is full of hilariously overpriced, underperforming shit and people get really insecure when bullied by people who bought the few things that actually meet the expectations set by their price point

>>4435363
cyberpunk400d. chinkshit but it seems like it halates more than cinestill

>>4435339
cute

>>4435498
>>4435516
actually that was taken on a K-1 with Bigma 50-500, a very fun lens to use but the results can be quite disappointing as you see
I'd probably be better off with a FA* 300/2.8 + TC but that's quite a bit more money I just can't justify right now
>>4435624
yeah I noticed the halation which made me wonder

>>4435679
I had the displeasure of owning the 50-500. While it had some of my favourite shots, its optics ruined most opportunities. Sharpness quickly dropped after 300mm, vomit inducing bokeh, anything further away than 100m were a mess. The OS was fun to use but that is about it.
I would recommend you look at the DA* 300/4, it can be converted to screwdrive and optically it is far superior and works well with the HD DA 1.4x TC. Not as good as the D-FA 150-450 but far cheaper. AF is not fast enough for smaller BIF.

>>4435755
why would I convert to screwdrive lol
anyways the 150-450 isn't that much more expensive that I'd consider the DA* 300/4 over it

>>4435799
SDM dies, it is just the question of when not if.
The D-FA 150-450 costs more than twice than a good condition DA* 300/4

>>4435833
150-450 used is in the sub-1500ish range, which puts it in the category of "why would I spend less for worse"
fair point about SDM though, but I don't really care

>>4435837
For me a used 150-450 and shipping costs as much as driving 30 minutes and walking into the store and I can try a new one out. That is what I have done and managed to snag a nifty Pentax rebate action so all in all got a new one cheaper than I could get a used one. And nobody was tossing the box around in the shipping.

>>4435105
>>4435112
I would suggest to go brighter, that way it will be easier to spot ticks.

>visiting parents and hear a bird I've never heard before

Stood and waited for a bit and got rewarded.
Eurasian wren?

>>4437804
think it's a robin fledgling
wrens usually have their ass up in the air

A "lavadeira-mascarada".
A very photo friendly bird.

>>4437830
Oh yeah you're right, they do look very similar at one stage, but the tail is the.. telltail.. signature difference. Never seen one of those either.

>>4437804
Nice shot. What lens and settings did you use and how much did you crop in?

>>4438123
Oh I forgot about metadata being scraped for jpegs, can't see them on kurobaex either way.

A7siii, sigma 60-600 f/4.5-5.6.
Love this combo for dog photography.
Reckon it's about a 2x crop
1/640s, f5.6, 1600iso. Didn't get any in flight shots, it got shood away by some other birds.

portra 160, nikon f3, nikkor 80-200mm f4.5 non-ai

>>4438777
that pigeon looks cartoonishly dumb (realistic)
good job anon

>>4438837
>>4438838
how da hell he shrink!

You do have a birdbath on your balcony, right, anon?
Shooped away the balcony fence.

>>4435540
I didn't drop my trip, I just stopped posting. This is my new trip since the hack.

There are all sorts of retards here though, yes.

>>4439730
>took a snapshit that's also partly fake
>goyslopping this hard
The jews are right about the goyim.

Forgot to post these after a trip to Bempton Cliffs

>>4439730
Every morning I lie in bed for an hour or more when waking up, browsing the interwebs and looking at the birds eating.
But the feeling of knowing that the pidgeons I feed will take a huge greasy shit on someone elses apartment fills me with joy.

sparrows are my favorite but they are fucking hard sometimes. Is this a song sparrow or a swamp sparrow? Songs around here are not usually this dark

>>4430476
Clean your sensor,Anon

Could have been great, the photo.

I swear herons will only take off when you just put your lens cap back on.

Always nice to see a sparrowhawk

>>4443316
Focus is good, maybe a miniscule backfocus but I'd say the bird was twitching just enough at the right (wrong) time to make some blur. Every other detail is there, just look at the legs. Still a good shot. What could make it great is a better background (just a bit higher and to the left to bring that green up)

Comfy, in my lane, unbothered, perfectly hydrated

>>4444363
Is it too much to lift shadows a bit and add some saturation/vibrance?

>>4444372
Is that your duck? Do you have proof of registration or did you steal it?
Now is that enough for you mister nigger?

>>4444375
Nta, but yeah, it does look better.

>>4444386
Is it too much to lift shadows a bit and add some saturation/vibrance?

>>4444434
>nta
Doubt

>>4444386
if you have enough megapickles there, personally I'd vignette correct then crop just the gull in flight, like this
it's the most interesting thing in the frame by far and stands well on its own as an almost abstract shape
>>4444372
>>4444375
>>4444434
not either of those anons but now it looks worse, was that intentional?

is bird posting for the rich? this condor dude i follow online's camera like $5000 or something

>>4444866
It is if you're using a brand new $13k lens and $6k body. Not if you use used old shit

>>4444866
here
now have fun

>>4444866
nice cameras increase the focus hit rate, improve quality retention when cropping, and allow shooting in more environments through more of the day while keeping good quality. if you want to always have a good photo of a bird when you come home and get even the rare birds in oh shot moments where no one could possibly plan a shot, yeah buy an a9ii and a 600mm zoom. but luxury has more costs than the initial investment and like riding a ducati everywhere isnt always a better experience than taking the corolla, dailying your a9ii+200-600 has its downsides. but you cant deny the ducati/flagship camera does its job really well. and it pays out.

on the other hand if you buy some m43 junk you will definitely get some really good bird pictures eventually. that much is true.

>>4444865
>if you have enough megapickles there, personally I'd vignette correct then crop just the gull in flight, like this
>it's the most interesting thing in the frame by far and stands well on its own as an almost abstract shape
I think you make a good point but alas it was a quick snap with a 50mm so for anything other than web it's probably pushing 24MP a little far.

>>4444902
that crop would be about 6MP then, 2k*3k, enough for a 7x10" print at 300dpi

>>4444941
it would also look really bad, worse tonality, more bayer artifacts

>>4444941
True, true. Honestly it was a quick spur of the moment grab with a manually focused lens, I was watching the standing one more than the flying one - should really have paid more attention to it coming and another step closer and I'd have quite a bit more wiggle room.

>>4444952
yeah it would look like shit digitally, but it'd be hard to tell at 300dpi viewed from 2-3 feet away
>>4444956
if you were paying attention and tried to get that shot you probably would have missed it, just how things go

Not the best capture, a sparrowhawk with its breakfast

>>4445275
what shutter speed?

It was one of those days.

>>4445701
1/320 I believe

>>4446033
I don't feel comfortable below 1/1000 and that is already a low number

Creepy snake bird.

>>4446046
saw one very early this summer

A family of 7 parked on my balcony where there's water and nuts, heavy rain.

>>4446256
>>4446258
Cute little pair of tits.

>>4446273
Inorite, plump yet pirky.

>>4446033
huh
then what happened to the water >>4445275

>>4446284
That is how water looks normally

Even when a heron finally moves it will refuse to find a nice background.

>>4446284
Slight top down view at dusk with a bit of wind and foliage reflections in the water + background blur

silver eye

I'm having a tough time choosing between the R6 and the R7, reach vs low noise. You guys prefer full frame or crop?

>>4446601
its incredibly easy to remove noise now
you cant just add reach in post though, can only crop in so far

>>4446613
I guess so. I was dead set on getting an R6, but this morning when I took this photo with my RP I realized it would have been hard to get closer.

>>4446359
i have so many heron/egret pics after i went to florida

cant believe this is a real animal

>>4446729
me: the chad egret
you: the virgin angry seal

>>4446732
looks like someone just drew the letter s and told you that was a bird

mostly seaworld btw

>>4446734
is big bird /dbt/ material

>>4446735
i meant /bpd/ i have dyslexia

what a ugly cunt

animal kingdom had some cool bird friends too like this trained raven

>>4446741
kek that's cool

>>4446747
this little guy was posing

>>4446749
saw someone gawking at this guy trying to get a shot with his phone

>>4446740
>>4446741
crows near me can do the opposite! one was being very noisy on top of a rubbish bin when I walked past it today
gonna take some sunflower seeds with me for my morning walk tomorrow and see if he's still around

>>4446750
looking for a snack

i have more i have to edit from when i went on the alafaya trail, florida is easy mode for birding.

>>4446754
looking for a snack

i have more i have to edit from when i went on the alafaya trail, florida is easy mode for birding

>>4446756
last pic for today i swear

Anyone tried Temu camo? lol

>>4446781
dont get cheap waterproof camo like that it gets extremely humid inside
i didnt even get a cheapo one and it still sucked

imo best bet is military surplus camo from your country
better built and better camoflauge than realtree stuff

>>4446889
I dunno, seems kinda larpy.

>>4446909
so does temu camo
just wear an olive or brown shirt

australasian darter

tawny grassbird

australian pipit

brown cuckoo dove

was a bit dark

little black cormorant

>>4446942
Tell Duade we said hi.

I'm into this since a couple months, having a difficult time finding good spots though. Here in the Netherlands it's so difficult to find a bit of nature where you're not constantly confronted with fucking dogs and their butlers.

>>4446956
do longer hikes no one with dogs can be fucked bringing them

>>4446957
If only it were that simple. In Dutch terms this is a large forest.

>>4446964
cant you just drive to another country

>>4446956
easiest way to find good spots is socializing with other birders/photographers
biggest tryhards in my city carry thermal monos, and they've told locations of rare birds countless times. I usually just chat with them at popular birding trails and ask if they've seen something, but they also have a whatsapp group where they share bird locations

for starters, I'd have a look at spots from here, I feel like ebird is somewhat popular there: https://ebird.org/hotspots

>>4446964
the edges of a forest which is surrounded by fields like that in the image you posted, could have kestrels, hawks, and owls that hunt moles and other animals on the fields. owls usually hunt pretty late at like 22 ->, but you could also spot them in the edges of the forest at other times

What's the birding bible?

>>4446992
>thermal monos
do they use these during the day?
do you have a cold climate?
what models do they use? (can you ask if dont know)

i bought a cheap one but its only useable at night and doesnt really work when looking up at trees

>>4447010
for ids? get a drawn ID fieldguide for your country

>>4447017
>for ids? get a drawn ID fieldguide for your country
I'll find one.
Do you frens know any youtubers that provide good info on how to bird, techniques and such? There are a few channels I like, but honestly they mostly talk gear.

>>4447017
during the day yeah, I live in Northern Europe so it's not too warm here. don't know how they perform during the summer
not 100% sure about the exact model, but one guy is using some older Pulsar. he let me look through it once, and it was very similar looking to these compact ones.
https://pulsarvision.com/products/thermal-imaging-monoculars/pulsar-axion-compact/

few weeks ago I saw him at a photography event, and he was looking and testing newer thermal models and said they're quite a bit better.

>>4446941
i misID'ed this is a golden-headed cisticola
they look very similiar

>>4447026
Look up videos from Simon d'Entremont and Duade Paton. Duade is a filthy cheater for living on a large reserve in Australia but has good photography technique and tips and lens reviews. Simon is a nerd.

>>4446909
Why? Camo from a hunting supplies shop or whatever is meant for hunting, which is generally spent during the spring, or fall, when heat and humidity aren't an issue.
Military stuff is general purpose for the most part. Plus, if it works, why not?

>>4447026
In my experience you can listen to talk to as many people as you want about how to do this or not, but it's just getting out there and learning what birds are in the area, plus understanding how they act, eat, etc. Otherwise, most people you see on YT 'cheat', by using bait or go to a wildlife reserve. If you want serious shots, you gotta just learn to hide, and be able to sit in one spot for hours one end.

ducks.

heron

>>4444372
>>4444375
Reeeee, it's verboten to edit wildlife pictures in any way!!!!

>>4446927
There's huge difference between hunter and military larp, especially when you're using your country's current camo. The other problem is, especially military camo is made to fool human eye.

Against most of mamals, you can wear a red jacket, because they are red-green color blind. Birds have extremely good vision and on top of what we see, they see UV light too, so how does your UV reflection compare to background?

Last but not least, most important part of camo is movement, birds are way better at detecting it than humans. Oh, you think you have a chance on sneaking on a bird? They can spot a fucking rodent from a sky! But luckily they don't care that much until you come too close.

>>4444375
The elites don't want you to know this but the ducks at the park are free. You can take them home. I have 458 ducks.

>>4446964
Grim
No mountains, no forests, what a soul crushing place

striated pardalote
probably the best photo ive taken this year

i found where they burrow might camp it and try and get shots of them coming in and out

>>4448471
Lovely, I have yet to take one clean photo like that.

Hey guys, what kind of gear do you use? Also do you use tripod or handheld?

>>4448507
Nikon, big long thi- lens, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.

>>4448507
I'm still new at the genre, but I've got the RF 200-800 and a Canon RP. Currently looking around for a used R7 to replace the RP, might consider an R6 mk1 if the price is right.

You guys wanna recommend a budget friendly backpack? I'm asking here because you all have long lenses.

Went to a bird park last weekend and shot this. I got a few more if anyone wants to see more.

>>4449108
You might want to change that a large lens friendly backpack, all cheap bags are atrocious and will damage your gear in some way.
I had a Lowepro Flipside 400 AW but those are getting old and the insides are falling apart. The version 2 is kind of good if you can get one in good condition, version 3 is not recommended, total ass.
Right now I am using a Manfrotto PRO Light, Backloader version and larger size for my 100-400 lens. It's awesome I can recommend it.

Can I have some critique of this? It's one of my favorites but I've never had anybody provide meaningful feedback on my photography.
Black and white because that's what I had loaded at the time, not because I was using it as a crutch (at least not intentionally).

>>4449136
Oh, the Lowepro Flipside 200 AW II is also good if your lens is not that large, about 70-200/2.8 or 300/4 prime size.

>>4449137
I like photos like this. But bird fags want that super zoomed in ultra crisp look nowadays so beware.

Only thing I'd change is maybe a different background setting, but that's not you or the birds fault.

splat

Do you nerds ever post your stuff on iNaturalist? It's a good way to force people to look at my amatuer wildlife photography.

>>4450804
yes i post every bird i see there
im now the #1 poster for my local reserve

bird

>>4450804
I post on there quite a bit, yeah.
It's good to get some help with ID's when its a coastal bird I have never seen before.
Also my photos keep getting added to nesting behaviour group things.

>>4452845
>>4452845
>>4452845
>>4452845
fresh one