[3by2]

Prompted by another thread where I said I didn't do bird photography, for two reasons, one I often don't know one brown bird from another and two, it's quite hard to get decent results, distant fuzzy feathered blobs don't cut much ice.

So I thought, well wait, I've got a half decent tele so surely I must be able to do better than that. Having a bird table in the back garden I thought this would be a good place to try. My first few attempts caused me to go back and re-calibrate the lens AF but no, it was in fact spot on already!

After that I examined things like depth of field at 200mm and F4/5.6 and shutter speed and realized that fine margins are at play here, cm in DOF at 5m distance and a continuing trade off of aperture, shutter speed and ISO. I ended up setting the camera to auto iso and using F4 for the available light and 1/750 shutter speed and I shot in clumps, re-composing and focusing on individual birds and shooting a small burst each time.

The picture below is what I was after in terms of focus and clarity, you can see the latticework of feathers which I often see in good bird pictures. Framing perhaps not, so please ignore my collapsing roof on the home made bird table and the washing line in the corner. And it's a juvenile Starling, I do know some brown birds.

This though was one of about 4 or 5 in decent focus out of a quick session of 30 shots. The one after this shot, the bird has moved slightly and it's chest is in focus but not the head, like I said, fine margins. My question then is this experience typical, that I can only expect a small percentage in focus out of a session and that the smallest movement can make a difference and this is already quite heavily cropped even though I was only 5m away with a 200 zoom, if so I think I'll leave bird photography to those who are good at it?

I used AFS by the way, AFC seemed to just continually creep the lens out of focus.



PS The picture looks a little softer in the Pentax Gallery, not sure why, I've attached a crop as well. The lighting was also quite flat as well.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by 3by2; 07-27-2021 at 01:17 AM.

[5ks]

A very nice shot you've got here. The bird table is of no problem here IMHO, and the washing line can easily be cropped out or retouched away (e.g. with clone tool) in post processing.
I have had slightly similar experience with birds: quite hard to get and keep sharpness right where I want. My hit rate is therefore very low. But after trying a lot, I sometimes get good results.
My gear for birds right now is K-3 and DA*60-250, usually with 1.4x converter. I use burst mode and normalli AF.S, but recenty been experimenting also AF.C for flying birds (where the hit rate is even lower).

For exposure I use Av mode and ISO AUTO, trying to keep the exposure time at least 1/800, but hopefully shorter. Depends a lot of existing light, of course. And speaking of light, one of my headaches is how to avoid over/underexposure when situations vary fast. I mean the background: is rather dark forest (trees, bushes) of rather light sky.

Anyway, so far I realize I'm only on novice in bird photography and nothing but learning, step by step - enjoying every step.

[bratzmahn]

First: yes...it is a nice shot and yes...when starting bird photography the hitrate is rather low. That is my experience, but if you continue and learn more about the behaviour of birds - how they move, turn, and what's the best light (not harsh sunlight...better use shadows or an overcast day) you'll be astonished how well it will go.
It also depends on the lens you use and the distance to the bird. The DOF can be rather small, with the longer lenses at a short distance (a few meters) you have only a few cm to play with.
I use AF-C and "Back-Button-Focus" - you can focus when ever you want without shutter release, or release without new focussing.
And take care of a short shutter release time! The movement of a bird can be very small, but rather fast and that causes blurr sometimes.
So carry on and your hit rate will get better!

Here is an example, taken with the old K3 and the DFA 150-450 @450mm, f7.1, 1/500s, ISO 250 correction -1 step (to avoid clipping highlights!)

Lots of folks recommend an aperture of at least 8 because the critters move around a lot, so a shallow depth of field can mean that once you've focused on the bird's eye, he'll move as your finger is beginning to depress the shutter button, but it'll be ok, because the wider depth of field means the whole head will still be in focus. And even if he doesn't move, more of the bird will be in focus.
Also, AF.S with spot metering and using only the center focus point for birds that are sitting, AF.C with center-weighted metering and 9 focus points for birds in flight.
Most seem to recommend a shutter speed of at least 2500 and auto-iso - they all say the noise doesn't matter, crank up that iso. I don't buy it for birds that are sitting still, though - I find that something of at least 250 (I generally start at 500) will do.

[3by2]

I use AF-C and "Back-Button-Focus" - you can focus when ever you want without shutter release, or release without new focussing.
And take care of a short shutter release time! The movement of a bird can be very small, but rather fast and that causes blurr sometimes.
So carry on and your hit rate will get better!

Nice shot and typical of the kind of quality I'm trying to emulate. Back button focus is something I've programmed onto a user setting in an attempt to give it a go as it still feels extremely strange to do. I'm still a focus and compose shooter.

Lots of folks recommend an aperture of at least 8 because the critters move around a lot, so a shallow depth of field can mean that once you've focused on the bird's eye, he'll move as your finger is beginning to depress the shutter button, but it'll be ok, because the wider depth of field means the whole head will still be in focus. And even if he doesn't move, more of the bird will be in focus.
Also, AF.S with spot metering and using only the center focus point for birds that are sitting, AF.C with center-weighted metering and 9 focus points for birds in flight.
Most seem to recommend a shutter speed of at least 2500 and auto-iso - they all say the noise doesn't matter, crank up that iso. I don't buy it for birds that are sitting still, though - I find that something of at least 250 (I generally start at 500) will do.

I did wonder about noise eliminating detail, hence being quite conservative with shutter speed and aperture. I was using spot metering, although with the flat light I probably could have managed with multi segment and I did use center spot focusing.

All advice much appreciated.

[Des]

I've tried different combinations of settings and technique, but the hit rate for publishable shots is still quite low. I use AF-S for birds perching or hopping around and AF-C for birds in flight. A shutter speed of 1/750th is usually quite fast enough in the first case, but for BIF I prefer 1/1250th or faster. With the KP, you can push the ISO more - it's 1 - 2 EV better than the K-3.

Your example is quite good, although a close crop shows the head is just slightly beyond the field of focus, whereas the wing is right in it. This is common too. It doesn't necessarily mean that your lens is front focusing, just that the AF tend to latch onto the body more than the head, because it's a bigger target. As Dan said, that is one reason to choose a narrower aperture, for more margin for error. The more you fill the frame, the less you will have this problem - even at 5m to subject, a 300mm lens is better than 200mm. I use single point select now for perched/hopping birds and try hard to land the AF point right on the head, but even so it isn't perfect. (The K-3iii may be better in this regard, although some users have reported the same difficulty.)

More often than not the light is less than optimal and you have to compromise, starting with shutter speed, I very often have to drop the shutter to 1/250th or 1/125th, sometimes even slower.. Where this works OK is with a bird that will perch absolutely still before pouncing or moving. But the hit rate goes down overall.

[3by2]

Your example is quite good, although a close crop shows the head is just slightly beyond the field of focus, whereas the wing is right in it.

Yes it is just beyond the field of focus, although there's a slight quality loss in the upload, so the detail you see in the chest of the crop is what I see in the head of the original but you're right, it has focused on the body and it's re-assuring to know that this commonly happens.

[biz-engineer]

My question then is this experience typical, that I can only expect a small percentage in focus out of a session and that the smallest movement can make a difference and this is already quite heavily cropped even though I was only 5m away with a 200 zoom, if so I think I'll leave bird photography to those who are good at it?

Small birds are seldom stable, they often have frequent sudden erratic moves. For shooting small birds, I focus two times, I pre-focus on the perch and refocus right before the shot in AF.S by pressing the shutter fully so that the camera take the shot immediately after focus which avoid subject motion between AF lock and exposure. And since the DoF is thinner with long lenses, better have the lens AF fine tune set in camera for that specific lens.

[3by2]

Small birds are seldom stable, they often have frequent sudden erratic moves. For shooting small birds, I focus two times, I pre-focus on the perch and refocus right before the shot in AF.S by pressing the shutter fully so that the camera take the shot immediately after focus which avoid subject motion between AF lock and exposure. And since the DoF is thinner with long lenses, better have the lens AF fine tune set in camera for that specific lens.

Presumably you're using catch in focus then?

[ncallender]

As you have found out, this form of wildlife photography tends to require another level of precision and technique. 200mm is really on the short end, but can be done. Focusing is easier when the bird fills the frame more. You need to move the AF points around and really try to focus on the head and not the body. If you look at videos of bird photographers on YouTube that are using big lenses like 600mm f4 they almost never shoot wide open for birds. F8 is not a bad place to be on an APSC body. It really comes down to practice and getting close enough.

[marcusBMG]

The only things i would mention in addition to the good comments already is that you will always benefit from the most diligent efforts to stabilise lens + camera. Are you using a tripod/bean bag etc or just hand holding? If you can use a remote shutter release then that can be a big help also.
Check out Ducatigaz posts in the 300mm lens club - he has posted descriptions of his set up and technique and exemplifies diligence applied to best results.


FYI: a labour of love with lots of good insight and info by W H Majoros


Secrets of Digital Bird Photography

[3by2]

The only things i would mention in addition to the good comments already is that you will always benefit from the most diligent efforts to stabilise lens + camera. Are you using a tripod/bean bag etc or just hand holding? If you can use a remote shutter release then that can be a big help also.
Check out Ducatigaz posts in the 300mm lens club - he has posted descriptions of his set up and technique and exemplifies diligence applied to best results.


FYI: a labour of love with lots of good insight and info by W H Majoros


Secrets of Digital Bird Photography

I was just hand holding, though resting my elbows on a table, trying to improve the technique with the equipment I have. I do regularly look at the 300mm lens club pictures but will pay closer attention to what people are doing to get results, especially now I've had a go myself.

[Kozlok]

I'm curious if the K-3III would fare better? So far in my usage with moving children, it is well beyond the tracking ability of any prior Pentax camera.

[aaacb]

I started more frequent bird photography last year. At first i couldn't even have a picture at all, the bird would just fly away

I'm finding accurate focus is a skill because the subject is tiny and often there are branches in the way that af could pick. So single or continuous af, i tend to use single, it's going to take time but keep practicing and you're going to see improvements.

Another skill to practice is aiming, by that i mean lifting your camera to the eye and having the bird in the viewfinder. Easier said than done with a long lens. It's hard to search for it and then try to compose and focus when they don't stand still for too long.

[normhead]

I started more frequent bird photography last year. At first i couldn't even have a picture at all, the bird would just fly away

Ya, what's with those darn birds?

Typically in a bird session, I'll take 400-800 images to get 10-20 good shots. Birds hop about, open and close eyes, eat things, they move in and out of the DoF, and they definitely don't know how to pose so we can keep everything in focus. The problem isn't focus, it's the characteristics of birds. When I have my shutter at 8fps, on one click I can see 4 poses, 3 of which I didn't even know happened because they are so twitchy. Same with a lot of wildlife shots. With small birds especially they can change position many times in a fraction of a second, faster than your shutter finger can react. Burst mode is your friend. You'll get good poses you didn't even know happened.

I probably rely more on the bird accidentally aligning itself with my DoF, than waiting for it to happen and then reacting.

Some call it "spray and pray". I don't care what people call it, I photograph for images, and if it helps me get better images, I'll do it. Derogatory nomenclature or not. It amuse me when they come on like they are more skillful than I am. Where I come from skill involves getting the job done. Not adhering to some arbitrary standard of accepted practices. When they get what I get, shooting where I shoot, I'll listen.