|
Kenshin posted:I tend to shoot in aperture priority with it wide open at 1/1000s or faster. Cool. I'll give that a try. I'm open to any advice, and I'd love to get better. So far, I typically just shoot in "sport" mode, which uses a lower f/stop, higher shutter speed, and quicker frames per second. I feel like I ought to be more hands on, but birds are so quick that I don't want to be experimenting with settings while one is close. How much do you all change settings while shooting? It was a lovely morning, so I went out and saw a nice variety of birds and heard a lot of chirping. Some of the birds were chasing each other around.  Red-winged Blackbird (male)  Yellow-headed Blackbird  Red-winged Blackbird (female)  Great Blue Heron DorianGravy fucked around with this message at 01:48 on May 6, 2018 |
#
?
May 6, 2018 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
DorianGravy posted:I'm using a Nikon d5100. How important is body vs. lens? Lens is the biggest thing for bird photography but not having a front dial for aperture control while shooting would irk me a bit. If it's what you have though it's best to invest in lenses that you can take to your next camera.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:
I got a Nikon D3300. A lens under $200 sounds about right. Where is a good place for used lens (although I'm probably more inclined to just buy new)? Beyond the lens, are there any camera body settings that help increase grain/pixel count? I went out twice this last week during the main spring migration in my area. Enjoyed myself and am working on my ID skills. Used some bleary rear end photos to ID some birds, but between book and binoculars got a lot myself. Coolest was an awesomely unexpected wood duck way up on a tree limb. Also saw a perching red tail hawk (needed photo to ID), blue heron, and some kind of sandpiper. A bunch of warblers and thrushes (both of which I have trouble telling apart absent photos or them sitting still). Thanks to some other birders and my guide book, I was able to identify a handful of palm, magnolia, and probably 20+ yellow rump warblers. Finally, I only saw one of each, but I got good looks at a hooded warbler, a redstart, and a black-and-white warbler. All of which were really cool.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 05:16
|
|
|
MayakovskyMarmite posted:I got a Nikon D3300. A lens under $200 sounds about right. Where is a good place for used lens (although I'm probably more inclined to just buy new)? Beyond the lens, are there any camera body settings that help increase grain/pixel count? drat. Sounds like Grand Central Station wherever you’re at, only for birds.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 13:42
|
|
|
There is no good lens under $200 even used unless you're talking about small FL f/1.8 lenses which are fine and good but not what you want for birds. If you buy a telephoto for that price you will be disappointed. I spent around four times that for the Tamron 150-600 and its about the cheapest that is worth getting. I'm not being a hyperbolistic goon, it's just throwing money away at that price point.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
I posted a colour version of this on instagram and it ended up having some weird blue tint that I just couldn't get correct, so I gave up and tried a simple B&W instead that I'm fairly happy with. American Coot:  EPICAC posted:I’m looking for recommendations for a camera and lens for birding. My 7D died, and Canon wanted more to fix it than it’s worth. I don’t have much invested in glass, so I’m not really tied to Canon. DorianGravy posted:Cool. I'll give that a try. I'm open to any advice, and I'd love to get better. So far, I typically just shoot in "sport" mode, which uses a lower f/stop, higher shutter speed, and quicker frames per second. I feel like I ought to be more hands on, but birds are so quick that I don't want to be experimenting with settings while one is close. How much do you all change settings while shooting?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
I'm kind of happy with this. Hummingbird by Sneeze Party, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
Hell, I don’t blame you.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:If I was starting from scratch I'd be after one of those 150-600 lenses (Tamron or Sigma) and blow my budget on the best of those that I could afford. After that it would be finding a used 7D2 (or whatever the Nikon equivalent to that would be).
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
EPICAC posted:You’d go crop over full frame?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I really only know Canon systems, but if your choice was between a used/new 7D2 and whatever you could buy in Canon's full frame lineup for the same price, I would choose the 7D2 every day purely for the AF system and FPS. This is from the perspective of bird photography specifically of course. If you shoot lots of other stuff then all sorts of other factors come into play.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 01:59
|
|
|
Thanks for the input, it's been quite awhile since I've spent any time looking into camera bodies. I didn't realize the 7DII AF was better than the 5DIII. That makes the decision much easier. I guess now it comes down to 7DII or a D500, and Sigma vs Tamron 150-600s.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 02:13
|
|
|
My experience is absolutely anecdotal, but I had a first gen Tamron that ended up being soft so I returned it and got the Sigma C. The latter lens, potentially fluke quality issues with the Tamron aside, is better I think: More focus limiter options, customization potential via the USB dock, two OS modes, and a nicer finished product. When it comes to the second gen Tamron vs. the Sigma Sport, however, I have no idea which is better.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 03:03
|
|
|
I really have to check my tamron because it does seem soft even at f/8 but I don't know if that's as good as they get or what. Here are some f/8 examples: Boundary Bay Bee by Trevor Zuliani, on Flickr Birde1 by Trevor Zuliani, on Flickr Short Eared Owl by Trevor Zuliani, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
I know it sounds weird, but I sometimes felt like my tamron g1 had bad days, which means it was probably me having bad days. Also, checking in as someone who got a 7D2 because the AF on the 6D was just not cutting it for birds.  Wildcat Screaming Red-tailed Hawk-5460 on Flickr Wildcat Scrub-Jay-5486 on Flickr Wildcat Raven Brown Creeper-5325 on Flickr Raven Hawk Battle-5302 on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 06:28
|
|
|
MayakovskyMarmite posted:I got a Nikon D3300. A lens under $200 sounds about right. Where is a good place for used lens (although I'm probably more inclined to just buy new)? Beyond the lens, are there any camera body settings that help increase grain/pixel count? The Nikon 70-300 vr dx is in that price range and a good option overall. There is also a Tamron 300mm zoom that is similarly priced. With the D3300 you can crop a lot and still have good images so 300mm goes further than in the past. You will always want a lens with longer range while birding though. 300mm at f8 on a crop body is more than fine for ID shots, and wide open it is still acceptable. These are more compact and lightweight than the larger lens also. Try out the noise reduction and vignette control settings to see what works best. Shooting at f8 instead of f5.6 for stationary birds gives sharper images. It is a tradeoff with longer exposure time. Getting closer and being mindful of the light and background goes without saying For anything faster or longer it is a lot more expensive than $200. The nikon 200-500, tamron or sigma 150-600 and sigma 150-500 are good options for birding on a nikon body. The 300 f4, or 70-200 f2.8 are also popular lens but less so for birding. They are all close to $1000.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 07:47
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:I know it sounds weird, but I sometimes felt like my tamron g1 had bad days, which means it was probably me having bad days. I totally feel ya on this. My G2 (and/or me) seems to have this issue too. Some situations I'll miss focus on what should've been a guaranteed shot. I'm trying to pinpoint it. I feel like it's mainly more when I use the VC than anything but then in another situation even with VC on it'll be tack sharp. Just weird as hell. I really should buy the tap-in console and play with some lens settings one of these days.  
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 14:17
|
|
|
I had a suspicion that my G1 was a little soft on really close things, but I never tested that. Some more from my local park, which is awash in blooming mustard right now.  Wildcat Song Sparrow in Mustard-5680 on Flickr Wildcat Lazuli Bunting in Mustard-6026 on Flickr Wildcat Song Red-winged Blackbird in Mustard-5748 on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
Awesome use of that brilliant background.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
MayakovskyMarmite posted:I got a Nikon D3300. A lens under $200 sounds about right. Where is a good place for used lens (although I'm probably more inclined to just buy new)? Beyond the lens, are there any camera body settings that help increase grain/pixel count? I shoot Pentax, and my not very familiar with Nikon but again, at this budget we're not trying to squeeze the 9.9/10 option out of the range of 9.5-9.9 choices. We're down in the "I can only give this lens 7/10" kinds of reviews. Lenses that people upgrade away from, rather than lust after and save up for over years. This means these lenses show up used, and in good condition, abundantly. That's good. I'm exploring your options through KEH.com, because A) they're a pretty good seller of second-hand camera gear (I've bought a couple of lenses and my current Pentax K-5 from KEH) and B) their website lets you specify important things like "Nikon F mount" and see pretty much every available option. When I find something I like on KEH, I have a look for it in other places, like eBay, but usually KEH has good prices and I'm happy with their customer service, which is something that's more of a gamble on eBay. KEH used to have a rating system that was widely regarded as pessimistic, meaning poor ratings would go to gear that was in really good shape, and the difference between EX and EX+ came down to a tiny scratch on the bottom (not on glass). I don't know if that still applies, but I think at least one Dorkroom regular works at / used to work at KEH. There are several options in a 70-300mm zoom with variable aperture. For all of these, the variable aperture means the biggest aperture (smallest f/number) is only available at the wide end of the zoom range (i.e. 70mm) and the narrower aperture is the maximum when zoomed all the way in at 300mm. I'm posting the highest price when there are a range of prices for different grades. $29 Vivitar 70-210/4.5-5.6 $84 Nikon 70-300/4-5.6 And for prime lenses (the opposite of zoom; the focal length is fixed. This is cheaper and easier to manufacture, so maximum apertures and other aspects of high-quality lenses are a bit more available down here in cheap-and-cheerful land). These are manual-focus lenses, again for cost reasons. $39 Vivitar 300/5.6 This one might be difficult to use with your camera, based on a table of lens compabitility I found at Ken Rockwell's site: https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm Note that Ken Rockwell is not a particularly well-respected person around here, but for technical stuff like this his weird opinions can probably be safely ignored. $159 Nikon 300/4.5 $192 Nikon 200/4 And there are lots more, I just pulled a few examples that popped out to me. Right now, I'd say to go for that $159 Nikon 300mm f/4.5 AIS manual focus prime lens. 300mm is dramatically different from whatever wide-normal kit zoom you have now, and getting shots good enough for IDs should be something you can do right out of the box. I don't know how metering works on your camera - Ken claims "no meter" but if that's true I guess you could just shoot a few test shots at different shutter speeds and see how the exposure looks, then go find a bird. You'd get good at manual mode (which is to say, good at photography) pretty quickly!
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
Couple more marsh birds:  BetterLekNextTime posted:
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
Good lord, you all post some nice images. Most of my time birding is either spent chilling out in my yard or on lunchtime walks at work--i.e. pretty casual. How much of a time investment do folks here put into their excursions? Are we talking dedicated, day-long field trips, or more opportunistic stuff? Both?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Good lord, you all post some nice images. Most of my time birding is either spent chilling out in my yard or on lunchtime walks at work--i.e. pretty casual. How much of a time investment do folks here put into their excursions? Are we talking dedicated, day-long field trips, or more opportunistic stuff? Both? I usually am out in areas I'm familiar with for ~2 hours in the morning. But, part of that is limited by bird activity, so I generally stop once the birds quiet down in the late morning.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
Came into work this morning and spotted this guy right outside my office window. Hurried up and got my camera out before the little bugger took off. Goldfinch by President Beep, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
That's actually a lesser yellow throated little bugger.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:That's actually a lesser yellow throated little bugger. Dammit! That’s like the third time I’ve mis-ID’d a bird in this thread. My shame...it’s too great.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Good lord, you all post some nice images. Most of my time birding is either spent chilling out in my yard or on lunchtime walks at work--i.e. pretty casual. How much of a time investment do folks here put into their excursions? Are we talking dedicated, day-long field trips, or more opportunistic stuff? Both? It's definitely possible to get stuff opportunistically! I don't think I've ever been sorry for getting my butt out the door to look for birds. At my old work I used to try to get out at least once a week for a walk at lunch. That said, as Kenshin mentioned, morning tends to be better for activity, and most of the time the lighting is better early and late compared with mid-day. Most of my shots are from 2-3 hour hikes in my local park. Since I know this area pretty well now I'd say it's a mix of opportunistically running into things in between visiting spots where I have expectations of what I'll find. In the winter, I could get away with heading out 8 or 9 and still get some decent light, but as we move towards the solstice now I definitely need to get out earlier. For stuff along the shore, you may need to check the tide and for other wetlands, you'll probably see stuff any time but you'll see more and in better light in the morning/late afternoon. Internet Junky- that tern is bonkers. And Prez Beep- amazing you were close enough to actually make out the little dandelion seeds he was eating!
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
If your budget for a lens is less than $200 USD you should keep saving and buy a $50 pair of binoculars in the meantime to enjoy watching birds if that's your thing. I don't feel like a 300mm FL is going to be satisfying for someone? If you are going to consider a 300mm FL I strongly recommend the tamron 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VC USD lens.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Dammit! That’s like the third time I’ve mis-ID’d a bird in this thread. My shame...it’s too great. I... disagree. I'm pretty sure that is a female American goldfinch in her breeding plumage. Her plumage is strange (brighter yellow than I'd expect) but the patterns are right, and that doesn't look anything like any lesser yellow-throat I can find a picture of. https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/American_Goldfinch/id InternetJunky posted:Couple more marsh birds: holy poo poo are you even kidding me ExecuDork posted:<CHEAP LENS TALK> It's still beyond your $200 budget, but if you can save more/justify spending more you can get one of these for a pretty reasonable price: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/801762714-USE/sigma_728306_120_400mm_f_4_5_5_6_dg_os.html Kenshin fucked around with this message at 21:46 on May 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:I... disagree. I'm pretty sure that is a female American goldfinch in her breeding plumage. Her plumage is strange (brighter yellow than I'd expect) but the patterns are right, and that doesn't look anything like any lesser yellow-throat I can find a picture of. I was just making a joke while in the lineup at a burrito place 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:I was just making a joke while in the lineup at a burrito place Burritos are serious business. 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:And Prez Beep- amazing you were close enough to actually make out the little dandelion seeds he was eating! 600mm on a 7D. Beautiful reach. 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
President Beep posted:600mm on a 7D. Beautiful reach. dang it, I'm not sure how long I'm going to hold out with my 400mm. not razor sharp but probably the most exciting Cooper's hawk photo I've gotten  On the hunt on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
Asking for some pointers on this one. I know the focus is off, and that's the price I pay for only bringing a film camera to Japan, but the green on green makes the Sparrows (I think Eurasian Tree Sparrow) difficult to see. How could I have approached this photo better? I was thinking I could have shot more open to seperate the background, but I think I might have had buckleys of getting it to come off well because of the lighting.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
Megabound posted:Asking for some pointers on this one. I know the focus is off, and that's the price I pay for only bringing a film camera to Japan, but the green on green makes the Sparrows (I think Eurasian Tree Sparrow) difficult to see. How could I have approached this photo better? I was thinking I could have shot more open to seperate the background, but I think I might have had buckleys of getting it to come off well because of the lighting. At that focal length there is nothing that could have been done to make those brown birds stand out against the brown underbush area, but obviously nailing the focus and cropping in on them a bit would help.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
Fair enough, guess I was wanting to have my cake and eat it too with wanting that framing.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 00:49
|
|
|
BTW here's a youtube channel that livestreams African Safaris: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-B8Kuj7ZqQ
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 06:41
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:BTW here's a youtube channel that livestreams African Safaris: Well this is awesome, thanks for the link.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 07:38
|
|
|
Well, this was an experiment. For the record, I put flashes in the same category as playbacks in not being worth the added annoyance to the subject (and really rear end in a top hat-ish for birds on nests or doing anything else really important, nocturnal birds, birds at heavily visited areas, etc) But this towhee seemed OK with me shooting him from maybe 20 feet away, so I decided to pop up the on-camera flash and see what I got. I think he noticed the flash but he didn't move from his perch and he kept singing so I don't think I disturbed him too much. It's definitely a different look with the fill flash, but I think I actually like the non-flash better.  Wildcat Spotted Towhee flash-6783 on Flickr Wildcat Spotted Towhee-6789 on FlickrA few others from yesterday.  Wildcat Ash-throated Flycatcher-6799 on Flickr Wildcat Lazuli Bunting-6495 on Flickr Wildcat Red-shouldered Hawk-6248 on Flickr Wildcat Belgum Fruit Tree Webl-6738 on Flickr Wildcat Dark-eyed Junco Tippy Top-6589 on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
I have actually thought about doing that (though I'd need an external flash since the D500 doesn't have a built-in) for sunny days when I'm taking pictures of birds hiding in the shade of trees. I figure it wouldn't disturb them too much since there is already bright light everywhere, but haven't actually done it yet.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2018 18:18
|
|