[Marc Sabatella]

When you are talking about birds like terns or ducks coming at you, I just don't see how you could keep track of them while manual focusing.

I can't track them all the time - but the cases where I can't tend to be the ones where I wasn't going to get a sharp picture anyhow because of motion blur. I'm sure there s some middle ground, where the birds are moving slow enough for a sharp capture but not slow enough to track focus - but there's probably a lot *more* cases on either side (eg, slow enough for MF as well as a sharp picture, or too fast for either).

[pingflood]

I can't track them all the time - but the cases where I can't tend to be the ones where I wasn't going to get a sharp picture anyhow because of motion blur. I'm sure there s some middle ground, where the birds are moving slow enough for a sharp capture but not slow enough to track focus - but there's probably a lot *more* cases on either side (eg, slow enough for MF as well as a sharp picture, or too fast for either).

Well, my hat's off to you. I for one could not manual focus well enough to track a series like below (3 shot burst). This was a tern going full bore with a serious tail wind. I could certainly nail one shot in manual focus, but three in a row while tracking? Not a chance for me.

[reeftool]

Out of several shots I tried of this guy this afternoon, this was the best I got. He was circling directly overhead and it was difficult to get a good focus. With a Sigma 70-300 and cropped about 50%.

[Marc Sabatella]

Well, my hat's off to you. I for one could not manual focus well enough to track a series like below (3 shot burst). This was a tern going full bore with a serious tail wind. I could certainly nail one shot in manual focus, but three in a row while tracking? Not a chance for me.

Me neither, not for that series - those are great shots!

I don't shoot bursts, though; when I talk about tracking, I'm talking about something much slower - seconds between shots, not fractions of a second. Also, I don't have a 400/5.6. I'm either shooting with shorter lenses or else slower ones. This tends to make the smaller / faster moving birds out of my league to begin with - they've got to be big enough to catch at 200mm or slow enough to stop at f/8. So I guess I'm really only talking about a pretty limited type of BIF shot by some standards. Typically, I'll take a few shots before the bird is out of range and find most blurry from subject motion, but the few that are sharp enough are also in focus enough for me:

[Big G]

Looking at the seagull I think you may have some front focus. Try adjusting the focus in your k20 - for front focus,+for back focus. My sigma 100-300mm is front focused on my k20d a little bit as well. Hope this helps.

Hi Borno, I recently adjusted the autofocus compensation for this lens, maybe i've gone a bit far with it - I will try setting it back to zero and see how I get on.

Cheers

[borno]

I get pretty frustrated sometimes when a shot is oof for no good reason and then sometimes it is fine (the k20d that is) Here is one this am with the 100-300mm f4 and k20d that worked, but it was 1 of three. I think my 40d would have nailed all 3 (or 6) I like my pentax IQ and ergonomics better but afc could be alot better (I'm sure we've heard that before)

[knyghtfall]

Came across this thread while looking for somewhere to post my first shots of bird shooting on - but having found it I felt intimidated as the pictures where much better than mine!

Had brought out my Voigtlander 180 mm / 4 for a jaunt to try it out - I really don't use it enough. Came into a grassy area where they were some birds flying about, so tried my hard at shooting them. Quite tough, mainly because of 3 factors: (i) using an MF lens, (ii) the very stiff focusing ring of the Vt180 - apparently a common characteristic for this lens, and (iii) being too near the birds - they were buzzing around directly overhead, say 10 - 15 m away.

These are the 2 best shots of the day, but even then the focusing was slightly off.





Will try more bird in flight photography, but would like to ask what is the distance to shoot birds in flight at?

[Sudhakar]

Yes, shooting in manual mode is tough and very tedious too. Luck plays major role I guess so. I shoot with 100D super and Pentax SMCP 300/f4. Did I say, I am learning........... But it is really fun to shoot birds, challenges me as a photographer

[pingflood]

Yes, shooting in manual mode is tough and very tedious too. Luck plays major role I guess so.

Luck favors the prepared. A lot of us spend a lot of time and effort patiently practicing and waiting to get good shots.

Manual mode in my opinion (if we are talking about manual exposure, that is) often is preferable over automation since cameras often have a hard time with scenarios like bird against sky.

[RobG]

K20D mostly set to AF-C. Monopod used at all times.
Sigma 100-300mm EX DG at f/4. TAv mode, dialled in 1/1000 shutter speed with f/4 aperture. Shake-reduction turned on.

Others have made some great responses, but I just wanted to make these suggestions:

1. When photographing animals of any sort, the eyes need to be in focus. Our brains are wired to look at an animal's eyes, and if they're not in focus, the photo won't look right.
2. You won't get enough DOF with a long lens at f4. It's worth sacrificing some clarity in terms of noise to set the camera to 400 ISO and set a smaller aperture. Few lenses are at their best at maximum aperture anyway.
3. My personal experience is that getting the focus right manually with the stock focussing screen (I have a K200 and K7) is difficult, but it depends on the conditions. If it's a bright day, you may get better results manually.
4. If you wanted to upgrade to a newer Pentax, at this point I'd be upgrading to a K5 not a K7. The K5 would allow you to use a higher ISO and still get low noise images.

Having said all that, birds are extremely difficult subjects. Most don't stay still. The excellent shots you see from professionals are the results of days of patience and many many failures.

Keep at it!

[Lowell Goudge]

I am not so sure that any camera can easily track a bird in flight, with a lot of movement.

I think luck is #1 on the list. Considering where we are today with AF capabilities, you have to consider the shot below lucky when you consider it is a PZ-1 and an SMC 300F4 with 1.7x AF TC
Red Shouldered Hawk, shot at corkscrew marsh in march of 2001. PZ-1 and Kodacolor Gold II iso 400

[Ron Kruger]

I have some experience with BIF. To back up what I'm about to say, Google Ron Kruger and click on any link to Photoshelter, then click on the Shore Birds gallery. Also check on the Non-Game Birds gallery, where I have sparrows, nuthatches and other very fast birds captured in flight.
Most want to use 300mm or 400mm lenses for this, but I use nothing over 200mm and most of the smaller birds were shot with 100mm. The longer the lens the more it compresses the scene, so effectively the narrower the DOF. For good shots, you need to go were the birds are, be patient and take advantage of close opportunities. It's like hunting. Longer lenses not only have a more compressed image, but atmosphere also can cloud the image slightly at long distances. Learn to get closer.
I only attempt to capture BIF when the light is bright, because you need 800 to 1000 sec., and the larger the f-stop number the better (f-5.6 to f-7.1 is ideal). I took all the shots in my gallery with a K20D with the auto ISO set at 100-400, though almost all are at 100.
All--and I mean all--BIF shots in my gallery were taken with MF. AF sucks for this. I've been shooting for four decades, so I comfortable with MF, but I believe anyone can do it. The trick is to lead the birds slightly (as one might do with a shotgun), focus slightly in front or behind the bird (depending upon the direction of flight) and then stop and shoot when the bird flies into frame and focus. Some of the blurr is caused by panning with SR on. Turn it off if you're going to pan. Keep it on if you are going to shoot the way I've described.
With a little practice, this is not as hard as it sounds. The hard part is getting close enough to fill frame with a 200mm or 100mm lens, but that's also the part of the challenge I enjoy most. There are a lot of tricks to getting close, but I learned most of them through a life time of hunting, which really translates to all wildlife photography.

[icywarm]

Personally I turn SR OFF... in my mind when i am panning I am causing motion and the camera does odd things...

Here is some attempts with a 500mm mirror fixed f/8... MF can work... but these guys don't move that fast...



These guys do move fast and I prefer MF... as I tend to shot at spots... rather that fire off 7 or 10 shots I track the object... estimating focus until the back ground is clear, ect... one shot, one kill?!? But that might be from my duck hunting days...

[BillM]

agree with Icywarm , good matte focus screen comes in handy.
We collect numbers on neck bands, got 5 last Sun.,including these 2
K20D & Tam. 360B + 2xTC

[MetteHHH]

I didn't find this bit of advice in the article, so I am going to add it (apologies if I just overlooked it): If you are not doing so already, you should switch to center focus, which makes it a LOT easier to focus on the eyes.

I am a focus-and-recompose person, so I don't use AF-C: Even for BIF I prefer to use AF-S, and just pan and pick the right moment, like icywarm suggests. Manual focus while panning requires too much multitasking for my brain though...